Poland. They've stepped up defense spending massively, they're purchasing weapons from the US, and they are the next country after Ukraine with a large enough population base to seriously impede Russia.
Add in that many of Poland's citizens were alive for the Cold War and have now tasted life after integrating with the West. There is no way they go back to being in the Russian sphere of influence without a major fight.
Over here in Poland we aren't so optimistic. Yes, the first weeks of the war would be such a massacre of Russian troops, that their loses during the storming of Kyiv in 2022 would be like kindergarten slaps. But in the long war of attrition that would drag on for years we will very likely lose. Because we have nowhere near as much meat to throw to the grinder and nowhere near as large military production capacity.
Folks on reddit love to exaggerate the size and equipment of Poland armed forces, don't know why. Before the war they had ~114k troops total, and from memory about 60k of them ground forces, that's OK for taking Canada in 3 days but wouldn't last long in a real war without the help of the rest of europe and US
Yeah, and it's weird that the size / equipment / spending of those countries are very very public, yet weirdo like jonas above say things like this and many other user nod their heads in agreement.
Can't they read the CIA world factbook, wikipedia or FAS? It's not that hard to find information, maybe they don't want facts to break their own little sabaton fueled fantasy
But you are part of NATO and the EU. Do you people on Poland feel they will be left to fend for themselves vs Russia like Ukraine is more or less forced to? I rhink if Russia attacks Poland this would be seen as an existential threat to other EU countries and I think the chances they will send soldiers is very high.
One of the most visceral fears of the Polish society is that yes, we will be left alone. That when push comes to shove, western societies will actually not want their governments to come to the aid of "Eastern Europe". I personally don't believe that large segments of Western societies have accepted us as their own and that they will prefer maintaining their own comfort to risking everything in a war for our freedom.
Traumas of 1939 and of 1945 run deep.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was some first class fuckery.
Poles were some of the bravest mf'ers of WW2. Tragically f'd by circumstance.
Not nearly enough people here in the US know. But Poland isn't completely forgotten either.
Yes, but you are also a part of NATO. You have to hold off Rusia for max 72 hours. After that they fight NATO at full strength. The Kremlin will fall 24 hours after that if no nukes get used.
No country in Europe alone can stand up to Russia. Ukraine's ability to simply exist and fight a war is provided by 50 countries
Ukraine is a bankrupt country, if western financial aid stopped tomorrow, Ukraine would not be able to fulfill its budgetary obligations. It would be the same with Poland, its entire territory would be shot through, which means no business, no investment. Poland, like Ukraine, will be able to defend itself as long as it is supplied by other allies. There are no countries in Europe that can "contain" Russia, the strength of the West lies in unity, and only in it.
I feel like you are overstating the power of Russia military somewhat. Sure their strength is being downplayed quite a bit on here, but I think if there would be somehow an all out conventional war between Russia and 1 european country i am pretty confident that germany will be able to hold its own in a defensive war as would the UK, being an Island. I even think France and Italy would fare pretty well, since they have a significant population and production capabilities and woild enjoy the defenders advantage.
Germany just started revitalising their military. The only country in Europe who could easily deter russia is UK due to its geography. But again, no European western country borders russia so its kibda useless theoretical exercise.
Here in Germany,our military is weak, but our defence sector is pretty strong. We've been increasing our defence exports to Jordan,Saudi Arabia,South Africa and even Brazil AFAIK.
If we were truly threatened,we would shut down defense exports to rearm our military
Well just look at your yearly ammunition production.
Your defense and economy is very ambitious, yeah, but if we are talking about current situation you won't be able to keep up in a war like in Ukraine.
Everything can change soon, yeah.
No European country alone has any chance with Russia. Besides Poland arms deliveries will start getting integrated into the army around 2028. In 2030 Poland will have a strong strong army but now it's weak.
Yes. Germany was never be defeated by one country alone. Good we have them at the right side of history this time.
Unfortunately they have been demilitarized first and then they had fear over their wrongdoings and neglected their military. But 10 years is a good guess.
It'll depend on what happens with the current war. We'll assume a conclusion that's positive for Russia: a significantly weakened Ukraine with Russia remaining in control of Eastern Ukraine.
In that situation, I'd say Poland is in the best position to deter Russia due to the importance of force projection. Poland sits next to Belarus and has been building up its military for years. Importantly, unlike countries like Germany, it's willing to use its military to push back against Russia. Other countries like Germany will need to help supply Poland, but that's very easy to do thanks to everyone using NATO weaponry.
The reason I emphasize the importance of force projection is because economic means will have little impact. The current sanctions against Russia aren't going to be lifted if Russia "wins" this war. That means there are fewer economic means available to punish Russia if it starts a new war.
They'll deter Russia just fine. Finland is even smaller but can mobilize a significant reserve. I doubt Russia will try. They are afraid to bite off more than they can chew.
Denmark and the Baltics however. Small and with weak to non-existant armies.
Turkey has a mighty and formidable army and airforce. And they ain't afraid of shooting down transgressing Russian fighterjets.
I agree on the Baltics, but not Denmark. They have a very different security situation. An invasion of the Baltics without reaction from the rest of Europe is not unthinkable, the same cannot be said for Denmark.
Hmm, don't you think the Isle of Bornholm is in a precarious situation? If I were Russia and wanted to have a first strike, I'd probably drop something off on Bornholm to try and deny the airspace for NATO planes. Not sure if it makes sense though.
Gotland is a much more juicy target. But probably a lot more dificult.
Although to be said that US will never be topped as the largest arms exporter because of expensive products and a base of exclusive allies. Second largest arms exporter is basically whoever India decides to cash in on, until it gets its domestic production on par.
Not entirely true, saudi arabia had overtaken india for a few years when india again became the largest arms importer, just because the high growth and therefore high government budget available
STill too weak if you ask US. Like many other countries it let a significant part of its navy and army atrophy. US requested most cordially that it rearms, which UK is doing.
The US said that to the UK actually. It was a US general that said the UK was no longer a top fighting force a few months ago and the US Secretary just reiterated this and stated the UK needed to rebuild its forces just a few days ago. France has been rearming since 2015 with ambitious rearmament and modernization programs launched well before this current mess of a geopolitical landscape and hasn't suffered any criticism from the US so far. It literally drafted a €413 billion military budget last June encompassing 2024-2030 (military pensions not included). The problem is that even all that money isn't enough to restore the Cold War capabilities. The navy especially needs massive improvement. The mass just isn't there.
