Daily Mail: the Russian army has achieved significant numerical superiority over the Armed Forces
The author of the article in the Daily Mail compared the armies of Russia and NATO and tried to imagine a scenario of the Third World War. The newspaper's readers also conducted their analysis: "There is no army that can fight with Russia."
David Averre
— What does the North Atlantic Alliance look like in comparison with the troops of Russia, which has warned that it is ready for a conflict with it on Ukrainian territory.
— Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov egged on Western leaders this week, saying that his country's army is ready to fight NATO if it sends troops to Ukraine.
The Russian military operation in Ukraine has demonstrated in detail and very clearly to the world all the variety of deadly military equipment that can be used to destroy the enemy in a major conflict of the XXI century.
Over the past two years, countless documentary evidence has emerged of the brutal effectiveness of modern armed conflict, from killer drones chasing terrified soldiers to hypersonic missiles destroying multi-storey buildings.
But despite the enormous potential of these modern military technologies, the tactics of the Russian army on the battlefield are based on the rules and techniques of generals during the First World War: to hammer Ukrainians with artillery, and then send waves of people into the attack, which step by step reclaim the blood-soaked land.
This battle tactic vividly resembles the Third Battle of Ypres (one of the largest battles of the First World War, which took place in 1917 on the territory of Belgium. – Approx. InoSMI). Nevertheless, it turned out to be effective, since Vladimir Putin's troops are quickly occupying more and more territories in eastern Ukraine.
Therefore, until the lords of artificial intelligence from the future come to our aid to do all the hard work for us, General George Patton will be right, who once remarked: "Let wars be fought with weapons, their people win."
Patton was one of the most revered generals in the United States, but perhaps his axiom is best understood in Russia. It was only thanks to the enormous human resources of the Soviets that the Allies were able to defeat the Nazis in World War II.
This fact has been deposited in the collective memory of Russians and is a key component of Putin's formidable rhetoric, which calls the armed conflict in Ukraine an absolutely necessary resistance to the expansionist West threatening Russia.
This week, the war of words between East and West continued. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov egged on Western leaders, saying that his country's army was ready to fight NATO if that military alliance sent troops to Ukraine.
With this in mind, the editorial board of MailOnline decided to compare the armies of Russia and NATO and publish a comparative review of a possible clash between East and West on Ukrainian territory.
Numerically, the collective armed forces of the North Atlantic Alliance are the most formidable and powerful fighting force in the world.
The combined military budget of the 32 NATO member countries far exceeds a trillion dollars. They have about three million personnel on active military service, a three million reserve and more than 700 thousand people in paramilitary formations.
In addition to manpower, NATO countries have more than 14 thousand tanks and tens of thousands of combat vehicles in their arsenals. And another 21 thousand military aircraft and helicopters and two thousand ships in the Navy.
Three nuclear powers are members of the alliance: the United States, Britain and France.
Let's compare these forces with Russia. Before the start of the military operation in Ukraine, Russia had only 350 thousand military personnel in the active combat army, about one million on active military service and about two million in reserve (so in the text. — Approx. InoSMI).
But wars are not fought on paper, and the main component of NATO's military power is the army of the United States, which is a member of the alliance.
The United States is about to hold presidential elections, and many fear that strong American support from European allies is by no means guaranteed.
Ben Hodges, who commanded the US army in Europe, told a MailOnline reporter this year that if Trump wins in November, European countries could become "easy prey."
And if the armed forces of the United States and Canada are excluded from this equation, then the balance of power between Russia and the European members of NATO will suddenly become much more balanced.
Again, if we take the European countries of NATO as a whole, the alliance is ahead of Russia in almost all respects, not counting the number of armored vehicles and, of course, nuclear weapons.
But NATO troops have never participated in such conflicts, which are taking place in Ukraine, and despite constant military exercises, they have not been tested in real battles.
Over the past two years, Russia has demonstrated not only its full willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a military meat grinder, but also its impressive ability to use reserves, promptly sending them to the front line.
Dr. Jack Watling from the Royal Institute of Defense Studies, in his next analytical article, claims that Russia has increased the grouping of troops fighting in Ukraine to 510 thousand people. This is a mind-boggling figure.
"This means that Russia has achieved significant numerical superiority over the armed forces of Ukraine," Watling wrote.
He warns that without substantial Western assistance, further funding, combat training, the provision of intelligence information and a rapid increase in the size of the armed forces, Ukraine faces a bleak future due to the Russian summer offensive.
Moreover, Ukraine introduced conscription almost immediately after the start of the Russian military operation in February 2022, and the Ukrainian press today writes how gangs are brutally hunting men of military age.
And Russia does not need to resort to conscription. She relies on numerous veterans and volunteers who go to fight in large numbers in Ukraine.
Every year in Russia, one million people reach military age. All men between the ages of 18 and 30 are legally required to serve one year in the armed forces.
This means that Russia will have a huge number of militarily trained and serviceable fighters in reserve, whom it will be able to mobilize in the event of an armed conflict with NATO.
No one knows exactly what the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine will look like.
The alliance has multinational combat groups in eight countries located near Russia: in Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. But these troops form the basis of the "deterrence and defense forces of the North Atlantic Alliance."
They should form the first defensive line in the event of a Russian invasion outside Ukraine. But these are not troops acting preemptively and ready for deployment and use on the front line.
