The numbers tell some of the story, but does a solely European NATO have the staying power to endure in the long term?
As NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary, there’s growing speculation about the Alliance’s future, especially with the potential return of Trump to the White House. This has sparked a lot of discussions about what NATO might look like without the United States.
Can Europe manage on its own? With whispers of America possibly pulling back, people are increasingly questioning whether NATO can still effectively counter threats, particularly from Russia.
At first glance, the answer seems simple. The combined military strength of NATO members, even without the US, is impressive – far beyond what Ukraine had in 2022 when it managed to stop and even push back the Russian advance.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Back in 2022, Ukraine faced Russia with older Soviet-era military gear. They had about 850 to 1,000 main battle tanks like the T-64, T-72, and T-80, a few hundred artillery pieces, and fewer than 100 operational combat jets. Yet, with a bit of help from advanced Western weapons, Ukraine managed to stall and push back Russian forces in most areas.
Russia, despite its huge arsenal of up to 13,000 tanks and over a thousand fighter jets, showed major weaknesses, including logistical issues and big equipment losses. If Russia couldn’t overwhelm Ukraine, its chances against the much larger and more advanced NATO forces – even without the US – seem slim.
European NATO members alone have a vastly superior military compared to what Ukraine had in 2022. They boast thousands of modern main battle tanks, advanced jet fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and SAAB Gripen. They even have some advanced US weapons, like the F-35 fighters, the M57 ATACMS ballistic missile in Poland, and Britain’s Tomahawk cruise missiles.
When it comes to troop numbers, NATO (excluding the US) has over 1.5 million active military personnel, compared to Russia’s 1 million. But it’s not just about the numbers. The real strength of NATO lies in its advanced technology and how well its forces work together. European NATO members have invested heavily in next-gen aircraft, precision-guided munitions, state-of-the-art electronic warfare, and cyber defence. These investments make NATO capable of conducting highly effective operations over vast distances – something Russia struggles with. The war in Ukraine has shown that having more troops isn’t always enough. Russia has struggled against Ukraine’s sophisticated defences, highlighting the importance of modern military tactics that emphasise mobility, flexibility, and precision.
Even without the US, NATO’s strength is in its cutting-edge technology and integrated command structures, allowing it to adapt quickly to changing battlefield conditions.
Where NATO really shines is in combined arms operations. This means using different military branches – infantry, armour, artillery, aviation, and naval forces – together to achieve a shared goal. This strategy makes NATO forces far more effective than if each branch worked separately.
In contrast, the Russian military has relied on outdated Soviet-era tactics, like just throwing soldiers at a problem without adapting. In Ukraine, Russia has struggled to integrate its air and ground forces effectively. Given that Ukraine used Western tactics taught by NATO, it’s unlikely Russia could realistically challenge a fully mobilised NATO force, even without the US.
However, a NATO without the United States would face some serious challenges. The Alliance heavily relies on the US for key capabilities like operational intelligence, air-to-air refuelling, missile defence, and more. Without these “American enablers,” NATO’s ability to sustain a long-term fight would be tested. Moving tanks and troops around Europe effectively would still be a big challenge.
And let’s not forget the US nuclear umbrella. Without it, Europe’s nuclear deterrence depends on Britain and France, which, while capable, don’t match the comprehensive coverage provided by the US. This might lead Putin to believe Europe couldn’t inflict serious damage on Russia.
Sure, a European NATO could likely fend off a Russian attack initially, but what about months down the line?
Europe needs to boost its military capabilities and invest in areas currently supported by the US. At the same time, diplomatic efforts are crucial to maintain unity and commitment among NATO members. The real strength of the Alliance lies not just in its numbers but in its collective resolve. A fleet of tanks, planes, and ships means little if everyone knows you’re hesitant to use them.
We aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters at the UK Defence Journal. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
To sign up for our newsletter, click here
The Achilles’ heel would be ammunition stocks.
For dumb ammunition last I checked Europe was actually ahead of the US in terms of production.Would need to double check the current numbers though.
That’s good to hear. Production rates have certainly ramped up, but stockpiles will take years to build up to sensible levels.
Europe was always ahead of the US artillery manufacturing primarily due to the Czech’s.
But the US doesn’t use much artillery so it won’t have a lot of manufacturing capacity.
