5 ms·

I understand and have sympathy with the cheering; but something rings false in my ears. If the Russians are so weak and incompetent then why is nearly every Eu

I understand and have sympathy with the cheering; but something rings false in my ears. If the Russians are so weak and incompetent then why is nearly every European country doubling their military expenditures? And countries that have been neutral through the second world war now rushing into NATO? I fear that the Russians will be pushed into a more "traditional" warfare with heavy air campaigns against anything remotely "dual-use" and the massive civil casualties that would follow.

mission_failed 5y ago
Most countries would prefer to prevent the Russians ever entering their country and committing war crimes.
thawaya3113 5y ago
1) No one expected them to be so weak and miserable. Note that every western analyst gave it at most 3 days (some might have said 7, but no one said more) before Kyiv would fall. Note also that even over a month into the invasion, and it making no progress, the narrative in western circles was that it was a result of a temporary logistics problem and/or using conscripts as cannon fodder. The professionals would come anytime soon and then Kyiv would be taken. 2) Nukes. 3) Even though the Russian military appears increasingly incompetent, they are still capable of creating immense damage and destruction.
- drran 5y ago
  This prediction is correct for pre-war Ukraine. We lost Crimea without a fight. Now we have 8 years of experience and will to fight, because everyone lost somebody they know. However, Ukrainian army is poorly equipped. 200 thousand reservists cannot join Ukrainian army because of lack of equipment. We are trying to squeeze the last few drops from our reserves. We badly need new trucks. I have a driver (I'm lieutenant), but have no truck, because my truck was used in Chornobyl, so it's not operable now because of 30 years of out of service at conservation. If I have a truck, I can swap my cabin from Chornobyl truck to new truck and create a working communication station, but I cannot find a cheap truck to buy. If you have a barely working truck, please, sent it to Ukraine, Rivne, Ukrainian Army, 55 OPZ, 1 battalion.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Not sure if this is serious, but how would a private individual send a truck? I have friends trying to transport supplies to Ukraine and they are finding it is quite difficult to make deliveries.
    - Symbiote 5y ago
      Maybe the names in this article would help. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/why-second-hand-british-cars-end-up-on-ukraines-frontline https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/why-second-han... https://pekelnitachky.com/en https://pekelnitachky.com/en
    - drran 5y ago
      I have no idea. Before the war, cars from the USA were delivered by sea in shipping containers to Odessa. Now, Odessa in blocked by Russians, so cargo must be shipped to EU first, and then transported to Ukraine via Poland. There are some Ukrainian firms, which are providing logistic. I can also ask my mentor from Britain to help with delivery. I put my email into profile details, if you have a truck for me, because I badly need a truck. I'm OK with the truck from Chornobyl, because we are living close to Chornobyl anyway, but we cannot repair it because of lack of parts and because the main quarters were left due to risk of missile strike. We are all in the fields now.
    - ezhux 5y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/18/ukraine-military-aid-shipments/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/18/ukraine-mili...
lordnacho 5y ago
These Europeans are coming out of a phase of almost no perceived threat, so they have to increase spending even if they don't think the Russians are very good. Plus you have to plan for the adversary being better than what you have evidence for, that's just prudent.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  NATO exists because of the threat. The mistake is that other countries are being bullied by Russia. NATO untill further escalation works.
  - lordnacho 5y ago
    Yeah it's like an inflatable dinghy. You have it around in storage until you need it. Germany at the moment has just declared they will inflate their military.
throw_5202 5y ago
1. Russian military performs worse than was expected by western experts but still has enough explosives to flatten out large swaths of land - as we see they don't care at all about collateral damage or outright target civilians as an easy prey. 2. NATO military was not really tested in full scale combat and can perform worse than expected too.
- yakak 5y ago
  This is not really a poorly performing military. This is a terribly incompetent plan proudly made by only 5 people. NATO has had plenty of logistical failures but it doesn't narrow it's planning to total top-down so those failures are dealt with and worked around by elements in the middle and on the field.
mrtksn 5y ago
