Ukraine which started this war with almost no air force, navy and Soviet era weapons, forced them to a virtual stalemate and had them ask North Korea for help.
Put France, UK, Canada and a few others together, and they aren’t losing a conventional war by anyone.
The only danger to NATO without the US is the US. And I guess China. The NATO countries bordering Russia alone could dominate Russia in a conventional war. Britain and France have nuclear arsenals large enough to obliterate the world* (I wonder at what point larger arsenals become redundant.)
NATO would likely be fine without the US, unless the US wanted to threaten NATO. Which feels plausible now.
*K. Point taken. No they don’t. I suppose my point is NATO without the US has a nuclear deterrent, as they call it.
Finland alone has been preparing since 44, incase it has to stand alone again in case russia wants a repeat
As Ukraine has shown definitely strong enough to beat Russia
The biggest “threat” would be the US and it’s unpredictable leader
The biggest loss would be the nukes
The issue is politics, not military power. We are divided and not interested in defending our allies.
Let’s try to assess it with a comprehensive approach. If we are talking about numbers (sheer strength) — France would probably be the strongest among others. UK, probably a few others have less soldiers, but +- the same diverse equipment (- nukes), but also less in numbers than France.
At this stage of russian exhaustion, France with a small assistance of allies can pulverize european part of russia easily (this is the most gentrified area with the most military industry complex per 1000 km²). Destroy all refineries, factories, ⚡ system — boom, russia is done.
90% of the russia’s elite are just an opportunity-hunger ppl, they are not some ideal fascists to unite under putin just cause they hate the west or love the motherland. Show them the imminent demise of their “leader” and they will help you by stabbing him in the back.
If the European part of NATO would face an existential threat, then it would be very strong. At this point we are still in the phase “We kinda hoped that all the rest of you guys would’ve followed suit, disarmed yourselves and stopped wars for good.”
Because what’s making the situation so painful for European countries today is that basically our whole current system is based on the wish that since Cold War ended, no wars would have to be fought anymore, so most of us have Armed Forces in name only. European nations spent a lot of money on defense before, and to again get to even remotely same level, it would require an eye-watering amount of spending in a situation where all EU nations have shit economies.
The question Is, would the French, English etc put a boot on the ground if let’s say a Baltic country is under attack by a country with nuclear weapons?
Not that strong as a ex general speaks out in Belgium. Cuz EU needs the US in terms of intel information that is require for fighting Russia.
By military power – very strong. Mainly because of possibility to quickly gain air superiority.
By morale – very-very weak. Partly because USA lobbied so since the end of WW2. And only because USA’s “let’s invest into China!” strategy backfired by the same way as it was with industrialization of USSR, USA was forced to start to change it.
You didn’t say how you define “strong” so I’m going to assume that we are comparing NATO without USA to Russia. Here are some selected points (figures as of 2024):
– Military personnel: 1.9m NATO vs 1.1m Russia
– Combat aircraft: 2.4k NATO vs 1.4k Russia
– Tanks: 6.6k NATO vs 2k Russia
– France and UK providing enough nuclear arsenal for maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent (MAD).
Source: IISS Military Balance
EDIT: Added a point about the nuclear deterrent.
If even just Poland alone would join ukraine, they would be able to fight off russia. The orcs can barely push back ukrainian troops alone, even just adding poland would nearly double the number of western troops.
If all of NATO (even excluding the US) would fully commit to fighting russia in a conventional war on the ground, they would easily take a bunch of russian territory.
I think the main loss of capability for NATO without the US would be in long distance logistics. Like without the american transport capabilities and network of bases, Nato couldnt project any serious power outside of europe. But then again they also wouldn’t need to. As europe and canada don’t have that aspiration anyway. At least for now.
If you take nukes out of the equation Europe could still defend any country against Russia or any other threat. On the long term rest of Europe could annihilate Russia with conventional weapons
Depend what is the point of “strong”
UK and France have nuclear deterrence and they can help others build up theirs.