Surely that would be a disadvantage for the US in any conflict. It suggests that they are relying on its high tech to win a war quickly overwhelming opposition with superior tech. If that tech is worn down however any lack of artillery could compromise defence and indeed defending any attack from counter attack. Drones may well supersede artillery on the battlefield but still seems for the foreseeable future at least artillery plays a vital role on the battlefield to add depth, especially with smart ammunition.
It’s more that the USA relies on air power than artillery.
The ghost of Pierre Sprey and the fighter mafia lives on…
I don’t think Drones will supercede Artillery as drones are a force multiplier for artillery.
May be Spyinthesky was referring to munitions carried by or within drones. In that sense, the evolution is huge. We all ear about autocanons on various types of vehicules. Though, this may not cover everything, nor anyone out of a vehicule. Hense drone FPV with grenades can be considered as light artillery some how.
I think the return of mortar or wheeled mounted mortars will be important to regain firepower. But they too will not be able to replace drones in every situation.
The thing is, the longer a War between ENATO and Russia goes on the better it will be for Europe. Europes Industrial and Economic Power (and population) dwarfs Russia, so if the war keeps going on, that’s more time for Europe to switch to a war footing, more times for it’s MIC to ramp up. Russia’s best hope of defeating a NATO minus the US is to strike quickly, and hope that the lack of unity of command means a confused reaction, and then hope for some substantial gains before the EU switches to a war economy. Failing at the… Read more »
If Russia goes to war with Europe it instantly finds all of its sea ports cut off, it can’t export oil so it can import any of the tools and many if the components it needs.
Id love to know what people think Russia can strike quickly with unless it went nuclear.
They cant take over a country next door, are recruiting foreign criminals to fight for them goodness knows what state the equipment they have left is in.
I really doubt they have any capability at all left to attack anyone in a conventional way with anything that even remotely constitutes a professional fighting force.
Russia striking quickly is at least plausible, they’ve done it numerous times in the past, and succesfuly. Their typical mode of operating is to claim local Russians are oppressed, then use Russian sponsored organised crime syndicates to stage an uprising, followed by at first unmarked Russian soldiers “supporting” the uprising in order to confuse a western response, followed by Russian troops openly crossing the border to support the rebels. This chain of events happens rapidly and gets inside NATO decision making cycles, so that by the time anyone has worked out that Russian ground forces are operating in, for example,… Read more »
Dern,
What happened about the plan to upgrade BGs in the eFP missions to brigades?
Requires things like Tanks, vehicles and infantry. Stuff we don’t have in abundance.
UK is the framework nation in Estonia – we do not provide all the assets. Currently 4 other countries provide assets. We would of course have to uplift our national contribution to some extent, but we would not have to provide the full brigade ourselves.
Germany is going through with it, they’ll have a Panzer Brigade permanently stationed in Lithuania, ala BAOR (so no rotating units back to Germany).
Panzer Brigade 45, will consist of Panzer Battalion 203, Panzergrenadier Battalion 122, and the German EFP Panzergrenadier battlegroup. Which is a pretty meaty formation. I don’t know which CS and CSS units are going with it, and Germany has an artillery shortage, generally holding it’s guns at divisional level so I don’t know what the artillery is doing.
As far as I know, there is no UK plan to match this.
Thanks Dern. It seems that perhaps NATO has not issued an edict to increase from BG to brigade in the various eFP locations but rather left it up to individual members to ‘uplift’ if they can.