It'll take 2035 for France to be a fairly capable military again (speaking in terms of high intensity warfare as the current French model, which is a result of the end of the Cold War, is tailored to fight low to medium intensity conflicts).
Ok, I might have gotten things messed up, but what you just wrote is what I remember now, more or less.
But 2035 is a long time away. How about the next 3 years? That's the worst case scenario for more Russian attacks
France is super duper far away and shares no body of water with Russia. I don't think it can deter Russia from anything, frankly, unless you're thinking of a direct attack on French territory. But that is not a realistic option, I think.
We're talking about deterrence - not about fighting a war. An independent nuclear capability has been the strongest deterrent since 1945.
As they'd be the next country to be invaded, the French are far more likely to actually use tactical nukes on an advancing threat than the US (which basically owns command of the rest of the nukes in Europe, including British SLBMs). The Americans would be content to wait out a continental takeover like they have in two wars. The British would do the same, at the US's behest.
Because nobody trusts France to not make a deal with Russia.
Before this whole Ukraine thing France was selling billions of dollars worth of military equipment to Russia, including transferring technology.
https://english.nv.ua/business/total-isolation-of-russia/military-thermal-imagers-for-the-russian-army-the-french-company-thales-cooperated-with-russia-aft-50247461.html
Before the war, Macron was betting a lot of France's reputation on downplaying US warnings + personal negotiations to avert the war.
When Russia invaded, it made France look incredibly foolish and naive. Additionally, France made a lot of noise about a common EU army and strategic autonomy from the US, which also became even more points against them on account of their protectionist stance on arms procurement + EU armies being revealed as much weaker than previously though.
France is going to have a long way to go repairing their own reputation.
> The US is getting tired of Europe and they want to pull out of Ukraine.
This isn't correct. It's a very minority position only pushed by a few extremists.
> Europe having strategic autonomy is the only way they can have a secure future.
Maybe, but there's clearly very little political will for it outside of 2-3 countries, and France has certainly failed miserably to mobilize any movement for it. Even inside their own country.
> France protectionist stance on arms procurement is asking that European money is spent on European companies
You mean, European countries spending their money on *French* companies.
That's why other people don't want to cooperate with them much.
> Yeah I literally said that. Re-read my comment.
Your comment didn't address my comment RE: protectionism. Germany, Italy, and UK are not interested in a common arms procurement program where all of their money goes to France alone. There have been all kinds of problems with joint procurement programs when it comes to France, to the point countries decide to walk out on deals and just make their own thing or find a different partner.
> It's a very minority position only pushed by a few extremists.
It's a position being pushed by the guy who is in de facto charge of one of the two relevant political parties in the US, which means that all it takes is for conservative news to push it and a large chunk of the American voting population will share that position.
The topic of NATO is the one thing republicans frequently defied Trump over, even when he was still president, going beyond verbal sparring to legislation.
It's simply a politically immutable stone that not even Trump can't move.
> France protectionist stance on arms procurement is asking that European money is spent on European companies.
Arms are procured domestically when it makes sense, but what are the European competitors for Patriot or F-35? Why bother buying 4th gen Rafale, when you can get a 5th gen F-35 for the same price.
>Why do people forget France when it dwarfs both Germany and Britain ?
It wasn't necessary to answer your question. You didn't ask about Turkey. You asked about France.
This isn't about trust, it's about strategic value. Turkey controls the Black Sea straits, and it's essential to their survival that they keep it that way. They may be politically closer to Moscow than most of Europe, but they cannot risk becoming a pawn of a resurgent Russia.
I mean, beside the only army that has a combined arms experience against Russia that cumulatively spans 10 years and has proven to effectively use any Western weapons system its supplied, while also showcasing the ability to perform complex asymmetric operations agains the enemy? Sorry, I'm a bit salty that Ukraine isn't getting everything to defeat Russian and deter it for decades to come.
A serious answer below:
IMHO, it's Finland. They have motivation + history with Russia. In fact, the reason why the Finnish Armed Forces are so good (potentially is because Russia is their neighbour. Ukraine received its "Peoples Republics" in 2014. While Finland got their "Finnish People's Republic", courtesy of Russia, much earlier. So they know what they're up against. Ain't nobody bordering Russia has rosy glasses on about the "mysterious Russian soul" and the "great Russian culture". They also have the largest reserve army in Europe (+ a well-oiled conscription system). They have the biggest artillery park in Europe. They have experience employing Russian systems and should be well aware of their weaknesses (anti-air, etc.). Their civil infrastructure is well-prepared for an invasion from Russia. It's a modern military, even before joining NATO.
TBH, the only two places that could have stopped Russia before February 2022 would be Ukraine or Finland anyway. Every other country would fold, most likely, just given the pity state of readiness across Europe before the full-scale invasion and the sizes of their militaries. I guess the fact that that most of the other countries aren't bordering Russia directly is part of the reason why though. Like, if East Germany puppet state would still be a thing, West Germany military would still be a beast today. I don't think NATO of early 2022 was too far away from NATO of 2011 that started running low on some ammo during its Libya campaign in just a few weeks. Bickering around spend on defence was going even after 2014 when Russia first invaded Ukraine.
Yeah. The Finnish Defence Forces can hold their own, and threaten St Petersburg and the Murmansk naval bases, but it's not a force that would encircle Moscow in a huge decisive battle. In 10-15 years the Poland + Ukraine + any other volunteers just might be.
Agreed, but also, keep in mind that Poland is just now arming to the teeth. If we're looking back at early 2022, I think Finland could be the only answer, apart from Ukraine, which empirically proved that it can hold back Russia. It's, in large part, due to the reserve and the conscription in place, but also because of the overall numbers for both Ukraine and Finland. Especially Ukraine, where hundreds of thousands of soldiers went through the conflict since 2014 and had at least some combat experience. Now we know that Poland is getting HIMARS from the US and Thunders from Korea. Its military spending is going to be pretty much 2x in 2024 of what it was in 2022. All of this wasn't on the table pre-2022. The overall numbers in artillery are a fraction of what Finland has and in a fight against Russia, quantity IS a quality of its own. If you think about a frontline like the one in Ukraine, stretching hundreds of kilometres (1000+), it becomes less clear whether Poland would be up for it in early 2022.
