• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US versus NATO

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,125
Points
1,060
Altair said:
NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily.

Not a chance but I'd also be curious how you came to that conclusion.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
517
Points
910
France: 205,000 with 195,770 in reserves

Germany: 180,000 with 145,00 in reserves

Poland: 120,000 with 515,000 in reserves

Spain: 125,00 with 16,200 in reserves

Italy: 320,000 with 42,000 in reserves

Sweden: 14,000 with 26,000 in reserves

Netherlands: 50,000 with 32,200 in reserves

Romania: 75,000 with 80,000 in Reserves

Czech Republic: 21,100 with 11,000 in reserves

Ukraine: 160,000 with 1,000,000 in reserves (Already in a proxy war with Russia)

Denmark: 25,000 with 63,000 in reserves

Bulgaria: 35,000 with 302,500 in reserves

Belgium: 35,000 with 6,500 in reserves

Austria: 30,000 with 27,000 in reserves

Portugal: 40,000 with 211,000 in reserves

Finland: 36,500 with 357,000 in reserves

Croatia: 21,500 with 102,700 in reserves

Estonia: 3,500 with 60,000 in reserves

Greece: 180,000 with 280,000 in reserves

Hungary: 20,000 with 52,000 in reserves

Latvia: 13,000 with 11,000 in reserves

Lithuania: 15,000 with 4,260 in reserves

Slovenia: 7,500 with 8,300 in reserves

Slovakia: 13,500 with 0 in reserves

Including at least 1,600 Nuclear Weapons

Frontline: 1,745,600

Reserves: 3,548,430

Total: 5,294,030

Frontline Troops: 766,055

Reserves: 2,485,000

Total: 3,251,055

Including 8,000 Nuclear Weapons

EU combined military spending :226.73 billion

Russian Military Budget: 66.3 Billion

The Russian bear isn't quite as scary as everyone is making it out to be.

 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
332
Points
910
Altair said:
NATO without the US would still handle Russia rather easily. Biggest problem there might be Europe running low on ammo, as they did during the Libya bombing campaign, but that is a relatively easy fix.

Would NATO be as formidable without the USA, especially outside of Europe, no, no it would not. Which is probably what Putin is playing for, and in honesty, America is playing right into his hand.

Really.  Leveraging European ISR, Space, Cyber and SOF dominance I assume?  And using all of their aircraft carriers?

This is where lanes matter my friend.  I enjoy your political polemics , hyperbole, and generally well-thought through commentary, mostly because these types of issues are mostly about marshalling facts to support an opinion, which you do quite well.

Geo-strategic military assessment? Not so much.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
517
Points
910
PPCLI Guy said:
Really.  Leveraging European ISR, Space, Cyber and SOF dominance I assume?  And using all of their aircraft carriers?

This is where lanes matter my friend.  I enjoy your political polemics , hyperbole, and generally well-thought through commentary, mostly because these types of issues are mostly about marshalling facts to support an opinion, which you do quite well.

Geo-strategic military assessment? Not so much.
Russia spends about as much as Saudi Arabia on defense, and I don't think anyone would bet on Saudi Arabia being able to beat the EU in a conventional war.

Russia is able to pick and choose where it wants to project power, and has done rather well in that regard, from taking Crimea, to destabilizing Ukraine and aiding Assad.

Beyond that though, I don't see how they would be able to engage in a conventional war with a United Europe. I also don't see what they gain from tangling with a nuclear weapons power.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
267
Points
910
I've heard the Royal Saudi Navy has some capable nuclear attack, guided missile and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile submarines and their Naval air size and capabilities are matched;  your comparison of the Russian and Saudi Arabia forces based on 'spending' is valid. 

Should we begin to compare them in the land, air force, space and cyber categories as well?

:whistle:
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,537
Points
1,060
Altair said:
France: 205,000 with 195,770 in reserves

Germany: 180,000 with 145,00 in reserves

Poland: 120,000 with 515,000 in reserves

Spain: 125,00 with 16,200 in reserves

Italy: 320,000 with 42,000 in reserves

Sweden: 14,000 with 26,000 in reserves

Netherlands: 50,000 with 32,200 in reserves

Romania: 75,000 with 80,000 in Reserves

Czech Republic: 21,100 with 11,000 in reserves

Ukraine: 160,000 with 1,000,000 in reserves (Already in a proxy war with Russia)

Denmark: 25,000 with 63,000 in reserves

Bulgaria: 35,000 with 302,500 in reserves

Belgium: 35,000 with 6,500 in reserves

Austria: 30,000 with 27,000 in reserves

Portugal: 40,000 with 211,000 in reserves

Finland: 36,500 with 357,000 in reserves

Croatia: 21,500 with 102,700 in reserves

Estonia: 3,500 with 60,000 in reserves

Greece: 180,000 with 280,000 in reserves

Hungary: 20,000 with 52,000 in reserves

Latvia: 13,000 with 11,000 in reserves

Lithuania: 15,000 with 4,260 in reserves

Slovenia: 7,500 with 8,300 in reserves

Slovakia: 13,500 with 0 in reserves

Including at least 1,600 Nuclear Weapons

Frontline: 1,745,600

Reserves: 3,548,430

Total: 5,294,030

Frontline Troops: 766,055

Reserves: 2,485,000

Total: 3,251,055

Including 8,000 Nuclear Weapons

EU combined military spending :226.73 billion

Russian Military Budget: 66.3 Billion

The Russian bear isn't quite as scary as everyone is making it out to be.

