Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today: ground.news/historylegends
those vids of supposed Russian tanks getting wiped out is a little iffy to me if they are coming from the Ukrainian ministry cause they also had Russian tanks so its like that game i spy idk we had it in the usa where you look for slight differences in the 2 photos but anyway whats to say the Ukrainians aren't showing pics of their own tanks getting fucked up just to get more of my tax dollars sent to them where they say see we are kicking that asss
If you need to do something, call the Chinese. If you need to do something impossible, call the Russians. If you need it to work, call the Germans. And the Americans? And you don't need to call the Americans, they come themselves.
>Combat experience beats any training and what NATO has for combat experience in the past 2 decade? fighting in asymmetrical warfare against a bunch of goat herder. They have been fighting these people for so long that they neglected their doctrine in large scale fighting not until China and Russia suddenly pop into their radar. Many Western mercenary that was a former seasoned soldier with combat experience facing the Vatniks in Ukraine fled after facing a well coordinated 3rd generation warfare tactic shows that Combat Experience is worth next to a trash if the said combat experience is not suitable against what you're facing.
@@gattonero2915 combat experience can be implemented in a short period just as a change in doctrine can be applied. The Russians were used to wars like Syria and Georgia, asymmetrical fights as well, referenced from their immediate push to Kiev and other major cities whole bypassing major strongholds. Given even 3 months, any military can make the changes necessary to fight a war such as the one in Ukraine just as Russia has. Also, making the argument that the war in Ukraine is comparable to a continental fight is ridiculous. The Russians would be fighting on a vast front having to repell likely multiple advances instead of incrementally taking villages and cities in small regions.
@@gattonero2915 china has not been in a war for a few decades now. Russia also only had assymetric warfare till now. So what's your point regarding training?
The Soviet union had 27 million losses...... And he was fighting on 2 fronts without oil nor tons of natural resources and fighting resistance and disobeying generals at the same time...... Absolutely not to praise the dude BUT is Russia ready for this and are they the Soviet union?
@@MarketsDriveTheWorldRussia has lost many regions since soviet union fell. Ukraine was the soviet union that is a huge land with 50 million people back then
@@MarketsDriveTheWorld Clearly stupid manipulation. Soviet Union had nearly SAME losses of soldiers as Germany. And if we add all other european countries soldiers in equation, then Soviet Union lost less then united German and others army.
Europe has nowhere near the industrial capacity for a war effort vs. Russia and if brussel's bureaucrats ever tried to enforce a draft you'd see riots in the streets, so the answer is No
@@olcankanicok9125the Russia's economy is the 4th in the world 😂 It's not as big, but how is it tiny even compared to Europe's? As for Military industrial capacity, Russia is producing more tanks and missiles than Europe and Murica combined right now. What are you on about?
@@KotleKettleyou are talking about ppp, but I am talking about the nominal gdp Russia has a gdp of around 2trillion compared to Germany which is at 4.4trillion. It is correct that Russia currently produces more, but what matters is the potential the US industrial potential is much greater than Russias. Not Europe is spending 6% of its Gdp into millitary around 40% of its budget into national security and defense and this allon for Ukraine. A war against Europe would force Russie to double atleast its spendings which would crush the russian economy. Todays Russia is only a regional power only a shadow of its former self which has to ask North Korea for help. Despite Russia produces more its not enough to keep up with its losses thats why the storages getting emptier and emptier
As one who served in the U.S. Army for 30 years, I think your analysis of the EU military capabilities and the American factor is spot on! Great job as usual in your presentation... although, I must completely disagree with your final point that "Russia" is a threat to the NATO alliance, it is very much the opposite - NATO is the threat to Russia and has proven to be the belligerent bully in the region for decades. Russia has been openly attempting to join the western alliance since the 1990's - the stated role of NATO became irrelevant as soon as the Warsaw Pact dissolved at which point Russia made MANY attempts to normalize relations with European nations and the United States. ALL considerations of this were completely blocked by the U.S. in order to maintain it's role in European affairs and rule by military strength. If Russia were part of the European community of nations then there would be no "Enemy"... "NO Threat"... and "NO Need" to further the NATO alliance and in turn bankrupting the American Military Industrial Complex and ultimately lower the standing of U.S. importance for military presence on the world stage. - I am quite aware that this is not a popular subject of discussion in the geo political reality of the world and the time we are living through right now, but this situation should have and could have been avoided had it not been for the political bullying of the United States and it's influence over the European nations that are truly in direct peril from allowing the U.S. and it's push for military superiority and control over European countries solely to ensure that it (the U.S.) remains the dominant military force and richest nation by weapons sales and military influence... No enemy = No need for vast military spending or a gigantic thug standing at the door ready to smash anyone, for anything, at anytime merely to maintain control over who is allowed to enter.
Too bad Russia has literally never applied to join the EU, NATO, or west as a whole. They instead try to keep smaller countries around them to be their subservient nations. Russia would rather be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. The purpose of NATO is still there. To prevent the expansion of Russia. Look at Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. None of them were in NATO and they got invaded for it. Now Chechnya has been forced into Russia. Georgia will be invaded if it tries to seek allies by joining NATO. Moldova is stuck with 15k Russian soldiers in it's borders with no ability to join NATO. Now Ukraine has tried to join and they got invaded for a third time by Russia since the fall of the USSR. The Baltics would be incredibly useful to Russia by connecting Kaliningrad to the main land. However because they joined NATO, Russia will never fuck with them.
@@ImBigFloppa - the fact is, is that they have requested to join NATO in the 90’s when Bill Clinton was president of the U.S. and he flat out rejected them and all attempts to normalize relations with Europe. Facts matter and those are the facts, it Europe and the U.S. that have constantly rejected Russia and pretended Russia was the aggressor… when constantly bullied, one has a right to push back.
@@archer721 No. No they did not. Russia has never once sent an actually application. They have just been "floating the idea around" for a few decades. If they wanted to actually join, they would apply.
Combat Experience is important. We did all kinds of training before going to Iraq but it all pretty much went out the window as we learned how units were really conducting themselves when in contact with the enemy. For instance, instead of getting out of our vehicles and fighting off an ambush like we did in State Side training, we actually stayed in our vehicles and exited the ambush zone while laying down suppressive fire. After armor was installed on our vehicles, non gun truck vehicles did not return fire as that would require opening the side windows which would make the crew vulnerable to enemy fire. The gun trucks were the only crew that returned fire after we were armored up. Training must be done to set standards but Combat Experience gives a fighting force the edge. Having more Combat Veterans than non, adds combat effectiveness and confidence for the less experienced soldiers.
What you said is not even true by the basic field manual. When in a vehicle during an ambush, unless the way forward is physically blocked you drive through the kill zone gunning it. Why on God’s earth would u get out in a kill zone, stopping the convoy to counter attack the ambush IF THE ROAD IS NOT BLOCKED! armor or no armor! If it’s a blocking ambush you still have to get out to counter attack the ambushers. And if it’s not a blocking ambush then you would drive through the kill zone anyway. What your saying if true is the result of degenerate commanders.
@@olcankanicok9125 Grande Armée was the largest army assembled up to that point in European history and it consisted of almost all European countries. It's not like every single country of that Europe but still
It is amazing that all of these countries are being teamed up to theoretically battle Russia. The mere thought experiment makes Russia look like the geopolitical equivalent to Thanos. It's just a weird thing to ponder.
Artillery was, is and always will be the queen of battle. Once that round is fired, there is no stopping it. Rounds are cheap and artillery is easy to move and hide.
Actually you will be able to stop it just not cheaply, In India we had a radar that could track artillery and even motor rounds very easily called Swati MK2, the track could be maintained easily, but there was nothing in our arsenal that could shoot it down cheaply, so that radar is just used for counter battery fire since it's very accurate.
@@homijbhabha8860 любой включенный радар, это как лампочка включившееся в темной комнате. Твое местоположение сразу же становится известным и на тебя наводят уже батарею РСЗО
@@deriznohappehquite exactly. The US armed forces has a lot of counter insurgency combat experience but hardly any near-peer at all. You can’t just react to every engagement with fixed wing air support (like many of the fights were like) when the enemy have tons of anti aircraft weapons.
@@deriznohappehquite indeed.. good point i did say 'high intensity combat experience'.. which implies main force units and not counter-insurgency. guess i should of been more clear. it was a rushed post
@@nkoehler337 well.. actually you can but usually the losses are substantial in pilots.. .. such as vietnam was. those sa 2's and mass aaa guns shot down a substantial number of planes and helo's
One thing that is sometimes overlooked is that Russia only sent about 100-150K men to Ukraine. That means they are significantly outnumbered by the Ukrainians. But even with few men, Russia has been able to gain a lot of ground in southern Ukraine and the Donbass. Sometimes raw numbers don’t tell the whole story.
Totally agreed, even US top security advisors said only nato armies that can beat Ukraine in battle are US and Turkey. Even current German army or French cannot beat Ukraine on battle field. Ukraine got 800,000 men mobilized, they have ballistic missles, armor, artillary, good air defense.
@Samson You do realize the map is becoming redder by the day? And the Russians are 1/3rd the strength of Ukraine? Normally, you need 1-2x the size to do offensive ops. The west is literally paying for Russia's war with insane fuel costs. We know how this will end. The only question is what will Ukraine look like? Will it even exist?
On two previous occasions when the united Europe was in military confrontation with Russia it ended badly for Europe. If Germany survives the war, its parliament members would have to pass on the way to work not two, but four tanks - 2 T-34s and 2 T-90s.
Keep dreaming. And when was united Europe in a military confrontation with Russia? Russia is weak both economically and militarily. Nobody is scared of the paper tiger
@@patrickt601 В Крымской войне участвовала вся Европа. Всё что она добилась - это уничтожила один единственный город. Просто смешной результат, смотря на потери с каждой стороны. В первой мировой войне Россия не проиграла. Россия вышла из войны из-за революции большевиков, причём перед этим был проведён огромный прорыв на фронте русскими. Если бы не громыхнула война, то прорыв был бы поддержан и закреплён, а значит Россия бы участвовала в победном разделе со своими бывшими союзниками. Ну и русско-японская очевиднейшее предательство изнутри. И неготовность воевать в другой части России - это да, стало фатальным результатом для русско-японской. Но уже ко второй мировой СССР скинул в море миллионную квантунскую армию, что уничтожила более 40 миллионов китайцев - и это всего за пару недель! Просто рекордные сроки. А про захват непреступных курил и говорить не стоит. Высадка в Нормандии по сравнению с этим - лёгкая прогулка, а русские за кратчайшие сроки проломили сопротивление, уничтожив намного более плотные фортификации
Do you know how some Russian commanders trained recruits before the battles in Chechnya? This is an old Russian method. The recruits were fired upon with real bullets. No, they didn’t shoot specifically at them, they shot nearby, they shot over their heads, in front of their feet, they shot at the shelters where they were. the Russians have a concept for soldiers - "shelled". this means that the soldier will not be confused under a hail of bullets, he already knows how a bullet sounds over his head and will not start to shrink and scream to call his mother. Let there be peace in the world
Yes, but unfortunately unlike ukraine russia abandoned these emergency training programs lately, but I guess this war has proven how important they are
@@snowsnow4231 I see Russian generals getting shredded by partisans and a virtual standstill in the war. Russia lost half of the territory it gained over the course of the war within *one week*, and is nowhere near close to recapturing it. Russian technology is stuck in the late Cold War era; I have not seen a single Armata on the ground, and all HIMARS systems are still operational (the "proof" the Russians showed of the HIMARS units being destroyed showed explosions missing their targets, and the Russians routinely confuse HIMARS for other American-sourced transports due to construction similarities), while Ukraine is getting modern day tech. The Ukrainians have the clear upper hand. Russia is running out of ammunition and the materials required to repair their equipment are locked behind an embargo. This is Russia's second Afghanistan.
This is not the kind of training that makes units better at conducting operations. Training is important but not for the average soldiers. When training operations the Main objective of the training is to capacitate officers in making good decision. I think the US military spend almost 2 billion in a single training were high ranking officers have to performed well in a simulated environment with everything from logístics to tactics.
If EU joins the war, Russia will announce full mobilization which will make a few million troops as everyone in Russia has served in the military for 1 year and been through some basic training and know how to use weapons and heavy equipment.
In a way its kind of a futile speculation because it assumes that such a conflict would remain a conventional affair. That will never happen. If Russia concludes that it cannot survive, they will make sure that we will not survive either!
Definitely, the Russians wouldn't risk an all out conventional war with either the EU alone or NATO, they would launch their nuclear missiles the moment the West advances into Russia. It's their security measure that their country won't get over 40 million deaths and 80% of its industry destroyed in a conventional war (the USSR was already drained by the war with Nazi Germany, and the Russians would never want such a catastrophe to repeat)
it is futile for more reasons than nuclear war; Russia isn't alone and has allies, the West has more enemies than Russia. If you pit these giants against eachother, yeah both sides have a solid chance. But than again it would be WW3 and they'd have to spread their resources and frontlines. the country with the most manufacturing will win that war.
Also Eu/US has so many domestic issues to deal with aswell. There very well could be any disgruntled europeans who dont want to fight for a governemnt that is replacing them with immigrants who cold theoretically take the fight to their own governemnt to avoid a draft
I'm getting the feeling that without Russia as enemy and US as babysitter,EU army would be more dysfunctional than my family. I doubt anyone in Europe would be happy if Germany suddenly starts increasing it's army size just cause they like it. Hungary pretty much have some sort of territorial ambition towards all of it's neighbors,Albania as well. Balkan is mess in it's own. Poland just waits for it's objective to turn into "Survive" again etc.
Germany already increased their military spending to be 3rd in the world a couple months ago, search it up, pretty crazy, but most of Europe was actually celebrating it
>Combat experience beats any training and what NATO has for combat experience in the past 2 decade? fighting in asymmetrical warfare against a bunch of goat herder. They have been fighting these people for so long that they neglected their doctrine in large scale fighting not until China and Russia suddenly pop into their radar. Many Western mercenary facing the Vatniks in Ukraine then fleeing after facing a well coordinated 3rd generation warfare tactic shows that Combat Experience is worth next to a trash if the said combat experience is not suitable against what you're facing.
@@ni9274 "you think fighting the Ukrainian army will be the same as fighting NATO ? Cause clearly not." Ukrainian army is NATO-trained peer. What do you think NATO was doing in Ukraine in the past 8 years, creating a circus-tiered fighting force?
I spent almost 24 years in the USAF. I taught at the USAF School of Advanced Airpower Studies and the USMC School of Advanced Warfighting. You know your sh*t. I enjoy your analysis.
@@Ze_Moose If you mean, could the European armies defeat Russia, then I offer a qualified yes. So, what do I mean? When I was teaching at SAAS our unofficial motto was, "It depends." If the Europeans (and I include the Brits) can cooperate, then yes, they could stop a Russian attack and probably go over to the offensive. If, however, they do not cooperate, then I'm more doubtful. If the US is involved, then yes, the Russians can be defeated in conventional combat. But as the analysis presented here points out, there is what's on paper and there is what is available immediately to fight. Right now the US would have difficulty lifting a brigade to Europe immediately. I suspect a fight between NATO and Russia would either go nuclear very quickly or a negotiated settlement would be reached quickly. But who knows? Humans are rational, though we like to think we are.
@@wrayjohnson1905 Brits were the first to be skeptical about the European army because, for them, troops where you command in different languages are good only for parades.
