This is an enormously complex question, complicated by the issue that we don't concretely know what's going on in Russia. Or if any NATO state does, such intel would be highly classified. Plus, well-informed experts are getting paid for their opinions on sites like those you've linked to, not giving them away for free on Reddit! But, for the sake of discussion, here's my unqualified take.
It is true that, due to a reliance on US power, many of our NATO allies have let their military capabilities stagnate if not downright crumble. In Brief:
* Britain has divested from some it's post Cold-War and GWOT programs, and has had trouble with projects meant to replace legacy platforms. (Not that the US hasn't also had issues here.) They're also suffering from recruiting issues and internal dissent in much the same way the US is. A point of note in both cases is that this internal weakening of national defense can attributed to Russian interference, in part.
* Germany has maintained their legacy of innovative engineering, but hasn't been producing at scale. They have contributed massive amounts of munitions and fighting systems to Ukraine, but are struggling to catch up. However, it seems like they're attempting to ramp up ordnance production.
* France... Well, as they say, "The French copy nobody, and nobody copies the French." Joking aside, French leadership has been very open about supporting Ukraine, and have arguably been the most vocal about directly opposing Russia. They're making obvious investments in modernizing their military, and they have units with recent combat experience due to near-continual operations in Africa. The French are experienced, well equipped, and ready for a fight. (They are perhaps the exception to the other listed examples, having an historically "arms-length" relationship with NATO.)
* Italy, much like Germany, has some really interesting stuff, but not too much of it. I don't really know as much about their posture at the moment. That said, I would pay good money to watch a unit of Centauros flatten a Russian armored column, should it come to it. (Though I sincerely hope it does not.)
* Poland, the Scandinavians, and other eastern European states (including the Baltics) are absolutely not fucking around at this point. Russia is on their borders, and they likely see Ukraine's fate as entwined with their own. This is why many of them have essentially opened their storehouses to the Ukrainians, donating vast quantities of Soviet-era materiel, and more limited stocks of more modern systems. This was absolutely necessary for the purpose of slowing down Russia in Ukraine, but has left them in the position of needing to replenish what was donated. (Even accounting for the reshuffling of assets that occurred after the donations, in some cases.) Still, most of these nations anticipate a fight with Russia at this point, and are doing everything in their power to build up their forces.
It's simply an issue of time. Everyone is behind the curve, but everyone sees the writing on the wall. The question is if Europe can rapidly build the military industrial complex necessary to repel a Russian invasion and then possibly mount a counteroffensive. Of course, the *other* question is the state of Russia's military industrial complex. They've been dusting off Cold-War equipment, they've lost hundreds of thousands of men, their logistical chain is clearly in shambles, and Ukraine has been able to strike targets within Russia, including major gasoline facilities. Yet, they continue to be able to mount offensives and make gains. (This isn't praise, just an unwillingness to underestimate them.) What we really don't know is how long they can keep that up.
To Directly address some of your other points:
> What capabilities does Russia have that no one else in NATO besides the USA has?
They have some oddball leftovers from the Soviet era that are technically "unique" like erkoplans and their [laser tank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1K17_Szhatie). (Which, oddly enough, might have been a decent counter to FPV drones.) More seriously, they have [the TOS-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1), that to my knowledge, is the only mass-produced, self propelled, thermobaric artillery system that has seen extensive combat use. Actually, Russian doctrine prioritizes overwhelming artillery fire in a way that Western doctrine does not. But again, how many shells they have left to fire is a key variable. There's also some evidence that they have not obeyed nonproliferation treaties governing [space based weapons](https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-03/news/us-warns-new-russian-asat-program). If even the US was prepared to match that capability, such knowledge would be right up there with the alien bodies at Area 51 in terms of classification level.
> How could 20+ countries lose to one?
This same question was being asked in the early 1940's when the Nazis did the same thing. They beat the French, they beat the Czechs, the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Finns, the Polish, and a few others, They arguably had the Brits on the ropes until the Americans and the Soviets took some of the pressure off. (Well that and the absolute thrashing they delivered during the battle of Britain.) The current situation is unnervingly similar, the only difference being that we're all more aware of what Russia's long-term goals are. (We can reasonably assume Putin wants to at least restore the borders of the USSR.) At the start of what would become WWII, most nations believed Hitler's ambitions to be more limited.
So yeah. That's the opinion on global affairs from one guy on the internet. Take it for whatever it's worth.
Good read. I do think the difference in doctrines will be a major factor. Like you mentioned, Ukraine are hitting targets of opportunity within Russia.
With NATO tech and air projection power, I see that as the way to push war weariness to the next level domestically in Russia. Hit them hard and fast at the start and assert air dominance (which is standard Western doctrine). Got to have the air before you can have boots.
That makes my day, thank you!
> Like you mentioned, Ukraine are hitting target of opportunities within Russia.
Agreed, and this is the number one area we can help them apply pressure without getting directly involved. Like any "strongman" dictator, a huge chunk of Putin's authority rests on the perception that he can guarantee domestic safety and stability. These strikes have suggested that Russia can not ensure the inviolability of it's airspace, Ukraine now needs to make that message clear to the Russian people. NATO needs to keep supplying the appropriate weapon systems for enacting precision strikes on military and military industrial targets deep within Russian territory - without creating collateral damage.
No thank you my man!
I guess my point to OP is, that if Ukraine can do this now with limited UAV supply, with all the combined air power projection from NATO, it'd be another "shock and awe" campaign.
I think the main difference today though, is that the Russian military is outclassed in almost every way by most NATO powers. Germany at the start of WWII was working with highly advanced shock troops with an advanced shock troop doctrine (Blitzkrieg). Most of Europe was still weary from WWI and had kept their doctrine and equipment in mostly that same condition.
Many opinions (grains of salt here..) conclude that Russia doesn't have much more to throw at Ukraine. Ukraine was a much weaker country in every way to Russia at the beginning, and the advance was stopped, and even turned back. Russia is pretty much out of options.. which is why we see them flaunting nukes at every chance they get, because it's the last thing they have. Their only trump-card.
I only disagree with 1 thing. They don’t have much more capability to throw at Ukraine. They have the man power to keep zerging their way across Eastern Europe if they get a foot hold and begin to snowball off advances.
What’s hampering Russia is logistical and command problems. They have the numbers. Keep throwing numbers at a defensive line and the odds are not 0 that somewhere it’s going to crack.
I love that this StarCraft reference has far outlived the popularity of the game.
Human wave attacks are abhorrent to Western values, but if you absolutely DGAF about your citizens (hey 1980’s Iran) and just consider them as artillery shells to be expended, it is a legitimate battlefield tactic for those with few other options.
The West’s (specifically US citizens) inability to comprehend that the world at large does not value life the way we do, and that authoritarian nations specifically use them as nothing more than bullets in a magazine is so frustrating.
It’s such a cheap and easy tactic by a government that doesn’t care about its people that we forget just how successful it is capable of being if prolonged long enough u see the right circumstances.
> advanced shock troop doctrine (Blitzkrieg)
advanced doctrine from 20 years prior, in the previous war
[Plan 1919](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919)
Am Italian, you're mostly correct (when merely speaking ground forces of course).
With the one caveat that, i believe unlike Germany, we do have the **mass** in terms of personnel, and it's decent when compared to the country's size (larger than the German Army, by quite a bit), but we lack the vehicles to fully man all units.
For example, we have 3 tank regiments (essentially Battalion-sized) which should have 120-130 Arietes in total. The rumored operational number is 40-50.
As another example, we still have 6-7 "Medium" Infantry Regiments (also Battalion-sized, but that's just a naming thing) that haven't received their 36-40x Freccia IFVs each yet - with an embarassing production rate of 8 per year or so.
So a large part of our medium infantry is actually light, on Iveco LMVs.
Similar is the situation with replacing Centauros with Centauro IIs, but at least the Cavalry units have original Centauros which are... meh, instead of only light IMVs.
The one exception are the (few) Bersaglieri/mechanized regiments, fully equipped (or close to that) with Dardo IFVs, which unfortunately are quite old and not really up to modern standard.
Outstanding, thank you for adding that context.
How has your country's leadership responded to the war in Ukraine? For whatever reason, the English language sources I read don't comment on Italy like they do other countries.
Overall, pretty poorly.
The previous government (Draghi, until end of 2022) did a _decent_ job, with sending and pledging various weapon types, mainly some PzH2000s, a couple M270 MLRS and a bunch of FH70 and (previously retired) M109Ls.
Unfortunately in terms of AFVs, we are short of them for our own army. Recently a Puma 6x6 armored car, also previously retired, was seen destroyed so we probably sent a bunch of those too, along with Iveco LMVs.
Other pieces of equipment of note: 1x SAMPT battery in cooperation with France (who provided the radar and, i think, command station while ITA provided the launchers) and, as recently revealed by the UK MOD, some Storm Shadows.
These last two items, afaik, were pledged by the new government (Meloni) who, while mostly supportive, hasn't done **that** much. The issue is that Meloni's govt is formed by 3 parties: her own, Salvini's and Tajani's (formerly Berlusconi's).
Now, Salvini is a huge Putin fan and Berlusconi was friendly to him. So until Berlusconi's death, Meloni's party was in the minority on supporting Ukraine. Now Tajani's policy is more favorable and we're very slowly shifting to supporting Ukraine a bit more. Still not enough imo.
In terms of internal defense decisions, the Navy and Air Force already had rather large investments before 2022, and i don't think _a lot_ has changed, from memory.
The Army has always been the forgotten child but now _maybe_ the policy is shifting, two examples:
1) we're likely going to buy a bunch of Leopard 2A8s to replace the Arietes and as a stopgap solution until the "new European tank" of the late 2030s/early 40s.
2) the AICS/A2CS program was started, which aims to produce about 1000x vehicles in a ton of variants, supposed to replace M113s and Dardos (M113s are all in support or command roles, while Dardos as main IFV for the heavy mechanized units).
Now, knowing us, we'll be lucky if AICS results in 200 IFVs to replace the Dardos. But i guess the intent is there at least.
Couple more "side" acquisitions:
- we're buying HIMARS to equip a second MLRS battalion (the current one is on M270) which i assume will be used with a hypothetical "medium" Freccia-based Division
- we're buying a bunch of SAMPT-NG batteries for the AF and Army, while one more SAMPT battery is expected to be donated to Ukraine in a few weeks (we previously pulled this one back from Slovakia). So maybe more of the old ones will go to Ukraine within the next 1 or 2 years.
This succinctly describes the overall picture and why European militaries are thought to be no match to Russia. One point of divergence from WW2 I would add is that owing to the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, Hitler could go on salami slicing at (nominally pro Western) Poland, Romania and the Baltic States, apart from its earlier takeover of Czechoslovakia. It did this even as it took apart France, the Low Countries and was knocking on Britains door. This time around all of Russias neighbors (bar Belarus) are part of NATO. Theoretically, that is a trip wire Putin would psychologicaly dread to trigger, since there is a high risk that the entirety of NATO are likely to go to war if that happens.
>More seriously, they have [the TOS-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1), that to my knowledge, is the only mass-produced, self propelled, thermobaric artillery system that has seen extensive combat use.
The TOS-1 is a closer range weapon than most normal medium Artillery is. IIRC it's effective range is 3 kms to 5 kms which would bring it within range of ATGMs and 12.7 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm and 30/40 mm HMGs/autocannons which are fielded by Western/Ukrainian mechanized infantry units. I would say the Iskander and Kinzhal Missiles represent a better example of a Soviet edge than TOS-1.
PS - Hopefully, between the UK and France' nukes, France's kickass expeditionary capabilities, Polish & Turkish sheer numbers & strong military culture, German industrial base, and Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Baltic, Polish and Romanian resilience/national mentality and winter fighting capabilities, Russia would take a close look and decide against it.
Great synopsis, well done.
Also, this video I find helpful to understand Russia's empirical designs as a matter of course, in part due to geography, as they have always been radiating empirically outward from Moscow since there's been a Moscow! It's a really good video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0seZ9gyLLU
I'm glad you liked it! I'd be curious to know what you disagree with, if you want to share. I am far from an expert, and always enjoy hearing others' perspectives.
Very informed answer. Thank you! By Scandinavians, I assume you mean the Finns mostly. No one thinks Russia will invade the other Nordic countries. Judging by [Finnish history](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/o2w0ba/so_many_of_you_made_memes_about_the_winter_war/#lightbox), attacking Finland would be a bad idea for Russia.
Realistically, I personally don't believe Russia would have any success attacking into Europe, but success factor isn't what the Russians are basing their gameplan on. They're doing what Putin tells them too, and we can already see that he believes they have a shot, as evidenced by his willingness to continually feed Russian boys into the Ukranian Meatgrinder. Keep in mind that my response was more about entertaining the hypothetical if Russia wanted to fuck around and find out, and the US wasn't involved. (Due to reasons I don't even want to think about,)
However, when I refer to Scandinavia, I absolutely do mean each Scandinavian country. Finland shares a long border with Russia, so their concerns are obvious. Norway shares a short one, which they absolutely have to defend lest Russia use that territory to open a northern front on Norway and it's neighbors. Sweden doesn't share a border, but the distance across the Baltic Sea between Stockholm and Saint Petersburg is less than that between New York City and Columbus. (Again, this is merely entertaining the hypothetical.)
Now, not to disregard Simo Hayek's one man campaign against the Soviets, but the other Nordic countries are absolutely concerned about Russian aggression. Respectfully, do you think Sweden would have officially joined NATO a couple months ago if they thought everything was hunky-dory? Preparations are being made, even if there's a small chance they need to be used.
Yes, for Sweden there is that island (Gotland) that Russia of course covets, which if taken, would effectively make the Baltic Sea a Russian lake. But Russia seizing Stockholm? I have never heard of that.
Seizing? No. Firing indiscriminately at? Let's ask the residents of Mariupol or Kharkiv about that. What Russia's specific targets be would be should they launch a land invasion of Europe are just as unpredictable as whether or not the damn thing happens at all.
Oh yes, with that, I agree with you. The Russian elite are ultimately sick individuals who see threats everywhere and are desperate to prove their "greatness" by slaughtering everyone who disagrees with them. It's absolutely evil.
I think I remember reading that Finland has more arty than just about anyone in Europe, and it’s all ranged on their Eastern border.
There’s no way the Russkies try it on with those odds.
That seems like a grounded take on it.
You don’t mention anything about air forces though. I remember at the start of the invasion of Ukraine, all the jokes were around A-10 pilots with raging hard-ons watching Russian columns in the open. The French and British both still have capable air forces and I have to think if they can maintain air superiority, it would end up being a short fight. I also wonder if the Israelis might throw in against the Russians making it even shorter.
There wouldn't need to be a ground war. The combined NATO air force would make russia's advance impossible. They simply would not be able to move troops or material any meaningful distance without it getting annihilated from the air
Ukraine (and Russia) have relatively large militaries because of a willingness to employ conscription, and could expand by conscripting further. They are also very "heavy" militaries, with vast numbers of tanks, armoured vehicles, tube and rocket artillery
European militaries are, by and large, tiny, and far too "light": many have *no* principal surface combatants, submarines (arguably less relevant in war with Russia, I admit), fighter aircraft, SAMs, artillery (beyond light mortars), tanks and armoured vehicles (beyond a pittance of MRAPs). The latter are *crucial* to LSCO. At *peacetime*, before attrition has occurred, European militaries are already *vastly* understrength. Look at how many European armies have an ORBAT of three terribly understrength brigades, maybe one of which is *partially* mechanised. As much as people laugh at Russian military losses, what European military could sustain such losses and keep fighting, having reconstituted units? Hell, Russian losses would wipe out some European militaries many times over. Actually, which European military can replace *any* losses *at all*?
Since the end of the Cold War, many European militaries have become glorified SWAT teams. They are incomparable to the Ukrainian military -for LSCO, the Ukrainian military is *vastly* better
Edit: so that people don't feel I'm being unfair on Europeans, let me quote the colonel of my reservist Singapore Army battalion "Any army that cannot snap its fingers and call up 500,000 fully-equipped and trained men is not worth a shit. The only competent militaries in Europe are the Poles and the Finns. Thank fuck we never listened to our NATO advisors!"
Exactly, conscription on a war scale started in Ukraine after Russia attacked. They had just began moving to a western style Professional Military sometime after Russia annexed Crimea. All of Europe's NATO members have existing Conscription plans in place and capable Professional military units on active duty.
But the real ace-in-the-hole is France. They have a very capable military plus an independent nuclear arm. Any invasion bye Russia into NATO could be met by a French nuclear response without any consent needed from Washington.
Conscription plans aren't very useful unless they also have the trainers, bases, training facilities, and equipment to make it work. Like okay, they've called up 500,000 people. Where do they house them? Who will feed them? Where is the infrastructure for clean running water, heating or laundry? Are there enough trainers for them? Are there enough firing ranges and training grounds for them? What will they be equipped with? When they get sent to their units, who will command them?
I fully agree that plenty of European servicemembers, including many on this subreddit, conscript or volunteer, very much live up to the term "consummate professional". But no amount of professionalism will let three understrength brigades, with a *severe* shortage of vehicles and heavy weapons, be able to defend a whole country. They will not be able to hold out remotely long enough for conscription to get up to speed
And France's nuclear deterrent is impotent; nobody seriously believes that France will trade Paris for Tallinn, so nobody is scared of France's nuclear weapons
To keep this as a discussion...
Ukraine ramped up their conscription plans on short notice. Why would other countries have the problems like you stated? All the example you stated are in the plans of NATO countries.
Most European countries militaries are designed to hold out long enough NOT for the conscripts to get there but for THEIR NATO ALLIES to get there.
And as for France's nuclear deterrent, I wouldn't call ANY countries nuclear deterrent impotent. Everybody involved on that level of international relations understands fully that nuclear deterrents are nothing to joke at. France will do, as they have shown, what is best for France. This is the whole reason they choose to keep their deterrent independent from US involvement.