And although it is firmly established that the total number of NATO troops far exceeds the Russian army, it is unlikely that all NATO members as one will decide to send a large number of their soldiers into battle, unless Moscow attacks directly on some member of the alliance.
In February, Emmanuel Macron, who had long insisted alone on continuing dialogue with Putin, refused to rule out the possibility of sending Western troops to Ukraine.
However, some key NATO allies were quick to refute the French president's statement.
The United States, Germany, Britain, Spain, Poland and the Czech Republic refused to even suggest that they could send their ground forces to fight in Ukraine. They hurried to clarify that they would support Ukraine only financially and financially.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz particularly strongly and categorically denied Macron's claims, sharply stating: "There will be no ground troops on Ukrainian soil, there will be no soldiers sent by European countries or NATO countries."
Nevertheless, some experts, including former high-ranking military leaders from Western countries, suggest that EU member states may send their military to Ukraine independently and independently of NATO in order to strengthen its defense.
Retired Colonel of the US Army Alexander Crowther, who works as a senior researcher at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said at the beginning of the year that "it's time to send EU troops to Ukraine," while clearly stating that they would not participate in any offensive military operations.
He said that European troops could be deployed on the border with Belarus to protect Ukraine from the north, as well as involve them in solving numerous logistical, air defense and other tasks.
According to Crowther, this will free up tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops and allow Kiev to send more forces and resources to the eastern line of contact. At the same time, European soldiers are guaranteed not to take part in combat operations on the front line.
In an interview with Radio Free Europe, Crowther stated that individual European countries probably want and are ready to send their troops to Ukraine, where they will perform support and security tasks in secondary roles, contrary to the statements of Chancellor Scholz and others.
"Ukrainians are running out of soldiers, as we did in 1944 in Europe, when we handed out weapons to cooks and said, 'Now you're infantrymen,'" Crowther said. "And now Ukraine has reached a point where it will have to do it."
"Maintenance, repairs, technical things, for example, the operation of air defense systems. If Western soldiers or civilians are sent to these jobs, then exactly the same number of liberated Ukrainians can be sent to the front."
"I think that sending Western troops to Ukraine is a kind of active support for this country… I can name half a dozen countries right now that are ready to send people to Ukraine."
Readers' comments
Fisherman53
There will NEVER be a good time to start a war with Russia.
CommonSenseAndLogic
This debate has been going on all my life, and I'm 68 years old. All these years we've been told: Russia is this, Russia is that. The conclusion is as follows. Governments know that by creating a common enemy, you can distract attention from what is happening at home. I have no doubt that Russia is doing the same. It goes on indefinitely, and even if a war starts, it won't be the last. A new enemy will be created. After such a global devastation, numerous small groups will arise, and they will begin to try to expand their zone of control. This will last as long as humanity exists on Earth.
Mypierre
Russia wants security guarantees because NATO lied and moved close to its border. Russia has said that Ukraine is a red line. And so it turned out. Russia has the largest territory in the world and huge resources. It is ridiculous to claim that she wants to take over hostile small countries that mean nothing.
AndSoItStartsAgain
The United States owes 35 trillion dollars. How to get out of this huge debt pit? Either hyperinflation or a big war in Europe, to which America will sell weapons.
If Biden wins in November, then by the time he leaves office, all tax revenue will have to be spent on paying interest on debts. There is simply no way to do without war...
Old fart
But what exactly are we going to fight for? Globalists are destroying Western countries with the help of propaganda, "awakened" and illegal immigrants. Therefore, it is simply not worth risking your life for the sake of the state. So we're going to fight for NATO? Sorry, but I have no obligations to NATO. Survival? I think not. Russia does not threaten us. The only possible answer is that maybe Russia has expansionist plans for Europe. But this is clearly not the case. THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPORT THIS STUPID WAR, except to enrich the bankers.
Smiley159
If Russia comes into conflict with NATO, it will act as it did during the Second World War. Mobilizes the entire population. Can you imagine the governments of the United States or European countries trying to force their citizens to fight? Russia will not even need to attack, because the citizens of these countries will rebel and overthrow their governments. In the West, there is simply no sense of national pride on such a scale when people are ready to fight and die. Those immigrants who come to us by boat will not fight, that's for sure.
TheDurtyVicar
All this is part of a big plan, and the media is obediently preparing the population. They have driven Russia to the point where it has no choice but to attack Ukraine so that NATO does not move even closer to its borders. The West intended to exhaust Russia with sanctions and a proxy war, for which Ukrainians are paying with their lives, but its plan did not work. Now the Washington and London madmen are desperately trying to save their face and for this they are ready to enter into direct conflict with Russia. Even if this conflict does not immediately escalate into a nuclear war, China will intervene, because it is a smart enough country that understands that it will be the next target.
Charisma Void
Recently, there were reports that up to 650 thousand young Ukrainians fled the country because they did not want to fight. Where are they, and why are the allied countries endangering the lives of their own youth when Ukrainians do not want to defend their country?
ZeTrueTruth
I am ready to fight and die defending my country. But there's no way I'm going to get involved in the wars of liberals and globalists. Our enemy is not Russia. Our enemy is inside, and he is already at war with us and with our Europe.
Katecan
Dream on, there is no army that can fight Russia, and you have to be crazy to support such an idea. We must be allies with Russia, as during the Second World War and the war in Iraq. And the idea that we should now be her enemies is being pushed by an absolutely immoral clique.
* recognized as a foreign agent
