The weakness of the Russian military has been apparent since the early days of the war in Ukraine. The incredible losses of troops and equipment, Moscow’s inability to equip or even supply its troops adequately, and the multiple shifts in command – Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov being the last choice of Russian President Vladimir Putin – have debunked the myth of the alleged Russian military. invincibility
The fight between Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner Group – a private army active in the key battles of Soledar and Bakhmut – and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the Russian High Command attests to deep and persistent friction between the people Putin count to lead the war. and get the victory.
Yet, nearly a year since the invasion began, Russia is still considered by many to be a formidable military power and a dire threat, not only to Ukraine itself, but also to Europe in general. This continues to be the predominant lesson drawn from the decision of the Russian army to invade what is – the European part of Russia aside – Europe’s largest country on earth and one of its most populous.
The weakness of the Russian military has been apparent since the early days of the war in Ukraine. The incredible losses of troops and equipment, Moscow’s inability to equip or even supply its troops adequately, and the multiple shifts in command – Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov being the last choice of Russian President Vladimir Putin – have debunked the myth of the alleged Russian military. invincibility
The fight between Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner Group – a private army active in the key battles of Soledar and Bakhmut – and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the Russian High Command attests to deep and persistent friction between the people Putin count to lead the war. and get the victory.
Yet, nearly a year since the invasion began, Russia is still considered by many to be a formidable military power and a dire threat, not only to Ukraine itself, but also to Europe in general. This continues to be the predominant lesson drawn from the decision of the Russian army to invade what is – the European part of Russia aside – Europe’s largest country on earth and one of its most populous.
The thrust of this widespread assumption is the mistaken idea that Europe is simply unable to defend itself without the help of the United States and that, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the military presence of the States United must be strengthened – which has. This belief is pervasive in the corridors of power in Washington and Europe and was most recently echoed by Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin in December.
This assessment – of a wealthy and technologically advanced but effectively defenseless Europe – was compelling for most of the Cold War. At the time, the Soviet Union had a substantial military advantage over Western Europe. Soviet troops were deployed forward throughout USSR-dominated Eastern Europe (which was part of the USSR-led Warsaw Pact), with over 300,000 Soviet troops stationed in Germany alone eastern The European economic recovery was also a work in progress.
Today, however, this view is wrong.
Consider some of the standard metrics used to compare countries’ military potential: GDP, population, defense spending, and level of technological advancement. They all show that Russia is much weaker than the 27-member European Union and that the balance of potential power unquestionably favors Europe. At no point since the end of the Cold War has Russia’s economy been more than 15 percent of Europe’s GDP — in 2021, Russia’s $1.8 trillion GDP was a fraction of the 17 trillion $ of the European Union.
When it comes to technology, Russia ranks 44th on the list of the world’s most technologically advanced countries, and as tech-savvy Russians leave the country to escape the military draft, it wouldn’t be surprising if the his ranking is lower. Russia has a third of the population of the EU – and in that population, a considerable part of Russian men of working age who did not flee were recruited and killed at the front. In January, General Mark Milley, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Russia’s dead or wounded were “significantly over 100,000”, while Norway’s defense chief, Eirik Kristoffersen, estimated that the count was close to 180,000.
To be fair, you can’t blame American officials for being concerned about the threat to Europe once Putin’s war begins. On paper, the Russian military looked like a large and capable force that could topple Kiev within days, and prominent commentators and even the CIA predicted it would do so. According to some estimates, the Russian military spent at least $150 billion a year between 2014 and 2019 trying to strengthen, rebuild and modernize its military and much more if one starts the tabulation from 2008, the year that modernization efforts have begun.
For these reasons, once Russian troops crossed into Ukraine, the Biden administration vowed to defend every inch of NATO territory and deployed another 20,000 US troops to Europe, bringing the total to around 100,000. . More F-35 fighter jets were stationed in the UK, air defense systems were sent to Italy, and US bases in Poland became permanent – the first such move on the eastern flank of the alliance
Yet Russian military power has eroded after nearly a year of tenacious Ukrainian fighting, which has inflicted heavy equipment losses and casualties on Putin’s forces. Aided by more than $27 billion in military assistance from the United States, Ukraine’s largest security contributor by far, as well as billions more from the United Kingdom and Europe, the Ukraine has inflicted more losses on Russian forces in 11 months than the USSR. The military has suffered during its nearly decade-long war in Afghanistan. (Most of this military aid came from Britain and the United States, although European countries have stepped up their commitments recently.)