“And let’s not forget the US nuclear umbrella. Without it, Europe’s nuclear deterrence depends on Britain and France, which, while capable, don’t match the comprehensive coverage provided by the US. This might lead Putin to believe Europe couldn’t inflict serious damage on Russia.” Even without the US, the UK and France together can field over 500 warheads. That’s more than enough to effectively wipe out several major Russian cities completely. Moscow would certainly cease to exist. Would Putin gamble on using his nukes, with impunity? NATO, without the US, might be a smaller dog but we’d still have a big… Read more »
Ummm…er…believe the correct measure would be the number of deliverable warheads, in the case of the UK, it would be the warheads on station w/ the CASD, currently publicly stated as 40. Of course, there are/may be short periods of time when there is overlap w/ the next scheduled CASD boat transiting/on station, when the warhead count would double. Additionally, the loadouts of the Vanguard and/or Dreadnought classes could change over time, but probably at a deliberate pace. The overall inventory of warheads is significantly discounted w/out means of immediate delivery, because the nuclear infrastructure for additional deliveries may well… Read more »
Yes you right, with the US then NATO nuclear fire power is immense but without it, it may be seen as token by people like Xi and Putin. The concept of loosing a few cities to these people is something they would be entirely prepared to do. I really think the UK should substantially increase its number of warheads and possibly add in an additional 2 bots to the SSBN fleet. Unfortunately we already took the decision to go to 12 rather than 16 missiles so not much can be done there. The UK a looks to provide security to… Read more »
Ultimately, HMG may choose to increase both the number of D-5s and the number of warheads per missile routinely deployed for CASD mission. Eventually, firmly believe when SLCM-N is fully deployed, the tyrants will reconsider their options. 🤔
I’m not sure i am in favour of the SLCM-N, the capability that the US and NATO has to launch thousands of cruise missiles is more effective than a tactical nuclear strike but we could conceivably launch such a strike even against a nuclear equipped advisory without a nuclear retaliation.
However by having nuclear cruise missiles this is probably not possible.
Does France routinely have an SSBN in the Pacific, because we don’t. As far as I know, neither force is capable of reaching China from the Atlantic. In theory DeGaulle can still carry nuclear armed Rafales, but in practice it hasn’t for a long time. Why would Xi take British or French nukes seriously. It has more to fear from India.
Technically, the CDG can have ASMPA at any time.
It’s never publicly announced whether they’re part of the load or not.
And yes, this is regularly the case, since the FANU also needs to train.
Atlantic – Beijin is roughly 9000-10000km of distances, so it’s in range of SLBN…
You are right. It is within range. Thanks for the correction.
Both French and British ICBM’s can reach China from their station in the Atlantic.
They can go over the North Pole or direct.
Believe you intended to state SLBMs.
Jon, you can’t possibly know where our CASD bomber is or is not.
Presently China is not a real concern as a nuclear threat for Europe it would be destroying the very markets (unlike Russia), its economy relies upon for its wealth. That is gradually changing but for some time to come Russia is the threat for Europe. Our role in a Chinese physical threat to Taiwan is as good as nothing I suspect. China would do everything to split Europe from the US in any conflict it first and foremost wants to dominate commercially as Britain did with its Empire, military use will build up slowly behind that and nukes a long… Read more »
Rumoroud range of M51 is able to reach China. Some intel say 14000 km.
Loose cities? Really need to get them tightened up
No French Triad, the Pluton Missiles have been retired i think in the 80s, France fields a Diad, Air and Sub Launched
Huh, thanks for the info, believed the French had maintained a modest land based component.
“Some how le Armée de terre has returned…”
Thanks, USAF. I did see the 40 warheads already on the CASD, but just chose to mention the total number available to both countries
France did restart production of nuclear material earlier this year through EDF. We normally have 1 sub at sea at all time, not so much, but still serious. 192 warheads in 32 missiles. It is enough to drastically hamper the production capacity of a state, even Russia. Additionally, only 50 warheads for Rafale strikes. Serious once again, but no more than that. No land component in the strike force as up now. The nuclear arsenal is on a path to come back to state of the art, with new air launched fast missile and potentially an hypersonic glider. Since we… Read more »
The US has a large enough force to conduct nuclear counter force against Russian upland based ICBM’s.
Britain and France don’t have enough deployed weapons to do this against Russia on their own.
It would take atleast 600 deployed weapons for this role. This is what the UK nuclear weapons actually do in concurrence with US submarines.
Our weapons are not targetted at indiscriminate cities although without the US in NATO we might have to go back to that approach like the French do.
Are you saying we have adopted a first strike strategy that is dependent on the US? Why? The point of us having an independent nuclear deterrent is that we can cause the end of the world, whatever Russia, the US President or anybody else does. Firing half-a-dozen missiles at “Russian uplands” wouldn’t achieve that. If we aren’t targetting cities, our deterrent doesn’t actually deter.
NATO has always had a first strike strategy. Our weapons can be commanded by NATO and there principal use along with all Trident D5 missiles is to degrade Russian land based ICBM’s and nuclear submarines in port. Obviously nuclear war is much more complexed than push button end the word. Modern systems are highly accurate which opened up significant options in the 80’s.
