Estonia….2.34%
Denmark…2.32%
At the top the best examples of 2 groups, the Eastern European countries closest to the conflict and the Scandinavians with their high GNP per capita.
United States 0.53%
Great Britain 0.52%
Germany 0.44%
France 0.19%
Global top 10 GNP economies, led by the US, the furthest from the conflict
Switzerland 0.13%
Italy 0.12%
Spain 0.11%
Countries in Europe that could have done better
Australia 0.7%
Ireland 0.4%
NZ 0.3%
The shameful.
Here’s my source, GNP was measured over a few years:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
Not too far from what I found. It was interesting to note that Ireland pays the least of any European country.
Absolutely Ireland should send more aid. We can and should to do more. We may not have much military equipment to send but whatever aid whether financial or medical that we can spare we should send. I've personally donated hundreds of Euro's to the Ukrainian military and intend to make more donations in the future.
However I will point out that the above Statista chart doesn't account for all forms of aid.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342702/ukrainian-refugees-per-thousand-inhabitants-by-country/
As you can see in terms of number Ukrainian refugees accepted Ireland ranks pretty high up while America is well how do you put it...shameful. And that goes on top of the US ranking behind Ireland in foreign aid by GNI in general even before the Trump administration cut it. Ireland can also be proud it contributes precisely zero of it's GNP to assisting Israel in its war crimes.
Ah yes foreign aid by GNI. But of course those dollars given to International organizations don’t factor in the 83% of US support provided directly. Here’s Chat’s conclusion:
If all U.S. foreign assistance—civilian and military—were included and counted relative to GNI:
……
You are comparing 17% of American giving to most of the giving by other countries. Clearer now?
Oh and having just been schooled on the fact that no convictions exist against Israel, you come back with the same unproven claims. Now that is just like CleverMike.
Now where is most of that military aid money spent. Shall we ask chat?
Of the estimated $200–250 billion in total U.S. foreign assistance (civilian + military/security), a significant portion of military and security aid is actually spent within the U.S. economy, not transferred directly to recipient countries in cash or even goods.
While the U.S. reports high levels of international assistance in dollar terms, a large portion of "aid" is effectively reinvested in the U.S. defense sector, rather than transferred directly to recipients abroad. This contrasts sharply with ODA, which is more directly aimed at developmental impact in the recipient country.
Oh and having just been schooled on the fact that no convictions exist against Israel, you come back with the same unproven claims. Now that is just like CleverMike.
Convictions no but after the Nazi death camps were uncovered did we need to wait for Nuremberg to say there was war crimes. Both Netanyahu and Gallant have arrest warrants issues by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity which in addition to the shameful supply of weaponry used to kill innocents the US/Trump has not only criticized but despicably went out of their way sanction members of the ICC. You know damn well what's going on Gaza but as always with you, political ideology trumps human decency.
Congrates on going a post without using the word woke.
What the OP even means... GDP is a measure of spending. The Trump administration has stated they wanted to profit from the Ukrainian war in one way or another. How does a deal like the one of getting countries to buy missiles from the US so they transfer it to the Ukraine is accounted? Is it part of the share of the GDP of the US allocates to the war? A war profiteer is likely to declare a large enough amount of its GDP to a war... Just like for that trade deficit, the US are probably getting their military spending toward the Ukraine funded by other countries and the OP claims it is a direct effort or sacrifice from the US. Liberals can no longer speak about themselves, they spend time, power and money to get people around the world to perceive liberals differently from what they are.
Convictions no but after the Nazi death camps were uncovered did we need to wait for Nuremberg to say there was war crimes.
I just pointed out these sorts of claims have been going on for 50 years and no convictions have been made. Innocent until proven guilty ….try to remember that. As for the claims, they are always there…eg against America in Vietnam. War is a messy business. But all of that is way different from the Nazis. You should stop using that analogy. It’s disrespectful on many fronts.
While the U.S. reports high levels of international assistance in dollar terms, a large portion of "aid" is effectively reinvested in the U.S. defense sector, rather than transferred directly to recipients abroad. This contrasts sharply with ODA, which is more directly aimed at developmental impact in the recipient country.
I expected this response.you spent the money on your own military. Yes we did funding American troops in Europe, Korea, the Middle East. But if we didn’t Israel wouldn’t exist. And Europe could quite possibly have been overrun by Russia.