Russia seems to be much weaker than expected but definitely they are not harmless. Ukraine fared much better than expected but they have seen enormous destruction on their lands. Also, Europe was depending on the idea that if you integrate Russian economy with the Western economy there wouldn't be reason to wage wars, just the way EU integrated historic enemies into completely peaceful union therefore there's no need to maintain large armies. Unfortunately, the method that works for EU countries doesn't work for Russia(too corrupt? too autocratic? too eastern mentality? who knows) and as a result European countries now increase their budgets for their defence. I think it's tragic. Would have been much better if Russians sent their gas as Europe gradually transitions into renewables and Europe sent their produce to Russians and improve their lives as they diversify their economy as the fossil energy is phased out. It should have worked, EU definitely tried make it work.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "Unfortunately, the method that works for EU countries doesn't work for Russia" In general the method works, there were(are) deep economic ties growing between germany and russia for example to mutual benefit. And those sectors are devastated because of the war and were really not in favour of it. But Russia is a bit bigger than slovakia for example, so some economic ties were apparently not enough. Also, most of the russia population received an decrease in living standard after the soviet union fell, so democracy was off with a bad start. When your individual life is shit, it is a comfort knowing you are at least part of something great. The RUS empire. Only, that in reality it is just a brutal, rusty moloch, which more people are hopefully seeing now. And yes, it is tragic. We now have war and even if there will be peace eventually, a new iron curtain with mines will once again divide europe.
  - giardini 5y ago
    hutzlibu says >"When your individual life is shit, it is a comfort knowing you are at least part of something great. The RUS empire. Only, that in reality it is just a brutal, rusty moloch, "< So once again we are in a "war of ideas". I hope we do not face a "new iron curtain" as you say, that would indeed be a shame. I held so many hopes for the Russian people but foolishly thought they had escaped the prisons of thought that might bind them. So many outstanding people, some of the best writers, mathematicians, and scientists, generations of civilization and a history worth mining for gems. I now see more clearly that the Russians (and other peoples in that region of the Earth) are neither Western nor Eastern in thought but have their own very different perceptions of the world. And unfortunately many of them seem to suffer an undeserved diminished sense of self-worth and a desire for recognition (some call it "thymos") that is perceived as not forthcoming from foreigners, whether truly present or not. I have always believed that any Russian or "Eurasian" (if I may use that term to denote the broader groups of peoples in the region) person was as worthy or better, good or bad, strong or weak, kind, and good ... as any person whatsoever. But I fear b/c of the West's indifference and yes, the West's negligence of these peoples after the breakup of the Soviet Union, we have, as a group, not sufficiently shown the respect that is due them. We needed a "Marshall Plan" for the fall of the Soviet Union, if only to offer it.
dmitriid 5y ago
Russia still has the sheer numbers. Wikipedia lists Active personnel 1,014,000 Reserve personnel 2,000,000 They only deployed less than 100k in Uraine, and it's tied one of the largest armies in Europe. Europe hasn't had an army to speak of for decades (and for a good reason). So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". > air campaigns against anything remotely "dual-use" and the massive civil casualties that would follow. They don't have to be "pushed". They have been basically doing that since the war started.
- unionpivo 5y ago
  This are correct numbers(for active part, reserve are far smaller - money issue) but they include army, navy and air force. Also the larges part of any military are non combat support personnel. Weather its people building things or transporting them or fixing them. Also manning various stations. Providing security for military installation. Military police. Military intelligence. etc. So out of 1m people russia only has around 250k combat troops. 190k of which are currently engaged in Ukraine. And one of the reasons we see all this logistical problems is that Russia has too much combat troops (or too little support) for its support force. In other militaries its usually from 6 to 9 support people for every combat role. Also remember SU was over 300M (and that without Warsaw pact nations). Russia is less than 150m. So no Russia does not have endless supply of troops, unless they start mobilization.
- izacus 5y ago
