The EU thread

[Zoupa]

Obviously ANY country in the EU, including Malta, could deploy 30 000 soldiers anywhere in Europe.

The issue is they're trying to do it on the cheap and they're trying to have zero casualties. 30 000 casualties is about 2 months of fighting for the Ukrainian army. This is not realistic, and would make close to zero impact on the battlefield.

France has arguably the strongest all-around armed forces in western europe, yet infantry soldiers number only around 50 000. It's disheartening.

[Josquius]

Who's talking about fighting?
The point of deployment is they won't be fighting.

[Zoupa]

The plan calls for, from the article:

Western formations would deploy to these regions not as frontline troops, but as supporting echelons backing Ukrainian forces.

I can guarantee that putin WILL attack western forces in Ukraine, because that's what he does. He has constantly upped the pressure, probed our response, killed our citizens, influenced our population, hybrid warfare, election interference, poisoning etc. He will shell western forces to see if, once again, he can get away with it, even during a ceasefire he signed.

He constantly overplays a weak hand, and it's been working splendidly for a quarter of a century. Why wouldn't he continue?

[Josquius]

The plan calls for, from the article:

Western formations would deploy to these regions not as frontline troops, but as supporting echelons backing Ukrainian forces.

I can guarantee that putin WILL attack western forces in Ukraine, because that's what he does. He has constantly upped the pressure, probed our response, killed our citizens, influenced our population, hybrid warfare, election interference, poisoning etc. He will shell western forces to see if, once again, he can get away with it, even during a ceasefire he signed.

He constantly overplays a weak hand, and it's been working splendidly for a quarter of a century. Why wouldn't he continue?

Sure, you can bet he'll test them, but this won't be in the same vein as the current active warfare going on. An "accidental" missile misfire, "rogue patriots" aiming a drones at the western troops, etc...
Casualties are to be expected- they're to be expected to some degree even from troops at base in their home country- but these won't be on a front line trench warfare level.
At least not if we react properly and slam back wherever these tests come from.

[The Brain]

You can't send troops if you're not prepared to go to war if necessary.

[Josquius]

You can't send troops if you're not prepared to go to war if necessary.

Which much of Europe is.
The complaints that 30,000 isn't enough miss the point of a tripwire force.

[mongers]

You can't send troops if you're not prepared to go to war if necessary.

Those would be called targets, rather than an army.

[crazy canuck]

You can't send troops if you're not prepared to go to war if necessary.

Which much of Europe is.
The complaints that 30,000 isn't enough miss the point of a tripwire force.

A tripwire for what?

[HVC]

You can't send troops if you're not prepared to go to war if necessary.

Which much of Europe is.
The complaints that 30,000 isn't enough miss the point of a tripwire force.

A tripwire is useless if it's not actually attached to anything. If you're not willing to fight you're just offering up fodder.

[Tamas]

Who's talking about fighting?
The point of deployment is they won't be fighting.

The decision to fight is Russia's, not theirs, unless they refuse to enforce whatever ceasefire will be in place, in which case the entire thing is pointless.

[Josquius]

A tripwire is useless if it's not actually attached to anything. If you're not willing to fight you're just offering up fodder.

Except it is attached to the western nations.
At the time there may only be a few thousand western troops sitting in Ukraine which wouldn't last a few weeks against Russia. But by killing them Russia are calling for full scale mobilisation of economies and populations many times theirs.

Even we assume no further build up from Europe (though this is happening)- the best thing Europe has to offer isn't more meat for the same old grinder.  Just look at how much success Ukraine has had stopping Russian air power with a few patriot batteries and F16s. Europe has many times that. They could dominate the air. Not to mention the superior resources, combined with Ukrainian knowhow, for drones.
Europe needs to go ahead with its military buildup, but ignoring politics and nukes if Europe were to suddenly find itself directly supporting Ukraine and fully at war as of tomorrow- it'd be goodbye Russia.

Who's talking about fighting?
The point of deployment is they won't be fighting.

The decision to fight is Russia's, not theirs, unless they refuse to enforce whatever ceasefire will be in place, in which case the entire thing is pointless.

Why would they refuse to fight back? This makes no sense.

[Norgy]

Zoupa is right about Putin overplaying a weak hand, I think. And he's only doing it because we, as a collective, the EU and EEA are even weaker. We are rich in words and principles and have about two guys in a tent with a shotgun to back those up.

We might buy all the guns and ammo in the world, lord knows Europe can afford it, but we can't train 700.000 soldiers overnight.

And even if these forces are just going to be rear echelon troops, it'd be nice if they had some training, yeah? 

[Razgovory]

Josq, are you certain you have the munitions for a prolonged campaign?  Last time, during the Libya thing, you had to bum weapons off the US.  I am looking the at the RAF Wiki page, and you have about 170 fighter aircraft.  137 Typhoons and 35 F-35s.  Not all of these are going to be operational at any one time, and the ones you do have will quickly suffer attrition.

[Norgy]

I doubt you can blame the RAF for the F-35s not being operative. 

[Josquius]

Josq, are you certain you have the munitions for a prolonged campaign?  Last time, during the Libya thing, you had to bum weapons off the US.  I am looking the at the RAF Wiki page, and you have about 170 fighter aircraft.  137 Typhoons and 35 F-35s.  Not all of these are going to be operational at any one time, and the ones you do have will quickly suffer attrition.

The shell supply issue has been pretty much solved. Europe can keep Ukraine supplied there. I don't see much trouble keeping it's own troops supplied.

Europe has access to the skills and parts to maintain and repair much of their equipment (and US links aren't totally gone yet)
Russia doesn't.

Smart weapons are where there's a issue. Even with a friendly America the US is prioritising it's own stocks. Clear area Europe needs to shift away from America and probably develop something simpler than the million dollar missile to shoot a 10000 dollar drone setup.