As force projection, we still have UK, France and Italy with some sort of medium / long range reach, but we don’t have any sort of serius long range strategic bombing, or Lift/Shipping force.
As armed force structure we are generally well redundant, since every nation has his own command and training structure, the equipment isn’t bat, but is… too eclectic, logistic will be still hell.
The problems are the following unity of political intent, and deep of magazines, and generally speaking production capacity, but many nation can produce a good range of weapons, not in number.
So… we need at least to seriusly ramp up ammo and weapons and start adapt what we have learned from the ukraine battlefield.
And anti ship missiles, we need more and more capable, becouse at that point we need to game that the USA are a hostile force that need to be discouraged, and we can copy some chinesse homework, a good chunk of USA power is AIR and SEA, russian are a joke at that level, but still a menance, and the Chinese are bulding up.
a lot of conficts and wars occur because certain countries to manipulate a change in other countries and/or try ot steal whatever countries resources or they have a quazi war with their warring opposite in another country again probably resource grabs, the only reason war still happens is because its profitable
One of the main issues is that NATO relies strongly on US military tech. In the case of a NATO without them, we shouldn’t rely on an external tech agent, we should develop our own systems, and we’re way behind on this.
Nato is still pretty strong without America tbh. It would definitely still be able to deal with Russia I reckon if it had a war with it.
It’s a tiger.
Made of paper.
I fear for the future, because while the Americans seem to clearly want to get out, Europeans leaders are asleep and dont want to wake up.
If EU had a standalone army it would be the second largest after China and second best equipped after the US. Enough said.
NATO is obviously strong on paper, but ultimately it comes down to commitment and political will. Will the member states, especially the nuclear powers, actually deploy their own military forces to defend a Baltic country if Russia invades? That is the question.
Sooner or later the USA will realise they become weaker with all these isolation policies. Not stronger.
The question is irrelevant. The NATO is a tool created and used by the USA. Without the US, it will cease to exist since it’ll be pointless.
Russia invades Eastern Europe; Trump comes to Russia’s defense. Trump wants a Trump Tower in Moscow.
the problem is thats its not a plug and play system. NATO is not an army first , its an *organization.*
EVERYTHING is integrated , communications, logistics, maintenance, strategy
remove the USA and you need to rethink the entire thing
Europe has 2 million professionals soldiers. And wealth. Russia doesn’t stand a chance. If it had the political will. Which it doesn’t. Oh, and fuck Russia.
I posted this earlier today:
To put NATO spending in perspective. All the European NATO allies together already have a higher military spending than Russia. Actually they would place as the third highest military spender in the world at 270 billion annually.
1. USA – 890 billion
2. China – 290 billion
3. Europe NATO – 270 billion
4. Russia – 109 billion
5. India – 89 billion
Sources – there is a slight discrepancy between the two sources with the US spending 890bn USD according to NATO and 916bn according to SIPRI. So take the numbers with a grain of salt.
But US defense spending is insane and definitely an outlier. You can’t really compare it to anyone else. It’s even higher than the rest of the top 5 put together.
We can easily outspend Russia because our economies are a lot bigger. However getting more personnel is tricky.
Edit: these are 2023 numbers and don’t include the new members Finland and Sweden. Also I have not counted Turkey in the NATO Europe.
Not strong enough yet, MUCH stronger than its rivals and adversaries will be comfortable with in future.
They will rue the day when the woke up a sleeping giant.
NATO without the US would only be credible within Europe
I doubt European countries would save say Canada from an US invasion
US army is blown out of proportions, the European countries still have very strong armies with a large manufacturing base.
At this point, probably stronger… the states are not with it’s allies now, trump wants to rule ‘murica till his death.
That is some dictator level aspirations right there.
I believe Turkey has the second largest military force in NATO, behind the US, as far as personnel go.
31 comments
France alone could wipe the floor with Russia.