  > Europe hasn't had an army to speak of for decades (and for a good reason). So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". Where do you get these claims? Most European countries are part of NATO which demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements. While it's true that most countries don't spend the ridiculous amount of their wealth on arms as USA does, the armies of European countries are far from not existing.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > Most European countries are part of NATO which demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements. I couldn't be bothered to look beyond Wikipedia, so going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po... 1. Most countries spend significatly less than is required by NATO. Nato requires 2% of GDP to be spent on defense. In the EU, only 7 countries are at that threshold, or above it, and of those Finland is not in NATO. 2. France has the largest active military personnel at 200k, and of those, 17k are "prepared for deployed and sustained operations". At this point all of EU couldn't get an army to respond to Russia's current force engaged in Ukraine.
fer 5y ago
European countries are ramping up expenditure simply because Russia has increased instability in Europe and they can't be trusted to uphold their treaties anymore. While its military has been embezzled into oblivion by the elite, Russia still has one of the largest standing armies. Moreover, lots of proper military research projects have been done. It's the actual production where they run into the corruption bottleneck: that could be solved and the giant might awaken.
- rm_-rf_slash 5y ago
  “Solving corruption” won’t fix the supply chain reliance on western components, now closed off via sanctions. Russia can’t make special stuff if it can’t make boring stuff. They can try import substitution from China but it would be difficult to move goods as the Trans-Siberian Railway is already at capacity trying to replace other goods, and even China may not be able to provide suitable replacements for parts manufactured in Europe.
- raducu 5y ago
  > European countries are ramping up expenditure simply because Russia has increased instability Russia was/is spending something like 17% on military. Obviously they planned to use it at some point, I can't believe we were this dumb not to see it.
thefz 5y ago
> If the Russians are so weak and incompetent then why is nearly every European country doubling their military expenditures? And countries that have been neutral through the second world war now rushing into NATO? I remember reading somewhere, maybe the Guardian, that: - just 9% of the total russian forces are now deployed against Ukraine - they thought it will be an easy victory so they sent the lowest grade troops they had.
- terafo 5y ago
  You should check your sources. It is closer to 90% of russian forces that are capable of offensive action than to 9%. Military doesn't consist entirely of troops, the bulk of their fleet is useless for example(it can't move into Black Sea since Turkey blocked Dardanelles). Out of 280k of their ground forces almost 200k went into Ukraine with initial invasion and since then they've been sending a lot of reinforcements. So yeah, it's closer to 90%.
- sgt101 5y ago
  Taking Wikipedia as reliable (apologies) The Russian Army has 280k active troops (per :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces) and is thought to have deployed 175k of those (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...) Contrary to the lowest grade, it seems that many elite forces were used : https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/destination-disaster-russias-failure-at.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/destination-disaster-r... unfortunately they were deployed in an amateur way using a reckless plan. If the reinforcement strategy had come off then everyone would say that it was utterly brilliant, but gambles like this happen in war all the time. We like to venerate the ones that work and to talk about brilliant generals and the glamour of battle. In reality, as in this case they mostly fail and the troops get bogged down and killed. The Russians have done a surprising and smart thing, which shows that someone in Moscow has the light on still. They've pulled out of the north and completely changed strategy - this shows a strategic flexibility that's really quite impressive, and unusual for a totalitarian regime. The problem that they have now is that the situation in the south is much more difficult than it would have been if they had gone for it at the outset. They don't have much of a reserve because Russia is so vast and the Russians have serious commitments at the border with China and North Korea and so on.
phoe-krk 5y ago
> If the Russians are so weak and incompetent then why is nearly every European country doubling their military expenditures? And countries that have been neutral through the second world war now rushing into NATO? Because they are going to besiege many cities and kill many people even if they end up losing a war, just like what happens in Ukraine right now.
- notriskfree 5y ago
