Defense Minister calls on Britain, Canada and the U.S. to place soldiers on borders of Ukraine

[TR_123456]

Olexiy Reznikov believes that foreign soldiers should be stationed in territories that may be on the front lines during a possible invasion of the Russian Federation

Vice Prime Minister for the Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territories Oleksiy Reznikov

news.liga.net

Defense Minister Olexiy Reznikov called on the UK, Canada and the United States to deploy their troops in the south and east of Ukraine. This is stated in the message of The Globe and Mail.


Canada, the United States and Britain should jointly and swiftly provide military support to Ukraine in its standoff with Russia, Ukraine’s defence minister said in an interview, warning that steps to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading were necessary now because “it will be too late after.”


Oleksiy Reznikov said he detected a split within the NATO military alliance over how far to go in supporting Ukraine. Canada, the U.S., and Britain were more willing to challenge Mr. Putin’s aggressive behaviour, he said, while countries like Germany and France were hesitant because they were concerned about maintaining their economic relationships with Russia.

Reznikov, who was appointed defence minister last month by President Volodymyr Zelensky, called on “the Anglo-Saxon allies” to act outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, if necessary, in providing weapons and other support to Ukraine’s military. He said Ukraine’s land forces were battle-ready, but that the country needed to immediately upgrade its air defence, naval, and electronic warfare capabilities in the face of the threat posed by the massive Russian military force amassed near Ukraine’s borders.


Ukraine, he said, needed a “quick response” from its allies that would help it address a lack of anti-aircraft missiles, modern warplanes and naval craft, as well as electronic jamming equipment. But just as important, he said, would be Canadian, U.S. and British soldiers visibly deployed to positions near the frontline.

Defense Minister calls on Britain, Canada and the U.S. to place soldiers on borders of Ukraine

Olexiy Reznikov believes that foreign soldiers should be stationed in territories that may be on the front lines during a possible invasion of the Russian Federation

112.international

 

[RogerRanger]

Great lets send out tiny army and air force to get destroyed by the Russians, the major European land power. Reminds me of the massive British success stories of WW1 and WW2. I hope the Americans go in full blast and get destroyed by the Russians though.

 

[Anastasius]

Great lets send out tiny army and air force to get destroyed by the Russians, the major European land power. Reminds me of the massive British success stories of WW1 and WW2. I hope the Americans go in full blast and get destroyed by the Russians though.

Lol, America would annihilate Russia if we committed to a full-on war. Britain and the former Commonwealth states are no joke either.

 

[what]

Great lets send out tiny army and air force to get destroyed by the Russians, the major European land power. Reminds me of the massive British success stories of WW1 and WW2. I hope the Americans go in full blast and get destroyed by the Russians though.

Its a tripwire for the Russian, the idea is that they wouldnt cross the lines with foreign soldiers. They would risk it. Kinda like the Americans tried with Turkey in Syria.

 

[RogerRanger]

Lol, America would annihilate Russia if we committed to a full-on war. Britain and the former Commonwealth states are no joke either.

Hahaha. No, why do you think you are trying to get the Ukrainians to fight the Russians for you? Your army would be rinsed in a land war in Europe, you have no experiences or understanding of mass land wars in Europe. What the American strategy is to get other land based regional forces to soak up the land campaign and the Americans come in with air and naval power, some special forces and maybe a few marine brigades. That's been your strategy and it has worked very well, that was Britain's strategy until really second Boer war. So you would be very foolish to get directly involved in a land war on Eur-Asia. Just as the British were.

The problem for the Americans in a war with Russia is you can't access the Russian theater using your air force and navy, the Russians will use their anti-access area denial capabilities to make it not logistically feasible. The US put 700,000 men into Iraq, you couldn't support more than an army sized force in the Russian theater given your diminishing capabilities and the logistical constrains. Then you have the same problem the British had in WW2, a land war in Europe and a naval war in Asia. Nothing good comes from a war with Russia, I can understand a naval/air war with China, but a land war in Eastern Europe would be a disaster for the Americans, like it was for the British. It would bankrupt you.

