US versus NATO
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
Remius said:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/21/canadian-jets-intercept-russian-bombers-for-first-time-in-2-years.html
And the UK (Blackjacks, not Bears) - https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/u-k-scrambles-2-fighter-jets-to-intercept-russian-bombers-1.3760466
I think the bigger question isn’t so much taking on Russia straight up in an all out war, it is more about Europe being able and willing to take on Russia in its various proxy wars and influence activities.
I’m not so sure they are.
I’m not so sure they are.
- Reaction score
- 1,870
- Points
- 1,060
From the Atlantic council article above and some Wikipedia treat numbers with caution
US NATO Europe Russia
Active personnel 1347300 1854900 395000
Reserve personnel 865050 1232290
MBT 2831 6983 2562
other armoured vehicles 29576 34487 6105
aircraft 3628 2612 3547
attack helicopters 760 382
major naval vessels 186 252 74
minor naval vessels 222 1583
US NATO Europe Russia
Active personnel 1347300 1854900 395000
Reserve personnel 865050 1232290
MBT 2831 6983 2562
other armoured vehicles 29576 34487 6105
aircraft 3628 2612 3547
attack helicopters 760 382
major naval vessels 186 252 74
minor naval vessels 222 1583
- Reaction score
- 10,654
- Points
- 1,360
The thing about Russia is that its defence budget isn't a true reflection of its actual military spending.
Firstly, the Defence Budget doesn't account for the FSB which is estimated to employ over 200,000 personnel and has a far larger scope of operations than any comparable Western agency.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/fsb-putins-modern-day-kgb
As well, Russia has other internal security units like the National Guard which is as large if not larger than the FSB and is responsible for Internal Security of the Russian Federation.
The budget of the FSB and National Guard are classified but estimates put it somewhere in the realm of $45-50 billion US.
http://intersectionproject.eu/article/security/russias-defense-capabilities-2018
Russian Military Doctrine considers Internal and External Defence as one and the same.
Taking this in to consideration, actual Russian Defence spending is probably closer to $110-120 billion per year. As well, they spend upwards of 50-60% of their Defence budget on equipment and far less on pay, pensions, etc. They also have their own large defence industry and build all their own equipment.
They are far larger than any of the European Powers and I sincerely doubt Europe could face them alone without US help.
Firstly, the Defence Budget doesn't account for the FSB which is estimated to employ over 200,000 personnel and has a far larger scope of operations than any comparable Western agency.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/fsb-putins-modern-day-kgb
As well, Russia has other internal security units like the National Guard which is as large if not larger than the FSB and is responsible for Internal Security of the Russian Federation.
The budget of the FSB and National Guard are classified but estimates put it somewhere in the realm of $45-50 billion US.
http://intersectionproject.eu/article/security/russias-defense-capabilities-2018
Russian Military Doctrine considers Internal and External Defence as one and the same.
Taking this in to consideration, actual Russian Defence spending is probably closer to $110-120 billion per year. As well, they spend upwards of 50-60% of their Defence budget on equipment and far less on pay, pensions, etc. They also have their own large defence industry and build all their own equipment.
They are far larger than any of the European Powers and I sincerely doubt Europe could face them alone without US help.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,958
- Points
- 1,160
Humphrey Bogart said:
And they may be repeating the mistakes of the past where they had an epic fail on the 'guns vs. butter balance' thing:
https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/masters/military-history/resources/articles/exploring-5-reasons-for-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union
Altair said:
Too many countries have been too complacent for too long.
Shaking them up a little is a good thing, in my mind.
I would not be surprised if the tariff issue turns out to be related, in part, to this matter - ie, an offer to drop tariffs in return for increased military spending results - but will not make any firm predictions at this point.
Regardless, I am not in the camp that presumes President Trump to be an idiot.
He did not exactly stumble into wealth or the US presidency.
Many have underestimated him, and some continue to underestimate him, but they have not, so far, done too well against him.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,561
- Points
- 1,160
Putin modus operandi is to grab bits and pieces and do set piece moves that won't get out of hand. He did that in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and attempted to do it in Donbass. Russia still has Kaliningrad and he is fully capable of moving in an armoured division to "protect" Russian interests there, pushing through Lithuania and avoiding Poland who will fight back. He will do what he thinks is possible. Obama dithering was an open door for him, Trump is to unpredictable, so it's likely Putin will fish for small wins, but avoid small moves. Putin has more time than DT has and can out wait him.
