You are just plain wrong, you would see that if you would actually read what’s in the source you provide. To be honest I think you just Googled for something that fits your narrative so trying to get a point across might not be worth my time, but to explain what is in the information you provided:

First of all, this data covers bilateral aid to Ukraine between January 24, 2022 and December 31, 2024. In other words, the data covers nearly 3 years while the article writes about 2024 only. Since the data you provide isn’t about the same time period as the article I posted, it is not relevant to your argument.

Second of all, you can see in the graph this is about 3 kinds of aid. Of that $114 bn, 64 is in militairy aid and 64 is financial aid. Both of those are not included, as i explained to you in my previous post. The actual humanitarian aid the US provided over the time period in your graph only 3.4 Bn is actually humanitarian aid.

I don’t disagree that the headline would be more precise if it specifically said humanitarian aid instead of international aid when the article would be about aid from the us (or any other country) to another specific country, as it would be about bilateral aid. International aid in this case can also mean the aid that is given internationally, as in, multiple nations giving aid to multiple nations. But I don’t care about your argument about the preciseness of the headline.

You’re point is that the article is wrong and so poorly written it is basically misinformation and I do not agree at all. But I’m not going to explain why that is bullshit, I’ve wasted enough time. If you want to believe your own truth, be my guest.

Populist intentionally choose words that attract potential voters, they will continue to do that. But calling them out for not being real conservatives because they act different is definitely helpful.

Instead of aid to developing countries, the headline says international aid. Aid to Ukraine is international aid, but Ukraine is not a developing country.

Yes, the headline says international aid because it is not only aid to developing countries.

The article explicitly mentions it is because governments choose to spend their money internally, have you even read it??

Extra context: Sperrminorität translates to a blocking minority, as in you have enough votes to prevent a 2/3 majority vote.

Still shows you something you can’t see by asking your neighbours, colleagues and family. But I agree it doesn’t matter in a real way.

You can be against news fearmongering a certain group and also believe the fear this group has is valid. In this case, the leftist could for example be already worried by the actual situation and not because of the fearmongering.

I don’t disagree, but when one part of society uses word A and the other part uses word B that would only further increase polarization, which already is a serious problem. I think it’d be better it we continue using the name they use for themselves, but point out what a weird name it is for them. So we could tell them for example that we find it strange they consider themselves “conservative” parties because they don’t conserve anything. They do the exact opposite. They exploit and destroy.

What do you mean?

Official development assistance (ODA) is government aid that promotes and specifically targets the economic development and welfare of developing countries.

DAC member countries’ bilateral ODA to Ukraine fell by 16.7% in 2024 compared to 2023 and amounted to USD 15.5 billion, representing 7.4% of total net ODA (a decline from 8.0% in 2023). Contributions from EU Institutions outpaced those from DAC member countries combined.

The part that is not given in the form of weapons is counted, but looking at the data I don’t think the aid offered to Ukraine is a factor in the overall decline.

Edit: I quoted this from https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/official-development-assistance-oda.html not from the article

On behalf of almost everyone almost everywhere, no thanks.

Yes, but it turns out you can do a lot of ‘switching’ even if you can give up on android or iOS straight away. I follesdd this guide for degoogling my Samsung, not done yet but feels like I made some good changes: https://androides.nl/degoogle-guide/

Though large part is already covered by switching services / apps

Try Here We Go (https://wego.here.com/), it is owned by a bunch of car companies.

The data the article writes about can be found here: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/official-development-assistance-oda.html

They should definitely keep a safe distance from the dumpster fire the US is now, but the EU still very much needs the US: America has the command and intel structure needed to deter and maybe even fight back Russia, almost all governments work with American tech (Windows, Office, iPhones, AWS and cyber security tech like from Crowd strike), financial systems are based on us techs and the big corpos are very intertwined, also big law firms operate on both sides of the Atlantic, same goes for (social) media. European governments just can’t switch to a different brand of coke like individual consumers do. Same goes for china, they basically produce everything more complex than a patato and if it’s made in Vietnam or Cambodja or whatever, China might still be involved.

Long story short, EU can’t pick a side and sit out the storm. If things went different I totally would have seen EU siding with their American ally, but that bridge has obviously been burned.

Can definitely recommend reading the article if you want to better understand why the US will not be able to ‘win over’ the EU. It’s a good read.

[…] the notion that Europe would be forced to choose between the two countries “doesn’t allow much room for the idea of European Union agency or any recognition of its major significance as a commercial bloc.”

Exactly this, Europe will not ditch either anytime soon.

You’d have to find people who are willing to put in more than they receive, and they (as a group) have to put an equal amount as people who are not able to put in the full amount, because it needs to equal out in the end. This would basically be a group of people sharing their income with people with lower incomes. Imagine it would start by spreading just €10 every month to people who are in need of money by the people who have a surplus of money - it would already be a hard sell. I expect the ‘rich’ participants to be more likely to donate to charity. To be honest, I don’t think this is gonna work on a small scale. But I won’t stop you if you were to get something like this going ofcourse

I think that holds more true for other industries, in this case it is more about western companies wanting to sell stuff in China.

No country captures the reversal of the global automotive order better than Germany.

The wealth of Europe’s largest economy was built in large part on exports to China as the country grew rapidly following its economic opening-up in the 1980s.

Germany’s automotive giants — Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes-Benz — were in the vanguard and spent decades earning a significant share of their revenue and profit in China.