My main point is that the US can do that without us, but we can’t do that without them. NATO won’t make the decision that US nukes will be fired. NATO forces may execute the command, but the US president will make that call. If we agree to allow our nukes to be used that way because the US president thinks that we can degrade Russia’s response, we have no decision making capability of our own. In terms of deterrence, Russia only needs worry about US and French reactions. We pay a lot of money to have an independent deterrent… Read more »
The reality has always been that the US President or even Australian PM is far more likely than the British PM to be ordering our Vanguards to fire as in any kind of nuclear exchange with Russia the British PM will be dead almost instantly. I fully agree we need our own system though to replace D5, especially in regards to China. The US may get its self into a nuclear exchange in the pacific that we are not part of and at present any nuclear adversary of the USA would likely attack the UK because our BMD radar and… Read more »
Australian PM? Presumably an updated (21st century), AUKUS based “On the Beach” scenario? Intriguing thought. 🤔😳
The British PM writes their own letter of last resort but it’s believed it contains instructions to sail for Australia and come under Australian command. Even before AUKUS the British and Australian governments are closely linked and share a head of state.
Huh
Knew there is a letter of instructions/last resort from the PM, unaware of presumed content. Interesting.
“as in any kind of nuclear exchange with Russia the British PM will be dead almost instantly”…Lets hope its not after 18:00 on a Friday night then as Starmer never works past that time apparently so he literally wouldn’t know what hit him…
Really? The letter of last resort states that? Because last I checked those where destroyed unread when a PM resigns…
They are.
But what Jim says re AUS, or CAN, has been repeated many times over the years, so who knows the validity of it.
Don’t confuse him with facts. To date not a single letter of last resort has been read by anyone other than it’s writer.
Wonder what Corbyns would have said, probably head for the nearest friendly Russian, Cuban or Venezuelan port and offer their services.
Out of curiosity, doesn’t nearly everyone on the planet (aside from a few survivalists, billionaires, and political leaders) likely die from starvation due to nuclear winter if more than 100 to 1000 (depending on locations and megatonnage) strategic level nuclear weapons get fired off in an exchange?
Nah, most of the planet would survive , just the UK and Japan that tend not to survive simulations.
I’m sure the PLANET would be fine. I thought the concern was mass starvation of most of Earth’s human population due to 1-2 years with minimal harvests. Any links to recent studies that indicate otherwise?
Northern hemisphere probably would be somewhat worse for wear/(war 😉). Previous simulations evidently indicated OZ relatively unscathed, may not be remain a correct assessment, post AUKUS. However, the Kiwis may still have room, provided you don’t mind the sheep. Best practice would be to keep passport current. 🤔😉
Suspect that in run up to or following a nuclear war, odds of emigration to NZ would be unlikely unless millionaire owner of private jet….
Putin would become a goat herder apparently.
2 things relevant to this I think. Russia though huge is concentrated in its European heart and certainly France and the UK could wipe out that head leaving just for the most part vast expanses with no real capability to operate away from central control and a few eastern cities and land that China would probably absorb over times as most was theirs originally. However the fly in the ointment would be the massive in balance of theatre nuclear weapons which it would undoubtedly try to exploit. This is why Poland has desired to defend every yard of territory rather… Read more »
Russia is now being lead from the new Capital in Omsk.
Except Russia has put its economy onto a war footing and is gaining first hand fighting experience, however slowly and badly. Whilst Europe is still dithering and the UK is cutting what’s left of its armed forces.
Agree. One of the lines from the original Jurassic Park movie was delivered by the professional big game hunter (in either a British or Australian accent): They (the Velociraptors) learn…🤔😳
Actually, the line is actually: “They remember.”. Doesn’t have the same impact .
One ‘actually should suffice. 🙄
Putin is not gaining any first hand fighting experience that woukd be relevant against NATO.
He is refighting the First World War with hobby drones and propeller planes.
It’s more like mad max than anything approaching modern warfare.
For all talk of deterrence, attack and counter attack the UK should be getting its GBAD happening sooner than later so that there’s less of or no chance of an adversaries missiles ever getting through.
Agreed this should be on the list of priorities which ever government get in power 🤔
I agree but it should also be part of a European shield. We should probably buy our own arrow 3 in conjunction with Germany while developing Aster 30 NT blk 2 with the French and Italians.
I’m pressuring the BMD radar we are buying from LM can provide the targeting data the Arrow 3 needs.