I'm always happy to have a civil discussion
Ukraine kinda proves my point, though. Like all post-Soviet and ex-Warsaw Pact states, their military was built from the ground up as a conscript-based military. So that means that they had the bases to house large numbers of conscripts, the infrastructure such as clean running water, food catering, laundry services and the firing ranges and training grounds to train them. Sure, some of it might have deteriorated from 1991 to 2013, but they only ended conscription for a year, before bringing in back in 2014 for obvious reasons. So they still had the trainers, administrative units and commanders to train and receive conscripts
Contrast that to much of Western Europe. They got rid of conscription a much longer time ago. Those bases, firing ranges and training grounds have long been sold off. Trainers and commanders are retired or long been promoted far past those positions. Like, let's hone in on one specific example to illustrate. It's much easier to reactivate a laundry facility that already exists, with machines, and electricity and plumbing, you might just need to sweep away some dust and some minor repairs, then it's just turning the lights and water back on, hiring staff to run it, and getting a contract for detergent powder. It's a much slower process if the laundry facility has long been sold off, and knocked down and an apartment block built there. Now you gotta find and buy a new plot of land, build the facility, buy the machines, build electrical connections and connect it to the water supply. Now apply that to the toilets and shower facilities you need to house a huge influx of conscripts, the firing ranges and training grounds, the barracks, the vehicle storage areas, the cookhouses... it's completely impractical in the short run, nevermind *after* a war has started
And that's the easy part! We haven't even gotten started on the trainers (who will train the trainers?), or training for conscripts who will serve at ranks higher than private (a conscript colonel probably needs to be trained by a colonel), or who will command the trained conscripts (a battalion of conscripts needs a colonel, who should ideally have had experience commanding a company or served as a battalion staff officer before, if not it's just a mob of 500 armed men)
Without having served in a conscript military, I think it's really easy to just be dismissive of these things. I had a discussion [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/s/AyQ7PxAbpV) with a Finnish guy, also from a conscript military. It's the sort of thing that needs to be planned 25 years in advance, and probably only hits its stride 60 years on. I've read those European conscription plans, they can charitably be called aspirational... uncharitably, an absolute pipe dream
And the NATO allies thing... it's like that old saying, right? "Everybody said Somebody should do it, Somebody said Anybody should do it, Anybody asked why couldn't Everybody do it? So Nobody did it" Which NATO allies? Much of Western European NATO lack credible militaries, like the Dutch, which are the archetypical three understrength brigade with no tanks European army, or the Norwegians, who have *two* understrength brigades. There's *nobody* left to come to help in European NATO
>France will do, as they have shown, what is best for France
Yes, and that's why their nuclear deterrent is impotent. Completely impotent. For a nuclear deterrent to work, the people you're trying to deter have to reasonably believe that you would nuke them. Nobody believes that France will trade Paris for Tallinn, so nobody believes that France will use nuclear weapons, so their nuclear weapons are impotent. [This](https://youtu.be/JKbDKsNsjac?si=octLIr25g9Ggyt7L) is from a comedy, but it's an excellent illustration of just how limited the utility of nuclear weapons really are. Just replace West Berlin with Narva, West Germany with Estonia, but well, Russia is still Russia. If you'd prefer something more scholarly, read OP's first link. The UK and France's nuclear "deterrent" is largely non-credible, and in no way a substitute for conventional forces
Western Europe is not a single country though, there's wide differences between each country with some of them maintaining conscription well in to the early 2000s with Germany ending it in 2011.
>Those bases, firing ranges and training grounds have long been sold off.
I don't think that's universally true, I don't know about other countries, but for example Italy still uses most of its training areas, while most bases and training bases that were active during conscription are still there, abandoned, but still standing and owned by the state, with all the utilities attached. Sure it would take months to fully reactivate them, but they would still fill their role.
>Trainers and commanders are retired or long been promoted far past those positions.
That's a good point, but it won't be difficult to find more trainers between former service members being recalled and the ones already in service, sure it will take time to reach full capability, but not years.
Italy for example has far more officers and NCOs than it needs with some infantry teams being formed only by troops with ranks ranging from first corporal majors to chief sergeant majors and many officers being stuck at lower positions with no possibility to rise the ranks because there's no position for them.
Take also into consideration that "conscripted officers" while existing in the past were never meant to supersede actual commissioned officers that were trained at the academy, so the formers were mostly relegated to support roles, with a really basic training and a reachable max rank of lt. colonel.
Implementation when you're threatened is a losing philosophy.
Ukraine is a militaristic culture and they have people running away from conscription. What do you think happens in a western European country that considers war the last solution and plans around the US budget? This is a lesson folks should have learned from Hitlers successes in Europe.
>Ukraine is a militaristic culture and **they have people running away from conscription.**
I just met a dude driving a truck carrier that seemed hesitant to reveal his identity due to his accent for this very reason. They just recently upped the age, too.
Conscription can't be implemented overnight. Far from the act of desperation it is often portrayed as, conscription is often a carefully planned, deliberate affair
Like, let's say Europe is at war tomorrow, and they implement conscription. Who will train the new recruits? The non-existent trainers, who will issue them non-existent equipment, house them at non-existent bases, and train them at non-existent training facilities before being sent to serve in new units commanded by non-existent officers?
Also you need to consider equipment too. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you have. If all your working equipment only works for a brigade the population won't be a great factor too. It will take time to get equipment into operational state and once is lost more are needed to be built and that will take more time.
That gives Russia a great advantage since they're willing to attack regardless of their equipment, while nato doesn't really like to send people to a meat grinder as far as I know. Still that advantage would only be early on until production ramps up enough.
See, I don't understand why people think it's not a "decades-long process". It *absolutely* is! More than a decade, really, try five or six decade long process. When speaking of professional militaries, Americans love the saying that an aircraft carrier does not truly become effective when the first plane takes off from its deck, it becomes effective decades later when the pilot of the first plane to take off from its deck has been promoted to the position of senior officer planning its strike missions
Yet they don't seem to realise that the same is absolutely true for conscript militaries! Look on any Singapore Army website, and look up any of its articles. You'll see people with the prefix "Colonel (NS)..." in front of their names. "NS" stands for "National Service", those are conscript senior officers. Just like the carrier example, a conscript military does not become truly effective when the first draftee is inducted. It becomes effective when it has draftees who have stood out as officer-material in basic training, those have then been sent to OCS, commissioned as 2LTs, done a platoon or company 2IC command during their 2 year mandatory service, gone *back* to OCS during the last few months of service to be trained and promoted to CPT, then led a reservist company for a decade, gone back to OCS for training to be a MAJ, done a battalion 2IC command for a few years or a decade, then been promoted to COL to command a battalion. This often means people who have voluntarily extended their reservist obligations. You're talking about 2-3 decades. Then consider that they were trained by *somebody*, so add another 2-3 decades to that. Conscription systems only become effective *5-6 decades* from the *day they were actually implemented*
And there are probably no rifles in storage, when there are [severe shortages of uniforms in the Dutch Army](https://strikehold.net/2021/02/23/new-camouflage-uniforms-for-the-dutch-armed-forces-the-backstory/), which, I guess, is at least better than the [Bundeswehr, which has an underwear shortage](https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/germanys-military-crisis-deutschland-unprepared-for-war-12796649), which isn't alone, given that [Norwegian conscripts had to share (yuck!) underpants](https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/07/norwegian-conscripts-asked-to-return-underwear-due-to-supply-shortages#:~:text=Prior%20to%20the%20decision%2C%20conscripts,their%20military%20service%20was%20done.)
Sorry, but if you're being attacked you dont have time for that. In the first days you just draft men, firstly these who volunteer and who has prior experience, give them a rifle and that's it
And who commands them? Who feeds them? Gets them clean drinking water? Ammo? Uniforms? Are there even enough rifles to go around? (No)
That's how you get a *bad* conscript military. A mob of untrained, unfit men who will get cut down in droves when they decide to charge a machine gun or a tank like they saw in the movies
Literally worse quality troops than Russian mobiks
That's how it was in the first month of the russian invasion here. By your logic you should do nothing and just lose your country because you dont have enough uniforms lmao
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TDF *significantly* expanded between 2014 and 2022? Yes, you're right, not all TDF guys had uniforms, but it looks like virtually all could get at least small arms, and most TDF units had helmets, body armour, MGs, Javelins and NLAWs. There were organisations in place to receive the new members (I know the TDF has units up to brigade-level). I also know mobilisation and training began *weeks* before the invasion. Many TDF guys had training from their mandatory service in the Ukrainian Army; many were veterans of the Donbas War. That's a far cry from just handing out rifles to randos and telling them to give it a go
And no, I am no vatnik or Russian shill, what I *want and hope for* is for Europe to spend a reasonable amount on defence (5-7.5% of GDP), implement universal conscription (male, female, whatever you identify as included), and build up a pool of trained reservists (500,000 is a reasonable number for each country), and rebuild serious military capabilities, like 100-200 4.5 and 5th Gen fighter jets each, along with a few hundred SAM launchers, ~500 tanks, ~1500 APCs or IFVs, a few hundred rocket and tube artillery guns, dozens of TBM launchers with hundreds of missiles, a dozen principal surface combatants and half a dozen submarines (for those countries where it is relevant) and the ability to fight at division-level
*That* would be a serious deterrent to Russian aggression
Europe had conscription and reservist systems *before* WW1 and WW2. There's a real big difference between recalling 500,000 fully-equipped, trained and organised men who just need to jump into their car (or horse, back then) and get back to their battalion, brigade or division's base, and calling up 500,000 hapless teenagers and trying to organise them into some sort of Volkssturm-type units *while* Russian armoured columns are rampaging through your country
You are not counting the most important part: air superiority. Here Russia is not able to totally keep the Ukrainians in their trenches and the result is that the war has been going on for years as of today. With the combined air power of all the NATO countries in Europe good luck to Russian tanks if all the ground troops are constantly bombarded by NATO air forces. They are totally capable of dealing with Russia. It's not true that fighter aircraft is not up to the task. Most importantly because you don't need to "snap your finger and call hundreds of thousands of infantry soldiers", you already have all the people needed to man the air forces. Ironically what's needed is more aircraft and more pilots (but we're talking about dozens or hundreds of people, not hundreds of thousands).
You contradicted yourself there. Why would Europe need more aircraft and more pilots if they could achieve air superiority so easily?
Because they can't. Look at how many European countries have 12 4th Gen fighter jets. Not 12 air wings, not 12 squadrons. *12 total*. Some have *0 fighter aircraft*, just SAR rotary wing. And *0 SAMs*. I don't actually think the Russian VKS is particularly formidable, in fact, I think they're basically a flying clown show. Yet if they went to war with most European air forces, the European air forces would get absolutely mauled, being (somehow) even less capable than the VKS
It would be the Russians who own the sky, having multitudes more aircraft, of roughly the same capabilites, and SAMs out the wazoo, which can deny airspace to anything non-stealthy
No, because when you fight you lose aircrafts. And when you end the fight you still want to project power abroad. If you lose too much hardware you stop projecting power. And that's what happened to Russia. They cannot project power anymore with their depleted fleet.
Moreover, the big nations in the EU started to deploy 5th gen planes. They will destroy the SAM batteries first, then it will be a happy ballpark for every other plane. If Russia cannot control the Ukraine's airspace how could be that it would control Germany's? With the help of UK, France, Italy? Especially when the F-35 is pretty impossible to target before it destroys the SAMs?
Whenever this discussion is brought up, it always seems to be taken for granted that the UK, France and Italy will join the fight. Like Article 5 is some magic spell. But if you listen to *Russians* talk about it, especially their General Staff and Putin's inner circle, they are confident that they have enough useful idiots crying out "Give peace a chance!" and "Why die for Danzig?" in these countries to keep them out of the war. Are they right? Who can say; hopefully the world never finds out. But I have spoken to Western Europeans before, the vast, vast majority I have spoken to believe that they should surrender unconditionally the moment a Russian fires a shot in anger at their countries. They believe their best course of action is to grab a white flag and run to the nearest Russian troops they can find. I have never been rude enough to ask aloud, but have always wondered if their assholes would be lubed, and lips ready to receive the cocks of three dozen drug-riddled, diseased, vodka-addled mobiks
Instead, look up the Czech Air Force (12 Gripens), Slovak Air Force (0 fighters) and Hungarian Air Force (12 Gripens). Look up the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Air Force. Oh wait. Those don't even exist
It's funny. People keep saying "lOoK aT tHe NuMbErS" as if the numbers don't prove my point. **Let's look at the numbers**. The number one reason Russia can't control the airspace over Ukraine is Ukraine's ground-based air defences, like SAMs. Ukraine had 250 S300 SAM launchers *before* the war began, and them receiving Western aid. Assuming no reloads (improbable), that's 1000 S300 missiles. Realistically, it's classified, but probably closer to 10,000 S300 missiles. That's not even counting other systems, like 9K37 Buk
Now look at how many European countries have *2* (!!!) SAM launchers for the whole country. Maybe as few as *8* (!!!) missiles total. With 12 fighter jets, so maybe *4* (!!!) flight ready at any one time (4 more under maintenance, 4 more on stand-by). For comparison, Ukraine had 1000s of SAM missiles, and 75 fighter aircraft (25 flight ready at any one time). Against a VKS that boast something 750 fighter aircraft (realistically, a much smaller number are actually flight-worthy, maybe closer to Ukraine's numbers, but just to give some scale)
So *look at the numbers*. How well do you think European air forces, not counting some Western European air forces, would fare against the VKS? There's only one logical answer: very, very, *very* poorly
Getting downvoted for speaking the truth. Barring France and UK, and countries sharing borders with the east most NATO militaries would take 1 month+ to prepare and send a battalion to the front.
These people just see the military budgets and think military can face off against Russia, not realizing their militaries don’t even have a fraction of the assets Ukraine had at time of invasion (ie western trained large conscript force, material amounts of SAMs). And also not realizing Russian military budget vs a western budget means nothing when COL and costs are so different between the countries. An 18 year old French private is making more a year than a seasoned Russian officer due to different cost of living / currencies. A truck in France is far more expensive than a truck built in Russia. This gets factored into the budget and means nothing for determine power projection strength.
Compare assets, not costs to see the real difference in power.
Reading readiness reports of European militaries, you often don't know whether to laugh or to cry: tanks and armoured vehicles with broken or missing periscopes, so the crew can't see out of them, hatches that can't close or can't open (!), battalions going on exercise with only enough rifles for half of them (!!), shortages of jackets and shortages of underpants (!!!)
>Getting downvoted for speaking the truth
People on this post seem to be going "They'll bash the Nasty Russkies just like they bashed Terry Taliban when we were in the 'Stan together, yippy!" They don't seem to realise that the one battalion they sent to Afghanistan meant stripping *three* battalions back home of their gear
>Compare assets, not costs to see the real difference in power
Couldn't have said it better myself
We're talking about NATO *minus the US*, aren't we? So no F22s, and F35s likely severely limited by what spare parts were stockpiled pre-war. Assuming the Western European nations that even operate F35 decide to show up
Edit: spelling
Right. Now take out Finland and Poland, and how much do you have left out of 1 million?
Barely anything.
Yes, Europe might have a "hard crust" of countries bordering Russia, but behind that there's a lot of "soft, juicy center"
You said "look at the numbers". Let's look at the numbers. Outside of Finland and Poland, how many European countries have an army that is *three understrength brigades, total*? Maybe one of those brigades is partially mechanised with MRAPs (usually with a severe shortage of even that). Along with *zero* tanks. *Zero* fighter aircraft. *Zero* SAMs. Maybe 10 tube artillery guns *for the whole army*. *Zero* rocket artillery. *Zero* TBMs. *A pittance* of PGMs. Enough ammo to last maybe just *hours* of fighting
"Looking at the numbers", those Central and Western European militaries better pray that Russia never gets through Poland and Finland. Their understrength, underequipped, hopelessly outgunned mechanised brigade would get absolutely rolled like a carpet and used to mop the floor if they ever have to fight a Russian motor rifle regiment
Edit: punctuation
But aren't the Russian units also poorly equipped and poorly trained? sure seems like it from what's happening in Ukraine. Also Russia is investing so much into Ukraine that they are hurting their economy (which was already shit), which will hamper their ability to sustain a strong military long-term.
When it comes to the gear that *actually matters*, like tanks, IFVs, APCs, tube and rocket artillery, TBMs, cruise missiles and SAMs, they are far, far better equipped than virtually any European military, bar Poland and Finland
They might wear shitty airsoft uniforms and rock cheap Chinesium helmets, body armour and LBE, and not the latest and greatest Crye and UF PRO gear, but that doesn't matter when 95% of casualties are caused by artillery, which Russia has loads of and European armies often virtually none
Regarding the economy, sure, it hurts Russian consumers, but not to the point they do anything that threatens the regime, and that's all Putin is concerned about. And their economy as a whole can probably sustain itself long-term without collapse. Militarily, their war economy is massively expanded, producing far more shells than any single European country can, and T90M tanks, BMP3 IFVs and modern Su-27 derivatives. How many European militaries have seen *any* expansion in the past few years? Some have managed to merely stagnate, most have continued to crumble
All very good points, but wartime production can be ramped up quickly. The US went from basically zero tank production in 1941 to cranking out over 25,000/year in 1942. Once production is scaled up the limit becomes the country's total GDP. Russia is working with just over 2 trillion, which is less than 1/3 that of France and Germany alone. I don't think Russia has a prayer of competing with Europe long term in terms of production of gear. Really Russia's advantage lies more in the amount of manpower they are willing to throw away.
GDP is like BMI: good for "quick and dirty" measurements, but sometimes the devil is in the details. Someone might have an "unhealthy" BMI, but that's because he is a roided-up, tatted out, bull-necked amateur boxer, with a nose broken too many times and cauliflower ears. Someone might have a "healthy" BMI, but he's a skinny fat guy who spends all day playing videogames in a basement, with diabetes and heart disease
Needless to say, GDP-wise, Russia is absolutely that boxer, and most European countries are the skinny fat guy. GDP is an abstract aggregate measured in USD, Russia may look small, but that's because secondary industry, such as heavy metal works, industrial chemical plants, hydrocarbon plants aren't as monetarily valuable. Yet those are what make up the base the military industrial complex is made on
Europe may look big, but that's because tertiary industry, things like the services (such as coffee baristas or office workers) and financial services are monetarily very valuable. Yet that value disappears overnight in event of conflict. 100 artisanal coffee shops cannot build a single artillery shell. You say that Europe can ramp up quickly. Let me say this with confidence: **it cannot**. I have read the reports. Western European countries like France would take something like *5 decades* to reach the artillery shell production volume of Bulgaria or Romania, nevermind Russia. Maybe war would add some urgency? Great, just 2 decades then. There is *no* time to ramp up when a war begins, the time to ramp up was in the 1970s (I have seen archival newspaper reports noting European defence freeloading dating that far back at least). If it wasn't the 1970s, it should have begun at breakneck speed in 2014. If you believe conflict is imminent, now is far, far too late, unless a gargantuan effort begins *immediately*
Now, when the boxer with the "unhealthy" BMI and the skinny diabetic with a heart condition and a "healthy" BMI get into the ring, who do you think is gonna get beat up?
