2 ms·

I admit that military spending as a indicator of capabilities is extremely simplistic, but so is using number of troops or many other other "easy" metrics (also

I admit that military spending as a indicator of capabilities is extremely simplistic, but so is using number of troops or many other other "easy" metrics (also your numbers are very off UK active military are 190 000 compared to Russia 1 000 000 according to https://www.globalfirepower.com/ https://www.globalfirepower.com/) I would still argue that with current military spending in Europe it is not clear that Russia would win a military conflict (lets leave asside the global disaster that would imply). Also the arguments about the US paying for European defence also misses the point, that it's very clearly in the US interest for Europe not to be controlled by Russia.

goatinaboat 6y ago
also your numbers are very off UK active military are 190 000 compared to Russia 1 000 000 according to https://www.globalfirepower.com/ https://www.globalfirepower.com/ That’s a cute site but looking at https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-kingdom&country2=russia&Submit=COMPARE https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.... the numbers for the UK are way off. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces which puts it at 148k, not 190k. Reserves at 44k not 83k.