This hardly needs commentary.
In a shocking-not-shocking exclusive report in The (UK) Times, Europe "would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine" as part of a postwar peacekeeping force. Defense Editor Larisa Brown "was given a rare insight into conversations between Europe’s defence ministers and military chiefs as they thrashed out plans for a 'coalition of the willing' force," and the results are as disappointing as they are sobering...
British defense chief Admiral Sir Tony Radakin asked European defense ministers "if they could put together a 64,000-strong force to send to [Ukraine] in the event of a peace deal." Britain offered up to 10,000 personnel, but even then, "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.'"
No one is going to conquer anything save for the Muslims who will conquer Europe through motorized pram divisions (das panzerkindergrenadiers).
 |
| Your move, Euros. |
3 comments:
"Europe 'would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine'"
Really? That does sound surprising. Does Europe really have so few current, active-duty military personnel that 25,000 would be a significant fraction of them? Quick check on Wikipedia, active personnel only (no reservists):
Country Army size
Poland 292000
Latvia 17,345
Lithuania 23000
Estonia 7700
Finland 24000
Germany 63000
France 270,000
UK 73847
Belgium 24676
Netherlands 42305
Sweden 25600
Norway 33440
Turkey 481000
Italy 165000
Spain 133282
Portugal 27724
Greece 200,000
Romania 90000
Czech Republic 30000
Slovakia 19500
Denmark 25400
Hungary 22700
Total 2,091,519
OK, there are a few more smaller countries, I stopped when it passed 2,000,000. Note that Canada and the US are not on that list.
But 25,000 troops is only a bit over 1% of that number. Several countries, notably Poland, France, and Turkey, could each send 25,000 on their own, with less than 10% of their current standing militaries.
Maybe NATO doesn't particularly *want* to send 25,000 troops, but they most certainly *could* do so, and without particularly working up a sweat. Unless the Times can come up with some justification for what they said, I have to assume that it is in fact a lie.
How many can they field with working equipment and logistical support?
https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/germany-combat-readiness-decrease-ukraine-war/
"Although the defence budget reached 2 per cent of the GDP last year due to the military fund, German force development is far from expectations. Chancellor Scholz’s pledge to provide two full divisions to NATO by 2025 and 2027 appears impossible. The second division is reported to be only 20 per cent equipped, with critical gaps in air defence systems, artillery, and personnel. ‘Even if we were to order everything now, we would not get it equipped in time,’ opposition lawmaker Ingo Gaedechens, a defence expert on the parliament’s budget committee stated."
How many of their ready soldiers would they actually send? How many countries would actually participate? They simply don't have the gear or the supplies to do much of anything.
(A) I am not convinced that Germany is representative of the rest of NATO, considering that part of the reason for creating NATO was to remove Germany's excuse for rebuilding their military[1]. I remember them being actively discouraged from having a military that was even capable of projecting force beyond their border up until fairly recently.
(B) Even if the Germans are taken as representative, 20% equipped is still a far bigger number than 2%, which is about what NATO would have to commit to get 25,000 into Ukraine.
[1] "Once, all the Germans were warlike, and mean, but that couldn't happen again. We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then!" (audience laughs nervously) - Tom Lehrer, "The MLF Lullaby"
Post a Comment