👍👍🤞
Mad Vlad = Mad Max 🤔😁👍
Yes with his turtle tanks and flame throwing motorbikes 😀
I think the experience is only useful is people survive it and can re-apply the skills gained.
If you lose everyone you send to the front line the experience counts for nothing,
Russia is also losing a lot of combat-ready men while ours are fresh…
Its losing a lot of men, how many would be certified ‘combat ready’ is debatable!
Thing is if the USA did pull out of NATO how many other countries would follow suit 🤔 🙄 😕
I should think non, if the US did pull out the world would be a more dangerous place and there would be even more need for NATO.
Hi Jim,
Whilst I agree with you I would point out that some of the right wing parties gaining ground in Europe at the moment are pro-Putin and may take their country’s out of NATO. Their country’s may well live to regret it, but since when did politicians ever think beyond their dogmatic world views..?
We live in strange and dangerous times.
Cheers CR
That may be true, good thing for us is we are the furthest away from Russia 😀
But I doubt any European country would leave as NATO would remain the biggest military force on the planet even without the USA but it would suddenly have the USA removed as defacto leader making it a body open to political gains by countrie like Turkey, France and even the UK that might all seek to amplify their Geo strategic position through control over NATO.
Hmm, that is an interesting point Jim,
Jockeying for position within NATO would need to be sorted pretty quickly, so hopefully that is something the European NATO members are quietly discussing already.
I would say that all of this discussion overlooks Canada.
If the USA was to pull out of NATO, it is likely, but not certain that Canada would follow suite. The Canadians would want to protect and assert their independence whilst maintaining close links with the US or risk being completely dominated by Washington. They would have to walk a pretty tight line…
Cheers CR
I can see Canada staying in for political reason’s, if trump pulled out there would be a rally round the flag effect for all western leaders, Canada included.
No Canadian party’s seems enthusiastic about their relations with the USA.
Nothing to stop Canada being in NATO but maintaining USUK and NORAD agreements with the USA though.
Jockeying for position if US leaves NATO? I don’t see that at all. Which ENATO country want to do that – and why? It could only be a ENATO country with super-power like levels of military might ie no-one.
I served in Canada for two years on a NATO exchange programme. I could not see Canadians wishing to leave NATO if the US withdrew. They are not American puppets or copycats. They have a threat from Russia in their High North…and they have a strong record of supporting European allies in the world wars and in the Cold War.
CR, Prior to last Thursday’s US Presidential debate, believed any discussion of US deemphasizing NATO role was wildly overstated/exaggerated by European audience. Post first Presidential debate — perhaps not as much. The US Democratic Party has an issue, and by extrapolation, so do others. If US role would change, believe the first European governments to reevaluate NATO status would be Hungary, Turkey (and possibly Slovakia). Remaining NATO countries would confront an interesting choice: either seriously rearm, or seek military and political accommodations w/ Mad Vlad and the ChiComs. If rearmament path chosen, the new defence spending baseline would be considerably… Read more »
From what I have read across various news sources, a Trump win will effectively mean the US withdrawing forces/membership of NATO. Believe that they see the PRC as their only serious threat and will adjust their defence posture accordingly. How a European only NATO reacts/adjusts only time will tell, but agree about several flakey former East European members jumping ship. Why this hasnt had more airtime and serious discussion during our election race is somewhat puzzling, but then looking at the two main party leaders – chipmunks, it should perhaps come as no real surprise! What it will do though,… Read more »
The US isolanist movement is exhibiting much the same racial under tones as the 1930’s. Strong against Imperial Japan and weak against the Nazi’s and facist Italy. Not that they are wrong, China is clearly the greatest potential threat but they have never been willing to use it unlike Russia. The real lesson is that undivided Europe and America are undefetable either now or 100 years from now. Both continents United can produce a power so great that no adversary, even China would bother to oppose it as it would loose. This power is what the North Atlantic treaty is,… Read more »
Hmmm…had never even considered that there may be an element of ethnic/racial bias in the degree of antipathy exhibited toward different despotic regimes. Another intriguing concept. 🤔😳
Deep,
Agree that a Trump victory may ultimately result in at least a gradual de-emphasis of US commitment to NATO.