- Reaction score
- 2,358
- Points
- 1,160
Here is a paper about Russian military transformation drafted 5 years ago, edited and published 4 years ago. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1196.pdf
The author's hypothesis that the poor performance in Georgia 2008 would be rectified sometime in the near future after 2014. In fact, given what they pulled off in Syria, the Russians were and are further ahead than the authors gave them credit for in 2014. The main thesis, probably correct, is that Russia has no desire or strategic need to attack NATO or defend against NATO in its entirety. They do not expect, again probably quite correctly, that NATO cannot operationally function efficiently enough to be a deterence or an aggressor. As a result, they have focused on precision weapons, lethality and improving the training of soldiers as a "valuable commodity." They intend to win wars not by "head on" confrontations, but instead they will come in from behind and slit throats before anyone can stop them. They "appeared" in Crimea and they aren't ever leaving. They "showed up" in Syria (probably permanently) and then they launched fairly ruthless airstrikes from air bases and their one aircraft carrier, employed raids and special forces attacks. They attacked ISIS from the Black Sea by strategic air bombers firing ALCM, by submarine launched cruise missiles and from ships at sea using missiles and naval gunfire in one instance. They fight in the Ukraine but seldom come in direct contact with opposition forces. And they have been fairly successful.
The author's hypothesis that the poor performance in Georgia 2008 would be rectified sometime in the near future after 2014. In fact, given what they pulled off in Syria, the Russians were and are further ahead than the authors gave them credit for in 2014. The main thesis, probably correct, is that Russia has no desire or strategic need to attack NATO or defend against NATO in its entirety. They do not expect, again probably quite correctly, that NATO cannot operationally function efficiently enough to be a deterence or an aggressor. As a result, they have focused on precision weapons, lethality and improving the training of soldiers as a "valuable commodity." They intend to win wars not by "head on" confrontations, but instead they will come in from behind and slit throats before anyone can stop them. They "appeared" in Crimea and they aren't ever leaving. They "showed up" in Syria (probably permanently) and then they launched fairly ruthless airstrikes from air bases and their one aircraft carrier, employed raids and special forces attacks. They attacked ISIS from the Black Sea by strategic air bombers firing ALCM, by submarine launched cruise missiles and from ships at sea using missiles and naval gunfire in one instance. They fight in the Ukraine but seldom come in direct contact with opposition forces. And they have been fairly successful.
- Reaction score
- 6,500
- Points
- 1,160
What does the Euroforce do when Putin shuts off their gas?
- Reaction score
- 10,654
- Points
- 1,360
Altair said:
The same Iran that is allied with Russia?
Altair, I generally like your posts but.....
You are conveniently ignoring real world geopolitical issues in order to try and suit your narrative in this thread but unlike some other threads where I think you've presented some good counter-points to the established narrative, you've been found wanting in this thread.
Comparing supposed numbers of tanks, aircraft, personnel, GDP, etc is useless metric and is the same flawed methodology that got the United States in so much trouble in Vietnam.
It also ignores the fact that outside of The United States, most European States have paper armies whose supposed numbers don't reflect any sort of reality. The exceptions being the UK, France and Poland.
The UK is running away from Europe and defence cuts have left their military less capable. They don't even have any LRP ASW and are an island without any large power projection capability and have pulled out of Germany.
The French are capable but their military is decisively engaged in internal security operations and maintaining a grip on their former colonies and sphere of influence. They have very little to give NATO and I wouldn't necessarily consider them a reliable partner. I don't think they would give a damn if Russia decided to move on the Baltics and as long as French territory wasn't threatened I doubt they would do anything.
Poland has a credible military for the very reason that they are very fearful of the Russians for good reasons but they do not have the mass or numbers to defend themselves indefinitely.
The rest of Europe is much like Canada, a paper force that could offer very little in actual equipment and personnel for any sort of military campaign against the Russians.
The modern Russian Army is a different beast from its Soviet era force. It's more professional and can draw on nearly 400,000 contracted (professional) soldiers and has modernized doctrine and training. Putin and his supporting cast have gone about tearing up the entire military-security apparatus of Russia to make it far more lethal but also more responsive.
The Russians could mass an invasion force of 80,000-100,000 and rapidly overrun the Baltics and yes a collective NATO with US Support might be able to stop them; however, what happens elsewhere?
The United States also has to worry about China, Iran, the Middle East, South America, etc.
America has a lot of adversaries who would capitalize on America becoming embroiled in another war on Europe. Thinking about this, it makes perfect sense that Europe needs to spend more on Defence because the United States isn't strong enough to fight a land war in Europe while simultaneously maintaining its position elsewhere.
Your problem is you are seeing the chess board as a 2 player game:
The reality is the board looks more like this:
- Reaction score
- 4,409
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
Roger. Sounds good.
That also means that they will no longer provide the world's currency of choice, (that will be the renminbi) nor the global commons - specifically freedom of navigation (that will be a series of regional Navies: France, Iran, Russia, China). They will no longer be able to force the US version of fiscal probity on other IMF members (which is actually to laugh), nor be a beacon of either civility or democracy.
In short, they will cede the city on the hill to various regional hegemons.
I don't see a problem there.
Similar threads
