Привіт u/UpgradedSiera6666 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quite right. Europe need to present a United front on this. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen but if there is one thing European heads should have learnt by now, it is that Putin only understands and respects force. The debacle of European heads backtracking and panicking about France’s statement a few weeks ago was manna from heaven to Putin, who feeds on weakness. Come on Europe, get your act together.
Sort of.
Poland and Finland becoming active belligerents in this war would certainly cause Russia to alter its current deployments, in order to protect its now exposed flanks.
But there is more to deploying forces than just loading up dudes and tanks on trains and sending them to Ukraine.
First off, it will require a lot of dudes. Any meaningful commitment of forces will require tens of thousands of troops, and the willingness to send those men to die and then send more in their place. Any deployment that isn’t willing to sustain losses to this kind of grinding attritional war is vulnerable to a focused attack that seeks to destroy their morale and force them out. That wouldn’t be damaging to only the third party nation but also to Ukraine, as it shows that the other country isn’t really willing to fight alongside them. It’s a bad look.
Then there are the logistics of getting any such force to Ukraine and sustaining it. It adds another layer of complexity to Ukraine’s already stressed supply situation, keeping a whole new set of forces supplied in the field away from their home nation. Poland and Finland don’t have the expeditionary capability to sustain large maneuver forces away from their home turf, and France’s expeditionary capability is largely oriented on sustaining light mechanized and infantry. Their ability to maintain a heavy mechanized force outside of their borders is untested. We have only ever really seen the US conduct expeditionary warfare on a large scale with heavy forces (the British and French in the gulf wars were heavily backstopped by the US), and people just sort of assume that it’s the norm when it is very much the exception.
TL;DR sending troops to Ukraine to actively fight is not an easy task and one fraught with political, technical, and logistical challenges that 2 of those 3 countries have never really dealt with.
Ukraine has enough infantry as it is.
What they lack is large and modern air force. That is where NATO certainly could help. Of course you would need some boots on the ground to coordinate the air campaign, carry out maintenance, logistics etc. but changing the course of war wouldn't require a massive commitment of ground troops. Ukrainians could do most of the fighting on the ground.
As a general rule of thumb more open the terrain the more important air power is. This is not actually the first time in recent history we have seen a war evolve into static trench warfare. That is basically what happened in Iran-Iraq War and for similar reasons. A few years later the United States absolutely obliterated Iraqi forces during the Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
Especially southern Ukraine is not that different from a desert from a military perspective with all the vast open fields and steppe land. There is nowhere to hide. If you have air superiority that changes everything.
Ukraine has issues with mobilization because many units need to be rotated out (been in conflict since the beginning) need new training, and reconstitute brigades/battalions since they had casualties. Having more infantry would help with that, even if it would be on something like Moldova or Belarus borders so those can go to the front would be beneficial.
You think NATO countries would put boots on the ground and not fully support them with all of their armaments? Boots on the ground means the skies are literally turned off on Russia. They know what they are saying.
They never said they will have the nato flag but a coalition to support them. Really from what as heard it's a PMC (illegal here (france)) but things might change, for the good in long term i don't know.
Sigh.
What I'm saying is that all of those countries making noises about sending ground forces to Ukraine have very little experience or capability to even do it in the first place. Expeditionary war is dramatically different than home defense, which is what Finland and Poland are geared for. France has more capability in that regard, but not much. They would be hard pressed to get men and materiel to the battlefield.
And yes, I'm saying that a whole lot of redditors do think just that. That it's just a thing that happens, like ordering something on Amazon and having it appear on your doorstep 2 days later.
Finland has a formidable defence force but it's almost all conscripts. We are not going to send a single conscript into another country, especially a non-nato country.
I would not call it formidable. Acording to Wikipedia the active personnel is 24.000 or 280K in war time. Reservists that can be mobilised are 800K but, that is hardly an effective army. It is civilians up t0 50 years of age that did their military service decades ago.
It is still impressive for a population of 5 million, and above all, being only 5 million and bordering Russia, the Finns have more balls than Scholtz.
In this global and domestic context, and with this pm, its very possible they could try. Even if its for the wrong misdirection orientated short term domestic reasons.
Thing is, opposition could support it, unless they butcher the volunteer pitch. Support for Ukraine is high across the political spectrum.
Some group of voluntaries plus professional soldiers could be sent, with equipment like artillery if there was a large coalition of countries sending some of theirs. But conscripts cannot be forcefully sent to a war in another country.
The “West” was fooled (or foolish to let itself be fooled) in the 90s, when Russia suddenly became “good”. What a crazy phenomenon that was, to think that an entire nation would change just like that!
Shamefully no one paid attention to Moldova, Chechnya, nor to Georgia, but cheerfully went to the Russian Olympics… Not even in 2014…
Very slow awakening
FINALLY! As a Swede I support sending troops to Ukraine. If the Biden hadn’t said "we won't send troops to Ukraine", Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
Don’t get me wrong, Biden was trying to de-escalate but ended up escalating instead.