Meanwhile, hopefully, someone w/in the bureaucracy is tracking both ChiCom and DPRK behavior, especially over the next six months. Although perhaps a somewhat unlikely scenario, imagine either or both rolling the dice for unopposed geopolitical victories, especially if they perceive US confusion and indecision/lack of resolve at the highest level of government. 🤔😳😱🤞🙏
Events appear to be unfolding at an increasing pace. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan is no longer available for duty.
Hi mate, I also see that Trump has won a significant degree of immunity in the Supreme Court today. Things are changing globally at quite a rate just now… Hopefully NATO will hold together. If the US stays in NATO but swings more to the Indo Pacific region as Deep32 suggests, then hopefully there would still be some level of US participation / engagement in Europe. On the plus side perhaps a reduced US level of engagement in Europe will encourage at least some of Europe to step up… As for Hungary, Turkey and Slovakia potentially leaving may be. I… Read more »
I agree, until sleepy joe slipped up I thought the real prospect of the US withdrawing from NATO was remote, however I think it’s on the cards if not now then at some point. Unfortunately I see the US retreating back to its pre 45 isolanist stance in Europe with a keen eye still on the pacific. Non of this has to be a big deal, the reality is Russia is finished one way or another and some combination of the EU/European nato can keep Russia at bay much the way the South Korea keeps North Korea at bay. The… Read more »
Actually, the UK would probably have favorable winds and following seas during a 2nd Trump administration. Why? Because he is a landowner, and mere politics pales in comparison to a P&L statement. The UK”s parochial interests would be well protected, while those on the periphery of NATO–not necessarily so. The Pax Americana is rapidly drawing to a close and is virtually dead and buried in the estimation of principal rivals. Uncle Sugar should pursue a policy of forming defensive alliances in multiple theaters. However, no guarantee of enlightened US foreign policy decisions going forward. Believe UK would be well advised… Read more »
I know the prevailing wisdom is Trump would be good for the UK but I don’t see it. The Donald doesn’t believe in mutual benefit only in what he sees as winning, any US UK trade deal would be heavily one sided.
I would be quite happy to stay in AUKUS as it meets our own security obligations with Australia but I can’t see why Trump would pull out of NATO, Japan and South Korea but keep AUKUS.
Relax, the UK is perfectly safe, as long as the Donald remains a landowner. Mad Vlad understands this position completely. Wouldn’t be shocked if Mad Vlad himself owns substantial amounts of prime London real estate, through well camouflaged shell corporations. Mad Vlad also perfectly understands his own net worth statement. 🤔😉
Fortunately our nuclear weapons are stationed close to the Donald’s most expensive golf club 😀
All things considered, the Donald actually likes you Brits and the Aussies. Recommendation: Strive mightily to stay off his long and varied s**t list. 🤔😂😁
Hard to say what he likes, he seems to change his mind a lot 😀
None, probably. The trajectory is of more and more countries joining NATO.
All ENATO countries greatly benefit from being an Alliance member – why would they leave?
I think whatever happens will be a surprise. Trump is underhand and lying is second nature to him. He may very well stay in NATO and simply refuse an article 5 request. The ensueing chaos may very well see the demise of said NATO member and NATO itself.
Yes, I would rather they just left than had a president openly stating he would be selective on article 5.
We should perhaps just focus our attention on JEF and forget the rest, too many assholes in NATO with their hands out.
The JEF area is what we need to actually defend the UK.
🤣😂😁 Jim, don’t hold back, please expound on certain NATO member states, which don’t meet the 2% minimum agreed defence expenditure rate. The Donald and you apparently have at least one opinion in common..
I can live with them not meeting the 2% threshold, it’s the political jockeying of Hungary, Turkey and to a lesser extent France and Germany that gets me.
The JEF represents the UK’s homeland defence area in the way that NORAD represents the USA’s. That’s why I think we should focus on it as a force within NATO.
Let’s look at the strengths and weaknesses ENATO strengths vs Russian weakness..concrete 1) profoundly stronger airforce 2) profoundly stronger surface and sub surface fleets 3) 4 carriers 4) wealth, vast amounts of wealth 5) industrial capacity 6) European port access 7) population and manpower ENATO weakness vs Russia theoretical risks 1) lack of allies…without the U.S. European becomes isolated..especially if Russia and china formalise an alliance…china could isolate Europe from resources. 2) political strength… a fractured NATO could fail politically..would the Uk and France risk a nuclear exchange for the Baltic states..especially if NATO has already fractured once. ENATO actual… Read more »
Can we rely on Turkey in such a scenario? They make up a fairly big chunk of the non-US NATO numbers (large land forces and big F-16 fleet). I think without them included the comparison with Russia is closer than I’d be comfortable with. Although the tech advantage would still be big in Europe’s favour.
