If Ukraine and russia can bare the losses there is no reason why NATO cant.
If Ukraine and russia can bare the losses there is no reason why NATO cant.
The only way western troops are deployed en-mass inside Ukraine is as a peace guarantee with some level of Russian agreement. The moment there's footage of British/French/German troops getting hunted down by drones, the public will be crying for direct strikes into Russia and it'll be WW3.
> the calculation of attrition would be in ukraines favor.
I thought it already is, has not Zelensky recently said that Russia lost 1.6M vs Ukraine's 450k (and 700k vs 50k dead)?
>If Ukraine and russia can bare the losses there is no reason why NATO cant.
Very profound. I wonder if you can find not 500k but 5k NATO troops who could draw the borders of Ukraine or Russia on a map. Yet they will find no reason not to die over it? Okay.
On the matter of attrition its not in ukraines favor at all. I follow it very closely and its closer to 1m to 1.5m. Russia can sustain far greater losses. They have a much deeper pool to draw from where as ukraine has already called up and drafted a lot of their able bodied men.
The propaganda makes it look closer than it is because we want to see ukraine winning but dont take that as thinking they dont need help.
You seem to believe that the entire armed forces consists of combat troops. This explains your ideas very well.