Joat42 wrote:The reason for the existence of many militaries isn't for defeating an attacker, it's to make an attack too costly or as some put it - it's for defensive reasons.
That means that military aid may tip the balance in such scenario, but it wont work against a determined attacker that's prepared to pay the butchers bill.
With all respect, but Ukrainean army as a "deterrence" against Russian military isn't even a bad joke. Recall their examples of utter military idiocy in 2014 - like when they started to advance along the Russian border, trying to encircle the rebellous regions, but did not bother to took any of high ground. As a result, the Ukrainean forces were stretched along the VERY long and VERY narrow corridor, which have un-friendly Russian board on one side and rebel-controlled heights along the other side. The disaster was imminent: the rebels just cut their supply routes, and then blocked the retreat.
Yes, they become better, but "better" doesn't means "good". Currently, Ukrainean army is a close analogue of Austro-Hungarian in WW1; poorly trained soldiers, drilled generally for trench warfare, and with rather ambigious morale. No ammount of propagnda could change the fact, that their "democratic, modern" government was in fact even more corrupt & less competent than the "bloody tyrant" they chase off in 2014. And neither Poroshenko nor Zelensky have any idea how to stop the war on the east.