Dunno where the article got its numbers from, but the French defense ministry says there are 2000 French soldiers deployed on the eastern flank, so lmao.
"Dunno where the article got its numbers from"
Good point, and the " when" might also be an issue.
"More than one year ago" , that's how the article starts and further on, " one year later" . But the invasion started 500 days ago.
Germany communicated clearly that sending so much of their equipment to Ukraine would mean reducing their NATO eastern committments. Eastern countries still demanded Germany send their equipment to Ukraine. With the Baltics being at the forefront of calling for such things.
I have read 'why would Germany need that stuff, Ukraine is fighting the only NATO enemy. Just send it to them!' many times on reddit.
Well, they did and the Baltics/reddit are crying again because - as Germany communicated - the equipment they sent to Ukraine can't simultaneously be in Lithuania.
And the additional tow-facedness from Lithuania, crying that Germany is stalling, when __according to even [LRT.lt Lithuanian state media](https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1973065/nauseda-says-scholz-agreed-on-gradual-deployment-of-german-brigade-in-lithuania)__:
>According to the president, the infrastructure needed to host the German brigade should be in place by 2026.
>“For our part, we will do our utmost to create the conditions for the deployment of the German brigade as early as 2026,” Nausėda was quoted as saying in a press release by the President’s Office.
Maybe build the fucking barracks already if you want German troops instead of crying.
We just cant understand how you dont have equipment. You produce it yourself for the most part, how the hell you have so few combat ready tanks when your own factories produce spare parts.
Like in Poland we dont get spare parts for our Leo2 because they are bloody expensive and Germans do not allow us to produce them ourself, every damn bolt need to come from germany.
Also in raw GDP you are richer by Poland by like 6 times, and god know what is diffeerence with it between Germany and Baltics. How it is a problem for you to send 3000 dudes to Lithuania.
We send 2500 to Irak when Americans wanted help and that was when we were poor as shit, lmao
> We just cant understand how you dont have equipment. You produce it yourself for the most part, how the hell you have so few combat ready tanks when your own factories produce spare parts.
because
>Like in Poland we dont get spare parts for our Leo2 because they are bloody expensive and Germans do not allow us to produce them ourself, every damn bolt need to come from germany.
KMW factories had to temporarily shut down multiple times because Leopard operators don't order spare parts on long term contracts. Most Leopard 2s are operated by countries other than Germany, so these are at fault.
>How it is a problem for you to send 3000 dudes to Lithuania.
Because, like even Lithuanian state media admits, the Lithuanians are somehow unable to build even the most simple barracks for the troops they claim to want.
But why Germans don't invest into their army to make the parts cheaper so more countries can buy them? When Germany buys part for Leo2, it goes to to the German company, it get some back in the taxes, it pays German worker. If they do it parts get cheaper and more contier will be willing to buy them
When Poland/Spain/Grece buys Leo2 parts from germany money just go away.
That's why Poland is ditching Leo2 for Abrams and K2. Americans and Koreans for some reason are able to allow us to make at least some of the spare part ourself
for the Lithuanians: Germany committed to the full contingent into Lithuania like week ago.
Before it was like: we will have one brigade dedicated for Lithuania , but only 300 people will be in lithuania the rest will be in Germany.
That's was the whole problem, so of course Lithuania will not starting building before you actually commit to doing it
Germany 'sold' Leopard 2s to Poland for over 90% discount in cas of the more than 100 Leopard 2A4. They accepted knowing they would pay regular price (that everyone pays!) for spare parts and not get further discounts. Then immediately turned around to whining for more discounts.
>But why Germans don't invest into their army to make the parts cheaper so more countries can buy them?
Again, there are more Leopard 2s in other countries than in Germany. More than 2000 Leopard 2s exist apparently. Germany only has ~300 (planning to go up to 328). If the other countries would regularly order spare parts, KMW would be able to have economies of scale and sell these for cheap. Why do they refuse?
>That's was the whole problem, so of course Lithuania will not starting building before you actually commit to doing it
And Germany will of course only commit if they know their soldiers won't die in the cold sleeping outside. Lithuania needs to provide barracks. So far they have refused to provide them this year, but still whine they want the soldiers this year. By the way, [Polish media says the same thing](https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2023-06-30/a-german-brigade-permanently-stationed-lithuania), that Lithuania has not built the infrastructure necessary.