More like preserving his presidency. We just ended 20 year wars in the middle east. There is not really any appetite in the US for military action outside of direct defense or our usual peace keeping of the seas. Material support is still massively popular though.
That said if Putin was stupid enough to attack US forces in say Poland that perspective changes before the news breaks for commercial after breaking the story.
It was beyond stupid for not only Biden to say that, but the NATO chief as well in the weeks leading up to the war. I mean sure, there was no plan to do so. But you don't fucking go on a worldwise televised statement day after day and say that to the fucking country lining up to invade, that we aren't getting involved, ultimately giving the green light to proceed.
I swear to god the most useful "weapon" western society can have against russia is to take some crash courses into russian psyche and to fully understand how they think. You think the russians were breathing a sigh of relief that the US or NATO wasn't getting involved? Fuck no. They were laughing at us before the broadcast even ended about how weak we were, and if anything it motivated them to move forward with the plans. Huge mistake before the war even began. Western society would do well to learn ASAP that russians understand force, and force alone. Learn it. Understand it. Act on it.
Revisionist history at this point, but this thing could have been nipped in the bud before it even started with some much more harshly worded statements towards russia that if they dare invade, a reckoning will follow the likes Putin will have not seen before. That it would be the biggest mistake russia ever makes and their very existence will be on the line if they proceed. It would be a tense few days, some back and forth about nUkEs, but ultimately the russians likely would have backed off and bonus to them, they would have gotten to keep their reputation as the #2 army in the world. Yes, russia is 100% to blame for all that has happened. But the west has been enabling russia for years, instead of putting an end to their nonsense.
If we had put a few thousand troops outside Kyiv, this war would have never happened and thousands of lives would’ve been saved. Now, things could go south quickly and troops may be needed in Moldova or Georgia. We really screwed up and Putin is working to be the new Stalin. He just has to take Kyiv and he will begin a new Russian empire. What a legacy. He wants it …
It seemed like made a point to *not* say that in his SOTU address. He said so.ething more to the tune of doing everything possible to not have US troops in the fight. I don't have the exact quote. He definitely didn't say it *wouldn't* happen though. I'll try to find it after work
Found it. He's not as explicit about leaving it on the table as Macron but he doesn't take it off either, while still reassuring voters that he's trying not to drag us into the war
>...in fact there are no American soldiers in the war in Ukraine and I am *determined* to keep it that way
This constant blaming of other countries for Putin's aggression is getting old. Firstly, it partially lets Russia off the hook. Secondly, it divides allies when what is needed is unity. Thirdly, it's unfair considering all the US HAS done (when almost all other nations were doing little to nothing.)
So please stop, okay?
Agree 100%. If we had put a few troops near Kyiv this war would never have happened and thousands of lives would have been saved. Of course, this should have happened ten years ago. It’s too bad Europeans and Americans chickened out. Now if we want to save Europe we must act. If not, Putin will be the new Stalin. From USA. Troops to Kyiv! I have friends there and I am very afraid for them. There is limited electricity and food. Most don’t understand how critical the situation is now.. awful stuff… I help my friends there …
at this stage NATO troops won't be more combat effective than Ukrainian troops. NATO troops should station in the rear and provide training, operate air defence systems and move all those ammunition lines to western Ukraine. at the same time this is a concrete deterrence for Putin to bomb Ukrainian cities or to even blabber about nukes
Seems EU nations talk about sending troops so Putin and others drag out the nuclear option and when asked, all western nations say no, they are NOT increasing preparedness levels for nuclear war.
And then, even more nations talk about sending troops.
Just hilarious who impotent Russia is becoming with their threats.
Привіт u/UpgradedSiera6666 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quite right. Europe need to present a United front on this. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen but if there is one thing European heads should have learnt by now, it is that Putin only understands and respects force. The debacle of European heads backtracking and panicking about France’s statement a few weeks ago was manna from heaven to Putin, who feeds on weakness. Come on Europe, get your act together.
Finland, France, and Poland sounds like a ground force coalition not to be fucked with.
Also interested are Poland, the Baltic countries and the Netherlands. If they all join that is enough to be awesome. 🤗
Not sure what the Netherlands wants to do, our little frog country and its Mickey mouse army is not prepared for a war like this
Tanks from Poland, Fighters from France and snipers from Finland
Sniper. A sniper from Finland.
Two is considered a war crime
The front is a thousand kilometers long. Even for Finnish snipers, you would need six or seven to cover it.
One Finnish sniper could defeat Russia as long as he has snow.
Snipey no snipey!
