No I am getting to the point of European governments wasting money of something that can be taken out by one single aircraft.
After you have air supremacy, which Moscow seems to not care about at this moment, you can do this:
en.wikipedia.org
Which means you need to out swarm the air attack with massive number of viable targets, protected by air defenses. Meaning if you lose 1000 tanks or artillery, you have massive back-up despite SU-25s and other strike and attack from the air. Russia is arguably the largest land army on the globe. 12 HIMARS are not going to hold back a full scale invasion of Europe.
'The EU cannot defend Europe': NATO chief
"More than 90 percent of the people in the European Union, they live in a NATO country. But only 20 percent of NATO's defence spending comes from NATO EU members," Stoltenberg said.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned Thursday that Europe's defence depends on close transatlantic bonds and not on a quest for the continent's strategic autonomy.
news.yahoo.com
Putin laughs every time a European nation buys HIMARS. If the EU cannot defend Europe, then going after buying HIMARS is a waste of money for nations such as the Baltic states. You need asymmetric warfare - thousands of inexpensive towed artillery for the Baltic states, not 12 sitting targets that Iran could hit blindfolded.