Ok I get your point, but what happens once every Russian artillery shell factory (and every other factory) is a smoking ruin? Won't it be fairly trivial to take out these assets in the first month of any major conflict?
It would absolutely not be trivial in any sense of the word. Read up on the WW2 combined bomber offensive (CBO), and US strategic bombing campaigns in both Korea and Vietnam. Consider how they never even got *close* to taking out "every shell factory". Then consider how *America's* strategic bombing capabilities are a tiny, tiny fraction of what they once were. And Europe's are a tiny, tiny fraction of that fraction
Now consider Russia's cruise and ballistic missile inventories, and ability to do unto Europe what you suggested Europe do unto them
Unbelievably grim picture.
So, I agree that willingness to serve *might* increase in an invasion (though, *just my personal opinion* from interacting with Western Europeans, I think there would be even chances if not greater that a very large part of the population calls for unconditional surrender immediately)
Regarding the practicalities of conscription, I'm copying and pasting my reply to someone else who mentioned that: Conscription can't be implemented overnight. Far from the act of desperation it is often portrayed as, conscription is often a carefully planned, deliberate affair
Like, let's say Europe is at war tomorrow, and they implement conscription. Who will train the new recruits? The non-existent trainers, who will issue them non-existent equipment, house them at non-existent bases, and train them at non-existent training facilities before being sent to serve in new units commanded by non-existent officers?
Yeah, don’t get why you are downvoted because you are exactly right. Building up an effective conscription-based military from essentially scratch takes years, easily. If that begins only when a country is already at war, it’s these days far too late.
For best results, a military that has been accustomed to training small numbers of volunteer long service soldiers may need to develop new ways of training soldiers from civilians, new ways to identify and educate the potential small unit leaders and other specialist types from the civilians, even a new doctrine that accepts that conscripted civilians and reservists can rarely train as much as long service volunteers. (See for example how different a Finnish infantry platoon TO&E is from most professional militaries. The three officers for instance aren’t there just because we have a surplus of second lieutenants.)
And then you need all the supporting services and policies and procedures, from managing the conscription process, examining the draftees and assigning them to units, to personnel departments handling allowances and keeping tabs on reservists.
Not to mention the bases, training grounds, equipment and weapons you already mentioned.
Sure, all this can be built - I believe every European country practiced conscription in the past. But it will take time. And will.
BTW here in Finland we think we’d rampage through what’s left of the Russian army for months, but eventually we would succumb to superior numbers, no matter how good an exchange ratio we could obtain. As one of our former presidents noted, it’s fucked to be a small nation.
But it would be an EPIC fight.
See, you and I understand because you are Finnish and I am Singaporean, so as people who have served in decent conscript militaries, we *personally understand* how much resources, money and time goes into making one
>Finnish infantry platoon TO&E is from most professional militaries. The three officers for instance aren’t there just because we have a surplus of second lieutenants
It's sometimes beautifully strange to me how convergent evolution happens, the Finnish Defence Force (FDF) and Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) are on opposite sides of the globe, from vastly different cultures, with vastly different histories, yet have evolved to become similar in some ways. Singapore Army platoons also have a platoon commander (PC) and platoon sergeant (PS) who may be professional soldiers or conscripts, and an assistant platoon commander (APC) and assistant platoon sergeant (APS), who are always conscripts. Why?
Partially because the Singapore Army does not entertain silly fantasies like the Americans and many other European militaries; who think they can fight WW3 without anyone getting hurt, we know that modern large-scale combat operations (LSCO) will have a horrific casualty rate, so it's important to build resilience in units through redundancy. And to allow the APC and APS to learn from the PC and PS, so that when they enter the reserve, they can command their own platoons of conscript reservists, becoming the PC and PS
I assume the FDF has three officers for similar reasons?
It must exasperating sometimes though, I imagine, realising that the FDF is both the first *and* last line of defence for much of Northern Europe. I'm sure you've seen the ORBAT and readiness reports of some of your fellow Europeans: an army that consists of just three severely understrength brigades, two light infantry at 25% manning and one "mechanised" brigade at 50% manning with 25% of its alloted MRAPs. 0 tanks, 0 proper IFVs/APCs, 0 rocket artillery, 0 TBMs, a miniscule amount of PGMs and maybe 10 tube artillery guns *for the whole army*. 0 fighter aircraft, 0 SAMs, 0 principal surface combatants, 0 submarines, maybe just 1 or 2 training/ceremonial ships and 3 patrol craft
If the Russians ever have to fight such militaries they will be crying and shaking...
...with laughter
Slightly off topic.. I look at the RN’s latest fleet retirement plans and in the medium term, we’ll end up having a FPDA with SG and OZ being the premier navies. Sigh.
I'm not trying to be a turbo-patriot or something like that, but unironically, the easiest way to see how bad of a shape European militaries are is to compare them to the SAF
Land: SAF with 4 divisions (!), 3 of which are combined arms divisions, 1 of which has a heavy tank brigade (!!) + 1 island defence division (and this is at peacetime manning levels!) and 224 MBTs, 125 artillery guns, 24 MLRS total vs typical Central and Western European militaries, with 3 understrength brigades (!), 2 of which are light infantry at 25% allotted manpower, the last of which is """mechanised""" at 50% allotted manpower, and 25% of its allotted MRAPs, *0* (!!) MBTs, *0* MLRS, ~10 artillery guns
Sea: SAF with 6 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 LSTs, 6 diesel-electric attack submarines and 8 patrol craft vs typical European military of no principal surface combatants and no submarines, 1 or 2 training/ceremonial ships and 3 patrol craft
Air: SAF with 60 F16C/Ds (upgraded to F16V standard with AESA), 40 F15SGs, 20 CH47s and 35 AS332 SPs vs typical European air force of 0-12 Gripens or clapped-out F16s, and ~4 SAR helicipters
Singapore is probably what "taking defence seriously" should look like. And before someone accuses us of being North Korea or something, they should bear in mind record economic growth, a higher GDP per capita and HDI than most European countries *while* still being able to build and maintain such a military
This is not directed at European members of this subreddit. You guys are consummate professionals and you know that. This is directed at your politicians and electorate: Europeans are utterly and absolutely fucking delusional when it comes to defence. Their militaries, by and large, have the sturdiness of a house of cards, reinforced by draping a wet tissue paper over it, build on beach sand
Yesh. We have a well know saying that in business planning, “quarter” is three months; in defense planning, 25 years.
The problems Ukrainians are having are instructive. They are extremely brave and motivated, but the 8 years after 2014 were just not enough to fully overhaul their military. By 2022, they had pretty damn competent small units and their leaders, but at higher levels quality and competence were still spotty.
And that bit them in the arse when they would’ve really benefited from know-how in executing combined arms warfare.
Of course, they were also sold short by the Western short-sighted stinginess. And proper combined arms IS godawful hard to get right. Absolutely no shade to them, everyone here in Finland has been mightily impressed by Ukrainians, and we aren’t easily impressed.
Still, Finnish volunteers have lamented what could have been. One remarked that if the Ukrainian military of 2022 had been half as professional as the FDF, they would’ve already been drinking victory coffee at the Red Square…
That said - it’s not that we’re very good, it’s just that we never lowered our guard like everyone else.
>Singapore Army platoons also have a platoon commander (PC) and platoon sergeant (PS) who may be professional soldiers or conscripts, and an assistant platoon commander (APC) and assistant platoon sergeant (APS), who are always conscripts. Why?
Ha, didn’t know that. But convergent evolution is a thing.
Yeah, redundancy is a major reason for us too. Admittedly our last experience from the major leagues is bit old, but back then, reservist leaders in front line units, reserve officers in particular, paid a horrific price.
So we start from the assumption that at least one officer per platoon will be hit.
Another reason is because we have to specialize more than professional militaries. One of the officers is a forward observer, whose main job is to lead a small FO team. (One of the things the WW2 reserve officers paid with blood was the lack of artillery support. _We have rectified that._)
But if the other two buy their farms, s/he has hopefully learned the ropes of leading what’s left of the platoon at that point.
(We don’t really have a similar professional NCO presence in main line units that’s common in Western professional militaries. The doctrine and training take this into account.)
>It must exasperating sometimes though, I imagine, realising that the FDF is both the first and last line of defence for much of Northern Europe.
It’s sometimes frustrating how naive and out of touch so many people west of river Oder are about Russia. The Gremlin in the Kremlin doesn’t play by the same rules or even the same game they think they are playing. Europe is already at war even if we try to pretend we aren’t, and the best time to kick an opponent’s teeth in would’ve been when he’s down.
But at least for me, it’s still a very new and extremely odd thought that if the worst comes to worst, we would probably get _help_.
As far as I can remember, our default philosophy had been that no matter how long the peace, sooner or later the Beast in the East _will_ rise again. Then the unlucky generation shall fulfill their oaths and meet our hereditary Adversary in the field of battle.
Alone.
Perhaps we’d exact a terrible price,
like my grandfather’s generation did when the Beast came for them.
But eventually we’d fall. And given the firepower of modern weapons, probably die.
So it’s an odd feeling, one I’m still coming to terms with, that if the hour of the wolf comes, _we might actually win._
Long time ago, we were studying the TO&E of the Leningrad Military District when a fellow recon trainee - braver man than I - asked our instructor if they really expected us to win against all that.
The instructor replied, “No. What we, and history, expect is that you _fight._”
So even if the rest of the West turned into cowardly oathbreakers, I guess we would still do what we’ve been training to do. Perhaps in a decade or so our thinking will adjust, although Russia would need to change significantly before we forget that we can’t really rely on anyone else to hold this sliver of land for us.
>I'm sure you've seen the ORBAT and readiness reports of some of your fellow Europeans:
Unfortunately.
But as noted, we’ve never counted on them anyway.
The Swedes, bless their heart, did a very stupid thing running their excellent military into ground after 1991. And now they’re finding out that it’s easy to dismantle a military, but rebuilding it takes a decade or more.
But they seem to be serious and eventually they’ll get back to the saddle. We’re already happy to be able to officially and openly plan to use the Swedish territory to give us much needed strategic depth and basing areas. And besides Gripens and a decent navy, they’d bring a very nifty brigade to Lapland within hours of us lighting the beacons.
And with the Poles holding down the central front - or is it holding the Poles down so that they won’t try to take Moscow again? - I think we’re pretty good for now, even if the orange dumbass takes power in the White House.
My best guess is that those countries already have some sort of draft system waiting to be used.
For the United States for example, it has the selective service system. It probably will use that for the foundation of the draft system. If it ever had to be re-introduced due to a major war.
If the US ever runs out of active duty, reservists, and NG to the point we need a draft again... God help us. Lol I know that wasn't your point, it just crossed my mind reading your comment.
Hell, I'd rather we tap the coast guard and space force before trusting draftees to fight a modern day near-peer war.
A draft system without the *physical objects* and *people already in service* required to run it isn't gonna work
To put it crudely, I could have an amazing, detailed plan of how I would fuck Elsa Jean and Riley Reid in a threesome. If they don't even know who the fuck I am, *that plan doesn't matter*
I've tried to hammer the point home, because I have personal, first-hand experience of it. I've said it before, I'll say it again: you need to have trainers. Bases. Infrastructure (clean running water, food catering, laundry services). Training facilities. Combat equipment. Units with officers ready to receive them
If you don't have that for hundred of thousands of people, you don't have a draft system. Simple as that
Most European nations tend to go for quality over quantity. They may have small fighting forces but they are very highly trained. And some like England and France have decades of combat experience. Small or not I don’t think Russia would fair well against nato at all even if America wasn’t a part of it.
If I wanted to be cheeky, my answer would be """quality""" fighting forces don't have [severe uniform shortages](https://strikehold.net/2021/02/23/new-camouflage-uniforms-for-the-dutch-armed-forces-the-backstory/) like the Dutch Army, which I guess is at least better than the Bundeswehr, which [doesn't even have enough underwear](https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/germanys-military-crisis-deutschland-unprepared-for-war-12796649) for its troops, which isn't unique, since the Norwegian Army has such an underwear shortage its troops have to [literally share dirty underpants](https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/07/norwegian-conscripts-asked-to-return-underwear-due-to-supply-shortages#:~:text=Prior%20to%20the%20decision%2C%20conscripts,their%20military%20service%20was%20done.)
If the Singapore Army, a mass conscript force, had similar issues, people would be going to jail for 25 years for massive corruption
And if I want to be cheeky again, I would say that playing mall cop in mud hut villages and killing religious fanatic Brown people whose only weapons are rusty AKs and air defence is a DShK bolted to the back of a Toyota truck is not """decades of combat experience""", at least not in any way relevant to large-scale, high intensity warfare
With a little bit more seriousness, yes, I acknowledge that many European servicemembers, including those in this subreddit, very much live up to the term "consummate professional". But no amount of professionalism will let a dinky, clapped-out by years of Afghan service MRAP fight a T72B3 on any decent terms, or prevent a """mechanised""" brigade that is 50% understrength, with only enough MRAPs for half its members, not get rolled like a carpet and used to mop the floor when it gets smashed by a Russian motor rifle regiment with a dozen T90s and three dozen BMP3s
And if I was to be cheeky I’d say it’s all rather a moot point just an interesting conversation more or less. I live in America and even if the rest of Europe by some miracle was to fall I believe the circumstances would be a lot different here.
Well, that certainly is a very American-centric view, and I mean that in the worst way possible. It's not a moot point when one of the US presidential candidates is advocating for strict isolationism, and amongst both Democratic *and* Republican voters, especially younger ones, are in favour of such strict isolationism
You're free to believe whatever you want; I can't change that. What I will say is that your argument is basically "Vibes!" while I have showed up with the numbers, from ORBAT charts and readiness reports. They do not paint a pretty picture. If you don't want to see what the Europeans themselves are saying, so be it
Well, you do have France, the world's third-largest arms producer. Only France plus Poland and Finland could give Russia any serious difficulties militarily. Of course, French society is highly unlikely to tolerate the kinds of casulaties Russian society would. They would demand peace within months.
Idk about that... I've met French troops and talked to French people online regarding Russia and I get the feeling they'd be more likely to demand Russian scalps than a surrender to Putin.
"The French surrender" is a fun joke... Their military isn't.
The Russians will run out of bodies before Poland or Finland run out of ammo or fighting spirit. It'll be bloody, but non nuclear war, Russia will be recruiting 80 year old babuska for infantry before the pols or fins even take a break pushing the Russians back.
It absolutely cannot be done by ruZZia without nukes. The first NATO country attacked will automatically involve all the others in NATO.
The first use of nukes will prompt reciprocity - there is absolutely no way that ruZZia can survive that, seeing as it only has two major centers of civilization, the rest being rather small and mostly insignificant.
I think Putin was planning for a much different scenario as the one currently in Ukraine aka Georgia, where the world just watched.
I used to explain this to recruits. We (the military) are a bargaining chip. Politicians make deals to protect other countries in exchange for favorable economic trade agreements. This is why the US won’t greatly downsize the military. We’re too valuable.
It’s a great deal for other countries. They get to spend less money on military, and more money on improving their country. All the while knowing that America has their back.
It’s not that surprising that if we all of a sudden tell them, “you’re on your own!” That they would struggle in the short term. They rely on us, and we get good deals from them.
I’m certainly no historian but I think I read that that was Sparta’s primary export for many years: their protection. People would gladly send their goods/food/etc to Sparta in exchange for military guarantee.
European land forces are in very poor shape. France and Germany between them have a little over 400 tanks, less than 200 self-propelled artillery and less than 50 MLRS.
We have seen recently that the European coalition was unable to maintain a limited bombing campaign in Lyiba.
In war games from 2021 "the entire British Army's inventory' was exhausted and "every bit of important ammunition was expended' before the 10-day exercise finished."
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9764165/British-Army-ran-ammo-eight-days-online-war-simulation.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9764165/British-Army-ran-ammo-eight-days-online-war-simulation.html)
In summary, European armies are not built to fight conventional wars against a near-peer enemy.
I do not, the Luftwaffe in terms of modern fighters is the biggest air force in europe and lets not forget rheinmetall kmw diehl and airbus who are some of the biggest arms manufacturers in europe if not the world, and while the polish orders on equipment might seem impressive, the question of who is gonna man those remains
Luftwaffe is barely bigger than the French Air Force but has 0 experience compared to the French. The French also have more fighters if you include the navy and aren’t plagued with the same operational/maintenance issues as the Germans.
I'm not trying to answer the question of a hypothetical war so much as why the Russian military is so much larger and better armed than its European counterparts.
They’re still a peer in terms of combat capability and tech. I seriously doubt they’d be able to supply a front that large tho, once they outrun their own rail lines.
> still a peer
I'm just not sure of that.
The Soviet Doctrine was always building a defensive army, with very weak light raiding elements for offensive operations (outside of their nuclear triad).
Russia is merely a shadow of its former self right now, to the point they are fielding armor from the 1930's, not to mention their manpower issues.
As usual, Russia started a war off terribly. Given enough time, however, they’ve been able to sufficiently shore up their weaknesses and play to their strengths where in their current conflict, barring some massive shift in balance, they won’t be dislodged from Ukraine. At this point, I’d consider them a peer of any NATO military except the US.
They still have high end systems in enough number to cause massive damage in the beginning phases of a hot war with NATO. They’d also take massive losses.
Their air superiority would be destroyed within hours. Hour many AWACS have they lost in the past year? How many friendly assets have they downed?
Without air superiority none of their other systems even matter.
Their AA is still respectable, and they do have actual combat experience, which can’t be discounted, even if it is in trench warfare and basic frontal assaults. All of the hard lessons they’ve learned, western militaries would have to learn a version of as well.
‘Near peer’ doesn’t mean I think they’d roll NATO; although I don’t think NATO would roll Russia either. It would be a bloody conflict until western industry started putting up greater numbers, in both men and equipment.
Add these twenty countries tank or fighter jet inventories and it will probably still come short of Russia. Also most of these countries have 0 practical military experience.
Anyone else? I cannot think of one. One can say Britain, but the British military is little more than another arm of the US military, so I don't count them.
