I agree in general but I think the bigger issue is not actually fighting, but European policy cohesion.
If all of Europe was fighting Russia (conventionally) Russia would probably lose. But all of Europe will never agree on anything. And the fear of escalation would prevent such a scenario anyway. And NATO exists only on paper.
It was difficult to get Europe involved in defending Ukraine because Russia had bought the politicians with cheap gas. Domestic politics always comes before helping another country, not least because everybody hopes that only the country next door will get invaded.
I think now everybody realises that the threat (to European security) is just too big to ignore, but still most of Europe, and the US, send only a tiny % of what they have, or make, to Ukraine. Most production is going to regular arms customers, and they are ordering a lot because the Russian invasion has caused everybody to re-arm. This video covers it very well
All the time Russia does not actually attack another country, Europe will be divided, and the US will be at risk of another debacle like the one which has just finished. Russia merely needs to avoid doing a Pearl Harbour.
On the topic of Germany refusing to send Taurus (without giving an official reason, but believed to be a lack of nukes) why can’t these missiles be geo-fenced? Same goes for ATACMS, but they are finally coming (maybe geo-fenced?).
It’s obvious that Putin has lost touch with reality. That’s the downside of having a corruption- and terror-driven system for 20+ years: there is less and less transparency, and intermediate leaders report more and more based on political manoeuvering rather than factual accuracy (just because they don’t want to get fired / executed, or want to get richer).
What isn’t new is that Putin has always needed a kind of holy war or crusade in order to federate his country. It’s only because he’s lost touch with reality that he went too far with Ukraine, thinking noone would react (just like they did for Crimea and all the other times). In a recent thesis I saw a comparison with Hitler’s invasion of Russia, which served absolutely no strategic purpose.
AIUI Hitler’s invasion of Russia was driven largely by Lebensraum. And Russia has lots of land, most of it empty. Militarily it may have seemed possible at the time, given the success of blitzkrieg elsewhere which surprised even his generals. With today’s planning knowledge, and even with 1944+ US logistics expertise, it would not have been attempted on logistics alone.
The Ukraine invasion just seems pointless strategically. It has been widely claimed by various Pootin apologists that he was afraid of NATO expansion but actually Ukraine
accounts for a tiny % of the Russian border with NATO – especially as he already owned Crimea with Western de facto permission.
The “holy war” explanation seems by far the most likely. A bit like Galtieri and the Falklands, although the Falklands appears to have some oil.
LeSving wrote:
However, looking at what is happening, the problem right now appears to be the pilots. To me it looks like they have to be re-trained from the very ground to behave like a coherent NATO standard force. They are all young, early 20s. No older and experienced MiG/Sukhoi pilots appears to be taken out for the training. They start in France flying (largely phased out) Alphajets before transitioning to F-16. Less than 10 pilots are “ready”. Ready here means “just out of flight/weapon school ready”, with no experience whatsoever.
I’ve seen photos of Ukrainian pilots allegedly sent for F-16 training, and some of them were definitely older than early 20s. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if, despite their experience, the older ones were eliminated in final selection tests. After all, some habits are hard to unlearn.
What’s the standard ratio of pilots to aircraft in NATO forces?
Peter wrote:
The Ukraine invasion just seems pointless strategically.
Indeed, and even before the war it had been routinely said that Putin was good at tactical thinking but totally lacked strategic one.
The “holy war” explanation seems by far the most likely.
It’s a reasonably close description, but Ukraine is considered a mere proxy of the West. The Russian narrative goes more along the lines that ‘Ukraine is a non-state and Ukrainians are a non-nation, they are merely a historical part of Russia that fell under the influence of local clowns who are actually puppets of the Anglo-Saxon geopolitical clique’. And yes, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a very common term in the Russian political/military/geopolitical discourse.
This website has a nuclear blast simulator. A bit morbid, but interesting to run the numbers.
Peter wrote:
If all of Europe was fighting Russia (conventionally) Russia would probably lose. But all of Europe will never agree on anything. And the fear of escalation would prevent such a scenario anyway. And NATO exists only on paper.It was difficult to get Europe involved in defending Ukraine because Russia had bought the politicians with cheap gas. Domestic politics always comes before helping another country, not least because everybody hopes that only the country next door will get invaded.
The whole NATO thing has to be seen in historical context. It came in the aftermath of WWII and the incentives to be a part of it were diverse. The official background was to stop communist expansion. For all the smaller nations, typically Norway, Denmark, Iceland, BeNeLux (and Portugal) the single only reason was to have a powerful ally that could be trusted, The USA/Canada and the UK. Two big wars had showed that none of the classical larger powers of Europe could be trusted: Germany and Russia/Soviet mainly, France, Spain, but also the UK to some extent. Either too week and whimsy, or too powerful and aggressive (fascist or communist). Overall, way too unpredictable and/or untrustworthy. The only way forward was neutrality or ally up with the powerful USA. As far as Norway, Denmark and Iceland goes, a Scandinavian/Nordic military treaty was actually being developed. If it wasn’t for NATO, all the Nordic countries, except Finland I believe? would probably be in a treaty on their own, which was neutral or quasi neutral outward towards USA.
The very essence of NATO is an allegiance with the US as a protection against other potentially aggressive European countries. The cold war sort of changed that to mean the west vs Soviet exclusively. Right now it is the west vs Russia. Then came the EU, and it has been some talk about a pan European force (without the USA). That is never going to happen for sure. The core NATO countries in Europe are Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium. By “coincidence” these are the same countries giving away 80 F-16s to Ukraine. Then Poland and the Baltic states came, for the same historical reasons as the first countries, and the same goes for Sweden and Finland (it’s certainly not communist expansion that drives NATO today). The next country is/will be Ukraine.