Hey Alex, outstanding video as always! As an Italian who served in the Alpini in 2012, here are a couple of comments: - Numbers never matters. Italy has experienced a series of defence budget cuts in the past 20 years that led to a progressive reduction in size of our Navy and Army personnel. While in some branches (such as the frigates and destroyers) we are right now rushing to get some improvements in place, in other fields we are seriously lagging behind. An example? Our Ariete tanks. We have roughly 200, of which only 40 (yes... FOURTY!) are operative; - Experienced officers and NCOs. We simply lack them, as many of our officers come from the military academia (we call them "desk officers"). When I served in the Alpini, my platoon was commanded by a lieutenant and it was great to learn all the "theory" from him. Yet, if I wanted to know what to do in a specific situation, I would always go to the sergeant, who had 10 years of experience between Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. - Field rations. I don't want to trigger the meme that Italians are good in the kitchen, but our fields rations are envied by all other Armies as they are hydrofobic (they do not need water to be consumed). Which is a big plus, especially if you are fighting/marching in a mountainous environment and you already need water to stay hydrated. Thanks for your videos!
@@fraulens Greetings from Athens. I understand that there must have been alot of cut backs in the italian military budget, especially after 2008. I mean hell, in Greece there were cut backs while we are facing an existencial threat, bordering with the OFFICIAL Mordor. But you know what? In your case why not? Why should you take funds off education, healthcare and public services, only to dump them in stored rusting metals? Who threatens the safety of Italy? France? Austria? Switzerland? Greece? Even the mess that Libya became doesnt really pose a threat. Italy has an army because countries are supposed to have one. Im a graphic designer and reserve Combat Engineers sgt. I wish to God I didnt have to lose almost 2 years of my life (adding in the before and after the army dead periods) in the army and we didnt have to buy all that shit that not just take away from our quality of life but those military contracts are the main source of corruption. We are always pressed to buy more stuff and we cant even refuse, even the Greek Communist Party that is foundamentaly anti-war, recognises the security threat by Turkey. I dont know where this warmongering hysteria that came over Europe is going to lead us. I guess even the countries that have the luxury of secure borders and non third world neighbours will start giving money to the american industrial/military complex like there is no tommorow. As if the Russians where going to attack Europe anyway. This is complete madness.
Personally, I believe combat experience is more important than excellent training, cause you can do everything perfectly in training, but you may never achieve the same in real combat. Training is extremely important, yes, they make the soldier tend to survive several encounters with even battle hardened enemies, (so they have both good training and battle experience now, they are the best soldier the army can have) or get more advantage against less trained opposite force. However, no one can doubt a soldier who survived more than 1 year in the combat is mostly likely to be better in war than soldiers who trained more than 5 years. Since they know war, they know what the war actually looks like, and they may faced many situations which nobody actually teach them in training courses. It is more like the old veterans in movies always have some special “tricks” to fight against enemy, that s something you cannot easily learn from training.
If you just learned to drive a car you can't compare yourself with a driver that already has 100.000 km behind him. In real war you can't do everything "by the book" because the situation makes rules. If you don't adapt quickly, you are dead.
@@Bee.Holder Exactly, war is a nasty thing. There is the old saying, “no battle plan survived the first encounter with the enemy”. The war is nasty, and it change extremely fast. By book, people can be a good soldier, but probably never a soldier who can actually win the war.
@@michaelangelo5580 imagine a doctor with 5 years experience vs a doctor just out of medical school. you need life saving brain surgery. who you want operating? Dont be shy feel free to answer.
Short answer: Can the EU army defend against a Russian invasion? Definitely, gonna be hard but they will make it Can the EU army successfully invade Russia? No, they lack offensive capabilities Distinguishing the two scenarios is extremely important
Gonna be a hardcore one if It includes tactical nukes involved which could also cripple the limited industry, also Russian Subs could also cut through the supply lines like Germans did during 2nd world war. Although Radar techs have improved, and so Russian Stealth too.
@@Real_OSHA_Unsafety_Engineer What do you mean limited industry? You know that the EU has more industrial power than the Chinese or the Americans. They have huge industrial base and some of the largest industrial giants. They can produce everything from nuclear carriers to some of the largest aircrafts to the most sophisticated ground military vehicles.
@@napobg6842 Those are civilian factories.... You cant just use a computer parts factory and then expect to mass produce Leopard Tanks. They have the industry the problem is that their source is also from the Chinese, Russians, mostly for their natural resources. Why do you think colonization really expanded during industrial era? Why do you think the EU only sanctioned oil industry and not the metals, not the wood industry and the wheat and sunflower seed oil farms? It is all about resources, if EU has good processing and output but no input. The efficiency still remained the same. The same is true if you have abundance of input materials, but has no good processing and output, this is still has the similar efficiency. The thing is China has the input, the processing, and the output. Which made it a superpower industry.
It's a good old European tradition. Once in a century they gather together and go to fight Russia. Then they lose horribly. Then, for a short time, they think what went wrong. Then they forget it all and repeat. PS. Don't fuck with the Russian national security. Yes, it's that simple.
When it comes to combat experience vs training, combat experience is way more valuable. It is not only that one see what the enemy can really do, but also to experience the stress of the combat situation and to cope with the reaction of the body to psychological and physical affects. This comes with a caveat however, because the combat experience depends on the enemy fought. Similar the British colonial armies a century before. many NATO armies only have experience in warfare against completely outgunned enemies who lacked modern military capabilities and where the main danger were IEDs and ambushes, not missile and artillery strikes, and where air support could be called in at any time. In this case a big portion of the combat experience is not applicable to a fight against Russia. Furthermore, combat experience alone doesn´t let you discover tactical concepts. It is not that you learn a new skill once your experience bar has filled up. It is rather like with combat sports. You first learn concepts and techniques and then put them to the test in sparring and proper fights. The combination of good training and combat experience against different opponents yields the best results.
During desert storm Iraq had a battle hardened army, was very well dug in, and was facing green American soldiers. The generals of the Iraq army made all the same arguments you made - and then suffered a categorical defeat. War doesn’t fix bad training. It just rapidly eliminates the most incompetent.
@@codedlogic that and Iraq was completely bombed by US airforce, so the Iraqi army was already near crumbling even before US troops set in the countrry
@@oi2837 The largest tank battle the world has ever seen happened during dessert storm. It was a lot more than just the Air Force. Combined arms is a product of training. Modern day Europeans would walk all over the Russian “strong man” approach.
Hey Bro, (and I say that because I think you were former military) I am so impressed with your channel. You do so much research, it seems like you have a lot of insider connections, and it is apparent you know what you’re talking about like you’ve been militarily trained as well. Would you mind letting us know your background? I think I see a vintage Polish army (at first I thought it was French) helmet on your desk and like I said you talk and carry yourself like a soldier…👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼. Thanks
the problem is would all the nuclear armed eu contries fire there nukes at russia if a member got hit knowing that they will get annihilated for doing so but can avoid that by not firing there nukes
If we are strictly looking at this as an European conflict i think that most of the countries involved do not have nuclear weapons. I think its just france tbh. Of course the united states is considered part of NATO so the world would have to rely on them counter attacking which TBH i would not rely on, simply stated if a nuke goes off in europe the united states may choose to keep out of it because they may choose to avoid mutual assured destruction.
Why is it always assumed that a conflict would go nuclear? Hasn't happened once since WW2. Both parties have everything to lose under such circumatances. I don't think the Russians have any more of a death wish than western powers. Surely negotiations would take place first before MADness prevailed.
This isn’t necessarily true depending on objectives. There is no way a country would go nuclear over, say, making some territorial concessions in one of its puppet states. The US didn’t nuke Pakistan over Afghanistan, for instance.
You are extremely biased in favour of Russia. You said a lot about how European countries are not ready to war and half of their armed forces are incapable to fight and said that Russia have 12000 tanks, when in reality before Ukraine war they have 3000 working tanks and 3000 to repair, rest is trash. You live in Russia or Serbia?
@@dankengine5304 Yep, museum exhibits. I bet his channel is create just to please people who like Russia, he just want to get audience and views to get cash from it. He found niche ans want to get revenue. I must say that he is more balanced that channels with Ukraine propaganda, but still he isn't impartial. I just wait what he gonna say about Ukraine counteroffensive now, I guess it will be something like: "They achieve nothing and Russia is superior".
@@dankengine5304 Like EU only have a new one? 🤷♀ If even same percent as EU works Russia will still have outnumber war ready EU tanks. And after war starts will outnumber it moer since they do not send tanks to factory for mantains
@@delta_glider4362 - They don’t have to send tanks to a factory for maintenance because they can do maintenance in the field lol. Russia wouldn’t stand a chance.
Just think back to the Anglo French effort to overthrow Quaddafi, they had heavy ordinance problems in that war. I saw one report that the western airforces only have enough Air to Air missiles for 2 weeks combat. As for those F35s, 90% grounded because of parts backlogs out of Turkey. Now throw in that Europe is dependent on Russia for Oil and Gas. How can they gear up their industries to get their armies up to combat readiness with no fuel. On the other side of the ledger, if Russia fully mobilized they would probably go all the way to the English Channel. The only thing that would slow them down is reliance on rail transport If Ukraine was smart they would switch sides.
@@weskgaminghd2154 Right now... Russians are MUCH more prepared, and geting better at it daily, AND mostly keeping the best stuff "in the back" in case it is needed, like in this situation, all but a couple modern weapons, like Terminator 2 armored vehicle and a couple new missiles was kept back. It would not end well for the west if they get in, like Poland did with 3 BTGs (and one is supposedly already f-ed by Russians while the 2 other are kept from leaving by Ukranians) IF Russia would decide to test the new stuff, even if it is not available in large quantities like only a squadron of SU-57 or just 100-110 T-14 Armata tanks, or much more numerous T-90MS, or Iskander M which has almost twice as heavy warhead then Kalibr (something like 400kg vs 750kg but I am guessing), but being so advanced they would likely not need great numbers to say... connect Russia with Moldavia in a week or two, and then hold the line for years!
@@Lomnjac007 yea that’s easy to say but wouldn’t Russia be better off at using they’re crazy technology against Ukraine instead of wasting even more money on resources on a war that’s gonna last for a long time? Plus I don’t know if you remember WW2 Germany but now that Germany has topped up production them alone might even top Russia in the upcoming years. Although I agree maybe not right now there is still so much spare capacity that NATO countries can use while Russia seems to be going at max right now
@@weskgaminghd2154 well the newer technologies have a heavy cost to maintain and operate compared to older the technologies. Also there's a possibility that tech will be captured the russians don't want a damaged T-14 tank in the hands of the Ukrainians and the west. Why do you think they're mainly sending the T-72/T-60's
@@qualitydro9579 yea maybe so but it’s definitely costing Russia more casualties and although they have better equipment in the back I doubt that will match Nato when production is ramped up
Here is my list why EU army will have a disastrous war with Russia: 1) Ammo - Russia have more ammo than entire EU combined + US. And US won't be able to supply enough of it in real war scenario. Hell, US will be out of this war faster than you can imagine. It only takes 1-2 ASG (aircraft carrier strike group) to be taken out for them to completely withdraw from it. 2) Artillery and MLRS advantage - are the gods of war, that's all you need to know. Russia dominates there. No quality over quantity can ever fix that. 3) Pain tolerance - not a single country in EU is capable of withstanding the same amount of pain as Russia. 4) Trainings vs Real modern warfare experience on the biggest scale since WWII. Trainings are always perfect, conducted in best possible conditions, no threat, you are not trained to get shot or being under artillery fire. Real modern warfare is brutal and unforgiving. 5) War machine economy - EU doesn't even know what it is, let alone how to establish one. 6) Missiles - Russia have absolute dominance when it comes to long range missiles on land and navy. Best EU have at the moment is 300km range missile systems that suppose to somehow oppose 500km-1500km-5500km range missiles that Russia have. And you can't even comprehend the numbers of missiles they posses. Remember - they were "running out of missiles" for last 4 months. 7) Logistics - as much as people likes to say that Russian logistics sucks, it's actually the very opposite of it, and you can tell that by the amount and intensity of shells fired per day by Russia. Now imagine what kind of disaster EU logistics will be considered all different weapons, techs, artillery and the fact they never actually had reason to use it on such scale before. 8) Incentive for war and motivation to continue. Russia is not some Third Reich, they are not seeking for Jews, nor they are trying to do anything of the same idea of "one nation" and "one race" as Germans did in WWII. Did you know that Russia have over 300 nations and cultures inside of Russian Federation? The only way for this war to start, is if EU will be brain damaged and decide to attack Russia on it's own for god knows what reason. And finally 9) Gas and other strategic resources shortages which will collapse entire EU army, EU economy, EU military and civilian production, all from within one order of Russian president. I said Russian president, not Putin, because Putin is very liberal, calm, too damn kind and polite. Now, imagine that Medvedev would be the president of Russia, and you can be damn sure, he will be next. In short - EU should not start war with Russia, because Russia will most definitely finish it. Russia will never attack EU. Russia was never interested in this. Stop pretending to be main goal of Russia. They don't give a fuck about you for as long as you are not a threat.
@@groypersupreme2918 Were there (in the simulation) any hypersonic missiles like Zircon that Russian Navy has been armed with since 2017? Just curious. Because Zircon have range of at minimal 1000km, but real maximum range is unclear at the moment. Still claimed to be over 1500km, you just never know. Those are scramjet powered maneuvering anti-ship hypersonic cruise missiles. There are no defense against those types of weapons at the moment. Zircon attack will come from above, hitting target with such immense kinetic power, that it doesn't even matter if it detonates or it's wreckages falls. Either way, kinetic power alone is enough to destroy target. Doesn't even need warhead. E = mc^2 in modern warfare at it's finest. Russia have subs, frigates, cruisers, missile carriers armed with those types of weapons. There is also MIG-31K (K stands for Kinzhal missile) to attack from even longer distances over 2500km range and it has been used 3 times in Ukraine, possibly more, but other uses were not published. We know that one such use resulted in destruction of nuke storage facility deep inside mountains built by USSR to storage nukes In Ukraine. Object 711. It was supposed to withstand direct nuclear hit. That's pretty much all you need to know about kinetic power of those weapons. Don't be fooled by "Moskva" sinking incident alone. It was a good reminder for Russia that it's a modern warfare, and reminder for a crew that threat is real and it's not some insurgency they are fighting against, but entire west intelligence, satellites, AWACS and many more. "Moskva" had it coming. Russia learned that lesson. In fact because of that they are now ditching project 21160 from production lines, cause: "It lacks proper anti missile defense for modern warfare". However they already upgraded built 21160 with TOR-M2KM SAM so there is that as well. They fixed the issue on the current already built ships, but the project still consider to be outdated by modern warfare anyway.
Both training and Experience certainly Matter and Russia definitely has both. Their troops are certainly trained (arguably as well trained as Most European forces if not slightly superior). If i had to pick one or the other I'd choose training though because armies without experience do exist and they have done fairly well on occasions. I don't think there's a modern army that just doesn't train their troops though (and if they did it would end in disaster) and just throws them in the field to gain experience. Even the Taliban and ISIS or warlords in Africa train their troops
>arguably as well trained as Most European forces And where do EU soldiers got their battle expirience? In one way small scale war against AK-armed guerillas?
@@OK-yy6qz Do YOU? Trained of what? To fight and plan small scale war against AK-armed guerilla? That's definatelly help in full scale war EU vs RU ad worth to mention for sure.
@@delta_glider4362 Training happens in all kinds of Scenarios dude. All armies are Inexperienced unless they're in a country that's having constant large scale wars. Like i said experience is valuable but it comes at the cost of some of your most experienced, skilled and Trained troops turning into red Paste. Experienced conscripts with minimal training won't get you very far (not saying Russia only has those but they're a significant portion of it's armies). During WW2 US troops were vastly more inexperienced compared to their Japanese and German counterparts and they still dominated.
I'm confused about Russia's reserves. It has a conscription army. It calls up twice a year anywhere from 200 to 500 new conscripts who are sent to reserves after a year of service. If Russian government calls up those who served in the last 5 years it can get at a minimum a million of the reservists. I've seen somewhere a number of 2 million reservists available for mobilization. If you count all the ages eligible for a draft the estimates are around 25 million.