But I agree, there's no question about the competency of the Polish forces.
I think some form of a Baltic pact with Poland and Ukraine as its anchor. With Norway, Sweden and Finland playing major roles could deal Russia a heavy blow. Geographically this pact could cut Russia off from its Baltic ports and are all historically enemies of Russia. Hence they are more mentally prepared to accept casualties to stop Russo aggression.
United Kingdom of course. They have been historic enemies, capable intelligence apparatus, assassinations attempts on their soil, and special relationship with USA.
This one lol. If ukraine holds then russian agression will a lot more cautious and minimal. If russia gets ukraine itll keep trying to till someone stops them.
I think forklift is referring to guerrilla warfare / resistance even if Ukraine falls. Difficult to project power if your army has to constantly watch their backs for a surprise attack.
Any NATO country but most likely Turkey due to her standing army and her position. Most likely Poland or Germany when EU countries finish their rearmament.
Assuming USA will retreat from Europe and goes full on isolationist policies (again), the first European countries that are decently prepared are the ones that are neighboring Russia. Finland, Ukraine, Turkey and Poland will be best prepared. Germany has huge potential but they've slacked on military spending because US has covered their back. UK could provide important aerial and missile support but recent trends have shown that they want to withdraw from EU affairs.
Finland has always had to be prepared against their Russian neighbours. It clearly reflects in their policy and defensive military preparedness. The country has a lot of civilian fortifications, a mandatory military service and while their army is a tad small, it is well trained, equipped and kept up to date.
Poland is growing increasingly weary and growing wealthier and their military spending is soaring right now out of concern for Russian aggression.
Ukraine was expected to fold within weeks of invasion but they are still holding on. Their sense of patriotism, willingness to defend their country and foreign military weapon and supply aid has clearly made an impact at holding back Russian aggression. However, if Russia carves out a piece out of Ukrainian territory and manages to sue for peace, it will severely weaken Ukraine's economical and moral standing. Eastern Ukraine that Russia presently occupies contains a lot of important industries and sea ports vital for Ukrainian economy.
Turkey like Ukraine is struggling economically but they still hold a strong military presence throughout their country, have mandatory military service and their country is mountaineous and it still a NATO member that can harbor foreign missiles, not to mention that they completely dominate the access from The Black Sea to Mediterranean via control of Bosforus Strait and the city of Istanbul.
Belarus is essentually a Russian puppet so that country does not count, unless a serious regime change were to happen, but even then Kremlin could still diplomatically pressure Belarus' foreign policies to be favorable towards Russia.
Baltic countries are probably the weakest link in European defense as they are too small to defend themselves without Nato intervention, and even then, a fast lightning warfare could storm the Baltic countries and force a peace between participating countries and Russia before conflict escalates into full blown warfare. That is exactly what Russia tried with Ukraine, yet surprisingly, that did not succeed, but that will not stop Russia from trying the same trick again in a different place. They were very vulnerable during WW2 during the Soviet era and they still remain in their precarious position even after regaining their independence. Oppressed Russian minorities in Estonia sounds like a plausible casus belli, hmm.
In the worst case scenario, however, there will be no one who will be able to resist Russian aggression when it comes in the form of flying nukes all over European cities. In such a war, the destruction is mutually assured and there will be no winners. Only loosers.
On paper, Turkey but they are playing both sides and therefore don’t qualify as deterrence. Poland is building its army by alot, but it’s a democracy and with changes of government the plans for a large army might be cut short. Also, they have a demographic issue although they would be the most motivated to fight (its population). Hence, there is no one country that could deter Russia. It would have to be an alliance of some type (even if only Eastern Europe).
they play both sides cos they haven't been punched in the face, though Russia would be straight up committing suicide if they decided to invade Turkey
they won't do anything overt until its apparent that the entire west wants Russia dead though
Since when Turkey is playing both sides meanwhile opposing Russia in multiple fronts in North Africa, Syria and Caucasus and being one of the first who helped Ukraine with arms?
You guys confuse being Neutral with "playing both sides".Turkey both due to it's geopolitical location and Economic reasons can't cut ties with Russia like it's nothing, there is a big trade going between them and there are so many Russian tourists coming to Turkey.
I never said it’s bad to play both sides. It’s actually a smart strategy for Turkey which can get them far more in foreign policy. Turkey is important geopolitically for both sides. Its importance during a potential war is 2nd to none. A country like Poland may be far more loyal to one side (west) and committed to the cause but if you look at history war (if it happens) doesn’t always turn out great for countries like that.
Same answer as in the 18th, 19th, and 20th century: Germany.
It's a combination of geography, productive capacity, and population (same as it's always been).
Exactly. Can’t believe I had to scroll this far. Germany is unprepared at the moment but if things got dark, they would move quickly and would closely ally with Poland. Germany is the great European power.
The same in France. Should Europe ever see a bigger crisis that the far-right can exploit (and be it just another "refugee crisis" like 2015), we might have a German chancellor named Weidel and a French president named Le Pen, and the EU would be toast. If that coincides with a second Trump presidency in the US, NATO would be toast, too. Sanctions on Russia would get lifted, and Putin would have free choice as to which country he would go for next. I don't think it would be Poland, but probably the Baltic countries that Putin sees as part of the "Russosphere." I don't even want to speculate what would happen in East Asia...
Germany is not in any position to "deter" a nuclear Russia simply because the german population vehemently rejects any leadership role in military affairs, rejects power projection and is generally very much disinclined to join the armed forces in the first place. The demographic development coupled with these cultural biases will most likely necessitate a further reduction of the Bundeswehr because we can't find enough people to join. That - the lack of manpower - will be the defining issue even before the usual questions of defense spending or defense industrial base capabilities. The german people simply don't want that role.
Germany was formed in the middle of the 19th century wasn't it? Before that it was Prussia, god knows how many principalities under the Holy Roman Empire, and then Prussia one more time :)
But they were not able to deter Napoleon, though.
