• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?

M

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
If the US gave the rest of NATO 15 years to build their militaries and told them we ARE leaving NATO in 15 years whether they build up or not, could they possibly match Russia's military if they gave it 100% effort? Do they have the military, resources, and economy to build a military potentially strong enough?
 
Yes. The only area they don't is in nukes. It should noted that in the 1960's and 1970's it was Britan's and Frances' nuclear policies the reigned in the Soviets, not the US's; they had no qualms at all using 'first strikes' in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion.
 
In 2017 Russia's defense spending was $66.3 billion.

France was 57.8 billion, the UK was 47.2 billion and Germany was 44.3 billion.

Pretty sure NATO has the wherewithal to defend against Russia if the U.S. bails.
 
Moderate71 said:
If the US gave the rest of NATO 15 years to build their militaries and told them we ARE leaving NATO in 15 years whether they build up or not, could they possibly match Russia's military if they gave it 100% effort? Do they have the military, resources, and economy to build a military potentially strong enough?
Click to expand...

Do the NATO countries (not counting US) have the potential to match Russia's military?
Click to expand...
The content found at the following sites will help you commence to develop your own plausible hypothesis in answer -- leading, of course, to a credible answer -- to the question you've posed.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
The content found at the following sites will help you commence to develop your own plausible hypothesis in answer -- leading, of course, to a credible answer -- to the question you've posed.
Click to expand...

I looked at some of it and I noticed that Russia has 900,000 active military, whereas Germany and France combined have 380,000. However, Germany and France alone have a bigger population than Russia and a much stronger economy. Heck, Germany was at the gates of Moscow while fighting the rest of the world in WW2 before Russia turned the tide. The European Union, especially Germany need to massively increase their military and get people into service. This makes no sense. 600 million people in the European Union and Canada should be able to smash 143 million Russians in a convention war.
 
Moderate71 said:
If the US gave the rest of NATO 15 years to build their militaries and told them we ARE leaving NATO in 15 years whether they build up or not, could they possibly match Russia's military if they gave it 100% effort? Do they have the military, resources, and economy to build a military potentially strong enough?
Click to expand...

What a massively stupid and uninformed question. As was pointed out to you, there are many countries within NATO that out spend Russia on defense and together Russia is a cricket vs. an elephant. Please pull your head out of uncle Sam's ass and read some facts before you post these things.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What a massively stupid and uninformed question. As was pointed out to you, there are many countries within NATO that out spend Russia on defense and together Russia is a cricket vs. an elephant. Please pull your head out of uncle Sam's ass and read some facts before you post these things.
Click to expand...

They may be spending them, except they are not enlisting and training enough troops.
 
Moderate71 said:
I looked at some of it and I noticed that Russia has 900,000 active military, whereas Germany and France combined have 380,000. However, Germany and France alone have a bigger population than Russia and a much stronger economy. Heck, Germany was at the gates of Moscow while fighting the rest of the world in WW2 before Russia turned the tide. The European Union, especially Germany need to massively increase their military and get people into service. This makes no sense. 600 million people in the European Union and Canada should be able to smash 143 million Russians in a convention war.
Click to expand...

Red and off-topic:
AFAIK, "Old Man Winter" and Hitler's hubris, driven endogenously as well as by a pressing need for Russia's oil resources, more so than military might and prowess Russia expressly effected, "turned the tide."
It's my understanding that the Russians were merely the immediate beneficiaries of those two factors. After all, it's not as though Napoleon's defeat was, by WWII, to Russians ancient history. What's it take to hold on to one's ass, suffer greatly while doing so, and pray Mother Nature and the Moirae really, really like one?
 
Even without the US, NATO has more troops than Russia, and enough nukes to make Moscow glow.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This is why I told you to do some reading on a subject before you speak and make yourself look stupid. NATO has over 2.2 million troops without the US. Russia has barely a million.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Click to expand...

Are you counting the US in that 2.2 million? If so, we should deduct America's contribution and factor in that NATO without the US has about 4.5 times the population of Russia and look at the ratio of trained troops and population.
 
spud_meister said:
Even without the US, NATO has more troops than Russia, and enough nukes to make Moscow glow.
Click to expand...

