What's new

‘The EU cannot defend Europe’: NATO chief

1. Except there are not a single serially manufactured APS fitted tank yet.

2. How do you drop that ATGM team to its AO? You still need armour to survive the artillery firewall in front of the tank unit.

3. EU NATO members rely on advanced helicopters instead of fixed wing for search&destroy against armour, but Russia has tons if SPAGs

4. EU NATO members has very very few F35s, and most of their F16, and F18 are ancient.

5. Even combined EU airforce will likely not be able to stop a force of 200,000 from overrunning at least half of Central Europe before it starts to spread out, and digging in.

6. After a force of that size spreads out, and digs in, you will have to throw raw volume of firepower at it to dislodge it, or you throw infantry. EU nations have neither, they are too invested into few pieces of advanced hardware.
1. Hundreds of Abrams, Leopard 2A7s, Challenger 2s are being upgraded to fit Iron Fist and Trophy APS. Same about some IFVs.

2. There's no shortage of APCs, IFVs and cars in Europe, also, roads are very well developed.

3. To this day Russia hasn't destroyed the Ukrainian air force, hasn't stopped its helicopter force, hasn't stopped the ability of the Ukrainian army to mobilize. You don't understand the amount of advanced ATGMs the EU has. Russia won't move an inch.

4. That's wrong, EU air force has superior numbers and quality to Russia.

5. That exact fighting force couldn't do anything against Ukraine, at Russia's backyard, you think Russia can do it across a vastly bigger frontline?
 
.
Except its not NATO expenses. NATO doesnt hold any power over a member country, and doesnt control the armed forces of member states.

Considering a russian force this size couldnt overrun eastern Ukraine after months of preperation, I think its safe to say a Russian force of 200.000 wouldnt come close to overrun anything in Central Europe.
Russia needs to take the train into battle. Europe would have time to recruit and train entire armies and put them in defensive positions before Russia is good to go.

Ukraine currently has the biggest army in Europe, of course it cannot. Probably it is also the second, or third strongest in Europe after US, Turkey, and possibly Greece.

3. To this day Russia hasn't destroyed the Ukrainian air force, hasn't stopped its helicopter force, hasn't stopped the ability of the Ukrainian army to mobilize. You don't understand the amount of advanced ATGMs the EU has. Russia won't move an inch.

Nobody really uses helis in this war to hunt armour, too much shorad on both sides.

EU NATO members don't really have its fixed wing force fitted for armour hunting.

They can drop few guided bombs from high above on well known targets, from few planes with targeting pods, but not really hang for long in the AO.

US does have good fixed wing anti-armour capability because they can do high altitude bombing against armour with their superior weapon stocks, SEAD capability, number of planes, EW capability, intel capacity to designate targets, and best sensors.
 
Last edited:
.
Ukraine currently has the biggest army in Europe, of course it cannot. Probably it is also the second, or third strongest after US, Turkey, and possibly Greece.
What makes you think a fully mobilised Europe would be anything less than the ukrainian army? Not to mention this mobilised army would be backed by an industry Ukraine could only dream about (Turkey and Creece is nothing compared to the military potential of the rest of Europe), completely guarded by air defence systems.
 
.
What makes you think a fully mobilised Europe would be anything less than the ukrainian army? Not to mention this mobilised army would be backed by an industry Ukraine could only dream about (Turkey and Creece is nothing compared to the military potential of the rest of Europe), completely guarded by air defence systems.

Whom will they mobilise? Ukraine has millions of men who went through conscript training during the peace time, who can now be mobilised. What is the age of people who were EU's last conscripts? It's 50+ on average now.

It also have an army which been preparing, and training non-stop for 8 years in anticipation of this exact war.

Industry to dream about? There are only 2 artillery barrel manufacturers in the EU, and 2 conventional artillery munition makers.
 
.
Ukraine currently has the biggest army in Europe, of course it cannot. Probably it is also the second, or third strongest in Europe after US, Turkey, and possibly Greece.



Nobody really uses helis in this war to hunt armour, too much shorad on both sides.

EU NATO members don't really have its fixed wing force fitted for armour hunting.

They can drop few guided bombs from high above on well known targets, from few planes with targeting pods, but not really hang for long in the AO.

US does have good fixed wing anti-armour capability because they can do high altitude bombing against armour with their superior weapon stocks, SEAD capability, number of planes, EW capability, intel capacity to designate targets, and best sensors.
The Eurofighter is fitted with Brimstone 2. Doesnt get more armour hunting and european than that.
 
.
Whom will they mobilise? Ukraine has millions of men who went through conscript training during the peace time, who can now be mobilised. What is the age of people who were EU's last conscripts? It's 50+ on average now.

It also have an army which been preparing, and training non-stop for 8 years in anticipation of this exact war.

Industry to dream about? There are only 2 artillery barrel manufacturers in the EU, and 2 conventional artillery munition makers.
Most conscription in Europe ended 10 years ago. Conscription is still being used in my contry, but only volounteers go because only 5000-10000 per year is needed.
Europe mainly uses european produced weaponry. Its just some internet fantasy that europe imports weapons. If europe had to, they would scale the industry for what is needed.
Weapons manufacturers EU
 
.
The Eurofighter is fitted with Brimstone 2. Doesnt get more armour hunting and european than that.