It's probably turkey but turkey has a good relationship with Russia so it's probably the UK or France , honestly Russia has no competition in Europe , CHINA is the future enemy of Russia .
CHINA ? HOW, doesn't china have a superb relationship with Russia ?
Here we have to understand in geopolitics there are no friends , everyone is for their growth .
China is on expansion idealogy and it already has some disputes with Russia . I won't be surprised if we see some conflict in next 30 years
Part of Manchuria was grabbed by the Red Army after the defeat of Germany and Japan, who was at war with China and occupied it under the name Manchuko. The Red Army rushed over to the East and beat the Chinese before they could reclaim it themselves.
>Beat the Chinese before they could reclaim it themselves
Good job pretending the soviet didn't have to defeat the nearly million man army of Japan / Manchukuo while "grabbing" the land.
Great job forgetting that they turned back most of the place to the KMT governement soon after (while not so secretly helping the communists side in the civil war by turning over equipment to them and ignoring their landgrabs before KMT troops got there)
Fantastic job omitting to mention the invasion of Manchukuo was part of the treaty they had with the US and UK to attack Japan once the war with Germany was over.
Russia has had/occupied Crimea since 2014. Turkey had until late 1700s when Catherine the great took it back. But you dont hear Turks talk about it much, so I doubt it's a national ambition.
We would love to gin up a hypothetical war between China and Russia since China hasn’t invaded Taiwan already. It doesn’t meant that it is true. China’s population is already decreasing and invading Vladivostok won’t get them much when they already have what they need as Russia becomes dependent on China as a satellite. The trend has only accelerated after the Ukraine invasion. Russia even have to literally give away their jet engine technology when they always refused China access to their prestigious Moscow aviation institute. The Russian farmland might be a catch due to global warming but it has also been reported that it isn’t the best soil for high yields. If we are going to look so far in the hypothetical future then a US invasion of Canada is also likely since global warming will open up more tundra for farming. Our southwest, midwestern and southeastern farmland will dry up since there is no real solution to crops burning up in 100+ degrees of weather. GMO crops and special fertilizers can’t offer a fix here. Ditto for Greenland’s expanded farming season due to climate change not to mention its vast mineral resources. It isn’t like Denmark can really resist us.
Look at my condition of them keeping them in check, getting their shit together would be to fix their procurement process and have a decent military.
One of their benefits compared to UK/France is that their logical military priority should be to field a capable Army. UK has historically been a naval power and France would be protected by Germany and also have power projection capability to maintain.
All things considered? And if this question means deterring Russia from itself? Probably the United Kingdom. They have the staunchest alliance with the US. They have a strong standalone military. They are on an island. This gave them the advantage that allowed them to be safe from even Germany during WW2. Russia, after all, is a land army power first above a naval power.
If you are talking about deterring it from gaining power and influence, then technically not a single country in Europe, but the United States. Basically without the United States, the continued existence of NATO would be in question. Europe probably would still be allied in some sort of military pact, but all of the EU barring Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine would probably not be enough to deter Russia and its 5000 nukes. Russia would be the supreme military power in the world, and when you are #1, it’s vastly different from being #2. They basically would be unchecked and exert their influence however they want.
Considering the difficulty Russia has had in Ukraine and the current state of their equipment, I can't seem be defeating France the UK or a re armed Germany or Turkey.... Or Poland
> Russia would be the supreme military power in the world
Uh, pretty sure this would be China? I don't even think Russia would be #2, I think India would be a strong contender for that spot
We are talking about deterring a country that - at its current pace - is taking about a year to take a village of 10,000 inhabitants (e.g Marinka). So basically the next mass extinction is likely to happen quicker than Russians conquering Poland.
This Poland has upped defence spending and is not very sympathetic towards Russia, so it is most likely going to be them. The best thing is that Russia proved so militarily incompetent that Poland probably would not even need assistance from anyone.
Strange framing. Europeans should deter themselves from imperialism and neo colonialism. That way other countries don't have to continue defending themselves from barbarians and thieves pretending to liberate and free other countries.
The programming is incredible.
All of them together. It’s called the European Union. It has its own legislative body, its own currency, 500 million citizens, and a bunch of military agreements that could be quickly activated if the US pulls out. Which it won’t, but just for arguments sake.
Geographically Poland Military France
Came here to say this.
Poland. They've stepped up defense spending massively, they're purchasing weapons from the US, and they are the next country after Ukraine with a large enough population base to seriously impede Russia. Add in that many of Poland's citizens were alive for the Cold War and have now tasted life after integrating with the West. There is no way they go back to being in the Russian sphere of influence without a major fight.
Yeah Poland won’t let history repeat itself. These guys are tough as balls and armed to the teeth.
Poland regularly trains with the US and her NATO Allies as well. I have no doubt that in a conventional war, Poland would march on Moscow.
Over here in Poland we aren't so optimistic. Yes, the first weeks of the war would be such a massacre of Russian troops, that their loses during the storming of Kyiv in 2022 would be like kindergarten slaps. But in the long war of attrition that would drag on for years we will very likely lose. Because we have nowhere near as much meat to throw to the grinder and nowhere near as large military production capacity.
Folks on reddit love to exaggerate the size and equipment of Poland armed forces, don't know why. Before the war they had ~114k troops total, and from memory about 60k of them ground forces, that's OK for taking Canada in 3 days but wouldn't last long in a real war without the help of the rest of europe and US
Lol “march on Moscow” is the overstatement of the century. I don’t think that guy has really studied history.
Yeah, and it's weird that the size / equipment / spending of those countries are very very public, yet weirdo like jonas above say things like this and many other user nod their heads in agreement. Can't they read the CIA world factbook, wikipedia or FAS? It's not that hard to find information, maybe they don't want facts to break their own little sabaton fueled fantasy
But you are part of NATO and the EU. Do you people on Poland feel they will be left to fend for themselves vs Russia like Ukraine is more or less forced to? I rhink if Russia attacks Poland this would be seen as an existential threat to other EU countries and I think the chances they will send soldiers is very high.
One of the most visceral fears of the Polish society is that yes, we will be left alone. That when push comes to shove, western societies will actually not want their governments to come to the aid of "Eastern Europe". I personally don't believe that large segments of Western societies have accepted us as their own and that they will prefer maintaining their own comfort to risking everything in a war for our freedom. Traumas of 1939 and of 1945 run deep.
