lartiste wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 02:03
Peter89 wrote: ↑19 Jul 2022, 11:15
Well, I don't quite agree with either of you in this. The European members of the NATO systematically reduced their ground heavy weaponry, and it was a mutually oversaw action starting from 1990, according to the Vienna Documents, well before the former Eastern bloc joined NATO / EU. Also after the Yugoslav war the West Balkans started to demilitarize heavy weaponry. These confidence-building measures served a purpose that no continental war should ever again take place, all according to the spirit of Helsinki. Which is gone now. So European armies relied on demilitarization and not air force or artillery. The way European defense forces were employed was fundamentally expeditionary in nature; I seriously doubt that any European army has a contingency plan for a major war on the continent. And even if it would come to that, the plans would only contain preparations for a war against Russia, which would inevitably delegate the question to nuclear war or high-tech war; in the former, there is no answer and in the latter, the West still holds a considerable advantage.
This kind of expeditionary warfare, the one that has been practicised by European countries rely on air force and amphibious capabilities not because it "seemed to be a better idea" for them, but because from a suitable platform (carrier) air power can be projected in any part of the world, combining the advantages of precision strikes and air superiority. You see, mass artillery is not really an expeditionary or peace-keeping weaponry; mass artillery is a weapon of symmetric warfare. The reason why European powers don't really exercise their air power in offensive actions is also the fruit of the mutual demilitarization process. The last time when a European power (France) employed air power in a UN-unauthorized strike offensively, it costed them a tremendous amount of political credit.
As a consequnce of this 50 year long demilitarization and mutual trust-building process, democratic European nations found it ever harder to argue at budgetary debates for a larger army. So it resulted in a very high emphasis of semi-military activities like search & rescue, reconnaissance, telecommunications, medical care, all-terrain and all-weather equipment, etc. some of which are the best in the field. But of course Ukraine is not integrated into any of these operations, infrastructures or training.
You are of course correct, but still even during II ww western countries relied a bit more on air force compare to Russia who relied more on artillery. Or am I wrong?
I am not sure about that from the middle of the war, the Wallies had ample of artillery support too; and the Soviet air docrtine emphasized ground support above all the other belligerents. But in 1941-1942, this is most likely true.
lartiste wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 02:03
Peter89 wrote: ↑19 Jul 2022, 11:15
Well I sincerely doubt that.
I am only familiar with the Hungarian numbers, but Hungary has:
- 164 T72M1
- some 5-600 BTR-80 and BTR-80A
- 314 BRDM-2
- 300 D-20
- 400 9M113 Konkurs/9K115-2 Metis-M/9K111 Fagot
- 28 MIG-29
- hundreds of trucks, mortars, etc.
Most of them are not used and will be replaced soon. The problem is not that; the problem is that supplying the war in Ukraine will leave the Eastern European countries practically defenseless, and there is simply not enough Portuguese and Spanish troops on the eastern frontiers of the EU to make the defense of these countries a plausible scenario. Thus each individual country will only give up as much equipment as it is absolutely necessary, because the mutual confidence itself was shattered.
Hungary is not good example since Orban is not supporting UA that much, he is trying to get along with Russia and I even read, that Russia promised him part of western UA territory.
Which would make complete sense, and would be in the best interest for both the EU, the NATO and not to mention the people who live there. However, I seriously doubt that any such deal was ever struck, and if such deal was struck, it could only make sense if Russia could overrun Ukraine in a short war (as they originally planned) and collapse its political system. Now I bet that Russia doesn't fight for Hungary's territorial gains, especially after Hungary and Orbán personally voted many sanctions against Russia and authorized arms deliveries through the country. What I think is more plausible that Hungary contemplates the total evacuation of the Hungarian minority from Ukraine, and let's not forget that Hungary accepts the most Ukrainian refugees per capita. The reason the Hungarian government doesn't support the war is that this war doesn't make sense, and a ceasefire would be in the best interest for the European and Russian populations.
lartiste wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 02:03
On the contrary Czechs and Slovaks sent near everything in respect of tanks and artillery. In Czechia I do not think we have any sufficient number of tanks anymore. May be, there are few remaining but thats it. Slovakia gave up air defense and handed over S -300 (Germany is providing air defense with Patriots) and also allegedly handed over MiGs 29.
