Source:
Resolves YES if any NATO nation (excluding Ukraine, should it be added to NATO) sends official NATO troops OR its own militia to fight in Ukraine. Non-combat support or weapons do not count.
EDIT: question concerns deployments in 2024, but resolves 2025 so that info can come to light in case of major but covert deployment
1,000
3.00@aashiq would troops sent to Ukraine to train Ukranian troops count? Based on description I'm guessing no?
I also found an interesting Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/RosendorfStefan/status/1742596778183074196
To me it seems the evidence is quite good that British soldiers are programming the goals for air strikes.
"Its own militia" was just trying to address some kind of case where NATO repudiates a troop deployment but a member nation sends soldiers anyway without the auspices of NATO.
I don't think I count weapon system operators, but not totally sure. Case by case.
Re special forces, do you have any examples?
Re special forces, do you have any examples?
@PS (although I assume they're not fighting on the front, but rather providing something like security for Western assets or staff, training, etc.)
@PS Hmm what are they doing? Idk about resolving on the basis of "everyone knows". If you find somewhere vaguely reputable that says the special forces are operating in a combat role, I can go ahead and resolve this now!
@aashiq Of course this sort of depends on the quantity. If it's like one guy, i don't think that's in the spirit of the question.
@aashiq Just want to check that "Non-combat support or weapons do not count." means NATO soldiers there to train Ukrainian soldiers, provide security for embassies, that sort of thing doesn't count, right?
US special operations team working out of embassy in Ukraine: Sources
Officials emphasized that they are not in combat.
Same as PS said above:
(although I assume they're not fighting on the front, but rather providing something like security for Western assets or staff, training, etc.)
@jack Correct! The spirit of the question is: NATO countries send a bunch of troops over to directly shed blood to fight the Russians
I think a major difference between "official NATO troops" and militias/special ops etc, is that the former would be acknowledged by their country and NATO, while the latter won't. So even though "everyone knows" there are troops in Ukraine in all sorts of capacities it will not be on the MSM headlines. But you will hear it from anonymous sources like the one in FT mentioned above, or if you go on Russian propaganda channels you can see footage of dead combat troops from various NATO countries, or read about how they just destroyed 18 NATO military instructors in the Kharkhiv region with an air strike. (I'm just reinforcing the point made by others above, that its very hard to agree on whether the criteria "its own militias" is fulfilled. BTW, there are lots of serious patriotic and real American commentators saying that NATO has unofficial specialists in Ukraine. An example of a show where these voices can be heard is Judging Freedom; the commentators over there are former US army, former DOD, former chief of staff to the secretary of state C. Powell, former CIA daily brief deliverer to Pres. R. Reagan etc ("former" because they're all in their 80's; also, this means that they don't have to worry about their careers anymore).)