Also the British military is bad if you want to go to war with Russia, it has no armour capabilities, not air defences, no heavy artillery. The British have excellent elite forces like the para's and marines, and special forces like the SAS and SBS. We have a small very capable navy. Our air force has very few ground attack air craft, only air defence fighter and limited AEW and heavy life capabilities. We basically have a support military for the Americans. The British army is in the worst state it has been in since it got wiped out in northern France. So the Canadians/New Zealand and Australian forces are no different to the British just smaller with less logistical capacity.

No nation other than Turkey 'who wouldn't be dumb enough to go to war with Russia for the Americans' in NATO has a proper army. This is the main weakness with American grand-strategy, they don't want another naval or land power to become dominant, so they cap other nations defence spending at 2% of GDP, and then those nations military's degrade to such a point where they are of no use against a pier power like Russia or China. Which has happened over the past 30 years. And if any nation in NATO works to build that capability the Americans would perceive it as a threat and shut it down. Like if the British decided to build a 250 ship navy and 250,000 man army with full modern capacity independent of the Americans, the Americans would lose it and within 6 months there would 3 American carrier groups off the coast of Britain with 3 American amphibious groups making sure Britain changes it policy. Its the same if Poland decided to build a modern army and air force, which would then force Sweden and German to do the same, then the French and Dutch would follow, then the Italians and Spanish. The Americans like the Europeans and Asians being weak and dependent on them. Mostly Britain though, as the American elite has always hated Britain and views Britain as the only nation capable of attacking the American core in the North east of the nation. I view the US as Britain special enemy.

 

[RogerRanger]

Its a tripwire for the Russian, the idea is that they wouldnt cross the lines with foreign soldiers. They would risk it. Kinda like the Americans tried with Turkey in Syria.

Can you explain your point here, as I don't understand what you are meaning. Thanks.

 

[Anastasius]

Hahaha. No, why do you think you are trying to get the Ukrainians to fight the Russians for you? Your army would be rinsed in a land war in Europe, you have no experiences or understanding of mass land wars in Europe. What the American strategy is to get other land based regional forces to soak up the land campaign and the Americans come in with air and naval power, some special forces and maybe a few marine brigades. That's been your strategy and it has worked very well, that was Britain's strategy until really second Boer war. So you would be very foolish to get directly involved in a land war on Eur-Asia. Just as the British were.

The problem for the Americans in a war with Russia is you can't access the Russian theater using your air force and navy, the Russians will use their anti-access area denial capabilities to make it not logistically feasible. The US put 700,000 men into Iraq, you couldn't support more than an army sized force in the Russian theater given your diminishing capabilities and the logistical constrains. Then you have the same problem the British had in WW2, a land war in Europe and a naval war in Asia. Nothing good comes from a war with Russia, I can understand a naval/air war with China, but a land war in Eastern Europe would be a disaster for the Americans, like it was for the British. It would bankrupt you.

Also the British military is bad if you want to go to war with Russia, it has no armour capabilities, not air defences, no heavy artillery. The British have excellent elite forces like the para's and marines, and special forces like the SAS and SBS. We have a small very capable navy. Our air force has very few ground attack air craft, only air defence fighter and limited AEW and heavy life capabilities. We basically have a support military for the Americans. The British army is in the worst state it has been in since it got wiped out in northern France. So the Canadians/New Zealand and Australian forces are no different to the British just smaller with less logistical capacity.