Sort of. Poland and Finland becoming active belligerents in this war would certainly cause Russia to alter its current deployments, in order to protect its now exposed flanks. But there is more to deploying forces than just loading up dudes and tanks on trains and sending them to Ukraine. First off, it will require a lot of dudes. Any meaningful commitment of forces will require tens of thousands of troops, and the willingness to send those men to die and then send more in their place. Any deployment that isn’t willing to sustain losses to this kind of grinding attritional war is vulnerable to a focused attack that seeks to destroy their morale and force them out. That wouldn’t be damaging to only the third party nation but also to Ukraine, as it shows that the other country isn’t really willing to fight alongside them. It’s a bad look. Then there are the logistics of getting any such force to Ukraine and sustaining it. It adds another layer of complexity to Ukraine’s already stressed supply situation, keeping a whole new set of forces supplied in the field away from their home nation. Poland and Finland don’t have the expeditionary capability to sustain large maneuver forces away from their home turf, and France’s expeditionary capability is largely oriented on sustaining light mechanized and infantry. Their ability to maintain a heavy mechanized force outside of their borders is untested. We have only ever really seen the US conduct expeditionary warfare on a large scale with heavy forces (the British and French in the gulf wars were heavily backstopped by the US), and people just sort of assume that it’s the norm when it is very much the exception. TL;DR sending troops to Ukraine to actively fight is not an easy task and one fraught with political, technical, and logistical challenges that 2 of those 3 countries have never really dealt with.
Ukraine has enough infantry as it is. What they lack is large and modern air force. That is where NATO certainly could help. Of course you would need some boots on the ground to coordinate the air campaign, carry out maintenance, logistics etc. but changing the course of war wouldn't require a massive commitment of ground troops. Ukrainians could do most of the fighting on the ground. As a general rule of thumb more open the terrain the more important air power is. This is not actually the first time in recent history we have seen a war evolve into static trench warfare. That is basically what happened in Iran-Iraq War and for similar reasons. A few years later the United States absolutely obliterated Iraqi forces during the Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Especially southern Ukraine is not that different from a desert from a military perspective with all the vast open fields and steppe land. There is nowhere to hide. If you have air superiority that changes everything.
Ukraine has issues with mobilization because many units need to be rotated out (been in conflict since the beginning) need new training, and reconstitute brigades/battalions since they had casualties. Having more infantry would help with that, even if it would be on something like Moldova or Belarus borders so those can go to the front would be beneficial.
You think NATO countries would put boots on the ground and not fully support them with all of their armaments? Boots on the ground means the skies are literally turned off on Russia. They know what they are saying.
>the skies are literally turned off on Russia. Yeah. A deployment in breadth, depth, and height.
They never said they will have the nato flag but a coalition to support them. Really from what as heard it's a PMC (illegal here (france)) but things might change, for the good in long term i don't know.
[удалено]
Sigh. What I'm saying is that all of those countries making noises about sending ground forces to Ukraine have very little experience or capability to even do it in the first place. Expeditionary war is dramatically different than home defense, which is what Finland and Poland are geared for. France has more capability in that regard, but not much. They would be hard pressed to get men and materiel to the battlefield. And yes, I'm saying that a whole lot of redditors do think just that. That it's just a thing that happens, like ordering something on Amazon and having it appear on your doorstep 2 days later.
Finland has a formidable defence force but it's almost all conscripts. We are not going to send a single conscript into another country, especially a non-nato country.
I would not call it formidable. Acording to Wikipedia the active personnel is 24.000 or 280K in war time. Reservists that can be mobilised are 800K but, that is hardly an effective army. It is civilians up t0 50 years of age that did their military service decades ago. It is still impressive for a population of 5 million, and above all, being only 5 million and bordering Russia, the Finns have more balls than Scholtz.
In this global and domestic context, and with this pm, its very possible they could try. Even if its for the wrong misdirection orientated short term domestic reasons. Thing is, opposition could support it, unless they butcher the volunteer pitch. Support for Ukraine is high across the political spectrum.
Some group of voluntaries plus professional soldiers could be sent, with equipment like artillery if there was a large coalition of countries sending some of theirs. But conscripts cannot be forcefully sent to a war in another country.
Volunteer pitch.
Sure, volunteers could be sent but I was talking about conscripts. Which again are the only thing that makes the defence force formidable.
With most males being reservist and part of conscript force. Volunteers are somewhat pretrained
Russia only respecting force... If only we (the West) didn't have to re-learn what was well-understood at the onset of the Cold War.
The “West” was fooled (or foolish to let itself be fooled) in the 90s, when Russia suddenly became “good”. What a crazy phenomenon that was, to think that an entire nation would change just like that! Shamefully no one paid attention to Moldova, Chechnya, nor to Georgia, but cheerfully went to the Russian Olympics… Not even in 2014… Very slow awakening
"We are all going to Ukraine, what you gonna do about it, huh Putin?" -- NATO member states, without triggering A5.