In a way Putin is not entirely wrong saying that NATO/US is pushing forward, threatening Russia. But, deep down, NATO is just as much a protection against other potentially aggressive European nations. Germany dislikes this US “hegemony”, France dislikes this perhaps more than any other (except Russia), but the UK is itself so much in bed with the US by now that there’s no practical difference between the UK and US from this point of view.
Peter wrote:
I don’t think anybody in power believes Art 5 is worth the paper it is written on
I think Ukraine proves the opposite, and they’re not even in NATO (yet). France, perhaps/perhaps not, you never know. Germany, must be pushed – hard. The UK does whatever the US does anyway, so that’s no problem. Turkey, nobody cares, completely unpredictable. For the first core NATO nations, + Baltics, Poland and Sweden, Finland, Romania too perhaps, the Art 5 is an unbreakable law. And this includes the US. I mean, the US will go ahead, Art. 5 or not, the same way they have done the last 100 years anyway. It’s the perfect military ally. The irony is that only the US has invoked Art. 5 so far, and it resulted in 20 years of war in Afghanistan (of all places). Several, of the F-16s Ukraine will get have dropped bombs in Afghanistan and Libya, lots and lots of bombs. There was also some stuff happening at Balkan.
Also ironically, one of the first things that happened when Sweden and Finland joined NATO, was a joint Nordic air force (it actually happened a year before Sweden joined NATO). Right now it’s the largest, strongest and most modern air force in the entire Europe (except Russia). Also on the ground, we have more tanks than any other European nation (except Russia) The naval powers are different. In that department Norway has very good relations with Germany. It’s all NATO anyway, the same military ecosystem. Never underestimate the power of a smooth running ecosystem for swords and shields for battle use.
Art 5 is more of a religious thing. Exactly how religious varies, I’m sure. I’m sure several countries also feels it’s circumstantial (Turkey, Hungary for instance). There are countries that simply are too small in population and/or size to have any meaningful military force for deployment, like Luxembourg and Iceland. It’s safe to say that NATO works though (with actual war effort) also without invoking Art 5. The main reason is of course the USA, and that is the foundation of NATO, like it or not. But it is a slightly weird thought that right now, not a single country except the USA and possibly China? could invade the Nordic countries without nuking the place to pieces.
There is an argument from military “experts” (I hate to write that because no one is really an expert as they have themselves proved on several occasions)
But there is an argument that Sweden could beat Russia on their own. I don’t know. I no nothing of Swedish military capability.
We also have to remember that where we are today is the result of one man or small group who wish to control others and who mistakenly believed as many have done before that force is stronger than hearts and minds even when the latter is biased more in their favour and at a lesser cost.
Following the cold war both Germany and to, perhaps, a lesser degree France and the UK formed close economic ties with the Russian State and/or Russian people/oligarchs. If Ukraine had been brought back into the Russian sphere of influence through winning the hearts and minds of the Ukranian people, no one except perhaps the USA would have opposed them. In fact Germany would have probably have encouraged it because of the close ties with the Russian state whilst at the same time losing no love over Ukraine.
Russia pre Putin losing his mind could even possibly have acceded to the EU and maybe even NATO before Ukraine ever got a look in.
The problem is that Putin’s mindset is that force against anyone who opposes him is the answer to proving he is a strong leader.
It’s cost Russia trillions of dollars at the latest estimates. They are nowhere near achieving Putin’s goal. He has had to have many of his oligarch friends thrown out of windows and we are where we are and Russia’s customers are not only deserting it but turning to the other side.
Not only that but whilst he may have managed to make NATO more fragile from the point of view of the USA but has also made it stronger by the wish of countries such as Sweden and Finland to join.
But it has also highlighted a need within Europe to work closer together militarily because we can no longer rely on the USA.
The core NATO countries in Europe are Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium.
The UK and Germany?
By “coincidence” these are the same countries giving away 80 F-16s to Ukraine
I think UKR is getting F16s because they can learn to fly them and maintain them. The Eurofighter is unsuitable for UKR because it is an expensive mess right across the board. And the UK has no F16s (should have had them all along, but politics rule).
But there is an argument that Sweden could beat Russia on their own
Completely impossible, surely.
no one except perhaps the USA would have opposed them
The US would not bother either – Russia got away with Crimea OK
Russia pre Putin losing his mind could even possibly have acceded to the EU
Turkey tried it and it ran quite a long way before Brussels realised the stupidity of it – suddenly the EU would be dominated by a country which has totally different values right across the board. Amazing it ran as far as it did though, but we will be saying the same in 20 years’ time about trans-gender and schoolkids 
and maybe even NATO
As above – meaningless
But it has also highlighted a need within Europe to work closer together militarily because we can no longer rely on the USA.
The Trump issue aside, Europe never could rely on the US (unless the US was attacked also, hence anybody attacking Europe would be careful to not do a Pearl Harbour) but Europe chose to run the pacifist line because of great domestic PR and less money spent on the military.
LeSving wrote:
As far as Norway, Denmark and Iceland goes, a Scandinavian/Nordic military treaty was actually being developed. If it wasn’t for NATO, all the Nordic countries, except Finland I believe? would probably be in a treaty on their own, which was neutral or quasi neutral outward towards USA.
As I understand it, what killed the Nordic alliance idea was that the Soviet Union wouldn’t allow Finland to join any alliance. Only when the Nordic alliance proved impossible did Denmark and Norway join NATO. (Finland was always a western democracy, but it had to tread very carefully to not upset its eastern neighbour.)
