All this talk of EU and NATO countries needing to spend more on defense to counter the imminent Russian threat is obviously not the real motivation behind increased spending.
If one were to imagine such a world, for the sake of useless navel gazing, what else would need to be true for Russia to not only want to use military force to annex or occupy or even conduct limited air strikes on a NATO member or one of their allies but be confident that it’s military could meaningfully conduct such a massive operation while defnding from the inevitable retaliation from the entire west?
Idk I’m baked at work and can’t really understand why people are so easily sold on this idea that Russia is about to conduct full scale war on Europe
France is the only serious military force in western europe. Germany in the “working on it” stage but I’m not sure how that’s progressing. hopefully melenchon gets elected and averts ww3 for the time being!
fr, i’m not sure even the suicidally fascist germans would go full-tilt without France’s nukes, soldiers, and functioning arms industry behind them. all power to melenchon, genocide illimité on le heap de penne and horizon/en marche
In total, all EU countries have about 2.5 million men under arms, which exceeds Russia‘s forces by about a million. And this is without any war time mobilisation or conscription. Add to that the Turkish military, which by virtue of multiple defence agreements would be aiding the European forces, and the Russian military is so far outmatched that there is no way in hell that the Russian Federation would ever dare strike anywhere west of Ukraine. The only “advantage” Russia has over a combined European army is a greater nuclear arsenal, but considering France has Overkill capacities, too, that particular point is moot. In a war of attrition, Europe, considering it has more than triple the population and contains economic powerhouses like Germany and France, would also be able to sustain such a campaign for far longer. And considering the slugfest the Ukraine war turned into, this scenario is more than likely, at least under the premise of war breaking out at all.
Russia has myriad short-term tactical advantages that could be parlayed into a war-plan:
-No peer experience in Eastern Europe
-Lack of materiel because it was sent to Ukraine and not replaced (an enormous heap of ammo, ‘obsolete’ vehicles, missiles, etc etc. was sent to Ukraine under the premise of “modernization” of NATO forces, but mere grains of replacements from the US, UK, FR and ROK have actually materialized)
-Distance of potent NATO forces (France, US)
And if there’s any doubt and delay in entry of Europe at large–that 2.5 million under arms is just paper. Would Turkey actually move troops from around Syria and Kurdistan if it’s not under attack? Will France abandon its toe-hold in Françafrique? Will/can the US perform the logistical task of moving and supplying those European troops? Sweden and Finland have impressive numbers but how are they getting stuck in? Crossing the Baltic? Invading Karelia?
I know it’s terrifying to admit but there’s a quite plausible case for a(n imagined) brief supporting thrust against NATO to force the collapse and capitulation of Ukraine, if (as I posited in the OP) Ukraine is only holding on due to NATO defending it.