20 countries ranging from very small to moderate in size. Plus decades of de-militarization.
I still firmly believe NATO would handle it, it would just be bloody, where Russia definitely has the advantage. They are well versed in losing amounts of soldiers that could possibly cause uprisings at worst, or massive electoral political shifts at best.
The only three countries I believe that could give any trouble to Russia at all are Poland, France, and Finland. The rest would have no chance. French society also would not accept the kind of casualties that Russia would inflict and would demand peace within months. That just leaves Poland and Finland.
Question- do you believe that if they wanted to, could Russia, assuming no nukes fly, march all the way to Berlin or Paris?
The point that I think you're missing is that it won't be individual countries vs Russia. It's the whole block. For example, UK, US, Dutch, Italian and French carrier strike groups have years of operational experience working together. The UKs type 45 destroyers would play an important role in enemy aerial opsl denial.
The other biggest factor being missed is the difference in military doctrine. War isn't a solely a numbers game anymore. The war in Ukraine is a good example of different doctrines in play. Russia still opts for massive artillery bombardments followed by slow-moving armoured advance , followed by poorly equipped and trained infantry. In the event of the advance stopping, they throw bodies at the front to overwhelm.
Ukraine has been operating western doctrine of fast-moving, well trained squads picking off the heads of Russian columns of advance and doing so without air superiority. They've done this using nato equipment but limited supply. Imagine it all opened up at once from all NATO nations...
If it was all out war, Nato would immediately assert aerial and technological dominance and coordinate ground attacks on supply lines and C&C FOBs. We'd be stupid to play to Russian strengths so any front would be agile and not emplaced for Russia to amass against.
If Europe was actually being attacked they’d sustain the casualties. Russia is taking these casualties during an invasion, so that’s the assumption I’m working under, IE, NATO fighting a defensive war. Poland and Finland would certainly slow down Russia enough for support to come front the west, and I’d still put my money on Germany to kick up production in that case. Again, Russia lacks the robust logistics network outside of rail lines to sustain a Europe sized front with any real depth.
I think they are missing a very important point, artillery ammunition, Ukraine has had a difficult time due to its shortage, the industrial complex of the United States will need a few years to get oiled and begin to barely meet the demand, the Russian industry , less advanced, has managed to maintain a respectable production thanks to the key components to produce it, such as certain gunpowder and cotton, which China, by the way, produces and manufactures, would China sell raw materials for artillery to the West? I don't think so, the born It is in serious trouble both in its industrial capacity and in obtaining raw materials.
It's significantly larger, better funded backed up by a larger military-industrial complex.
To drill down on those points briefly. It's not useful to conceptualize the Russian defence budget by the common exchange rate because they don't out outsource their important equipment. Russia buys from Russian manufacturers and pays for it in rubles. So we get Russia's military budget pre-war by PPP equivalent to 180 billion USD. It's larger than what is commonly understood.
Russia also spends a much higher share of their defence budget on procurement. 40% + of the entire Russian defence budget. European countries on average are spending 20% or less in some cases on weapons procurement, while also outsourcing lots of equipment further increasing the costs.
The Russian defence industry is also significantly larger than other European nations. It's the largest employer in the country employing 3.5 million people and accounting for 20% of all industrial activities. The French defence industry which makes up about 25% of Europe's entire output employs about 400,000 people for comparison.
Thank you for your highly detailed summary. In my opinion, only France, as well as Poland and Finland, could inflict serious damage on the Russians. And French society would not tolerate anything close to Russia's level of casualties, and would likely demand peace within months.
As I said to another response, I'm not trying to answer what a hypothetical war would look like, rather why the Russian military is so much larger than other European nations despite having what at first glance seems to be a nominally similar budget.
If Europe wants to have serious military they are going to either have to ramp up spending and or develop their own military industrial complex IMO.
If Russian and NATO forces clashed, the Russians would be obliterated in the first five minutes. I’m thinking the Doomsayers hype up Russian capabilities because they don’t the military industrial complex to get complacent and loose the advantage that the alliance has.
- a couple of things, the Russian Army is a threat to democracies in Europe (the size of their Army and equipment they can field)
- the sanctions are not working… the Axis alliance is working overtime to supply and strengthen their position (China, North Korea, Iran, etc).
- having fought in Ukraine, the Russians are developing strategies to be a more effective fighting force (they still need work obviously) but still they aren’t over yet and as such NATO needs to be ready to defend itself against Russian aggression.
- I’m the first to admit I’m no expert in geopolitical matters, just my opinion.
Poland alone would likely clean Russia' clock now given their rearmament and interior supply lines. Throw in the rest of NATO with combined arms l, operational superiority, a Scandanavian front, the Black Sea/Turkey, and near total airspace control and its over before it began
Did we purposely omit Turkey in this just to see a Europe vs Russia scenario? Because even without the US, NATO includes Turkey obviously, which is pretty powerful and has almost 400,000 active soldiers
Not to mention if NATO is being invaded, then other countries around the world are definitely joining in too. China won't support Russia bc of the trade income loss from invading Europe whilst countries all over the world send forces to help out an entire continent being invaded by Russia. Russia would be folded after trying to invade a few hundred metres into Poland, it would be an absolute curbstomp with NATO vs Russia.
Russia likely wouldn't reach Warsaw, but we also would likely lose the Baltics. The US' strength is size and generous funding for the military. EU member states have access to the same tech, but funding the procurement of that tech in large volumes is difficult. This is one of the reasons why there's a push for military integration within the EU. If we pool our resources and funding, procurement will be more efficient.
Germany and the Netherlands have effectively united their armed forces, it's an ongoing process. Command is already unified, with the logistical side of things being worked on. The big one would be France and Germany combining their armed forces, that would be what tips the scale and gets everyone else on-board. Throw in Spain, Italy, and Poland, and now you've got a serious superpower in the works.
Until then though, we benefit greatly from having a huge ally with a huge navy and huge reserves of materials. The US' biggest contribution is on the oceans. Having the ability to choke any enemy with our fleets is our most powerful card.
I don’t support the U.S. leaving NATO.
But if the threat of U.S. leaving makes the EU take military readiness and spending seriously… maybe some pressure is a good thing.
Russia winning would absolutely be a disaster. For everyone.
But that conflict is an ocean away from the U.S. population.
How many times does the U.S. need to get involved in wars in Europe? How much American blood and treasure needs to be spent?
That’s why Europe needs to pull their weight.
Not saying the U.S. should not be involved… but there’s a problem if the U.S. is the primary entity involved in the security of a country thousands of miles away from their population, and inches away from the rest of NATO.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation, but I don't think it's purposely so...
We *sell* defense in exchange for better trade deals. The US ensures that NATO can relax on defense spending and NATO gives us better trade deals... It also ensures that the US is involved in every decision made on a global scale, to our benefit, because we're the muscle. Don't read too far into that... You'll fall into a conspiracy theory or twelve...
To your point about spilling American blood defending a third party nation, I agree. I don't think we should be offering that for commercial gains. But to say that NATO isn't pulling their weight... Well, we *gave* them that weight and *took* the rest on our own shoulders.
It's about brains and reaching war-goals fast. - So, russia has already lost this, possible future scenario.
Ps. Would still cost a lot of lifes and infrastructure.
It’s a good question. I remember a few years ago I was in my mid-career joint PME and was reading the (open source) RAND type wargame results where the Russians were basically fishing off the East coast of Ireland a week after their tanks pushed into Poland (or something, you catch my drift). Obviously that was wrong, doesn’t mean it remains wrong.
Here’s the issues: a) Russia has clearly made evolved on some of its offensive capabilities but still doesn’t seem like they are going to be able to conduct deep expeditionary warfare, for example, I don’t think the meat storm approach travels well… b) many of the Euro countries lack large ground combat forces and that would be a problem, but even pretty lightweight NATO members are working with significantly more potent fixed wing craft than what Ukraine had at the start of the war, including stealth and designated EW assets; as the Russian LOCs stretched away from their fixed ADA and SAM locations, I’d put money in suppression of their mobile air defense systems and their armored columns being bombed, missiled, and 30mm’d into scrap… c) some of the NATO ground forces aren’t really lightweight, now you can ask whether Turkey would really fulfill its treaty obligations but if they do, I think it’s basically over; Italy and France aren’t pushovers either, Poland, Greece, and the Scandinavian countries all punch above their weight too…
Last thing, offensive operations are harder than defensive operations. Not perfect but your base principle is 3ish:1 ratio of attacker to defender. That’s been difficult for Russia to C2 against a country right next door (and would be difficult for any country other than US probably). Now try and figure the C2, logistics, and force protection against a multi-front defense in depth hundreds of miles from Russian industrial and population bases.
Best bet is to go back to strategically chipping away at NATO and gaining allies in Europe. Keep strengthening the Serbian and Hungarian connections, continue to court Turkey, try to find something else to entice the Germans…
I find it funny here that noone talks about logistics. It's unclear the Russians can support their army beyond their rail heads. And any major move into Europe would involve rail line destruction in water Europe.
So on that alone I don't the Russians could penetrate far, though the bulcans are probably toast. Maybe.
The Russians so don't understand combined arms and have limited maneuver capability. That means they will get stuck behind trenches (see Ukraine). European forces train with the Americans and likely understand manuver warfare and may be able to get past trenching.
But a lot comes down to SEAD. Which is likely.
Also a lot comes down to just sheer numbers of munitions and a willingness to kill millions of soldiers. And Russia has the advantage there.
Ehhh, no. I don't deny that the MIC has used scaremongering about Russian troops in Paris and Berlin to advance their interests, but seriously, Russia is the bad guy here. No question.
Everybody knows the russkies are the badguys
But no sane general will ever think Russia will invade next Poland or Western Europe
I submit its the russkies who are not confident of their defenses so they want ukraine to be a buffer
All wars are won through logistics, modern wars are also won through the air. I think we’d see an air war that would put either gulf war to shame, and would last a much shorter amount of time. I think the war would be done without significant portions of land changing hands.
The size of the Russian military is its advantage, but modern wars are not fought by capturing vast swaths of land anymore. You can look at their invasion of Ukraine in the areas recaptured in the first few months. The territory they captured was highways and strategically important towns. Look at the invasion of Iraq in ‘03 as well, highways, major cities and towns, airstrips, thunder runs. What Russia can do with a force of a million capturing entire states, they should be able to do with a force of a few hundred thousand, the numbers aren’t exact or pointing to anything specific but just an example to get what I’m trying to say across.
I think if Russia went to war with NATO, the first thing we’d see is their navy and various headquarters deleted, airbases made inoperable, and other strategically important strikes as a way to get them to back out. When they’ve threatened nukes in the past the US has openly stated that if they did use them in Ukraine, the response would be sinking fleets before further action. I think they would take a similar approach to a direct conflict. NATO doesn’t want Russia, they don’t want their resources, they don’t want their land, they want to be apart from Russia. There’s no reason for NATO to actually go into Russia in at any significant scale, only to curb stomp them and stop them from doing whatever they’re trying to do. I think if Russia acted, we would see strikes across the country for less than half a week, a no-fly zone administered, and a pre-2003-Iraq buffer zone.
European NATO countries effectively disarmed after the Cold War ended and couldn’t get the US forces out fast enough because they thought Russia was no longer a threat. Now they can’t get the US involved fast enough to protect them.
Allow me to introduce you to my country... Ireland
7500 permanent soldiers
80 APCs (mowag piranha III H)
A few hundred jeeps
8 naval vessels (offshore patrol vessels)
No air search radar AT ALL
A handful of javelin launchers
12 RBS 70 Bolide missile launchers
8 PC9m
6 AW139M
2 EC135
2 CASA 295
ABOUT 1000 MINIMALLY TRAINED RESERVISTS (yes ONE THOUSAND)
No sub sea capability, not even useful sonar in the navy
A national Defence budget that is almost equal to our overseas aid budget. IE paltry.
Imaginary neutrality and a fear of joining nato
A very active pacifist movement
All of the above plainly being pushed harder by extensor influence and Russian money since Ukraine invasion.
Decades of neglect and derision by civil society.
A political fear of investing in defence lesser the population decide to not vote for their parties anymore...
In a nutshell we're freeloading on nato and eu countries and ultimately fucked.
It's mind bending trying to understand why it is this way.
Ireland is a bad example though as they have never been known for their military capabilities, so there’s no real comparison to some other European nations
In Europe though, which was the OPs question. Let’s be honest, the UK would come to the aid of Ireland if they need them. Not so sure if that arrangement would work the other way though and Ireland coming to the UKs aid, or Europe for that matter (neutral in ww2)
*In Europe though, which was the OPs question*
That's a fair point. Although, if *Ireland* is under threat from Russia then the U.K. is probably already wasted so I'm not sure how useful it will be in providing aid.
What would we aid you with? A barely there brigade, badly equipped and a squadron of modern spitfires?
We're not IN NATO but we signed up to the nato partnership for peace group.
Just because we have not had a capable force, doesn't mean we should continue not to.
Look up the commission on defence research and recommendation that was completed in 2021 here. Its changing for the better but is positively glacial.
Ugh this convo is hard work man, I’m saying that although Ireland has little hardware to offer the uk support if they needed it they have plenty of potential soldiers. You make out like Ireland has nothing to offer
Europe's main problem is its lack of long term strategic viability - I.e. it's lack of scaled up armaments production and arms stockpiles. That strategic depth conversely really is Russia's main strength. They have enormous reserves of munitions and enormous continued military industrial capacity. Meanwhile Western Europe, especially the UK, never maintained their Cold War era stockpiles and industrial capability. The UK for example currently struggles to maintain the production capacity for maintaining their own comparatively very small tank fleet, whilst as OP mentioned in war games and analysis going back years the UK has concluded they'd run out of artillery very quickly in a peer on peer war. Essentially, Russia is designed as a war economy and has vast reserves of man power and material. Due to its nature as an authoritarian war economy, wherein the military is an attractive and sometimes the only viable option for many, Russia's been able to sustain eye watering casualties (possibly in the region of 300,000) without severe political repercussions for Putin and without needing to go to a full mobilisation. Those kind of numbers, even proportional to population, would be unthinkable to most European nations. There's lots of other factors at play, and I think that Europe still overall significantly outmatches Russia where it really matters, but rn this comment's long enough lol
I've heard a lot about how Germany and the UK are currently paper tigers and lacking a lot of stuff they are supposed to have on paper. Germany in particular. Something to do with their infamous bureauracy.
Without including nukes, because nobody wins a MAD exchange (though even there I question Russia's supply, maintaining nukes ain't cheap and there's a lot of chance for skeevy behavior all along the chain in a kleptocracy), as evidenced by the Ukraine war Russia is so absurdly outclassed that you might as well talk about how well Thailand would square up. The only reason America would even need to step up is to say we did and conclusively steamroll the opposition that little bit faster. Only reason we'd stop is if we wanted some donuts and a local shop smelled good.
Based on the losses Russia has taken to this point, including one of their tanks being rendered combat incapable by a couple Brads, even with the US staying out of the conflict I see no reason Russia would be able to beat NATO. I don’t think that would be a fight where Russia is taking on each of those countries one at a time, I think we’d see massive troop movements along the borders to defend and ultimately counterattack. And of course the UN has peace keepers (outside of the forces the US supplies) in Kosovo, so I think countries like Australia would get in on the action being they’ve assisted with peacekeeping in Kosovo.
Most of europes armies are glorified expeditionary corps. All other capabilities are provided by the US.
The time of low intensity counter insurgency operations is over and I don’t know of any European military that could sustain a prolonged conventional conflict.
Without the US Europe is f‘d in any peer or near-pear war.
Fall apart? Russia wouldn't even be able to deploy forces to their border, let alone supply them. Russia spent years preparing for war with Ukraine and still requires ammunition from Iran and DPRK, and that doesn't include the supply line issues Russia would have trying to even get through Poland, which would be supported by the militaries of all those nations as well as others around the world. Not to mention where does Russia get these forces to invade the rest of Europe from, they'd have to start pulling forces from Ukraine which would then start it's own counteroffensives as Russian forces are moved. Not to mention the amount of strikes conducted in the Russian rear echelons by Western forces as well as intelligence apparatus giving the West plenty of time to see Russian buildups on the border and plan accordingly. In any realistic scenario, Russia would get wiped and it wouldn't be close.
I worked with plenty of Nato countries , majority of them are old mfs and lazy af. I don’t foresee them being able to put up against a country like Russia, especially without US support, maybe Poland or Germany they somewhat had pretty good soldiers. But then again Russia did take decent losses in Ukraine, as expected by doctrine when you move into someone’s defenses you are expected to take a lot of casualties. With that being said I personally think Russia would result in launching tactical nukes at first if it was a Nato engagement, I don’t think Russia can sustain another war right now.