Poland handed over all T - 72 and hopefully will hand over their own PT - 91 (modernized T-72M1), but thats all. They are now buying 250 M1A2 from US + more as replacements of those PT - 91 + 180 Korean K2 Black Panther.
Balts are in my opinion completely depleted. I am not well informed on Bulgaria and Romania. But they are also providing equipment.
Yes, they gave up some equipment, but they are not depleted. I know the numbers do vary and half of them are fake, so I can be convinced otherwise. I usually use this arms control site:
https://www.unroca.org and additionally this one for air forces, because it contains the orders:
https://www.flightglobal.com
Although the numbers do vary, the Poles gave some 200 tanks to Ukraine, they are really far from being depleted (their stocks are over 800). Also the Czechs sent "tens" of tanks which hardly compromises their inventory of over 100 tanks. Slovakia actually gave up all its 30 T-72s and 12 MIG-29s, but there is no real scenario where these numbers mattered. On top of all this, the image we have here is kinda faulty about these charity donations, for multiple reasons.
First, the maintenance, repair and overhaul expenses are very high for these units, and the Czechs and Poles (also Bulgaria) do possess the factories to carry out those works; obviously they are expecting to get paid from the international money pouring into Ukraine. And second, all the former eastern bloc countries have a disproportionately large amount of conserved heavy equipment from the Soviet era. What was sent to Ukraine so far can be easily replaced by the stocks. But I expect that no one is going to do that, because of the high de-conservation and MRO costs. I bet the western arm producers are also not sad with these developments.
lartiste wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 02:03
In CEE region we are afraid, that if we will not stop putin in
, next time we will have to stop him at our doors. And the price we will pay will be much greater. I am shocked, that many can't see it. Therefore we are providing everything.
Clearly baltic states are too small therefore their successful defense is not plausible scenario. The rest depends when Poland will receive all new equipment. I understand, that Portuguese and Spanish troops are not the key but still helpful. From this point of view most important fact is that Finland and Sweden are joining NATO. This can really help regarding the defense of eastern frontiers of the EU.
Well I am from CEE Europe so I know what you mean. Russia is a bad neighbour to have, nobody really wants that, and not just because of historical reasons. I see Finland's and Sweden's joining to the NATO quite differently. The NATO is not a European project. We have defense agreements which are based on political consensii and not a worldwide military organization that carried out crimes against humanity on a much worse scale than what happens now in the Ukraine. Finland and Sweden, once renowned neutral meeting grounds for international diplomacy, gave up that status without actual military threat. By placing our bets on the NATO, we let go the moral superiority we have over Russia.
lartiste wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 02:03
Peter89 wrote: ↑19 Jul 2022, 11:15
Exactly. But the problem is that the EU structure was not meant for these kind of tasks; it was never meant to be a joint defense alliance, it was meant to be a demilitarization project. And the rest of the world (including, if not first and foremost the Anglo-Saxon countries) is against the rise of a new global player. The last time the Europeans wanted to be global players, European flags waved from Tsingtao to New York.
I hoped that we can get rid of dependency on USA and that Europe and its defense may be managed by France and Germany. My dream died on February 24. Now it is clear, that Europe can't defense it self without USA. Unfortunately.
I don't agree. The European armies, navies and air forces are much stronger than that of Russia; and the manpower and economy are much better and bigger as well. What Europe is lacking is the political action to integrate these forces and deploy them under a common constitutional basis; but this lack of integration is also the best interest of the United States. The only significant difference is that Europe's nuclear arsenal does not make it a real deterrence threat since the UK left. Europe does not need the USA to defend itself, but the USA needs Europe to achieve its worldwide goals of domination.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
, next time we will have to stop him at our doors. And the price we will pay will be much greater. I am shocked, that many can't see it. Therefore we are providing everything.