  We can clearly see that the current generation of tank the Russians have are useless. We will spend lots of money on very expensive equally redundant tanks. We can clearly see that the Russians were unable to gain air superiority. We will spend lots of money on incredibly expensive new fighters and bombers. We can clearly see the Russian fleet is bottled up. We will spend lots of money on new ships and submarines. If we were interested in defence, all the (small) spending would be on anti tank and anti aircraft missile systems, logistics, and training our national guard, firemen, police and other citizens. We (the west) vastly outnumber the Russians, have more advanced technology, and hugely larger industrial capacity. This defence spending is obviously not about Russia, and not about defence, it is firstly and mainly about making money and creating jobs to get ourselves out of the current economic disaster, and secondly about preparing for war with our next official adversary, whoever the Americans decide to nominate for that.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Good example of why you want to read the whole comment before upvoting.
  - ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
    I think you underestimate just how low EU military spending was. In Germany there were reports of a complete lack of readiness: in 2018 DW reported that none of Germany's 14 large military transports were flight-worthy, 21,000 officer positions were vacant, fighter aircraft were averaging 4 months of flyability per year (resulting in a pilot training deficit), and only 9 of 44 tanks promised for the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force were operational. And those are the big flashy items. The articles also note shortages of supplies like winter clothes, automatic grenade launchers, night-vision equipment, and body armor.
throwaway4good 5y ago
By "traditional" warfare I meant something similar to the campaigns against Serbia or the second Iraq war. Basically long bombing campaigns targeting everything from military targets, to TV-stations, to train stations, while the opponent was unable to respond, leaving them broken and demoralized.
sofixa 5y ago
> fear that the Russians will be pushed into a more "traditional" warfare with heavy air campaigns against anything remotely "dual-use" and the massive civil casualties that would follow That's what they're already doing. Except it's not with air power, because theirs is kind of a joke ( using commercial off the shelf phones and GPS to communicate and navigate), but with artillery. And it's not "anything remotely dual use", it's bomb everything, even obviously civilian targets.
uuyi 5y ago
Russia isn’t the only player on the board. There’s a whole load of sabre rattling from China which military leaders have been warning about for years. This is some leverage to build a defence strategy against them and other actors too. Plus Russia could probably do some damage and would be difficult if not impossible to completely take out due to the size of their land mass.
rebuilder 5y ago
The calculus has changed. Previous defence spending was based on a much less aggressive Russian posture than what they’ve now taken. Since Russia is willing to go war in Europe, which almost no-one really thought possible before, the deterrent must be increased to account for the increased risk.
klausjensen 5y ago
Two main reasons for European increase in military spending (in no particular order): 1. The latest Russian invasion was a wake-up call. Much bigger than in 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea and East Ukraine. Especially Germany and France have been attempting to reach a lasting peaceful relationship with Russia through trade and agreements. Any hope anybody in Europe might have had of that has evaporated now. 2. Fear that the US will not be there to defend Europe in the future (Trump threatened to leave NATO - and might be re-elected). One of the (fair) reasons behing Trump's threats were European NATO countried not paying their fair share (2% of GDP in 2014 agreement).
- mcv 5y ago
  Exactly. European countries are finally realising they can't rely on the US to defend them forever, and Russia has become a much more active threat. For all my life I've opposed defense spending and supported reduction of defense spending, but not anymore. As long as Putin rules Russia, Russia is a real threat to any neighbouring country. Even if my own country is relatively safe, I think it's important we help other countries to defend themselves against this threat. I would still strongly prefer friendly relationships with Russia, but Putin has made that impossible. We need to stop buying Russian gas as soon as possible.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
Because there are many. And an ill-maintained tank from the Soviet/ww2 era is still a tank.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> If the Russians are so weak and incompetent then why is nearly every European country doubling their military expenditures? Even being not very good at war they've been able to do a lot of damage and war crimes. Plus, some of those countries have had pretty terrible militaries themselves; the head of the German army admittedly recently that their capability as a fighting force is very limited. A lot of Europe was basically coasting militarily because they thought war in Europe was over forever.
dsq 5y ago
'Never let a good crisis go to waste'. European leaders have long known they had to increase military ability, they just couldn't persuade their citizens.