Where that Eurofighter will get a cue on a land target while at flight level 400? And who will be covering it with EW, providing AEW, carry AR missiles to take out SAMs, and protecting land attackers from enemy fighters?

No airforce in EU is as complete, and autonomous as the US one by a huge margin.
 
.
Where that Eurofighter will get a cue on a land target while at flight level 400? And who will be covering it with EW, providing AEW, carry AR missiles to take out SAMs, and protecting land attackers from enemy fighters?

No airforce in EU is as complete, and autonomous as the US one by a huge margin.
No, but judging from the war in Ukraine, sovjet SAM systems are far from superior. I cant even remember how many clips of fighters and helicopters ive seen firing volleys of dumb rockets 45 degrees into the air in the direction of some enemy position, on both sides. And the only thing threatning them are manpads.
The US airforce would completely flatten the russian forces. The europeans would just prevent them from entering Europe.
 
.
Except its not NATO expenses. NATO doesnt hold any power over a member country, and doesnt control the armed forces of member states.

Considering a russian force this size couldnt overrun eastern Ukraine after months of preperation, I think its safe to say a Russian force of 200.000 wouldnt come close to overrun anything in Central Europe.
Russia needs to take the train into battle. Europe would have time to recruit and train entire armies and put them in defensive positions before Russia is good to go.

You are unaware of the NATO joint command structure? That was exactly the reason why France had stayed out of NATO integrated command until 2009. You are asked to “contribute” more to NATO for the US to command.
 
Last edited:
. .
You are unaware of the NATO joint command structure? That was exactly the reason why France had stayed out of NATO integrated command until 2009. You are asked to “contribute” more to NATO for the US to command.

NATO joint command structure does not mean you "Contribute" anything to NATO (your force, your money and etc)

I was under NATO command in OEF, the only different is instead of working in the US standard of communication, the Comm standard are align to NATO and everything shared with NATO standard so a Brits working the same jobs of mine would understand.

NATO is not stuff that you "Contribute" more like a standardisation you go thru. You still control your troop and your immediate commander from your own country still command you. I don't get to command a Brits or a Frenchie in the same MMO HQ in Afghanistan.

All NATO command works at diplomatic level, which more like align the foreign policy with other NATO member. Say US president agrees to the requisition of NATO Secretary or SHAPE, then our order align.
 
.
You seem to mistake Russia with the USSR, as do Putin. Maybe youre paying to much attention to russian state sponsered propaganda.

soviet union was always the de facto continuation Of the Russian empire with a completely different government system.

While there were notable one off exceptions like the georgian stalin…. The government and control of the country was overwhelmingly with Russian men in moscow.

Russia didnt just dissapear and reappear at of nowhere It went thru a temporary name/government change

Russia is universally considered the succesor state of the ussr. It kept the un veto, debt , and nukes of all the ussr.

Stop trying to pretend russia has nothing to so with the ussr with wordplay. When it was the foundational backbone of the country

Lastly Nato’s agreement was with succesor state (russia). Its not like some 1940 treAty or agreement Russia is bringing up

It is completely relevant to todays events, and it was only a matter of time before a revived Russian nation finaly said enough is enough
 
.
its funny how the same people arguing that Russia is weak, its entire economy is smaller then a german city blablabla....

while at the same time being in existential panic, and trying to massively increase defense spending... well which is it?

Also looks like the US propaganda machine has copy pasted its vietnam era "domino theory" propaganda..

It was theorized that if vietnam fell, all of asia would become commie and the apocalypse wouldn happen according to western propaganda at the time.

Same story here. Russia literally handed back half of eastern europe that it conquered with 10s of millions of casualties for free. The only thing it asked for and was agreed with was not to expand nato towards Russia, and keep the independent states as a buffer....

Historians will laugh at how stupid western people are to always believe everything their government media tells them, and how that was the reason for the downfall of western dominance.
Fun fact: Russia had nothing against Nato. Because Nato never threatens Russia. Putin himself was not against Eastern Europe to joining the NATO. Putin just changed his mind when he looks to revive USSR. Now he and his clowns Lavrov, Peskow, Demitri threaten Nato, US, EU every day when they wake up to breakfast.
 
.
People are first realizing this now.. I said this before the war that EU is very weak and not use to this wear and tear style of wars nowadays. The population can't handle it properly. The Americans, France, Turkey and UK are the only players who can defend Europe via NATO and if you remove these 4 basically Russia rolls into the entirety of Europe without being opposed because there is no force or resistance that can withstand them if you remove these 4 cards from the table.. Hence these NATO players is Europe militarily without them it is basically a widowed wife living in a woodland forest house alone by herself
 
.
LOL of course it cannot. Have you seen the state of the Euro lately? The Europeans are a sacrificial lamb of the Americans. They happily offer their heads at the altar.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom