All things Russia and Ukraine...

Glad you are so confident about the outcome of a potential conflict, because the United States, although a member of NATO, has no legal requirement to help in the event of war.

Legally speaking, the NATO treaty does not require the U.S. to “automatically” use force to defend allies

 

Yes, Germany's army is weak; at the moment. And so it was in the early 1930s. Just why do you think it would remain so? Personally I don't trust the French, Germans or Russians. The rest I can live with quite happily, particularly the Nordic and Scandinavian countries. There is a certain honesty about all European countries except the two I mentioned plus Russia I'm English by the way!

 

'Legal'!!! The treaty states that if one country is attacked then it is considered that all countries in NATO are attacked. It is a treaty not a law.

 

What? Did I speak somewhere about wanting war? I want to stop it from happening. And so do all Finns.
NATO means that all members in case help each other. The US recently sent 6,000 soldiers to the Baltic countries. So you are in war if Putin touches those countries. And we had a major military rehearsal a month ago the US, Sweden and Finns. Seems like the US troops and their equipment will stay in the Baltics.

 

Didn't Boris promise to send troops to Ukraine if necessary? Or was it men to train Ukraine Army men in Poland?

 

During the Cold War, West Germany maintained twelve active divisions, ten of them panzer/panzergrenadier, plus substantial reserves. The reduction to two divisions in the now united Germany represents a "peace dividend" rather than any formal restriction. Most European nations maintain much smaller armies than they once did.

 

Carronade
When the EU was created everyone believed in the fast action forces and you did not need your own army as the EU would hit with its professional army straight away. So many European countries practically stopped the army and sold their tanks etc. Finland did not. This is not due to German better news but idiotism by most European countries. Now we play for that childishness.
The Swedes even ended the army but when Russia conquered the Crimea they started building the army again. They had just enough time before the Ukraine war.
Now we can create a defence ring before we hear the Nato final answer. But I am sure Norway, Finland and Sweden will fight until the end if Russians attack us. And it is our backyard. NATO or No NATO Russians would die in the forest. Or sink in lakes. the US also know it their troops can City fighting but a forest. We have lived in forest all our lives. Russian soldiers would not know where to go. And tanks must go through hundreds of trees and lakes. Ain't that a surprise to a City soldier. I only hope it does not happen but my mother and father were FINNISH champions with hand gun competition. I started when I was about 10 to shoot. If necessary here we come sniper Kings. We only defend our country. We have no reason to go elsewhere.

 

Boris promises lots of things. He's an amoral toad, don't pay him any attention

 

Can you say no to PM decisions. Things happen as he wants. Not You, right. Tell me you did not vote him??

 

Latest news: Turkey agrees to support both Finland and Finland to join NATO. Too little to offer Mr Putin?!

 

Don't like him either. But, in this case, Boris is actually doing what he said he would do.
Ukraine war: British troops must prepare to fight in Europe once again, says new head of Army

 

Medvedev says they will move missiles close to Finnish border. Indeed. We might be NATO members 2033. What a jackass he is. Should we first be NATO members? Ok. We have a load of air-to-ground missiles. And ground-to-air Israelian missile lauchers. St Petersburg will eat nuclear waste clouds if there are nukes involved. Do you know how close St Petersburg is to Finland. Enough close Medvedev. But you are in Siberia in a bunker. So it's not really your problem. 1+1=3, right?

 

The forum members from both sides are partially correct here. Russia is definitely, without a doubt wrong and the aggressor with regards to Ukraine. However, most of Europe did create the situation by weakening their militaries and cutting their defense spending well below levels agreed to as members of NATO. No Kai, Germany's military did not become impotent due to post WWII restrictions, they chose to weaken themselves after the former Warsaw Pact countries no longer presented an imminent threat, they took advantage of the peace dividend (as Carronade said) and the US's military power in order to focus German financial resources elsewhere. NATO set a goal of spending 2% of GDP on defense. In 1963 Germany spent 4.06% of their GDP on defense, in 2007 it had dropped to a low of 1.25% and had only climbed to 1.28% by 2019. You would have thought that Russian-Georgian conflicts in 2008 and then the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 would have raised enough red flags within NATO but it did not. They chose to believe Putin/Russia had no aggressive intentions towards Europe as a whole.

That being said, military size, capabilities, defense spending etc. is complicated. Part of the United States military size and defense spending levels is related to its sheer size, population and economy (California alone has an economy larger than Russia). While the US is 3rd in active military size and 9th in reserve forces size, it ranks 74th in the world for military personnel per capita. Let's use Great Britain as an example, they are one of Europe's larger, more capable militaries. The UK spent 2.09% of their GDP on defense spending (slightly above NATO guidelines), they have 138,500 active personnel Army, Navy, RAF and 78,600 reserve personnel (217,100 total). The US Marine Corps the smallest of the four major US military branches, about 13% of the DoD, has 279,910 personnel in the active force and reserve (180,958 Active Duty/98,952 Marine Corps Reserve), that's 62,810 more than the UK's entire armed forces or about 23% larger. The Marine Corps has 484 fixed wing aircraft to the UK's 194 and 672 rotary wing aircraft vs 242 for the UK (training aircraft and RAF BoB Memorial flight aircraft not counted). Until the Marine Corps got rid of its tanks last year, they had 452 the UK fields 227. So, whatever Boris can or will send from the UK to aid Ukraine won't be very significant numerically, though they will be well trained.

