Thank you for your article. This may be the best analysis I've read on this subject so far.
I've been educating myself on EU military assets at a basic level, and am not sure why they can't enter Ukraine right now, to at least backup the Ukrainians and ensure there is no Russian breakthrough. According to ChatGPT (corrections welcomed) the major EU nations have approximately these assets today, before any further build up.
Main Battle Tanks: Approximately 2,416
Fighter Aircraft: Approximately 1,190
Active-Duty Personnel: Approximately 996,000
What good are these forces doing parked in their home countries? There is only one threat to the EU, and everybody knows where it is, on the EU's eastern border.
If the EU did enter Ukraine to at least backup the Ukrainian front lines, and the EU got in trouble, then I'd agree America should help. But if the EU is going to sit on it's current forces and continue the dodge and weave delay game, maybe it's better that we don't enable them any further, so that they will finally grasp the reality of their situation.
Based on the above impressions, I'm not sure I can agree with putting America at any further nuclear risk in order to defend an EU which doesn't seem that serious about helping Ukraine, or even defending itself.
Even though I'm a 60s hippy liberal, one thing I liked about your article is that you focused on the security situation, and didn't get distracted by Trump's personality. You're right, he's very transparent and consistent, even while being entirely unlikeable.
If your time permits I'd be interested in your analysis of this question.
Why can't the EU roll some of the forces they already have in to Ukraine to demonstrate to Moscow that there will be no breakthrough of Ukrainian lines?
Thank you for your article. This may be the best analysis I've read on this subject so far.
I've been educating myself on EU military assets at a basic level, and am not sure why they can't enter Ukraine right now, to at least backup the Ukrainians and ensure there is no Russian breakthrough. According to ChatGPT (corrections welcomed) the major EU nations have approximately these assets today, before any further build up.
Main Battle Tanks: Approximately 2,416
Fighter Aircraft: Approximately 1,190
Active-Duty Personnel: Approximately 996,000
What good are these forces doing parked in their home countries? There is only one threat to the EU, and everybody knows where it is, on the EU's eastern border.
If the EU did enter Ukraine to at least backup the Ukrainian front lines, and the EU got in trouble, then I'd agree America should help. But if the EU is going to sit on it's current forces and continue the dodge and weave delay game, maybe it's better that we don't enable them any further, so that they will finally grasp the reality of their situation.
Based on the above impressions, I'm not sure I can agree with putting America at any further nuclear risk in order to defend an EU which doesn't seem that serious about helping Ukraine, or even defending itself.
Even though I'm a 60s hippy liberal, one thing I liked about your article is that you focused on the security situation, and didn't get distracted by Trump's personality. You're right, he's very transparent and consistent, even while being entirely unlikeable.
If your time permits I'd be interested in your analysis of this question.
Why can't the EU roll some of the forces they already have in to Ukraine to demonstrate to Moscow that there will be no breakthrough of Ukrainian lines?
Thanks again, and good job!