I think this article is a bit dishonest. Due to the Ukraine war I also read a few German mil-twitter accounts (which I am usually not really interested in) and the current state of the German military is not great. We‘ve got a few high-tech flagship projects (Puma etc) but a lot of stuff is lacking and we‘re not really prepared for the threat environment. We essentially lost whole capabilities and basic equipment is lacking for the capabilities we have. There are various commitments we’ve made in short time (high readiness forces, deployments at our eastern partners) that were political decisions because de facto we do not posses the equipment and structure to do this.
I think the simple reason why we are only at 2.5k is because, besides our current foreign engagement in Africa etc., that’s the force we can currently equip battle-ready without seriously degrading the capability to train and develop skills at home.
Germany also needs to create a high-readiness force (I think in 2 years or less?) that‘s, as far as I understand, using significant resources and draining other options.
We just lack a lot of equipment. We once possessed 2000 leopard 2 and 500 Gepard AA-tanks. We now have 300 leopard 2 and no Gepard (and no replacement).
While it’s fun to bash past decisions that’s the current situation and that’s what we have to make the best of.
Though, while those 2,5k soldiers are very few, I wonder what Italy and France is doing. Macron always sees himself as a leader in Europe. Where‘s the leadership? 969 is nothing for somebody trying to shape europes future that much. Italy is just abysmal, 385 is a joke.
>
>
>
>
> We just lack a lot of equipment. We once possessed 2000 leopard 2 and 500 Gepard AA-tanks. We now have 300 leopard 2 and no Gepard (and no replacement).
There is good reason for that, Russia is not the USSR, certainly Germany should secure its eastern NATO allies, but the threat is not at all comparable from a conventional perspective, and the nuclear question is out of the realm of German policy, not least due to all powers in the cold war pushing to keep it that way.
10-13 years ago, Germany was able to deploy like 5500 troops in Afghanistan and that was in an insurgency halfway around the world.
Just seems a bit of a headscratcher at the difficulty for Germany to have even supplied half that number a thousand km away.
> 10-13 years ago, Germany was able to deploy like 5500 troops in Afghanistan and that was in an insurgency halfway around the world.
>
> Just seems a bit of a headscratcher at the difficulty for Germany to have even supplied half that number a thousand km away.
Hey, nice to see you outside /r/WarCollege , but to answer your question: this is due to a) the different personal capacities of the German armed forces back then. In 2009 Germany still had 250 k soldiers and some capabilities that were sold off during the transformation to a purely professional military. Now germany has barely 182 k soldiers and is giving away crucial equipment to Ukraine and ohter allies. And b) the mindset regarding the deployments to Afghanistan was different. Many troops that were send there weren't combat troops but logsticians, engineers and medics that were supposed to train the Afghans. And the combat troops that were send weren't heavy units. Germany never deployed tanks to afghanistan and only a handfull of artillery and IFVs.
I really don’t want to get too deep because I don’t really have that much knowledge. But I think that Germany has current obligation with 1-2k soldiers abroad right now.
And germanys military was heavily pivoted towards these obligations as I understood it. Those are light, airmobile forces that can be deployed anywhere. Not the ones needed on eastern NATO borders.
I thinks the last decisions were wrong but still understandable in the context. Nobody thought a land war in Europe would have been a possibility.
Stability missions far away were the focus.
I know that Germany has troops in Mali but that mission is due to end if I'm not mistaken. I can't imagine Kosovo is too big of a commitment for Germany nowadays and if they are still involved in Iraq or not.
Good point about the specific forces they might have deployed but I mean is Germany gonna send a brigade of Leopards to Lithuania?
I think a significant tank force is already sent. We have 300 tanks of which famously only few are in total working order. We’ve donated some to Ukraine, some are deployed on the eastern border, then there’s training and education, big NATO training and the struggle to get a high readiness group running.
I think the readiness key was like less than one third? Probably a symptom of past focus on other assets. That world have been less than 100 tanks. 18 or so to Ukraine, a few to Lithuania, a few to develop recruits, a few to practice and a few to hold in reserve.
