https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_224943.htm
ZitatChris Mason (BBC News): Thank you. Chris Mason, BBC News. A question to both of you, if I may. Is it time to be candid now with people that the costs of supporting Ukraine are going to run into the billions and billions for years and years to come? Could this last another decade? And Prime Minister if I may, I wonder what your reaction is to the news today of the deaths in the English Channel. Thank you.
[answer from Prime Minister Sunak]
NATO Secretary General: On the cost of the support to Ukraine. I think you have to remember that it has a cost to have Russia as a neighbour. It has a cost to ensure that Ukraine prevails. There is no way we can run away from that cost. We have to pay. Not least because we need to understand that the most expensive alternative is to allow Putin to win in Ukraine. Because then we will actually live in a much more dangerous world, then our security will really be challenged. And then we will have to invest significantly more in our defence compared to the support we now deliver to Ukraine. So the reality is that it has a cost to have an aggressive neighbour, and we have a very aggressive neighbour. There's no way you can run away from that cost. You can only invest now in Ukraine’s security. That's good for them, it's good for us, and that actually reduces the overall cost of coping with Russia as a neighbour. If we allow Putin to win, then the cost will go up, not down. [...]
Nun eine NATO, die soviel Material weggibt, dass sie jetzt offensichtlich nur mit Mühe noch etwas zusammenkratzen kann, und die ihre Engpässe bei der Waffenproduktion aufgedeckt hat, ist vermutlich wirklich deutlich teurer, als eine, wo solche Begrenzungen verschleiert bleiben. Wie billig wäre es gewesen einfach zu sagen, upps die Ukraine war wohl einfach ein Land zuviel, dann halt nicht?