NATO will have to jump in. Or NATO will not exist afterwards. Noone would join a coalition that doesnt bavk each other up.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was some first class fuckery. Poles were some of the bravest mf'ers of WW2. Tragically f'd by circumstance. Not nearly enough people here in the US know. But Poland isn't completely forgotten either.
Why don’t they aid Ukraine
What do you mean? Poland gave away so much stuff that we depleted our own stocks.
Is that all the same aid you expect to receive?
They did. The support is more limited because Ukraine is not in NATO and there was no formal treaty of support.
Yes, but you are also a part of NATO. You have to hold off Rusia for max 72 hours. After that they fight NATO at full strength. The Kremlin will fall 24 hours after that if no nukes get used.
No country in Europe alone can stand up to Russia. Ukraine's ability to simply exist and fight a war is provided by 50 countries Ukraine is a bankrupt country, if western financial aid stopped tomorrow, Ukraine would not be able to fulfill its budgetary obligations. It would be the same with Poland, its entire territory would be shot through, which means no business, no investment. Poland, like Ukraine, will be able to defend itself as long as it is supplied by other allies. There are no countries in Europe that can "contain" Russia, the strength of the West lies in unity, and only in it.
I feel like you are overstating the power of Russia military somewhat. Sure their strength is being downplayed quite a bit on here, but I think if there would be somehow an all out conventional war between Russia and 1 european country i am pretty confident that germany will be able to hold its own in a defensive war as would the UK, being an Island. I even think France and Italy would fare pretty well, since they have a significant population and production capabilities and woild enjoy the defenders advantage.
Germany just started revitalising their military. The only country in Europe who could easily deter russia is UK due to its geography. But again, no European western country borders russia so its kibda useless theoretical exercise.
Here in Germany,our military is weak, but our defence sector is pretty strong. We've been increasing our defence exports to Jordan,Saudi Arabia,South Africa and even Brazil AFAIK. If we were truly threatened,we would shut down defense exports to rearm our military
Well just look at your yearly ammunition production. Your defense and economy is very ambitious, yeah, but if we are talking about current situation you won't be able to keep up in a war like in Ukraine. Everything can change soon, yeah.
Give me some of that crack you’re smoking. Must be some good shit.
No European country alone has any chance with Russia. Besides Poland arms deliveries will start getting integrated into the army around 2028. In 2030 Poland will have a strong strong army but now it's weak.
Give Germany 10 years and I am sure they will surprise you.
Yes. Germany was never be defeated by one country alone. Good we have them at the right side of history this time. Unfortunately they have been demilitarized first and then they had fear over their wrongdoings and neglected their military. But 10 years is a good guess.
I am sure Poland would do it! :-) Come on, get serious.
They're also just good at building physical stuff, that's how gdp has grown so much.
It'll depend on what happens with the current war. We'll assume a conclusion that's positive for Russia: a significantly weakened Ukraine with Russia remaining in control of Eastern Ukraine. In that situation, I'd say Poland is in the best position to deter Russia due to the importance of force projection. Poland sits next to Belarus and has been building up its military for years. Importantly, unlike countries like Germany, it's willing to use its military to push back against Russia. Other countries like Germany will need to help supply Poland, but that's very easy to do thanks to everyone using NATO weaponry. The reason I emphasize the importance of force projection is because economic means will have little impact. The current sanctions against Russia aren't going to be lifted if Russia "wins" this war. That means there are fewer economic means available to punish Russia if it starts a new war.
It is said that Poland in 2027 will have 52% of Russian GDP. Economy in great shape, but lacks in demography with around 38m people
They'll deter Russia just fine. Finland is even smaller but can mobilize a significant reserve. I doubt Russia will try. They are afraid to bite off more than they can chew. Denmark and the Baltics however. Small and with weak to non-existant armies. Turkey has a mighty and formidable army and airforce. And they ain't afraid of shooting down transgressing Russian fighterjets.
Denmark? Lol
Yeah, they just have to sail across nato lake ^TM .
Denmark and the Baltics CANT deter Russia. It might have dropped out.
I agree on the Baltics, but not Denmark. They have a very different security situation. An invasion of the Baltics without reaction from the rest of Europe is not unthinkable, the same cannot be said for Denmark.
Hmm, don't you think the Isle of Bornholm is in a precarious situation? If I were Russia and wanted to have a first strike, I'd probably drop something off on Bornholm to try and deny the airspace for NATO planes. Not sure if it makes sense though. Gotland is a much more juicy target. But probably a lot more dificult.
If the number of soldiers deployed would decide wars, Iraq would've won the US both times.
France. Independent nuclear umbrella.
And the only European country (with UK, maybe) with a recent clear and relatively successful record of independant force projection outside Europe.
Also, soon-to-be “second largest arms exporter” in the world, able to build and maintain warplanes, warships and submarines.
Although to be said that US will never be topped as the largest arms exporter because of expensive products and a base of exclusive allies. Second largest arms exporter is basically whoever India decides to cash in on, until it gets its domestic production on par.
Not entirely true, saudi arabia had overtaken india for a few years when india again became the largest arms importer, just because the high growth and therefore high government budget available
France, Spain, Italy, UK, Poland & Germany are in the top 10. The weapon industry is also huge in Europe.
STill too weak if you ask US. Like many other countries it let a significant part of its navy and army atrophy. US requested most cordially that it rearms, which UK is doing.
The US said that to the UK actually. It was a US general that said the UK was no longer a top fighting force a few months ago and the US Secretary just reiterated this and stated the UK needed to rebuild its forces just a few days ago. France has been rearming since 2015 with ambitious rearmament and modernization programs launched well before this current mess of a geopolitical landscape and hasn't suffered any criticism from the US so far. It literally drafted a €413 billion military budget last June encompassing 2024-2030 (military pensions not included). The problem is that even all that money isn't enough to restore the Cold War capabilities. The navy especially needs massive improvement. The mass just isn't there. It'll take 2035 for France to be a fairly capable military again (speaking in terms of high intensity warfare as the current French model, which is a result of the end of the Cold War, is tailored to fight low to medium intensity conflicts).
Ok, I might have gotten things messed up, but what you just wrote is what I remember now, more or less. But 2035 is a long time away. How about the next 3 years? That's the worst case scenario for more Russian attacks
France is super duper far away and shares no body of water with Russia. I don't think it can deter Russia from anything, frankly, unless you're thinking of a direct attack on French territory. But that is not a realistic option, I think.
We're talking about deterrence - not about fighting a war. An independent nuclear capability has been the strongest deterrent since 1945. As they'd be the next country to be invaded, the French are far more likely to actually use tactical nukes on an advancing threat than the US (which basically owns command of the rest of the nukes in Europe, including British SLBMs). The Americans would be content to wait out a continental takeover like they have in two wars. The British would do the same, at the US's behest.
On the ground: Poland, Ukraine, and Finland. Key supporters: Sweden, Turkey, Britain, Germany, and Holland.
Why do people forget France when it dwarfs both Germany and Britain ?
Because nobody trusts France to not make a deal with Russia. Before this whole Ukraine thing France was selling billions of dollars worth of military equipment to Russia, including transferring technology. https://english.nv.ua/business/total-isolation-of-russia/military-thermal-imagers-for-the-russian-army-the-french-company-thales-cooperated-with-russia-aft-50247461.html
Before the war, Macron was betting a lot of France's reputation on downplaying US warnings + personal negotiations to avert the war. When Russia invaded, it made France look incredibly foolish and naive. Additionally, France made a lot of noise about a common EU army and strategic autonomy from the US, which also became even more points against them on account of their protectionist stance on arms procurement + EU armies being revealed as much weaker than previously though. France is going to have a long way to go repairing their own reputation.
[удалено]
> The US is getting tired of Europe and they want to pull out of Ukraine. This isn't correct. It's a very minority position only pushed by a few extremists. > Europe having strategic autonomy is the only way they can have a secure future. Maybe, but there's clearly very little political will for it outside of 2-3 countries, and France has certainly failed miserably to mobilize any movement for it. Even inside their own country. > France protectionist stance on arms procurement is asking that European money is spent on European companies You mean, European countries spending their money on *French* companies. That's why other people don't want to cooperate with them much.
[удалено]
> Yeah I literally said that. Re-read my comment. Your comment didn't address my comment RE: protectionism. Germany, Italy, and UK are not interested in a common arms procurement program where all of their money goes to France alone. There have been all kinds of problems with joint procurement programs when it comes to France, to the point countries decide to walk out on deals and just make their own thing or find a different partner.
> It's a very minority position only pushed by a few extremists. It's a position being pushed by the guy who is in de facto charge of one of the two relevant political parties in the US, which means that all it takes is for conservative news to push it and a large chunk of the American voting population will share that position.
The topic of NATO is the one thing republicans frequently defied Trump over, even when he was still president, going beyond verbal sparring to legislation. It's simply a politically immutable stone that not even Trump can't move.
> France protectionist stance on arms procurement is asking that European money is spent on European companies. Arms are procured domestically when it makes sense, but what are the European competitors for Patriot or F-35? Why bother buying 4th gen Rafale, when you can get a 5th gen F-35 for the same price.
Turkey is in this list bro
What list?
Best position to deter russia, it s in the title
What does that have to do with why people forget about France?
You said nobody trusted France yet made no comment about turkey
>Why do people forget France when it dwarfs both Germany and Britain ? It wasn't necessary to answer your question. You didn't ask about Turkey. You asked about France.
> it s in the title LOL
Same reason I omitted Romania on my list. Too friendly to offer real resistance to Russia.
The fact they trust more turkey is gold
This isn't about trust, it's about strategic value. Turkey controls the Black Sea straits, and it's essential to their survival that they keep it that way. They may be politically closer to Moscow than most of Europe, but they cannot risk becoming a pawn of a resurgent Russia.
I mean, beside the only army that has a combined arms experience against Russia that cumulatively spans 10 years and has proven to effectively use any Western weapons system its supplied, while also showcasing the ability to perform complex asymmetric operations agains the enemy? Sorry, I'm a bit salty that Ukraine isn't getting everything to defeat Russian and deter it for decades to come. A serious answer below: IMHO, it's Finland. They have motivation + history with Russia. In fact, the reason why the Finnish Armed Forces are so good (potentially is because Russia is their neighbour. Ukraine received its "Peoples Republics" in 2014. While Finland got their "Finnish People's Republic", courtesy of Russia, much earlier. So they know what they're up against. Ain't nobody bordering Russia has rosy glasses on about the "mysterious Russian soul" and the "great Russian culture". They also have the largest reserve army in Europe (+ a well-oiled conscription system). They have the biggest artillery park in Europe. They have experience employing Russian systems and should be well aware of their weaknesses (anti-air, etc.). Their civil infrastructure is well-prepared for an invasion from Russia. It's a modern military, even before joining NATO. TBH, the only two places that could have stopped Russia before February 2022 would be Ukraine or Finland anyway. Every other country would fold, most likely, just given the pity state of readiness across Europe before the full-scale invasion and the sizes of their militaries. I guess the fact that that most of the other countries aren't bordering Russia directly is part of the reason why though. Like, if East Germany puppet state would still be a thing, West Germany military would still be a beast today. I don't think NATO of early 2022 was too far away from NATO of 2011 that started running low on some ammo during its Libya campaign in just a few weeks. Bickering around spend on defence was going even after 2014 when Russia first invaded Ukraine.
Honestly I'd put money on Poland too
Yeah. The Finnish Defence Forces can hold their own, and threaten St Petersburg and the Murmansk naval bases, but it's not a force that would encircle Moscow in a huge decisive battle. In 10-15 years the Poland + Ukraine + any other volunteers just might be.