@@biodidu25 WW3 or a crisis? Cuz what I say is I think Russia has to do something about it and these are two possible outcomes A crisis is more logical to me and maybe USA & Russia making a deal to tell stop the ban maybe?
That was an amazing analysis. Nato countries rely too much on US. Could you consider to make a video about Greece - Turkey conflict? And what it would mean an real armed conflict between two Nato countries.
Greece would win outright if Turkey was the aggressor. The European Union has the Mutual defence clause which was introduced in the Lisbon treaty in 2009. Greece is a full fledged EU member whilst Turkey is not an Attack on Greece would be considered an act of war on The Whole EU if Greece attacked they would be on their own and they would lose. Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU) If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. Solidarity clause (Article 222 TFEU) 1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to: (a) - prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States; - protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack; - assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a terrorist attack; (b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. 2. Should a Member State be the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or manmade disaster, the other Member States shall assist it at the request of its political authorities. To that end, the Member States shall coordinate between themselves in the Council. 3. The arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause shall be defined by a decision adopted by the Council acting on a joint proposal by the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Council shall act in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Treaty on European Union where this decision has defence implications. The European Parliament shall be informed. For the purposes of this paragraph and without prejudice to Article 240, the Council shall be assisted by the Political and Security Committee with the support of the structures developed in the context of the common security and defence policy and by the Committee referred to in Article 71; the two committees shall, if necessary, submit joint opinions. 4. The European Council shall regularly assess the threats facing the Union in order to enable the Union and its Member States to take effective action
@@jalpat2272 If you read my comment as I said it was introduced in 2009 and believe it or not I believe to my memory it was introduced under request from Greece to the EU. The Cyprus war is irrelevant today to the Political environment and to todays obligations under article 42(7) of the TEU. lets says for arguments sake it does not fall fall through Which it will Greece has a separate defensive clause with France and UAE.
@@1DrBar Turkey is Considered the Largest Army in Europe bar Russia's. Numbers don't equate to Strength, Turkey is not the strongest NATO member inside of Europe. They have terrible Inflation and their Défense budget is really lacking in comparison to countries like France and the UK. Italy alone has a stronger Navy and would be more on par with Turkey which they have equal defence spending.
Actually, Russia have about 25 000 000 (millions) personal in reserve. This men becomes a reservists after their service as a conscripts while 1 year (or 2 years prior) of training. And now, up to 65 years old men can be conscripted again in the military while a wartime. So we must minus those who can't engage because of lack of health but we still have a segnificant mass of people already prepared for military. yeah yeah... We can't sustain manpower like this by now. But we need and we will in future, after hardship of 2022
During human history, 2 european combined armies invaded Russia... Both would become fertilizer for the russian plains... and apparently someone is trying to be the third...
@@Arikrog92 Hahaha swear? that's not what western mercenaries thought when they went to test Russian firepower. And it's not the russian people who are paying more for gasoline than for water and not creating public heating places so they don't freeze to death next winter.
I really agree with the analogy of Austria-Hungary there were many language barriers which stopped them from fully committing their full fighting force and winning the war
English. It's a thing now. I went to Norway and Denmark 5 years ago and was worried I would be paralyzed by the language barrier. 😂 Not only did everyone speak English, the freaking signs were in English too! None of the people we met were Danish or Norwegian. They were from all over Europe and they all spoke English too! I know people don't like it and it's not fair but when everyone just knows English it solves a TON of problems.
Although your experience is undoubtedly truthful, I'm not sure if that is the case across the whole EU because outside of the cities people meet less foreigners, they live in smaller communities where they don't really need knowledge of English in everyday life.
no, the Ukrainian army uses Soviet tactics of warfare, yes, there are specialists trained according to NATO standards, but there are not so many of them
@@yusufali5973 Stop lying. Reports before the war stated that around 15,000-20,000 Ukrainian troops were trained by NATO per year. 8x20,000 = 160,000 troops that are up to NATO standards and is actively teaching the rest of the military
@@categories5066 How many of those 160k are effectives at this point? Ukraine's foreign minister recently let slip 100k casualties suffered, they keep criminally feeding troops into the Russian artillery meat grinder.
Europe need Russia same as Russia need Europe. It was a massive mistake from Nato behalf to involved in Ukraine. All the European citizens we pay the price about it every day. Don't get me wrong I'm against any violence and war but after the Russian invasion all the prices in food and gas/petrol went up crazy cause of that. I hope they found any pieceful agreement soon but I highly doubt it 😕
The British like to promote that, it's a way to hide their sordid record -- running away at Dunkirk in the middle of the night, throwing down their rifles in Singapore in 1942 and surrendering en masse without as much as firing a shot, and getting kicked around North Africa by the Germans and even the Italians until the Americans and the French bailed them out. Their military record is shameful, it basically amounts to financing wars, getting others to fight them and arriving at the end to claim glory. Shameful bunch!
To many chiefs and not enough Indians. Along with the language barriers, equipment that cannot integrate with other countries systems. The security risks of sharing your equipment, tactics and doctrine with others. Also the inherent history of the countries and the greed that led them to this point. All of the western countries are obese from peace time and will always put themselves band their survivability above their people and their country
You have pointed out in other videos that Russians think differently. Thinking differently let Hitler rapidly take Europe despite France having the world's biggest and most experienced army. Russia may sustainably have that advantage. Part of conventional thinking is the assumption the next war will be fought in Europe while the USA sits mostly untouched and manufacturing. That is unlikely to happen this time.
@@engineerenginering8633 I'm reminded of a line from The Patriot (2000): "But mark my words. This war will be fought not on the frontier or on some distant battlefield, but amongst us -- among our homes. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes. "
Seems too complicated on the communication department imagine if you spotted a Russian shoot and scoot artillery and you gonna call for support if your army is not well known and lacking means to attack on your own you have to ask other nations for help and when the help is approved the enemy is gone the shell hits it's target and the bureaucracy blames you for not calling in early
Russia has 180,000 troops in Ukraine Ukraine has 710,000 soliders Russia is still marginally wining so how is that I’ve been seeing you everywhere coping In the comment sections about how slava slava and Yurop strong
@@MorrocanDarijaArab if Russia is winning why do they hold the same amount of territory for the last months? Why did they retreat from Kyiv? Why are they Rolling out t-62s? Why are sending conscripted soldiers? Why was the Moskwa sunk? Why did they retreat from snake island? Why do they fire so much artillery to achieve little gain? Why can't they capture one of the poorest countrys in Europe?
@@macrotaste6585 Ukraine is heavily mobilised Russia isn’t yurop was misspelled on purpose to piss you of Idk who you think you are but your in for a masty surprise
In my opinion, it will take years to prepare for such a confrontation. Production needs to be ramped up, then logistics needs to be figured out, the equipment has to be well maintained, and a lot more. Spending 2% of GDP on the military may seem like a great thing, but it's important to see where the money goes, not just allocating funds. Europe needs to be self-sufficient and not always depend on the US, if it comes to war then Europeans have to fight, not the Americans. The EU must first focus on localized strength, ensuring that each member can put up a fight and hold for long enough while the rest of them mobilize. Even if the US sends troops, they need to cross an ocean and then cut across half of Europe to make it to the combat zone, and then be present in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Until then atleast, local forces have to put up a strong defense to hold positions, so the EU needs to think about this more and gear up their military appropriately.
maybe you should just stop reinforcing your own security at the expense of Russian security and there would be no problems all Russia asked for is to stop expanding NATO, is that so hard? do you understand that by expanding NATO you threaten Russian national security? you can talk all you want about "open door policy", well you do not build global security by showing your tongue and taking a stance like that if you simply stopped expanding NATO, there would have been no need to increase any spending and you would have had bigger salaries, better car, bigger house and your kids would have had more vacations abroad. Now, instead of buying Russian gas for 10 dollars you will buy same exact Russian gas from Saudi for 30 dollars, or from Americans for 50. Do you really want your open doors that badly?
@@snowsnow4231 I don't know about that, I am not the one seeking conflict with the Russians. The leaders of Europe should think about this. And if Europe really goes to war with Russia, then it's goodbye world. As for countries joining NATO, it's their political leadership deciding that. Russia can blame NATO expansion all they want, but if I were Zelenskyy, after what happened in 2014 when Crimea was annexed I wouldn't trust the Russians even in broad daylight. And Russia is just using DPR, LPR and Nazis as a casus belli, their main goal is to isolate Ukraine from the sea and cripple their agriculture and industry, most of which is in the Donbas. Russia is responsible in some way for this as well. Other countries will join NATO because now Russia can't be trusted. And Russia is believing that being the top supplier of crude oil, gas and coal to Europe, it can cut off supplies and squeeze Europe into silence, which won't work. Of course the European leaders literally funded the war in some sense, but now they're going to look to switch suppliers. This is complicated politicking, which no one can fathom the depths of, both sides claim to be true in their own perspective, so it's better for us to simply stay neutral. I will say that Europe should stop relying solely on the US for its defense, and actually use that 2% GDP defense budget appropriately. We just watch politics and political clowns, while the ordinary Ukrainian people suffer and die.
@@snowsnow4231 "all Russia asked for is to stop expanding NATO" All Kremlin needed to do to prevent NATO expansion was to stop being a piss-poor neighbour causing everyone around Russia to bang the NATO door, demanding to get in. Is THAT so hard?
@@johanmetreus1268 Russia have built 90% of what you call Ukraine now, from nuclear power stations to roads, read some books maybe or something. Reconstruction of peoples economy of Ukrainian SSR after WW2 for starters. A book that clearly lists and documents combined efforts of every Russian region to rebuild Ukraine after WW2. Some regions have donated half of their GDP to restore that country. And you are telling me about piss poor neighbours. How much have you built in Ukraine? Did your grandfather go there and construct roads or factories? Both of mine did, so?
One of the problems is that in many European countries armies have become employment agencies. Also a lot of left wing governments don't like the military. In the case of Germany I would even say that the Bundestag wants to keep it weak.
@@KSmithwick1989 ...and than more than 50% are in storage, repair,... They buy ammo that is enough to fight a war that can only last a week if the enemy does not blow up it's depots otherwise it's game over from the start. For a modern anti-tank weapon it does not matter if the tank is a T-72 or a Leopard. They all get blown up. Most of the stuff that is bought does not work like it is advertised. Look at the F-35. The soft and hardware is still full of bugs. It takes so much time in maintenance it can hardly spend time in the air. It all needs massive maintenance and relies on computer chips that need to be imported from the other side of the planet.
@@letsgorandom1380 The problems with the F35 have been fixed, the plane is going into service all over the world. The difference between the development phase in the West and Russia is that Western nations have accountability offices that are required to report on such things. It's not a secret like it is in Russia with things like the T-12 and Su-57 which have such major issues that they aren't even being manufactured anymore but no one knows exactly what went wrong with these developments because the Kremlin isn't required to report to it's citizens (we know a bit about the development failures of the Su-57 but that's only because of the Indian government who was going to jointly produce it with Russia until they pulled out). As for computer chips, huh? The US makes a huge number of chips. You don't need an 8nm chip from TSMC to build a fighter jet.
@@letsgorandom1380 woah you have said some stuff, American fanboys might get a heart attack from reading this. How dare you criticize superior western technology, are you literally saying that American arms are overpriced overengineered maintenance hungry money drains? Insanity. To be honest, those weapons were never designed to be good in the first place. They were designed to sell to subordinate states to pump money out of their military budgets. You guys are being scammed big time and it does smell like neo colonialism. And you are being sold not only overpriced arms, but a whole range of products that got their way around the competition and free market, simply by being pushed down your throat by a political decision. And French, Germans, Italians are all paying to their overlord, keeping Americans rich and Europeans stuck in place.
@@KSmithwick1989 so you don't understand how military equipment contract works in Germany ^^ it is the true problem it is way easier for them to sell their stuffs to foreign countries than to their own army (true fact)
@@lukaswatts8422 The entire world ? Only Ukrainian are fighting in Ukraine, and NATO did not sent equipments in significant number. 300 tanks sent, Russia has 3000 72 M777 sent, Russia has 10 000 10 multiple rocket launcher sent, Russia has 5000 And Russia is using the DPR and LPR soldiers, they have the numerical advantage in the Donbass.
Can you give us an update on the Ukrainian war. The western media is giving updates on Ukrainian advances and retaking towns but I don’t know how reliable it is.
Europe like the USA is bankrupt facing inflation - sign of collapse, food cost - rationing of food, fuel cost (Europe has no Oil or Gas) rationing - are they going to use bicycles? Here in the USA sending over hundreds of billions of aid - while our country is failing. TENS of TRILLIONS in DEBT - it is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
The most important problem would be difference of interest. Eg. France, Spain and Italy won't really care about Eastern Europe problems with their neighbors, as Eastern Europe won't care much about Mediterrainean Sea and North Africa. This also overlaps with other issue, like who will command (it was greatly explained in vid, what may happen) and whos domestic produced weapons should be bought by the rest of fellow nations, not mentioning many other. "European Army" may be working on some surface level, but any deeper integration will end up with pulling influence between main forces.
As long as the European army has such commanders as it has political leaders, they will not even defeat a herd of oxen, let alone the Russian army! The European army is just meat in the meat grinder, which the USA spins!
@@isaks7042 Say again? I live in a European country and I don't ever remember my interests being protected or even spoken of in another European country, let alone in Brussels. If anything, our "partners" always do the EXACT opposite, if they do anything at all.
🇸🇰🤝🇷🇺🤝🇷🇸👍 NATO sú teroristická zločinecká organizácia. Mali by stáť pred súdom v Hagu za vojnové zločiny proti Srbsku. Všetci vtedajší velitelia aj politici zodpovední za nelegálne útoky proti civilnej infraštruktúre.
@@Slovakman23 I know, they attacked Serbia even though in Kosovo for period of 8 years before NATO strikes was 10x (TEN TIME) less civilian casualties than in Donbas before Russia went in. If you are with them you can be the worst dictator, kill civilians and do whatever you want, but if you aren't then even killing the terrorists makes you their target. Slavic people are still naive in believes that the west likes them, they don't, they just want to rule over because they think they are better while at the same time have fear because deep inside they know that they'll beat them every time if everyone plays by the same rules. They rich themselves with colonies and slaves, killing whole nations while robbing entire continents and now pretending like that never happened. WW1 & WW2 they started and if there's gonna be WW3 it will be because of them. I'm not sure about the government of Serbia because they all took money but I'm sure about the people that if needed will pick the right side, hopefully there won't be reason for that but you can't really know when you deal with that kind of individuals who don't care about anything except gaining more power to themselves.
I think that one can summarize the whole issue (analyzing the war in Ukraine, the posibilities of EU/NATO to win against the russians) in just this: This has to be treated as it is, a full symmetrical war between professional armies, the first (at least the first relevant) the World has seen since the 2 World Wars. Many political and military analysts in the West, let alone journalists and "people who gives their opinion", miss that rather obvious fact. They think Russia's having it hard cause they suck, not because they are facing a professional army which had some good intel and defensive positions already, and they think NATO can beat the russian easily, cause they could beat insurgents in M.E easily.
With us support, nato could easily defeat the standing russian army When russia fully mobilizes and europe has to fully mobilize, that might be different Nato has the advantage everywhere except with logistics when entering russia. Air power, industrial might, sea power, allies… Its no contest
@@kloschuessel773 russians did make a lot of mistakes. But had learned from them. On the other hand, the western vision of the topic is "haha rUsSiA sucks"; failing is one thing, but underestimating an enemy due to prejudgement is a way worse mistake.
