Submission Statement: “Europe wants to stand on its own militarily, but what’s holding it back and how long will it take?” Mila Tanghe discusses Europe’s ambitions to achieve military self-sufficiency in the face of potential Russian aggression, highlighting the urgent need for increased defense spending and capability development. While Europe has initiated significant rearmament efforts, experts suggest that achieving credible deterrence could take five to ten years due to existing capability gaps and the fragmented defense industry. Long-term, consistent investment and better coordination among European nations are essential to overcome structural inefficiencies and ensure preparedness in the coming years.
I don’t think Europe lacks the technology or hardware, but a population willing to die in frozen Russian trenches.
After all this Ukraine debacle, Russia’s army is depleted. N9w that they ran out of North Koreans, they’re sending amputees and donkeys to the front ffs.
So I’d wager we could already fight them now, as long as its a defensive war.
I’m sorry but with how weak Russia is economically and how their military is bogged down in lowly Ukraine, Europe is going to have to do some serious soul searching if they can’t fight Russia alone.
The ‘willing’ European countries would wipe the floor with them, but there just isn’t the will to do it. It needs to be done. Putin is embarrassed by his failed invasion and wont stop, until he’s defeated militarily by positive action, or removed from within, which may happen eventually, but we can’t wait and hope it does.
i feel that anyone who sees the russian army in its current form or even immediately pre-invasion) as a threat is severely misinformed.
the first few days and weeks of the invasion showed that the western intelligence largely failed in their estimation of the russian military for years. the russian military then failed to beat a post-soviet nation while having 10x more military spending, 3.5x the population, 6x the active+reserve members. russia got exposed for being even more rife with corruption and fraud than was thought.
in short, russia serves legitimately no danger to europe in terms of an invasion. but they obviously operate in other ways, like destabilizing governments, so their expansion should not be ignored just because of that.
European men are not willing to die or kill for Europe as a whole. That’s one of the “cons” of 80+ years of peace and a cultural superiority based on “civilized” behavior and progressive values that prioritize peace and compromise over national interests.
Absurd journalism. Russia is just nudging over Ukraine, a medium sized and one of the least developed nations in Europe. Russia would have zero chance in an all out invasion of Europe. I’d say Poland alone would stand a chance. The question is only how easily. Today it would require the loss of a lot of lives, unfortunately. Europe needs a strong airforce including bomber planes to match the deterrent the US was.
Uhm, what? Europe right now still has the conventional capability to trounce Russia in a fight. And that’s before mobilization and moving to a war economy.
The war in Ukraine is so bloody and manpower intensive because neither side can achieve lasting air superiority. That’s much less of a hurdle in a conflict between Europe and Russia. There will be considerable losses in the opening hours and Russia will probably lob cruise missiles and drones at infrastructure, but it’s unlikely to be able to contest European air power in any meaningful way and will hemorrhage GBAD assets as a result.
And if Russia has no GBAD, they have no meaningful answer to air strikes and drone attacks.
Answer : Now. While the Russians are winning in Ukraine when you consider the difference in terms of Population and resources, they have performed laughably poorly. At this point even Poland and the Baltics would slice through any Russian army
And there’s no chance in hell they’re gonna be able to threaten the west. 90% of the invasion force would be lost before they even came within sight of the German border let alone France or heavens forbid the UK
Europe should not be worried about fighting Russia alone. It would be more productive to worry about fighting Russia *and* America alone
If Ukraine can, then Europe + Ukraine absolutely can.
They could do it now but they don’t want to. Russia is very stretched on the battlefield so now is the time to hit them.
Unlike some others here, I’m not convinced that Europe would do well in a war with Russia today, at least in a hypothetical scenario where the war in Ukraine ends and Russia can fully focus on the rest of Europe.
It’s true that Europe has plenty of military hardware and manpower. Much more than Russia, in fact. But Europe is also lacking in a lot of critical areas.
Magazine depth in many European militaries is very low, so in a full scale war most European militaries would run out of critical ammunition very quickly. A state of the art patriot system is pretty useless if you don’t have missiles for it.
Coordination and joint command between the many disparate militaries would be a big issue too. NATO offers a joint command structure, but this command structure is built around robust US engagement. Plus, not even all EU and partner countries are part of NATO. So if the US sits the war out, the command structure would likely have to be significantly overhauled. And lack of close integration between militaries is a much smaller issue if you have one military superpower (the US) who can take the lead and then ask the many smaller European militaries to fill in specific gaps. If there isn’t one country capable of filling that role, then close coordination is absolutely crucial.
