Europe cannot sustain 100,000-strong Ukraine peacekeeping force, former British army chief warns

[1srelluc]

Europe cannot sustain massive Ukraine peacekeeping force, former army chief warns

General Lord Richards called for Nato countries to be ‘very grown up’ and ‘live within what is physically and militarily possible’

www.the-independent.com

European nations would have to send at least 100,000 troops to keep the peace in Ukraine and “none of them can do it”, a former head of the British armed forces has warned.

General Lord Richards called for Nato countries to be “very grown up” and “live within what is physically and militarily possible”, rather than “what our political leaders sometimes would aspire to do”.


The former chief of the defence staff warned it is “inevitable” that Russia will seek to test any defence force placed in Ukraine in the event of a deal to end the war. “If we send troops, they will be tested, and they have to robustly be able to defend themselves,” Lord Richards told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

He said given the size of the border between Russia and Ukraine a force of 100,000 to 200,000 troops would be needed. He added that these troops would need to be rotated, which could singificantly increase the number number that would be required to maintain the presence.

“The idea you are going to send a few peacekeepers with berets to reassure the Ukrainians is crass,” Lord Richards said. “We are talking, to do it robustly, 100,000 troops overall, drawn from European nations. None of them can do it,” he added.

He instead called for Britain to put the Ukrainians in a position to defend themselves after any peace deal with a “massive increase in support”.

It is not that NATO can't, just that they don't want to expend the funds to do so; why would you/they do so, when Uncle Sugar steps up with the necessary funds.

Europe is notorious for having "alligator arms" when it comes time to pay a bill.

The USA should contribute it fair share of NATO, and no more; and let the rest of NATO pick up the slack.

Hey, maybe they can draft all those military ages males they let immigrate.

 

[Darkwind]

1 to 200k troops to protect Ukraine.

Or a dozen good ole boys from the south with a couple cases of beer. I'd say that is the equivalent of Europe's ability to defend themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

As usual, Trump is three steps ahead of anyone else. The rare earth mineral deal is good for the US and Ukraine, and it allows Russia an acceptable off ramp to this awful conflict. There was never any need for NATO expansion into Ukraine, other than its alleged election interference in 2016.

 

[JWBooth]

All the insignificant little rodents want to roar like lions.

 

[Oddball]

The entirety of NATO couldn't muster two full combat divisions sans the US.

 

[Zavulon]

Their population is 450 mln. They can easily sustain from 4,5 (easily) to 45 (with problems) mln Army.
The problem is that without nukes all those soldiers are absolutely worthless against nuclear capable Russia. They won't be able to protect Ukraine (or Europe), but they will able to force Russians use nukes.

 

[Deadstick]

As usual, Trump is three steps ahead of anyone else. The rare earth mineral deal is good for the US and Ukraine, and it allows Russia an acceptable off ramp to this awful conflict. There was never any need for NATO expansion into Ukraine, other than its alleged election interference in 2016.

Russia doesn't need an off ramp they will do what they have to in order to neutralize that prick in Kiev.

 

[Deadstick]

Their population is 450 mln. They can easily sustain from 4,5 (easily) to 45 (with problems) mln Army.
The problem is that without nukes all those soldiers are absolutely worthless against nuclear capable Russia. They won't be able to protect Ukraine (or Europe), but they will able to force Russians use nukes.

I believe Russia wouldn't need to use any Nukes they are quite capable of obliterating any Foreign force of that size, and European public would soon change their tune when the trains come home full of dead soldiers.

 

[JWBooth]

Ukes selling mineral rights that they have already sold in territories they no longer, and will never again, control.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Europe cannot sustain massive Ukraine peacekeeping force, former army chief warns

General Lord Richards called for Nato countries to be ‘very grown up’ and ‘live within what is physically and militarily possible’

www.the-independent.com

European nations would have to send at least 100,000 troops to keep the peace in Ukraine and “none of them can do it”, a former head of the British armed forces has warned.

General Lord Richards called for Nato countries to be “very grown up” and “live within what is physically and militarily possible”, rather than “what our political leaders sometimes would aspire to do”.