Reminder that the EU (so not including Turkey or the UK) has just under 2million members of their armed forces.
I count 1,563,000 in EU military, so not quite 2m but still very sizeable. The problem is you will have huge amounts of duplication across those 28 countries. How many of those are ceremonial only positions? Or recruitment people in uniform? I know there have been some efforts to co-ordinate commands etc, but they will each still have their own command structure, speak different languages, have different training, not fully compatible equipment etc. And can you see countries like Ireland and Austria sending troops to face Russia? There are so many political hoops to jump through to get those 1.5m… Read more »
It will be, as it always has been, a coalition of the willing. Reasonably certain the Poles and you Brits will step up, as well as the Nordic bloc. Others? Maybe, a good indicator would be those willing to contribute troops to the Sandbox
You’re leaving out fourth branches like Carabinieri that have wartime light infantry and rear echlon security duties, which often don’t get counted but still would provide part of the EU’s “Day 1” capability.
As for Ireland and Austria that’s such a nitpick, and really irrelevant. I’m using EU numbers as broad indicator for European NATO; if you really want to subtract the circa 30,000 troops that Austria and Ireland would provide be my guest, just make sure you count the circa 6-700 troops that would be added by counting Turkey, the UK, Norway, and Canada into NATO.
It’s honestly no where near..Russia when you break it down does not have a lot of solders…it’s inflates by their 200,000 cleaners and potato peels they get in every year from national service as well as the 300,000 reservists they have drafted in…the Russian professionals and semi professional army ( many contract soldiers are national service types who sign a two year contract for better conditions) has only really ever been around 150,000. If you just take, Germany, France, UK, Polish and Italian armies you are talking around 500,000 professional solders and 150,000 pretty well trained reserves. then in the… Read more »
Small correction: Sweden does not have universal conscription, it has selective conscription. In practice only about 4% of it’s annual cohort actually completes conscript training.
Hi Dern, time flies, it did have a universal conscription model up until 14 years ago..so in theory it’s still got many hundreds of thousands of trained reservists in their 30s from that system ( around 10000 per year cohort ).
With the state Russia is in I think unified or mostly united European NATO would certainly have an advantage in a “full scale” conventional war, whether long or short, against naked Russian aggression. The biggest risk for Euro NATO would be that whatever made the US not commit would also see other NATO nations drop out. But that aside, if Euro NATO is united but whatever made the US drop out does not demoralize and divide the rest of NATO then Euro NATO is probably good. That said, there are some nasty cards Russia might use that it hasn’t played… Read more »
Europe’s nuclear defence relies on the UK and France without the US. And here we are with the UK about to build it’s replacement subs with fewer missile tubes than the existing class. Round of applause for the people who made that decision. Astounding planning.
Yeah 16 would have been nice with hindsight, the US took a big reduction as well from 24 to 16 as did the Russians from 20 to 16. The Chinese also carry 12.
Nothing wrong with 12 missiles if they are fully loaded though. That’s more nuclear weapons that we have or plan to have.
The Ukraine has something that most of NATO do not. Balls. Additionally I am not 100% convinced that if Russia attacks the likes of the Baltics, countries like Holland, Belgium and France and to a lesser extent Germany would come galloping to the rescue. The UK and Poland, yea, the others? Then on the Southern Flank, again, I am not convinced the likes of Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia would tangle with the Russians in their neck of the woods. Let’s be honest, most of NATO comprises of countries that joined so that the likes of the USA and the… Read more »
The idea of NATO is very much that it’s so overwhelming that Russia won’t even try as it will lose very fast.
The reality is that the force is so large even if many nations don’t show up it’s still overwhelming.
Countries tend to quickly find balls when they are invaded like Ukraine did. Everyone including the Russians thought they would role over again like in 2014.
Everyone was wrong
In fairness, Ukraine really didn’t role over in 2014. They beat up the DPR and LPR so badly that Russia had to openly cross the border, and then they (well, the Azov regiment… which may have something to do with the Russian “Azov are nazi’s” propaganda) halted the Russian advance on Mariupol.