Your list of 'assets' doesn't include the levels of political will to resist as a collective, which is always in doubt without a strong US leadership presence.

And I'll throw Canada in with the Euro-trash on this one, sadly, as we seem more interested in currying favour and playing Pseudo-Euro instead of calling them on their sh*t.

 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
517
Points
910
Eye In The Sky said:
I've heard the Royal Saudi Navy has some capable nuclear attack, guided missile and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile submarines and their Naval air size and capabilities are matched;  your comparison of the Russian and Saudi Arabia forces based on 'spending' is valid. 

Should we begin to compare them in the land, air force, space and cyber categories as well?

:whistle:
When Russia is able to effectively project beyond their borders with more than little green men, maybe I'll at that point I'll bet on them on any Russia Europe conflict.

As it stands, I will be on europe 9 time out of 10 in any ground war in europe, the odd time being France surrendering before it begins.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
267
Points
910
Maybe you'll change your mind, or consider other things than simple old numbers, once you get some time working in a coalition and/or NATO TF and see what happens sometimes when every country has different ROE and 'national command directions/goals', etc.  Not to even mention different languages, comms systems, TTPs, tactical/operational/strategic goals/intentions.

Russia has none of those concerns (or, at least, different ones at only a national level vice *many nations* level) and it makes it easier for them to send flying telephone poles thru the air at targets.  :nod:
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
517
Points
910
Eye In The Sky said:
Maybe you'll change your mind, or consider other things than simple old numbers, once you get some time working in a coalition and/or NATO TF and see what happens sometimes when every country has different ROE and 'national command directions/goals', etc.

Russia has none of those concerns (or, at least, different ones at only a national level vice *many nations* level) and it makes it easier for them to send flying telephone poles thru the air at targets.  :nod:
Yes, I'm sure that would allow Russia, a country with the GDP of Italy, to outfight Europe, with a potential army twice its size.

Still wouldn't bet on it.

Although maybe Putin holds a summit with America asking for a second front in Europe, if history wants to repeat itself again.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
432
Points
910
Altair said:
I don't see how they would be able to engage in a conventional war with a United Europe.
I don't see a "united" Europe.  :dunno:


Edit:  Damn, I didn't see.....
daftandbarmy said:
Your list of 'assets' doesn't include the levels of political will to resist as a collective, which is always in doubt without a strong US leadership presence.
          What he said.  :nod:
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
517
Points
910
Lost in all this is we shouldn't even be talking about a NATO without the USA or Europe alone versus Russia.

But here we are.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Altair said:
Yes, I'm sure that would allow Russia, a country with the GDP of Italy, to outfight Europe, with a potential army twice its size.

If GDP was the only factor, sure.

But it's not.

Russia is buying its own kit, made in its own country, at prices relative to its own economy. And it's buying in bulk.

It's paying its troops relative to its own economy, and likely not spending anywhere nearly the same percentage on other personnel-related costs such as pensions and whole-family postings and generous allowances.

It's likely not going to pussy-foot around worrying about civilian casualties, endangered species, carbon footprints, gender-based analysis, and world opinion if it did attack. It will just blast everything in its way.

It's going to choose the time and place of its attack.

Think 1939. I'm not going to compare populations of Germany to the combined UK and European populations in detail, but the Nazis did not have the advantage there. They capitalized upon aggressive and innovative tactics, all-arms co-operation, and shock.

Now, would Putin actually attempt this? Unlikely. Russia still remembers - much better than we do - what the last Great Unpleasantness cost its society, and a nuclear exchange remains a pretty good deterrent, and he's not that crazy.

Russia is not to be feared unreasonably, no, and neither was it during the Cold War, but that is no excuse for complacency and underfunding our own armed forces (in collective NATO terms). This was the focus of the first quarter-century of my career, including three years spent in West Germany. Was I worried then? No - but we (NATO) were a lot better prepared for such an eventuality then than we are today.

President Trump is not attacking or risking NATO, or helping Putin. You are spouting nonsense in that regard. He is attempting to get the slackers (which includes us) to pay their fair - and agreed-upon share.