The former chief of the defence staff warned it is “inevitable” that Russia will seek to test any defence force placed in Ukraine in the event of a deal to end the war. “If we send troops, they will be tested, and they have to robustly be able to defend themselves,” Lord Richards told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

He said given the size of the border between Russia and Ukraine a force of 100,000 to 200,000 troops would be needed. He added that these troops would need to be rotated, which could singificantly increase the number number that would be required to maintain the presence.

“The idea you are going to send a few peacekeepers with berets to reassure the Ukrainians is crass,” Lord Richards said. “We are talking, to do it robustly, 100,000 troops overall, drawn from European nations. None of them can do it,” he added.

He instead called for Britain to put the Ukrainians in a position to defend themselves after any peace deal with a “massive increase in support”.

It is not that NATO can't, just that they don't want to expend the funds to do so; why would you/they do so, when Uncle Sugar steps up with the necessary funds.

Europe is notorious for having "alligator arms" when it comes time to pay a bill.

The USA should contribute it fair share of NATO, and no more; and let the rest of NATO pick up the slack.

Hey, maybe they can draft all those military ages males they let immigrate.

"Hell No, We Won't Go" in a Dozen Different Languages

 

[Z99]

Here's a crazy fucking idea. Tell Ukraine they're on their own and move on. Their border war isn't anyone else's problem and the ONLY reason it became America's burden was so that BILLIONS could be laundered back to the Washington Cartel.

 

[Z99]

The entirety of NATO couldn't muster two full combat divisions sans the US.

Fuck all them.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Europe cannot sustain massive Ukraine peacekeeping force, former army chief warns

General Lord Richards called for Nato countries to be ‘very grown up’ and ‘live within what is physically and militarily possible’

www.the-independent.com

European nations would have to send at least 100,000 troops to keep the peace in Ukraine and “none of them can do it”, a former head of the British armed forces has warned.

General Lord Richards called for Nato countries to be “very grown up” and “live within what is physically and militarily possible”, rather than “what our political leaders sometimes would aspire to do”.


The former chief of the defence staff warned it is “inevitable” that Russia will seek to test any defence force placed in Ukraine in the event of a deal to end the war. “If we send troops, they will be tested, and they have to robustly be able to defend themselves,” Lord Richards told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

He said given the size of the border between Russia and Ukraine a force of 100,000 to 200,000 troops would be needed. He added that these troops would need to be rotated, which could singificantly increase the number number that would be required to maintain the presence.

“The idea you are going to send a few peacekeepers with berets to reassure the Ukrainians is crass,” Lord Richards said. “We are talking, to do it robustly, 100,000 troops overall, drawn from European nations. None of them can do it,” he added.

He instead called for Britain to put the Ukrainians in a position to defend themselves after any peace deal with a “massive increase in support”.

It is not that NATO can't, just that they don't want to expend the funds to do so; why would you/they do so, when Uncle Sugar steps up with the necessary funds.

Europe is notorious for having "alligator arms" when it comes time to pay a bill.

The USA should contribute it fair share of NATO, and no more; and let the rest of NATO pick up the slack.

Hey, maybe they can draft all those military ages males they let immigrate.

Russia surprisingly has fought this war like a western power with one hand tied behind their back
putting 100,000 euros if you could raise them which I highly doubt he's going to test them all right

European leadership and no American Air power will leave troops on the ground with their dick in their hands

 

[Litwin]

All the insignificant little rodents want to roar like lions.

 

[Zavulon]

I believe Russia wouldn't need to use any Nukes they are quite capable of obliterating any Foreign force of that size, and European public would soon change their tune when the trains come home full of dead soldiers.

It would be "wishful thinking" for Russians, and the Russians are, usually, not wishful thinkers. One may say they are "paranoid". They usually believe that there is a rational plan of actions (may be evil, but rational) behind the actions of the state leaders, and its not just incompetence and lack of intellectual capabilities. They do think, that nobody can be that stupid to wake up a Russian bear, without plan of victory or, at least, without any ideas of getting out of conflict without territorial losses. If you started the war, and Russia won the war, Russia will demand something more substantial than a moral satisfaction. They'll demand, say, Scotland.
From the Russian point of view, nobody sends forces just to have them back in coffins, without any plan of further actions, being ready to lose from the very beginning.

• What will the Brits do, after other elimination of their expeditionary forces?" may ask a Russian general one of his officers. And he might answer
• They'll use it as pretext to attack us by their nukes, at the moment they choose and when we are not ready. Looks like their decision-makers already count British population as expendables and our deterrence doesn't work.
• If so, what is the safest plan of our actions?
• The safest plan of other further actions, is, after getting the confirmation that Americans are not really behind it, and if Americans can't stop them by themselves, nuke British nuclear bases (HMNB Clyde) try to attack their last SSBN in the sea, and then declare ultimatum.
• Yes, you are right. Take the plan "Grom-1234", refresh it, add new info and bring it to me at 19-00.

 

[Zavulon]

"Hell No, We Won't Go" in a Dozen Different Languages

As if anybody will ask you. "Where there's is whip, there's a way".

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

It would be "wishful thinking" for Russians, and the Russians are, usually, not wishful thinkers. One may say they are "paranoid". They usually believe that there is a rational plan of actions (may be evil, but rational) behind the actions of the state leaders, and its not just incompetence and lack of intellectual capabilities. They do think, that nobody can be that stupid to wake up a Russian bear, without plan of victory or, at least, without any ideas of getting out of conflict without territorial losses. If you started the war, and Russia won the war, Russia will demand something more substantial than a moral satisfaction. They'll demand, say, Scotland.
From the Russian point of view, nobody sends forces just to have them back in coffins, without any plan of further actions, being ready to lose from the very beginning.

• What will the Brits do, after other elimination of their expeditionary forces?" may ask a Russian general one of his officers. And he might answer
• They'll use it as pretext to attack us by their nukes, at the moment they choose and when we are not ready. Looks like their decision-makers already count British population as expendables and our deterrence doesn't work.
• If so, what is the safest plan of our actions?
• The safest plan of other further actions, is, after getting the confirmation that Americans are not really behind it, and if Americans can't stop them by themselves, nuke British nuclear bases (HMNB Clyde) try to attack their last SSBN in the sea, and then declare ultimatum.
• Yes, you are right. Take the plan "Grom-1234", refresh it, add new info and bring it to me at 19-00.

Yes our intelligence agencies are that stupid ... They've started this war they've overthrown other governments all over the world color revolutions and all

Russia broke them
The evil Psychopaths

 

[Zavulon]

Yes our intelligence agencies are that stupid ... They've started this war they've overthrown other governments all over the world color revolutions and all

Russia broke them
The evil Psychopaths

Is it just a stupidity or a sophisticated plan? Nobody can be sure, you know, especially the Russians.

 

[Deadstick]

It would be "wishful thinking" for Russians, and the Russians are, usually, not wishful thinkers. One may say they are "paranoid". They usually believe that there is a rational plan of actions (may be evil, but rational) behind the actions of the state leaders, and its not just incompetence and lack of intellectual capabilities. They do think, that nobody can be that stupid to wake up a Russian bear, without plan of victory or, at least, without any ideas of getting out of conflict without territorial losses. If you started the war, and Russia won the war, Russia will demand something more substantial than a moral satisfaction. They'll demand, say, Scotland.
From the Russian point of view, nobody sends forces just to have them back in coffins, without any plan of further actions, being ready to lose from the very beginning.

• What will the Brits do, after other elimination of their expeditionary forces?" may ask a Russian general one of his officers. And he might answer
• They'll use it as pretext to attack us by their nukes, at the moment they choose and when we are not ready. Looks like their decision-makers already count British population as expendables and our deterrence doesn't work.
• If so, what is the safest plan of our actions?
• The safest plan of other further actions, is, after getting the confirmation that Americans are not really behind it, and if Americans can't stop them by themselves, nuke British nuclear bases (HMNB Clyde) try to attack their last SSBN in the sea, and then declare ultimatum.
• Yes, you are right. Take the plan "Grom-1234", refresh it, add new info and bring it to me at 19-00.

I don't think the British political ruling class are stupid enough to trigger a nuclear war with Russia, but then again they have been stupid up to now so anything is possible.

 

[Zavulon]

I don't think the British political ruling class are stupid enough to trigger a nuclear war with Russia, but then again they have been stupid up to now so anything is possible.

Yes. That is exactly what I mean. And if so, the safest strategy for Russia is to strike first.