mission_failed 5y ago

Most countries would prefer to prevent the Russians ever entering their country and committing war crimes.

thawaya3113 5y ago

1) No one expected them to be so weak and miserable. Note that every western analyst gave it at most 3 days (some might have said 7, but no one said more) before Kyiv would fall. Note also that even over a month into the invasion, and it making no progress, the narrative in western circles was that it was a result of a temporary logistics problem and/or using conscripts as cannon fodder. The professionals would come anytime soon and then Kyiv would be taken. 2) Nukes. 3) Even though the Russian military appears increasingly incompetent, they are still capable of creating immense damage and destruction.

drran 5y ago
This prediction is correct for pre-war Ukraine. We lost Crimea without a fight. Now we have 8 years of experience and will to fight, because everyone lost somebody they know. However, Ukrainian army is poorly equipped. 200 thousand reservists cannot join Ukrainian army because of lack of equipment. We are trying to squeeze the last few drops from our reserves. We badly need new trucks. I have a driver (I'm lieutenant), but have no truck, because my truck was used in Chornobyl, so it's not operable now because of 30 years of out of service at conservation. If I have a truck, I can swap my cabin from Chornobyl truck to new truck and create a working communication station, but I cannot find a cheap truck to buy. If you have a barely working truck, please, sent it to Ukraine, Rivne, Ukrainian Army, 55 OPZ, 1 battalion.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Not sure if this is serious, but how would a private individual send a truck? I have friends trying to transport supplies to Ukraine and they are finding it is quite difficult to make deliveries.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    Maybe the names in this article would help. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/why-second-hand-british-cars-end-up-on-ukraines-frontline https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/why-second-han... https://pekelnitachky.com/en https://pekelnitachky.com/en
  - drran 5y ago
    I have no idea. Before the war, cars from the USA were delivered by sea in shipping containers to Odessa. Now, Odessa in blocked by Russians, so cargo must be shipped to EU first, and then transported to Ukraine via Poland. There are some Ukrainian firms, which are providing logistic. I can also ask my mentor from Britain to help with delivery. I put my email into profile details, if you have a truck for me, because I badly need a truck. I'm OK with the truck from Chornobyl, because we are living close to Chornobyl anyway, but we cannot repair it because of lack of parts and because the main quarters were left due to risk of missile strike. We are all in the fields now.
  - ezhux 5y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/18/ukraine-military-aid-shipments/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/18/ukraine-mili...

lordnacho 5y ago

These Europeans are coming out of a phase of almost no perceived threat, so they have to increase spending even if they don't think the Russians are very good. Plus you have to plan for the adversary being better than what you have evidence for, that's just prudent.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
NATO exists because of the threat. The mistake is that other countries are being bullied by Russia. NATO untill further escalation works.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  Yeah it's like an inflatable dinghy. You have it around in storage until you need it. Germany at the moment has just declared they will inflate their military.

throw_5202 5y ago

1. Russian military performs worse than was expected by western experts but still has enough explosives to flatten out large swaths of land - as we see they don't care at all about collateral damage or outright target civilians as an easy prey. 2. NATO military was not really tested in full scale combat and can perform worse than expected too.

yakak 5y ago
This is not really a poorly performing military. This is a terribly incompetent plan proudly made by only 5 people. NATO has had plenty of logistical failures but it doesn't narrow it's planning to total top-down so those failures are dealt with and worked around by elements in the middle and on the field.