When Russia invaded earlier this year, the Ukraine had 209,000 active duty and 900,000 reservists for a total of 1,109,000 personnel. They had an additional 102,000 paramilitary personnel that are of limited value in direct combat are useful for guarding rear areas, running check points, etc. The Ukraine's military was also fairly proficient due to quite a lot of partner training taking place over the last several years with US and NATO forces. Russia on the other hand is highly reliant on conscripted troops. In 2007 and 2008 Russia changed conscript service from 2 years to one year. In a year you really can't become fully proficient at your job, and in order have time to deploy them they can't have more than minimal training. In the US it's a four-year enlistment and those corporals and sergeants with three and four years in have enough experience to lead, control and properly employ the rookies. Who is there to lead the minimally trained Russians? The Russians also have contract soldiers that are more experience and sign up for longer terms, but you tend to find them more in jobs that require more experience and technical expertise than a conscript can provide. A guided missile repairman, a jet engine mechanic, electronic warfare specialists, flight engineer, etc. This lack of training and leadership fled to high casualties early on and troops getting into bad situations, with lack of experience in how to competently react or extricate themselves. Russia deployed with insufficient infantry to protect their armor or operate effectively as dismounts. Casualties exacerbated the shortages and combat capabilities, already poor, declined dramatically. Russia reacted by forcibly conscripting residents of the Donetsk and Luhansk to get their numbers up. They were given minimal if any training, given obsolete weapons and minimal equipment, in most cases of poor quality. Men with physical limitations and poor health, but they made up numbers and if killed it was no great loss to the Russians. As Russia keeps throwing more fodder into the fight, attrition has eroded the Ukrainian's qualitative edge. I've seen recent interviews with Ukrainian forces at the front where they say 80% of their units have been killed or wounded having been engaged almost continually for the last four months and the replacements they're getting are not nearly as capable and well trained as they had been. Russia is using mass fires, artillery, rockets and missiles to attrit the Ukrainians. Western aid has helped but more heavier weapons (like the M-777's, M-109 SP Howitzers and HIMARS) are needed to achieve some parity in supporting fires. Another problem is the amount of munitions being expended, stockpiles of anti-tank and anti-air missiles, artillery shell, rockets, etc are being rapidly drawn down. Unless big money is not put into expanding production and replenishing the stocks of these munitions, we ourselves may find our own security threatened because we lack the ordinance for a sustained fight.
No easy answers here, Russia lacks the ass to take over the entire Ukraine and the Ukrainians lack the strength to expel them. Russian losses have seriously degraded their military and will probably take at least a decade to make good the losses.

 

I was pleased to read that Finland and Sweden can now go ahead with joining NATO now they have settled the problem they had with Turkey blocking their application. Putin has made a right pigs ear of this war. He now will find himself with several NATO countries on his border instead of just one or two. Germany and France have, it would seem, have agreed to step up arms shipments to Ukraine, at last!! I just hope that if this carries on into winter the allies have already looked at winter clothing and supplies for Ukraine for the terrible winter that occurs there. Germany and France, in particular, should have very good memories regarding fighting a winter war!!!!

 

Can't agree with your synopsis regarding 'weak military' in Europe. Since the formation of the European community the thoughts have been that with this new found 'unity' war can never happen in Europe again. That's what led to a down turn in military spending, pacifist and naive thinking. Russia was (and still is) supplying Europe with gas and oil and countries, particularly Germany, were so entwined that any sort of conflict seemed ridiculous. With Putins invasion of Ukraine this whole scenario has been turned on its head! Only a fool would have predicted 'peace' in Europe now we have the E.U. in place. It would seem there were millions of fools!!!!!!!

 

It was supposed that Europe creates fast acting military forces but this never happened. And meanwhile many countries ended their conscript army ( Sweden) or sold their tanks ( Belgium ). Finland did not join this, and as Sweden rebuilt its army Finland sent old uniforms etc to them. Russia sorta took us by surprise but the western fighting together surprised Russia. From Europe side Russia will be isolated for a very long time.

 

In that case, I'm afraid that I have some bad news. The U.S. government wanted the war in the Ukraine. If you a feel a need to know the reasons, British author and researcher Niall Ferguson gives a brutally honest summary here:

https://archive.ph/WvWeP


Another hint is furnished at the link below, from a RAND think tank report, dated 2019. The study was solicited by the U.S. government for the purpose of exploring various ways to destabilize Russia. It contains the following statement that might be of interest:

" Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages."

Nonviolent Ways the United States Could Exploit Russian Vulnerabilities

 

I can't agree that Russia will be isolated for a very long time. The world, and everything in it, is about money. Once this war is over, Europe, and particularly France and Germany will be looking to once again cosy up to Russia. Economics runs the world not politicians.