True or not if American hadn’t stationed those troops in Europe, the European defense expenditure would have been massively higher in the post war years. The German recovery would have been slower because risk would have driven up the cost of capital and taxes increased and diverted into defense.
America paid generously in terms of money and men to shape the modern world. Not perfectly, sometimes contentiously ….but nobody else could.
After studying the liberal slaver past, it appears that the consensus in this period, yes, life as a slave was gruesome but life as a slave owner was sweet so all in all, it balanced out so move on, nothing to be seen.
A version of this is served above, the US are generally good all in all and a what if scenario if they have not done this or that....
Just a reminder, nazi thinkers were deeply inspired by the US. and one of the main blame they laid on european countries of their times was they did not things as the US were doing them. Nazis perceived a lot of good in the US and considered that Europeans had turned into sissies for not behaving as the US citizens were.
No US, no nazism, no final solution. It may not have been a perfect world but a world without nazism and the final solution.
Slavery started with the Sumerians and flourished in Africa, way before America got involved:
Slavery existed in Africa long before the transatlantic slave trade, with diverse forms and varying degrees of severity.While some systems involved hereditary servitude and were more akin to indentured servitude, others involved forced labor and even chattel slavery.
The usual liberal cope out. Others did it so they had to do it. It is very funny. Addressed it many times already. Freedom as conceived by liberals is in fact being able to do certain things. They had to have slaves because negroes had slaves, they had to land grab because Indians land grabbed, they have to have guns because criminals have guns... And so much more... A recurring pattern... In a strange bizarre way, liberals think they can keep blaming others for their own shortcomings.
And liberals can not accept the consequences of their pattern of thoughts. They claim one must look in Africa to explain how liberals had to re introduce slavery. They do not look at Europe's situations relatively to slavery. As a reminder, slavery was banned in the kingdom of France since 800s, in the kingdom of England since 1200s and the forces that shaped liberalism as a political ideological framework dated back to 1600s. The forces behind that rise were fueled by slavery. Forces that dismissed european traditions to borrow from African traditions. Traditions that made liberals richer and allowed the war of independence against the Kingdom of England since slaves were the capital that funded this war. It follows that liberals owed their enrichment to African ways, not European ways. From the very start, liberals were africanized.
And as it is not enough, it must also be reminded that negroes in Africa, the slaves among them, as they received feed back on slavery as practised by liberals came to consider enslavement as practised by liberals as the supreme punishment. When slaves come to consider one type of slavery less bad than another, it tells everything.
America and Britain abolished slavery from tgeir own accord...just like South Africa abolished Apartheid voluntarily...
The US did not abolish slavery from their own accord. It is another funny thing; As popularized by liberal societies, an opinion to an issue can be represented by a five position thing, no opinion, favourable, favourable but, disfavourable but and disfavourable.
While both sides during the civil war shared a belief in the human rights and while the main cause of the war was slavery, no side went to war to end slavery. The confederation was favourable to slavery and the Union was favourable but to slavery. A big achievement. Both sides fought a war to perpetuate slavery while claiming they were for freedom. It is very funny.
Slavery was abolished in the US against the will of WeThePeople, just as the first generation of US americans perceived it. When reading them, it appears they considered slavery would end in the US when the US would lose the capacity to coerce the negro so they stay on the plantation. From the very start, a lot of time and power was allocated to maintain the negro on the plantation, in fact, from the independence to the civil war, the US increased the strength of the slavery institution. It must be reminded that people during the war of independence were so obsessed with maintaining the negro on the plantation that they preferred to patrol plantations rather than going to fight the English.
What happened during the civil war is that the confederation lost their capacity to coerce negroes to stay on the plantation. Negroes simply left as the requirements to coerce them were no longer met.
From this point, it was understood that slavery had to end in the US, not because of liberal tenets but because the capacity to coerce negroes was gone.
As to South Africa, already stated it, the Apartheid has to end because Kolmanskop is coming to South Africa and having a white people government in charge when it happens would be too telling. Not diminishing the struggle put by people who fought against the Apartheid but a main cause of their success is that Kolmanskop is coming to South Africa, which is heavy and not many people live in Kolmanskop and a huge decrease in population is likely to happen in South Africa to match this situation. Better not to be in charge.