Logistics and intelligence gathering is another area where the US provides a critical role. I don’t think the European militaries are at a point where they can fully replace these capabilities.
And finally, while the aggregate European defense forces are much bigger than the Russian military, that might not mean much if the fight is happening in a specific area in Europe. France and the UK have very capable militaries, but if Russia attacks the Baltics then they won’t be fighting the full might of France and the UK and other European militaries. They’ll be fighting the Baltic militaries and whatever ‘trip wire’ forces are on site. If Russia quickly overruns the Baltics and presents the rest of Europe with a ‘fait accompli’, will the rest of Europe set up a large scale military invasion to reconquer the Baltics? Keep in mind, Russia seems to be very good at creating and exploiting disunity within Europe.
On the other hand, I think the good news is that addressing specific capability gaps can happen much faster than building an entire military from scratch. Buying more ammunition is faster and simpler than buying new weapon systems and training the crews to use them. Joint command structures can be quickly set up if the political will exists, and can be operationalized if there’s money for joint military exercises. Buying more transport planes and tankers is easier than buying stealth fighters. And robust forward defense forces can be deployed pretty quickly if the money and political will is there.
And of course Russia _isn’t_ in a position to fight the EU today, because they’ve got their hands full with Ukraine.
There is time and there is opportunity. But Europe must act urgently and decisively.
So… journalists seem to think that Europe’s slowness and whatnot is about unwillingness to make decisions, spend and such.
But… European defense spending is already several times larger than russia’s…. especially if including the UK, Norway and whatnot.
It’s not a question of “when will funds be allocated.” Look… if war actually broke out and thousands of soldiers were dying… Europe would gather a lot of force very quickly.
The sums are big… but I have still not heard anything about actual defense strategy. How many divisions? Where? How many air bases. How much air defense does Europe have? How much is needed?
Rhey served a check before the menu.
Never … why? Because nobody in Europe wants to send their kids to die fighting against Russia. They talk a good talk and contribute some money but at the end of the day they expect someone else to do the fighting for them.
Europe has 3 main problems:
1) It takes them forever and ever to make decisions. All EU member states have to approve of decisions and there’s going to be countries like Hungary that are skeptical of opposing Russia.
2) Economics/Manufacturing. In Germany for instance the whole manufacturing sector was powered by cheap natural gas purchased from Russia. Now that’s gone. Additionally there’s the issue that it’s going to be very unpopular to cut social spending for defense spending.
3) Demographics. Many European countries have demographic problems along the lines of Russia and Ukraine. There’s just not alot of young people that are fit for military service and willing to serve.
Russia is hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned by Europe right now.
The Europeans aren’t as dumb as the Americans. They understand better than anyone what the alternative will be. Been there, done that.
Europe doesn’t exactly celebrate warrior ethos these days. I don’t see many Europeans getting excited about military service, let alone actually engaging in combat.
Ukraine alone is doing it, if you mean stopping Russia from expanding. Majority of population would be against sending troops if Russia decides to invade non-EU (culturally) countries.
EU has a much more advanced military equipment. It may lack the same number of Tanks but it’s easy to build/acquire drones to wipe all Russian tanks.
The only metric where EU lacks significantly behind is number of nukes. The problem for Russia though is its population and economy is concentrated in areas that can be completely targeted by existing nuclear stockpile within EU, then there is UK.
EU can raise an army that can counter Russian numbers if Russia invades EU.
In a sustained conflict, EU would survive due to its economic might and alternate sources of energy. EU is only going to get stronger from here. Russia needs a longer time to build-up equipment, ammunition and manpower.
It only requires 3 things: the willingness to invest the tax funds to purchase kit (which requires an investment in the capital plant to make the kit) 2) time to build the kit (and factories), and 3) a large enough fraction of the populace willing to actually fight.
Can somebody please explain me why on earth would Europe want to fight Russia, I’m probably missing something ?
I think this is asking the wrong question. The question shouldn’t be can Europe take Russia in a traditional war. The question should be can Europe defends itself on two fronts (Easter and western) against both missiles and unconventional weapons like drones. The longer rump stays in power and is aligned with Russia, the more likely Europe could face a second D-Day, where the US is the aggressor against Europe.
