Why are european armies so weak?

Why are european armies so weak? We make fun of Russia, but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    France is the 2nd army in the world
    UK has the best infantry in the world

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >France is the 2nd army in the world
      >UK has the best infantry in the world
      No one seriously believe that other than deluded euros.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >No one seriously believe that other than deluded euros.
        Except that its what the CIA believes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the cia is retarded

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            for all their retardation they've been spying on us to no end so they probably know better then our own heads of state.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the thing the CIA "leaked" is the real opinion of the CIA and not just information that was deliberately leaked or said to influence opinions and decision making
          Does it hurt to be such a retard?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothing EVER happens! Ever!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is how we know you are a new fag and don't know what you are talking about.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      imbecile first worlder. KEK.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >openly admits to being a thirdie
        Embarrassing

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >superpooer by 2020 getting uppity even when knowing his precious turd world shithole still flies outdated piece of crap migs
        Kek

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >UK has the best infantry in the world

      Lel
      Lemao even

      Ukraine lost more men than the entire British standing army (~80,000 men).

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is your source the russian MoD?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And ?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      /Thread

      The legion trains EVERY other single SOF unit in highly specialized environments. Not saying the legion is the only part of Frances army, but they have been in non stop warfare all over the world for a century. The oil occupation wars america fought with infinite money are not the same.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what, the Foreign Legion? they're more like elite light infantry, don't you think?

        the British Army is kind of small, so they're quite picky in terms of recruitment. maybe that, in addition to their history, is why they have a strong infantry arm. but their vehicles needs modernising.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > LE
          > Elite
          Lol, lmao even

          > ITT fut-futs talking about THE FOREIGN LEGION!!! as if it isn't the same as all other NATO Infantry + minority crime rings

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The FFL isn't terrible, but they aren't good. For comparison, I would say that they are better than Middle East/N African 3rd world shitholes, but worse than many Euros

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's always atrocious dealing with retards like you who can't figure out that the FFL doesn't get any more deployments than the rest of the army they get deployed alongside of, and that the FFL isn't "it's own thing" but is split among brigades with regular units.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are european armies so weak
      They aren't.
      >We make fun of Russia
      For good reason
      >but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.
      France or Britain would be in Kiev.

      lol
      nope and nope
      not even close

      Russia, Turkey, Iran, China, India, Korea and many more ahead of them.
      France is being cucked in Africa by Russians and Chinese. Brits has only reliable intelligence and some spec.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia, Turkey, Iran, China, India, Korea and many more ahead of them.

        completely delusional

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          South Korea would demolish the UK and France, probably even combined

          China would erase the UK and France assuming no outside intervention and it was only these countries involved full stop

          Russia has proven its ability to steamroll Germany, Germany walked through the UK and France together like they were third world insurgents trying to go against a modern military

          Turkey and India are more interesting comparable to the UK and France, could go either way but on neutral ground its still unimaginable how the UK and France could ever take these given they only have 200 garbage tier tanks and less than 100 self propelled artillery, the land forces of the UK and France are extremely worrisome worse than most third world nations without exaggeration

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Russia has proven its ability to steamroll Germany, Germany walked through the UK and France together like they were third world insurgents trying to go against a modern military

            Are you really basing your opinion regarding the world as it is on what happened 80 years ago?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine being this fucking delusional. None of the Euro armies are in the world's top fucking 50. The only actual armies on the continent are Ukraine and Turkey. If Ukraine wasn't in the way, Russia could've reached the Atlantic coast in a month. Furthermore, only Poland and Finland have the morale to fight the insurgency after their regular armies would be crushed due to a lack of air defenses (literally everything about this war is explained by Ukrainian air defenses), and the bongs can chill across the channel, but that's it. The rest of Europe would surrender after a few hours of token resistance.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I agree, comrade. I am Ivan Smithovich from Netherlands Oblast. Europe is of weak and demoralized and power of russian bear is very fearsome. We should stop supporting Ukraine and let Russia win before Putinovich nukes us.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ironically Turkey has the best military in Europe if we are talking about which countries would actually end up doing the best in an actual full scale war

        Ukraine is probably the next best but only because they are being funneled weapons and equipment from the entire free world to be the meat shield against Russia, but all of their equipment being given is 2nd tier at best and the country is notoriously corrupt historically even worse than Russia

        This said, Poland is probably going to be the best military in Europe for the foreseeable future after a few years, they are not only buying massive quantities of weapons but the vast majority of their new equipment is the latest available, this combine with a proper scale to engage in a full scale war indicates Poland is going to be the sword of Europe whereas Ukraine is the meat shield

        Greece has massive quantities but most of their equipment is archaic, they are positioned to be an implied soft meat shield to counter/slowdown Turkey from a deterrence perspective, not a real military nation against advanced nations but decent for thirdies

        The best pound-for-pound in Europe though are Finland and Norway, they often go overlooked but despite their small size they have both modern equipment (or modernizing) + reasonable scale given their size

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nice try, Osmanoglue, but no

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not a single lie detected

        I agree, comrade. I am Ivan Smithovich from Netherlands Oblast. Europe is of weak and demoralized and power of russian bear is very fearsome. We should stop supporting Ukraine and let Russia win before Putinovich nukes us.

