Finding sufficient troops for "deterrence" in Ukraine promises to be challenging for Europe, according to the media reports.
Tackling the 25,000 Troop Challenge: Europe's Struggle to Back Ukraine
The thought of sending 25,000 troops to form a "deterrence force" in Ukraine seems like a daunting task for Europe, especially given the current state of its armies. Militaries across Europe face critical manpower shortages, making the prospect of gathering such a massive force a pipe dream, at least for now.
According to experts, a British suggestion for a 64,000-strong force was swiftly dismissed as unrealistic. Defense ministers pointed out that maintaining forces of this size for two years, including rotations and support roles, would require a staggering 256,000 troops. Even the promised 25,000 troops would be a herculean feat for European countries to achieve, given their existing limitations.
Smaller nations simply don't have the capacity to contribute significant numbers, while even the United Kingdom and France can only promise 5,000-10,000 troops each. Poland, Croatia, and Italy are outright against deployments, fearing direct confrontation with Russia. Germany, too, holds back, likely due to domestic political pressures and a well-known caution toward military interventions.
The need for U.S. support is also a significant factor. European nations acknowledge their reliance on American intelligence and logistics, particularly for air transport and satellite reconnaissance. While France asserts independence from U.S. backing, others like the UK express reservations about proceeding without American involvement. This reflects capability gaps in large-scale deployment infrastructure.
Two upcoming elections in Poland and the Czech Republic have led to cautious posturing, with leaders prioritizing domestic agendas over high-risk commitments. Belgium and others are hesitant to commit troops unless there are multilateral agreements and assurances from major players like Germany. Concurrently, doubts persist about the feasibility of any cease-fire agreement with Russia to enable such a mission.
Lastly, divergent strategic priorities create further complications. Frontline states like the Baltics place emphasis on territorial defense over foreign deployments, while Western European nations juggle Ukraine support with NATO obligations elsewhere. The lack of consensus on a mission’s scope – whether it's limited to advisory roles or full-scale peacekeeping – further complicates coordination. All these factors combined make Europe's decision to back Ukraine a delicate dance, fraught with numerous challenges and uncertainties.
[1] European Truth, "European Truth: 'Resolute coalition' can't gather 64,000 troops for Ukraine – sources"[2] Reuters, "Hungary, Croatia warn against sending soldiers to fight Russia"[3] Foreign Policy, "European nations plot military role in Ukraine"[4] Politico, "Germany warns against dispatching troops to eastern Ukraine"[5] The Times, "U.K., France could send troops to Ukraine: minister"
- Radakin allegedly offered the possibility of a coalition to gather a significant number of troops for potential war-and-conflicts, but the proposal faced skepticism due to Europe's existing military limitations.
- Despite the United Kingdom and France's willingness to contribute troops, the numbers proposed are not enough to meet the 25,000 target for a deterrence force in Ukraine, according to debate in general-news and politics.
- Smaller European nations can't contribute significant numbers, which means Europe's ability to form a substantial coalition for Ukraine is questionable, as reported in political and war-and-conflicts updates.
- The possibility of elections in Poland and the Czech Republic, along with domestic political pressures in Germany, create hurdles for Europe in forming a substantial coalition to support Ukraine, as noted in European Truth and other general-news sources.
