NATO/EU troops fighting in Ukraine by December 31, 2026?

Wamp wamp.

When? Where? Facts of Ukrainian can fire them?

NATO and EU troops fighting in Ukraine by 2025 is a serious concern, but their involvement could escalate the conflict beyond what the West is currently willing to support.

check out our discussion [link removed]

The Poles won't put up with this forever. We spoke about this the other night on the latest episode of our podcast.

would acitve combat aircraft operating in Ukrainian airspace qualify as yes?

true but still possible

I don’t necessarily disagree, but Alice Weidel as a source is just as trustworthy as Putin himself

honestly this is much more likely than Z resigning or Ukraine war being over before April 19th. All the zealous american geniuses should spend their enthusiasm here instead. I guess they don't because it's not something Trump talks about. But without the US support (which is as good as gone), and without a ceasefire (which is happening only in Neverland considering the extreme Russian - and US - rethoric) then the prospect of Europe engaging more directly in supporting Ukraine is becoming a lot less far fetched.

Alice weidel: “Taurus cannot be operated by any Ukrainians. German soldiers would have to be sent to Ukraine to train Taurus.”

this is simply false - south koreans have taurus and don't need any hand holding. Ukraine as already similar systems to Taurus like SCALP-EG and can fire them without french / Uk military personel

Germany has been in many countries since the 90s. In Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, certainly over 50 missions worldwide. But the real combat missions have only been since 1999 and the Yugoslav war.

Merz becomes the next German Chancellor and will supply taurus missiles to Ukraine. Taurus missiles require German soldiers to control the technology. These missiles cannot be controlled by Ukrainians with short training, which is why Scholz did not deliver them.

Happy to buy Yes here as a hedge against my life

if they're peacekeeping with flowers, there's no argument. If you're given guns and told to return fire when fired upon, I think SOME would say that's a combat role. We both agree that peacekeeping should "obviously" not resolve as YES. I just don't have as much faith in humanity that PolyM bettors would unanimously agree with us. Let's ask Gemini "is peacekeeping a combat or non-combat role?"...it says it's complex; some peacekeeping can be a non-combat role (eg monitoring a ceasefire), or it can be a combat role if the mandate includes eg protecting civilians and one party isn't cooperating with the peace process (as per Russia in every ceasefire thus far). This is the kind of ambiguity that would eg make me bet 100 instead of 1000. It would just be nice to request and receive clarification early on to avoid potential bs later on.

It is explicitely stated that it should be for combat related purposes during an ongoing conflict. Peacekeeping to enforce a ceasefire is litteraly the opposite.

the most likely reasons for NATO troops to be in Ukraine are intel, training, peacekeeping. Would have been nice to explicitly state where peacekeeping lies. But given the v aggressive "Yes" resolution examples, I think most UMA would resolve peacekeeping as No most of the time. Peacekeepers can only fight in self-defense...but if they were upholding any of the ceasefires we've had so far, absolutely they'd be fighting and if that happens, how will this resolve... I'd say No given the steer in the rules but I'd say absolutely there's a chance of a contingent of armchair-lawyers disputing. PolyM needs a mechanism to allow clarification of rules.

i hope this doesn't happen

sounds like a pretty "combat-related" activity to dig trenches, point arms at the russian border, place mines etc. as an active infantry personell. You‘ve seen some of the rule clarifications / disputes on here? Jesus.

"combat-related military purposes". Does peacekeeping sounds like combat to you? Jesus.