> By troop count, munitions stock, or the number if tanks and jets I don't see anyone as having a particularly impressive military in Europe.
compared to what? Who does Europe need to fight who has more ammo, tanks, jets and nukes? Russia has proven itself unable to take on Ukraine with half-assed support by the west, China and India are far away.
Shall Europe prepare to fight the US for Greenland?
I'm sure Russia can do more, e.g. they have not enacted martial law and forced conscription. What I'm saying is that the current level of deterrent seems enough given what we now know about Russia's military might.
NATO-without-USA has more aircraft, tanks, and watercrafts than Russia. Less stored ammo for sure, and probably not as effective, but on the other hand: nukes.
I'd be curious if NATO would actually stay together without the US, though to be clear that's a theoretical curiosity that I'd be happy never to see answered.
It sure seems to me like NATO is largely built on the assumption of US involvement, but I could be biased there.
that was a somewhat defensible if somewhat silly position back in 2022, but in 2025 with part of Russia occupied by Ukraine, the Soviet stockpiles emptied, and North Koreans being brought in to fill the gaps, what the hell are you talking about?
I actually expected them to do better (militarily, obviously worse for Ukraine) in the first few days of the war. They showed the Russian military hadn't learned much from their previous logistics issues, but resources wasn't the problem.
Sounds like we just have different expectations of how stretched the Russians are today, nothing wrong with especially as I'm assuming neither of us have access to the most meaningful field assessment reports.
My view on how the Russians have handled the war, since losing their chance at a quick sweep, has been that they are doing only enough to keep pressure and roughly maintain the front line gains they made. Sure that line has moved, and Ukraine did a pretty impressive job capturing some Russian territory which I don't think was expected by many, but the Russians seem to be balancing a lot more than just a single goal of victory.
I'm curious where you are getting reliable Intel on the Russians current stockpile of munitions, I haven't come across anything meaningful there publicly beyond potentially politically motivated statements and reporting regurgitating those same claims.
Edit: its worth noting there are other reason the North Koreans may have sent troops. If the country is feels the military needs actual combat experience for whatever reason, for example, they could send troops regardless of whether it actually helps the Russian effort.
For a detailed description of Russian losses to date, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzR8BacYS6U. (with data mostly from https://www.youtube.com/@CovertCabal/videos which go into the satellite pictures which are pretty hard to dispute.) The TLDR is Russia to date has lost
almost all their functional BMDs
~4/5ths of their functional BMPs
almost all of their MTLBs and MTLbus
~2/3rds of their big artillery
~1/3rd of their small artillery (because they are short on ammo)
all of their mortars
~4/5ths of their towed artillery (that isn't from WW2)
~9/10ths of their rocket artillery
Furthermore, these numbers have been cross correlated with visually confirmed loss data https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum..., .
Russia has an estimated 1.5 million troops and plenty of equipment. They have seemed to still be very lacking in military logistics, which is crucial, but they also haven't seemed to be throwing everything they have at Ukraine.
I'd strongly recommend you not underestimate Russian ability by assuming Ukraine is the best they could do. That doesn't mean they are going to invade further into Europe, but we're talking about military size and deterrence here.