23 comments
Submission Statement: “Europe wants to stand on its own militarily, but what’s holding it back and how long will it take?” Mila Tanghe discusses Europe’s ambitions to achieve military self-sufficiency in the face of potential Russian aggression, highlighting the urgent need for increased defense spending and capability development. While Europe has initiated significant rearmament efforts, experts suggest that achieving credible deterrence could take five to ten years due to existing capability gaps and the fragmented defense industry. Long-term, consistent investment and better coordination among European nations are essential to overcome structural inefficiencies and ensure preparedness in the coming years.
I don’t think Europe lacks the technology or hardware, but a population willing to die in frozen Russian trenches.
After all this Ukraine debacle, Russia’s army is depleted. N9w that they ran out of North Koreans, they’re sending amputees and donkeys to the front ffs.
So I’d wager we could already fight them now, as long as its a defensive war.
I’m sorry but with how weak Russia is economically and how their military is bogged down in lowly Ukraine, Europe is going to have to do some serious soul searching if they can’t fight Russia alone.
The ‘willing’ European countries would wipe the floor with them, but there just isn’t the will to do it. It needs to be done. Putin is embarrassed by his failed invasion and wont stop, until he’s defeated militarily by positive action, or removed from within, which may happen eventually, but we can’t wait and hope it does.
i feel that anyone who sees the russian army in its current form or even immediately pre-invasion) as a threat is severely misinformed.
the first few days and weeks of the invasion showed that the western intelligence largely failed in their estimation of the russian military for years. the russian military then failed to beat a post-soviet nation while having 10x more military spending, 3.5x the population, 6x the active+reserve members. russia got exposed for being even more rife with corruption and fraud than was thought.
in short, russia serves legitimately no danger to europe in terms of an invasion. but they obviously operate in other ways, like destabilizing governments, so their expansion should not be ignored just because of that.
European men are not willing to die or kill for Europe as a whole. That’s one of the “cons” of 80+ years of peace and a cultural superiority based on “civilized” behavior and progressive values that prioritize peace and compromise over national interests.
Absurd journalism. Russia is just nudging over Ukraine, a medium sized and one of the least developed nations in Europe. Russia would have zero chance in an all out invasion of Europe. I’d say Poland alone would stand a chance. The question is only how easily. Today it would require the loss of a lot of lives, unfortunately. Europe needs a strong airforce including bomber planes to match the deterrent the US was.
Uhm, what? Europe right now still has the conventional capability to trounce Russia in a fight. And that’s before mobilization and moving to a war economy.
The war in Ukraine is so bloody and manpower intensive because neither side can achieve lasting air superiority. That’s much less of a hurdle in a conflict between Europe and Russia. There will be considerable losses in the opening hours and Russia will probably lob cruise missiles and drones at infrastructure, but it’s unlikely to be able to contest European air power in any meaningful way and will hemorrhage GBAD assets as a result.
And if Russia has no GBAD, they have no meaningful answer to air strikes and drone attacks.
Answer : Now. While the Russians are winning in Ukraine when you consider the difference in terms of Population and resources, they have performed laughably poorly. At this point even Poland and the Baltics would slice through any Russian army
And there’s no chance in hell they’re gonna be able to threaten the west. 90% of the invasion force would be lost before they even came within sight of the German border let alone France or heavens forbid the UK
Europe should not be worried about fighting Russia alone. It would be more productive to worry about fighting Russia *and* America alone
If Ukraine can, then Europe + Ukraine absolutely can.
They could do it now but they don’t want to. Russia is very stretched on the battlefield so now is the time to hit them.
Unlike some others here, I’m not convinced that Europe would do well in a war with Russia today, at least in a hypothetical scenario where the war in Ukraine ends and Russia can fully focus on the rest of Europe.
It’s true that Europe has plenty of military hardware and manpower. Much more than Russia, in fact. But Europe is also lacking in a lot of critical areas.
Magazine depth in many European militaries is very low, so in a full scale war most European militaries would run out of critical ammunition very quickly. A state of the art patriot system is pretty useless if you don’t have missiles for it.
Coordination and joint command between the many disparate militaries would be a big issue too. NATO offers a joint command structure, but this command structure is built around robust US engagement. Plus, not even all EU and partner countries are part of NATO. So if the US sits the war out, the command structure would likely have to be significantly overhauled. And lack of close integration between militaries is a much smaller issue if you have one military superpower (the US) who can take the lead and then ask the many smaller European militaries to fill in specific gaps. If there isn’t one country capable of filling that role, then close coordination is absolutely crucial.
