3 ms·

Not sure it makes sense to buy military aircraft from any given country if being able to stop them from invading you is your military's primary mission.

lostlogin 9y ago
And yet the West seems to spend time and sometimes money to arm groups, and then fight them.
thesumofall 9y ago
It is absolutely not the primary mission of the German army to stop a Russian invasion. I guess it’s not even on their top 10 list
- leroy_masochist 9y ago
  Stopping a major combined arms invasion from an easterly neighbor is the focus of all of Germany's big training exercises to this day. Instead of whatever the Heer says through its public affairs officers, look at what is actually being practiced and paid for with the Euros in the defense budget. It's not counterinsurgency, it's not disaster relief, it's training out of Wildflecken focused on stopping a theoretical invader from penetrating the Fulda Gap with tanks.
  - devereaux 9y ago
    Why not penetrating with tanks, starting Kaliningrad, through Poland??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap : "With the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the reunification of Germany in 1990, and the subsequent withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Fulda Gap lost its strategic importance, but it remains a powerful symbol of the Cold War."
    - leroy_masochist 9y ago
      Sorry, to be clear, the Fulda Gap is one of the places where they still train. It is no longer strategically important territory the way it was during the Cold War but there is a lot of land available there for ground forces to maneuver. Agree that, if what they are training for were to actually occur in present day real life, it would likely be in the general vicinity of Kaliningrad.
- junkscience2017 9y ago
  The German military in 2017 could probably not stop an invasion by Canada. NATO on the other hand, most certainly exists to deter Russian aggression.
  - AcerbicZero 9y ago
    The Canadian army would struggle to invade a locked Tim Hortons. Germany might not be ready for Barbarossa 2: Electric Boogaloo, but they maintain one of the larger and arguably better equipped militaries in Europe.
    - leroy_masochist 9y ago
      Canadian infantry and SOF are actually really legit
    - greedo 9y ago
      They have the best broomsticks, no doubt [1]. The Heer is a shell of its former self. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-is-so-under-equipped-that-it-used-broomsticks-instead-of-machine-guns/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19...
distances 9y ago
It depends a bit. For example Finland used to use a lot of Soviet weaponry while (practically if not officially) preparing to deter Soviet attack. Some upsides: - Results in trade deals with a neighboring superpower - In case of war, looted enemy armament is familiar and compatible - Cheaper due to Soviet attempts to keep sphere of influence (e.g. no direct NATO compatibility)
- khamisiyah 9y ago
  To add to this comment, the majority of Finland's infantry fighting and transport vehicles that in use are still Soviet BMPs and MTLBs. Same applies to artillery and also all light machine guns are and probably will Russian PKMs for a while. But yeah since the fall of USSR they've been slowing shifting towards buying from NATO countries/allies, with German Leopard tanks having replaced T-72s and recently buying artillery units from South Korea.
- vkou 9y ago
  Another upside: - Making it clear that you're not in the 'other guys' camp. A NATO Finland would have been incredibly threatening to the Soviet Union. A friendly, non-aligned Finland that just wants to be independent, without stepping on anyone's toes is a useful buffer state. After the second world war, Finland had to tread very, very carefully.
- d__k 9y ago
  Finland is not a member of NATO and it does not have any foreign army on its territory so it can make a decision based on technical characteristics and economical (not political) factors.

lostlogin 9y ago

And yet the West seems to spend time and sometimes money to arm groups, and then fight them.

thesumofall 9y ago

It is absolutely not the primary mission of the German army to stop a Russian invasion. I guess it’s not even on their top 10 list

leroy_masochist 9y ago
Stopping a major combined arms invasion from an easterly neighbor is the focus of all of Germany's big training exercises to this day. Instead of whatever the Heer says through its public affairs officers, look at what is actually being practiced and paid for with the Euros in the defense budget. It's not counterinsurgency, it's not disaster relief, it's training out of Wildflecken focused on stopping a theoretical invader from penetrating the Fulda Gap with tanks.
- devereaux 9y ago
  Why not penetrating with tanks, starting Kaliningrad, through Poland??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap : "With the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the reunification of Germany in 1990, and the subsequent withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Fulda Gap lost its strategic importance, but it remains a powerful symbol of the Cold War."
  - leroy_masochist 9y ago
    Sorry, to be clear, the Fulda Gap is one of the places where they still train. It is no longer strategically important territory the way it was during the Cold War but there is a lot of land available there for ground forces to maneuver. Agree that, if what they are training for were to actually occur in present day real life, it would likely be in the general vicinity of Kaliningrad.
junkscience2017 9y ago
The German military in 2017 could probably not stop an invasion by Canada. NATO on the other hand, most certainly exists to deter Russian aggression.
- AcerbicZero 9y ago
  The Canadian army would struggle to invade a locked Tim Hortons. Germany might not be ready for Barbarossa 2: Electric Boogaloo, but they maintain one of the larger and arguably better equipped militaries in Europe.
  - leroy_masochist 9y ago
    Canadian infantry and SOF are actually really legit
  - greedo 9y ago
    They have the best broomsticks, no doubt [1]. The Heer is a shell of its former self. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-is-so-under-equipped-that-it-used-broomsticks-instead-of-machine-guns/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19...

distances 9y ago

It depends a bit. For example Finland used to use a lot of Soviet weaponry while (practically if not officially) preparing to deter Soviet attack. Some upsides: - Results in trade deals with a neighboring superpower - In case of war, looted enemy armament is familiar and compatible - Cheaper due to Soviet attempts to keep sphere of influence (e.g. no direct NATO compatibility)

khamisiyah 9y ago
To add to this comment, the majority of Finland's infantry fighting and transport vehicles that in use are still Soviet BMPs and MTLBs. Same applies to artillery and also all light machine guns are and probably will Russian PKMs for a while. But yeah since the fall of USSR they've been slowing shifting towards buying from NATO countries/allies, with German Leopard tanks having replaced T-72s and recently buying artillery units from South Korea.
vkou 9y ago
Another upside: - Making it clear that you're not in the 'other guys' camp. A NATO Finland would have been incredibly threatening to the Soviet Union. A friendly, non-aligned Finland that just wants to be independent, without stepping on anyone's toes is a useful buffer state. After the second world war, Finland had to tread very, very carefully.
d__k 9y ago
Finland is not a member of NATO and it does not have any foreign army on its territory so it can make a decision based on technical characteristics and economical (not political) factors.