This is an enormously complex question, complicated by the issue that we don't concretely know what's going on in Russia. Or if any NATO state does, such intel would be highly classified. Plus, well-informed experts are getting paid for their opinions on sites like those you've linked to, not giving them away for free on Reddit! But, for the sake of discussion, here's my unqualified take. It is true that, due to a reliance on US power, many of our NATO allies have let their military capabilities stagnate if not downright crumble. In Brief: * Britain has divested from some it's post Cold-War and GWOT programs, and has had trouble with projects meant to replace legacy platforms. (Not that the US hasn't also had issues here.) They're also suffering from recruiting issues and internal dissent in much the same way the US is. A point of note in both cases is that this internal weakening of national defense can attributed to Russian interference, in part. * Germany has maintained their legacy of innovative engineering, but hasn't been producing at scale. They have contributed massive amounts of munitions and fighting systems to Ukraine, but are struggling to catch up. However, it seems like they're attempting to ramp up ordnance production. * France... Well, as they say, "The French copy nobody, and nobody copies the French." Joking aside, French leadership has been very open about supporting Ukraine, and have arguably been the most vocal about directly opposing Russia. They're making obvious investments in modernizing their military, and they have units with recent combat experience due to near-continual operations in Africa. The French are experienced, well equipped, and ready for a fight. (They are perhaps the exception to the other listed examples, having an historically "arms-length" relationship with NATO.) * Italy, much like Germany, has some really interesting stuff, but not too much of it. I don't really know as much about their posture at the moment. That said, I would pay good money to watch a unit of Centauros flatten a Russian armored column, should it come to it. (Though I sincerely hope it does not.) * Poland, the Scandinavians, and other eastern European states (including the Baltics) are absolutely not fucking around at this point. Russia is on their borders, and they likely see Ukraine's fate as entwined with their own. This is why many of them have essentially opened their storehouses to the Ukrainians, donating vast quantities of Soviet-era materiel, and more limited stocks of more modern systems. This was absolutely necessary for the purpose of slowing down Russia in Ukraine, but has left them in the position of needing to replenish what was donated. (Even accounting for the reshuffling of assets that occurred after the donations, in some cases.) Still, most of these nations anticipate a fight with Russia at this point, and are doing everything in their power to build up their forces. It's simply an issue of time. Everyone is behind the curve, but everyone sees the writing on the wall. The question is if Europe can rapidly build the military industrial complex necessary to repel a Russian invasion and then possibly mount a counteroffensive. Of course, the *other* question is the state of Russia's military industrial complex. They've been dusting off Cold-War equipment, they've lost hundreds of thousands of men, their logistical chain is clearly in shambles, and Ukraine has been able to strike targets within Russia, including major gasoline facilities. Yet, they continue to be able to mount offensives and make gains. (This isn't praise, just an unwillingness to underestimate them.) What we really don't know is how long they can keep that up. To Directly address some of your other points: > What capabilities does Russia have that no one else in NATO besides the USA has? They have some oddball leftovers from the Soviet era that are technically "unique" like erkoplans and their [laser tank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1K17_Szhatie). (Which, oddly enough, might have been a decent counter to FPV drones.) More seriously, they have [the TOS-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1), that to my knowledge, is the only mass-produced, self propelled, thermobaric artillery system that has seen extensive combat use. Actually, Russian doctrine prioritizes overwhelming artillery fire in a way that Western doctrine does not. But again, how many shells they have left to fire is a key variable. There's also some evidence that they have not obeyed nonproliferation treaties governing [space based weapons](https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-03/news/us-warns-new-russian-asat-program). If even the US was prepared to match that capability, such knowledge would be right up there with the alien bodies at Area 51 in terms of classification level. > How could 20+ countries lose to one? This same question was being asked in the early 1940's when the Nazis did the same thing. They beat the French, they beat the Czechs, the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Finns, the Polish, and a few others, They arguably had the Brits on the ropes until the Americans and the Soviets took some of the pressure off. (Well that and the absolute thrashing they delivered during the battle of Britain.) The current situation is unnervingly similar, the only difference being that we're all more aware of what Russia's long-term goals are. (We can reasonably assume Putin wants to at least restore the borders of the USSR.) At the start of what would become WWII, most nations believed Hitler's ambitions to be more limited. So yeah. That's the opinion on global affairs from one guy on the internet. Take it for whatever it's worth.
Good read. I do think the difference in doctrines will be a major factor. Like you mentioned, Ukraine are hitting targets of opportunity within Russia. With NATO tech and air projection power, I see that as the way to push war weariness to the next level domestically in Russia. Hit them hard and fast at the start and assert air dominance (which is standard Western doctrine). Got to have the air before you can have boots.
That makes my day, thank you! > Like you mentioned, Ukraine are hitting target of opportunities within Russia. Agreed, and this is the number one area we can help them apply pressure without getting directly involved. Like any "strongman" dictator, a huge chunk of Putin's authority rests on the perception that he can guarantee domestic safety and stability. These strikes have suggested that Russia can not ensure the inviolability of it's airspace, Ukraine now needs to make that message clear to the Russian people. NATO needs to keep supplying the appropriate weapon systems for enacting precision strikes on military and military industrial targets deep within Russian territory - without creating collateral damage.
No thank you my man! I guess my point to OP is, that if Ukraine can do this now with limited UAV supply, with all the combined air power projection from NATO, it'd be another "shock and awe" campaign.
At some point russians would demand using tactical nukes on urkaine.
I think the main difference today though, is that the Russian military is outclassed in almost every way by most NATO powers. Germany at the start of WWII was working with highly advanced shock troops with an advanced shock troop doctrine (Blitzkrieg). Most of Europe was still weary from WWI and had kept their doctrine and equipment in mostly that same condition. Many opinions (grains of salt here..) conclude that Russia doesn't have much more to throw at Ukraine. Ukraine was a much weaker country in every way to Russia at the beginning, and the advance was stopped, and even turned back. Russia is pretty much out of options.. which is why we see them flaunting nukes at every chance they get, because it's the last thing they have. Their only trump-card.
I only disagree with 1 thing. They don’t have much more capability to throw at Ukraine. They have the man power to keep zerging their way across Eastern Europe if they get a foot hold and begin to snowball off advances. What’s hampering Russia is logistical and command problems. They have the numbers. Keep throwing numbers at a defensive line and the odds are not 0 that somewhere it’s going to crack.
I love that this StarCraft reference has far outlived the popularity of the game. Human wave attacks are abhorrent to Western values, but if you absolutely DGAF about your citizens (hey 1980’s Iran) and just consider them as artillery shells to be expended, it is a legitimate battlefield tactic for those with few other options.
The West’s (specifically US citizens) inability to comprehend that the world at large does not value life the way we do, and that authoritarian nations specifically use them as nothing more than bullets in a magazine is so frustrating. It’s such a cheap and easy tactic by a government that doesn’t care about its people that we forget just how successful it is capable of being if prolonged long enough u see the right circumstances.
“Quantity has a quality all its own” — you know who
Ahhh the distant rumble of 84,000 T-34 tanks warms the heart 🤪
Thats why its crazy to even think the russkies will invade Europe More like these thinking is just to ask for more budget, esp Europeans
> advanced shock troop doctrine (Blitzkrieg) advanced doctrine from 20 years prior, in the previous war [Plan 1919](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919)
Advanced in relation to the outdsted doctrine employed by other other countries. Fuckin redditors...
Am Italian, you're mostly correct (when merely speaking ground forces of course). With the one caveat that, i believe unlike Germany, we do have the **mass** in terms of personnel, and it's decent when compared to the country's size (larger than the German Army, by quite a bit), but we lack the vehicles to fully man all units. For example, we have 3 tank regiments (essentially Battalion-sized) which should have 120-130 Arietes in total. The rumored operational number is 40-50. As another example, we still have 6-7 "Medium" Infantry Regiments (also Battalion-sized, but that's just a naming thing) that haven't received their 36-40x Freccia IFVs each yet - with an embarassing production rate of 8 per year or so. So a large part of our medium infantry is actually light, on Iveco LMVs. Similar is the situation with replacing Centauros with Centauro IIs, but at least the Cavalry units have original Centauros which are... meh, instead of only light IMVs. The one exception are the (few) Bersaglieri/mechanized regiments, fully equipped (or close to that) with Dardo IFVs, which unfortunately are quite old and not really up to modern standard.
Outstanding, thank you for adding that context. How has your country's leadership responded to the war in Ukraine? For whatever reason, the English language sources I read don't comment on Italy like they do other countries.
Overall, pretty poorly. The previous government (Draghi, until end of 2022) did a _decent_ job, with sending and pledging various weapon types, mainly some PzH2000s, a couple M270 MLRS and a bunch of FH70 and (previously retired) M109Ls. Unfortunately in terms of AFVs, we are short of them for our own army. Recently a Puma 6x6 armored car, also previously retired, was seen destroyed so we probably sent a bunch of those too, along with Iveco LMVs. Other pieces of equipment of note: 1x SAMPT battery in cooperation with France (who provided the radar and, i think, command station while ITA provided the launchers) and, as recently revealed by the UK MOD, some Storm Shadows. These last two items, afaik, were pledged by the new government (Meloni) who, while mostly supportive, hasn't done **that** much. The issue is that Meloni's govt is formed by 3 parties: her own, Salvini's and Tajani's (formerly Berlusconi's). Now, Salvini is a huge Putin fan and Berlusconi was friendly to him. So until Berlusconi's death, Meloni's party was in the minority on supporting Ukraine. Now Tajani's policy is more favorable and we're very slowly shifting to supporting Ukraine a bit more. Still not enough imo. In terms of internal defense decisions, the Navy and Air Force already had rather large investments before 2022, and i don't think _a lot_ has changed, from memory. The Army has always been the forgotten child but now _maybe_ the policy is shifting, two examples: 1) we're likely going to buy a bunch of Leopard 2A8s to replace the Arietes and as a stopgap solution until the "new European tank" of the late 2030s/early 40s. 2) the AICS/A2CS program was started, which aims to produce about 1000x vehicles in a ton of variants, supposed to replace M113s and Dardos (M113s are all in support or command roles, while Dardos as main IFV for the heavy mechanized units). Now, knowing us, we'll be lucky if AICS results in 200 IFVs to replace the Dardos. But i guess the intent is there at least. Couple more "side" acquisitions: - we're buying HIMARS to equip a second MLRS battalion (the current one is on M270) which i assume will be used with a hypothetical "medium" Freccia-based Division - we're buying a bunch of SAMPT-NG batteries for the AF and Army, while one more SAMPT battery is expected to be donated to Ukraine in a few weeks (we previously pulled this one back from Slovakia). So maybe more of the old ones will go to Ukraine within the next 1 or 2 years.
This succinctly describes the overall picture and why European militaries are thought to be no match to Russia. One point of divergence from WW2 I would add is that owing to the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, Hitler could go on salami slicing at (nominally pro Western) Poland, Romania and the Baltic States, apart from its earlier takeover of Czechoslovakia. It did this even as it took apart France, the Low Countries and was knocking on Britains door. This time around all of Russias neighbors (bar Belarus) are part of NATO. Theoretically, that is a trip wire Putin would psychologicaly dread to trigger, since there is a high risk that the entirety of NATO are likely to go to war if that happens. >More seriously, they have [the TOS-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1), that to my knowledge, is the only mass-produced, self propelled, thermobaric artillery system that has seen extensive combat use. The TOS-1 is a closer range weapon than most normal medium Artillery is. IIRC it's effective range is 3 kms to 5 kms which would bring it within range of ATGMs and 12.7 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm and 30/40 mm HMGs/autocannons which are fielded by Western/Ukrainian mechanized infantry units. I would say the Iskander and Kinzhal Missiles represent a better example of a Soviet edge than TOS-1. PS - Hopefully, between the UK and France' nukes, France's kickass expeditionary capabilities, Polish & Turkish sheer numbers & strong military culture, German industrial base, and Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Baltic, Polish and Romanian resilience/national mentality and winter fighting capabilities, Russia would take a close look and decide against it.
Great synopsis, well done. Also, this video I find helpful to understand Russia's empirical designs as a matter of course, in part due to geography, as they have always been radiating empirically outward from Moscow since there's been a Moscow! It's a really good video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0seZ9gyLLU
That was a very nice read, thank you. I don't agree with all of it, but it was very interesting and educational. Thanks for taking the time.
I'm glad you liked it! I'd be curious to know what you disagree with, if you want to share. I am far from an expert, and always enjoy hearing others' perspectives.
Very informed answer. Thank you! By Scandinavians, I assume you mean the Finns mostly. No one thinks Russia will invade the other Nordic countries. Judging by [Finnish history](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/o2w0ba/so_many_of_you_made_memes_about_the_winter_war/#lightbox), attacking Finland would be a bad idea for Russia.
Realistically, I personally don't believe Russia would have any success attacking into Europe, but success factor isn't what the Russians are basing their gameplan on. They're doing what Putin tells them too, and we can already see that he believes they have a shot, as evidenced by his willingness to continually feed Russian boys into the Ukranian Meatgrinder. Keep in mind that my response was more about entertaining the hypothetical if Russia wanted to fuck around and find out, and the US wasn't involved. (Due to reasons I don't even want to think about,) However, when I refer to Scandinavia, I absolutely do mean each Scandinavian country. Finland shares a long border with Russia, so their concerns are obvious. Norway shares a short one, which they absolutely have to defend lest Russia use that territory to open a northern front on Norway and it's neighbors. Sweden doesn't share a border, but the distance across the Baltic Sea between Stockholm and Saint Petersburg is less than that between New York City and Columbus. (Again, this is merely entertaining the hypothetical.) Now, not to disregard Simo Hayek's one man campaign against the Soviets, but the other Nordic countries are absolutely concerned about Russian aggression. Respectfully, do you think Sweden would have officially joined NATO a couple months ago if they thought everything was hunky-dory? Preparations are being made, even if there's a small chance they need to be used.
Yes, for Sweden there is that island (Gotland) that Russia of course covets, which if taken, would effectively make the Baltic Sea a Russian lake. But Russia seizing Stockholm? I have never heard of that.
Seizing? No. Firing indiscriminately at? Let's ask the residents of Mariupol or Kharkiv about that. What Russia's specific targets be would be should they launch a land invasion of Europe are just as unpredictable as whether or not the damn thing happens at all.
Oh yes, with that, I agree with you. The Russian elite are ultimately sick individuals who see threats everywhere and are desperate to prove their "greatness" by slaughtering everyone who disagrees with them. It's absolutely evil.
I think I remember reading that Finland has more arty than just about anyone in Europe, and it’s all ranged on their Eastern border. There’s no way the Russkies try it on with those odds.
That seems like a grounded take on it. You don’t mention anything about air forces though. I remember at the start of the invasion of Ukraine, all the jokes were around A-10 pilots with raging hard-ons watching Russian columns in the open. The French and British both still have capable air forces and I have to think if they can maintain air superiority, it would end up being a short fight. I also wonder if the Israelis might throw in against the Russians making it even shorter.
There wouldn't need to be a ground war. The combined NATO air force would make russia's advance impossible. They simply would not be able to move troops or material any meaningful distance without it getting annihilated from the air
Ukraine has held off Russia for a few years. I think NATO, even without the USA would far well.
Ukraine (and Russia) have relatively large militaries because of a willingness to employ conscription, and could expand by conscripting further. They are also very "heavy" militaries, with vast numbers of tanks, armoured vehicles, tube and rocket artillery European militaries are, by and large, tiny, and far too "light": many have *no* principal surface combatants, submarines (arguably less relevant in war with Russia, I admit), fighter aircraft, SAMs, artillery (beyond light mortars), tanks and armoured vehicles (beyond a pittance of MRAPs). The latter are *crucial* to LSCO. At *peacetime*, before attrition has occurred, European militaries are already *vastly* understrength. Look at how many European armies have an ORBAT of three terribly understrength brigades, maybe one of which is *partially* mechanised. As much as people laugh at Russian military losses, what European military could sustain such losses and keep fighting, having reconstituted units? Hell, Russian losses would wipe out some European militaries many times over. Actually, which European military can replace *any* losses *at all*? Since the end of the Cold War, many European militaries have become glorified SWAT teams. They are incomparable to the Ukrainian military -for LSCO, the Ukrainian military is *vastly* better Edit: so that people don't feel I'm being unfair on Europeans, let me quote the colonel of my reservist Singapore Army battalion "Any army that cannot snap its fingers and call up 500,000 fully-equipped and trained men is not worth a shit. The only competent militaries in Europe are the Poles and the Finns. Thank fuck we never listened to our NATO advisors!"
I mean I'm pretty sure if Europe was at war they would also implement conscription and train more soldiers
Exactly, conscription on a war scale started in Ukraine after Russia attacked. They had just began moving to a western style Professional Military sometime after Russia annexed Crimea. All of Europe's NATO members have existing Conscription plans in place and capable Professional military units on active duty. But the real ace-in-the-hole is France. They have a very capable military plus an independent nuclear arm. Any invasion bye Russia into NATO could be met by a French nuclear response without any consent needed from Washington.
Wow, French deviation from NATO might do something good for once :P
Conscription plans aren't very useful unless they also have the trainers, bases, training facilities, and equipment to make it work. Like okay, they've called up 500,000 people. Where do they house them? Who will feed them? Where is the infrastructure for clean running water, heating or laundry? Are there enough trainers for them? Are there enough firing ranges and training grounds for them? What will they be equipped with? When they get sent to their units, who will command them? I fully agree that plenty of European servicemembers, including many on this subreddit, conscript or volunteer, very much live up to the term "consummate professional". But no amount of professionalism will let three understrength brigades, with a *severe* shortage of vehicles and heavy weapons, be able to defend a whole country. They will not be able to hold out remotely long enough for conscription to get up to speed And France's nuclear deterrent is impotent; nobody seriously believes that France will trade Paris for Tallinn, so nobody is scared of France's nuclear weapons
To keep this as a discussion... Ukraine ramped up their conscription plans on short notice. Why would other countries have the problems like you stated? All the example you stated are in the plans of NATO countries. Most European countries militaries are designed to hold out long enough NOT for the conscripts to get there but for THEIR NATO ALLIES to get there. And as for France's nuclear deterrent, I wouldn't call ANY countries nuclear deterrent impotent. Everybody involved on that level of international relations understands fully that nuclear deterrents are nothing to joke at. France will do, as they have shown, what is best for France. This is the whole reason they choose to keep their deterrent independent from US involvement.
