Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Berkut]

And Russia spends a much higher share of its available resources on the military than Western Europe. Western Europe could easily ramp up military spending if we would consider it a priority over other things.

That is undoubtedly true.

The issue though is that there does not appear to be anything that would ever convince Western Europe to make such a choice. Even now with a incredibly aggressive Russia and the tacit understanding that current anemic spending cannot possibly meet NATO commitments there is apparently zero interest in doing anything to increase spending by one single Euro. Most experts agree That current spending levels are so low that they are not even adequate to maintain current capabilities, as degraded as they are.

There isn't any question about who would win some long, drawn out war between Russia and NATO. Just like there was no real doubt that Germany could never win Ww2 in the long run. But the idea is not to have to rely on the need for some long, drawn out war, but rather to deter war altogether, by making it clear that Even the outcome if a short war is not a sure thing.

Rifht now, that is not the case. Russia could very likely invade an take the Baltics and there is nothing that NATO could do about it except nuke them. Which in the case of the Ukraine is maybe fine, we didnt enter an alliance with them. But we did enter one with Latvia and Estonia and Poland.

[Zanza]

The issue though is that there does not appear to be anything that would ever convince Western Europe to make such a choice. Even now with a incredibly aggressive Russia and the tacit understanding that current anemic spending cannot possibly meet NATO commitments there is apparently zero interest in doing anything to increase spending by one single Euro.

Is that so? Germany for example has raised its defense spending by 40% since 2000, which is about twice the level of inflation since then. No idea about other countries.

Most experts agree That current spending levels are so low that they are not even adequate to maintain current capabilities, as degraded as they are.

Our experts spend the money on capabilities to intervene in distant countries and to police sealanes. I guess they just don't consider a land war with Russia a priority for military spending anymore. Not sure if that will change now in the light of Russia's new aggression.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/why-it-is-time-for-germany-to-stop-romanticizing-russia-a-963284.html

not quite sure but i believe this article tried to explain a bit why so many Germans seem to be sucking up to russia

[Razgovory]

I disagree with Berkut that NATO lacks the capacity to defeat Russia conventionally.  I think he misunderstands the article.  The article is claiming that most of NATO countries can't do squat (which is true), and that no NATO assets can affect an outcome within six months.  The NATO assets that can affect the outcome are American.  The solution is to shift assets into the Baltic and eastern Europe for a rapid response force.

[Josquius]

European NATO even without the US could beat Russia. The Russians are on better shape than they were a decade ago but they're still far short of the Soviets. The issue isn't defense spending, it's that there is little political will to mobilize into anti Russian positions.

[Valmy]

Wars are not won by who spends more though, just ask the Vietnamese.

Are you suggesting the Russians would be willing to sacrifice millions of men to conquer the Baltics?  I mean yeah obviously if the Russians have a will of steel and are willing to make serious sacrifices but we know this is not true.

[alfred russel]

Wars are not won by who spends more though, just ask the Vietnamese.

There is no question that the US spends a huge amount in defense, but very little of it goes towards the kind of capability that would be useful if Russia decided to annex Estonia and NATO wanted to do something about it directly. And Western Europe doesn't spend enough to maintain their own levels of military preparedness.

Comparing a bunch of separate countries spending all added together is meaningless, since so much of western military spending is for infrastructure that is duplicated, rather than actual combat power.

But what say "Berkut is wrong"? My point is building on the point the article is making, I am not asking anyone to take my word for it.

It isn't as though Vietnam beat the US on its own. It got significant military support from China (at the start) and the USSR. It also isn't as though North Vietnam came out so well; they took massive casualties and were bombed into near oblivion. The Vietnamese model won't work for Russia in a war against NATO.

I really don't get the idea that NATO has nothing to deter Russia. We have a massive nuclear arsenal that more than matches Russia's. In the past we have struggled against irregular forces, but Russia is a conventional army. We have more men under arms, and of better quality, and better technology. If we are talking about the Baltics, they have very confined borders that would not be difficult to seal. 