No nation other than Turkey 'who wouldn't be dumb enough to go to war with Russia for the Americans' in NATO has a proper army. This is the main weakness with American grand-strategy, they don't want another naval or land power to become dominant, so they cap other nations defence spending at 2% of GDP, and then those nations military's degrade to such a point where they are of no use against a pier power like Russia or China. Which has happened over the past 30 years. And if any nation in NATO works to build that capability the Americans would perceive it as a threat and shut it down. Like if the British decided to build a 250 ship navy and 250,000 man army with full modern capacity independent of the Americans, the Americans would lose it and within 6 months there would 3 American carrier groups off the coast of Britain with 3 American amphibious groups making sure Britain changes it policy. Its the same if Poland decided to build a modern army and air force, which would then force Sweden and German to do the same, then the French and Dutch would follow, then the Italians and Spanish. The Americans like the Europeans and Asians being weak and dependent on them. Mostly Britain though, as the American elite has always hated Britain and views Britain as the only nation capable of attacking the American core in the North east of the nation. I view the US as Britain special enemy.

We aren't trying to get Ukrainians to fight the Russians. If anything, it's Ukraine trying to drag everyone else in because Russia won't leave them the f**k alone. US land forces can wipe the floor with any other land force on the planet. Not even kidding, watch any footage of US operatives in action. They put literally everyone else to shame, Europe's armies (including that of Turkey) were all trained according to the US model. Even Russian special forces are adopting US tech and strategies because the superiority is generally undeniable.

"B-b-but Vietnam, b-b-but Afghanistan..."

Those were political failures. In terms of actual engagements, the US crushed all opposition pretty much effortlessly and the kill:death ratio is so lopsided in favor of the US it's ridiculous. The one time in recent memory that Russian land forces faced off against American land forces in Syria, it was a steamroll. And we can absolutely access the Russian theater. We don't even need to attack from the west, we can use Japan as a launch point to go in from the east. Russian missile defenses are insanely outranged by US tech, again, look at Syria.

Britain wasn't even engaged in Eastern Europe in WW1 or WW2 if that's what you're hinting at. If you're talking about the Crimean War, that was a disaster for the Russians. When Brits talk about what a waste that war was, they mean that it was fought essentially over nothing - the objectives were not clearly defined, since the Ottomans didn't need help pushing back the Russians by the time the French and the British got there.

"No nation other than Turkey 'who wouldn't be dumb enough to go to war with Russia for the Americans' in NATO has a proper army."

I'll believe that when Turkish land forces can wipe out dozens of PKK combatants in one operation without giving decent casualties or having Turkish soldiers straight up trying to flee. Believe me, I've seen enough videos of the good and bad of the Turkish army. Turkish land forces are not one of the best in NATO. Largest perhaps but numbers alone do not make up for debatable quality. Turkey's strengths lie elsewhere.

The US doesn't care about other land powers becoming dominant. The only reason the 2% limit exists is so the US can sell tons of goodies to Europe but otherwise we don't interfere in the slightest in Europe's military projects. If anything, there are now complaints that most European nations don't even spend 2% but way, way below that. And your views on Britain might have been legit...in the late 18th/early 19th centuries. We live in the 21st. US has way stronger ties with Britain and the rest of the former British Empire than you think - it was literally born of Britain.

 

[RogerRanger]

We aren't trying to get Ukrainians to fight the Russians. If anything, it's Ukraine trying to drag everyone else in because Russia won't leave them the f**k alone. US land forces can wipe the floor with any other land force on the planet. Not even kidding, watch any footage of US operatives in action. They put literally everyone else to shame, Europe's armies (including that of Turkey) were all trained according to the US model. Even Russian special forces are adopting US tech and strategies because the superiority is generally undeniable.

"B-b-but Vietnam, b-b-but Afghanistan..."

Those were political failures. In terms of actual engagements, the US crushed all opposition pretty much effortlessly and the kill:death ratio is so lopsided in favor of the US it's ridiculous. The one time in recent memory that Russian land forces faced off against American land forces in Syria, it was a steamroll. And we can absolutely access the Russian theater. We don't even need to attack from the west, we can use Japan as a launch point to go in from the east. Russian missile defenses are insanely outranged by US tech, again, look at Syria.