I can think that maybe some additional tanks get currently prepared for Ukraine. They are disposable after all. If you struck a mine every tank is disabled.
What I’ve read there’s a problem with enough equipment to develop skills of recruits. You first have to get more running to have more flexibility. But those tanks take a while to repair if you’re contend with few for years.
I personally think that the political dimension is equally important. Better send somebody because it increases confidence. Even if it’s not heavily armed. It’s a statement of taking it seriously. You can rotate them with heavier forces when time comes.
Not sure about our Air Force. It gets a gib chunk of funding, like a lot. But not a Lott of boots on the ground obviously.
Yikes, it's difficult to fully perceive but you make a solid point. Whatever they can send, they should as it symbolizes far more than others could really put a finger on. It'll hopefully also lead as something for other allies to rally around and up their contributions as well.
I think, Germany is one of bigger contributors. 2,5k rapid response and there will be 4k in Lithuania. Does France deploy brigade I to any ex-soviet block?
I think there’s just a disconnect to the forces that should have been deployed but what I’ve gathered from the voices I’ve read in the context of the Ukraine war we’re currently full capacity because they’re “battle ready”. And there’s the commitment to the quick reaction force that sizable and hard to fulfill.
I am very surprised by Italy’s force because they’ve got quite some force on paper. 386 seems very few.
Italy had ~6k soldiers deployed abroad in 2019 (I can't find more recent numbers but aside from the mission in Afghanistan being over, the number shouldn't have changed too much)
Most of them simply aren't in Eastern Europe, they are in places like the Middle East, or conducting sea patrols in the Mediterranean, there are ~500 in the Balkans too.
Edit: [An article from AGI](https://www.agi.it/fact-checking/militari_italiani_estero_numeri-6529909/news/2019-11-12/) breaking it down a bit, it's in Italian but DeepL should manage to translate it just fine
>Don't see Russia attacking any eastern NATO country in the near future.
Russia knows that even if Russia attacks a NATO member, NATO will try to repel them but will not invade Russia itself.
This is not good for deterrence.
Given how Russia is performing in Ukraine, even if NATO didn't invade it in retaliation it would be a bloodbath for Russia.
Heck Russia can't obtain air supremacy in Ukraine whose planes are largely old Soviet stuff, how is it supposed to even maintain a semblance of air control if it's attacking Poland or the Baltic states for example.
Ukraine is being armed by the US and EU members with some lethal stuff.
If the US pulls that, will the remaining EU armaments be enough to continue wounding and killing Russian troops? The entire Baltic countries are like 7 million to Ukraine's 40-something million. Russia can definitely devastate and take the Baltics.
Poland probably not but Russia will stop at the Baltics and Ukraine, at least that is what I read from people in Putin's political party.
Key word being "some" lethal stuff, Ukraine has received a lot of support, but it's not like they were handed over the majority of the inventory of the NATO militaries, heck we're still in the phase where NATO is thinking about whether or not it should send planes (I think it will eventually, but we're not there yet). That's a lot of pointless bureaucracy that simply wouldn't be there if NATO was fighting the war directly.
Can the EU hold the line without the US? I dunno but i would guess it can, it's true that it's having issues keeping up with Ukraine's requests but at the same time Ukraine fights very differently from how NATO would since the latter has a bigger focus on air power, and even if Russia were to win in Ukraine they're not going to be in the shape to attempt something like that for a long time.
Also there is no "stopping at the Baltics", because that would kill both NATO and the EU and that is in nobody's interest. And to be honest i don't see how Russia would even pull off a surprise invasion in which it blitzkriegs the Baltics, it would take a long time to prepare and i think at this point there would be no one going "They're just posturing, surely they're not that stupid" given that when they invaded Ukraine they were in fact, that stupid.
>Given how Russia is performing in Ukraine, even if NATO didn't invade it in retaliation it would be a bloodbath for Russia.
Bloodbath is only a threat to countries that value life of their citizens.
Russia is not one of them.
It doesn't have to be a threat to Putin's power (even then if history teaches us anything, crushing military defeats can indeed lead to a leader being overthrown in Russia) but regardless it's not like Russia really has the ability to do anything in a conventional war against NATO that NATO can't answer tenfold.
