By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Defense Minister Denys Shmyhal has announced that Ukraine’s Armed Forces will not undergo a drastic reduction following the end of the war. The downsizing process will be gradual and carefully planned, due to Russia’s ongoing threat. Ukraine is currently in discussions with its international partners to determine the future structure and size of the military, emphasizing a professional, contract-based force. The exact number of troops remains under consideration, as the nation seeks to establish a contingent capable of reliably protecting the eastern flank of Europe and NATO.
Read the original article here
No drastic downsizing of Ukraine’s Armed Forces post-war, says Ukraine’s defence minister, a statement that makes perfect sense when you consider the long game. Let’s be honest, the future of Ukraine, at least for the foreseeable future, will be inextricably linked to its military strength. The idea of a scaled-down, demilitarized Ukraine after this conflict is simply unrealistic. The specter of Russia, a neighbor with expansionist tendencies, demands a strong deterrent.
And what does a strong deterrent look like? It means a robust, well-equipped military. While some might argue that Ukraine can’t compete in the high-end, expensive military hardware market, the reality is more nuanced. They’ve proven adept at producing cost-effective, practical military equipment. The focus on drones, for example, offers a powerful, and scalable, advantage on the modern battlefield. Quantity, as the conflict itself has shown, has a quality all its own.
The post-war Ukraine will likely have a defense industry focused on producing those kinds of things. They won’t have to compete with US-made stealth fighters, but will likely make equipment that is extremely appealing to the rest of the world. And because of that, Ukraine will be the spear tip forever pointed at Russia. Europe needs them to thrive, as the article states. The future isn’t just about military hardware; it’s about a holistic approach to defense that includes technological innovation, strategic alliances, and a willingness to adapt.
Of course, the West’s investment in this defense is another layer in this complicated situation. While there have been hundreds of billions of dollars in aid and weapons, there isn’t yet a large amount of reclaimed territory, as the article points out. The ongoing flow of support, however, makes it clear that a strong Ukrainian military is not just a national priority, but a strategic investment for the international community. It is expected, though, that the European allies can help even more with weapons manufacturing.
The truth is, a strong military is not about saving money. It’s about protecting national sovereignty and deterring future aggression. This reality is not lost on Ukraine’s defense minister. The decision not to downsize post-war reflects the complex security landscape. The presence of Russia, and the fact that any peace deals would be unlikely to be respected by Russia, necessitates a posture of strength.
And while some may point to the economic realities, the truth is that the world isn’t flat. The most advanced militaries produce the best technology, and that technology is worth a lot of money. They are also the only countries that can afford the expenses that go with creating those types of systems, and can export that system, making a decent profit. This isn’t just a Ukrainian problem; it’s a global one, where countries are forced to choose between building up their military or giving in to external forces.