- Reaction score
- 13,200
- Points
- 1,160
And how much Ukrainian territory have Ukrainian drones prevented Russians from taking by any means?
There is a change.
2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
And how much Ukrainian territory have Ukrainian drones prevented Russians from taking by any means?
There is a change.
- Reaction score
- 13,200
- Points
- 1,160
As @daftandbarmy suggests, it is not the lack of bodies, tech or money that screws Europe up. It is all those little vallies. One valley, one gene pool, one government. 30 odd recognized governments. Hundreds of others that only recognize those reluctantly.
Trying to get them all hauling in the same direction is the problem. It has been since long before Charles V chucked it in as Holy Roman Emperor and abdicated. Hundreds of squabbling Germans.
- Reaction score
- 6,776
- Points
- 1,160
Don't mistake my position on the overall relative strength of Russia vs NATO as in some way suggesting there is no need for NATO to adapt to the new reality of drone warfare.
Absolutely both Ukraine and Russia are pretty far ahead of NATO nations in terms of drone warfare. NATO is working on catching up but I agree we're not making a great deal of headway. Typical peace-time reaction times.
IF Russia were to attack NATO then I have no doubt that their skill in drone warfare would have significant impacts. I also think that NATO has some capabilities that Ukraine lacks that would give Russia a very hard time as well. But just as has happened with both Russia and Ukraine in this current conflict the urgency of actually being at war would greatly accelerate the rate of innovation by NATO nations to meet the threats. This is where the absolutely huge differential between manpower, GDP, industrial capacity, manufacturing and R&D capacity would come into play.
Germany dominated Poland, France, Belgium and Britain at the start of WWII because they had a better grip on modern technology and tactics (radio equipped tanks, air-ground coordination, combined arms units, etc.). Same with the Japanese at the start of the war. They had better understanding of how to use naval aviation and both amphibious and jungle operations. Both swept over the Allies because they were better prepared at the start of the war.
Who won? War is not static. The Allies learned, adjusted and used their superior industrial capacity to match both Germany and Japan in technology and tactics and overwhelm them with their depth. I have no doubt that NATO would do the same against Russia.
The key for NATO is maintaining political unity and a will to fight among at least a key core of members. That's what forward deployed multi-national units like our Brigade in Latvia are designed to do. As long as NATO shows unified resolve to defend against a Russian attack then I don't believe that Russia is stupid enough to risk a direct conflict by invading a NATO member.
More likely they will (like the Germans bypassing the Maginot Line) attempt to pick away at non-NATO states where they think they can gain advantage or use grey-zone tactics to try and weaken NATO resolve (and set the conditions where they could pick off some NATO territory without risk of direct conflict with the whole NATO alliance).
This is the basis of my original argument which was against Canada upgrading our current Brigade commitment to NATO to a full Canadian Division. In my opinion a Division in a unified NATO provides no more deterrence than a Brigade. And if Russia uses grey zone tactics in the Baltics then neither a Division or a Brigade are the right tools to counter that.
Keep the Brigade-level commitment (and the depth back in Canada to sustain that commitment if war does break out) because it serves both as a deterrent to Russia and an important political sign of NATO unity. The rest of our Army should be designed to respond to direct military threats to Canada or threats to our interests elsewhere in the World. I'd argue that those forces look different than a European-focused Army.
$0.02