Ukraine which started this war with almost no air force, navy and Soviet era weapons, forced them to a virtual stalemate and had them ask North Korea for help.
Put France, UK, Canada and a few others together, and they aren’t losing a conventional war by anyone.
The only danger to NATO without the US is the US. And I guess China. The NATO countries bordering Russia alone could dominate Russia in a conventional war. Britain and France have nuclear arsenals large enough to obliterate the world* (I wonder at what point larger arsenals become redundant.)
NATO would likely be fine without the US, unless the US wanted to threaten NATO. Which feels plausible now.
*K. Point taken. No they don’t. I suppose my point is NATO without the US has a nuclear deterrent, as they call it.
Finland alone has been preparing since 44, incase it has to stand alone again in case russia wants a repeat
As Ukraine has shown definitely strong enough to beat Russia
The biggest “threat” would be the US and it’s unpredictable leader
The biggest loss would be the nukes
The issue is politics, not military power. We are divided and not interested in defending our allies.
Let’s try to assess it with a comprehensive approach. If we are talking about numbers (sheer strength) — France would probably be the strongest among others. UK, probably a few others have less soldiers, but +- the same diverse equipment (- nukes), but also less in numbers than France.
At this stage of russian exhaustion, France with a small assistance of allies can pulverize european part of russia easily (this is the most gentrified area with the most military industry complex per 1000 km²). Destroy all refineries, factories, ⚡ system — boom, russia is done.
90% of the russia’s elite are just an opportunity-hunger ppl, they are not some ideal fascists to unite under putin just cause they hate the west or love the motherland. Show them the imminent demise of their “leader” and they will help you by stabbing him in the back.
If the European part of NATO would face an existential threat, then it would be very strong. At this point we are still in the phase “We kinda hoped that all the rest of you guys would’ve followed suit, disarmed yourselves and stopped wars for good.”
Because what’s making the situation so painful for European countries today is that basically our whole current system is based on the wish that since Cold War ended, no wars would have to be fought anymore, so most of us have Armed Forces in name only. European nations spent a lot of money on defense before, and to again get to even remotely same level, it would require an eye-watering amount of spending in a situation where all EU nations have shit economies.
The question Is, would the French, English etc put a boot on the ground if let’s say a Baltic country is under attack by a country with nuclear weapons?
Not that strong as a ex general speaks out in Belgium. Cuz EU needs the US in terms of intel information that is require for fighting Russia.
By military power – very strong. Mainly because of possibility to quickly gain air superiority.
By morale – very-very weak. Partly because USA lobbied so since the end of WW2. And only because USA’s “let’s invest into China!” strategy backfired by the same way as it was with industrialization of USSR, USA was forced to start to change it.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/) Subtract from half to 2/3 from indicators.
You didn’t say how you define “strong” so I’m going to assume that we are comparing NATO without USA to Russia. Here are some selected points (figures as of 2024):
– Military personnel: 1.9m NATO vs 1.1m Russia
– Combat aircraft: 2.4k NATO vs 1.4k Russia
– Tanks: 6.6k NATO vs 2k Russia
– France and UK providing enough nuclear arsenal for maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent (MAD).
Source: IISS Military Balance
EDIT: Added a point about the nuclear deterrent.
If even just Poland alone would join ukraine, they would be able to fight off russia. The orcs can barely push back ukrainian troops alone, even just adding poland would nearly double the number of western troops.
If all of NATO (even excluding the US) would fully commit to fighting russia in a conventional war on the ground, they would easily take a bunch of russian territory.
I think the main loss of capability for NATO without the US would be in long distance logistics. Like without the american transport capabilities and network of bases, Nato couldnt project any serious power outside of europe. But then again they also wouldn’t need to. As europe and canada don’t have that aspiration anyway. At least for now.
If you take nukes out of the equation Europe could still defend any country against Russia or any other threat. On the long term rest of Europe could annihilate Russia with conventional weapons
Depend what is the point of “strong”
UK and France have nuclear deterrence and they can help others build up theirs.
