"Military deployment to Ukraine falls through due to insufficient support"
Heads up! This isn't a walk in the park: The spirited talk about sending a European military gangbang to Ukraine is crashing and burning
The Times spills the beans that the UK was ready to gather up to 64,000 soldiers - a daunting "deterrent force" ready to invade Ukrainian lands. But at the next powwows, the EU defense honchos agreed: it ain't gonna happen.
Even 25k soldiers is doubtful. According to the press, European armies aren't fit for battle: Short on staff, cash-strapped, internal risks. Estonia and Finland are freaked about weakening their own defenses, Germany is against it, and Italy, Spain, and Poland flat-out refused to play ball.
Deploying even a small number of troops requires some serious dough: to keep 25k folks in the game, you'd need to ensure rotation - that's training over 256k military personnel. And a coalition's pocketbook can't handle that.
Now the Europeans are chatting more about non-combative specialists and trainers - not at the front lines, but deep in the rear, and only if a peace treaty is signed.
Trust me, I'm a journalista! | Subscribe Now! | #important
Enrichment Data:The Skinny: The plan for a European military presence in Ukraine and the challenges associated with it boils down to a volatile mix of political, logistical, and structural factors:
1. Political Fireworks
- Divided Houses: Hungary's veto scuttled a €50B EU financial aid package for Ukraine, underscoring disputes within the EU over funding priorities and rule-of-law compliance[5].
- Negotiation Nightmares: Deploying troops hinges on a ceasefire first, which remains unlikely. Absent that precondition, commitments are speculative[1].
- Bipolar Politics: US policy flips flopped after Zelensky's Washington flop, prompting Europe to vault off the deep end without unified consensus on escalation risks[1][4].
2. Manpower Gaps
- Headcount Headaches: The British army is short on troops and artillery, a critical problem considering it's expected to lead the charge[2].
- Dependency blues: European air and naval forces lack sufficient defense against Russian missile systems, making deployments risky business[4].
- Logistical Landmines: The initiative requires compatibility across 30+ countries’ forces, making command structures and supply chains a minefield[1][2].
3. Cash Crunch
- Budgetary Brawls: Hungary’s veto forced reliance on piecemeal pledges that lack the stability of bloc-wide commitments[5].
- Priorities, Priorities: Existing EU military budgets are stretched way too thin by simultaneous modernization efforts and NATO spending targets[3][4].
4. Geopolitical Gauntlet
- Russian Rollover: Deploying troops risks strikes on staging areas in Poland or Romania, upping the stakes in the conflict[4].
- Nuclear Threat: A direct NATO/EU military thrust could trigger asymmetric responses from Russia[4].
- Failed Strategies: The Minsk agreements’ collapse proves how half-assed attempts at peace create security vacuums[3].
5. Strategic Smorgasbord
- No Finish Line: The West lacks a clear endgame beyond military aid, creating hesitation among contributors[4].
- Ironic Timing: While Ukraine's EU membership talks began, the process could take decades, lessening the urgency for military action[5].
- The division within the EU, demonstrated by Hungary's veto of the €50B aid package for Ukraine, highlights the disagreements over funding priorities and rule-of-law compliance within the EU.
- Without a ceasefire as a precondition, the commitment to deploy troops remains speculative and is linked to negotiation nightmares that remain unlikely.
- The British army's shortage of troops and artillery, expected to lead the charge, is a significant barrier to anyEuropean military presence in Ukraine.