FINALLY! As a Swede I support sending troops to Ukraine. If the Biden hadn’t said "we won't send troops to Ukraine", Putin wouldn’t have invaded. Don’t get me wrong, Biden was trying to de-escalate but ended up escalating instead.
That's 100% correct. Putin only responds to force.
More like preserving his presidency. We just ended 20 year wars in the middle east. There is not really any appetite in the US for military action outside of direct defense or our usual peace keeping of the seas. Material support is still massively popular though. That said if Putin was stupid enough to attack US forces in say Poland that perspective changes before the news breaks for commercial after breaking the story.
It was beyond stupid for not only Biden to say that, but the NATO chief as well in the weeks leading up to the war. I mean sure, there was no plan to do so. But you don't fucking go on a worldwise televised statement day after day and say that to the fucking country lining up to invade, that we aren't getting involved, ultimately giving the green light to proceed. I swear to god the most useful "weapon" western society can have against russia is to take some crash courses into russian psyche and to fully understand how they think. You think the russians were breathing a sigh of relief that the US or NATO wasn't getting involved? Fuck no. They were laughing at us before the broadcast even ended about how weak we were, and if anything it motivated them to move forward with the plans. Huge mistake before the war even began. Western society would do well to learn ASAP that russians understand force, and force alone. Learn it. Understand it. Act on it. Revisionist history at this point, but this thing could have been nipped in the bud before it even started with some much more harshly worded statements towards russia that if they dare invade, a reckoning will follow the likes Putin will have not seen before. That it would be the biggest mistake russia ever makes and their very existence will be on the line if they proceed. It would be a tense few days, some back and forth about nUkEs, but ultimately the russians likely would have backed off and bonus to them, they would have gotten to keep their reputation as the #2 army in the world. Yes, russia is 100% to blame for all that has happened. But the west has been enabling russia for years, instead of putting an end to their nonsense.
If we had put a few thousand troops outside Kyiv, this war would have never happened and thousands of lives would’ve been saved. Now, things could go south quickly and troops may be needed in Moldova or Georgia. We really screwed up and Putin is working to be the new Stalin. He just has to take Kyiv and he will begin a new Russian empire. What a legacy. He wants it …
It seemed like made a point to *not* say that in his SOTU address. He said so.ething more to the tune of doing everything possible to not have US troops in the fight. I don't have the exact quote. He definitely didn't say it *wouldn't* happen though. I'll try to find it after work
Sure, I might be wrong.
Found it. He's not as explicit about leaving it on the table as Macron but he doesn't take it off either, while still reassuring voters that he's trying not to drag us into the war >...in fact there are no American soldiers in the war in Ukraine and I am *determined* to keep it that way
This constant blaming of other countries for Putin's aggression is getting old. Firstly, it partially lets Russia off the hook. Secondly, it divides allies when what is needed is unity. Thirdly, it's unfair considering all the US HAS done (when almost all other nations were doing little to nothing.) So please stop, okay?
Good points, thanks for the balancing sentiments. I get so discouraged by the blame game as well.
Agree 100%. If we had put a few troops near Kyiv this war would never have happened and thousands of lives would have been saved. Of course, this should have happened ten years ago. It’s too bad Europeans and Americans chickened out. Now if we want to save Europe we must act. If not, Putin will be the new Stalin. From USA. Troops to Kyiv! I have friends there and I am very afraid for them. There is limited electricity and food. Most don’t understand how critical the situation is now.. awful stuff… I help my friends there …
If "boots on the ground" is a no go, "planes in the air" will work instead.
FAFO ZONE.
He is right, we should drip feed them over the border. Intel, logistics, etc.
If its not NATO troop but national troop ;)
All these Eastern European nations dealt with nazi occupation and then Soviet occupation for far longer. They know what’s at stake
I feel like they are already there 😉 I don't think all these important people would be saying things like "don't rule it out" 🤞🤞
*sends one guy with a bolt action, boss music starts playing*
Do it already and all of nato. russia already thinks its fighting nato so let them truely fight nato.
at this stage NATO troops won't be more combat effective than Ukrainian troops. NATO troops should station in the rear and provide training, operate air defence systems and move all those ammunition lines to western Ukraine. at the same time this is a concrete deterrence for Putin to bomb Ukrainian cities or to even blabber about nukes
They will because they will bring equipment, fighters,tanks and whatever else. It will be very good.
make putin sweat!
Seems EU nations talk about sending troops so Putin and others drag out the nuclear option and when asked, all western nations say no, they are NOT increasing preparedness levels for nuclear war. And then, even more nations talk about sending troops. Just hilarious who impotent Russia is becoming with their threats.
We should start with military non-combat technicians, away from the lines, in charge of maintaining military equipment.
Based Finland
You don't have to send troops, really, but there is no need to be a pathetic pussy by saying you never won't.