The losses of the Russian crews were staggering: more than 1,600 tanks, 1,900 infantry fighting vehicles and 290 armored personnel carriers were destroyed, damaged, captured or lost. Those losses increase substantially now that Germany, after persistent pressure from the United States and many of its European allies, approved the transfer of an initial batch of 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Berlin’s decision paves the way for other countries such as Poland, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands or Spain to send the Ukrainians some of their Leopards, which are far superior to the T-90 or T-14 Armata models of Russia. (This last one, in the problem, has not yet been deployed on the battlefields in Ukraine.)
Russian forces that are dug into defensive positions in the east and south will soon face Ukrainian forces that have substantially greater strength in mobile armored warfare, given the Leopard’s capabilities, which include thermal imaging and precision orientation. The Leopard, which comes in different versions and of which there are more than 2,000 in service across Europe, provides just one example of Europe’s advanced defense industry, which could, supported by political will, become much larger.
Given Europe’s massive advantage in resources, there is no reason why it cannot organize an effective defense against Russia. What, then, prevents Europe from doing so?
Part of the answer has to do with US politics and Washington’s view of its role in the world. Since the end of World War II, US leaders have sought to lead their European allies and, as a corollary, frowned upon any move by Europe toward greater self-sufficiency in defense. US officials have opposed efforts, including a 1998 British-French initiative to increase the EU’s military effectiveness and an offer two decades later to promote joint European arms development.
As a recent analysis by the Brookings Institution rightly noted, “Europe wanted autonomy without providing adequate defense resources, while the United States wanted more European defense contributions without diminishing the political influence of the “NATO and the United States”.
The US government is not disingenuous when it says it favors a strong Europe; not only does he add that he also wants the Europeans to remain dependent on the protection of the United States and also conforming when it comes to the preferences of the United States in matters of security.
The idea of Europe developing a self-sufficient military capability outside of US-dominated NATO has long been frowned upon in Washington. In his last speech to NATO defense ministers in December 2000, US Defense Secretary William Cohen warned that NATO “could become a relic” if the EU built what it has labeled as a competing and redundant defense organization.
Almost two decades later, after the EU formed a joint fund for collaborative defense projects in 2017, a US defense chief at the time said the plans should not distract from current NATO activities. “We don’t want to see EU efforts taking the requirements or forces away from NATO and into the EU,” said Katie Wheelbarger, then-undersecretary of defense for international security affairs.
European governments do not automatically follow Washington’s script, although they follow its lead more often than not, but they have heeded the warnings, happy to oblige and play the role of dependent. After all, if you can count on a superpower to be your external protector and spend less on defense than you would otherwise, why not take the deal?
This arrangement has deep roots and will not be easy to change. The US security guarantee to Europe has been in place since NATO was established in 1949. Several generations of European leaders have internalized the belief that US leadership is irreplaceable and that its continent can not survive without it, it does not matter that Europe has long become an economic. and technological power itself, one that produces a range of advanced weapons.
This same orthodoxy – Europe would be in danger without the protection of the United States – has also long been the gospel in the foreign policy establishment of the United States. Furthermore, it aligns with the ubiquitous narrative that the world would descend into chaos if there weren’t a constellation of US military bases overseas to maintain order. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s 1998 quip about the United States being the “indispensable nation” continues to be repeated or paraphrased by foreign policy luminaries today, and the underlying worldview preceded it. from long ago
Given all this, no one should be surprised that Putin’s war in Ukraine has reinforced the conventional wisdom: Russia’s imperial ambitions, coupled with Europe’s fragilities, require an open, even increased, engagement of the United States to protect the continent.
But the facts suggest precisely the opposite. The US-European security relationship has therefore become progressively divorced from reality. If change is to be made, what Europe needs is not more resources, but more political will and self-confidence. Washington, for its part, must abandon the axiom that it has no choice but to serve as Europe’s perpetual protector par excellence.
Such a change is not on the horizon. It will only happen when foreign policy experts in the United States and Europe rework their assumptions and have an honest, fact-based strategic discussion about the obsolescence of the current transatlantic security relationship.
