Europa „würde Schwierigkeiten haben, 25.000 Soldaten in der Ukraine auf den Boden zu bringen“

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. 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”, a source privy to discussions in Brussels said.

Defence ministers are understood to have raised concerns about Britain’s ambition for a force of 64,000 in a meeting of the “coalition of the willing” on April 10. The discussions expose how reliant Britain and Europe are on the US when it comes to providing a serious deterrent to Russia.

Estonia and Finland were reportedly concerned that any deployment would “dilute” their own border defences, and Poland, Spain and Italy made clear they will not commit any soldiers, according to the source.

“Without large populous countries committing [troops], it is a dead end,” added the source. France has said it would commit about the same number as the UK, between 5,000 and 10,000 troops, it is understood.

A second source, privy to discussions in the UK, said that Finland and Germany were also generally against sending ground forces, although it is understood Berlin has not completely ruled out such a move.

The source said: “Once you take those off the table, where’s the army going to come from? With others not there, we would be left exposed.”

The source pointed out that the British Army, which is steadily shrinking, was also suffering from an artillery shortage and problems with “enablers”, such as supply trucks and other equipment they would normally receive from America.

The reluctance among European countries to send ground troops to protect Ukraine is understood to have led to a shift in thinking about what the force would look like should there be a peace deal. There are also concerns about what the rules of engagement would be should Russia attack.

Under the most likely plans, British and French military trainers would be sent to western Ukraine, fulfilling a commitment to put forces inside the country. However, they would not be near the front line, guard key installations or be there to protect Ukrainian troops.

“Such as supply trucks and other equipment they would normally receive from America”

This is distasteful wording, as it implies the US is somehow holding out equipment on the Brits, which is not true. This is British inability from top echelons to equip their troops properly

If tariffs are now the issue, the US would easily wave them to send Britain the trucks

This some attempt from Brussels to seed the idea that *Britain* needs to buy more trucks from US for the benefit of some proposed European Union continental army

> Dovile Sakaliene, Lithuania’s defence minister, was said to have told her counterparts: “Russia has 800,000 [troops]. Let me tell you this, if we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”

I mean, this can’t be true?

I have it on the authority of many of Reddit’s finest military minds that it is completely inconceivable that Russia’s tiny, worthless army could ever pose a threat to Europe. In fact, apparently the Polish army alone could soundly trounce them, maybe with a bit of an assist from Finland.

How is it that European leaders are so misinformed about their own military capabilities? Do they not read Reddit?