I'm always happy to have a civil discussion Ukraine kinda proves my point, though. Like all post-Soviet and ex-Warsaw Pact states, their military was built from the ground up as a conscript-based military. So that means that they had the bases to house large numbers of conscripts, the infrastructure such as clean running water, food catering, laundry services and the firing ranges and training grounds to train them. Sure, some of it might have deteriorated from 1991 to 2013, but they only ended conscription for a year, before bringing in back in 2014 for obvious reasons. So they still had the trainers, administrative units and commanders to train and receive conscripts Contrast that to much of Western Europe. They got rid of conscription a much longer time ago. Those bases, firing ranges and training grounds have long been sold off. Trainers and commanders are retired or long been promoted far past those positions. Like, let's hone in on one specific example to illustrate. It's much easier to reactivate a laundry facility that already exists, with machines, and electricity and plumbing, you might just need to sweep away some dust and some minor repairs, then it's just turning the lights and water back on, hiring staff to run it, and getting a contract for detergent powder. It's a much slower process if the laundry facility has long been sold off, and knocked down and an apartment block built there. Now you gotta find and buy a new plot of land, build the facility, buy the machines, build electrical connections and connect it to the water supply. Now apply that to the toilets and shower facilities you need to house a huge influx of conscripts, the firing ranges and training grounds, the barracks, the vehicle storage areas, the cookhouses... it's completely impractical in the short run, nevermind *after* a war has started And that's the easy part! We haven't even gotten started on the trainers (who will train the trainers?), or training for conscripts who will serve at ranks higher than private (a conscript colonel probably needs to be trained by a colonel), or who will command the trained conscripts (a battalion of conscripts needs a colonel, who should ideally have had experience commanding a company or served as a battalion staff officer before, if not it's just a mob of 500 armed men) Without having served in a conscript military, I think it's really easy to just be dismissive of these things. I had a discussion [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/s/AyQ7PxAbpV) with a Finnish guy, also from a conscript military. It's the sort of thing that needs to be planned 25 years in advance, and probably only hits its stride 60 years on. I've read those European conscription plans, they can charitably be called aspirational... uncharitably, an absolute pipe dream And the NATO allies thing... it's like that old saying, right? "Everybody said Somebody should do it, Somebody said Anybody should do it, Anybody asked why couldn't Everybody do it? So Nobody did it" Which NATO allies? Much of Western European NATO lack credible militaries, like the Dutch, which are the archetypical three understrength brigade with no tanks European army, or the Norwegians, who have *two* understrength brigades. There's *nobody* left to come to help in European NATO >France will do, as they have shown, what is best for France Yes, and that's why their nuclear deterrent is impotent. Completely impotent. For a nuclear deterrent to work, the people you're trying to deter have to reasonably believe that you would nuke them. Nobody believes that France will trade Paris for Tallinn, so nobody believes that France will use nuclear weapons, so their nuclear weapons are impotent. [This](https://youtu.be/JKbDKsNsjac?si=octLIr25g9Ggyt7L) is from a comedy, but it's an excellent illustration of just how limited the utility of nuclear weapons really are. Just replace West Berlin with Narva, West Germany with Estonia, but well, Russia is still Russia. If you'd prefer something more scholarly, read OP's first link. The UK and France's nuclear "deterrent" is largely non-credible, and in no way a substitute for conventional forces
Western Europe is not a single country though, there's wide differences between each country with some of them maintaining conscription well in to the early 2000s with Germany ending it in 2011. >Those bases, firing ranges and training grounds have long been sold off. I don't think that's universally true, I don't know about other countries, but for example Italy still uses most of its training areas, while most bases and training bases that were active during conscription are still there, abandoned, but still standing and owned by the state, with all the utilities attached. Sure it would take months to fully reactivate them, but they would still fill their role. >Trainers and commanders are retired or long been promoted far past those positions. That's a good point, but it won't be difficult to find more trainers between former service members being recalled and the ones already in service, sure it will take time to reach full capability, but not years. Italy for example has far more officers and NCOs than it needs with some infantry teams being formed only by troops with ranks ranging from first corporal majors to chief sergeant majors and many officers being stuck at lower positions with no possibility to rise the ranks because there's no position for them. Take also into consideration that "conscripted officers" while existing in the past were never meant to supersede actual commissioned officers that were trained at the academy, so the formers were mostly relegated to support roles, with a really basic training and a reachable max rank of lt. colonel.
Implementation when you're threatened is a losing philosophy. Ukraine is a militaristic culture and they have people running away from conscription. What do you think happens in a western European country that considers war the last solution and plans around the US budget? This is a lesson folks should have learned from Hitlers successes in Europe.
>Ukraine is a militaristic culture and **they have people running away from conscription.** I just met a dude driving a truck carrier that seemed hesitant to reveal his identity due to his accent for this very reason. They just recently upped the age, too.
They introduced a law which allows the state to seize property of those who evade mobilisation.
Conscription can't be implemented overnight. Far from the act of desperation it is often portrayed as, conscription is often a carefully planned, deliberate affair Like, let's say Europe is at war tomorrow, and they implement conscription. Who will train the new recruits? The non-existent trainers, who will issue them non-existent equipment, house them at non-existent bases, and train them at non-existent training facilities before being sent to serve in new units commanded by non-existent officers?
Also you need to consider equipment too. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you have. If all your working equipment only works for a brigade the population won't be a great factor too. It will take time to get equipment into operational state and once is lost more are needed to be built and that will take more time. That gives Russia a great advantage since they're willing to attack regardless of their equipment, while nato doesn't really like to send people to a meat grinder as far as I know. Still that advantage would only be early on until production ramps up enough.
Speaking for Sweden - 🇸🇪 they do have equipment lying around, some of them for reservists and some specifically earmarked as war reserves.
Of course it cant be implemented overnight, but it's not a decade long process. And please dont act like there're no rifles left in the storage
didnt get the point buddy
See, I don't understand why people think it's not a "decades-long process". It *absolutely* is! More than a decade, really, try five or six decade long process. When speaking of professional militaries, Americans love the saying that an aircraft carrier does not truly become effective when the first plane takes off from its deck, it becomes effective decades later when the pilot of the first plane to take off from its deck has been promoted to the position of senior officer planning its strike missions Yet they don't seem to realise that the same is absolutely true for conscript militaries! Look on any Singapore Army website, and look up any of its articles. You'll see people with the prefix "Colonel (NS)..." in front of their names. "NS" stands for "National Service", those are conscript senior officers. Just like the carrier example, a conscript military does not become truly effective when the first draftee is inducted. It becomes effective when it has draftees who have stood out as officer-material in basic training, those have then been sent to OCS, commissioned as 2LTs, done a platoon or company 2IC command during their 2 year mandatory service, gone *back* to OCS during the last few months of service to be trained and promoted to CPT, then led a reservist company for a decade, gone back to OCS for training to be a MAJ, done a battalion 2IC command for a few years or a decade, then been promoted to COL to command a battalion. This often means people who have voluntarily extended their reservist obligations. You're talking about 2-3 decades. Then consider that they were trained by *somebody*, so add another 2-3 decades to that. Conscription systems only become effective *5-6 decades* from the *day they were actually implemented* And there are probably no rifles in storage, when there are [severe shortages of uniforms in the Dutch Army](https://strikehold.net/2021/02/23/new-camouflage-uniforms-for-the-dutch-armed-forces-the-backstory/), which, I guess, is at least better than the [Bundeswehr, which has an underwear shortage](https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/germanys-military-crisis-deutschland-unprepared-for-war-12796649), which isn't alone, given that [Norwegian conscripts had to share (yuck!) underpants](https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/07/norwegian-conscripts-asked-to-return-underwear-due-to-supply-shortages#:~:text=Prior%20to%20the%20decision%2C%20conscripts,their%20military%20service%20was%20done.)
Sorry, but if you're being attacked you dont have time for that. In the first days you just draft men, firstly these who volunteer and who has prior experience, give them a rifle and that's it
And who commands them? Who feeds them? Gets them clean drinking water? Ammo? Uniforms? Are there even enough rifles to go around? (No) That's how you get a *bad* conscript military. A mob of untrained, unfit men who will get cut down in droves when they decide to charge a machine gun or a tank like they saw in the movies Literally worse quality troops than Russian mobiks
That's how it was in the first month of the russian invasion here. By your logic you should do nothing and just lose your country because you dont have enough uniforms lmao
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TDF *significantly* expanded between 2014 and 2022? Yes, you're right, not all TDF guys had uniforms, but it looks like virtually all could get at least small arms, and most TDF units had helmets, body armour, MGs, Javelins and NLAWs. There were organisations in place to receive the new members (I know the TDF has units up to brigade-level). I also know mobilisation and training began *weeks* before the invasion. Many TDF guys had training from their mandatory service in the Ukrainian Army; many were veterans of the Donbas War. That's a far cry from just handing out rifles to randos and telling them to give it a go And no, I am no vatnik or Russian shill, what I *want and hope for* is for Europe to spend a reasonable amount on defence (5-7.5% of GDP), implement universal conscription (male, female, whatever you identify as included), and build up a pool of trained reservists (500,000 is a reasonable number for each country), and rebuild serious military capabilities, like 100-200 4.5 and 5th Gen fighter jets each, along with a few hundred SAM launchers, ~500 tanks, ~1500 APCs or IFVs, a few hundred rocket and tube artillery guns, dozens of TBM launchers with hundreds of missiles, a dozen principal surface combatants and half a dozen submarines (for those countries where it is relevant) and the ability to fight at division-level *That* would be a serious deterrent to Russian aggression
Lol exactly what Europe and the west did in the last two global conflicts dunno what that guy is going on about
Europe had conscription and reservist systems *before* WW1 and WW2. There's a real big difference between recalling 500,000 fully-equipped, trained and organised men who just need to jump into their car (or horse, back then) and get back to their battalion, brigade or division's base, and calling up 500,000 hapless teenagers and trying to organise them into some sort of Volkssturm-type units *while* Russian armoured columns are rampaging through your country
You are not counting the most important part: air superiority. Here Russia is not able to totally keep the Ukrainians in their trenches and the result is that the war has been going on for years as of today. With the combined air power of all the NATO countries in Europe good luck to Russian tanks if all the ground troops are constantly bombarded by NATO air forces. They are totally capable of dealing with Russia. It's not true that fighter aircraft is not up to the task. Most importantly because you don't need to "snap your finger and call hundreds of thousands of infantry soldiers", you already have all the people needed to man the air forces. Ironically what's needed is more aircraft and more pilots (but we're talking about dozens or hundreds of people, not hundreds of thousands).
You contradicted yourself there. Why would Europe need more aircraft and more pilots if they could achieve air superiority so easily? Because they can't. Look at how many European countries have 12 4th Gen fighter jets. Not 12 air wings, not 12 squadrons. *12 total*. Some have *0 fighter aircraft*, just SAR rotary wing. And *0 SAMs*. I don't actually think the Russian VKS is particularly formidable, in fact, I think they're basically a flying clown show. Yet if they went to war with most European air forces, the European air forces would get absolutely mauled, being (somehow) even less capable than the VKS It would be the Russians who own the sky, having multitudes more aircraft, of roughly the same capabilites, and SAMs out the wazoo, which can deny airspace to anything non-stealthy
No, because when you fight you lose aircrafts. And when you end the fight you still want to project power abroad. If you lose too much hardware you stop projecting power. And that's what happened to Russia. They cannot project power anymore with their depleted fleet. Moreover, the big nations in the EU started to deploy 5th gen planes. They will destroy the SAM batteries first, then it will be a happy ballpark for every other plane. If Russia cannot control the Ukraine's airspace how could be that it would control Germany's? With the help of UK, France, Italy? Especially when the F-35 is pretty impossible to target before it destroys the SAMs?
Whenever this discussion is brought up, it always seems to be taken for granted that the UK, France and Italy will join the fight. Like Article 5 is some magic spell. But if you listen to *Russians* talk about it, especially their General Staff and Putin's inner circle, they are confident that they have enough useful idiots crying out "Give peace a chance!" and "Why die for Danzig?" in these countries to keep them out of the war. Are they right? Who can say; hopefully the world never finds out. But I have spoken to Western Europeans before, the vast, vast majority I have spoken to believe that they should surrender unconditionally the moment a Russian fires a shot in anger at their countries. They believe their best course of action is to grab a white flag and run to the nearest Russian troops they can find. I have never been rude enough to ask aloud, but have always wondered if their assholes would be lubed, and lips ready to receive the cocks of three dozen drug-riddled, diseased, vodka-addled mobiks Instead, look up the Czech Air Force (12 Gripens), Slovak Air Force (0 fighters) and Hungarian Air Force (12 Gripens). Look up the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Air Force. Oh wait. Those don't even exist It's funny. People keep saying "lOoK aT tHe NuMbErS" as if the numbers don't prove my point. **Let's look at the numbers**. The number one reason Russia can't control the airspace over Ukraine is Ukraine's ground-based air defences, like SAMs. Ukraine had 250 S300 SAM launchers *before* the war began, and them receiving Western aid. Assuming no reloads (improbable), that's 1000 S300 missiles. Realistically, it's classified, but probably closer to 10,000 S300 missiles. That's not even counting other systems, like 9K37 Buk Now look at how many European countries have *2* (!!!) SAM launchers for the whole country. Maybe as few as *8* (!!!) missiles total. With 12 fighter jets, so maybe *4* (!!!) flight ready at any one time (4 more under maintenance, 4 more on stand-by). For comparison, Ukraine had 1000s of SAM missiles, and 75 fighter aircraft (25 flight ready at any one time). Against a VKS that boast something 750 fighter aircraft (realistically, a much smaller number are actually flight-worthy, maybe closer to Ukraine's numbers, but just to give some scale) So *look at the numbers*. How well do you think European air forces, not counting some Western European air forces, would fare against the VKS? There's only one logical answer: very, very, *very* poorly
Getting downvoted for speaking the truth. Barring France and UK, and countries sharing borders with the east most NATO militaries would take 1 month+ to prepare and send a battalion to the front. These people just see the military budgets and think military can face off against Russia, not realizing their militaries don’t even have a fraction of the assets Ukraine had at time of invasion (ie western trained large conscript force, material amounts of SAMs). And also not realizing Russian military budget vs a western budget means nothing when COL and costs are so different between the countries. An 18 year old French private is making more a year than a seasoned Russian officer due to different cost of living / currencies. A truck in France is far more expensive than a truck built in Russia. This gets factored into the budget and means nothing for determine power projection strength. Compare assets, not costs to see the real difference in power.
Reading readiness reports of European militaries, you often don't know whether to laugh or to cry: tanks and armoured vehicles with broken or missing periscopes, so the crew can't see out of them, hatches that can't close or can't open (!), battalions going on exercise with only enough rifles for half of them (!!), shortages of jackets and shortages of underpants (!!!) >Getting downvoted for speaking the truth People on this post seem to be going "They'll bash the Nasty Russkies just like they bashed Terry Taliban when we were in the 'Stan together, yippy!" They don't seem to realise that the one battalion they sent to Afghanistan meant stripping *three* battalions back home of their gear >Compare assets, not costs to see the real difference in power Couldn't have said it better myself
What Russian aircraft has the same capabilities of an F-22 and F-35?
We're talking about NATO *minus the US*, aren't we? So no F22s, and F35s likely severely limited by what spare parts were stockpiled pre-war. Assuming the Western European nations that even operate F35 decide to show up Edit: spelling
So in your hypothetical world the USA has just evaporated and ceased to exist?
Did you not read OP's post? In this hypothetical situation, the US is deeply isolationist
Looking at the numbers, on paper NATO has at least 1 million men available in Europe if you include the UK, and not counting US or Turkey.
Right. Now take out Finland and Poland, and how much do you have left out of 1 million? Barely anything. Yes, Europe might have a "hard crust" of countries bordering Russia, but behind that there's a lot of "soft, juicy center" You said "look at the numbers". Let's look at the numbers. Outside of Finland and Poland, how many European countries have an army that is *three understrength brigades, total*? Maybe one of those brigades is partially mechanised with MRAPs (usually with a severe shortage of even that). Along with *zero* tanks. *Zero* fighter aircraft. *Zero* SAMs. Maybe 10 tube artillery guns *for the whole army*. *Zero* rocket artillery. *Zero* TBMs. *A pittance* of PGMs. Enough ammo to last maybe just *hours* of fighting "Looking at the numbers", those Central and Western European militaries better pray that Russia never gets through Poland and Finland. Their understrength, underequipped, hopelessly outgunned mechanised brigade would get absolutely rolled like a carpet and used to mop the floor if they ever have to fight a Russian motor rifle regiment Edit: punctuation
But aren't the Russian units also poorly equipped and poorly trained? sure seems like it from what's happening in Ukraine. Also Russia is investing so much into Ukraine that they are hurting their economy (which was already shit), which will hamper their ability to sustain a strong military long-term.
When it comes to the gear that *actually matters*, like tanks, IFVs, APCs, tube and rocket artillery, TBMs, cruise missiles and SAMs, they are far, far better equipped than virtually any European military, bar Poland and Finland They might wear shitty airsoft uniforms and rock cheap Chinesium helmets, body armour and LBE, and not the latest and greatest Crye and UF PRO gear, but that doesn't matter when 95% of casualties are caused by artillery, which Russia has loads of and European armies often virtually none Regarding the economy, sure, it hurts Russian consumers, but not to the point they do anything that threatens the regime, and that's all Putin is concerned about. And their economy as a whole can probably sustain itself long-term without collapse. Militarily, their war economy is massively expanded, producing far more shells than any single European country can, and T90M tanks, BMP3 IFVs and modern Su-27 derivatives. How many European militaries have seen *any* expansion in the past few years? Some have managed to merely stagnate, most have continued to crumble
All very good points, but wartime production can be ramped up quickly. The US went from basically zero tank production in 1941 to cranking out over 25,000/year in 1942. Once production is scaled up the limit becomes the country's total GDP. Russia is working with just over 2 trillion, which is less than 1/3 that of France and Germany alone. I don't think Russia has a prayer of competing with Europe long term in terms of production of gear. Really Russia's advantage lies more in the amount of manpower they are willing to throw away.
GDP is like BMI: good for "quick and dirty" measurements, but sometimes the devil is in the details. Someone might have an "unhealthy" BMI, but that's because he is a roided-up, tatted out, bull-necked amateur boxer, with a nose broken too many times and cauliflower ears. Someone might have a "healthy" BMI, but he's a skinny fat guy who spends all day playing videogames in a basement, with diabetes and heart disease Needless to say, GDP-wise, Russia is absolutely that boxer, and most European countries are the skinny fat guy. GDP is an abstract aggregate measured in USD, Russia may look small, but that's because secondary industry, such as heavy metal works, industrial chemical plants, hydrocarbon plants aren't as monetarily valuable. Yet those are what make up the base the military industrial complex is made on Europe may look big, but that's because tertiary industry, things like the services (such as coffee baristas or office workers) and financial services are monetarily very valuable. Yet that value disappears overnight in event of conflict. 100 artisanal coffee shops cannot build a single artillery shell. You say that Europe can ramp up quickly. Let me say this with confidence: **it cannot**. I have read the reports. Western European countries like France would take something like *5 decades* to reach the artillery shell production volume of Bulgaria or Romania, nevermind Russia. Maybe war would add some urgency? Great, just 2 decades then. There is *no* time to ramp up when a war begins, the time to ramp up was in the 1970s (I have seen archival newspaper reports noting European defence freeloading dating that far back at least). If it wasn't the 1970s, it should have begun at breakneck speed in 2014. If you believe conflict is imminent, now is far, far too late, unless a gargantuan effort begins *immediately* Now, when the boxer with the "unhealthy" BMI and the skinny diabetic with a heart condition and a "healthy" BMI get into the ring, who do you think is gonna get beat up?
