[ad_1]
I can’t even begin to calculate how much European defense spending should be deducted from nominal contributions. Because this money was diverted non-competitively from the cheapest suppliers available to subsidize local industry and employment. But while the amount in question must be very large, it is still as significant as the large gap between the nominal and actual combat capabilities of most NATO member states’ land, air, and naval forces. There are no problems.
Across Europe, there are infantry battalions, tank companies, artillery companies, fighter-bomber squadrons, etc., all equipped with all the necessary facilities and equipment for their respective roles, and most of them performing well. Some are working brilliantly. And even the least of them have a more military appearance than Israel’s tattered army in Gaza, but their only drawback is their actual fighting ability, especially against the Russian army. It’s a lack of ability.
This is a harsh judgment, but there is no possibility that any informed compatriot would disagree. Questions to several European defense ministers following last year’s failed Ukrainian counter-offensive, thwarted by long trench lines (longer than the Western Front of World War I) and increased Russian military troop levels. I discovered the same thing when I threw it around. army.
Anticipating a future that has become very predictable, my question was simple. If the supply of arms, munitions and money to Ukraine is no longer enough and you have to send NATO forces to stop the Russian forces, how much can your country supply?
The answers I received were uniformly zero and were not presented as the result of any strategic calculation, but simply as a de facto political necessity. As one minister put it very simply: If my government sends even one soldier to Ukraine, our government will fall from power. When I noted that his government had won a parliamentary majority for the first time, he replied that his (centre-right) party would vote against its leader if soldiers were sent to Ukraine. .
Next I spoke to some of the country’s senior officers. They frankly explained that the minister’s political judgment was politically correct, but also mandated by cultural reality. There are some very small special forces whose members would accept and perhaps even welcome combat duty in Ukraine, but apart from these there are at most a few hundred other soldiers, even volunteers. Even if they did, they would refuse to go to war in Ukraine. Officials explained that it was not their fault, but simply a reflection of a widespread pacifism that persists as long as one’s country is not attacked.
Engagement in UN “peacekeeping” missions makes matters worse because troops working for the UN habitually simulate the role rather than actually carrying out the role. Yes, as was tragically made clear long ago in Yugoslavia, where only the Danish contingent actually protected civilians.
Royal Air Force bombing mission carried out against Houthi targets in Yemen using Eurofighter Typhoon An attack from Cyprus would be a major threat to other European and Mediterranean economies, given that Yemen has no air defenses to stop airstrikes, while Houthi attacks have had a number of impacts on other European and Mediterranean economies as well. It raised the question of what the Air Force would do.
Of course, there are other requirements that must be met, such as concealed missiles and the difficulty of targeting drones, but interviews with executives from two other air forces that also operate the Eurofighter say they are He said there was no chance. It will bomb the Houthis like the Royal Air Force.
First, both governments will never send them to bomb the Houthis. This aggressive bombing act is said to have been “never before in our country.” Secondly, it is a 3,000 km round trip operation from Cyprus, and the necessary aerial refueling is unlikely to actually take place, and it has never traveled very far from home.
Based on a few conversations, we can’t jump to definite conclusions on such a big issue, but the general “post-heroic culture” that conditions many of them makes us wonder about the actual combat capabilities of many people. I think it raises very serious questions. Under no circumstances would most NATO forces, if any at all, be in immediate self-defense.
For the British military, its forces are generally severely reduced in personnel, spread across many different types of troops and units, and severely affected by unmanned warships, including unmanned warships housed in numerous bases occupied in depopulated areas. Although plagued by inefficiency, it provides important consolation. It’s a real fighting force, not just a simulation that may look like an army but can’t actually fight.
[ad_2]
Source link