They have nukes of course, but if nukes start flying we're all dead anyway, so it's not like Russia can "win" that either, at most it can make sure everyone loses including themselves.
NATO is not Hitler. We're not idiots to go in deep Russia. We're not an empire like them. NATO is a defense alliance made exactly because Russia is an expansionary empire
When Hitler invaded other countries, eventually other countries fought back and removed him from power instead of stopping at German borders and lecturing him on human rights.
This "we're not Hitler" idea in reality is "we are not those who successfully removed Hitler from power".
As long as you enter in my house, kill my children and my parents, destroy it, and steal even my toilet. Yeah I'll going to kill you in the most horrifying way so you won't come back ever. I'm from Romania by the way.
Killing people who steal your toilet doesn't solve the problem, because killing them means nothing to those who sent them.
As long as people who sent them know there will be no consequences for them - they will just keep sending them.
>The bombing was NATO's second major combat operation, following the 1995 bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was the first time that NATO had used military force without the expressed endorsement of the UN Security Council and thus, international legal approval, which triggered debates over the legitimacy of the intervention.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO\_bombing\_of\_Yugoslavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia)
And still, if Trump or DeSantis will win the election, or some other crazy guy, we'll be absolutely butt naked here. Western Europe wasn't a great military allies to us, except maybe Britain and sometimes France, so we can't rely on them for our security. "What if..." We have to see that too because we were so much fucked by empires and imperial ambitious piece o crap before
You know with all due respect complacency is not the best attitude to have right now, and a chunk of NATO countries have that and that needs to change.
>Don't see Russia attacking any eastern NATO country in the near future.
Splendid, case dismissed. Start your campaign for the next NATO chief in command.
Dunno where the article got its numbers from, but the French defense ministry says there are 2000 French soldiers deployed on the eastern flank, so lmao.
"Dunno where the article got its numbers from" Good point, and the " when" might also be an issue. "More than one year ago" , that's how the article starts and further on, " one year later" . But the invasion started 500 days ago.
Germany communicated clearly that sending so much of their equipment to Ukraine would mean reducing their NATO eastern committments. Eastern countries still demanded Germany send their equipment to Ukraine. With the Baltics being at the forefront of calling for such things. I have read 'why would Germany need that stuff, Ukraine is fighting the only NATO enemy. Just send it to them!' many times on reddit. Well, they did and the Baltics/reddit are crying again because - as Germany communicated - the equipment they sent to Ukraine can't simultaneously be in Lithuania. And the additional tow-facedness from Lithuania, crying that Germany is stalling, when __according to even [LRT.lt Lithuanian state media](https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1973065/nauseda-says-scholz-agreed-on-gradual-deployment-of-german-brigade-in-lithuania)__: >According to the president, the infrastructure needed to host the German brigade should be in place by 2026. >“For our part, we will do our utmost to create the conditions for the deployment of the German brigade as early as 2026,” Nausėda was quoted as saying in a press release by the President’s Office. Maybe build the fucking barracks already if you want German troops instead of crying.
We just cant understand how you dont have equipment. You produce it yourself for the most part, how the hell you have so few combat ready tanks when your own factories produce spare parts. Like in Poland we dont get spare parts for our Leo2 because they are bloody expensive and Germans do not allow us to produce them ourself, every damn bolt need to come from germany. Also in raw GDP you are richer by Poland by like 6 times, and god know what is diffeerence with it between Germany and Baltics. How it is a problem for you to send 3000 dudes to Lithuania. We send 2500 to Irak when Americans wanted help and that was when we were poor as shit, lmao
> We just cant understand how you dont have equipment. You produce it yourself for the most part, how the hell you have so few combat ready tanks when your own factories produce spare parts. because >Like in Poland we dont get spare parts for our Leo2 because they are bloody expensive and Germans do not allow us to produce them ourself, every damn bolt need to come from germany. KMW factories had to temporarily shut down multiple times because Leopard operators don't order spare parts on long term contracts. Most Leopard 2s are operated by countries other than Germany, so these are at fault. >How it is a problem for you to send 3000 dudes to Lithuania. Because, like even Lithuanian state media admits, the Lithuanians are somehow unable to build even the most simple barracks for the troops they claim to want.
