Slovak PM says EU, NATO members weighing sending troops to Ukraine

[Quixote1818]

FEBRUARY 26, 2024 9:23 PM CET
BY SEJLA AHMATOVIC
Several EU and NATO members are considering military deployments to Ukraine, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico claimed on Monday.

Speaking ahead of a meeting of EU and NATO national leaders in Paris on Monday to debate collective Western strategy on Ukraine, Fico cited a "restricted document" listing topics to be discussed in Paris that "sends shivers down your spine."

"These topics," he said, "imply that a number of NATO and EU member states are considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis."

More: https://www.politico.eu/article/slovak-pm-fico-says-eu-and-nato-states-consider-sending-troops-to-ukraine/

[Deuxcents]

2. So..what to do..shiver in fear about the "what if" or

Give Ukraine what they need and are asking for now?

[WarGamer]

3. If it's AFU soldiers... give them what they need.

However... the US has given an outsized portion already, including cash grants to keep their economy afloat...

I support sending US gear to Ukraine... let the EU pay the bill.

In reality, the US should be picking up 15% ish of the war bill. MAX.

It's called NATO, not the USATO.

[PSPS]

9. If that had been the attitude 80 years ago, we'd all be speaking German now.

[WarGamer]

10. There was no NATO in WW2...

NATO exists NOW as an alliance of nations pooling resources for defense.

EU nations have become complacent allowing the US to pick up most of the military costs of readying a defense...

Looks like that's changing now. That's a good thing.

[PSPS]

11. Read up on why NATO was created after the war. It was to avoid just what we're witnessing now.

The US doesn't pick up anywhere near "most" of NATO's budget. In fact, the US's contribution is 16% (the same as Germany.) The UK and France come next at 11% and 10%. NATO spending is money well spent and has served its purpose quite well.

If Russia gains Ukraine, it will keep going. Putin said so himself. That's why NATO exists.

[BootinUp]

14. I don't know if I have ever seen you post a source for all the conservative leaning stats

you post here.

[WarGamer]

15. I call it factual.

I think I always post links... except when maybe it's super obvious stuff.


https://comptroller.defense.gov/portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2023/budget_justification/pdfs/11_NATO_Security_Investment_Program/FY23_NATO_Security_Investment_Program.pdf

Since 2005, the U.S.’s share of NATO common funding has been set at a
concessionary level negotiated with Allies – now just over 22%


Then in 2019, it was reduced to 16%

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/trump-nato-contribution-nato/index.html


But these are really insignificant costs... the bulk of NATO military readiness is in the individual nations defense budget...



And this:

The United States spent about $603 billion on defense in 2017, which was approximately 70 percent of the aggregate military spending of all NATO members. The second-highest spender was the United Kingdom, which accounted for about 6 percent, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/9/11/us-spending-about-36-billion-on-nato

[BootinUp]

16. The problem is you are characterizing

The war in Europe as europes problem. This is a rw isolationist slant. Thanks for the sourcing it really is appreciated .

[WarGamer]

17. I think I'd characterize it as...

Problems in Europe, particularly Western/Central Europe should be addressed MOSTLY by Europeans.

I have no problem at all with the US funding maybe... 15% of the Ukraine War.

It's shows our dedication to a Free Europe and brotherhood with our NATO friends.

And I don't like to think of it as isolationism.

I'd call it "Judicious use of resources, balancing the well being of the American people and keeping hostile powers abroad at bay"

[BootinUp]

19. So what u are saying is you want to slash

The defense budget? I have seen consistent statements that Ukraine expenditure is running at about 5% of our defense budget. Further that former retired generals think it’s a bargain meaning the current arrangement where Ukraine does the fighting.

Cutting the defense budget is a political hot potato and is used by scummy politicians as a means of attacking the Democratic Party. I doubt that someone with the forum name wargamer is really for cutting the defense budget. If you have advocated for that before let us know.

