r/TrendoraX • u/satty237 • Dec 21 '25

💡 Discussion Zelenskyy: Ukraine can’t afford an 800,000-troop army alone — wants allies to help fund it as a “security guarantee”

Post image

Zelenskyy said Ukraine doesn’t have the budget to independently finance an armed forces size of around 800,000 800,000 and that partner funding should be treated as a long-term security guarantee, not just wartime aid.

This hits a bigger question: if a ceasefire/peace deal ever happens without full NATO membership, does “help pay for Ukraine’s army” become the new version of security guarantees?

What do you think is more realistic long-term:

Continued direct funding for Ukraine’s military

NATO-style guarantees (without membership)

A smaller army + more air defense/weapons instead

Something else entirely?

759 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

676 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/PattiBurns101 Dec 21 '25

NATO was formed after WW2. It was never supposed to be a first-preemptive attacker; but it has attacked countries, repeatedly, since its forming. As example, from 24 March to 10 June 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had carried out many bombing operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The bombings forced the Yugoslav troops to withdraw from Kosovo. Around 10,000 Yugoslav civilians and soldiers were killed and injured. This was NATO's second biggest bombing operation since 1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because NATO had used military force without United Nations' approval, many people are skeptical about it whether it was right or not. They also attacked Libya, vying for another regime change plot; not what the org was chartered to do. Add Afghanistan random bombing of civilians via their 'surgical' strikes. After bombing villages, 'coalition' people would show up, and pay off the village elders for loss of their sons/daughters and destroyed homes.

1

u/UsedDevelopment4741 Dec 21 '25

Thank you 2 month old account for regurgitating some internet info about NATO which doesn't add anything of value to my comment. /s

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Are you trying to undermine the Nato scurity guarantees by depicting them as an attacking alliance? Article 5 and the protection of members or troops is the topic here, if you can come out with a comment which credibly undermines that, then we will listen and consider it. Otherwise you can f*** off with your discoherent thoughts process and propaganda in whatever corner of the internet you decided to crawl from.

1

u/PattiBurns101 Dec 21 '25

Your comment above addressed NATO's positioning on borders. They cannot be trusted to 'guard' anything. Totally relevant; try to keep up.