@@eduardotrillaud696 russia wasn’t underestimated It was overestimated Russia cant learn from the mistake of having poorly maintained and due to corruption a lot of useless stuff Thats not sth they can undo in a hurry
3 underrated points. 1) Intel agency:-the war with Russia and the EU (without the US), will be won mainly in intelligence. For this I believe the Russians has improved vastly compared to the EU and the US.. one example to this is, the US knew the Russians was going to attack Ukr, but didnt know exactly when they would.. this is a failure in intelligence. 2) Types of weapons :- The US just successfully tested its hypersonic weapon, this is more than 4years from when the Rus tested their first and has upgraded it since the first. Moreso, they have tested those hypersonic weapons in battle as well, to ascertain its effective.. the whole EU does not have a hypersonic weapon... additionally, The Russia also have only the few tested defensive systems on earth, s400 and s300, the patriot and other air defensive unit are yet to be tested. And the RUs on record has the best EW capability on earth in terms of range and effectiveness. overrall, the RUS would win in this regard. 3) Patriotism: the EU has not been this divided in many years. if a poll is done in most EU countries, there will be a frightening number of Russian supporters within the EU countries. This against the Russian, where they can get a comfortable 80-90% support from within the Russians in the country and outside the country.. So i personally do not think EU (without the US) stand a chance in a war against the Russians.. Finally, if the US decides to support EU and the Chinese and Indians decides to support Russia, I do not think EU/US stand a chance either, (nuclear excluded)
I must disagree with you. While maybe Westen Europe might not be incredibly patriotic, Countries like Poland and the Baltics and other countries who were under the Warsaw pact see Russia much as like a oppressor who puppeted there countries and these people would most likely fight fiercely like the Ukrainians are currently doing.
Also it is important to remember Russia Relies heavily on old soviet Gear which is less accurate than European artillery with less of a range. A M777 howitzer with a excalibalur shell is extremely accurate with a range of 37 to 48 km far exceeding Russian artillery
@@lukaswatts8422 forgive me, I do not count the Baltic in this, because apart from the fact that they would be wiped off in 3 days at most, they still have huge Russian supporters in those countries. (especially, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia). Now the countries in EU that would stand out militarily are, France, Germany, Italy and the UK.. however, their patriotism will be questioned. So to pass this obstacle, they will need a populist government to get the necessary patriotism. About the Russia relying on old soviet weapons, thats a interesting myth the west keep pushing. Russians has since introduced new weapons, many of which they havent used in the Ukraine war, deliberately so. 1) S-500 2) T-14 Armata 3) BMPT-72 Terminator 2 (introduced to the war recently) ( there is a 2018 youtube video titled -->Russia's Military Modernization: Top 25 Newest and Deadliest Weapons ) the question is, what weapon has the EU (not US) modified since the 2nd world war.?? Also when one mention weapons, I dont think M777 should be included in the discussion, the Russians have hypersonic weapons, M777 isnt even effective against the Russian military in Ukraine. infact the Russians has showed a few destroyed M777 weapons. (check twitter). So back to my points. I believe the the Russians would have an upper hand because of 1) weapons 2) patriotism 3) intelligence..
"Europe can't win alone against russia" You are joking right? 850K active russians soldiers And using only 200K in ukraine? Yeah sure buddy, they are struggling in ukraine, if they had such an advantage, why not just send 800k men and deal with it? Oh, because they CANT. Same with tanks, airplanes, and everything, the only part that could be anything more of aformality would be the occupation, russia is very big, but apart from that, europe wins in every single aspect. Oh, and one thing, NATO
Μία απορία έχω. Πώς διαλέγεις κανάλια, χωρίς ελληνική μετάφραση. Αυτοί πιστεύεις θα σου προτείνουν το σωστό; Αυτοί οι φίλοι σε προδίδουν πολλές γενιές Ελλήνων.
@@delta_glider4362 Greece's only external threat is Turkey, a country that is listed as the 8th strongest in the world, And Greece could easily win a defensive war against them. So what is your point?
how would a EUROPEAN army function why if only we had some historic examples ... maybe some kind of Foreign Legion or, dare I say, a S.pecial S.ervices...
Combat experience is ALWAYS better IF the units actually learn from their mistakes. The saying "practice makes perfect" is actually INcorrect! It should be "perfect practice makes perfect"! If your training is faulty and you continue in that training on the battlefield and refuse to change, you have already lost against superior training. On the other hand, if you "fix" your faulty training and move forward, experience will win out!
@@ishu.7 What I mean is "No matter how well trained you are, if you can not or refuse to adapt to the ever changing environment of war, your training is valueless"..
Very bias being 🇬🇧 but without us, the EU would probably loose. The greatest asset for the EU would be the French airforce, and possibly the French navy with standoff missile strikes!
Just as an interesting fact that prior to Brexit, the U.K. was consistently against the formation of an ‘EU Army’ primarily because it undermined NATO and by any sensible analysis ‘just would not work’.
Why are Europeans so concerned that Russia might attack them? It is the biggest country in the world with all possible resources. Obviously they attacked Ukraine for geopolitical reasons, which have already been explained. But Ukraine is not Europe. If there is anyone Russia can still attack, it is Belarus, but it is a friendly country to them. It is even more obvious that unless we talk about nuclear weapons, Russia definitely has no chance of overpowering Europe.
great points, especially with bringing all the countries together, spain or italy are not threatened or care about russia at all and were it not for being members of nato, would like to keep good trade relations with russia for the sake of their industrial sector, in the same way germany does not care about france's wars in the sahel, sweden doesn't care about franco-turkish tensions in the mediterranean, etc
NATO is what brings them together and members of the EU. The EU isn't just a financial zone which is a common misconception, It has its own mutual defence clause introduced in 2009 under the Lisbon treaty. Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU) If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. Solidarity clause (Article 222 TFEU) 1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to: (a) - prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States; - protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack; - assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a terrorist attack; (b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. 2. Should a Member State be the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or manmade disaster, the other Member States shall assist it at the request of its political authorities. To that end, the Member States shall coordinate between themselves in the Council. 3. The arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause shall be defined by a decision adopted by the Council acting on a joint proposal by the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Council shall act in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Treaty on European Union where this decision has defence implications. The European Parliament shall be informed. For the purposes of this paragraph and without prejudice to Article 240, the Council shall be assisted by the Political and Security Committee with the support of the structures developed in the context of the common security and defence policy and by the Committee referred to in Article 71; the two committees shall, if necessary, submit joint opinions. 4. The European Council shall regularly assess the threats facing the Union in order to enable the Union and its Member States to take effective action
Combat experience is always better for an army and with training, it depends on who is doing the training. Same in Sweden, I do not think they could get a brigade together in a war and they have no equipment or airplanes, a handful of artillery or tanks, They had thousands of tanks and cannons. They were all sold off or given to other armies. Sweden only uses Saab Gripen fighter jets.
He said European Union not nato so that means no Turkey no USA bo UK so France italy Poland Germany Spain Sweden and other weaker smaller nations against Russia
At the moment Europe couldn't defeat Russia. And since Europe is heading for economic meltdown and Russia is heading in the opposite direction, there doesn't seem to be any time in the foreseeable future when Europe could build an army to outmatch Russia (which has already nationalised its military industrial complex).
both are headed for meltdown because both had a symbiotic relationship with eachother. Russia provided natural resource especially gas and oil, europe provided manufactured goods and of course money to buy amenities. Now both sides are fucked, europe is going to find out real soon that energy is one of the most important considerations any state can have. Germany will have entire industries shuttered and face a deep dark depression as will many other european states. places like Norway will become the new Europe powers. Meanwhile russia is going to find its economy badly damaged and advanced western tech no longer readily available. Of course china wants to take in russia as essentially a vassal state but whether the two can come to some sort of agreement is unknown at this time.
Don't say that, you might hurt the feelings of the people who think Zelensky is the second coming of Christ, rather than a corrupt and greedy piece of shit who doesn't care how many of his countryman die, so long as he gets a fat check from Joe Biden
Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today: ground.news/historylegends
ua-cam.com/video/eXKIR5T9gH4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/eXKIR5T9gH4/v-deo.html
24 official languages...how many official genders are promoted/accepted????
Please post new Ukrainian content. 10days no update!!
those vids of supposed Russian tanks getting wiped out is a little iffy to me if they are coming from the Ukrainian ministry cause they also had Russian tanks so its like that game i spy idk we had it in the usa where you look for slight differences in the 2 photos but anyway whats to say the Ukrainians aren't showing pics of their own tanks getting fucked up just to get more of my tax dollars sent to them where they say see we are kicking that asss
If you need to do something, call the Chinese.
If you need to do something impossible, call the Russians.
If you need it to work, call the Germans.
And the Americans?
And you don't need to call the Americans, they come themselves.
Amazing comment 😂😂👍👍
Nice. The US doesn't like being left out if defense contractors and banks can make money.
That's so deep
Can i come myself?
Reminds me of something squire had with an American voice over in war comedy stuff they do. You on the money with what you said probably lol
Combat experience trumps most training in my opinion, because you have actually SEEN what a combatant could possibly do and prepare against it.
>Combat experience beats any training
and what NATO has for combat experience in the past 2 decade? fighting in asymmetrical warfare against a bunch of goat herder. They have been fighting these people for so long that they neglected their doctrine in large scale fighting not until China and Russia suddenly pop into their radar. Many Western mercenary that was a former seasoned soldier with combat experience facing the Vatniks in Ukraine fled after facing a well coordinated 3rd generation warfare tactic shows that Combat Experience is worth next to a trash if the said combat experience is not suitable against what you're facing.
@@gattonero2915 combat experience can be implemented in a short period just as a change in doctrine can be applied. The Russians were used to wars like Syria and Georgia, asymmetrical fights as well, referenced from their immediate push to Kiev and other major cities whole bypassing major strongholds. Given even 3 months, any military can make the changes necessary to fight a war such as the one in Ukraine just as Russia has. Also, making the argument that the war in Ukraine is comparable to a continental fight is ridiculous. The Russians would be fighting on a vast front having to repell likely multiple advances instead of incrementally taking villages and cities in small regions.
@@gattonero2915 True, I should have mentioned that.
@@gattonero2915 china has not been in a war for a few decades now. Russia also only had assymetric warfare till now.
So what's your point regarding training?
@@VaughnCT0292 true
Hitler assembled a European army of 3 million to invade Russia. What is 300k.😂
What Ukraine HAD. And THAT is the answer.
The Soviet union had 27 million losses...... And he was fighting on 2 fronts without oil nor tons of natural resources and fighting resistance and disobeying generals at the same time...... Absolutely not to praise the dude BUT is Russia ready for this and are they the Soviet union?
@@MarketsDriveTheWorldRussia has lost many regions since soviet union fell. Ukraine was the soviet union that is a huge land with 50 million people back then
@@mikesmoth-v4w exactly!
@@MarketsDriveTheWorld Clearly stupid manipulation.
Soviet Union had nearly SAME losses of soldiers as Germany.
And if we add all other european countries soldiers in equation, then Soviet Union lost less then united German and others army.
Europe has nowhere near the industrial capacity for a war effort vs. Russia and if brussel's bureaucrats ever tried to enforce a draft you'd see riots in the streets, so the answer is No
The European Union has not been able to fight against Russia since 1949. Instead of Europe there will be glass
Europe has a much larger industrial capacity than Russia. Russia economy is tiny compared to that of Europe and also this is a hypothetical question
@@olcankanicok9125the Russia's economy is the 4th in the world 😂 It's not as big, but how is it tiny even compared to Europe's?
As for Military industrial capacity, Russia is producing more tanks and missiles than Europe and Murica combined right now. What are you on about?
@@KotleKettleyou are talking about ppp, but I am talking about the nominal gdp Russia has a gdp of around 2trillion compared to Germany which is at 4.4trillion.
It is correct that Russia currently produces more, but what matters is the potential the US industrial potential is much greater than Russias.
Not Europe is spending 6% of its Gdp into millitary around 40% of its budget into national security and defense and this allon for Ukraine. A war against Europe would force Russie to double atleast its spendings which would crush the russian economy.
Todays Russia is only a regional power only a shadow of its former self which has to ask North Korea for help.
Despite Russia produces more its not enough to keep up with its losses thats why the storages getting emptier and emptier
@@KotleKettle but it is useless to argue with a vatnik. Russia is only a regional power which the US today does not see as a threat
As one who served in the U.S. Army for 30 years, I think your analysis of the EU military capabilities and the American factor is spot on! Great job as usual in your presentation... although, I must completely disagree with your final point that "Russia" is a threat to the NATO alliance, it is very much the opposite - NATO is the threat to Russia and has proven to be the belligerent bully in the region for decades. Russia has been openly attempting to join the western alliance since the 1990's - the stated role of NATO became irrelevant as soon as the Warsaw Pact dissolved at which point Russia made MANY attempts to normalize relations with European nations and the United States. ALL considerations of this were completely blocked by the U.S. in order to maintain it's role in European affairs and rule by military strength. If Russia were part of the European community of nations then there would be no "Enemy"... "NO Threat"... and "NO Need" to further the NATO alliance and in turn bankrupting the American Military Industrial Complex and ultimately lower the standing of U.S. importance for military presence on the world stage. - I am quite aware that this is not a popular subject of discussion in the geo political reality of the world and the time we are living through right now, but this situation should have and could have been avoided had it not been for the political bullying of the United States and it's influence over the European nations that are truly in direct peril from allowing the U.S. and it's push for military superiority and control over European countries solely to ensure that it (the U.S.) remains the dominant military force and richest nation by weapons sales and military influence... No enemy = No need for vast military spending or a gigantic thug standing at the door ready to smash anyone, for anything, at anytime merely to maintain control over who is allowed to enter.
Excellent wide angle viewpoint!
Too bad Russia has literally never applied to join the EU, NATO, or west as a whole. They instead try to keep smaller countries around them to be their subservient nations. Russia would rather be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond.
The purpose of NATO is still there. To prevent the expansion of Russia. Look at Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. None of them were in NATO and they got invaded for it. Now Chechnya has been forced into Russia. Georgia will be invaded if it tries to seek allies by joining NATO. Moldova is stuck with 15k Russian soldiers in it's borders with no ability to join NATO. Now Ukraine has tried to join and they got invaded for a third time by Russia since the fall of the USSR.
The Baltics would be incredibly useful to Russia by connecting Kaliningrad to the main land. However because they joined NATO, Russia will never fuck with them.
@@ImBigFloppa - the fact is, is that they have requested to join NATO in the 90’s when Bill Clinton was president of the U.S. and he flat out rejected them and all attempts to normalize relations with Europe. Facts matter and those are the facts, it Europe and the U.S. that have constantly rejected Russia and pretended Russia was the aggressor… when constantly bullied, one has a right to push back.
@@archer721 No. No they did not. Russia has never once sent an actually application. They have just been "floating the idea around" for a few decades. If they wanted to actually join, they would apply.
@@ImBigFloppa eh? They Isolating Russia. how dafaq Russia can Apply
Combat Experience is important. We did all kinds of training before going to Iraq but it all pretty much went out the window as we learned how units were really conducting themselves when in contact with the enemy.
For instance, instead of getting out of our vehicles and fighting off an ambush like we did in State Side training, we actually stayed in our vehicles and exited the ambush zone while laying down suppressive fire. After armor was installed on our vehicles, non gun truck vehicles did not return fire as that would require opening the side windows which would make the crew vulnerable to enemy fire. The gun trucks were the only crew that returned fire after we were armored up.
Training must be done to set standards but Combat Experience gives a fighting force the edge. Having more Combat Veterans than non, adds combat effectiveness and confidence for the less experienced soldiers.
It is always like this, same in combat sports, sparring is one thing but a real fight is another totally different feel.
При этом, против вас не использовалось массовое минирование.
@@Денис-и8э4кэто бы не кому не помогло.
What you said is not even true by the basic field manual. When in a vehicle during an ambush, unless the way forward is physically blocked you drive through the kill zone gunning it.