Britain wasn't even engaged in Eastern Europe in WW1 or WW2 if that's what you're hinting at. If you're talking about the Crimean War, that was a disaster for the Russians. When Brits talk about what a waste that war was, they mean that it was fought essentially over nothing - the objectives were not clearly defined, since the Ottomans didn't need help pushing back the Russians by the time the French and the British got there.

"No nation other than Turkey 'who wouldn't be dumb enough to go to war with Russia for the Americans' in NATO has a proper army."

I'll believe that when Turkish land forces can wipe out dozens of PKK combatants in one operation without giving decent casualties or having Turkish soldiers straight up trying to flee. Believe me, I've seen enough videos of the good and bad of the Turkish army. Turkish land forces are not one of the best in NATO. Largest perhaps but numbers alone do not make up for debatable quality. Turkey's strengths lie elsewhere.

The US doesn't care about other land powers becoming dominant. The only reason the 2% limit exists is so the US can sell tons of goodies to Europe but otherwise we don't interfere in the slightest in Europe's military projects. If anything, there are now complaints that most European nations don't even spend 2% but way, way below that. And your views on Britain might have been legit...in the late 18th/early 19th centuries. We live in the 21st. US has way stronger ties with Britain and the rest of the former British Empire than you think - it was literally born of Britain.

I was talking about British involvement on the western front against the major European land powers. We utterly failed.

The US put the Ukrainian government in power and supported it, it is taking all these actions for the Americans. The Americans build good technology and are good tactically, however the logistics of the Americans moving entire armies to eastern Europe is feasible. It was barely feasible during the cold war when the US military and nato was much larger. If the US attacks eastern Russia, then the would force the Chinese to attack the US.

You may have a point about the Turkish army, however they are certainly better and bigger than anyone else in NATO. Which was my point.

The British learned in the Napoleonic wars that its no good controlling the worlds seas if you can't access the resources and ports on land to trade. The Americans have the same issues, if a great land power dominates Europe and Asia. The UK is a dominion of the US, and we have our economy, military, political class and culture subsumed to the Americans. No America wasn't born of Britain, America is British, the Americans are British people. Who for religious and political reasons with foreign backing rebelled against the British Crown and worked for 200 years to crush the English power in the Atlantic. Britain is a conquered and subjugated nation within the American Empire. The is now an American faction running Britain, before it was the EU faction. There hasn't been a nationalist or independent government in Britain since Eden in 1957 who was forced from office by the Americans. We don't like being transverted by the US, we liked being English or British, with out own economy, military, culture and political elite. Ukraine is now in a similar subsumed position, as Russia was in the 90's.

 

[Anastasius]

I was talking about British involvement on the western front against the major European land powers. We utterly failed.

The US put the Ukrainian government in power and supported it, it is taking all these actions for the Americans. The Americans build good technology and are good tactically, however the logistics of the Americans moving entire armies to eastern Europe is feasible. It was barely feasible during the cold war when the US military and nato was much larger. If the US attacks eastern Russia, then the would force the Chinese to attack the US.

You may have a point about the Turkish army, however they are certainly better and bigger than anyone else in NATO. Which was my point.

The British learned in the Napoleonic wars that its no good controlling the worlds seas if you can't access the resources and ports on land to trade. The Americans have the same issues, if a great land power dominates Europe and Asia. The UK is a dominion of the US, and we have our economy, military, political class and culture subsumed to the Americans. No America wasn't born of Britain, America is British, the Americans are British people. Who for religious and political reasons with foreign backing rebelled against the British Crown and worked for 200 years to crush the English power in the Atlantic. Britain is a conquered and subjugated nation within the American Empire. The is now an American faction running Britain, before it was the EU faction. There hasn't been a nationalist or independent government in Britain since Eden in 1957 who was forced from office by the Americans. We don't like being transverted by the US, we liked being English or British, with out own economy, military, culture and political elite. Ukraine is now in a similar subsumed position, as Russia was in the 90's.

