No. of Recommendations: 1
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...they haven't, for the better part of 70 years. You can't point to budget increases that happened in the last 12-24 months and claim they've been dedicated members of NATO, sorry.
Most of the EU nations have invested heavily in their non-mechanized army divisions, because that's what makes sense. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countri...You mean like this? France's Army is 45% smaller than it was in 1989.
and you don't emphasize your navy because the primary threat you're defending against lacks the naval resources to invade you that way.I'm sorry, but this is just a fundamental mistake you're making. Does Europe source and supply everything they need to function as a society natively? Or do they import a lot of materiel and gear?
Since it's the latter, how do you think that stuff gets to them? Is it all flown in?
How about this stuff?
https://www.britannica.com/video/Overview-tankers-...How well equipped are NATO navies at stopping a Russian or a Chinese sub from blowing one of these to kingdom come?
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). You're aware that in undersea warfare the advantage is to the attacker, right? NATO navies have to defend literally hundreds of millions of square kilometers.
