Europe ‘would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine’

12 comments

1. Europe would struggle to collectively muster 25,000 troops to be part of a “deterrence” force in Ukraine because its armies are undermanned and underfunded, sources have disclosed. Defence ministers across Europe said there was “no chance” they could reach that number and that even 25,000 would “be a push for a joint effort”, a source privy to discussions in Brussels said.

   Defence ministers are understood to have raised concerns about Britain’s ambition for a force of 64,000 in a meeting of the “coalition of the willing” on April 10. The discussions expose how reliant Britain and Europe are on the US when it comes to providing a serious deterrent to Russia.

   Estonia and Finland were reportedly concerned that any deployment would “dilute” their own border defences, and Poland, Spain and Italy made clear they will not commit any soldiers, according to the source.

   “Without large populous countries committing [troops], it is a dead end,” added the source. France has said it would commit about the same number as the UK, between 5,000 and 10,000 troops, it is understood.

   A second source, privy to discussions in the UK, said that Finland and Germany were also generally against sending ground forces, although it is understood Berlin has not completely ruled out such a move.

   The source said: “Once you take those off the table, where’s the army going to come from? With others not there, we would be left exposed.”

   The source pointed out that the British Army, which is steadily shrinking, was also suffering from an artillery shortage and problems with “enablers”, such as supply trucks and other equipment they would normally receive from America.

   The reluctance among European countries to send ground troops to protect Ukraine is understood to have led to a shift in thinking about what the force would look like should there be a peace deal. There are also concerns about what the rules of engagement would be should Russia attack.

   Under the most likely plans, British and French military trainers would be sent to western Ukraine, fulfilling a commitment to put forces inside the country. However, they would not be near the front line, guard key installations or be there to protect Ukrainian troops.

2. “Estonia and Finland were reportedly concerned that any deployment would “dilute” their own border defences, and Poland, Spain and Italy made clear they will not commit any soldiers, according to the source.”

   Countries like these have conscriptions so sending home defense forces to ukraine would not work anyway…

   It is very different to defend your own country than to send soldiers to non nato/eu country.

   Just send all the weapons like it was yesterday…

3. “Such as supply trucks and other equipment they would normally receive from America”

   This is distasteful wording, as it implies the US is somehow holding out equipment on the Brits, which is not true. This is British inability from top echelons to equip their troops properly

   If tariffs are now the issue, the US would easily wave them to send Britain the trucks

   This some attempt from Brussels to seed the idea that *Britain* needs to buy more trucks from US for the benefit of some proposed European Union continental army

4. To be fair would that number be hard for anyone including the USA. Logistically maybe but political this isn’t the bush era anymore …

5. > Dovile Sakaliene, Lithuania’s defence minister, was said to have told her counterparts: “Russia has 800,000 [troops]. Let me tell you this, if we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”

   I mean, this can’t be true?

   I have it on the authority of many of Reddit’s finest military minds that it is completely inconceivable that Russia’s tiny, worthless army could ever pose a threat to Europe. In fact, apparently the Polish army alone could soundly trounce them, maybe with a bit of an assist from Finland.

   How is it that European leaders are so misinformed about their own military capabilities? Do they not read Reddit?

6. > Estonia and Finland were reportedly concerned that any deployment would “dilute” their own border defences, and Poland, Spain and Italy made clear they will not commit any soldiers, according to the source.

   Poland also borders Russia.

7. Replace ‘Ukraine’ with ‘the Baltics’ and imagine how this article would feel in 2028.

   EU is acting insanely weak and is inviting further Russian aggression by failing to unite against a looming threat. Too many politicians want to bury their head in the sand about a coming NATO-Russia war.

8. I remember when McCain warned Europe of Russia invading again after 2014. I also remember Europe calling Obama a war monger for suggest Europe increase its defenses. Even after all of these years ukraine still is relying on America to save itself. I’m sure this is just propaganda though

9. I believe that most Europeans now feel, as Europe’s Jews did prior to Hitler (and WWII). To paraphrase the German historian Joachim Fest, “They had, in tolerant ~~Prussia~~ Europe, ***lost their instinct for danger***, which had preserved them through the ages.”

10. Poland not contributing is a real issue. Honestly, a moment like this is a real opportunity for Poland to take a position of greater prominence in the EU hierarchy. Growing economy, proportionately largest military, relatively large population, etc. 

11. I love this so much. ‘Russian propagandists’ being proven right for the 10,000th time: no, Europe doesn’t have the capacity to do anything substantive to Russia. Just glorious.

12. Europe’s predicament here is the best example of how “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you” is an eternal fact. Neglecting your capabilities while you *hope* that cooler heads prevail will put you at a critical disadvantage when shit hits the fan.

Comments are closed.