1srelluc
Diamond Member
Damn, it's worse than I thought.
Europe ‘would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine’
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.
The Times 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.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the British chief of the defence staff, is said to have asked his counterparts on the Continent if they could put together a 64,000-strong force to send to the country in the event of a peace deal.
Its not just the troops either, it's also about the logistics.
Whatever number they come up with for a force, it will require a pretty big logistics tail that will have to be military or military with contractors.
No way the EU can pull this off without stripping resources that are needed elsewhere or are held in reserve.
Europe ‘would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine’
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.
The Times 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.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the British chief of the defence staff, is said to have asked his counterparts on the Continent if they could put together a 64,000-strong force to send to the country in the event of a peace deal.
Its not just the troops either, it's also about the logistics.
Whatever number they come up with for a force, it will require a pretty big logistics tail that will have to be military or military with contractors.
No way the EU can pull this off without stripping resources that are needed elsewhere or are held in reserve.