The move towards a new arrangement, one appropriate to the times, could include alternating the position of NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe between an American and a European; have Europe assume sole responsibility for deployments on NATO’s eastern flank; sustained increase in European defense spending; and much greater pan-European cooperation in armaments production to avoid duplication and exploit comparative advantages.
These changes will take time, but they can start now.
“NATO allies also host 28 major US operating bases across Europe,” he said. “These bases in Europe are not just for Europe, they allow the United States to project military power in the wider Middle East and Africa which provides a clear strategic advantage in the fight against terrorism and other threats.
How strong is NATO?
Why is NATO powerful? Since 1949, NATO has increased its collective military power. Today it has the capacity to count almost 3.5 million people, troops and civilians combined. Each member state agrees to contribute with a different strategic weight and influence.
How big is the military of NATO?
Combined number of military personnel in NATO countries 2014-2022. The combined number of military personnel among NATO member states was about 3.3 million people in 2022, compared with 3.27 million in the previous year.
Is NATO very strong?
NATO, which was formed in 1949, is the most powerful military alliance in the world. See the article : DOD official: No changes in important health care for women> US Department of Defense> news from the Department of Defense. At its formation, NATO had 12 member countries, which has now increased to 29 member countries and four aspiring member countries.
How much strong is NATO?
The colored arrows indicate the year-by-year trend comparison (increase, stable, decline). Currently, NATO has a combined GFP rating of 3.8900. The individual categories are detailed here. On the same subject : The war game shows that China’s invasion of Taiwan will not fail at a high cost to the American, Chinese and Taiwanese forces.. There are a total of 30 countries included in the annual defense assessment of NATO Member States (2023).
How powerful is the NATO military?
The colored arrows indicate the year-by-year trend comparison (increase, stable, decline). Currently, NATO has a combined GFP rating of 3.8900. The individual categories are detailed here. Read also : Conviction and Sentencing of US Citizen Brittney Griner in Russia – United States Department of State.. There are a total of 30 countries included in the annual defense assessment of NATO Member States (2023).
Who is stronger Russia or NATO? The collective military capabilities of the 30 countries that make up NATO exceed Russia in terms of aircraft, at 20,723 to 4,173, and in naval power, with 2,049 warships, at 605. The vehicle capacity of combat on the ground of Russia is more competitive, however, with 12 420. units, to 14,682.
Who has the strongest militaries in NATO?
armed The largest army in NATO, by a significant margin, is the United States Army with 485,000 regular personnel, as of 2021. The American Army is followed by the Turkish Army with 260,200 personnel. Most European NATO members have total active personnel for their armies in the tens of thousands.
How big is the NATO military?
Combined number of military personnel in NATO countries 2014-2022. The combined number of military personnel among NATO member states was about 3.3 million people in 2022, compared with 3.27 million in the previous year.
Who is the biggest military in the world? In 2022, China had the largest armed forces in the world by active military personnel, with about 2 million active soldiers. India, the United States, North Korea and Russia rounded out the top five largest armies.
Is NATO the biggest military in the world?
NATO, which was formed in 1949, is the most powerful military alliance in the world. At its formation, NATO had 12 member countries, which has now increased to 29 member countries and four aspiring member countries.
Why is it important for the US to be in NATO?
The fundamental objective of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of the Allies by political and military means. NATO remains the main security instrument of the transatlantic community and the expression of its shared democratic values.
What is NATO in simple words? Collective defence: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in 1949 and is a group of 30 countries from Europe and North America that exists to protect people and territory of its members.
What countries are part of NATO?
Alphabetical list of NATO member countries
- Albania. 2009. Belgium. 1949. Bulgaria. 2004. Canada. 1949. Croatia. …
- Denmark. 1949. Estonia. 2004. France. 1949. Germany. 1955…
- Iceland. 1949. Italy. 1949. Latvia. 2004. Lithuania. 2004…
- Netherlands. 1949. North Macedonia. 2020. Norway. 1949. Poland. 1999…
- Slovakia. 2004. Slovenia. 2004. Spain. 1982. Turkey. 1952.
What is NATO and what is their purpose?
Overview. Formed in 1949 with the signing of the Washington Treaty, NATO is a security alliance of 30 countries from North America and Europe. The fundamental objective of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of the Allies by political and military means.