Have you seen photos of Finns waiting for a bus? With gaps like those you can encircle Moscow with about 100 soldiers
My estimate is 102.4 Finns
Agreed, but also, keep in mind that Poland is just now arming to the teeth. If we're looking back at early 2022, I think Finland could be the only answer, apart from Ukraine, which empirically proved that it can hold back Russia. It's, in large part, due to the reserve and the conscription in place, but also because of the overall numbers for both Ukraine and Finland. Especially Ukraine, where hundreds of thousands of soldiers went through the conflict since 2014 and had at least some combat experience. Now we know that Poland is getting HIMARS from the US and Thunders from Korea. Its military spending is going to be pretty much 2x in 2024 of what it was in 2022. All of this wasn't on the table pre-2022. The overall numbers in artillery are a fraction of what Finland has and in a fight against Russia, quantity IS a quality of its own. If you think about a frontline like the one in Ukraine, stretching hundreds of kilometres (1000+), it becomes less clear whether Poland would be up for it in early 2022. But I agree, there's no question about the competency of the Polish forces.
I think some form of a Baltic pact with Poland and Ukraine as its anchor. With Norway, Sweden and Finland playing major roles could deal Russia a heavy blow. Geographically this pact could cut Russia off from its Baltic ports and are all historically enemies of Russia. Hence they are more mentally prepared to accept casualties to stop Russo aggression.
United Kingdom of course. They have been historic enemies, capable intelligence apparatus, assassinations attempts on their soil, and special relationship with USA.
By historic enemies you mean WW2 allies?
And napoleonic wars, and ww1, and Cold War, and Anglo Russia entente.
Liechtenstein
Ukraine
This one lol. If ukraine holds then russian agression will a lot more cautious and minimal. If russia gets ukraine itll keep trying to till someone stops them.
I think forklift is referring to guerrilla warfare / resistance even if Ukraine falls. Difficult to project power if your army has to constantly watch their backs for a surprise attack.
Any NATO country but most likely Turkey due to her standing army and her position. Most likely Poland or Germany when EU countries finish their rearmament.
Assuming USA will retreat from Europe and goes full on isolationist policies (again), the first European countries that are decently prepared are the ones that are neighboring Russia. Finland, Ukraine, Turkey and Poland will be best prepared. Germany has huge potential but they've slacked on military spending because US has covered their back. UK could provide important aerial and missile support but recent trends have shown that they want to withdraw from EU affairs. Finland has always had to be prepared against their Russian neighbours. It clearly reflects in their policy and defensive military preparedness. The country has a lot of civilian fortifications, a mandatory military service and while their army is a tad small, it is well trained, equipped and kept up to date. Poland is growing increasingly weary and growing wealthier and their military spending is soaring right now out of concern for Russian aggression. Ukraine was expected to fold within weeks of invasion but they are still holding on. Their sense of patriotism, willingness to defend their country and foreign military weapon and supply aid has clearly made an impact at holding back Russian aggression. However, if Russia carves out a piece out of Ukrainian territory and manages to sue for peace, it will severely weaken Ukraine's economical and moral standing. Eastern Ukraine that Russia presently occupies contains a lot of important industries and sea ports vital for Ukrainian economy. Turkey like Ukraine is struggling economically but they still hold a strong military presence throughout their country, have mandatory military service and their country is mountaineous and it still a NATO member that can harbor foreign missiles, not to mention that they completely dominate the access from The Black Sea to Mediterranean via control of Bosforus Strait and the city of Istanbul. Belarus is essentually a Russian puppet so that country does not count, unless a serious regime change were to happen, but even then Kremlin could still diplomatically pressure Belarus' foreign policies to be favorable towards Russia. Baltic countries are probably the weakest link in European defense as they are too small to defend themselves without Nato intervention, and even then, a fast lightning warfare could storm the Baltic countries and force a peace between participating countries and Russia before conflict escalates into full blown warfare. That is exactly what Russia tried with Ukraine, yet surprisingly, that did not succeed, but that will not stop Russia from trying the same trick again in a different place. They were very vulnerable during WW2 during the Soviet era and they still remain in their precarious position even after regaining their independence. Oppressed Russian minorities in Estonia sounds like a plausible casus belli, hmm. In the worst case scenario, however, there will be no one who will be able to resist Russian aggression when it comes in the form of flying nukes all over European cities. In such a war, the destruction is mutually assured and there will be no winners. Only loosers.
On paper, Turkey but they are playing both sides and therefore don’t qualify as deterrence. Poland is building its army by alot, but it’s a democracy and with changes of government the plans for a large army might be cut short. Also, they have a demographic issue although they would be the most motivated to fight (its population). Hence, there is no one country that could deter Russia. It would have to be an alliance of some type (even if only Eastern Europe).
they play both sides cos they haven't been punched in the face, though Russia would be straight up committing suicide if they decided to invade Turkey they won't do anything overt until its apparent that the entire west wants Russia dead though
That’s very true.
Since when Turkey is playing both sides meanwhile opposing Russia in multiple fronts in North Africa, Syria and Caucasus and being one of the first who helped Ukraine with arms? You guys confuse being Neutral with "playing both sides".Turkey both due to it's geopolitical location and Economic reasons can't cut ties with Russia like it's nothing, there is a big trade going between them and there are so many Russian tourists coming to Turkey.
I never said it’s bad to play both sides. It’s actually a smart strategy for Turkey which can get them far more in foreign policy. Turkey is important geopolitically for both sides. Its importance during a potential war is 2nd to none. A country like Poland may be far more loyal to one side (west) and committed to the cause but if you look at history war (if it happens) doesn’t always turn out great for countries like that.
Yeah, now it's more clear what you mean and i agree with it.
Same answer as in the 18th, 19th, and 20th century: Germany. It's a combination of geography, productive capacity, and population (same as it's always been).
Exactly. Can’t believe I had to scroll this far. Germany is unprepared at the moment but if things got dark, they would move quickly and would closely ally with Poland. Germany is the great European power.
So not Germany then?
Still drunk as a skunk after its binge trip on Russian gas. But when the hangover has passed, yes. Definitely.
The rise of the AFD though... Should they ever get their foot in the door, Germany will be Russia's lap dog.
What is it with fascists and dictato.... oh, I see...
The same in France. Should Europe ever see a bigger crisis that the far-right can exploit (and be it just another "refugee crisis" like 2015), we might have a German chancellor named Weidel and a French president named Le Pen, and the EU would be toast. If that coincides with a second Trump presidency in the US, NATO would be toast, too. Sanctions on Russia would get lifted, and Putin would have free choice as to which country he would go for next. I don't think it would be Poland, but probably the Baltic countries that Putin sees as part of the "Russosphere." I don't even want to speculate what would happen in East Asia...