Britain actually did fairly well on the Western Front. It basically saved France in WW1 from being steamrolled in a few weeks and lead the combined arms operations during the Hundred Days offensive where the Germans were completely driven back. In WW2, aside from the initial early war defeats where Britain failed to save France before they capitulated, post-Battle-of-Britain, they kept the Germans on the back foot. In Africa, the British were winning even before the US got involved.

Ah, I see, you're taking Russian propaganda at face value. I suggest you take a look at what happened in Ukraine politically since 2014. The US doesn't really have all that much invested in Ukraine. In fact, it's Ukraine that's practically begging for NATO to jump in, everyone else is more or less "yeeeah, maybe not". I think you heavily overestimate how much China likes Russia. They seem them as a potential rival and don't really like having to rely on Russia for natural resources. They'd like to have those for themselves.

I don't think so, Turkey is strong but NATO has a number of fairly strong countries. Turkey's infantry issues are, funnily enough, kind of similar to the ones the Azerbaijani army has to deal with albeit not to the same degree.

Controlling the world's seas AND land, however, does grant you the ability to strike anywhere in the world very quickly. The US outranks virtually everyone else in that regard and in a hypothetical war, Russia would have nowhere to break out to. They'd be surrounded. The British and American elite is intertwined, you are correct. Where you are incorrect is thinking that this means Britain and America are opposed. They are part of the whole. America has always supported Britain over virtually everyone else in Europe since the 20th century.

 

[Ryder]

Hahaha. No, why do you think you are trying to get the Ukrainians to fight the Russians for you? Your army would be rinsed in a land war in Europe, you have no experiences or understanding of mass land wars in Europe. What the American strategy is to get other land based regional forces to soak up the land campaign and the Americans come in with air and naval power, some special forces and maybe a few marine brigades. That's been your strategy and it has worked very well, that was Britain's strategy until really second Boer war. So you would be very foolish to get directly involved in a land war on Eur-Asia. Just as the British were.

The problem for the Americans in a war with Russia is you can't access the Russian theater using your air force and navy, the Russians will use their anti-access area denial capabilities to make it not logistically feasible. The US put 700,000 men into Iraq, you couldn't support more than an army sized force in the Russian theater given your diminishing capabilities and the logistical constrains. Then you have the same problem the British had in WW2, a land war in Europe and a naval war in Asia. Nothing good comes from a war with Russia, I can understand a naval/air war with China, but a land war in Eastern Europe would be a disaster for the Americans, like it was for the British. It would bankrupt you.

Also the British military is bad if you want to go to war with Russia, it has no armour capabilities, not air defences, no heavy artillery. The British have excellent elite forces like the para's and marines, and special forces like the SAS and SBS. We have a small very capable navy. Our air force has very few ground attack air craft, only air defence fighter and limited AEW and heavy life capabilities. We basically have a support military for the Americans. The British army is in the worst state it has been in since it got wiped out in northern France. So the Canadians/New Zealand and Australian forces are no different to the British just smaller with less logistical capacity.

No nation other than Turkey 'who wouldn't be dumb enough to go to war with Russia for the Americans' in NATO has a proper army. This is the main weakness with American grand-strategy, they don't want another naval or land power to become dominant, so they cap other nations defence spending at 2% of GDP, and then those nations military's degrade to such a point where they are of no use against a pier power like Russia or China. Which has happened over the past 30 years. And if any nation in NATO works to build that capability the Americans would perceive it as a threat and shut it down. Like if the British decided to build a 250 ship navy and 250,000 man army with full modern capacity independent of the Americans, the Americans would lose it and within 6 months there would 3 American carrier groups off the coast of Britain with 3 American amphibious groups making sure Britain changes it policy. Its the same if Poland decided to build a modern army and air force, which would then force Sweden and German to do the same, then the French and Dutch would follow, then the Italians and Spanish. The Americans like the Europeans and Asians being weak and dependent on them. Mostly Britain though, as the American elite has always hated Britain and views Britain as the only nation capable of attacking the American core in the North east of the nation. I view the US as Britain special enemy.