Logistics and intelligence gathering is another area where the US provides a critical role. I don’t think the European militaries are at a point where they can fully replace these capabilities.
And finally, while the aggregate European defense forces are much bigger than the Russian military, that might not mean much if the fight is happening in a specific area in Europe. France and the UK have very capable militaries, but if Russia attacks the Baltics then they won’t be fighting the full might of France and the UK and other European militaries. They’ll be fighting the Baltic militaries and whatever ‘trip wire’ forces are on site. If Russia quickly overruns the Baltics and presents the rest of Europe with a ‘fait accompli’, will the rest of Europe set up a large scale military invasion to reconquer the Baltics? Keep in mind, Russia seems to be very good at creating and exploiting disunity within Europe.
On the other hand, I think the good news is that addressing specific capability gaps can happen much faster than building an entire military from scratch. Buying more ammunition is faster and simpler than buying new weapon systems and training the crews to use them. Joint command structures can be quickly set up if the political will exists, and can be operationalized if there’s money for joint military exercises. Buying more transport planes and tankers is easier than buying stealth fighters. And robust forward defense forces can be deployed pretty quickly if the money and political will is there.
And of course Russia _isn’t_ in a position to fight the EU today, because they’ve got their hands full with Ukraine.
There is time and there is opportunity. But Europe must act urgently and decisively.
So… journalists seem to think that Europe’s slowness and whatnot is about unwillingness to make decisions, spend and such.
But… European defense spending is already several times larger than russia’s…. especially if including the UK, Norway and whatnot.
It’s not a question of “when will funds be allocated.” Look… if war actually broke out and thousands of soldiers were dying… Europe would gather a lot of force very quickly.
The sums are big… but I have still not heard anything about actual defense strategy. How many divisions? Where? How many air bases. How much air defense does Europe have? How much is needed?
Rhey served a check before the menu.
Never … why? Because nobody in Europe wants to send their kids to die fighting against Russia. They talk a good talk and contribute some money but at the end of the day they expect someone else to do the fighting for them.
Europe has 3 main problems:
1) It takes them forever and ever to make decisions. All EU member states have to approve of decisions and there’s going to be countries like Hungary that are skeptical of opposing Russia.
2) Economics/Manufacturing. In Germany for instance the whole manufacturing sector was powered by cheap natural gas purchased from Russia. Now that’s gone. Additionally there’s the issue that it’s going to be very unpopular to cut social spending for defense spending.
3) Demographics. Many European countries have demographic problems along the lines of Russia and Ukraine. There’s just not alot of young people that are fit for military service and willing to serve.
Russia is hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned by Europe right now.
The Europeans aren’t as dumb as the Americans. They understand better than anyone what the alternative will be. Been there, done that.
Europe doesn’t exactly celebrate warrior ethos these days. I don’t see many Europeans getting excited about military service, let alone actually engaging in combat.
Ukraine alone is doing it, if you mean stopping Russia from expanding. Majority of population would be against sending troops if Russia decides to invade non-EU (culturally) countries.
EU has a much more advanced military equipment. It may lack the same number of Tanks but it’s easy to build/acquire drones to wipe all Russian tanks.
The only metric where EU lacks significantly behind is number of nukes. The problem for Russia though is its population and economy is concentrated in areas that can be completely targeted by existing nuclear stockpile within EU, then there is UK.
EU can raise an army that can counter Russian numbers if Russia invades EU.
In a sustained conflict, EU would survive due to its economic might and alternate sources of energy. EU is only going to get stronger from here. Russia needs a longer time to build-up equipment, ammunition and manpower.
It only requires 3 things: the willingness to invest the tax funds to purchase kit (which requires an investment in the capital plant to make the kit) 2) time to build the kit (and factories), and 3) a large enough fraction of the populace willing to actually fight.
Can somebody please explain me why on earth would Europe want to fight Russia, I’m probably missing something ?
I think this is asking the wrong question. The question shouldn’t be can Europe take Russia in a traditional war. The question should be can Europe defends itself on two fronts (Easter and western) against both missiles and unconventional weapons like drones. The longer rump stays in power and is aligned with Russia, the more likely Europe could face a second D-Day, where the US is the aggressor against Europe.
Comments are closed.