Thread: Who has the strongest military in Europe?

Cobra,
As those who know me here would agree naval power is not really my area however on a preliminary review I would tend to agree with OOE. This is partly bias as he has taught me on a few occasions when I first joined the folly of entering a debate without everything lined up and ready to go in support of my point. Now I make my points clearly and back them up as best as can be as you may observe from my dealings with JMH who by the way hasn't responded as yet (my point was well said I thinks).
however which side of this debate I would come down on is in point of fact irrelevant given that this thread is entitled "who has the strongest military in Europe". For this reason that is what the thread is about and nothing else despite the fact it has side tracked into a few foolish "what if" scenaerios in the past. Now while you may have some very interesting things to say and valuable input in certain fields please stay on topic in whatever thread you are in as if they are allowed to go off topic then pretty soon the actual point of the discussion will go missing.
You if you believe its worth the time start a thread in the naval power section of the forum on this particular matter or find and join one in progress. On behalf of myself I welcome you to WAB. stick to well crafted debate (on topic, factual and supported by something close to resembling facts) politeness, and a general sense of diplomatic courtesy and we'l get along swell. I am guilty of failing to adhere to this in my earlier rasher days but I think I have come a long way since then as OOE and others will confirm.

D

P.S. please don't go trying to turn this into another E.U. vs U.S. thing it took us pages to get rid of that last time and I would rather avoid the dubious pleasure again (also one highlighted post was made in 2005 for goodness sake poor Dale would barely remember it :D )

Power poster.

...All I am basically saying that if a war somehow broke out, who would win, or how long would France and Poland last.

Until the wine ran out?

Feanor...
Way to go! That's the way to handle a situation like that. We (US) have become soft and too dependant upon world opinion and the terroists know and use that against us. Europe has about the same attitude.

Where did all this start? What happened to an eye for an eye? That's the credo the terroists go by. How can we fight on such an unlevel field?

phillip, as far as I can tell the Iraq War was done against general world opinion. What matters more is American public opinion and domestic opinion in any country is always important, be it for raising an army, raising war bonds, promoting resistance, etc.

However, the US does not follow 'eye-for-an-eye' - the number of terrorists, insurgents, Talibanis versus Americans killed should testify to that. The terrorists exploit their strengths like any other force - cultural camouflage, media-savvy, etc. The resultant philosophy is basically hit-and-run attacks designed to inflict as many casualties before they themselves inevitably die, and do it as publicly as possible - no idea where this 'eye-for-eye' stuff comes from. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'level playing field' but since when has there ever been fairness in war? Should the US give insurgents their own artillery, armour and airpower, and say "good luck gentlemen, good clean fight!"?

Originally Posted by phillip

Feanor...
Way to go! That's the way to handle a situation like that. We (US) have become soft and too dependant upon world opinion and the terroists know and use that against us. Europe has about the same attitude.

Where did all this start? What happened to an eye for an eye? That's the credo the terroists go by. How can we fight on such an unlevel field?

3 factors, simplicity, efficiency, brutality. The simplicity of the matter was that we didn't need to defeat global terrorism. Never our objective. Just to make sure it doesn't strike us or our allies. Efficiency, instead of a costly invasion, simply a KGB special ops operation to take out the terrorist camps. Brutality, if need be go after the source and do what it takes.

Notice the difference in approaches? We're not afraid of taking the damage (and there isn't much damage the terrorists can actually do, as the name implies their main weapon is fear) they can deal, and can make it not worth while doing it with our retaliation. On the other hand the Bush administration chose to launch a costly GWoT, making questionable alliances with Pakistan and Putin's RF, and launch two protracted wars that quickly ended up costing ridiculous amounts of money with rather little progress to date.

Then again we don't have many liberals..........

Historical scroll back about 2 pages, to the top of the page and read my post, he was talking in reference to that.

Power poster.

...All I am basically saying that if a war somehow broke out, who would win, or how long would France and Poland last.

Until the wine ran out?

Exactly what point is this, and what were you saying as my check shows so far that was the first post you made here on this thread!

Feanor...
Way to go! That's the way to handle a situation like that. We (US) have become soft and too dependant upon world opinion and the terroists know and use that against us. Europe has about the same attitude.

Where did all this start? What happened to an eye for an eye? That's the credo the terroists go by. How can we fight on such an unlevel field?

Soft, so then I imagined the entire Iraq war and subsequent debacle of Guantanamo bay and other favorites! As for dependant on world opinion if you want to trade and do well you have to take into account the world opinion of what your doing which the U.S. did not when it invaded Iraq. However before this boils straight back into a "U.S. foreign policy" thread return to the point of the thread.
I have seen one to many foolish arguments go on for pages here when the hot potato belongs in a thread of its own to let this one continue so make a relevant point or start a new thread (or look for one on the subject as there is bound to be a few).

D

3 factors, simplicity, efficiency, brutality. The simplicity of the matter was that we didn't need to defeat global terrorism. Never our objective. Just to make sure it doesn't strike us or our allies. Efficiency, instead of a costly invasion, simply a KGB special ops operation to take out the terrorist camps. Brutality, if need be go after the source and do what it takes.