mrtksn 5y ago

Russia seems to be much weaker than expected but definitely they are not harmless. Ukraine fared much better than expected but they have seen enormous destruction on their lands. Also, Europe was depending on the idea that if you integrate Russian economy with the Western economy there wouldn't be reason to wage wars, just the way EU integrated historic enemies into completely peaceful union therefore there's no need to maintain large armies. Unfortunately, the method that works for EU countries doesn't work for Russia(too corrupt? too autocratic? too eastern mentality? who knows) and as a result European countries now increase their budgets for their defence. I think it's tragic. Would have been much better if Russians sent their gas as Europe gradually transitions into renewables and Europe sent their produce to Russians and improve their lives as they diversify their economy as the fossil energy is phased out. It should have worked, EU definitely tried make it work.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"Unfortunately, the method that works for EU countries doesn't work for Russia" In general the method works, there were(are) deep economic ties growing between germany and russia for example to mutual benefit. And those sectors are devastated because of the war and were really not in favour of it. But Russia is a bit bigger than slovakia for example, so some economic ties were apparently not enough. Also, most of the russia population received an decrease in living standard after the soviet union fell, so democracy was off with a bad start. When your individual life is shit, it is a comfort knowing you are at least part of something great. The RUS empire. Only, that in reality it is just a brutal, rusty moloch, which more people are hopefully seeing now. And yes, it is tragic. We now have war and even if there will be peace eventually, a new iron curtain with mines will once again divide europe.
- giardini 5y ago
  hutzlibu says >"When your individual life is shit, it is a comfort knowing you are at least part of something great. The RUS empire. Only, that in reality it is just a brutal, rusty moloch, "< So once again we are in a "war of ideas". I hope we do not face a "new iron curtain" as you say, that would indeed be a shame. I held so many hopes for the Russian people but foolishly thought they had escaped the prisons of thought that might bind them. So many outstanding people, some of the best writers, mathematicians, and scientists, generations of civilization and a history worth mining for gems. I now see more clearly that the Russians (and other peoples in that region of the Earth) are neither Western nor Eastern in thought but have their own very different perceptions of the world. And unfortunately many of them seem to suffer an undeserved diminished sense of self-worth and a desire for recognition (some call it "thymos") that is perceived as not forthcoming from foreigners, whether truly present or not. I have always believed that any Russian or "Eurasian" (if I may use that term to denote the broader groups of peoples in the region) person was as worthy or better, good or bad, strong or weak, kind, and good ... as any person whatsoever. But I fear b/c of the West's indifference and yes, the West's negligence of these peoples after the breakup of the Soviet Union, we have, as a group, not sufficiently shown the respect that is due them. We needed a "Marshall Plan" for the fall of the Soviet Union, if only to offer it.

dmitriid 5y ago

Russia still has the sheer numbers. Wikipedia lists Active personnel 1,014,000 Reserve personnel 2,000,000 They only deployed less than 100k in Uraine, and it's tied one of the largest armies in Europe. Europe hasn't had an army to speak of for decades (and for a good reason). So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". > air campaigns against anything remotely "dual-use" and the massive civil casualties that would follow. They don't have to be "pushed". They have been basically doing that since the war started.

unionpivo 5y ago
This are correct numbers(for active part, reserve are far smaller - money issue) but they include army, navy and air force. Also the larges part of any military are non combat support personnel. Weather its people building things or transporting them or fixing them. Also manning various stations. Providing security for military installation. Military police. Military intelligence. etc. So out of 1m people russia only has around 250k combat troops. 190k of which are currently engaged in Ukraine. And one of the reasons we see all this logistical problems is that Russia has too much combat troops (or too little support) for its support force. In other militaries its usually from 6 to 9 support people for every combat role. Also remember SU was over 300M (and that without Warsaw pact nations). Russia is less than 150m. So no Russia does not have endless supply of troops, unless they start mobilization.
izacus 5y ago
> Europe hasn't had an army to speak of for decades (and for a good reason). So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". Where do you get these claims? Most European countries are part of NATO which demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements. While it's true that most countries don't spend the ridiculous amount of their wealth on arms as USA does, the armies of European countries are far from not existing.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Most European countries are part of NATO which demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements. I couldn't be bothered to look beyond Wikipedia, so going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po... 1. Most countries spend significatly less than is required by NATO. Nato requires 2% of GDP to be spent on defense. In the EU, only 7 countries are at that threshold, or above it, and of those Finland is not in NATO. 2. France has the largest active military personnel at 200k, and of those, 17k are "prepared for deployed and sustained operations". At this point all of EU couldn't get an army to respond to Russia's current force engaged in Ukraine.