Why on God’s earth would u get out in a kill zone, stopping the convoy to counter attack the ambush IF THE ROAD IS NOT BLOCKED! armor or no armor!
If it’s a blocking ambush you still have to get out to counter attack the ambushers. And if it’s not a blocking ambush then you would drive through the kill zone anyway.
What your saying if true is the result of degenerate commanders.
@@WorshipinIdols I would look at you jumping out of the transport under heavy enemy fire))
'Russia sighs': "This sounds familiar."
Russia never was invaded by all of europe
@@olcankanicok9125litteraly ww2
@@olcankanicok9125 Was by Napoleon
@@igor5874 yes Napoleon but not all of Europe
@@olcankanicok9125 Grande Armée was the largest army assembled up to that point in European history and it consisted of almost all European countries. It's not like every single country of that Europe but still
It is amazing that all of these countries are being teamed up to theoretically battle Russia. The mere thought experiment makes Russia look like the geopolitical equivalent to Thanos. It's just a weird thing to ponder.
"omg russia is like thanos (bad) and eu is the avengers (good) " fucking marvel capeshit brain
IRL Avengers.
Cause most of these countries are all weak on their own. Russia is a very strong country.
@@taelorpickel2830EUROPE...... assemble.
based+true@@dracoboomin6511
Artillery was, is and always will be the queen of battle. Once that round is fired, there is no stopping it. Rounds are cheap and artillery is easy to move and hide.
Actually you will be able to stop it just not cheaply, In India we had a radar that could track artillery and even motor rounds very easily called Swati MK2, the track could be maintained easily, but there was nothing in our arsenal that could shoot it down cheaply, so that radar is just used for counter battery fire since it's very accurate.
@Ma Ma
Artillery is "the god of battlefield".
@@homijbhabha8860 любой включенный радар, это как лампочка включившееся в темной комнате. Твое местоположение сразу же становится известным и на тебя наводят уже батарею РСЗО
@@homijbhabha8860 This is why russians left Snake Island. Ukrainians get long range artillery, and the defense become to costly.
And logistics are king artillery is worthless without ammo 😉
6 months of high intensity combat experience is worth 10 years of training imo. there is no greater school for war than war itself
Assuming the experience is actually applicable to the next conflict.
@@deriznohappehquite exactly. The US armed forces has a lot of counter insurgency combat experience but hardly any near-peer at all. You can’t just react to every engagement with fixed wing air support (like many of the fights were like) when the enemy have tons of anti aircraft weapons.
@@deriznohappehquite indeed.. good point
i did say 'high intensity combat experience'.. which implies main force units and not counter-insurgency. guess i should of been more clear. it was a rushed post
@@nkoehler337 well.. actually you can but usually the losses are substantial in pilots.. .. such as vietnam was. those sa 2's and mass aaa guns shot down a substantial number of planes and helo's
100% accurate.
One thing that is sometimes overlooked is that Russia only sent about 100-150K men to Ukraine. That means they are significantly outnumbered by the Ukrainians. But even with few men, Russia has been able to gain a lot of ground in southern Ukraine and the Donbass. Sometimes raw numbers don’t tell the whole story.
Totally agreed, even US top security advisors said only nato armies that can beat Ukraine in battle are US and Turkey. Even current German army or French cannot beat Ukraine on battle field. Ukraine got 800,000 men mobilized, they have ballistic missles, armor, artillary, good air defense.
@Samson When were they supposed to take it? Is that what the media said?
@Samson no doubt you got that info from sleeping joe
@Samson You do realize the map is becoming redder by the day?
And the Russians are 1/3rd the strength of Ukraine?
Normally, you need 1-2x the size to do offensive ops.
The west is literally paying for Russia's war with insane fuel costs.
We know how this will end.
The only question is what will Ukraine look like? Will it even exist?
@@dylansmd5072 Maybe tale a look at the map.
On two previous occasions when the united Europe was in military confrontation with Russia it ended badly for Europe. If Germany survives the war, its parliament members would have to pass on the way to work not two, but four tanks - 2 T-34s and 2 T-90s.
Keep dreaming.
And when was united Europe in a military confrontation with Russia?
Russia is weak both economically and militarily. Nobody is scared of the paper tiger
Yes but its not like russia is invincible
Crimean War, WW1 and the russo japanese war taken as examples
Lol what are you talking about?
@@patrickt601 В Крымской войне участвовала вся Европа. Всё что она добилась - это уничтожила один единственный город. Просто смешной результат, смотря на потери с каждой стороны. В первой мировой войне Россия не проиграла. Россия вышла из войны из-за революции большевиков, причём перед этим был проведён огромный прорыв на фронте русскими. Если бы не громыхнула война, то прорыв был бы поддержан и закреплён, а значит Россия бы участвовала в победном разделе со своими бывшими союзниками. Ну и русско-японская очевиднейшее предательство изнутри. И неготовность воевать в другой части России - это да, стало фатальным результатом для русско-японской. Но уже ко второй мировой СССР скинул в море миллионную квантунскую армию, что уничтожила более 40 миллионов китайцев - и это всего за пару недель! Просто рекордные сроки. А про захват непреступных курил и говорить не стоит. Высадка в Нормандии по сравнению с этим - лёгкая прогулка, а русские за кратчайшие сроки проломили сопротивление, уничтожив намного более плотные фортификации
@@patrickt601 no, Russia never loses, eventually
Do you know how some Russian commanders trained recruits before the battles in Chechnya? This is an old Russian method. The recruits were fired upon with real bullets. No, they didn’t shoot specifically at them, they shot nearby, they shot over their heads, in front of their feet, they shot at the shelters where they were. the Russians have a concept for soldiers - "shelled". this means that the soldier will not be confused under a hail of bullets, he already knows how a bullet sounds over his head and will not start to shrink and scream to call his mother.
Let there be peace in the world
Yes, but unfortunately unlike ukraine russia abandoned these emergency training programs lately, but I guess this war has proven how important they are
All that training and the Russians are getting destroyed in Ukraine
@@lkf627 because you are only being shown one side of the story.
@@snowsnow4231 I see Russian generals getting shredded by partisans and a virtual standstill in the war. Russia lost half of the territory it gained over the course of the war within *one week*, and is nowhere near close to recapturing it.
Russian technology is stuck in the late Cold War era; I have not seen a single Armata on the ground, and all HIMARS systems are still operational (the "proof" the Russians showed of the HIMARS units being destroyed showed explosions missing their targets, and the Russians routinely confuse HIMARS for other American-sourced transports due to construction similarities), while Ukraine is getting modern day tech. The Ukrainians have the clear upper hand. Russia is running out of ammunition and the materials required to repair their equipment are locked behind an embargo. This is Russia's second Afghanistan.
This is not the kind of training that makes units better at conducting operations. Training is important but not for the average soldiers. When training operations the Main objective of the training is to capacitate officers in making good decision. I think the US military spend almost 2 billion in a single training were high ranking officers have to performed well in a simulated environment with everything from logístics to tactics.
If EU joins the war, Russia will announce full mobilization which will make a few million troops as everyone in Russia has served in the military for 1 year and been through some basic training and know how to use weapons and heavy equipment.
Europe can announce full mobilization, they have 3 time the population.
@@ni9274 thats the thing, they dont want and never will cuz nobody will fight anyway
@@ni9274 but the question is¿ are Europe willing to go to war against Russia..and prepare to lose many soldiers
@@ni9274 you mean high density of population that can be wiped with one drop? Only the U S can stand in the way
I think that, that kind of war will end nuclear
In a way its kind of a futile speculation because it assumes that such a conflict would remain a conventional affair. That will never happen. If Russia concludes that it cannot survive, they will make sure that we will not survive either!
why would the young people of the western countries fight for globalist wef controlled europe, I would rather fight for russia than klaus schwab
Can’t blame them. We are pressuring them not the other way arounf
Exactly. That's why the only outcomes for WW3 are armistice or end of our civilization.
Definitely, the Russians wouldn't risk an all out conventional war with either the EU alone or NATO, they would launch their nuclear missiles the moment the West advances into Russia.
It's their security measure that their country won't get over 40 million deaths and 80% of its industry destroyed in a conventional war (the USSR was already drained by the war with Nazi Germany, and the Russians would never want such a catastrophe to repeat)
it is futile for more reasons than nuclear war;
Russia isn't alone and has allies, the West has more enemies than Russia.
If you pit these giants against eachother, yeah both sides have a solid chance.
But than again it would be WW3 and they'd have to spread their resources and frontlines.
the country with the most manufacturing will win that war.
Also Eu/US has so many domestic issues to deal with aswell. There very well could be any disgruntled europeans who dont want to fight for a governemnt that is replacing them with immigrants who cold theoretically take the fight to their own governemnt to avoid a draft
europe has no oil, tanks don't run on wind or solar
Agreed. The political will is a major problem. High casualties will also enrage the populace.
I'm getting the feeling that without Russia as enemy and US as babysitter,EU army would be more dysfunctional than my family. I doubt anyone in Europe would be happy if Germany suddenly starts increasing it's army size just cause they like it. Hungary pretty much have some sort of territorial ambition towards all of it's neighbors,Albania as well. Balkan is mess in it's own. Poland just waits for it's objective to turn into "Survive" again etc.
Польша ждет когда ее снова разделят ))
Historical ambition of Poland is 'empire from sea to sea' (from Baltic to Black sea) with Russians standing in their way.
@@ijustwanttogosailing8248 still seems like a much better idea than Russian panslavism...
@@vaclavskarda4415 it really doesnt.
Germany already increased their military spending to be 3rd in the world a couple months ago, search it up, pretty crazy, but most of Europe was actually celebrating it
Combat experience beats any training, no training beats the real thing
>Combat experience beats any training
and what NATO has for combat experience in the past 2 decade? fighting in asymmetrical warfare against a bunch of goat herder. They have been fighting these people for so long that they neglected their doctrine in large scale fighting not until China and Russia suddenly pop into their radar.
Many Western mercenary facing the Vatniks in Ukraine then fleeing after facing a well coordinated 3rd generation warfare tactic shows that Combat Experience is worth next to a trash if the said combat experience is not suitable against what you're facing.
This is why the Serbs easily beat NATO in the 90s.
@@gattonero2915 you think fighting the Ukrainian army will be the same as fighting NATO ? Cause clearly not.
@@deriznohappehquite Bruh nato only lost two plane, the Serbian lost equipments, fighter jet and 500 men.
@@ni9274 "you think fighting the Ukrainian army will be the same as fighting NATO ? Cause clearly not."
Ukrainian army is NATO-trained peer. What do you think NATO was doing in Ukraine in the past 8 years, creating a circus-tiered fighting force?
I spent almost 24 years in the USAF. I taught at the USAF School of Advanced Airpower Studies and the USMC School of Advanced Warfighting. You know your sh*t. I enjoy your analysis.
So do you think they could defeat them? 🤔
@@Ze_Moose If you mean, could the European armies defeat Russia, then I offer a qualified yes. So, what do I mean? When I was teaching at SAAS our unofficial motto was, "It depends." If the Europeans (and I include the Brits) can cooperate, then yes, they could stop a Russian attack and probably go over to the offensive. If, however, they do not cooperate, then I'm more doubtful. If the US is involved, then yes, the Russians can be defeated in conventional combat. But as the analysis presented here points out, there is what's on paper and there is what is available immediately to fight. Right now the US would have difficulty lifting a brigade to Europe immediately. I suspect a fight between NATO and Russia would either go nuclear very quickly or a negotiated settlement would be reached quickly. But who knows? Humans are rational, though we like to think we are.
He does....Russia wins everytime....they don't spare their "adversaries" !!!!!!!! They OWN modern warfare!!!!!
@@wrayjohnson1905 Brits were the first to be skeptical about the European army because, for them, troops where you command in different languages are good only for parades.
@@Bee.Holder English is the langua franca 💀
I’m from Mexico. Go Russia. Flick. Uncle Sam.
Hey Alex, outstanding video as always! As an Italian who served in the Alpini in 2012, here are a couple of comments:
- Numbers never matters. Italy has experienced a series of defence budget cuts in the past 20 years that led to a progressive reduction in size of our Navy and Army personnel. While in some branches (such as the frigates and destroyers) we are right now rushing to get some improvements in place, in other fields we are seriously lagging behind. An example? Our Ariete tanks. We have roughly 200, of which only 40 (yes... FOURTY!) are operative;
- Experienced officers and NCOs. We simply lack them, as many of our officers come from the military academia (we call them "desk officers"). When I served in the Alpini, my platoon was commanded by a lieutenant and it was great to learn all the "theory" from him. Yet, if I wanted to know what to do in a specific situation, I would always go to the sergeant, who had 10 years of experience between Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Field rations. I don't want to trigger the meme that Italians are good in the kitchen, but our fields rations are envied by all other Armies as they are hydrofobic (they do not need water to be consumed). Which is a big plus, especially if you are fighting/marching in a mountainous environment and you already need water to stay hydrated.
Thanks for your videos!
Italian soldiers on the Don 1942.....
@@daviddoran3673 Well, my grandpa was an Alpino and he fought on the Don.
@@fraulens Greetings from Athens. I understand that there must have been alot of cut backs in the italian military budget, especially after 2008. I mean hell, in Greece there were cut backs while we are facing an existencial threat, bordering with the OFFICIAL Mordor. But you know what? In your case why not? Why should you take funds off education, healthcare and public services, only to dump them in stored rusting metals? Who threatens the safety of Italy? France? Austria? Switzerland? Greece? Even the mess that Libya became doesnt really pose a threat. Italy has an army because countries are supposed to have one. Im a graphic designer and reserve Combat Engineers sgt. I wish to God I didnt have to lose almost 2 years of my life (adding in the before and after the army dead periods) in the army and we didnt have to buy all that shit that not just take away from our quality of life but those military contracts are the main source of corruption. We are always pressed to buy more stuff and we cant even refuse, even the Greek Communist Party that is foundamentaly anti-war, recognises the security threat by Turkey.
I dont know where this warmongering hysteria that came over Europe is going to lead us. I guess even the countries that have the luxury of secure borders and non third world neighbours will start giving money to the american industrial/military complex like there is no tommorow. As if the Russians where going to attack Europe anyway. This is complete madness.
👍
It is not iron that is fighting, but people, if people are able to sacrifice their lives and deliberately go to death, then such an army will lose.
Personally, I believe combat experience is more important than excellent training, cause you can do everything perfectly in training, but you may never achieve the same in real combat.
Training is extremely important, yes, they make the soldier tend to survive several encounters with even battle hardened enemies, (so they have both good training and battle experience now, they are the best soldier the army can have) or get more advantage against less trained opposite force. However, no one can doubt a soldier who survived more than 1 year in the combat is mostly likely to be better in war than soldiers who trained more than 5 years. Since they know war, they know what the war actually looks like, and they may faced many situations which nobody actually teach them in training courses. It is more like the old veterans in movies always have some special “tricks” to fight against enemy, that s something you cannot easily learn from training.
Imagine a doctor operating for a year and some students learning studying 5 years
Russia will win , they got experience
If you just learned to drive a car you can't compare yourself with a driver that already has 100.000 km behind him. In real war you can't do everything "by the book" because the situation makes rules. If you don't adapt quickly, you are dead.
@@Bee.Holder Exactly, war is a nasty thing. There is the old saying, “no battle plan survived the first encounter with the enemy”. The war is nasty, and it change extremely fast. By book, people can be a good soldier, but probably never a soldier who can actually win the war.
@@michaelangelo5580 imagine a doctor with 5 years experience vs a doctor just out of medical school. you need life saving brain surgery. who you want operating? Dont be shy feel free to answer.
Short answer:
Can the EU army defend against a Russian invasion? Definitely, gonna be hard but they will make it
Can the EU army successfully invade Russia? No, they lack offensive capabilities
Distinguishing the two scenarios is extremely important
No, it would not be hard to repel a Russian invasion lol
Gonna be a hardcore one if It includes tactical nukes involved which could also cripple the limited industry, also Russian Subs could also cut through the supply lines like Germans did during 2nd world war.