"We" are not talking about "a NATO without the USA or Europe alone versus Russia."
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,052
Points
1,160
Loachman said:
...It's likely not going to pussy-foot around worrying about civilian casualties, endangered species, carbon footprints, gender-based analysis, and world opinion if it did attack. It will just blast everything in its way...

Yup...MH17...etc.

 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
517
Points
910
Loachman said:
If GDP was the only factor, sure.

But it's not.

Russia is buying its own kit, made in its own country, at prices relative to its own economy. And it's buying in bulk.

It's paying its troops relative to its own economy, and likely not spending anywhere nearly the same percentage on other personnel-related costs such as pensions and whole-family postings and generous allowances.

It's likely not going to *****-foot around worrying about civilian casualties, endangered species, carbon footprints, gender-based analysis, and world opinion if it did attack. It will just blast everything in its way.

It's going to choose the time and place of its attack.

Think 1939. I'm not going to compare populations of Germany to the combined UK and European populations in detail, but the Nazis did not have the advantage there. They capitalized upon aggressive and innovative tactics, all-arms co-operation, and shock.

Now, would Putin actually attempt this? Unlikely. Russia still remembers - much better than we do - what the last Great Unpleasantness cost its society, and a nuclear exchange remains a pretty good deterrent, and he's not that crazy.

Russia is not to be feared unreasonably, no, and neither was it during the Cold War, but that is no excuse for complacency and underfunding our own armed forces (in collective NATO terms). This was the focus of the first quarter-century of my career, including three years spent in West Germany. Was I worried then? No - but we (NATO) were a lot better prepared for such an eventuality then than we are today.

President Trump is not attacking or risking NATO, or helping Putin. You are spouting nonsense in that regard. He is attempting to get the slackers (which includes us) to pay their fair - and agreed-upon share.

"We" are not talking about "a NATO without the USA or Europe alone versus Russia."
when you have the president of the united states musing about america leaving NATO, or pulling its troops out of Germany,  one should probably talk about it.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
267
Points
910
I just wanted to added a few things to this part of your earlier post...

Altair said:
When Russia is able to effectively project beyond their borders with more than little green men...

Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic has reportedly 'increased tenfold,'  May 2018

Royal Navy frigate shadows Russian warships in North Sea - June 2018 (A couple of Steregushchiy's out for a cruise...)

Russia fires first submarine missiles against Isis targets in Syria  Dec 2015

4 times in 4 days:  Russian military aircraft fly off US coast - April 2017

Russia's Massive Military Exercise in the Arctic Is Utterly Baffling - Mar 2015

Maybe I'm looking at things incorrectly, but I'm not seeing a lack of ability for the Russians to conduct operations outside of their borders, or with them being able to use more than their little green men.

 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
517
Points
910
Eye In The Sky said:
I just wanted to added a few things to this part of your earlier post...

Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic has reportedly 'increased tenfold,'  May 2018

Royal Navy frigate shadows Russian warships in North Sea - June 2018 (A couple of Steregushchiy's out for a cruise...)

Russia fires first submarine missiles against Isis targets in Syria  Dec 2015

4 times in 4 days:  Russian military aircraft fly off US coast - April 2017

Russia's Massive Military Exercise in the Arctic Is Utterly Baffling - Mar 2015

Maybe I'm looking at things incorrectly, but I'm not seeing a lack of ability for the Russians to conduct operations outside of their borders, or with them being able to use more than their little green men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Don%27t_Impress_Me_Much
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
877
Points
860
Altair said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Don%27t_Impress_Me_Much

Come on Altair.  I normally like what you post.

Russia has always tried to test NATO's mettle by doing exactly what you say it can't.  be it what EIS just posted or sending bombers over or near our border to remind us that they can project.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
517
Points
910
Remius said:
Come on Altair.  I normally like what you post.

Russia has always tried to test NATO's mettle by doing exactly what you say it can't.  be it what EIS just posted or sending bombers over or near our border to remind us that they can project.
What? it's a good song by a good Canadian artist.

On a serious note, I would be interested to see how the Russian army can do when not operating in their own house, or their backyard. They did a decent job in Syria, although that force was on the small side, and didn't venture too far from base.

It's one thing to send in the army to destabilize Ukraine, it's another altogether to try to intimidate Europe.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
97
Points
280
Remius said:
Come on Altair.  I normally like what you post.

Shania Twain in her prime, I can't complain about that!

Russia vs the rest of Europe would be a hard slog in my opinion. The Russian's would have the advantage as the aggressor in my opinion. The rest of Europe would have a hard time fighting as a integrated whole and the logistics would be a nightmare. Is not the T-72 the most common NATO tank?
 

Attachments

  • natotanks.jpg
    natotanks.jpg
    89 KB · Views: 286
  • NATO_s_Value_WEB.pdf
    350.3 KB · Views: 112
Top