fer 5y ago

European countries are ramping up expenditure simply because Russia has increased instability in Europe and they can't be trusted to uphold their treaties anymore. While its military has been embezzled into oblivion by the elite, Russia still has one of the largest standing armies. Moreover, lots of proper military research projects have been done. It's the actual production where they run into the corruption bottleneck: that could be solved and the giant might awaken.

rm_-rf_slash 5y ago
“Solving corruption” won’t fix the supply chain reliance on western components, now closed off via sanctions. Russia can’t make special stuff if it can’t make boring stuff. They can try import substitution from China but it would be difficult to move goods as the Trans-Siberian Railway is already at capacity trying to replace other goods, and even China may not be able to provide suitable replacements for parts manufactured in Europe.
raducu 5y ago
> European countries are ramping up expenditure simply because Russia has increased instability Russia was/is spending something like 17% on military. Obviously they planned to use it at some point, I can't believe we were this dumb not to see it.

thefz 5y ago

> If the Russians are so weak and incompetent then why is nearly every European country doubling their military expenditures? And countries that have been neutral through the second world war now rushing into NATO? I remember reading somewhere, maybe the Guardian, that: - just 9% of the total russian forces are now deployed against Ukraine - they thought it will be an easy victory so they sent the lowest grade troops they had.

terafo 5y ago
You should check your sources. It is closer to 90% of russian forces that are capable of offensive action than to 9%. Military doesn't consist entirely of troops, the bulk of their fleet is useless for example(it can't move into Black Sea since Turkey blocked Dardanelles). Out of 280k of their ground forces almost 200k went into Ukraine with initial invasion and since then they've been sending a lot of reinforcements. So yeah, it's closer to 90%.
sgt101 5y ago
Taking Wikipedia as reliable (apologies) The Russian Army has 280k active troops (per :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces) and is thought to have deployed 175k of those (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...) Contrary to the lowest grade, it seems that many elite forces were used : https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/destination-disaster-russias-failure-at.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/destination-disaster-r... unfortunately they were deployed in an amateur way using a reckless plan. If the reinforcement strategy had come off then everyone would say that it was utterly brilliant, but gambles like this happen in war all the time. We like to venerate the ones that work and to talk about brilliant generals and the glamour of battle. In reality, as in this case they mostly fail and the troops get bogged down and killed. The Russians have done a surprising and smart thing, which shows that someone in Moscow has the light on still. They've pulled out of the north and completely changed strategy - this shows a strategic flexibility that's really quite impressive, and unusual for a totalitarian regime. The problem that they have now is that the situation in the south is much more difficult than it would have been if they had gone for it at the outset. They don't have much of a reserve because Russia is so vast and the Russians have serious commitments at the border with China and North Korea and so on.

phoe-krk 5y ago

> If the Russians are so weak and incompetent then why is nearly every European country doubling their military expenditures? And countries that have been neutral through the second world war now rushing into NATO? Because they are going to besiege many cities and kill many people even if they end up losing a war, just like what happens in Ukraine right now.

