- Reaction score
No need to waste placing troops there then if they are so easily neutralized? Surely NATO could just as easily stop a Russian invasion with its own nukes.All that advantage is countered by a few SS-29 on TELs.
Seriously though, I honestly don't see any possible positive result for Russia in attacking NATO. Like in Ukraine an attack might see some initial gains on the ground but in the long run NATO simply has the military, economic and demographic and geographic advantages to ensure an ultimate Russian defeat.
That being said, Putin & Co. are absolute nut jobs and we can't rule out them doing something stupid. That's why NATO needs to maintain a strong deterrent capability. As I said above I think the risk of a Russian attack is very low but the military capabilities to counter such an invasion aren't something that can just be thrown together at the last minute so we need to be prepared just in case.
This is why I think the idea of pre-positioning equipment in Europe with a small posted contingent and the rest of the personnel being flyover troops is the smart way to go. That way you don't have so many troops sitting on the border of Russia that they feel threatened (which would be very expensive to maintain) but the equipment is there and can be quickly brought into service when maximum deterrence is required.
Bringing it back to the tanks, this kind of forward deployment is ideal for our tanks as this is where they are most likely to be needed and they provide significant deterrent effect.