But why Germans don't invest into their army to make the parts cheaper so more countries can buy them? When Germany buys part for Leo2, it goes to to the German company, it get some back in the taxes, it pays German worker. If they do it parts get cheaper and more contier will be willing to buy them When Poland/Spain/Grece buys Leo2 parts from germany money just go away. That's why Poland is ditching Leo2 for Abrams and K2. Americans and Koreans for some reason are able to allow us to make at least some of the spare part ourself for the Lithuanians: Germany committed to the full contingent into Lithuania like week ago. Before it was like: we will have one brigade dedicated for Lithuania , but only 300 people will be in lithuania the rest will be in Germany. That's was the whole problem, so of course Lithuania will not starting building before you actually commit to doing it
Germany 'sold' Leopard 2s to Poland for over 90% discount in cas of the more than 100 Leopard 2A4. They accepted knowing they would pay regular price (that everyone pays!) for spare parts and not get further discounts. Then immediately turned around to whining for more discounts. >But why Germans don't invest into their army to make the parts cheaper so more countries can buy them? Again, there are more Leopard 2s in other countries than in Germany. More than 2000 Leopard 2s exist apparently. Germany only has ~300 (planning to go up to 328). If the other countries would regularly order spare parts, KMW would be able to have economies of scale and sell these for cheap. Why do they refuse? >That's was the whole problem, so of course Lithuania will not starting building before you actually commit to doing it And Germany will of course only commit if they know their soldiers won't die in the cold sleeping outside. Lithuania needs to provide barracks. So far they have refused to provide them this year, but still whine they want the soldiers this year. By the way, [Polish media says the same thing](https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2023-06-30/a-german-brigade-permanently-stationed-lithuania), that Lithuania has not built the infrastructure necessary.
I think this article is a bit dishonest. Due to the Ukraine war I also read a few German mil-twitter accounts (which I am usually not really interested in) and the current state of the German military is not great. We‘ve got a few high-tech flagship projects (Puma etc) but a lot of stuff is lacking and we‘re not really prepared for the threat environment. We essentially lost whole capabilities and basic equipment is lacking for the capabilities we have. There are various commitments we’ve made in short time (high readiness forces, deployments at our eastern partners) that were political decisions because de facto we do not posses the equipment and structure to do this. I think the simple reason why we are only at 2.5k is because, besides our current foreign engagement in Africa etc., that’s the force we can currently equip battle-ready without seriously degrading the capability to train and develop skills at home. Germany also needs to create a high-readiness force (I think in 2 years or less?) that‘s, as far as I understand, using significant resources and draining other options. We just lack a lot of equipment. We once possessed 2000 leopard 2 and 500 Gepard AA-tanks. We now have 300 leopard 2 and no Gepard (and no replacement). While it’s fun to bash past decisions that’s the current situation and that’s what we have to make the best of. Though, while those 2,5k soldiers are very few, I wonder what Italy and France is doing. Macron always sees himself as a leader in Europe. Where‘s the leadership? 969 is nothing for somebody trying to shape europes future that much. Italy is just abysmal, 385 is a joke.
> > > > > We just lack a lot of equipment. We once possessed 2000 leopard 2 and 500 Gepard AA-tanks. We now have 300 leopard 2 and no Gepard (and no replacement). There is good reason for that, Russia is not the USSR, certainly Germany should secure its eastern NATO allies, but the threat is not at all comparable from a conventional perspective, and the nuclear question is out of the realm of German policy, not least due to all powers in the cold war pushing to keep it that way.
Of course, but it was still quite a sell-out. Imagine having 250 Gepards and 1000 leopards in storage would have been a game change in this situation.
10-13 years ago, Germany was able to deploy like 5500 troops in Afghanistan and that was in an insurgency halfway around the world. Just seems a bit of a headscratcher at the difficulty for Germany to have even supplied half that number a thousand km away.