As force projection, we still have UK, France and Italy with some sort of medium / long range reach, but we don’t have any sort of serius long range strategic bombing, or Lift/Shipping force.
As armed force structure we are generally well redundant, since every nation has his own command and training structure, the equipment isn’t bat, but is… too eclectic, logistic will be still hell.
The problems are the following unity of political intent, and deep of magazines, and generally speaking production capacity, but many nation can produce a good range of weapons, not in number.
So… we need at least to seriusly ramp up ammo and weapons and start adapt what we have learned from the ukraine battlefield.
And anti ship missiles, we need more and more capable, becouse at that point we need to game that the USA are a hostile force that need to be discouraged, and we can copy some chinesse homework, a good chunk of USA power is AIR and SEA, russian are a joke at that level, but still a menance, and the Chinese are bulding up.
a lot of conficts and wars occur because certain countries to manipulate a change in other countries and/or try ot steal whatever countries resources or they have a quazi war with their warring opposite in another country again probably resource grabs, the only reason war still happens is because its profitable
One of the main issues is that NATO relies strongly on US military tech. In the case of a NATO without them, we shouldn’t rely on an external tech agent, we should develop our own systems, and we’re way behind on this.
Nato is still pretty strong without America tbh. It would definitely still be able to deal with Russia I reckon if it had a war with it.
It’s a tiger.
Made of paper.
I fear for the future, because while the Americans seem to clearly want to get out, Europeans leaders are asleep and dont want to wake up.
If EU had a standalone army it would be the second largest after China and second best equipped after the US. Enough said.
NATO is obviously strong on paper, but ultimately it comes down to commitment and political will. Will the member states, especially the nuclear powers, actually deploy their own military forces to defend a Baltic country if Russia invades? That is the question.
Sooner or later the USA will realise they become weaker with all these isolation policies. Not stronger.
The question is irrelevant. The NATO is a tool created and used by the USA. Without the US, it will cease to exist since it’ll be pointless.
Russia invades Eastern Europe; Trump comes to Russia’s defense. Trump wants a Trump Tower in Moscow.
the problem is thats its not a plug and play system. NATO is not an army first , its an *organization.*
EVERYTHING is integrated , communications, logistics, maintenance, strategy
remove the USA and you need to rethink the entire thing
Europe has 2 million professionals soldiers. And wealth. Russia doesn’t stand a chance. If it had the political will. Which it doesn’t. Oh, and fuck Russia.
I posted this earlier today:
To put NATO spending in perspective. All the European NATO allies together already have a higher military spending than Russia. Actually they would place as the third highest military spender in the world at 270 billion annually.
1. USA – 890 billion
2. China – 290 billion
3. Europe NATO – 270 billion
4. Russia – 109 billion
5. India – 89 billion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country
Sources – there is a slight discrepancy between the two sources with the US spending 890bn USD according to NATO and 916bn according to SIPRI. So take the numbers with a grain of salt.
But US defense spending is insane and definitely an outlier. You can’t really compare it to anyone else. It’s even higher than the rest of the top 5 put together.
We can easily outspend Russia because our economies are a lot bigger. However getting more personnel is tricky.
Edit: these are 2023 numbers and don’t include the new members Finland and Sweden. Also I have not counted Turkey in the NATO Europe.
Not strong enough yet, MUCH stronger than its rivals and adversaries will be comfortable with in future.
They will rue the day when the woke up a sleeping giant.
NATO without the US would only be credible within Europe
I doubt European countries would save say Canada from an US invasion
US army is blown out of proportions, the European countries still have very strong armies with a large manufacturing base.
At this point, probably stronger… the states are not with it’s allies now, trump wants to rule ‘murica till his death.
That is some dictator level aspirations right there.
I believe Turkey has the second largest military force in NATO, behind the US, as far as personnel go.