You only need 1 nuke to wipe out Moscow.

A single British Nuclear Submarine would render the majority of Russia an irradiated wasteland.
 
Moderate71 said:
Are you counting the US in that 2.2 million? If so, we should deduct America's contribution and factor in that NATO without the US has about 4.5 times the population of Russia and look at the ratio of trained troops and population.
Click to expand...

If only you could read...
 
IF this stayed conventional, would Minsk hold the Baltic’s at bay, while Russia tried to cross the Rhine after being stopped briefly at the Danube? Unless you think Poland has the wherewithal to halt them by their lonesome.
 
The US military always provides the supreme allied commander of Nato forces.

Number one the US military provides integrated, multi dimension warfare that is multi domain in its strategies and approaches.

Number two US commanders have a successful record of commanding continental armies, navies, air forces to the successful conclusion of a major war. World War. No one is better at state to state continental and regional theater warfare than US military commanders and their combatants.

The Europeans and the Russians have a long history of being inept at it. Russian commanders, Zhukov in WW II in particular with other Russian commanders, defeated Hitler's remaining invasion force with the assistance of the US and allies England and France. US and allies helped supply their ally Stalin. US and allied nations opened a Western Front beginning on D-Day. The Normandy invasion was the biggest amphibious operation in history with more than 7000 vessels, enormous air forces and masses of troops and heavy weapons, supplies and lines to include support in the nature of intelligence, deception, sabotage and so on.

No state in its right mind wants to find itself at war with the United States. USA is in fact a Nato force multiplier while providing the commanders who know how to defeat an enemy state in a serious war on a continental and regional theater scale. The military commanders of Nato member states rely on the USA for command competency and leadership and depend on it. Think about it -- who would want a general in Europe commanding forces that had to win a major war. Only Russia and its Fanboyz in the West would love it.

Further, what Russian general staff and field commanders would want to engage the US armed forces in a major war. Moreover, whose nations soldiers or sailors would want to go out to fight USA armed forces combatants in a major war. Conversely, fighting the Europeans only is far more attractive to a malevolent and cynical enemy state. Russia also has agents and supporters inside Nato member states right there on the continent and environs. Russia has its operatives in many places.
 
Last edited:
Before Gulf Storm, we were allegedly inept and powerless n stuff, our military couldn't win against even Lichtenstein, blah blah blah, then it neutalized the fourth largest military on the planet in a few hours, destroying it's entire offensive capability, and now a few years later it's back to toe old song and dance again.

Pay no attention to the speculators; they read too many gossip and scuttlebutt rags and planted spin articles to be healthy. We do have some issues, but none that even remotely give Russia or China any kind of dominance over us. They're all noise and hubirs and Putin's fantasies.
 
Moderate71 said:
Are you counting the US in that 2.2 million? If so, we should deduct America's contribution and factor in that NATO without the US has about 4.5 times the population of Russia and look at the ratio of trained troops and population.
Click to expand...

No, I even said that and posted the data. Learn to ****ing read before you speak.

RabidAlpaca said:
This is why I told you to do some reading on a subject before you speak and make yourself look stupid. NATO has over 2.2 million troops without the US. Russia has barely a million.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Click to expand...
 
NATO's combined population and economy even without the US dwarfs Russia. Moscow knows this better than anybody.
 
Russia is hopelessly outclassed in a conventional scenario. Even without American support. NATO can deploy 2 soldiers for every single Russian soldier.

European kit is generally superior, and the average NATO solider is better trained and better equipped

NATO's biggest issue is co-ordination and the deploying of assets quickly across national borders to hot spots.
 
jbi said:
Russia is hopelessly outclassed in a conventional scenario. Even without American support. NATO can deploy 2 soldiers for every single Russian soldier.

European kit is generally superior, and the average NATO solider is better trained and better equipped

NATO's biggest issue is co-ordination and the deploying of assets quickly across national borders to hot spots.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the fact that Russia defeated all of Europe when all the countries in Europe combined together and invaded them in WW2?
 
Moderate71 said:
How do you explain the fact that Russia defeated all of Europe when all the countries in Europe combined together and invaded them in WW2?
Click to expand...

You serious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom