FLASH
Shkruar nga Ross Clark
Despite the economic weight of European countries, comparison with Russia highlights profound differences in military power and readiness.
Looking at the relative size of their economies, one might conclude that Russia would have to tremble in the face of the military might of the European members of NATO. Russia, the ninth largest economy in the world, faces the third, sixth, seventh and eighth, respectively, Germany, Britain, France and Italy.
However, in reality, from a military point of view, the situation is the opposite. Russia has the second most powerful army in the world, while France ranks sixth, the United Kingdom eighth, Italy tenth and Germany twelfth. To put it in concrete terms with some figures: Russia has 1.32 million active personnel, 560 combat aircraft and 3,941 tanks ready for deployment. For Britain, the corresponding figures are 141,000 troops, 67 combat aircraft and 187 tanks; for France 264,000, 178 and 342; and for Italy 165,000, 62 and 142.
As for Canada, it ranks 28th, despite being part of the G7 and having the world’s tenth largest economy. It has 63,000 troops, 50 fighter jets and 56 tanks to defend a territory larger than that of the United States. From a military perspective, it’s not hard to see why Donald Trump is considering the idea of including Canada in the US. After all, its vast Arctic border is practically a demilitarized zone.
Simply counting personnel and equipment does not provide an accurate comparison between NATO and Russia. Equally important is the speed with which these forces can be deployed.
Germany is a notable example. Things have improved somewhat since 2014, when German forces, under the ultimate control of then-Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, were forced to use brooms instead of guns during a NATO Rapid Reaction Force exercise due to a shortage of weapons. The country now claims to have an army of 60,000 soldiers.
However, according to Military Review, the official magazine of the US Army, no more than 10,000 are deployable and only 4,000 of them can be committed to a sustained deployment. Only 1,000 are on standby to join NATO's Very High Readiness Joint Force.
France appears to be in a better position, as demonstrated when 10,000 soldiers were deployed to its streets after the terrorist attack at the Bataclan in Paris in 2015. But this is very different from deploying troops in a combat operation. According to Military Review estimates, France could deploy two battalions within a week (about 2,000 soldiers in total) and a heavy brigade (8,000 troops) within a month.
A major problem for NATO is that its members have committed significant amounts of forces and equipment to peacekeeping operations around the world. In the event of a national emergency, how would France redeploy 2,000 soldiers and large amounts of military equipment from Africa and other areas where they are currently deployed? Unfortunately, Britain is the only European NATO member to possess a fleet of super-heavy transport aircraft.
Since 2022, NATO has operated under a new force model, which divides personnel into three levels: those who can deploy within ten days; those who can be put into service within 10 to 30 days; and those who can be deployed within 30 to 180 days.
The goal is to have at least 100,000 troops in the first tier, 200,000 in the second tier, and at least 500,000 in the third tier. This is a vast improvement over the NATO Response Force that preceded it, which consisted of 40,000 soldiers, but it is only the beginning of what would be needed to repel a Russian invasion of a NATO member state.
Before the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Russian military is thought to have amassed 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border. Since then, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Russia has suffered 325,000 casualties and lost a total of 1.2 million soldiers to death or injury. However, it continues to supply troops to the front lines.
The Russian military operates in such a way that, if the numbers are high enough, individual soldier protection becomes less of a priority.
This is a very foreign concept to Western European countries, but they must find a response to this challenge. /Adapted from The Spectator /
Mos flisni budallalliqe. Keto krahasime jane si muhabete kalamajsh per loja luftash
Rusia ka katër vjet që lufton një shtet të dobët ushtarakisht, dhe ka mundur të pushtojë vetëm 13% të territorit. Pas katër vitesh, Rusia ka mbi 400 mijë ushtarë të vrarë, dhe rreth 700 mijë të plagosur ose të gjymtuar. Ndërkohë Ukraina tani ka një nga forcat ushtarake më efikase në botë. Çdo përfolje se Europa është e papërgatirur është në një formë propagandë pro-ruse. Rusa nuk mund të marrë Donetskun, lëre më të kërcënojë Europën. Si i thonë korçarët, pordhë me rigon.
Vetem Finlanda ka ne gadishmeri nje trupe prej mese 1.4milion ushtare e oficere bashke. Kujdes kur shkruani, mos zhgaravitni duke hymnizuar ruset. Armet moderne jan te atilla qe s’do ti lene mundesi armiqve te njerzimit t’marrin epersin, pervecse rraketat qe do tentojne te godasin NATO-n , do t’i asgjesojne n’dalje, pra ne token ruse, apo kineze e Koreano veriore. E kete tashme ata e kane te qarte, prandaj dhe heshtin.