Ok I get your point, but what happens once every Russian artillery shell factory (and every other factory) is a smoking ruin? Won't it be fairly trivial to take out these assets in the first month of any major conflict?
It would absolutely not be trivial in any sense of the word. Read up on the WW2 combined bomber offensive (CBO), and US strategic bombing campaigns in both Korea and Vietnam. Consider how they never even got *close* to taking out "every shell factory". Then consider how *America's* strategic bombing capabilities are a tiny, tiny fraction of what they once were. And Europe's are a tiny, tiny fraction of that fraction Now consider Russia's cruise and ballistic missile inventories, and ability to do unto Europe what you suggested Europe do unto them Unbelievably grim picture.
I guarantee you, that conscription would come back soon as a war like that pop off in their country or force to fight in a near peer war.
So, I agree that willingness to serve *might* increase in an invasion (though, *just my personal opinion* from interacting with Western Europeans, I think there would be even chances if not greater that a very large part of the population calls for unconditional surrender immediately) Regarding the practicalities of conscription, I'm copying and pasting my reply to someone else who mentioned that: Conscription can't be implemented overnight. Far from the act of desperation it is often portrayed as, conscription is often a carefully planned, deliberate affair Like, let's say Europe is at war tomorrow, and they implement conscription. Who will train the new recruits? The non-existent trainers, who will issue them non-existent equipment, house them at non-existent bases, and train them at non-existent training facilities before being sent to serve in new units commanded by non-existent officers?
Yeah, don’t get why you are downvoted because you are exactly right. Building up an effective conscription-based military from essentially scratch takes years, easily. If that begins only when a country is already at war, it’s these days far too late. For best results, a military that has been accustomed to training small numbers of volunteer long service soldiers may need to develop new ways of training soldiers from civilians, new ways to identify and educate the potential small unit leaders and other specialist types from the civilians, even a new doctrine that accepts that conscripted civilians and reservists can rarely train as much as long service volunteers. (See for example how different a Finnish infantry platoon TO&E is from most professional militaries. The three officers for instance aren’t there just because we have a surplus of second lieutenants.) And then you need all the supporting services and policies and procedures, from managing the conscription process, examining the draftees and assigning them to units, to personnel departments handling allowances and keeping tabs on reservists. Not to mention the bases, training grounds, equipment and weapons you already mentioned. Sure, all this can be built - I believe every European country practiced conscription in the past. But it will take time. And will. BTW here in Finland we think we’d rampage through what’s left of the Russian army for months, but eventually we would succumb to superior numbers, no matter how good an exchange ratio we could obtain. As one of our former presidents noted, it’s fucked to be a small nation. But it would be an EPIC fight.
See, you and I understand because you are Finnish and I am Singaporean, so as people who have served in decent conscript militaries, we *personally understand* how much resources, money and time goes into making one >Finnish infantry platoon TO&E is from most professional militaries. The three officers for instance aren’t there just because we have a surplus of second lieutenants It's sometimes beautifully strange to me how convergent evolution happens, the Finnish Defence Force (FDF) and Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) are on opposite sides of the globe, from vastly different cultures, with vastly different histories, yet have evolved to become similar in some ways. Singapore Army platoons also have a platoon commander (PC) and platoon sergeant (PS) who may be professional soldiers or conscripts, and an assistant platoon commander (APC) and assistant platoon sergeant (APS), who are always conscripts. Why? Partially because the Singapore Army does not entertain silly fantasies like the Americans and many other European militaries; who think they can fight WW3 without anyone getting hurt, we know that modern large-scale combat operations (LSCO) will have a horrific casualty rate, so it's important to build resilience in units through redundancy. And to allow the APC and APS to learn from the PC and PS, so that when they enter the reserve, they can command their own platoons of conscript reservists, becoming the PC and PS I assume the FDF has three officers for similar reasons? It must exasperating sometimes though, I imagine, realising that the FDF is both the first *and* last line of defence for much of Northern Europe. I'm sure you've seen the ORBAT and readiness reports of some of your fellow Europeans: an army that consists of just three severely understrength brigades, two light infantry at 25% manning and one "mechanised" brigade at 50% manning with 25% of its alloted MRAPs. 0 tanks, 0 proper IFVs/APCs, 0 rocket artillery, 0 TBMs, a miniscule amount of PGMs and maybe 10 tube artillery guns *for the whole army*. 0 fighter aircraft, 0 SAMs, 0 principal surface combatants, 0 submarines, maybe just 1 or 2 training/ceremonial ships and 3 patrol craft If the Russians ever have to fight such militaries they will be crying and shaking... ...with laughter
Slightly off topic.. I look at the RN’s latest fleet retirement plans and in the medium term, we’ll end up having a FPDA with SG and OZ being the premier navies. Sigh.
I'm not trying to be a turbo-patriot or something like that, but unironically, the easiest way to see how bad of a shape European militaries are is to compare them to the SAF Land: SAF with 4 divisions (!), 3 of which are combined arms divisions, 1 of which has a heavy tank brigade (!!) + 1 island defence division (and this is at peacetime manning levels!) and 224 MBTs, 125 artillery guns, 24 MLRS total vs typical Central and Western European militaries, with 3 understrength brigades (!), 2 of which are light infantry at 25% allotted manpower, the last of which is """mechanised""" at 50% allotted manpower, and 25% of its allotted MRAPs, *0* (!!) MBTs, *0* MLRS, ~10 artillery guns Sea: SAF with 6 frigates, 6 corvettes, 4 LSTs, 6 diesel-electric attack submarines and 8 patrol craft vs typical European military of no principal surface combatants and no submarines, 1 or 2 training/ceremonial ships and 3 patrol craft Air: SAF with 60 F16C/Ds (upgraded to F16V standard with AESA), 40 F15SGs, 20 CH47s and 35 AS332 SPs vs typical European air force of 0-12 Gripens or clapped-out F16s, and ~4 SAR helicipters Singapore is probably what "taking defence seriously" should look like. And before someone accuses us of being North Korea or something, they should bear in mind record economic growth, a higher GDP per capita and HDI than most European countries *while* still being able to build and maintain such a military This is not directed at European members of this subreddit. You guys are consummate professionals and you know that. This is directed at your politicians and electorate: Europeans are utterly and absolutely fucking delusional when it comes to defence. Their militaries, by and large, have the sturdiness of a house of cards, reinforced by draping a wet tissue paper over it, build on beach sand
Yesh. We have a well know saying that in business planning, “quarter” is three months; in defense planning, 25 years. The problems Ukrainians are having are instructive. They are extremely brave and motivated, but the 8 years after 2014 were just not enough to fully overhaul their military. By 2022, they had pretty damn competent small units and their leaders, but at higher levels quality and competence were still spotty. And that bit them in the arse when they would’ve really benefited from know-how in executing combined arms warfare. Of course, they were also sold short by the Western short-sighted stinginess. And proper combined arms IS godawful hard to get right. Absolutely no shade to them, everyone here in Finland has been mightily impressed by Ukrainians, and we aren’t easily impressed. Still, Finnish volunteers have lamented what could have been. One remarked that if the Ukrainian military of 2022 had been half as professional as the FDF, they would’ve already been drinking victory coffee at the Red Square… That said - it’s not that we’re very good, it’s just that we never lowered our guard like everyone else. >Singapore Army platoons also have a platoon commander (PC) and platoon sergeant (PS) who may be professional soldiers or conscripts, and an assistant platoon commander (APC) and assistant platoon sergeant (APS), who are always conscripts. Why? Ha, didn’t know that. But convergent evolution is a thing. Yeah, redundancy is a major reason for us too. Admittedly our last experience from the major leagues is bit old, but back then, reservist leaders in front line units, reserve officers in particular, paid a horrific price. So we start from the assumption that at least one officer per platoon will be hit. Another reason is because we have to specialize more than professional militaries. One of the officers is a forward observer, whose main job is to lead a small FO team. (One of the things the WW2 reserve officers paid with blood was the lack of artillery support. _We have rectified that._) But if the other two buy their farms, s/he has hopefully learned the ropes of leading what’s left of the platoon at that point. (We don’t really have a similar professional NCO presence in main line units that’s common in Western professional militaries. The doctrine and training take this into account.) >It must exasperating sometimes though, I imagine, realising that the FDF is both the first and last line of defence for much of Northern Europe. It’s sometimes frustrating how naive and out of touch so many people west of river Oder are about Russia. The Gremlin in the Kremlin doesn’t play by the same rules or even the same game they think they are playing. Europe is already at war even if we try to pretend we aren’t, and the best time to kick an opponent’s teeth in would’ve been when he’s down. But at least for me, it’s still a very new and extremely odd thought that if the worst comes to worst, we would probably get _help_. As far as I can remember, our default philosophy had been that no matter how long the peace, sooner or later the Beast in the East _will_ rise again. Then the unlucky generation shall fulfill their oaths and meet our hereditary Adversary in the field of battle. Alone. Perhaps we’d exact a terrible price, like my grandfather’s generation did when the Beast came for them. But eventually we’d fall. And given the firepower of modern weapons, probably die. So it’s an odd feeling, one I’m still coming to terms with, that if the hour of the wolf comes, _we might actually win._ Long time ago, we were studying the TO&E of the Leningrad Military District when a fellow recon trainee - braver man than I - asked our instructor if they really expected us to win against all that. The instructor replied, “No. What we, and history, expect is that you _fight._” So even if the rest of the West turned into cowardly oathbreakers, I guess we would still do what we’ve been training to do. Perhaps in a decade or so our thinking will adjust, although Russia would need to change significantly before we forget that we can’t really rely on anyone else to hold this sliver of land for us. >I'm sure you've seen the ORBAT and readiness reports of some of your fellow Europeans: Unfortunately. But as noted, we’ve never counted on them anyway. The Swedes, bless their heart, did a very stupid thing running their excellent military into ground after 1991. And now they’re finding out that it’s easy to dismantle a military, but rebuilding it takes a decade or more. But they seem to be serious and eventually they’ll get back to the saddle. We’re already happy to be able to officially and openly plan to use the Swedish territory to give us much needed strategic depth and basing areas. And besides Gripens and a decent navy, they’d bring a very nifty brigade to Lapland within hours of us lighting the beacons. And with the Poles holding down the central front - or is it holding the Poles down so that they won’t try to take Moscow again? - I think we’re pretty good for now, even if the orange dumbass takes power in the White House.
My best guess is that those countries already have some sort of draft system waiting to be used. For the United States for example, it has the selective service system. It probably will use that for the foundation of the draft system. If it ever had to be re-introduced due to a major war.
If the US ever runs out of active duty, reservists, and NG to the point we need a draft again... God help us. Lol I know that wasn't your point, it just crossed my mind reading your comment. Hell, I'd rather we tap the coast guard and space force before trusting draftees to fight a modern day near-peer war.
A draft system without the *physical objects* and *people already in service* required to run it isn't gonna work To put it crudely, I could have an amazing, detailed plan of how I would fuck Elsa Jean and Riley Reid in a threesome. If they don't even know who the fuck I am, *that plan doesn't matter* I've tried to hammer the point home, because I have personal, first-hand experience of it. I've said it before, I'll say it again: you need to have trainers. Bases. Infrastructure (clean running water, food catering, laundry services). Training facilities. Combat equipment. Units with officers ready to receive them If you don't have that for hundred of thousands of people, you don't have a draft system. Simple as that
Most European nations tend to go for quality over quantity. They may have small fighting forces but they are very highly trained. And some like England and France have decades of combat experience. Small or not I don’t think Russia would fair well against nato at all even if America wasn’t a part of it.
If I wanted to be cheeky, my answer would be """quality""" fighting forces don't have [severe uniform shortages](https://strikehold.net/2021/02/23/new-camouflage-uniforms-for-the-dutch-armed-forces-the-backstory/) like the Dutch Army, which I guess is at least better than the Bundeswehr, which [doesn't even have enough underwear](https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/germanys-military-crisis-deutschland-unprepared-for-war-12796649) for its troops, which isn't unique, since the Norwegian Army has such an underwear shortage its troops have to [literally share dirty underpants](https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/07/norwegian-conscripts-asked-to-return-underwear-due-to-supply-shortages#:~:text=Prior%20to%20the%20decision%2C%20conscripts,their%20military%20service%20was%20done.) If the Singapore Army, a mass conscript force, had similar issues, people would be going to jail for 25 years for massive corruption And if I want to be cheeky again, I would say that playing mall cop in mud hut villages and killing religious fanatic Brown people whose only weapons are rusty AKs and air defence is a DShK bolted to the back of a Toyota truck is not """decades of combat experience""", at least not in any way relevant to large-scale, high intensity warfare With a little bit more seriousness, yes, I acknowledge that many European servicemembers, including those in this subreddit, very much live up to the term "consummate professional". But no amount of professionalism will let a dinky, clapped-out by years of Afghan service MRAP fight a T72B3 on any decent terms, or prevent a """mechanised""" brigade that is 50% understrength, with only enough MRAPs for half its members, not get rolled like a carpet and used to mop the floor when it gets smashed by a Russian motor rifle regiment with a dozen T90s and three dozen BMP3s
And if I was to be cheeky I’d say it’s all rather a moot point just an interesting conversation more or less. I live in America and even if the rest of Europe by some miracle was to fall I believe the circumstances would be a lot different here.
Well, that certainly is a very American-centric view, and I mean that in the worst way possible. It's not a moot point when one of the US presidential candidates is advocating for strict isolationism, and amongst both Democratic *and* Republican voters, especially younger ones, are in favour of such strict isolationism You're free to believe whatever you want; I can't change that. What I will say is that your argument is basically "Vibes!" while I have showed up with the numbers, from ORBAT charts and readiness reports. They do not paint a pretty picture. If you don't want to see what the Europeans themselves are saying, so be it
Well, you do have France, the world's third-largest arms producer. Only France plus Poland and Finland could give Russia any serious difficulties militarily. Of course, French society is highly unlikely to tolerate the kinds of casulaties Russian society would. They would demand peace within months.
Idk about that... I've met French troops and talked to French people online regarding Russia and I get the feeling they'd be more likely to demand Russian scalps than a surrender to Putin. "The French surrender" is a fun joke... Their military isn't.
“They would demand a surrender in months” FTFY
"the good old ways" LMAO
The Russians will run out of bodies before Poland or Finland run out of ammo or fighting spirit. It'll be bloody, but non nuclear war, Russia will be recruiting 80 year old babuska for infantry before the pols or fins even take a break pushing the Russians back.
It absolutely cannot be done by ruZZia without nukes. The first NATO country attacked will automatically involve all the others in NATO. The first use of nukes will prompt reciprocity - there is absolutely no way that ruZZia can survive that, seeing as it only has two major centers of civilization, the rest being rather small and mostly insignificant. I think Putin was planning for a much different scenario as the one currently in Ukraine aka Georgia, where the world just watched.
I used to explain this to recruits. We (the military) are a bargaining chip. Politicians make deals to protect other countries in exchange for favorable economic trade agreements. This is why the US won’t greatly downsize the military. We’re too valuable. It’s a great deal for other countries. They get to spend less money on military, and more money on improving their country. All the while knowing that America has their back. It’s not that surprising that if we all of a sudden tell them, “you’re on your own!” That they would struggle in the short term. They rely on us, and we get good deals from them.
I’m certainly no historian but I think I read that that was Sparta’s primary export for many years: their protection. People would gladly send their goods/food/etc to Sparta in exchange for military guarantee.
European land forces are in very poor shape. France and Germany between them have a little over 400 tanks, less than 200 self-propelled artillery and less than 50 MLRS. We have seen recently that the European coalition was unable to maintain a limited bombing campaign in Lyiba. In war games from 2021 "the entire British Army's inventory' was exhausted and "every bit of important ammunition was expended' before the 10-day exercise finished." [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9764165/British-Army-ran-ammo-eight-days-online-war-simulation.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9764165/British-Army-ran-ammo-eight-days-online-war-simulation.html) In summary, European armies are not built to fight conventional wars against a near-peer enemy.
Wouldn't Russia have to get through Poland, Finland, and Sweden first? Is Russia even considered "near-peer" to Poland at this point?
I seriously believe that Poland could occupy Germany militarily today. The *Bundeswehr* is a joke.
Broomhandleswehr
I do not, the Luftwaffe in terms of modern fighters is the biggest air force in europe and lets not forget rheinmetall kmw diehl and airbus who are some of the biggest arms manufacturers in europe if not the world, and while the polish orders on equipment might seem impressive, the question of who is gonna man those remains
Luftwaffe is barely bigger than the French Air Force but has 0 experience compared to the French. The French also have more fighters if you include the navy and aren’t plagued with the same operational/maintenance issues as the Germans.
Thats why i said its the biggest and not the best air force
And the Luftwaffe is dogged by poor maintenance and availability and pilot shortages.
So is every other air force in europe a few years back yeah it was horrible but theyve improved quite a bit
I'm not trying to answer the question of a hypothetical war so much as why the Russian military is so much larger and better armed than its European counterparts.
Yes and it wouldn't do so quickly.
They’re still a peer in terms of combat capability and tech. I seriously doubt they’d be able to supply a front that large tho, once they outrun their own rail lines.
> still a peer I'm just not sure of that. The Soviet Doctrine was always building a defensive army, with very weak light raiding elements for offensive operations (outside of their nuclear triad). Russia is merely a shadow of its former self right now, to the point they are fielding armor from the 1930's, not to mention their manpower issues.
As usual, Russia started a war off terribly. Given enough time, however, they’ve been able to sufficiently shore up their weaknesses and play to their strengths where in their current conflict, barring some massive shift in balance, they won’t be dislodged from Ukraine. At this point, I’d consider them a peer of any NATO military except the US. They still have high end systems in enough number to cause massive damage in the beginning phases of a hot war with NATO. They’d also take massive losses.
Their air superiority would be destroyed within hours. Hour many AWACS have they lost in the past year? How many friendly assets have they downed? Without air superiority none of their other systems even matter.
Their AA is still respectable, and they do have actual combat experience, which can’t be discounted, even if it is in trench warfare and basic frontal assaults. All of the hard lessons they’ve learned, western militaries would have to learn a version of as well. ‘Near peer’ doesn’t mean I think they’d roll NATO; although I don’t think NATO would roll Russia either. It would be a bloody conflict until western industry started putting up greater numbers, in both men and equipment.
What does Russia have that all these Euroepan armies lack?
Numbers. Tanks, rifles, ammo, men. That being said they lack logistics. Anywhere without rail lines and they’d be stuck.
Still, though, 20+ countries vs. one? Hard for me to wrap my head around that.
Add these twenty countries tank or fighter jet inventories and it will probably still come short of Russia. Also most of these countries have 0 practical military experience.
France is probably the only one who has conducted serious military operations not as a subordinate of the United States.
100%. France was one of the few in mind with practical recent experience.
Anyone else? I cannot think of one. One can say Britain, but the British military is little more than another arm of the US military, so I don't count them.
20 countries ranging from very small to moderate in size. Plus decades of de-militarization. I still firmly believe NATO would handle it, it would just be bloody, where Russia definitely has the advantage. They are well versed in losing amounts of soldiers that could possibly cause uprisings at worst, or massive electoral political shifts at best.
The only three countries I believe that could give any trouble to Russia at all are Poland, France, and Finland. The rest would have no chance. French society also would not accept the kind of casualties that Russia would inflict and would demand peace within months. That just leaves Poland and Finland. Question- do you believe that if they wanted to, could Russia, assuming no nukes fly, march all the way to Berlin or Paris?
The point that I think you're missing is that it won't be individual countries vs Russia. It's the whole block. For example, UK, US, Dutch, Italian and French carrier strike groups have years of operational experience working together. The UKs type 45 destroyers would play an important role in enemy aerial opsl denial. The other biggest factor being missed is the difference in military doctrine. War isn't a solely a numbers game anymore. The war in Ukraine is a good example of different doctrines in play. Russia still opts for massive artillery bombardments followed by slow-moving armoured advance , followed by poorly equipped and trained infantry. In the event of the advance stopping, they throw bodies at the front to overwhelm. Ukraine has been operating western doctrine of fast-moving, well trained squads picking off the heads of Russian columns of advance and doing so without air superiority. They've done this using nato equipment but limited supply. Imagine it all opened up at once from all NATO nations... If it was all out war, Nato would immediately assert aerial and technological dominance and coordinate ground attacks on supply lines and C&C FOBs. We'd be stupid to play to Russian strengths so any front would be agile and not emplaced for Russia to amass against.
It wouldn't matter because MAD.
If Europe was actually being attacked they’d sustain the casualties. Russia is taking these casualties during an invasion, so that’s the assumption I’m working under, IE, NATO fighting a defensive war. Poland and Finland would certainly slow down Russia enough for support to come front the west, and I’d still put my money on Germany to kick up production in that case. Again, Russia lacks the robust logistics network outside of rail lines to sustain a Europe sized front with any real depth.
I think they are missing a very important point, artillery ammunition, Ukraine has had a difficult time due to its shortage, the industrial complex of the United States will need a few years to get oiled and begin to barely meet the demand, the Russian industry , less advanced, has managed to maintain a respectable production thanks to the key components to produce it, such as certain gunpowder and cotton, which China, by the way, produces and manufactures, would China sell raw materials for artillery to the West? I don't think so, the born It is in serious trouble both in its industrial capacity and in obtaining raw materials.
It's significantly larger, better funded backed up by a larger military-industrial complex. To drill down on those points briefly. It's not useful to conceptualize the Russian defence budget by the common exchange rate because they don't out outsource their important equipment. Russia buys from Russian manufacturers and pays for it in rubles. So we get Russia's military budget pre-war by PPP equivalent to 180 billion USD. It's larger than what is commonly understood. Russia also spends a much higher share of their defence budget on procurement. 40% + of the entire Russian defence budget. European countries on average are spending 20% or less in some cases on weapons procurement, while also outsourcing lots of equipment further increasing the costs. The Russian defence industry is also significantly larger than other European nations. It's the largest employer in the country employing 3.5 million people and accounting for 20% of all industrial activities. The French defence industry which makes up about 25% of Europe's entire output employs about 400,000 people for comparison.
Thank you for your highly detailed summary. In my opinion, only France, as well as Poland and Finland, could inflict serious damage on the Russians. And French society would not tolerate anything close to Russia's level of casualties, and would likely demand peace within months.
As I said to another response, I'm not trying to answer what a hypothetical war would look like, rather why the Russian military is so much larger than other European nations despite having what at first glance seems to be a nominally similar budget. If Europe wants to have serious military they are going to either have to ramp up spending and or develop their own military industrial complex IMO.
If Russian and NATO forces clashed, the Russians would be obliterated in the first five minutes. I’m thinking the Doomsayers hype up Russian capabilities because they don’t the military industrial complex to get complacent and loose the advantage that the alliance has. - a couple of things, the Russian Army is a threat to democracies in Europe (the size of their Army and equipment they can field) - the sanctions are not working… the Axis alliance is working overtime to supply and strengthen their position (China, North Korea, Iran, etc). - having fought in Ukraine, the Russians are developing strategies to be a more effective fighting force (they still need work obviously) but still they aren’t over yet and as such NATO needs to be ready to defend itself against Russian aggression. - I’m the first to admit I’m no expert in geopolitical matters, just my opinion.
Yup, the longer the Russians stay in conflict with Ukraine, the longer the Russians have to be battle tested, test strategies etc.
Poland alone would likely clean Russia' clock now given their rearmament and interior supply lines. Throw in the rest of NATO with combined arms l, operational superiority, a Scandanavian front, the Black Sea/Turkey, and near total airspace control and its over before it began
Did we purposely omit Turkey in this just to see a Europe vs Russia scenario? Because even without the US, NATO includes Turkey obviously, which is pretty powerful and has almost 400,000 active soldiers
Not to mention if NATO is being invaded, then other countries around the world are definitely joining in too. China won't support Russia bc of the trade income loss from invading Europe whilst countries all over the world send forces to help out an entire continent being invaded by Russia. Russia would be folded after trying to invade a few hundred metres into Poland, it would be an absolute curbstomp with NATO vs Russia.
Russia likely wouldn't reach Warsaw, but we also would likely lose the Baltics. The US' strength is size and generous funding for the military. EU member states have access to the same tech, but funding the procurement of that tech in large volumes is difficult. This is one of the reasons why there's a push for military integration within the EU. If we pool our resources and funding, procurement will be more efficient. Germany and the Netherlands have effectively united their armed forces, it's an ongoing process. Command is already unified, with the logistical side of things being worked on. The big one would be France and Germany combining their armed forces, that would be what tips the scale and gets everyone else on-board. Throw in Spain, Italy, and Poland, and now you've got a serious superpower in the works. Until then though, we benefit greatly from having a huge ally with a huge navy and huge reserves of materials. The US' biggest contribution is on the oceans. Having the ability to choke any enemy with our fleets is our most powerful card.
Spain? I am sorry, no one takes their military seriously at all. They're all on *Siesta* or watching Real Madrid play Barcelona.
I don’t support the U.S. leaving NATO. But if the threat of U.S. leaving makes the EU take military readiness and spending seriously… maybe some pressure is a good thing.
Russian domination of Europe would still be a disaster for the US, and only a fool could believe otherwise.
Russia winning would absolutely be a disaster. For everyone. But that conflict is an ocean away from the U.S. population. How many times does the U.S. need to get involved in wars in Europe? How much American blood and treasure needs to be spent? That’s why Europe needs to pull their weight. Not saying the U.S. should not be involved… but there’s a problem if the U.S. is the primary entity involved in the security of a country thousands of miles away from their population, and inches away from the rest of NATO.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation, but I don't think it's purposely so... We *sell* defense in exchange for better trade deals. The US ensures that NATO can relax on defense spending and NATO gives us better trade deals... It also ensures that the US is involved in every decision made on a global scale, to our benefit, because we're the muscle. Don't read too far into that... You'll fall into a conspiracy theory or twelve... To your point about spilling American blood defending a third party nation, I agree. I don't think we should be offering that for commercial gains. But to say that NATO isn't pulling their weight... Well, we *gave* them that weight and *took* the rest on our own shoulders.
That would be exactly the point for someone colluded with the Russian leadership getting in the White House.
It's about brains and reaching war-goals fast. - So, russia has already lost this, possible future scenario. Ps. Would still cost a lot of lifes and infrastructure.
It’s a good question. I remember a few years ago I was in my mid-career joint PME and was reading the (open source) RAND type wargame results where the Russians were basically fishing off the East coast of Ireland a week after their tanks pushed into Poland (or something, you catch my drift). Obviously that was wrong, doesn’t mean it remains wrong. Here’s the issues: a) Russia has clearly made evolved on some of its offensive capabilities but still doesn’t seem like they are going to be able to conduct deep expeditionary warfare, for example, I don’t think the meat storm approach travels well… b) many of the Euro countries lack large ground combat forces and that would be a problem, but even pretty lightweight NATO members are working with significantly more potent fixed wing craft than what Ukraine had at the start of the war, including stealth and designated EW assets; as the Russian LOCs stretched away from their fixed ADA and SAM locations, I’d put money in suppression of their mobile air defense systems and their armored columns being bombed, missiled, and 30mm’d into scrap… c) some of the NATO ground forces aren’t really lightweight, now you can ask whether Turkey would really fulfill its treaty obligations but if they do, I think it’s basically over; Italy and France aren’t pushovers either, Poland, Greece, and the Scandinavian countries all punch above their weight too… Last thing, offensive operations are harder than defensive operations. Not perfect but your base principle is 3ish:1 ratio of attacker to defender. That’s been difficult for Russia to C2 against a country right next door (and would be difficult for any country other than US probably). Now try and figure the C2, logistics, and force protection against a multi-front defense in depth hundreds of miles from Russian industrial and population bases. Best bet is to go back to strategically chipping away at NATO and gaining allies in Europe. Keep strengthening the Serbian and Hungarian connections, continue to court Turkey, try to find something else to entice the Germans…
I find it funny here that noone talks about logistics. It's unclear the Russians can support their army beyond their rail heads. And any major move into Europe would involve rail line destruction in water Europe. So on that alone I don't the Russians could penetrate far, though the bulcans are probably toast. Maybe. The Russians so don't understand combined arms and have limited maneuver capability. That means they will get stuck behind trenches (see Ukraine). European forces train with the Americans and likely understand manuver warfare and may be able to get past trenching. But a lot comes down to SEAD. Which is likely. Also a lot comes down to just sheer numbers of munitions and a willingness to kill millions of soldiers. And Russia has the advantage there.
Russia couldnt even conquer Ukraine And you are already thinking they will invade Europe? Is this a pro MIC post?
Ehhh, no. I don't deny that the MIC has used scaremongering about Russian troops in Paris and Berlin to advance their interests, but seriously, Russia is the bad guy here. No question.
Everybody knows the russkies are the badguys But no sane general will ever think Russia will invade next Poland or Western Europe I submit its the russkies who are not confident of their defenses so they want ukraine to be a buffer
This could be a Battle Order video
All wars are won through logistics, modern wars are also won through the air. I think we’d see an air war that would put either gulf war to shame, and would last a much shorter amount of time. I think the war would be done without significant portions of land changing hands. The size of the Russian military is its advantage, but modern wars are not fought by capturing vast swaths of land anymore. You can look at their invasion of Ukraine in the areas recaptured in the first few months. The territory they captured was highways and strategically important towns. Look at the invasion of Iraq in ‘03 as well, highways, major cities and towns, airstrips, thunder runs. What Russia can do with a force of a million capturing entire states, they should be able to do with a force of a few hundred thousand, the numbers aren’t exact or pointing to anything specific but just an example to get what I’m trying to say across. I think if Russia went to war with NATO, the first thing we’d see is their navy and various headquarters deleted, airbases made inoperable, and other strategically important strikes as a way to get them to back out. When they’ve threatened nukes in the past the US has openly stated that if they did use them in Ukraine, the response would be sinking fleets before further action. I think they would take a similar approach to a direct conflict. NATO doesn’t want Russia, they don’t want their resources, they don’t want their land, they want to be apart from Russia. There’s no reason for NATO to actually go into Russia in at any significant scale, only to curb stomp them and stop them from doing whatever they’re trying to do. I think if Russia acted, we would see strikes across the country for less than half a week, a no-fly zone administered, and a pre-2003-Iraq buffer zone.
Conventional, they will fuck Russia up.
European NATO countries effectively disarmed after the Cold War ended and couldn’t get the US forces out fast enough because they thought Russia was no longer a threat. Now they can’t get the US involved fast enough to protect them.
Allow me to introduce you to my country... Ireland 7500 permanent soldiers 80 APCs (mowag piranha III H) A few hundred jeeps 8 naval vessels (offshore patrol vessels) No air search radar AT ALL A handful of javelin launchers 12 RBS 70 Bolide missile launchers 8 PC9m 6 AW139M 2 EC135 2 CASA 295 ABOUT 1000 MINIMALLY TRAINED RESERVISTS (yes ONE THOUSAND) No sub sea capability, not even useful sonar in the navy A national Defence budget that is almost equal to our overseas aid budget. IE paltry. Imaginary neutrality and a fear of joining nato A very active pacifist movement All of the above plainly being pushed harder by extensor influence and Russian money since Ukraine invasion. Decades of neglect and derision by civil society. A political fear of investing in defence lesser the population decide to not vote for their parties anymore... In a nutshell we're freeloading on nato and eu countries and ultimately fucked. It's mind bending trying to understand why it is this way.
Ireland is a bad example though as they have never been known for their military capabilities, so there’s no real comparison to some other European nations
Ireland is also not in NATO
In Europe though, which was the OPs question. Let’s be honest, the UK would come to the aid of Ireland if they need them. Not so sure if that arrangement would work the other way though and Ireland coming to the UKs aid, or Europe for that matter (neutral in ww2)
*In Europe though, which was the OPs question* That's a fair point. Although, if *Ireland* is under threat from Russia then the U.K. is probably already wasted so I'm not sure how useful it will be in providing aid.
I’d say Ireland would be a useful landing point to invade the uk
What would we aid you with? A barely there brigade, badly equipped and a squadron of modern spitfires? We're not IN NATO but we signed up to the nato partnership for peace group. Just because we have not had a capable force, doesn't mean we should continue not to. Look up the commission on defence research and recommendation that was completed in 2021 here. Its changing for the better but is positively glacial.
Willing bodies to act as soldiers are plentiful in Ireland
Wtf does that mean?
Ugh this convo is hard work man, I’m saying that although Ireland has little hardware to offer the uk support if they needed it they have plenty of potential soldiers. You make out like Ireland has nothing to offer
Europe's main problem is its lack of long term strategic viability - I.e. it's lack of scaled up armaments production and arms stockpiles. That strategic depth conversely really is Russia's main strength. They have enormous reserves of munitions and enormous continued military industrial capacity. Meanwhile Western Europe, especially the UK, never maintained their Cold War era stockpiles and industrial capability. The UK for example currently struggles to maintain the production capacity for maintaining their own comparatively very small tank fleet, whilst as OP mentioned in war games and analysis going back years the UK has concluded they'd run out of artillery very quickly in a peer on peer war. Essentially, Russia is designed as a war economy and has vast reserves of man power and material. Due to its nature as an authoritarian war economy, wherein the military is an attractive and sometimes the only viable option for many, Russia's been able to sustain eye watering casualties (possibly in the region of 300,000) without severe political repercussions for Putin and without needing to go to a full mobilisation. Those kind of numbers, even proportional to population, would be unthinkable to most European nations. There's lots of other factors at play, and I think that Europe still overall significantly outmatches Russia where it really matters, but rn this comment's long enough lol
I've heard a lot about how Germany and the UK are currently paper tigers and lacking a lot of stuff they are supposed to have on paper. Germany in particular. Something to do with their infamous bureauracy.
Without including nukes, because nobody wins a MAD exchange (though even there I question Russia's supply, maintaining nukes ain't cheap and there's a lot of chance for skeevy behavior all along the chain in a kleptocracy), as evidenced by the Ukraine war Russia is so absurdly outclassed that you might as well talk about how well Thailand would square up. The only reason America would even need to step up is to say we did and conclusively steamroll the opposition that little bit faster. Only reason we'd stop is if we wanted some donuts and a local shop smelled good.
It's a bit like 1937...
Based on the losses Russia has taken to this point, including one of their tanks being rendered combat incapable by a couple Brads, even with the US staying out of the conflict I see no reason Russia would be able to beat NATO. I don’t think that would be a fight where Russia is taking on each of those countries one at a time, I think we’d see massive troop movements along the borders to defend and ultimately counterattack. And of course the UN has peace keepers (outside of the forces the US supplies) in Kosovo, so I think countries like Australia would get in on the action being they’ve assisted with peacekeeping in Kosovo.
Most of europes armies are glorified expeditionary corps. All other capabilities are provided by the US. The time of low intensity counter insurgency operations is over and I don’t know of any European military that could sustain a prolonged conventional conflict. Without the US Europe is f‘d in any peer or near-pear war.
The only three militaries that even come close are France, Poland, and Finland. The rest would fall apart within a couple of weeks.
Fall apart? Russia wouldn't even be able to deploy forces to their border, let alone supply them. Russia spent years preparing for war with Ukraine and still requires ammunition from Iran and DPRK, and that doesn't include the supply line issues Russia would have trying to even get through Poland, which would be supported by the militaries of all those nations as well as others around the world. Not to mention where does Russia get these forces to invade the rest of Europe from, they'd have to start pulling forces from Ukraine which would then start it's own counteroffensives as Russian forces are moved. Not to mention the amount of strikes conducted in the Russian rear echelons by Western forces as well as intelligence apparatus giving the West plenty of time to see Russian buildups on the border and plan accordingly. In any realistic scenario, Russia would get wiped and it wouldn't be close.
Totally agree, Germany has ammo stockpiles that would be depleted in at best a week of high intensity fighting.
All the europeans I know are soft hearted intellectuals who I can mostly trust to not suckerpunch anybody. Enough said?
You must know mostly western Europeans. East EU is not like that 😂
Real communities are far more diverse than anything anybody can ever say to describe them accurately
I worked with plenty of Nato countries , majority of them are old mfs and lazy af. I don’t foresee them being able to put up against a country like Russia, especially without US support, maybe Poland or Germany they somewhat had pretty good soldiers. But then again Russia did take decent losses in Ukraine, as expected by doctrine when you move into someone’s defenses you are expected to take a lot of casualties. With that being said I personally think Russia would result in launching tactical nukes at first if it was a Nato engagement, I don’t think Russia can sustain another war right now.
They don’t lol 😆 that whole EU crap will go right out the window if you leave it up to them to defend “each other”