notriskfree 5y ago
We can clearly see that the current generation of tank the Russians have are useless. We will spend lots of money on very expensive equally redundant tanks. We can clearly see that the Russians were unable to gain air superiority. We will spend lots of money on incredibly expensive new fighters and bombers. We can clearly see the Russian fleet is bottled up. We will spend lots of money on new ships and submarines. If we were interested in defence, all the (small) spending would be on anti tank and anti aircraft missile systems, logistics, and training our national guard, firemen, police and other citizens. We (the west) vastly outnumber the Russians, have more advanced technology, and hugely larger industrial capacity. This defence spending is obviously not about Russia, and not about defence, it is firstly and mainly about making money and creating jobs to get ourselves out of the current economic disaster, and secondly about preparing for war with our next official adversary, whoever the Americans decide to nominate for that.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Good example of why you want to read the whole comment before upvoting.
- ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
  I think you underestimate just how low EU military spending was. In Germany there were reports of a complete lack of readiness: in 2018 DW reported that none of Germany's 14 large military transports were flight-worthy, 21,000 officer positions were vacant, fighter aircraft were averaging 4 months of flyability per year (resulting in a pilot training deficit), and only 9 of 44 tanks promised for the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force were operational. And those are the big flashy items. The articles also note shortages of supplies like winter clothes, automatic grenade launchers, night-vision equipment, and body armor.

throwaway4good 5y ago

By "traditional" warfare I meant something similar to the campaigns against Serbia or the second Iraq war. Basically long bombing campaigns targeting everything from military targets, to TV-stations, to train stations, while the opponent was unable to respond, leaving them broken and demoralized.

sofixa 5y ago

> fear that the Russians will be pushed into a more "traditional" warfare with heavy air campaigns against anything remotely "dual-use" and the massive civil casualties that would follow That's what they're already doing. Except it's not with air power, because theirs is kind of a joke ( using commercial off the shelf phones and GPS to communicate and navigate), but with artillery. And it's not "anything remotely dual use", it's bomb everything, even obviously civilian targets.

uuyi 5y ago

Russia isn’t the only player on the board. There’s a whole load of sabre rattling from China which military leaders have been warning about for years. This is some leverage to build a defence strategy against them and other actors too. Plus Russia could probably do some damage and would be difficult if not impossible to completely take out due to the size of their land mass.

rebuilder 5y ago

The calculus has changed. Previous defence spending was based on a much less aggressive Russian posture than what they’ve now taken. Since Russia is willing to go war in Europe, which almost no-one really thought possible before, the deterrent must be increased to account for the increased risk.

klausjensen 5y ago

Two main reasons for European increase in military spending (in no particular order): 1. The latest Russian invasion was a wake-up call. Much bigger than in 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea and East Ukraine. Especially Germany and France have been attempting to reach a lasting peaceful relationship with Russia through trade and agreements. Any hope anybody in Europe might have had of that has evaporated now. 2. Fear that the US will not be there to defend Europe in the future (Trump threatened to leave NATO - and might be re-elected). One of the (fair) reasons behing Trump's threats were European NATO countried not paying their fair share (2% of GDP in 2014 agreement).

mcv 5y ago
Exactly. European countries are finally realising they can't rely on the US to defend them forever, and Russia has become a much more active threat. For all my life I've opposed defense spending and supported reduction of defense spending, but not anymore. As long as Putin rules Russia, Russia is a real threat to any neighbouring country. Even if my own country is relatively safe, I think it's important we help other countries to defend themselves against this threat. I would still strongly prefer friendly relationships with Russia, but Putin has made that impossible. We need to stop buying Russian gas as soon as possible.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

Because there are many. And an ill-maintained tank from the Soviet/ww2 era is still a tank.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> If the Russians are so weak and incompetent then why is nearly every European country doubling their military expenditures? Even being not very good at war they've been able to do a lot of damage and war crimes. Plus, some of those countries have had pretty terrible militaries themselves; the head of the German army admittedly recently that their capability as a fighting force is very limited. A lot of Europe was basically coasting militarily because they thought war in Europe was over forever.

dsq 5y ago

'Never let a good crisis go to waste'. European leaders have long known they had to increase military ability, they just couldn't persuade their citizens.