Yeah, big question where that manpower is supposed to come from. It's not just money, it's that the armed forces are too unpopular and don't seem to get nearly enough recruits.
Yes, exactly. The countries where this is not an issue mostly cannot to bridge the gap between manpower needs and perceiving Russia is an existantial threat to their national security. Poland and Finland are the most obvious exceptions.
Thanks Fabian, as a grumpy cynic I would like to see some connection to European/ Ukrainan missile producion in the piece. For example, how credible is Zelensky statement about increasing ballistic missile production?
Could for example Ukraine provide Europe with (perhaps licensed and distributed production) of ATACMS alternatives, and how would that affect deterrance?
Thanks, by the way an important observation regarding the current Russian production surplus of troops and material. Not necessarily stockpiling for offensive purposes alone, but deterrence in itself?
Also: how to prepare, if possible, for the event of armed conflict with Russia, potentially supplied by China?
I am not going to say that is not necessary to uscale European defence industry or have a heavier deterrence force into Baltics, but I think we all fall sometimes in the error to think that an aggression on NATO (or a provocation/Fait accompli operation) would produce a conflict along the same lines of what we see in Ukraine.
Of course European armies need mass close to the border, but let's not forget that NATO/European forces are not thought to fight only or principally with tanks and artillery. We hava a powerfull tactical air force for a reason. And just Europe could amass hundreds of modern tactical fighters in forward airbases in Sweden, Finland or Poland, just minutes away from the front. Many of these fighters would be F-35s, complicating the work of already degraded russian air defences. Therefore, in the meantime, I would also speed up training of air forces flying to these countries, refueling rearming. Like a European Nordic/Baltic Red Flag.
This, not only would increase the proficiency of our air forces but would signal Moscow that, to be successful, they should also attack airfields in NATO countries before advancing onto the Baltics, reducing the chances of a quick land grabbing operation without NATO full involvement.
The baltic area doesn‘t have the strategic depth to defend on land. Defensive operations especially air must be undertaken on Russia territory. Even in the Cold War NATO didn‘t want to, besides some air operations but not with land forces.
This is a strategic (nuclear?) dilema for NATO.
Western (NATO) forces to secure a ceasefire can and will never be accepted by Russia. This means bringing Ukraine under NATO umbrella and defacto a membership. This would be totally contra Russian demands and aims!
It can only happen if Russia is defeted on the ground and Ukrainian territory eventually taken back.
True, but Ukrainians have decimated Russia’s tank supply. Yes, they are the threat to Europe they always have been, but WWIII won’t be a replay of WWII. Tactics and munitions have moved on into the era of unmanned drone warfare.
Thank you Fabian. I agree. Arms are needed, but arms alone are useless without men and women to wield them.
Yeah, big question where that manpower is supposed to come from. It's not just money, it's that the armed forces are too unpopular and don't seem to get nearly enough recruits.
Yes, exactly. The countries where this is not an issue mostly cannot to bridge the gap between manpower needs and perceiving Russia is an existantial threat to their national security. Poland and Finland are the most obvious exceptions.
Thanks Fabian, as a grumpy cynic I would like to see some connection to European/ Ukrainan missile producion in the piece. For example, how credible is Zelensky statement about increasing ballistic missile production?
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-must-accelerate-creation-of-ballistic-systems-zelensky-says/
Could for example Ukraine provide Europe with (perhaps licensed and distributed production) of ATACMS alternatives, and how would that affect deterrance?
I've discussed missile production in plenty of other pieces on my Substack, so I focused on other things this time.
This being said, I definitely write about the state of Ukraine's ballistic missile production at some point as a standalone piece.
Thanks, by the way an important observation regarding the current Russian production surplus of troops and material. Not necessarily stockpiling for offensive purposes alone, but deterrence in itself?
Also: how to prepare, if possible, for the event of armed conflict with Russia, potentially supplied by China?
I am not going to say that is not necessary to uscale European defence industry or have a heavier deterrence force into Baltics, but I think we all fall sometimes in the error to think that an aggression on NATO (or a provocation/Fait accompli operation) would produce a conflict along the same lines of what we see in Ukraine.
Of course European armies need mass close to the border, but let's not forget that NATO/European forces are not thought to fight only or principally with tanks and artillery. We hava a powerfull tactical air force for a reason. And just Europe could amass hundreds of modern tactical fighters in forward airbases in Sweden, Finland or Poland, just minutes away from the front. Many of these fighters would be F-35s, complicating the work of already degraded russian air defences. Therefore, in the meantime, I would also speed up training of air forces flying to these countries, refueling rearming. Like a European Nordic/Baltic Red Flag.
This, not only would increase the proficiency of our air forces but would signal Moscow that, to be successful, they should also attack airfields in NATO countries before advancing onto the Baltics, reducing the chances of a quick land grabbing operation without NATO full involvement.
So far good argumented.
The baltic area doesn‘t have the strategic depth to defend on land. Defensive operations especially air must be undertaken on Russia territory. Even in the Cold War NATO didn‘t want to, besides some air operations but not with land forces.
This is a strategic (nuclear?) dilema for NATO.
Western (NATO) forces to secure a ceasefire can and will never be accepted by Russia. This means bringing Ukraine under NATO umbrella and defacto a membership. This would be totally contra Russian demands and aims!
It can only happen if Russia is defeted on the ground and Ukrainian territory eventually taken back.
True, but Ukrainians have decimated Russia’s tank supply. Yes, they are the threat to Europe they always have been, but WWIII won’t be a replay of WWII. Tactics and munitions have moved on into the era of unmanned drone warfare.
I would like to compliment you on your calm and thoughtful tone, which makes your reasoning all the more powerful.
Nit pick: revisionist ambitions -> revanchist ambitions
NATO doesn't have an eastern flank. It has an eastern front, and southern and northern flanks :)
Especially, as Russian strategists likely see the same trends and may come to conclude now or never, Sprung ins Ungewisse, etc.