Although Radar techs have improved, and so Russian Stealth too.
But in a long war Russia has little chances to win. Except if they don't use nukes. Then both sides lose
@@Real_OSHA_Unsafety_Engineer What do you mean limited industry? You know that the EU has more industrial power than the Chinese or the Americans. They have huge industrial base and some of the largest industrial giants. They can produce everything from nuclear carriers to some of the largest aircrafts to the most sophisticated ground military vehicles.
@@napobg6842 Those are civilian factories.... You cant just use a computer parts factory and then expect to mass produce Leopard Tanks.
They have the industry the problem is that their source is also from the Chinese, Russians, mostly for their natural resources. Why do you think colonization really expanded during industrial era?
Why do you think the EU only sanctioned oil industry and not the metals, not the wood industry and the wheat and sunflower seed oil farms?
It is all about resources, if EU has good processing and output but no input. The efficiency still remained the same.
The same is true if you have abundance of input materials, but has no good processing and output, this is still has the similar efficiency.
The thing is China has the input, the processing, and the output. Which made it a superpower industry.
You need to REDO this video asap
I'd like to know his perspective at this point in the war.
It's a good old European tradition. Once in a century they gather together and go to fight Russia. Then they lose horribly. Then, for a short time, they think what went wrong. Then they forget it all and repeat.
PS. Don't fuck with the Russian national security. Yes, it's that simple.
xD The most russian version of the known history xD please nam at least one war from the last 500 years the EU "teamed up" against Russia.
@@RoozyyK Point me where I wrong, troll.
@@RustedCroaker I will but 1st do what i asked for... name a single war where Europe teamed up against russia alone :)
@@RoozyyK Almost all the wars, actually. They always make a gang before attacking Russia.
@@RustedCroaker if it's almost all the wars, then name one...where is the issue?
Yeah no winners only losers in a battle like that with the nuclear weapon factor
When it comes to combat experience vs training, combat experience is way more valuable. It is not only that one see what the enemy can really do, but also to experience the stress of the combat situation and to cope with the reaction of the body to psychological and physical affects. This comes with a caveat however, because the combat experience depends on the enemy fought. Similar the British colonial armies a century before. many NATO armies only have experience in warfare against completely outgunned enemies who lacked modern military capabilities and where the main danger were IEDs and ambushes, not missile and artillery strikes, and where air support could be called in at any time. In this case a big portion of the combat experience is not applicable to a fight against Russia.
Furthermore, combat experience alone doesn´t let you discover tactical concepts. It is not that you learn a new skill once your experience bar has filled up. It is rather like with combat sports. You first learn concepts and techniques and then put them to the test in sparring and proper fights. The combination of good training and combat experience against different opponents yields the best results.
During desert storm Iraq had a battle hardened army, was very well dug in, and was facing green American soldiers. The generals of the Iraq army made all the same arguments you made - and then suffered a categorical defeat. War doesn’t fix bad training. It just rapidly eliminates the most incompetent.
@@codedlogic that and Iraq was completely bombed by US airforce, so the Iraqi army was already near crumbling even before US troops set in the countrry
Yes, now the armies of Russia and Ukraine are among the most experienced in the world)
@@oi2837 The largest tank battle the world has ever seen happened during dessert storm. It was a lot more than just the Air Force. Combined arms is a product of training. Modern day Europeans would walk all over the Russian “strong man” approach.
Combat experience serves as raw XP while Combat Training serves as XP multiplier.
Hey Bro, (and I say that because I think you were former military) I am so impressed with your channel. You do so much research, it seems like you have a lot of insider connections, and it is apparent you know what you’re talking about like you’ve been militarily trained as well. Would you mind letting us know your background? I think I see a vintage Polish army (at first I thought it was French) helmet on your desk and like I said you talk and carry yourself like a soldier…👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼. Thanks
He’s from Quebec in Canada
@offroadguy7772 That explains his French accent and his good command of English )) I was curious about it.
But he doesn’t speak with that franco-qebecos accent, nor with a franco-acadien accent, nor with a franco-ontarian accent
When you threw in "THE MESSAGE" I had to double check I hadn't clicked on a critical drinker video by accident lol
Has russia ever been defeated in a real war? I'm thinking they haven't.
Chechnya in the 90s. Afghanistan in the 80s. Finland in the 40s. Germany in WW1. Japan in 1905. Britain and France in the 1850s, etc.
This argument means nothing because whichever side was on the verge of losing would go nuclear.
the problem is would all the nuclear armed eu contries fire there nukes at russia if a member got hit knowing that they will get annihilated for doing so but can avoid that by not firing there nukes
If we are strictly looking at this as an European conflict i think that most of the countries involved do not have nuclear weapons. I think its just france tbh.
Of course the united states is considered part of NATO so the world would have to rely on them counter attacking which TBH i would not rely on, simply stated if a nuke goes off in europe the united states may choose to keep out of it because they may choose to avoid mutual assured destruction.
Why is it always assumed that a conflict would go nuclear? Hasn't happened once since WW2. Both parties have everything to lose under such circumatances. I don't think the Russians have any more of a death wish than western powers. Surely negotiations would take place first before MADness prevailed.
This isn’t necessarily true depending on objectives. There is no way a country would go nuclear over, say, making some territorial concessions in one of its puppet states.
The US didn’t nuke Pakistan over Afghanistan, for instance.
You are extremely biased in favour of Russia. You said a lot about how European countries are not ready to war and half of their armed forces are incapable to fight and said that Russia have 12000 tanks, when in reality before Ukraine war they have 3000 working tanks and 3000 to repair, rest is trash. You live in Russia or Serbia?
The 12K tanks he is referring to included the old soviet era tanks kept in storage. The ones that also don't work.
@@dankengine5304 Yep, museum exhibits. I bet his channel is create just to please people who like Russia, he just want to get audience and views to get cash from it. He found niche ans want to get revenue. I must say that he is more balanced that channels with Ukraine propaganda, but still he isn't impartial. I just wait what he gonna say about Ukraine counteroffensive now, I guess it will be something like: "They achieve nothing and Russia is superior".
@@luk11c4 - Probably. He definitely won’t mention the situation in Izium.
@@dankengine5304 Like EU only have a new one? 🤷♀ If even same percent as EU works Russia will still have outnumber war ready EU tanks. And after war starts will outnumber it moer since they do not send tanks to factory for mantains
@@delta_glider4362 - They don’t have to send tanks to a factory for maintenance because they can do maintenance in the field lol. Russia wouldn’t stand a chance.
Just think back to the Anglo French effort to overthrow Quaddafi, they had heavy ordinance problems in that war. I saw one report that the western airforces only have enough Air to Air missiles for 2 weeks combat. As for those F35s, 90% grounded because of parts backlogs out of Turkey. Now throw in that Europe is dependent on Russia for Oil and Gas. How can they gear up their industries to get their armies up to combat readiness with no fuel. On the other side of the ledger, if Russia fully mobilized they would probably go all the way to the English Channel. The only thing that would slow them down is reliance on rail transport If Ukraine was smart they would switch sides.
Looking at Russias war efforts in Ukraine I don’t think the Russians are more prepared than the European countries right now.
@@weskgaminghd2154 Right now... Russians are MUCH more prepared, and geting better at it daily, AND mostly keeping the best stuff "in the back" in case it is needed, like in this situation, all but a couple modern weapons, like Terminator 2 armored vehicle and a couple new missiles was kept back.
It would not end well for the west if they get in, like Poland did with 3 BTGs (and one is supposedly already f-ed by Russians while the 2 other are kept from leaving by Ukranians) IF Russia would decide to test the new stuff, even if it is not available in large quantities like only a squadron of SU-57 or just 100-110 T-14 Armata tanks, or much more numerous T-90MS, or Iskander M which has almost twice as heavy warhead then Kalibr (something like 400kg vs 750kg but I am guessing), but being so advanced they would likely not need great numbers to say... connect Russia with Moldavia in a week or two, and then hold the line for years!
@@Lomnjac007 yea that’s easy to say but wouldn’t Russia be better off at using they’re crazy technology against Ukraine instead of wasting even more money on resources on a war that’s gonna last for a long time? Plus I don’t know if you remember WW2 Germany but now that Germany has topped up production them alone might even top Russia in the upcoming years. Although I agree maybe not right now there is still so much spare capacity that NATO countries can use while Russia seems to be going at max right now
@@weskgaminghd2154 well the newer technologies have a heavy cost to maintain and operate compared to older the technologies. Also there's a possibility that tech will be captured the russians don't want a damaged T-14 tank in the hands of the Ukrainians and the west. Why do you think they're mainly sending the T-72/T-60's
@@qualitydro9579 yea maybe so but it’s definitely costing Russia more casualties and although they have better equipment in the back I doubt that will match Nato when production is ramped up
Here is my list why EU army will have a disastrous war with Russia:
1) Ammo - Russia have more ammo than entire EU combined + US. And US won't be able to supply enough of it in real war scenario. Hell, US will be out of this war faster than you can imagine. It only takes 1-2 ASG (aircraft carrier strike group) to be taken out for them to completely withdraw from it.
2) Artillery and MLRS advantage - are the gods of war, that's all you need to know. Russia dominates there. No quality over quantity can ever fix that.
3) Pain tolerance - not a single country in EU is capable of withstanding the same amount of pain as Russia.
4) Trainings vs Real modern warfare experience on the biggest scale since WWII. Trainings are always perfect, conducted in best possible conditions, no threat, you are not trained to get shot or being under artillery fire. Real modern warfare is brutal and unforgiving.
5) War machine economy - EU doesn't even know what it is, let alone how to establish one.
6) Missiles - Russia have absolute dominance when it comes to long range missiles on land and navy. Best EU have at the moment is 300km range missile systems that suppose to somehow oppose 500km-1500km-5500km range missiles that Russia have. And you can't even comprehend the numbers of missiles they posses. Remember - they were "running out of missiles" for last 4 months.
7) Logistics - as much as people likes to say that Russian logistics sucks, it's actually the very opposite of it, and you can tell that by the amount and intensity of shells fired per day by Russia. Now imagine what kind of disaster EU logistics will be considered all different weapons, techs, artillery and the fact they never actually had reason to use it on such scale before.
8) Incentive for war and motivation to continue. Russia is not some Third Reich, they are not seeking for Jews, nor they are trying to do anything of the same idea of "one nation" and "one race" as Germans did in WWII. Did you know that Russia have over 300 nations and cultures inside of Russian Federation? The only way for this war to start, is if EU will be brain damaged and decide to attack Russia on it's own for god knows what reason.
And finally
9) Gas and other strategic resources shortages which will collapse entire EU army, EU economy, EU military and civilian production, all from within one order of Russian president. I said Russian president, not Putin, because Putin is very liberal, calm, too damn kind and polite. Now, imagine that Medvedev would be the president of Russia, and you can be damn sure, he will be next.
In short - EU should not start war with Russia, because Russia will most definitely finish it. Russia will never attack EU. Russia was never interested in this. Stop pretending to be main goal of Russia. They don't give a fuck about you for as long as you are not a threat.
It's almost impossible to sink a CTF. One Swedish computer simulation doesn't make it so. So many factors and units were left out of that simulation.
10 commandments🔥
@@groypersupreme2918 Were there (in the simulation) any hypersonic missiles like Zircon that Russian Navy has been armed with since 2017? Just curious. Because Zircon have range of at minimal 1000km, but real maximum range is unclear at the moment. Still claimed to be over 1500km, you just never know. Those are scramjet powered maneuvering anti-ship hypersonic cruise missiles. There are no defense against those types of weapons at the moment. Zircon attack will come from above, hitting target with such immense kinetic power, that it doesn't even matter if it detonates or it's wreckages falls. Either way, kinetic power alone is enough to destroy target. Doesn't even need warhead. E = mc^2 in modern warfare at it's finest.
Russia have subs, frigates, cruisers, missile carriers armed with those types of weapons.
There is also MIG-31K (K stands for Kinzhal missile) to attack from even longer distances over 2500km range and it has been used 3 times in Ukraine, possibly more, but other uses were not published. We know that one such use resulted in destruction of nuke storage facility deep inside mountains built by USSR to storage nukes In Ukraine. Object 711. It was supposed to withstand direct nuclear hit. That's pretty much all you need to know about kinetic power of those weapons.
Don't be fooled by "Moskva" sinking incident alone. It was a good reminder for Russia that it's a modern warfare, and reminder for a crew that threat is real and it's not some insurgency they are fighting against, but entire west intelligence, satellites, AWACS and many more. "Moskva" had it coming. Russia learned that lesson. In fact because of that they are now ditching project 21160 from production lines, cause: "It lacks proper anti missile defense for modern warfare". However they already upgraded built 21160 with TOR-M2KM SAM so there is that as well. They fixed the issue on the current already built ships, but the project still consider to be outdated by modern warfare anyway.
Well said…100% correct. Point #4, Tolerence for war. EU cannot handle losses.
Both training and Experience certainly Matter and Russia definitely has both. Their troops are certainly trained (arguably as well trained as Most European forces if not slightly superior). If i had to pick one or the other I'd choose training though because armies without experience do exist and they have done fairly well on occasions. I don't think there's a modern army that just doesn't train their troops though (and if they did it would end in disaster) and just throws them in the field to gain experience. Even the Taliban and ISIS or warlords in Africa train their troops
>arguably as well trained as Most European forces
And where do EU soldiers got their battle expirience? In one way small scale war against AK-armed guerillas?
@@delta_glider4362 do you have basic reading comprehension?
If you do can you please point to where did i say European armies have experience?
@@OK-yy6qz Do YOU? Trained of what? To fight and plan small scale war against AK-armed guerilla? That's definatelly help in full scale war EU vs RU ad worth to mention for sure.
@@delta_glider4362 Training happens in all kinds of Scenarios dude.
All armies are Inexperienced unless they're in a country that's having constant large scale wars. Like i said experience is valuable but it comes at the cost of some of your most experienced, skilled and Trained troops turning into red Paste.
Experienced conscripts with minimal training won't get you very far (not saying Russia only has those but they're a significant portion of it's armies).
During WW2 US troops were vastly more inexperienced compared to their Japanese and German counterparts and they still dominated.
I'm confused about Russia's reserves. It has a conscription army. It calls up twice a year anywhere from 200 to 500 new conscripts who are sent to reserves after a year of service. If Russian government calls up those who served in the last 5 years it can get at a minimum a million of the reservists. I've seen somewhere a number of 2 million reservists available for mobilization. If you count all the ages eligible for a draft the estimates are around 25 million.
Plus me... Volunteer for the Russian motherland...
very interesting. However, this discussion doesn't yet factor in Russias' potential allies in a European conflict...eg belarus etc
Also Hungary and Serbia. Also I wouldnt trust Italians.
@@Cortesevasive we are not the same anymore ahahahah (🇮🇹)
Iran? China?
quite minimal TBH.
@@islandwills2778 RUssias allies is still capable.
EU has come a long way but there is still a long way till they become comparable to a true single entity
Especially their armed forces
@@biodidu25 WW3 or a crisis?
Cuz what I say is I think Russia has to do something about it and these are two possible outcomes
A crisis is more logical to me and maybe USA & Russia making a deal to tell stop the ban maybe?
That was an amazing analysis. Nato countries rely too much on US.
Could you consider to make a video about Greece - Turkey conflict? And what it would mean an real armed conflict between two Nato countries.
Greece would win outright if Turkey was the aggressor. The European Union has the Mutual defence clause which was introduced in the Lisbon treaty in 2009. Greece is a full fledged EU member whilst Turkey is not an Attack on Greece would be considered an act of war on The Whole EU if Greece attacked they would be on their own and they would lose.
Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains
the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Solidarity clause (Article 222 TFEU)
1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State
is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union
shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made
available by the Member States, to:
(a) - prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
- protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist
attack;
- assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in
the event of a terrorist attack;
(b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the
event of a natural or man-made disaster.
2. Should a Member State be the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or manmade disaster, the other Member States shall assist it at the request of its political authorities.
To that end, the Member States shall coordinate between themselves in the Council.
3. The arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause shall be
defined by a decision adopted by the Council acting on a joint proposal by the Commission
and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The
Council shall act in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Treaty on European Union where
this decision has defence implications. The European Parliament shall be informed.
For the purposes of this paragraph and without prejudice to Article 240, the Council shall be
assisted by the Political and Security Committee with the support of the structures developed
in the context of the common security and defence policy and by the Committee referred to in
Article 71; the two committees shall, if necessary, submit joint opinions.
4. The European Council shall regularly assess the threats facing the Union in order to enable
the Union and its Member States to take effective action
@@jordanomasuin8023 tell that at Cyprus war
@@jalpat2272 If you read my comment as I said it was introduced in 2009 and believe it or not I believe to my memory it was introduced under request from Greece to the EU. The Cyprus war is irrelevant today to the Political environment and to todays obligations under article 42(7) of the TEU. lets says for arguments sake it does not fall fall through Which it will Greece has a separate defensive clause with France and UAE.
@@1DrBar Turkey is Considered the Largest Army in Europe bar Russia's. Numbers don't equate to Strength, Turkey is not the strongest NATO member inside of Europe. They have terrible Inflation and their Défense budget is really lacking in comparison to countries like France and the UK. Italy alone has a stronger Navy and would be more on par with Turkey which they have equal defence spending.
Actually, Russia have about 25 000 000 (millions) personal in reserve. This men becomes a reservists after their service as a conscripts while 1 year (or 2 years prior) of training. And now, up to 65 years old men can be conscripted again in the military while a wartime.
So we must minus those who can't engage because of lack of health but we still have a segnificant mass of people already prepared for military.
yeah yeah... We can't sustain manpower like this by now. But we need and we will in future, after hardship of 2022
How do you feed them on the field ? Easy in russia, impossible in poland.
During human history, 2 european combined armies invaded Russia... Both would become fertilizer for the russian plains... and apparently someone is trying to be the third...
They will use Ukrainians to fight their own kind
Humans never learn....
and now russians become fertilizer for Ukrainian grain. Russia today is a failed country. 20,000 Rubel a month and inflation of 16.5%.
@@Arikrog92 Hahaha swear? that's not what western mercenaries thought when they went to test Russian firepower.
And it's not the russian people who are paying more for gasoline than for water and not creating public heating places so they don't freeze to death next winter.
@@Arikrog92 The Rubble is stronger then ever. They have made record profits on oil and gas. What the hell are you talking about?
Eastern european countries like poland and finland are relatively ready for combat compared to the wesrern ones
An european militaryalliance wouldn't have to fight Russia, because without USA here in Europe we could cooperate and trade with Russia
I really agree with the analogy of Austria-Hungary there were many language barriers which stopped them from fully committing their full fighting force and winning the war
That wasn't that big of a problem the problem was unity
Also that
@@Wickedonezz that was so much of a problem that they had recruitment posters in 16 languages 🤦
English. It's a thing now. I went to Norway and Denmark 5 years ago and was worried I would be paralyzed by the language barrier. 😂 Not only did everyone speak English, the freaking signs were in English too! None of the people we met were Danish or Norwegian. They were from all over Europe and they all spoke English too! I know people don't like it and it's not fair but when everyone just knows English it solves a TON of problems.
I am from czech I hate to break it to you vast majority of us and east Europe can’t speak a damn word of English so that’s going out the window
Although your experience is undoubtedly truthful, I'm not sure if that is the case across the whole EU because outside of the cities people meet less foreigners, they live in smaller communities where they don't really need knowledge of English in everyday life.
@@janka1732 im sorry man I am! "Czechoslovakia", and eastern Europe, needs to learn English lol
The English language now is like American exceptionalism....it means diddley squat in the front lines....
@@janka1732 well maybe you need to learn it like the rest of us! 😅
Combat experience got to be worth more but I would think it’s difficult to get experience without training. Would have be one lucky son of a b****!
I miss your videos on the situation in Ukraine. Why don't you make another one, so I can promptly dislike it but continue watching to the end? XD
EU Army beat Russia? NO, but it could defeat itself. It's doing just that right now.
Ukraine has more EU equipment than the EU.
Russian army is getting humiliated by the poorest European country, Europe army would blitz to Moscow like Napoleon.
@@ni9274 what happened after Napoleon “blitz” Russia he was pushed back
@@ni9274 Anime PFP = No opinion + Napolean's invasion is what ended his army and France.
@@ni9274 And russians kicked napoleon's ass .
Weren't the Ukraine army trained to Nato standards the past eight years and given the latest weapons?
no, the Ukrainian army uses Soviet tactics of warfare, yes, there are specialists trained according to NATO standards, but there are not so many of them
@@yusufali5973 its almost like NATO doctrine doesnt work
@@yusufali5973 Stop lying. Reports before the war stated that around 15,000-20,000 Ukrainian troops were trained by NATO per year. 8x20,000 = 160,000 troops that are up to NATO standards and is actively teaching the rest of the military
@@categories5066 How many of those 160k are effectives at this point? Ukraine's foreign minister recently let slip 100k casualties suffered, they keep criminally feeding troops into the Russian artillery meat grinder.
@@categories5066 "that was small vilage with no practical use" vibes 😁
Europe need Russia same as Russia need Europe. It was a massive mistake from Nato behalf to involved in Ukraine. All the European citizens we pay the price about it every day. Don't get me wrong I'm against any violence and war but after the Russian invasion all the prices in food and gas/petrol went up crazy cause of that. I hope they found any pieceful agreement soon but I highly doubt it 😕
peaceful*
@@Topher_lope Thank you good sir*
Bot
Great analysis!! Thank you, AGAIN!!
The numbers are skewed all the french would throw up white flags and the Italians are likely to change side
Poor france is always mocked for surrendering but in ww1 they held the Germans for an entire year in one battle the battle of verdun
And brittons would wait till the end of the War on their tiny Island...
If the Germans had crossed the channel Churchill and Royal family would have been off to Canada double time.
Real quick, holland can be easily be put under water and Belgium is so small
The British like to promote that, it's a way to hide their sordid record -- running away at Dunkirk in the middle of the night, throwing down their rifles in Singapore in 1942 and surrendering en masse without as much as firing a shot, and getting kicked around North Africa by the Germans and even the Italians until the Americans and the French bailed them out. Their military record is shameful, it basically amounts to financing wars, getting others to fight them and arriving at the end to claim glory. Shameful bunch!
To many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Along with the language barriers, equipment that cannot integrate with other countries systems.
The security risks of sharing your equipment, tactics and doctrine with others.
Also the inherent history of the countries and the greed that led them to this point.
All of the western countries are obese from peace time and will always put themselves band their survivability above their people and their country
Muitos caciques e pouco índio
You have pointed out in other videos that Russians think differently. Thinking differently let Hitler rapidly take Europe despite France having the world's biggest and most experienced army. Russia may sustainably have that advantage. Part of conventional thinking is the assumption the next war will be fought in Europe while the USA sits mostly untouched and manufacturing. That is unlikely to happen this time.
USA will make profits from the war
what do you mean?
@@engineerenginering8633 I'm reminded of a line from The Patriot (2000): "But mark my words. This war will be fought not on the frontier or on some distant battlefield, but amongst us -- among our homes. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes. "
@@paolo3349 and that explains what?
Нет. Опять французы нападут с плесневелым сыром и бутылками вина.😂
Combat experience beats any exercises.
Seems too complicated on the communication department imagine if you spotted a Russian shoot and scoot artillery and you gonna call for support if your army is not well known and lacking means to attack on your own you have to ask other nations for help and when the help is approved the enemy is gone the shell hits it's target and the bureaucracy blames you for not calling in early
Yooo dawg let me google translate my radio call for a sec while we're under heavy fire.
Russia: can't defeat Ukraine
Cope legends: CoUlD RuSsIa DeFeAt ThE rEsT oF eUrOpE
Russia has 180,000 troops in Ukraine
Ukraine has 710,000 soliders
Russia is still marginally wining so how is that
I’ve been seeing you everywhere coping In the comment sections about how slava slava and Yurop strong
@@MorrocanDarijaArab if Russia is winning why do they hold the same amount of territory for the last months? Why did they retreat from Kyiv? Why are they Rolling out t-62s? Why are sending conscripted soldiers? Why was the Moskwa sunk? Why did they retreat from snake island? Why do they fire so much artillery to achieve little gain? Why can't they capture one of the poorest countrys in Europe?
@@MorrocanDarijaArab and Why can't you spell Europe right?
@@macrotaste6585 Ukraine is heavily mobilised
Russia isn’t
yurop was misspelled on purpose to piss you of
Idk who you think you are but your in for a masty surprise
@@macrotaste6585 “we got our rock back let’s go attack Moscow next says Zelenskiy the comedian”
One simple answer: NEVER!
Germany needs to join the BRICS and Russia.
Sorry, America don't let Germany do that
@@Glebati111 germans dont wanna help russia either america doesn’t make us do nothing 🤣
@@minerwolf56akbar45 you are slaves of usa. Enjoy high gas and electricity prices. Hope you gathered enough firewood for the winter 🥶
Germany can't. BRICS is for emerging powers
@@swift1793 it's a joke man
After the refusal of Russian gas, General Winter began to prepare an offensive against Europe.
Good. Let the orcs come. Not all countries have signed contracts with them.
In my opinion, it will take years to prepare for such a confrontation. Production needs to be ramped up, then logistics needs to be figured out, the equipment has to be well maintained, and a lot more.
Spending 2% of GDP on the military may seem like a great thing, but it's important to see where the money goes, not just allocating funds.
Europe needs to be self-sufficient and not always depend on the US, if it comes to war then Europeans have to fight, not the Americans.
The EU must first focus on localized strength, ensuring that each member can put up a fight and hold for long enough while the rest of them mobilize.
Even if the US sends troops, they need to cross an ocean and then cut across half of Europe to make it to the combat zone, and then be present in sufficient numbers to make a difference.
Until then atleast, local forces have to put up a strong defense to hold positions, so the EU needs to think about this more and gear up their military appropriately.
maybe you should just stop reinforcing your own security at the expense of Russian security and there would be no problems
all Russia asked for is to stop expanding NATO, is that so hard? do you understand that by expanding NATO you threaten Russian national security?
you can talk all you want about "open door policy", well you do not build global security by showing your tongue and taking a stance like that
if you simply stopped expanding NATO, there would have been no need to increase any spending and you would have had bigger salaries, better car, bigger house and your kids would have had more vacations abroad. Now, instead of buying Russian gas for 10 dollars you will buy same exact Russian gas from Saudi for 30 dollars, or from Americans for 50. Do you really want your open doors that badly?
@@snowsnow4231 I don't know about that, I am not the one seeking conflict with the Russians. The leaders of Europe should think about this.
And if Europe really goes to war with Russia, then it's goodbye world.
As for countries joining NATO, it's their political leadership deciding that.
Russia can blame NATO expansion all they want, but if I were Zelenskyy, after what happened in 2014 when Crimea was annexed I wouldn't trust the Russians even in broad daylight.
And Russia is just using DPR, LPR and Nazis as a casus belli, their main goal is to isolate Ukraine from the sea and cripple their agriculture and industry, most of which is in the Donbas.
Russia is responsible in some way for this as well.
Other countries will join NATO because now Russia can't be trusted.
And Russia is believing that being the top supplier of crude oil, gas and coal to Europe, it can cut off supplies and squeeze Europe into silence, which won't work.
Of course the European leaders literally funded the war in some sense, but now they're going to look to switch suppliers.
This is complicated politicking, which no one can fathom the depths of, both sides claim to be true in their own perspective, so it's better for us to simply stay neutral.
I will say that Europe should stop relying solely on the US for its defense, and actually use that 2% GDP defense budget appropriately.
We just watch politics and political clowns, while the ordinary Ukrainian people suffer and die.
Yes.
Western Europe support Eastern Europe.
No Munich agreement this time.
@@snowsnow4231 "all Russia asked for is to stop expanding NATO"
All Kremlin needed to do to prevent NATO expansion was to stop being a piss-poor neighbour causing everyone around Russia to bang the NATO door, demanding to get in. Is THAT so hard?
@@johanmetreus1268 Russia have built 90% of what you call Ukraine now, from nuclear power stations to roads, read some books maybe or something.
Reconstruction of peoples economy of Ukrainian SSR after WW2 for starters. A book that clearly lists and documents combined efforts of every Russian region to rebuild Ukraine after WW2.
Some regions have donated half of their GDP to restore that country. And you are telling me about piss poor neighbours.
How much have you built in Ukraine? Did your grandfather go there and construct roads or factories? Both of mine did, so?
It is highly unlikely to even imagine that one nation will bleed for other.
Look what happened to Yugoslavia TWICE!
One of the problems is that in many European countries armies have become employment agencies.
Also a lot of left wing governments don't like the military.
In the case of Germany I would even say that the Bundestag wants to keep it weak.
Right, because nothing says weak. Like buying Puma IFVs and Leopard 2 A7 MBT. Not to mention that massive budget increase.
@@KSmithwick1989 ...and than more than 50% are in storage, repair,...
They buy ammo that is enough to fight a war that can only last a week if the enemy does not blow up it's depots otherwise it's game over from the start.
For a modern anti-tank weapon it does not matter if the tank is a T-72 or a Leopard.
They all get blown up.
Most of the stuff that is bought does not work like it is advertised.
Look at the F-35. The soft and hardware is still full of bugs. It takes so much time in maintenance it can hardly spend time in the air.
It all needs massive maintenance and relies on computer chips that need to be imported from the other side of the planet.
@@letsgorandom1380 The problems with the F35 have been fixed, the plane is going into service all over the world. The difference between the development phase in the West and Russia is that Western nations have accountability offices that are required to report on such things. It's not a secret like it is in Russia with things like the T-12 and Su-57 which have such major issues that they aren't even being manufactured anymore but no one knows exactly what went wrong with these developments because the Kremlin isn't required to report to it's citizens (we know a bit about the development failures of the Su-57 but that's only because of the Indian government who was going to jointly produce it with Russia until they pulled out).
As for computer chips, huh? The US makes a huge number of chips. You don't need an 8nm chip from TSMC to build a fighter jet.
@@letsgorandom1380 woah you have said some stuff, American fanboys might get a heart attack from reading this. How dare you criticize superior western technology, are you literally saying that American arms are overpriced overengineered maintenance hungry money drains? Insanity.
To be honest, those weapons were never designed to be good in the first place. They were designed to sell to subordinate states to pump money out of their military budgets. You guys are being scammed big time and it does smell like neo colonialism. And you are being sold not only overpriced arms, but a whole range of products that got their way around the competition and free market, simply by being pushed down your throat by a political decision. And French, Germans, Italians are all paying to their overlord, keeping Americans rich and Europeans stuck in place.
@@KSmithwick1989 so you don't understand how military equipment contract works in Germany ^^ it is the true problem it is way easier for them to sell their stuffs to foreign countries than to their own army (true fact)
Damn i need to go to sleep its 1.47am
Ok imma go sleep~
Bro it's 4 here right now
As I already knew, EU doesn't stand a chance against Russia.
Russia is loosing against the poorest European country.
@@ni9274 SHHHHHHHH, DONT TELL THEM THAT COMRADE!!!! RUSSIA IS SO STRONG THEY CAN BEAT THE ENTIRE WORLD WITH ONLY VLADMIR PUTIN ALONE!!!!