[NickB79]

26. But Putin has global ambitions

And if Europe can't address this European problem sufficiently, it will become a US problem eventually.

And when that happens, we will need to devote far more resources to it overall, which is the opposite of judicious use.

[Dave says]

31. It's expensive to be the hegemon

Don’t you think American oligarchs and corporate elite benefit from our military expenditures?

[BlueGrimmy]

21. Yeah...paying NATO dues and the amount of military expenditures are two different things.

Most NATO nations pay a fair share of the overhead cost for the NATO headquarters and such, but when it comes to actual military forces that could fight in a war, the US is the vast majority of the alliance.

Trump and his pals view that as a negative, and want Europe to arm up, but history has not shown that to be the way towards peace and prosperity. It sucks having the US foot the bill for (general) global stability, but having every nation arm up equally doesn't seem like a better solution.

[brush]

29. Ukraine is part of and critical to the future Europe, not to China and N. Korea.

Therefore I doubt those two nations would commit troops to Putin's foolish and self-created problem. Xi is more likely tuned into what to do about Taiwan an the South China Sea navigational disputes.

The little roket man? Worried about his rocket failures instead of the famine there.

[Happy Hoosier]

20. Yeah, that's not a wise position, IMO.

The US is and has been, since the end of WWII, the center of Western resistance to Russian and Chinese expansionist ambitions.

While I certainly encourage our allies to increase their efforts to contribute to that cause, it is absolutely NOT in our interests to allow Russian expansion via armed invasion. IMO, we've given them too much leeway already. Obama should, IMO, have been much more forceful indealing with the annexation of Crimea. I said then that that would not be the end of it. I was poo-pooed here by many for that position. Well here we are.

If we allow Russia any measure of success in their current adventure, you can expect MORE of it.... and sooner rather than later.

Is there a risk of escalation with more direct involvement? Sure. But the risk exists for Russia and China too. And in my view, the consequences of allowing Russian victory are entirely unacceptable. Maybe you'd be willing to live in a world where we just accept that Putin can do what he wants because we're afraid to stop him. I'm not.

[Red Mountain]

25. We've given an awful lot.....

of weapons systems close to their expiration date.

We're sending stuff we're paying OUR defense contractors to replace with new stuff for our troops.

I've read around 80%. I'll look for a citation if anybody asks.

Using it saves us the cost of disposing of it.

[brush]

34. The good thng is all the US weapons are made here...jobs,jobs, jobs.

Boosting our economy. Dumb repugs don't seem to get that.

[ColinC]

4. China wouldn't waste their resources and I doubt North Korea has many to send

[Happy Hoosier]

22. What does China have to gain?

Xi likes to rattle the saber, but what advantage is there in destablizing China's foreign markets? China is already a little iffy economically. Xi can't afford some military adventure with no definable benfit to China.

[WarGamer]

23. Because the threat itself probably stops it from ever happening...

BTW today the EU nations rapidly backed off this suggestion... "NO WAY" they're sending troops.

[cbabe]

5. Foreign fighters already in Russia

For example:

https://www.bbc.com › news › world-asia-india-68366861

Ukraine war: Indians 'duped' by agents into fighting for Russia - BBC

Indian sources in Russia suggest dozens of Indians have joined the Russian army. ... "In Moscow, we signed a contract in Russian

[WarGamer]

7. that's correct...

I'm referring to uniformed soldiers of outside nations... with Chinese or North Korean or Iranian flags on their tunics.

[Red Mountain]

28. Fun thought for a game

though I think silly in reality. I'd rather replay some of my old Avalon Hill games from the 80s. They, at least, had some basis in reality.

Why would China, NK and Iran commit ground troops to Ukraine?

How would they get them there?

Who would supply them?

And WHY? They don't love Russia. Russia is an ally, certainly....because there is nobody else.

You're pretending that WW3 is looming and it's going to be Russia, China, NK and Iran (+ proxies!) against the West.

There is no sign of that. All of the major players from the dark side lack power projection capacity.