Didnt the British have long range bombers like the Vulcan during the Cold War?

Crazy to think how the British had armed forces that was on par with the Americans and the Russians.

I mean the British even made Vtol to be used on jets for goodness sake.

 

[RogerRanger]

Didnt the British have long range bombers like the Vulcan during the Cold War?

Crazy to think how the British had armed forces that was on par with the Americans and the Russians.

I mean the British even made Vtol to be used on jets for goodness sake.

Yes we did, we also had our own MPA aircraft which would have been the best in the world, the British government scrapped it in 2010. So we buy from the Americans.

100 years ago we had the best ships, aircraft, armies in the world, over the next 40 years we slowly gave everything we had to the Americans. We fought a dozen counter-communism conflicts in the old Empire, winning all of them, just to give them independence because the Americans and Soviets didn't want the competition. We were building the best jet aircraft in the world in the 50's, gave the whole industry over to the Americans. For about 20 years after WW2 Britain had the third best military in the world independent of the Americans.

 

[Ryder]

Yes we did, we also had our own MPA aircraft which would have been the best in the world, the British government scrapped it in 2010. So we buy from the Americans.

100 years ago we had the best ships, aircraft, armies in the world, over the next 40 years we slowly gave everything we had to the Americans. We fought a dozen counter-communism conflicts in the old Empire, winning all of them, just to give them independence because the Americans and Soviets didn't want the competition. We were building the best jet aircraft in the world in the 50's, gave the whole industry over to the Americans. For about 20 years after WW2 Britain had the third best military in the world independent of the Americans.

Thats pretty interesting and sad. British were top notch over time they sold everything and the government did lots of military cuts.

The British also had lots of defence companies now today its BAE Systems only.

 

[what]

Can you explain your point here, as I don't understand what you are meaning. Thanks.

In my own words:
Any, even low, presence of US, UK military at the border will make the Russian avoid attacking there because of the implications. If foreign forces are killed, it will lead to more involvement, maybe even direct involvement from the mentioned parties. Basically, the soldiers would be a human shield for the Ukrainian forces. If you want to attack Ukraine, you will have to be okay with killing Yanks and the consequences of that.

 

[RogerRanger]

In my own words:
Any, even low, presence of US, UK military at the border will make the Russian avoid attacking there because of the implications. If foreign forces are killed, it will lead to more involvement, maybe even direct involvement from the mentioned parties. Basically, the soldiers would be a human shield for the Ukrainian forces. If you want to attack Ukraine, you will have to be okay with killing Yanks and the consequences of that.

Yes that likely what the Ukrainians and NATO would expect, but I think this is too important for the Russians, they would go to war over this issue against NATO.

 

[RogerRanger]

Thats pretty interesting and sad. British were top notch over time they sold everything and the government did lots of military cuts.

The British also had lots of defence companies now today its BAE Systems only.

Yeah its like Grave Street families before CJ left, running stuff and then it all went down hill. Now we are suck with OG loc and Big Smoke and Big Bear is cleaning some drug pushers house for his daily fix.

 

[what]

Yes that likely what the Ukrainians and NATO would expect, but I think this is too important for the Russians, they would go to war over this issue against NATO.

Even if the west would not get involved with minimal risk, like supplying ATGM etc. The resulting sanctions would cripple Russia. I dont expect any major escalation.

 

[RogerRanger]

Even if the west would not get involved with minimal risk, like supplying ATGM etc. The resulting sanctions would cripple Russia. I dont expect any major escalation.

Yes I agree. I don't expect a war. Mainly because the Russians aren't interested in a war and aren't pushing for one. Also the sanctions would have basically no effect on Russia in terms of their ability to conduct a war. And ATGM operated by people who aren't experienced compared to the Russians.