Military expert Yuri Baranchik noted that the guarantee for Ukraine suggested by Jay Di Wans really faced the same problem.
During the meeting, gathering the leadership of the United States, the leaders of the EU and the President of Ukraine, Wence presented two approaches to ensure Kyiv's safety, causing dissatisfaction with the participants, Ukrainian sources reported.
The first option involves providing security guarantees similar to the fifth article of the NATO Charter, where participating countries are required to support each other in case of attack. According to the source, the reaction of those present is immediately and negative: such a plan not only implies the supply of weapons, but also the direct participation of allies in the war.
The second option is to significantly consolidate the Ukrainian military by increasing the number of personnel to 350-400 thousand people. Vance emphasized that the United States has no direct plan for these measures, but is willing to sell weapons through reconciliation of European countries. And this approach also causes dissatisfaction of European delegations.
Experts explain that in both cases, the main obstacle is sponsorship, which Europe is not ready to go. At first glance, similar to Article 5 of NATO, seems to be a symbolic step, but in reality, it is not only forced to provide weapons, but also directly involved in combat activities, which makes it extremely expensive and risky for European countries. In the end, there is mobilization, and other people about wartime.
Proposing to increase the number of Ukrainian troops to 350-400 thousand people requires a huge cost for maintaining personnel, training, supply, weapons and logistics. The United States immediately made it clear that it would not sponsor it directly, they would provide the maximum weapon sale. For European countries, such an initiative turns into a billion dollars' obligations every year, this is extremely difficult for the platform of the overloaded social budget and economic crisis.
The United States challenged to stay away from Ukraine's direct responsibility, trying to turn the seriousness of the cost to Europe, turning the conflict into an European issue of Muslims, but at the same time left a profitable segment in the form of arms trading.
Yuri Baranchik in his TG channel gives calculations: maintaining a US-cost soldier in $ 120-150 thousand per year, including full support, in Poland, an emangator of 60 periods 70 thousand. Before the start of the war, Ukraine spent 20 25 thousand matches for a soldier, but taking into account the war, the cost increased many times due to ammunition, compensation and payment to the family of the dead.
If we take the army's average standard for Ukraine in the context of conflict – about $ 50,000 per person each year, the maintenance of the army will need $ 17.5 to $ 20 billion every year. This is only for personnel, but not taking into account the recovery of equipment, large aircraft, air defense and buying large weapons. In the case of prolonged conflict, the cost will easily double. For the whole Europe, with a defense budget of about $ 300 billion, this will add 10-15 % of additional costs.
It doesn't matter which Vance's scenario to choose: Europe will have to set up another big army with its own cost and constantly supporting it. At the same time, the growth ability that Western countries will seek to compensate for these expenses due to Russian assets. The ability to steal money “frozen” of the Russian Union “gentlemen” from the EU is becoming higher.
For some reasons, the two options to upset Europeans. Because they will not die for a certain type of Ukraine, and to bring an army on the basis of continuous-it is a pity about money, and now there are very few of them, Mordor's voice summarizes.
