Russia doesn’t need to make it into Germany to make it a disaster for all of Europe.
Sure, NATO as a whole is bigger than Russia, but the troops and equipment are mostly not at the eastern border where the fighting would take place. We certainly don’t have anything near the size of the Ukrainian army stationed in the Baltics. Take the US out of the equation, because let’s be honest: under Trump they’re not going to stand up for Europe, and the military balance suddenly looks a lot less favorable. I’m not so sure the European NATO states could mount an effective and timely response to an incursion into the Baltic states, or into Poland around the Suwalki gap.
Then move troops there. The European NATO members already outspend Russia in terms of military investments. Russia can’t even take over Ukraine, a country that’s not even in NATO and hasn’t even had any modern military equipment for a very long time. Hell, they’re getting hand me downs from countries like Germany, equipment that’s decades old, isn’t state of the art, and needs repairs, and they’re still keeping Russia at bay. Now there’s articles about Russia depleting its own tank stocks and shit, not being able to sustain even a war with Ukraine, and we’re supposed to believe that Russia will somehow attack Germany or Poland (which is to be fair probably better armed than Germany).
So there’s only two options here: either the western press is lying about Russia depleting its stocks and they’re actually holding back instead of fully invading Ukraine (God knows why they fought in Ukraine for three years now then instead of just releasing their full “military might” from the get go). Or, the western press is fear mongering about Russia actually being able to invade NATO so the military industrial complex can make a quick buck off of our tax money.
My two cents: there’s no chance in hell Russia can invade any NATO country, they can barely function in Ukraine lmao. Just send troops to the baltic and you’re gonna be fine. No need for trillions of euros in new guns.
one thing that i keep needing to bring up as well, with what troops? Russia has been losing a lot of people in Ukraine. Even if we ignore all the numbers being thrown about how many they really lost, they have lost troops. Invading Europe? Even if they would make start churning out vehicles at a breakneck speed now, where do they get the people to operate them? How will they hold the regions they would get?
NATO-Europe without the U.S. still outmatches Russia militarily and economically by a wide margin, but the real issue isn’t brute strength—it’s readiness and political will. Russia can’t beat Ukraine, let alone all of NATO, but a surprise move in the Baltics or Suwałki Gap could be disastrous if Europe doesn’t act fast. It’s not that Russia is strong—it’s that Europe can’t afford to be slow or divided.
We can’t put all our troops in the Baltics, nevermind the fact that we don’t have all that much troops and ammunition. Most of our money is spent on high tech weapons in limited numbers.
The European NATO members already outspend Russia in terms of military investments
Not really.
In terms of Euros spent, yes, we outspend them, but when adjusted for purchasing power we’re scarily close to parity: 100 rubles in Russia buys you a lot more than 1 euro in Europe. And our militaries are hopelessly fragmented, and behind in the rearming race.
The ruble’s exchange rate is on the level of 2020-2021: 0,011 euro to the ruble. Shows how much you know.
Also, most of the military production is internal… so the exchange rate of the ruble is meaningless to determine relative military strength, which is precisely why a PPP conversion is needed.
Russia doesn’t need to make it into Germany to make it a disaster for all of Europe.
Sure, NATO as a whole is bigger than Russia, but the troops and equipment are mostly not at the eastern border where the fighting would take place. We certainly don’t have anything near the size of the Ukrainian army stationed in the Baltics. Take the US out of the equation, because let’s be honest: under Trump they’re not going to stand up for Europe, and the military balance suddenly looks a lot less favorable. I’m not so sure the European NATO states could mount an effective and timely response to an incursion into the Baltic states, or into Poland around the Suwalki gap.
Then move troops there. The European NATO members already outspend Russia in terms of military investments. Russia can’t even take over Ukraine, a country that’s not even in NATO and hasn’t even had any modern military equipment for a very long time. Hell, they’re getting hand me downs from countries like Germany, equipment that’s decades old, isn’t state of the art, and needs repairs, and they’re still keeping Russia at bay. Now there’s articles about Russia depleting its own tank stocks and shit, not being able to sustain even a war with Ukraine, and we’re supposed to believe that Russia will somehow attack Germany or Poland (which is to be fair probably better armed than Germany).
So there’s only two options here: either the western press is lying about Russia depleting its stocks and they’re actually holding back instead of fully invading Ukraine (God knows why they fought in Ukraine for three years now then instead of just releasing their full “military might” from the get go). Or, the western press is fear mongering about Russia actually being able to invade NATO so the military industrial complex can make a quick buck off of our tax money.
My two cents: there’s no chance in hell Russia can invade any NATO country, they can barely function in Ukraine lmao. Just send troops to the baltic and you’re gonna be fine. No need for trillions of euros in new guns.
one thing that i keep needing to bring up as well, with what troops? Russia has been losing a lot of people in Ukraine. Even if we ignore all the numbers being thrown about how many they really lost, they have lost troops. Invading Europe? Even if they would make start churning out vehicles at a breakneck speed now, where do they get the people to operate them? How will they hold the regions they would get?
Russia has a larger army than any European country. Only Ukraine comes close, and they have veterancy only rivaled by the US and Ukraine.
(Ukraine probably wins on veterancy)
Sure, if Europe acts with Unity, they can roflstomp Russia, but Moscow would be looking for a moment of crisis to exploit.
NATO-Europe without the U.S. still outmatches Russia militarily and economically by a wide margin, but the real issue isn’t brute strength—it’s readiness and political will. Russia can’t beat Ukraine, let alone all of NATO, but a surprise move in the Baltics or Suwałki Gap could be disastrous if Europe doesn’t act fast. It’s not that Russia is strong—it’s that Europe can’t afford to be slow or divided.
We can’t put all our troops in the Baltics, nevermind the fact that we don’t have all that much troops and ammunition. Most of our money is spent on high tech weapons in limited numbers.
Not really.
In terms of Euros spent, yes, we outspend them, but when adjusted for purchasing power we’re scarily close to parity: 100 rubles in Russia buys you a lot more than 1 euro in Europe. And our militaries are hopelessly fragmented, and behind in the rearming race.
Anders Puck Nielsen has a very informative video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxq-TvgNCBU
The rubel is massively devalued. PPP calculations have to be taken with a grain of salt.The ruble’s exchange rate is on the level of 2020-2021: 0,011 euro to the ruble. Shows how much you know.
Also, most of the military production is internal… so the exchange rate of the ruble is meaningless to determine relative military strength, which is precisely why a PPP conversion is needed.
Right, I was too lazy to check.