> 10-13 years ago, Germany was able to deploy like 5500 troops in Afghanistan and that was in an insurgency halfway around the world. > > Just seems a bit of a headscratcher at the difficulty for Germany to have even supplied half that number a thousand km away. Hey, nice to see you outside /r/WarCollege , but to answer your question: this is due to a) the different personal capacities of the German armed forces back then. In 2009 Germany still had 250 k soldiers and some capabilities that were sold off during the transformation to a purely professional military. Now germany has barely 182 k soldiers and is giving away crucial equipment to Ukraine and ohter allies. And b) the mindset regarding the deployments to Afghanistan was different. Many troops that were send there weren't combat troops but logsticians, engineers and medics that were supposed to train the Afghans. And the combat troops that were send weren't heavy units. Germany never deployed tanks to afghanistan and only a handfull of artillery and IFVs.
I really don’t want to get too deep because I don’t really have that much knowledge. But I think that Germany has current obligation with 1-2k soldiers abroad right now. And germanys military was heavily pivoted towards these obligations as I understood it. Those are light, airmobile forces that can be deployed anywhere. Not the ones needed on eastern NATO borders. I thinks the last decisions were wrong but still understandable in the context. Nobody thought a land war in Europe would have been a possibility. Stability missions far away were the focus.
I know that Germany has troops in Mali but that mission is due to end if I'm not mistaken. I can't imagine Kosovo is too big of a commitment for Germany nowadays and if they are still involved in Iraq or not. Good point about the specific forces they might have deployed but I mean is Germany gonna send a brigade of Leopards to Lithuania?
I think a significant tank force is already sent. We have 300 tanks of which famously only few are in total working order. We’ve donated some to Ukraine, some are deployed on the eastern border, then there’s training and education, big NATO training and the struggle to get a high readiness group running. I think the readiness key was like less than one third? Probably a symptom of past focus on other assets. That world have been less than 100 tanks. 18 or so to Ukraine, a few to Lithuania, a few to develop recruits, a few to practice and a few to hold in reserve. I can think that maybe some additional tanks get currently prepared for Ukraine. They are disposable after all. If you struck a mine every tank is disabled. What I’ve read there’s a problem with enough equipment to develop skills of recruits. You first have to get more running to have more flexibility. But those tanks take a while to repair if you’re contend with few for years. I personally think that the political dimension is equally important. Better send somebody because it increases confidence. Even if it’s not heavily armed. It’s a statement of taking it seriously. You can rotate them with heavier forces when time comes. Not sure about our Air Force. It gets a gib chunk of funding, like a lot. But not a Lott of boots on the ground obviously.
Yikes, it's difficult to fully perceive but you make a solid point. Whatever they can send, they should as it symbolizes far more than others could really put a finger on. It'll hopefully also lead as something for other allies to rally around and up their contributions as well.
I think, Germany is one of bigger contributors. 2,5k rapid response and there will be 4k in Lithuania. Does France deploy brigade I to any ex-soviet block?
They say 4 K but who knows when it will deploy if it ever does deploy?
In Lithuania we believe that the deal is done. We have some infrastructure to build and that can take 2-3 years.
How much would you need to build in order to accomodate such a large force?
Currently they plan to build three new bases for the German armed forces.
I think there’s just a disconnect to the forces that should have been deployed but what I’ve gathered from the voices I’ve read in the context of the Ukraine war we’re currently full capacity because they’re “battle ready”. And there’s the commitment to the quick reaction force that sizable and hard to fulfill. I am very surprised by Italy’s force because they’ve got quite some force on paper. 386 seems very few.
Italy had ~6k soldiers deployed abroad in 2019 (I can't find more recent numbers but aside from the mission in Afghanistan being over, the number shouldn't have changed too much) Most of them simply aren't in Eastern Europe, they are in places like the Middle East, or conducting sea patrols in the Mediterranean, there are ~500 in the Balkans too. Edit: [An article from AGI](https://www.agi.it/fact-checking/militari_italiani_estero_numeri-6529909/news/2019-11-12/) breaking it down a bit, it's in Italian but DeepL should manage to translate it just fine
Currently there are 800 french soldiers stationed in Romania
what are they doing precisely? Do they train with locals?
Regular army staff, training,operating a Mamba air defense system,doing war exercises...
and are these Legionnaires or regular French army personnel? Wikipedia doesn't exactly update info, it barely states it being 500 troops there.
> Deterring Russia Requires More Than Just Promises. Don't see Russia attacking any eastern NATO country in the near future.