[Irish_Dem]

30. It is certainly not a silly thought.

China has the largest armed services in the world.
And the second largest navy in the world.

They have the troops and the ships to move them.
They are also working to ramp up their nuclear power program.

They would want to help their closest ally Russia.
They are all part of the global autocratic bloc and hope to be the 21st century superpowers.

However I don't know if China wants to commit to a war in Europe.
China's goal is control of the Pacific and they will go to war there at some point.
Taiwan for example. And how they are egging on the Philippines to start fighting.

China and Russia don't love each other. It is entirely transactional and they serve each other's
purposes right now. They wish to be the dominant world power.

There is every sign that the autocratic bloc has been at war with western democracies and working
to damage and weaken them. There is so much evidence of this, I cannot even begin to list it all.

There are many fine videos on DU about China. I watch them every single day.
It is quite an eye opening education.

[Red Mountain]

32. China can't get to Ukraine

They'd have a very difficult time invading Taiwan.

NK and Iran.....well, they're out. They got nothin'.

That's the tactical/strategic bit.

The 'autocratic bloc' doesn't exist.

That said, I think NATO needs to do everything they can to control their borders.

I include the entire original scope of Ukraine inside those borders.

We have a role to play in Europe but also in making sure the other players in the 'autocratic bloc' can't walk forward together because one or the other always has their pants around their ankles.

The Allies will win this one, too. Democracy is stronger, if you can keep it.

[Irish_Dem]

33. I am speechless at your response.

I can only encourage you to do some homework and educate yourself about reality.

[Red Mountain]

24. Doubtful.....

who would supply them? This isn't Korea 2.0.

Logistics.

[BootinUp]

8. They will still need artillery. I think this is just talk though. nt

[angrychair]

12. This is likely

The result of inaction by the House. Barring US military aid to Ukraine the EU cannot sit idle and must most to more offensive position or risk playing defense when an invasion happens

[maxsolomon]

18. Slovak PM talking out his ass:

"These topics," he said, "imply that a number of NATO and EU member states are considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis."

Oh, the topics IMPLY it?

[Irish_Dem]

27. NATO may have no choice if the US drops the ball on funding.

[brush]

35. It won't be NATO, but a possibe coalition of European nations as Ukraine is not...

a member of NATO. If it happens I wonder where that leaves the US?

The odd, unreliable man out, with a rep of abandoning its allies at critical thimes?

Thanks, repugs.

[Irish_Dem]

37. Yes of course, the US is seen as unreliable and untrustworthy.

Europe is going to have to fact facts. They cannot count on the US.
All it takes is one election and they have no ally.

Even with a Dem POTUS, Congress holds the purse strings.

Europe is going to have to step up to the plate and rely on itself.

Yes Putin has been very successful in damaging the US and western democracies.

[EndlessWire]

36. Well, it is interesting.

Slovak PM Fico is pro-Russia. Slovakia will not be participating. Why then, is he spilling the beans on what is being discussed at this defense meeting? It seems to me that Europe is very anxious over the possibility of Russia taking Ukraine. Something is going on. It's always good to have a plan that Trump doesn't know about, but why is this PM telling Putin?

They aren't talking money. They're talking troops. What does "bilateral basis" mean?

Wasn't it Sweden that just committed all of its artillery to Ukraine? That is momentous. Well, March 15-17 are the Russian elections. People are quietly keeping eyes on the Kerch Bridge. I don't think that Ukraine's war effort has failed at all. I am surprised that EU and NATO expected the war to be over so quickly, with victory to Ukraine. What, we didn't give them all the stuff they asked for in the beginning, which they needed, did we? And, now they want to plan in case Russia starts up with Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania--or Poland.

Well, at least we gave them "permission" to strike oil refineries, steel mills, and other assets inside Russia. I heard that Ukraine can now make some missiles on its own. Ukraine needs our help now--and Johnson sent the House on vacation. History will not be kind to him and the GOP. I am ashamed of them.