@@ni9274 "loosing" lol Ukraine is being patch watched
Nato would crush russia easily, it wouldnt even be competitive
@@lukaswatts8422 The entire world ? Only Ukrainian are fighting in Ukraine, and NATO did not sent equipments in significant number.
300 tanks sent, Russia has 3000
72 M777 sent, Russia has 10 000
10 multiple rocket launcher sent, Russia has 5000
And Russia is using the DPR and LPR soldiers, they have the numerical advantage in the Donbass.
Can you give us an update on the Ukrainian war. The western media is giving updates on Ukrainian advances and retaking towns but I don’t know how reliable it is.
Europe like the USA is bankrupt facing inflation - sign of collapse, food cost - rationing of food, fuel cost (Europe has no Oil or Gas) rationing - are they going to use bicycles? Here in the USA sending over hundreds of billions of aid - while our country is failing. TENS of TRILLIONS in DEBT - it is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
people should maybe not even ask such questions, because the outcome is irrelevant and irradiated...
Russian artillery would absolutely tear them to pieces because of the high amount of soldiers.
Russian artillery would be destroyed by the air force
@@markbrandon7359 Russia has the best air defense system in the world
@@kristian9014 uhh debatable
@@kristian9014 Yeah okay Russian bot.
@@ChrisCrossClash Yeah okay Western bot.
Fighting russia in russia is impossible, ask napoleon, hitler, the polish garrison in moscow, etc...
The most important problem would be difference of interest. Eg. France, Spain and Italy won't really care about Eastern Europe problems with their neighbors, as Eastern Europe won't care much about Mediterrainean Sea and North Africa. This also overlaps with other issue, like who will command (it was greatly explained in vid, what may happen) and whos domestic produced weapons should be bought by the rest of fellow nations, not mentioning many other.
"European Army" may be working on some surface level, but any deeper integration will end up with pulling influence between main forces.
As long as the European army has such commanders as it has political leaders, they will not even defeat a herd of oxen, let alone the Russian army!
The European army is just meat in the meat grinder, which the USA spins!
I Disagree. European countries have more interests in common than they think.
why should west european care about east european problems when they buy american weapons ? We are not their janitor
True Isak but Europeans hate each other.
It's going to be every state in Europa for itself.
@@isaks7042 Say again? I live in a European country and I don't ever remember my interests being protected or even spoken of in another European country, let alone in Brussels. If anything, our "partners" always do the EXACT opposite, if they do anything at all.
Napoleonic Army 2.0 in the making
La Grande Armée
Napoleon attacked Russia wirh a allied European Army of 500k in 1813. He took Moscow but got his ass kicked. Left Russia with a few 1000 starving men.
Russia Russia Russia all honor all power all victory is yours, greetings from the united states
imagine rooting for a country that your own country give money to fight agaisnt🤣 you probably black
❤
I wanna see an alliance between USA and Russia now
@@laramieslater9433
Im russian and always wanted to see such alliance.
@@laramieslater9433 такой союз будет, когда появятся инопланетяне (шутка) или будет когда капитализм исчезнет и появится социализм.
Serbia will never fight against Russia because Russia was never our enemy
🇸🇰🤝🇷🇺🤝🇷🇸👍 NATO sú teroristická zločinecká organizácia. Mali by stáť pred súdom v Hagu za vojnové zločiny proti Srbsku. Všetci vtedajší velitelia aj politici zodpovední za nelegálne útoky proti civilnej infraštruktúre.
@@Slovakman23 I know, they attacked Serbia even though in Kosovo for period of 8 years before NATO strikes was 10x (TEN TIME) less civilian casualties than in Donbas before Russia went in. If you are with them you can be the worst dictator, kill civilians and do whatever you want, but if you aren't then even killing the terrorists makes you their target.
Slavic people are still naive in believes that the west likes them, they don't, they just want to rule over because they think they are better while at the same time have fear because deep inside they know that they'll beat them every time if everyone plays by the same rules.
They rich themselves with colonies and slaves, killing whole nations while robbing entire continents and now pretending like that never happened. WW1 & WW2 they started and if there's gonna be WW3 it will be because of them.
I'm not sure about the government of Serbia because they all took money but I'm sure about the people that if needed will pick the right side, hopefully there won't be reason for that but you can't really know when you deal with that kind of individuals who don't care about anything except gaining more power to themselves.
i'm convinced my mom could beat russia at this point.
A momma's boy like many Western son's
Is she immune to radiation? because u gonna get nuked.
@@17sapun lol whatever get rekt
I think that one can summarize the whole issue (analyzing the war in Ukraine, the posibilities of EU/NATO to win against the russians) in just this: This has to be treated as it is, a full symmetrical war between professional armies, the first (at least the first relevant) the World has seen since the 2 World Wars. Many political and military analysts in the West, let alone journalists and "people who gives their opinion", miss that rather obvious fact. They think Russia's having it hard cause they suck, not because they are facing a professional army which had some good intel and defensive positions already, and they think NATO can beat the russian easily, cause they could beat insurgents in M.E easily.
With us support, nato could easily defeat the standing russian army
When russia fully mobilizes and europe has to fully mobilize, that might be different
Nato has the advantage everywhere except with logistics when entering russia.
Air power, industrial might, sea power, allies…
Its no contest
Sure, youd still have to fight…
But: lets not pretend as if we didnt ser how poorly the russian troops performed, are equipped
@@kloschuessel773 this video says opposite
@@kloschuessel773 russians did make a lot of mistakes. But had learned from them. On the other hand, the western vision of the topic is "haha rUsSiA sucks"; failing is one thing, but underestimating an enemy due to prejudgement is a way worse mistake.
@@eduardotrillaud696 russia wasn’t underestimated
It was overestimated
Russia cant learn from the mistake of having poorly maintained and due to corruption a lot of useless stuff
Thats not sth they can undo in a hurry
Russia has already defeated the EU army in Ukraine
3 underrated points.
1) Intel agency:-the war with Russia and the EU (without the US), will be won mainly in intelligence. For this I believe the Russians has improved vastly compared to the EU and the US.. one example to this is, the US knew the Russians was going to attack Ukr, but didnt know exactly when they would.. this is a failure in intelligence.
2) Types of weapons :- The US just successfully tested its hypersonic weapon, this is more than 4years from when the Rus tested their first and has upgraded it since the first. Moreso, they have tested those hypersonic weapons in battle as well, to ascertain its effective.. the whole EU does not have a hypersonic weapon...
additionally, The Russia also have only the few tested defensive systems on earth, s400 and s300, the patriot and other air defensive unit are yet to be tested.
And the RUs on record has the best EW capability on earth in terms of range and effectiveness.
overrall, the RUS would win in this regard.
3) Patriotism: the EU has not been this divided in many years. if a poll is done in most EU countries, there will be a frightening number of Russian supporters within the EU countries. This against the Russian, where they can get a comfortable 80-90% support from within the Russians in the country and outside the country..
So i personally do not think EU (without the US) stand a chance in a war against the Russians..
Finally, if the US decides to support EU and the Chinese and Indians decides to support Russia, I do not think EU/US stand a chance either, (nuclear excluded)
Really in eu there are many Russian supporter? I know some country does probably but...
I must disagree with you. While maybe Westen Europe might not be incredibly patriotic, Countries like Poland and the Baltics and other countries who were under the Warsaw pact see Russia much as like a oppressor who puppeted there countries and these people would most likely fight fiercely like the Ukrainians are currently doing.
Also it is important to remember Russia Relies heavily on old soviet Gear which is less accurate than European artillery with less of a range. A M777 howitzer with a excalibalur shell is extremely accurate with a range of 37 to 48 km far exceeding Russian artillery
@@lukaswatts8422 really? How about that ua-cam.com/video/R2vK79LwScU/v-deo.html, 70 km with precise shell
@@lukaswatts8422 forgive me, I do not count the Baltic in this, because apart from the fact that they would be wiped off in 3 days at most, they still have huge Russian supporters in those countries. (especially, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia).
Now the countries in EU that would stand out militarily are, France, Germany, Italy and the UK.. however, their patriotism will be questioned. So to pass this obstacle, they will need a populist government to get the necessary patriotism.
About the Russia relying on old soviet weapons, thats a interesting myth the west keep pushing.
Russians has since introduced new weapons, many of which they havent used in the Ukraine war, deliberately so.
1) S-500
2) T-14 Armata
3) BMPT-72 Terminator 2 (introduced to the war recently)
( there is a 2018 youtube video titled -->Russia's Military Modernization: Top 25 Newest and Deadliest Weapons )
the question is, what weapon has the EU (not US) modified since the 2nd world war.??
Also when one mention weapons, I dont think M777 should be included in the discussion, the Russians have hypersonic weapons, M777 isnt even effective against the Russian military in Ukraine.
infact the Russians has showed a few destroyed M777 weapons. (check twitter).
So back to my points. I believe the the Russians would have an upper hand because of 1) weapons 2) patriotism 3) intelligence..
"Europe can't win alone against russia"
You are joking right?
850K active russians soldiers
And using only 200K in ukraine? Yeah sure buddy, they are struggling in ukraine, if they had such an advantage, why not just send 800k men and deal with it? Oh, because they CANT.
Same with tanks, airplanes, and everything, the only part that could be anything more of aformality would be the occupation, russia is very big, but apart from that, europe wins in every single aspect.
Oh, and one thing, NATO
еще один диванный эксперт =) но продолжайте думать, что Россию можно победить, нам это нравится.
@@ДмитрийРамазанов-и6л english please. I will asume you are just a russian troll
Alot of people fail to realize, Greece is very powerful for its size and, is probably the most combat ready EU member due to tensions with Turkey.
Μία απορία έχω. Πώς διαλέγεις κανάλια, χωρίς ελληνική μετάφραση. Αυτοί πιστεύεις θα σου προτείνουν το σωστό;
Αυτοί οι φίλοι σε προδίδουν πολλές γενιές Ελλήνων.
In war "for it size" doesn't work.
@@delta_glider4362 Greece's only external threat is Turkey, a country that is listed as the 8th strongest in the world, And Greece could easily win a defensive war against them. So what is your point?
Combat experience is better, look at european volunteers od ukrainean soldiers trained by NATO
how would a EUROPEAN army function
why if only we had some historic examples ... maybe some kind of Foreign Legion
or, dare I say, a S.pecial S.ervices...
Combat experience is ALWAYS better IF the units actually learn from their mistakes. The saying "practice makes perfect" is actually INcorrect! It should be "perfect practice makes perfect"! If your training is faulty and you continue in that training on the battlefield and refuse to change, you have already lost against superior training. On the other hand, if you "fix" your faulty training and move forward, experience will win out!
There is no such thing as perfection
What do you mean if they learn? If they survive to fight another battle you can be damn sure they learn
They may, but that doesn't mean their leadership will.
You mean Afghanistan had better training than USA ?
@@ishu.7 What I mean is "No matter how well trained you are, if you can not or refuse to adapt to the ever changing environment of war, your training is valueless"..
Very bias being 🇬🇧 but without us, the EU would probably loose. The greatest asset for the EU would be the French airforce, and possibly the French navy with standoff missile strikes!
I don't think an EU army could fight off a dose of flu.
Just as an interesting fact that prior to Brexit, the U.K. was consistently against the formation of an ‘EU Army’ primarily because it undermined NATO and by any sensible analysis ‘just would not work’.
you forgot that eu will lack oil to fuel their heavy weapons in a war. Unlike russia that has all the recourses and isnt depended on other countries
I remember one clown who said that 1 Poland could easily solo Russia...
delusional people...
And "1" russia could defeat ukraine
@@cheesebottle2844 not even 1 lol more like half
@@cheesebottle2844 Russia'd solo Ukraine but not with help from other countries.(Especially USA) Im talking abt complete 1v1
Why are Europeans so concerned that Russia might attack them? It is the biggest country in the world with all possible resources.
Obviously they attacked Ukraine for geopolitical reasons, which have already been explained. But Ukraine is not Europe. If there is anyone Russia can still attack, it is Belarus, but it is a friendly country to them. It is even more obvious that unless we talk about nuclear weapons, Russia definitely has no chance of overpowering Europe.
great points, especially with bringing all the countries together, spain or italy are not threatened or care about russia at all and were it not for being members of nato, would like to keep good trade relations with russia for the sake of their industrial sector, in the same way germany does not care about france's wars in the sahel, sweden doesn't care about franco-turkish tensions in the mediterranean, etc
NATO is what brings them together and members of the EU. The EU isn't just a financial zone which is a common misconception, It has its own mutual defence clause introduced in 2009 under the Lisbon treaty.
Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains
the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Solidarity clause (Article 222 TFEU)
1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State
is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union
shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made
available by the Member States, to:
(a) - prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
- protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist
attack;
- assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in
the event of a terrorist attack;
(b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the
event of a natural or man-made disaster.
2. Should a Member State be the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or manmade disaster, the other Member States shall assist it at the request of its political authorities.
To that end, the Member States shall coordinate between themselves in the Council.
3. The arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause shall be
defined by a decision adopted by the Council acting on a joint proposal by the Commission
and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The
Council shall act in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Treaty on European Union where
this decision has defence implications. The European Parliament shall be informed.
For the purposes of this paragraph and without prejudice to Article 240, the Council shall be
assisted by the Political and Security Committee with the support of the structures developed
in the context of the common security and defence policy and by the Committee referred to in
Article 71; the two committees shall, if necessary, submit joint opinions.
4. The European Council shall regularly assess the threats facing the Union in order to enable
the Union and its Member States to take effective action
just by virtue of geography, how likely is support from say, finland incase greece gets attacked by turkey?
Combat experience is always better for an army and with training, it depends on who is doing the training. Same in Sweden, I do not think they could get a brigade together in a war and they have no equipment or airplanes, a handful of artillery or tanks, They had thousands of tanks and cannons. They were all sold off or given to other armies. Sweden only uses Saab Gripen fighter jets.
Europe can easily beat Russia, what is this bullshit.
He said European Union not nato so that means no Turkey no USA bo UK so France italy Poland Germany Spain Sweden and other weaker smaller nations against Russia
@@ssglbc1875 and i said Europe and not NATO
half european army being gay does not much same as US, european green tanks also wont get far
At the moment Europe couldn't defeat Russia. And since Europe is heading for economic meltdown and Russia is heading in the opposite direction, there doesn't seem to be any time in the foreseeable future when Europe could build an army to outmatch Russia (which has already nationalised its military industrial complex).
both are headed for meltdown because both had a symbiotic relationship with eachother. Russia provided natural resource especially gas and oil, europe provided manufactured goods and of course money to buy amenities.
Now both sides are fucked, europe is going to find out real soon that energy is one of the most important considerations any state can have. Germany will have entire industries shuttered and face a deep dark depression as will many other european states. places like Norway will become the new Europe powers. Meanwhile russia is going to find its economy badly damaged and advanced western tech no longer readily available. Of course china wants to take in russia as essentially a vassal state but whether the two can come to some sort of agreement is unknown at this time.
russia inflation is 16.5% and will be 20% by the end of the year. russian average salary is 25,000 rubel. go spread your lies elsewhere.
How is a 12-20% drop in GDP considered not an economic meltdown?
Don't say that, you might hurt the feelings of the people who think Zelensky is the second coming of Christ, rather than a corrupt and greedy piece of shit who doesn't care how many of his countryman die, so long as he gets a fat check from Joe Biden
@@donaldhysa4836 Every army is fucked when come to urban warfare. History prove this.
After all from the Taiga to the British Sea:
The Russian Army is the strongest!
Fun to speculate about something like that, but the reality is that if that ever happened, it would most likely be the end of our civilization.
A European army will defeat each other, rely on the other side, blame xyz for running away, etc... It will be like a zoo.
"Austria - Hungary on steroids" 🤣 i loved that. ✌️