Tell me, if these tactics the Soviet Union used in 1985 against terrorists in Beirut are so effective, why does Chechnya look like it was hit by an atomic bomb, and why have thousands of Russian servicemen died there?

It is one thing to deal with isolated acts that affect your nationals beyond your borders, it's quite another when they directly impact you. In the case of Chechnya, real and supposed terrorism within Russia and Russia's territorial integrity. Retribution is generally of the degree or greater of the harm caused to oneself.

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Tell me, if these tactics the Soviet Union used in 1985 against terrorists in Beirut are so effective, why does Chechnya look like it was hit by an atomic bomb, and why have thousands of Russian servicemen died there?

It is one thing to deal with isolated acts that affect your nationals beyond your borders, it's quite another when they directly impact you. In the case of Chechnya, real and supposed terrorism within Russia and Russia's territorial integrity. Retribution is generally of the degree or greater of the harm caused to oneself.

The first Chechen war was fought because it was profitable to an elite within the newly emerged class of oligarchs. Not because it was a problem that we couldn't deal with otherwise. Notice my emphasis on Soviet?

Originally Posted by Feanor

The first Chechen war was fought because it was profitable to an elite within the newly emerged class of oligarchs. Not because it was a problem that we couldn't deal with otherwise. Notice my emphasis on Soviet?

No, you're wrong. The secession of Chechnya posed a direct threat to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. As I'm sure you very well know having come from Russia, Russia is still rather ethnically diverse with about 20% of the population comprised by various ethnic minorities. If the Russian leadership let Chechnya go, the chances of other republics seceding was very real. There are 21 autonomous republics in Russia, of which eleven's distinct nationalities comprise a majority of the population, and a few other whose nationalities comprise a plurality. If some oligarchs were enriched by the war, this is merely incidental, don't mistake something incidental for the cause.

Chechnya was meant to serve as an example to other republics that Russia meant to preserve the territorial integrity of the federation by all means necessary, just as 1956 Budapest and 1967 Prague were meant to set an example to other Warsaw Pact states.

Originally Posted by Ironduke

No, you're wrong. The secession of Chechnya posed a direct threat to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. As I'm sure you very well know having come from Russia, Russia is still rather ethnically diverse with about 20% of the population comprised by various ethnic minorities. If the Russian leadership let Chechnya go, the chances of other republics seceding was very real. There are 21 autonomous republics in Russia, of which eleven's distinct nationalities comprise a majority of the population, and a few other whose nationalities comprise a plurality. If some oligarchs were enriched by the war, this is merely incidental, don't mistake something incidental for the cause.

Chechnya was meant to serve as an example to other republics that Russia meant to preserve the territorial integrity of the federation by all means necessary, just as 1956 Budapest and 1967 Prague were meant to set an example to other Warsaw Pact states.

That wasn't my point. The real problem was that instead of sending and well trained guard units with new equipment into the fray, conscript units with incredibly poor training and outdated equipment were used. Even tank crews were often put together only days before the battle started. Many soldiers barely knew how to fire a gun. That was the real reason why it took so much to finally bring it under control.

Originally Posted by Feanor

That wasn't my point. The real problem was that instead of sending and well trained guard units with new equipment into the fray, conscript units with incredibly poor training and outdated equipment were used. Even tank crews were often put together only days before the battle started. Many soldiers barely knew how to fire a gun. That was the real reason why it took so much to finally bring it under control.

Well trained guard units? The Russian military was in extreme disarray in 1994, with many of the divisions and brigades that existed under the Soviet Union disappearing or being severely downgraded. Are you sure many of these "elite guard" units existed at the time?

Russian military spending in 1995 16.5% of what Soviet spending was in 1988*. Enlistment declined from 5.3 million in 1998 to 2.7 million in 1991, and lower yet in 1994-95.

* Russian Military Spending

I'm not sure how accurate that chart is. This report indicated a different chart:
http://www.apn.ru/userdata/files/ins/INS-MR-1.pdf

Page 24 top of the page Russian spendings for 1994, 1995, and 1996 had actually recovered significantly after the downtime in '93. Realistically the war was mismanaged for political reasons to such a degree that this really isn't even an argument.....

Originally Posted by Feanor

Page 24 top of the page Russian spendings for 1994, 1995, and 1996 had actually recovered significantly after the downtime in '93. Realistically the war was mismanaged for political reasons to such a degree that this really isn't even an argument.....

Like the one in Afghanistan? As I recall, while that conflict was originally fought with Cat B units, they moved in Category A formations and Spetznaz after things started bogging down, and still were unable to bring the conflict to a conclusion.

And that was when the Soviet military actually was at the top of its game. It takes a while for a military to recover from the gutting like that which the Russian Army recieved in the early 90's.

Apparently I was mistaken, Soviet Category A, guard units and Spetznaz were involved from the start.