Subject: Re: war with Denmark or Panama??
The Poles don't need to be told about the Russians and what they're like, so they've always been a NATO member that spends what it should.

NATO is also a global force; it doesn't just align itself against the Russians.

Sure. But you were arguing that the lack of stuff that these specific NATO countries are missing in their individual arsenals means that they don't take their national defense commitments seriously. And that's wrong. They spend collectively about a quarter trillion dollars on national defense. Most of the EU nations have invested heavily in their non-mechanized army divisions, because that's what makes sense. Your armored divisions are concentrated in the handful of countries that are on the NATO border with Russia (Poland, Turkey, Greece - and it won't surprise you that Finland's got a lot of tanks for a small country), and you don't emphasize your navy because the primary threat you're defending against lacks the naval resources to invade you that way.

Subs are for sea lane denial. Why do you suppose we have hydrophone arrays along the ocean floor in the G-I-UK gap?

Sure, but it's not like the EU member states don't have subs themselves - or counter-submarine naval capabilities. The navies of the EU member states are roughly the same size (collectively) as Russia, and roughly the same number of submarines (about 65 for Russia and the EU powers). I don't *think* any of them are nuclear powered ballistic missile subs (which make up about a quarter of Russia's sub fleet, as part of their nuclear deterrent), so they probably have more subs intended for sea lane denial than the Russians.

Europe has a very sizable military. If you think it should be somewhat bigger, I think there's an argument to be made for that (and against it) - but the notion that they don't have any material military forces to defend themselves is simply wrong.