By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda stated that military allies supporting Ukraine should prepare for potential troop deployment within the country. Speaking at a virtual meeting of 31 supporting nations, Nausėda emphasized Lithuania’s willingness to provide troops and training facilities for the allied forces. He also insisted on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s involvement in future peace discussions and rejected the idea of pressuring Kyiv to cede territory. This call to action followed a meeting where leaders discussed the upcoming meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
Read the original article here
Kyiv’s supporters must be prepared for troop deployment in Ukraine, Lithuanian president says, and it’s a topic that’s stirring a lot of thought and emotion. This isn’t a call to arms in the aggressive sense, but more of a pragmatic assessment of what might be necessary to ensure Ukraine’s security and, potentially, bring this conflict to a swift conclusion. The idea, as it’s been floated, is that if a ceasefire were to occur, some European Union countries might consider sending peacekeeping forces. While the likelihood of this exact scenario unfolding is debatable, the mere mention of it highlights a significant shift in the conversation around the war.
It’s easy to toss around numbers, and the idea of 57 countries providing military support, with each potentially offering 5,000 troops, paints a picture of a formidable force. That could mean an army of 285,000 soldiers. Is this feasible? The argument is that providing 5,000 professional fighting troops isn’t an impossible feat for many nations. It’s less a question of military capability and more about navigating complex logistics and the political minefield. The proposal, if it were to be enacted, could be seen as a decisive move to bring the war to an end.
Of course, the mere thought of sending troops into Ukraine sparks a variety of reactions, from outright eagerness to deep skepticism. Some view it as a step towards ending the conflict swiftly. Others are wary of the potential for escalation and the complexities of coordinating troops from so many different nations. There’s also the very real question of whether such a force would be truly effective, particularly if Russia were to mobilize further. It’s a gamble, certainly, and one with potentially devastating consequences if not handled with extreme care. The idea of a ceasefire leading to a clash between these peacekeeping forces and the Russian military is a chilling possibility.
There’s a compelling argument that the involvement of the United States, given its military might, could make a significant difference in the war. It’s a point that gets to the heart of the matter: what would it take to tip the balance in Ukraine’s favor? The historical context of NATO’s involvement in the Iraq war suggests that such an operation could be carried out with minimal casualties, an assertion that deserves scrutiny. There’s no denying that a war with Russia is an entirely different proposition.
The practical challenges of such a deployment are significant. Imagine the logistical headache of integrating soldiers from 57 different countries, each with their own languages, cultures, and military systems. The chaos and potential for confusion are real, and the toll on human life could be considerable. Some sources have suggested that the direct involvement of the US, with its established military structure, would be needed to make a real difference, but it would be “easier said than done”.
There’s a strong sentiment of not wanting war, but there is also a deep yearning for freedom and a willingness to fight for it. The debate isn’t about advocating for war. It is about preparing for potential conflict. It’s about ensuring that the allies are not caught off guard, or unprepared, if the situation escalates further. This aligns with the idea of “Si vis pacem, para bellum” – “If you want peace, prepare for war.”
One of the points raised is that if the decision were to be made, sending a combination of professional soldiers would be vital. The key point is not to send a force of untrained conscripts but instead a group of highly trained and experienced soldiers. This would make the troops’ actions more efficient and strategic. Another factor is that Russia cannot afford for the war to end with losses and this may lead to escalation. Russia would be unwilling to lose their war effort.
The scale of the potential conflict is important. The prospect of daily bombardments of missiles and drones, and the possibility of tactical nuclear weapons, should not be taken lightly. It is hard to compare a war against Russia to a conflict in Iraq. One major worry of this proposal is the reaction of Russia, and whether it would increase the intensity and the magnitude of its attacks.