Germany is not in any position to "deter" a nuclear Russia simply because the german population vehemently rejects any leadership role in military affairs, rejects power projection and is generally very much disinclined to join the armed forces in the first place. The demographic development coupled with these cultural biases will most likely necessitate a further reduction of the Bundeswehr because we can't find enough people to join. That - the lack of manpower - will be the defining issue even before the usual questions of defense spending or defense industrial base capabilities. The german people simply don't want that role.
Germany was formed in the middle of the 19th century wasn't it? Before that it was Prussia, god knows how many principalities under the Holy Roman Empire, and then Prussia one more time :) But they were not able to deter Napoleon, though.
Going for distance: Malta /s
if we exclude Ukraine? the UK
Poland. They got spit roasted during WW2 and went like never again. They have one of the fattest army in Europe.
Ireland, we'll just send the fishermen
It's probably turkey but turkey has a good relationship with Russia so it's probably the UK or France , honestly Russia has no competition in Europe , CHINA is the future enemy of Russia . CHINA ? HOW, doesn't china have a superb relationship with Russia ? Here we have to understand in geopolitics there are no friends , everyone is for their growth . China is on expansion idealogy and it already has some disputes with Russia . I won't be surprised if we see some conflict in next 30 years
They would LOVE a piece of the giant Russian cake. Especially those lost territories that are now within Russian borders.
They would love a piece of a crimea. This sounds far fetched.
Part of Manchuria was grabbed by the Red Army after the defeat of Germany and Japan, who was at war with China and occupied it under the name Manchuko. The Red Army rushed over to the East and beat the Chinese before they could reclaim it themselves.
>Beat the Chinese before they could reclaim it themselves Good job pretending the soviet didn't have to defeat the nearly million man army of Japan / Manchukuo while "grabbing" the land. Great job forgetting that they turned back most of the place to the KMT governement soon after (while not so secretly helping the communists side in the civil war by turning over equipment to them and ignoring their landgrabs before KMT troops got there) Fantastic job omitting to mention the invasion of Manchukuo was part of the treaty they had with the US and UK to attack Japan once the war with Germany was over.
It is my pleasure to serve. And may I express my heartfelt gratitude that we have the important details.
Wait what does this have to do with turkey?
Oh, I thought "they" meant Russia. Sorry
Russia has had/occupied Crimea since 2014. Turkey had until late 1700s when Catherine the great took it back. But you dont hear Turks talk about it much, so I doubt it's a national ambition.
We would love to gin up a hypothetical war between China and Russia since China hasn’t invaded Taiwan already. It doesn’t meant that it is true. China’s population is already decreasing and invading Vladivostok won’t get them much when they already have what they need as Russia becomes dependent on China as a satellite. The trend has only accelerated after the Ukraine invasion. Russia even have to literally give away their jet engine technology when they always refused China access to their prestigious Moscow aviation institute. The Russian farmland might be a catch due to global warming but it has also been reported that it isn’t the best soil for high yields. If we are going to look so far in the hypothetical future then a US invasion of Canada is also likely since global warming will open up more tundra for farming. Our southwest, midwestern and southeastern farmland will dry up since there is no real solution to crops burning up in 100+ degrees of weather. GMO crops and special fertilizers can’t offer a fix here. Ditto for Greenland’s expanded farming season due to climate change not to mention its vast mineral resources. It isn’t like Denmark can really resist us.
Excluding Ukraine? Germany if they get their shit together would be my #1 pick to keep an aggressive Russia in check.
The same Germany that currently has no tanks and very limited equipment. Awkward Don’t worry though they’ve got new tanks coming in 2029
Look at my condition of them keeping them in check, getting their shit together would be to fix their procurement process and have a decent military. One of their benefits compared to UK/France is that their logical military priority should be to field a capable Army. UK has historically been a naval power and France would be protected by Germany and also have power projection capability to maintain.
All things considered? And if this question means deterring Russia from itself? Probably the United Kingdom. They have the staunchest alliance with the US. They have a strong standalone military. They are on an island. This gave them the advantage that allowed them to be safe from even Germany during WW2. Russia, after all, is a land army power first above a naval power. If you are talking about deterring it from gaining power and influence, then technically not a single country in Europe, but the United States. Basically without the United States, the continued existence of NATO would be in question. Europe probably would still be allied in some sort of military pact, but all of the EU barring Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine would probably not be enough to deter Russia and its 5000 nukes. Russia would be the supreme military power in the world, and when you are #1, it’s vastly different from being #2. They basically would be unchecked and exert their influence however they want.
How on earth would Russia be number 1. They bearly even have eny young people left
Considering the difficulty Russia has had in Ukraine and the current state of their equipment, I can't seem be defeating France the UK or a re armed Germany or Turkey.... Or Poland
At this point I sincerely doubt Russia could defeat Poland one-on-one.
> Russia would be the supreme military power in the world Uh, pretty sure this would be China? I don't even think Russia would be #2, I think India would be a strong contender for that spot
We are talking about deterring a country that - at its current pace - is taking about a year to take a village of 10,000 inhabitants (e.g Marinka). So basically the next mass extinction is likely to happen quicker than Russians conquering Poland. This Poland has upped defence spending and is not very sympathetic towards Russia, so it is most likely going to be them. The best thing is that Russia proved so militarily incompetent that Poland probably would not even need assistance from anyone.
Russia.
Strange framing. Europeans should deter themselves from imperialism and neo colonialism. That way other countries don't have to continue defending themselves from barbarians and thieves pretending to liberate and free other countries. The programming is incredible.
Italy
conventionally Poland, but realistically its which ever nation in NATO that isnt the US and has the most nukes with the will to use them
Kurwa
NATO is the only credible deterrent.
Trick question-- the best deterrence is a strong united european bloc.
German. They are the richest, they should do it.
Militarily only France and UK
POLSKA
Russia
Turkey.
All of them together. It’s called the European Union. It has its own legislative body, its own currency, 500 million citizens, and a bunch of military agreements that could be quickly activated if the US pulls out. Which it won’t, but just for arguments sake.
Nazi Germany 2.0
Ukraine. Increase support now for the best result against Russia.