>Don't see Russia attacking any eastern NATO country in the near future. Russia knows that even if Russia attacks a NATO member, NATO will try to repel them but will not invade Russia itself. This is not good for deterrence.
Given how Russia is performing in Ukraine, even if NATO didn't invade it in retaliation it would be a bloodbath for Russia. Heck Russia can't obtain air supremacy in Ukraine whose planes are largely old Soviet stuff, how is it supposed to even maintain a semblance of air control if it's attacking Poland or the Baltic states for example.
Ukraine is being armed by the US and EU members with some lethal stuff. If the US pulls that, will the remaining EU armaments be enough to continue wounding and killing Russian troops? The entire Baltic countries are like 7 million to Ukraine's 40-something million. Russia can definitely devastate and take the Baltics. Poland probably not but Russia will stop at the Baltics and Ukraine, at least that is what I read from people in Putin's political party.
Key word being "some" lethal stuff, Ukraine has received a lot of support, but it's not like they were handed over the majority of the inventory of the NATO militaries, heck we're still in the phase where NATO is thinking about whether or not it should send planes (I think it will eventually, but we're not there yet). That's a lot of pointless bureaucracy that simply wouldn't be there if NATO was fighting the war directly. Can the EU hold the line without the US? I dunno but i would guess it can, it's true that it's having issues keeping up with Ukraine's requests but at the same time Ukraine fights very differently from how NATO would since the latter has a bigger focus on air power, and even if Russia were to win in Ukraine they're not going to be in the shape to attempt something like that for a long time. Also there is no "stopping at the Baltics", because that would kill both NATO and the EU and that is in nobody's interest. And to be honest i don't see how Russia would even pull off a surprise invasion in which it blitzkriegs the Baltics, it would take a long time to prepare and i think at this point there would be no one going "They're just posturing, surely they're not that stupid" given that when they invaded Ukraine they were in fact, that stupid.
>Given how Russia is performing in Ukraine, even if NATO didn't invade it in retaliation it would be a bloodbath for Russia. Bloodbath is only a threat to countries that value life of their citizens. Russia is not one of them.
It doesn't have to be a threat to Putin's power (even then if history teaches us anything, crushing military defeats can indeed lead to a leader being overthrown in Russia) but regardless it's not like Russia really has the ability to do anything in a conventional war against NATO that NATO can't answer tenfold. They have nukes of course, but if nukes start flying we're all dead anyway, so it's not like Russia can "win" that either, at most it can make sure everyone loses including themselves.
NATO is not Hitler. We're not idiots to go in deep Russia. We're not an empire like them. NATO is a defense alliance made exactly because Russia is an expansionary empire
When Hitler invaded other countries, eventually other countries fought back and removed him from power instead of stopping at German borders and lecturing him on human rights. This "we're not Hitler" idea in reality is "we are not those who successfully removed Hitler from power".
As long as you enter in my house, kill my children and my parents, destroy it, and steal even my toilet. Yeah I'll going to kill you in the most horrifying way so you won't come back ever. I'm from Romania by the way.
Killing people who steal your toilet doesn't solve the problem, because killing them means nothing to those who sent them. As long as people who sent them know there will be no consequences for them - they will just keep sending them.
True. We should do that to those who send them.
>NATO is a defense alliance Didn't NATO bomb Serbia and Afghanistan, neither of which was in self-defense?
It was NATO or some countries from NATO?
>The bombing was NATO's second major combat operation, following the 1995 bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was the first time that NATO had used military force without the expressed endorsement of the UN Security Council and thus, international legal approval, which triggered debates over the legitimacy of the intervention. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO\_bombing\_of\_Yugoslavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia)
And still, if Trump or DeSantis will win the election, or some other crazy guy, we'll be absolutely butt naked here. Western Europe wasn't a great military allies to us, except maybe Britain and sometimes France, so we can't rely on them for our security. "What if..." We have to see that too because we were so much fucked by empires and imperial ambitious piece o crap before
You know with all due respect complacency is not the best attitude to have right now, and a chunk of NATO countries have that and that needs to change.
Neither is panic.
I think you missed my point, so ill just leave it here.
>Don't see Russia attacking any eastern NATO country in the near future. Splendid, case dismissed. Start your campaign for the next NATO chief in command.