They can be true. They might be low on current stockpile, but what is building up is production capacity. Preparing to attack doesn't mean immediately attacking, what most have concern is that once Russia's war against Ukraine cools down, Russia will spend the next 4-10 years building up towards potentially attacking NATO nations.
Yes, years down the line doesn't sound as alarming to the layman, but it is critical for that eventuality to be recognized and prepared for, nations and industry move slowly, and they need to prepare to fight another long drawn out war.
The idea is that after some kind of cease fire, russia will churn out stuff for 3-4-5 years (so mebbe 1.000 tanks?) and then not go full frontal against NATO but say take a bite out of Lithuania, just to see what the response will be.
Like they have been doing since forever (Chechnya, Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine and so on).
I mean it is so ridiculous on so many levels but also the gifts themselves are so absurd. If some of their high up elites just skipped a single dinner, they could probably buy something that is worth 10x more. The ruling class became so addicted to their money that they can't even sacrifice a minute fraction of it for proper propaganda lol.
Russia has thousands of men willing to fight in horrendous conditions.
They've got hundreds of thousands of conscripts who are largely dug in along an enormous front, along the four eastern most seized Oblasts in Ukraine.
Any attack they would make into a NATO state would be an artillery bombardment intended to deny Ukrainians resupply, not a ground invasion to secure territory. Particularly not when they have poor control over their own borders and a nasty instance of counter-insurgence popping up in and around their major cities.
We have to keep in mind that Europe needs to justify austerity for the citizens and rearmament for their militaries. I have no evidence of this, but I think it's an entierly sensible read that the warning from Germany is an overstatement with that intent in mind.
If you know anything about current Russian government, you'd know that one necessarily follows the other. The more desperate Russia gets, the less reserves they have, the more bold and aggressive they're getting. There is a combination of factors leading into it, both psychological and material.
"obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power". Which is far above what being in NATO requires states to do. Which just btw also covers Greenland. Only ones off the hook are Ireland and Austria due to being neutral, the treaty still covers them though.
If a state decides that what’s in their power is sending 5000 helmets, then nobody will be able to force them to do more. Misinformed internet people think Article 42 is an automatic collective war switch, it is most certainly not and doubly so in the case of Greenland, lmao.
Russia wouldn't exactly not try, but they have a very 19th century realpolitik take everything and exploit the fuck out of it approach. I would have said that's silly. now, not so sure it isn't working
Russia can't even take over Ukraine, let alone half of NATO to even make it into Germany. I personally think this is just fearmongering on the side of our elected officials so the military industrial complex can make a few more bucks with money from the state.
Russia doesn't need to make it into Germany to make it a disaster for all of Europe.
Sure, NATO as a whole is bigger than Russia, but the troops and equipment are mostly not at the eastern border where the fighting would take place. We certainly don't have anything near the size of the Ukrainian army stationed in the Baltics. Take the US out of the equation, because let's be honest: under Trump they're not going to stand up for Europe, and the military balance suddenly looks a lot less favorable. I'm not so sure the European NATO states could mount an effective and timely response to an incursion into the Baltic states, or into Poland around the Suwalki gap.
Then move troops there. The European NATO members already outspend Russia in terms of military investments. Russia can't even take over Ukraine, a country that's not even in NATO and hasn't even had any modern military equipment for a very long time. Hell, they're getting hand me downs from countries like Germany, equipment that's decades old, isn't state of the art, and needs repairs, and they're still keeping Russia at bay. Now there's articles about Russia depleting its own tank stocks and shit, not being able to sustain even a war with Ukraine, and we're supposed to believe that Russia will somehow attack Germany or Poland (which is to be fair probably better armed than Germany).
So there's only two options here: either the western press is lying about Russia depleting its stocks and they're actually holding back instead of fully invading Ukraine (God knows why they fought in Ukraine for three years now then instead of just releasing their full "military might" from the get go). Or, the western press is fear mongering about Russia actually being able to invade NATO so the military industrial complex can make a quick buck off of our tax money.
My two cents: there's no chance in hell Russia can invade any NATO country, they can barely function in Ukraine lmao. Just send troops to the baltic and you're gonna be fine. No need for trillions of euros in new guns.
We can't put all our troops in the Baltics, nevermind the fact that we don't have all that much troops and ammunition. Most of our money is spent on high tech weapons in limited numbers.
The European NATO members already outspend Russia in terms of military investments
Not really.
In terms of Euros spent, yes, we outspend them, but when adjusted for purchasing power we're scarily close to parity: 100 rubles in Russia buys you a lot more than 1 euro in Europe. And our militaries are hopelessly fragmented, and behind in the rearming race.
The ruble's exchange rate is on the level of 2020-2021: 0,011 euro to the ruble. Shows how much you know.
Also, most of the military production is internal... so the exchange rate of the ruble is meaningless to determine relative military strength, which is precisely why a PPP conversion is needed.
one thing that i keep needing to bring up as well, with what troops? Russia has been losing a lot of people in Ukraine. Even if we ignore all the numbers being thrown about how many they really lost, they have lost troops. Invading Europe? Even if they would make start churning out vehicles at a breakneck speed now, where do they get the people to operate them? How will they hold the regions they would get?
NATO-Europe without the U.S. still outmatches Russia militarily and economically by a wide margin, but the real issue isn’t brute strength—it’s readiness and political will. Russia can't beat Ukraine, let alone all of NATO, but a surprise move in the Baltics or Suwałki Gap could be disastrous if Europe doesn't act fast. It’s not that Russia is strong—it’s that Europe can’t afford to be slow or divided.
German security officials believe the Kremlin is laying the groundwork for a potential large-scale conventional war with NATO by the end of the decade, according to multiple reports cited by European Pravda and Bild.
Russia is still ramping up military production on a wartime economy, to be used after the Ukrainians stop fighting back.
Also their production focuses on their modern options for land and air. I don't know what their naval production is doing.
That's because you're not thinking like Putin. Starting this war in the first place was the worst possible idea that never made any sense, except it allowed Putin to reform the slipping grip on the country and cemented his regime and his vision for at least some time. But just like the empires of old, now his regime requires constant slow boiling war to operate.
He will happily sacrifice every Russian to this, he can easily afford losing a thousand men per day to the grinder. It costs very little to him. European countries on the other hand will be very very hurt by the war on their territory, and everyone understands it.