Underspending because the US didn’t wanted a military strong Europe. Every time Europe has said anything about becoming a military power on its own the US has pushed against it. The US has wanted Europe as a place to put military bases and little more.
If you remove the US from NATO, the remaining Military Strength of the alliance would have struggled with the Russia Military prior to the Ukraine Invasion and absolutely would have been unable to launch a meaningful ground offensive into Russia.
Chronic under spending doesn’t mean no spending it just means that the size of the military has reduced, which if you don’t believe there is much chance of a land war makes financial sense. But it’s still got some pretty high-end tech. Meanwhile Russia has lost all there good military tech in a pointless war. So now Western tanks designed to fight other modern military vehicles are going up against stuff from the cold war. Multi-stage explosive shells designed to go up against metamaterial armour plating, are instead of being fired at pig iron, which is basically just rust held together with paint.
The assumption always was that if there was ever a war in Europe it would be a nuclear exchange, and therefore the size of your military wouldn’t really matter, it would be all about readiness and contingencies. They never assumed that a superpower would just sort of disintegrate on its own, and then lash out. That would be an absolutely ridiculous scenario, that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.
I still don’t really get why the spending has to increase if Russia’s military is so desolate. Why is there discussioneof mandatory military service in Germany if it’s simply to “defend” against an enemy that is too weak to actually be a threat?
that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.
Sorry, that is just motivated reasoning to frame Putin as an unstrategic maniac.
The Russians have shown great ability and resolve to switch to a wartime economy and ramp up military industrial production while Europe has struggled for years just to increase their artillery shell production. The belief is that if the war in Ukraine ends, it won’t take Russia long to replace their loses.
That’s just bullshit. Russian’s military (it’s not just Putin - he’s an authoritarian, but he’s not a supreme leader - he has to watch his step very carefully or the next authoritarian will take his place) definetly did have a strategic interest in the black sea. That’s why all that annexation of crimea business started (afaik).
So it’s the Russian government that’s enforcing the nation state’s interest here, definetly not due to the “personal whim” of someone.
Putin can’t afford to be a mad king. He definetly isn’t the only one in the Kremlin who can just disappear people…
Where do you get the impression that Russia isn’t a threat?
Having a military that’s in such a supposed desolate state is mutually exclusive to being a threat. That’s like claiming a teenager with a slingshot is a threat to a gang of polige officers with assault rifles.
Ukraine proves that it very much is.
I don’t follow. The invasion of Ukraine had a strategic motivation behind it (so did the annexation of Crimea). What possible strategic benefit would it have for Russia to attack the EU?
That’s like claiming that the US is about to invade Mexico, because of the Iraq war(s).
Because of decades of chronic underspending on the military, as governments convinced themselves that a land war in Europe was unthinkable.
To be fair, even most Russians in their Military and Intelligence thought a large land war in Europe was unthinkable.
Underspending because the US didn’t wanted a military strong Europe. Every time Europe has said anything about becoming a military power on its own the US has pushed against it. The US has wanted Europe as a place to put military bases and little more.
But “chronic underspending” doesn’t fit together with “could take Moscow in days”.
If you remove the US from NATO, the remaining Military Strength of the alliance would have struggled with the Russia Military prior to the Ukraine Invasion and absolutely would have been unable to launch a meaningful ground offensive into Russia.
Ok. That makes sense. But wouldn’t it have beenmore accurate to claim that the US (and it’s allies) “could take Moscowin days”?
Chronic under spending doesn’t mean no spending it just means that the size of the military has reduced, which if you don’t believe there is much chance of a land war makes financial sense. But it’s still got some pretty high-end tech. Meanwhile Russia has lost all there good military tech in a pointless war. So now Western tanks designed to fight other modern military vehicles are going up against stuff from the cold war. Multi-stage explosive shells designed to go up against metamaterial armour plating, are instead of being fired at pig iron, which is basically just rust held together with paint.
The assumption always was that if there was ever a war in Europe it would be a nuclear exchange, and therefore the size of your military wouldn’t really matter, it would be all about readiness and contingencies. They never assumed that a superpower would just sort of disintegrate on its own, and then lash out. That would be an absolutely ridiculous scenario, that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.
I still don’t really get why the spending has to increase if Russia’s military is so desolate. Why is there discussioneof mandatory military service in Germany if it’s simply to “defend” against an enemy that is too weak to actually be a threat?
Sorry, that is just motivated reasoning to frame Putin as an unstrategic maniac.
The Russians have shown great ability and resolve to switch to a wartime economy and ramp up military industrial production while Europe has struggled for years just to increase their artillery shell production. The belief is that if the war in Ukraine ends, it won’t take Russia long to replace their loses.
That doesn’t explain why Russia should have any strategic interest in invading Europe, though.
They didnt have a strategic case for Ukraine either. Its the personal whim of Putin.
That’s just bullshit. Russian’s military (it’s not just Putin - he’s an authoritarian, but he’s not a supreme leader - he has to watch his step very carefully or the next authoritarian will take his place) definetly did have a strategic interest in the black sea. That’s why all that annexation of crimea business started (afaik).
So it’s the Russian government that’s enforcing the nation state’s interest here, definetly not due to the “personal whim” of someone.
Putin can’t afford to be a mad king. He definetly isn’t the only one in the Kremlin who can just disappear people…
Where do you get the impression that Russia isn’t a threat? Ukraine proves that it very much is.
Having a military that’s in such a supposed desolate state is mutually exclusive to being a threat. That’s like claiming a teenager with a slingshot is a threat to a gang of polige officers with assault rifles.
I don’t follow. The invasion of Ukraine had a strategic motivation behind it (so did the annexation of Crimea). What possible strategic benefit would it have for Russia to attack the EU?
That’s like claiming that the US is about to invade Mexico, because of the Iraq war(s).