Solo 6 su 30 paesi “Coalition of Willing” pronti a inviare peacekeeper in Ucraina
Only 6 of 30 “coalition of willing” countries ready to send peacekeepers to Ukraine
di informat7
Solo 6 su 30 paesi “Coalition of Willing” pronti a inviare peacekeeper in Ucraina
Only 6 of 30 “coalition of willing” countries ready to send peacekeepers to Ukraine
di informat7
25 commenti
So much for EU unity in face of Americans. When it matters they are still just EU shenanigans
So it’s actually more a coalition of the unwilling…
Consider how many many upvotes there have been in the past few weeks for threads and comments discussing Europe taking the initiative, not relying on Americans, standing up for itself, creating a European Army, or how Europe could collectively crush Russia and its “smaller than Italy” economy if Putin attacked us etc.
And then look at the actual willingness to bear the burden of defending European soil, European democracy, European children.
This is why Russia (and America) wins.
**The entire EU can’t do anything against one country. I just can’t believe how unwilling democracies are to stand up for their values.**
>“It’s very important to have the United States on board, but then it also needs to be clear what type of mission it is and what we ask from the United States.”
So much not a vassal. Just need to ask our overlord to approve foreign policy.
for fuck sake. Weak as fuck
You guys actually thought that something has changed in EU from the time when they only can send “serious concerns and strong worded letters”?
Bit of a misleading title. The UK and France are two of the strongest countries in Europe, and the Baltic states are naturally in this no matter what. Even those six alone providing the boots on the ground could be an effective deterrent, and that’s not touching on the opposing voices having a reasonable desire for clarity on mission goals
What I have read: 6 “have so far indicated willingness”, while most of the others need a more specified mission set / strategic level RoE for a decision.
Film@11: EU and its allies are a bloc, not a single state. But naysayers do not care, let the EU bashing begin.
It’s just not a clear enough plan, because any ceasefire that Russia would sign up would explicitly forbid any NATO member countries from going into Ukraine.
I don’t know why starmer came up with this plan. NATO nations troops will never set foot in ukraine with Russia’s agreement.
So this concept is only about inserting NATO nation troops into Ukraine when it is at war with Russia. Which is fine by me, I would love to see Russia confronted more directly. But obviously that could escalate quite quickly and those scenarios need to be spelled out. What is the mandate and what are the rules of engagement and what is the exit criteria. These are fair questions.
But please lets not pretend this could take place after any ceasefire, because no ceasefire could ever happen if it’s left open as a possibility.
Might be naive but I don’t see it as bad news.
6 is better than zero. Maybe more will come around. And you don’t necessarily need all 30 to act.
>“It’s very important to have the United States on board, but then it also needs to be clear what type of mission it is and what we ask from the United States.”
Europe can’t even muster the force for the hypothetical scenario after a peace deal without explicit US consent.
We’re not a great power. We’re a vassal state who sometimes acts big on Twitter.
Stop reading headlines and low effort articles like this.
Plenty of countries not mentioned in this “6” have shown and declared that they are willing to join a joint european or nato peacekeeper mission. This article is made up to prompt people to click it.
So far there is no real and concrete plan to send peacekeepers since the possibility of a ceasefire is none as of today. Until realistic talks about a end, temporary or not, this type of cheap article is worthless, and should not be taken serious.
EU doing what it does best and that is doing nothing.
This is very misleading. It makes it look like there is a lot of unwilling countries. Might be the case as well, but at the moment it seems more like many countries have questions about what such a mission would entail, which is far more reasonable. There is currently no realistic peace proposal and consequently no one knows how this peace keeping force would be implemented. Would it require your country to send a signifacant part of their force to fullfill such a mission, potentially leaving you exposed at home? Is the purpose to monitor the peace or to deter Russia? Your country might be able to send enough force for the first, but not enough to contribute to the second. I encourage people to be a bit more careful before jumping to conclusions. It is in Russias interests to make it look like European leaders are not willing to protect ukraine and in extension europe.
Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans voiced concerns about clarity:
“What is the potential mission, what is going to be the goal? What is the mandate? What would we do in the different scenarios, for example, if there would be any escalation regarding Russia?” he asked, adding: “It’s very important to have the United States on board, but then it also needs to be clear what type of mission it is and what we ask from the United States.”
***
I think the first part is the key issue here. Sure, some are still naively hoping for US involvement. But the questions raised in the first half I believe is why we don’t yet have definitive answers from the remaining 26 countries. The lack of situational clarity (not to mention the feasibility of a ceasefire in the first place).
The 6 countries who’ve signed on so far are of the staunchest allies (I’m proud Baltics are part of that), who’ll support Ukraine in any scenario.
But there are many other strong allies (like Denmark, within top 5 of support per GDP) who perhaps simply need more clarity of the exact guidelines before announcing this to their own publics. Need to know the necessary quantities of soldiers they need at home vs can send to Ukraine. Even – what specializations of soldiers/peacekeepers are needed.
None of that means they’re not on board. With matters of possibly life & death, there’s nothing inherently wrong in wanting clarity before fully committing.
Of course in an ideal world we’d have all of this already figured out and would help Ukraine in an unlimited manner, and every moment counts. But I don’t see this as them being unwilling or even hesitant – just wanting clear guidelines of a “contract” before “signing it”
To me that whole peacekeeping troops discussion is a phantom debate anyway. There is no realistic peace treaty in sight at all which is a prerequisite for these troops.
Any declaration to the contrary by either side are really just meant to placate the orange moron in the white house. Though Russia doesnt even really need to pretend it wants peace since Trump will give Putin a Pass anyway.
Europe should focus more on providing Ukraine with weapons then talk about potential pecekeeping forces after the war.
Very clear that the EU is unwilling to move without the USA. Nothing has changed. 😞
How can Europe even say it wants a say in the peace talks, when it so obvious that it will have to be the USA that draws the red lines with boots on the ground if there broken.
>According to European officials, approximately six countries have so far indicated willingness to contribute troops, including the UK, France, and the Baltic States.
and it was impossible to name the sixth?
Lmao Europe. You call them weak but I remember there was a thing about conscription and most of you were against that. When the soldiers are someone else rather than you, you are willing to send them to warzone though
I’m not saying Europe should be passive, I’m saying their politicians’ hypocrisy mirrors their people.
Coalition of wah-wah, there is no USA in the coalition. It’s not won!
Wait a minute.
I am confused.
I thought that the Europeans were united in both what should be done in Ukraine as well as in their anger at the USA.
The USA has been accused (on this forum) of “abandoning the Ukraine.”
My question is “what should the USA do?” Send peacekeepers? Engage in the fighting?
Extremely misleading title with basically no content.
So all the people in the comments would rather have a peacekeeping mission to a volatile area be rushed and done shittily? That’s what I am understanding?
Also who are these 6 nations? God knows not all counties are millitarily the same so if these 6 are like the UK, France, Poland, Germany, Romania ect (just a example, not saying these are the countries) that’s far more important than if like Bulgaria and Cyprus are ready to send something over
This is just more reddit bullshit of people not using their heads before typing