[Capetan Mihali]

It isn't as though Vietnam beat the US on its own. It got significant military support from China (at the start) and the USSR. It also isn't as though North Vietnam came out so well; they took massive casualties and were bombed into near oblivion. The Vietnamese model won't work for Russia in a war against NATO.

The issue of US vs. NVA strategy during the Vietnam War is really interesting and we haven't discussed it much.  You should consider making a thread about it.

[garbon]

Meow.

[jimmy olsen]

If the Russians do this in the Baltics, or any other NATO country, it will have to be war.  Hopefully a short and limited one.  There is just no choice in the matter.

Of course there is a choice. We do nothing,and say "Damn, sorry about that. Sucks to be you."

I have a bad feeling a lot of Europe would like very much to do that.  If there is a stealth invasions of a Baltic state like the Russians did in Ukraine and NATO states are presented with a Russian fait accompli, I bet many would decide to bow out.  Putin would accomplish what the Soviet Union never could, the destruction of the NATO alliance.

Poland would fight on the side of the Baltic states, and unlike the Baltic States, they are integral to the German economy if I understand correctly. Don't see how it doesn't escalate from there.

[Berkut]

Wars are not won by who spends more though, just ask the Vietnamese.

Are you suggesting the Russians would be willing to sacrifice millions of men to conquer the Baltics?  I mean yeah obviously if the Russians have a will of steel and are willing to make serious sacrifices but we know this is not true.

No, I am suggesting that simply comparing Russia defense spending to NATO while ignoring actual capabilities to fight a conflict and concluding "We spend more, everything is fine!" while actual experts are saying there s a serious gap between what NATO has promised to do and what NATO actually CAN do is foolish.

I don't doubt that if Russia attacked Poland, for example, and the non-US NATO countries were willing to ramp up and fight a long, drawn out war with Russia that would last years, they would eventually prevail (assuming it doesn't go nuclear, which in this kind of scenario is rather likely).

[Berkut]

Wars are not won by who spends more though, just ask the Vietnamese.

There is no question that the US spends a huge amount in defense, but very little of it goes towards the kind of capability that would be useful if Russia decided to annex Estonia and NATO wanted to do something about it directly. And Western Europe doesn't spend enough to maintain their own levels of military preparedness.

Comparing a bunch of separate countries spending all added together is meaningless, since so much of western military spending is for infrastructure that is duplicated, rather than actual combat power.

But what say "Berkut is wrong"? My point is building on the point the article is making, I am not asking anyone to take my word for it.

It isn't as though Vietnam beat the US on its own. It got significant military support from China (at the start) and the USSR. It also isn't as though North Vietnam came out so well; they took massive casualties and were bombed into near oblivion. The Vietnamese model won't work for Russia in a war against NATO.

That isn't the point though - the point is that they won even though they were massively outspent. They were closer to the fight, they cared more, and the US didn't care enough to press our material advantage to its conclusion. Those are all VERY relevant issues when it comes to looking at NATO's guarantee of Eastern European nations sovereignty.

I really don't get the idea that NATO has nothing to deter Russia. We have a massive nuclear arsenal that more than matches Russia's.

True enough. Is NATO willing to start a nuclear war that would result in killing a hundred  hundreds million Americans and Europeans to protect Latvia?

In the past we have struggled against irregular forces, but Russia is a conventional army. We have more men under arms, and of better quality, and better technology. If we are talking about the Baltics, they have very confined borders that would not be difficult to seal. 

...except from Russia. It would be NATO having problems getting troops into the Baltics, not Russia. Look at a map.

[mongers]

Interesting debate, but it's rather discordant having a posting outlining probably Russian military advantage, whose name is also Berkut. 



It's like he's from earlier wave of agents, who arrive before DG sent on his deep cover mission to the USA.   

[The Brain]

Let me make a few fon calls.

[The Brain]

What is current US nuclear policy?