Foreign volunteers are far more useful and impactful in terms of their knowledge than their direct combat contribution. I remember seeing a BBC documentary on UK citizens volunteering to fight with the Kurds against ISIS. They took one look at a particular UK volunteer - a veteran in his 40s - and asked him to forget about dragging his greying ass into high intensity infantry combat and instead help train young Kurdish soldiers on the Milan missile system. They had plenty of missiles supplied by NATO, but the bottleneck was in training new operators. When NATO trains other nations on how to use their weapons, they train not the final operators, but a batch of high-quality guys (officers with some intellect, esp. training officers/warrant officers etc.) to create a
training cohort who's job is to train a bigger cohort of trainers while they also train actual end-users of the system. US veteran volunteers are training Ukrainians in the techniques and tactics required to get the most out of the Javelin missile system right now in Ukraine;
there's a big WSJ article about it.
So the copenicks can jerk their pricks all day long about one (1) sniper leaving the AO after six weeks in high intensity combat (which means he's definitely due for some R&R,) because it doesn't actually reflect where the
real impact of Western support lies. The West is helping Ukraine improve its armies' capabilities
at-scale, not with a handful of "special forces" that are only good for propaganda purposes - like those Chechen clowns hipfiring while Aloha Snackbar'ing as their President does drunken livestreams and prays at gas stations in Chechnya or whatever bullshit he's doing now.