        [...]

        pathetic nafo bitch non-argument

        >pic related

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >pathetic nafo bitch non-argument
          kys but get off this board first you boring spammer

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are european armies so weak? We make fun of Russia, but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.

      France's Military Budget is the sameas Russia's Military budget, despte the difference in size and population.

      Russia has decided "Quantity over Quality".
      And how is that going for them over there?
      How is Russian Quantity fairing against NATO Weapon Systems?
      Not very Well

      >France is the 2nd army in the world
      >UK has the best infantry in the world
      Maybe not 2nd best but 4th best in the World.
      1- USA, 2- Russia (ON PAPER), 3- China, and 4 France.
      France is battling for 4th place with India, but yeah, French Army is surpassing India at the moment.

      Also France has the BEST Military record in ALL of Europe for the Past 800 years and therefore one of the best military record in the World, since Europe has been until the 2nd half of the 20th century the place where most wars took place.

      https://i.imgur.com/DoGGwqA.jpg

      Why are european armies so weak? We make fun of Russia, but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.

      OP makes fun of "europeans being weak" but has fought more war than European Countries? gay.
      Europeans are peaceful despite being born warriors.

      As the Japaneseproverb says : "It is better to be a Warrior in a Garden, than a Gardener in a War".

      >"According to historian Niall Ferguson, France is the most successful military power in history. It participated in 50 of the 125 major European wars that have been fought since 1495; more than any other European state."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France

      Eat dick american gays.

      Also France is the reason the USA exists in the first place, so maybe be little more humble next time you fat low-IQ disgusting rednecks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/DoGGwqA.jpg

        Why are european armies so weak? We make fun of Russia, but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.

        Also Europe has decided to unite against outside threats instead of fighting each other.
        Therefoe using an alliance system makes the entire European continent a "Don't Fuck With Us" continent, full of high tech weaponry and ballistic missiles.

        Apparently OP has never heard of the word "deterrence".
        Europe is positionned to be one of the most stable and safe places in the world, by being both strong and peaceful.

        Even a "low-tier" country like Ukraine can apprently stop and push back a Russian invasion.
        So I wouldn't bet on Russia VS The Rest of Europe, seeing as a single "low threat" country can fuck them up so bad, they become a laughing stock for decades to come.

        The only time Russia succeeded at war in recent memory is when they had the entire might of the Allied World sending them tons of ressources and weapons to fight the NAziswith.

        The Soviets couldn't even invade Finland properly and got ridiculed for it.
        Same thing is happening in ukraine.
        How fucking surprising.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Even a "low-tier" country like Ukraine can apprently stop and push back a Russian invasion.

          Russia surrounded keev in 2 days, and sat parked around it for 50+ days, completely untouched.

          Imagine the same scenario in the USA:
          >China invades USA, drives immediately to Washington DC unapposed, and surrounds it with a motorcade for 50+ days, and not so much as a paint chip is separated from a single vehicle.
          sounds pretty ludicrous if you ask me.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia has decided "Quantity over Quality".
        >And how is that going for them over there?
        >How is Russian Quantity fairing against NATO Weapon Systems?
        >Not very Well
        It crushed them. utterly fucking wiped the floor with them.
        so badly, the ukraine will soon abandon their capital city

        how delusional, and absolutely dog ass ate-up are you nafo idiots?
        how could you possibly think any of that shit, when keev is in the dark, and evacuation plans were publicized in America media

        Can you image ANY scenario on Earth where Washington DC is abandoned by Americans?
        its utterly fucking ludicrous to imagine,

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Coping and Seething I see.

          >Even a "low-tier" country like Ukraine can apprently stop and push back a Russian invasion.

          Russia surrounded keev in 2 days, and sat parked around it for 50+ days, completely untouched.

          Imagine the same scenario in the USA:
          >China invades USA, drives immediately to Washington DC unapposed, and surrounds it with a motorcade for 50+ days, and not so much as a paint chip is separated from a single vehicle.
          sounds pretty ludicrous if you ask me.

          >Even a "low-tier" country like Ukraine can apprently stop and push back a Russian invasion.

          Russia surrounded keev in 2 days, and sat parked around it for 50+ days, completely untouched.

          Imagine the same scenario in the USA:
          >China invades USA, drives immediately to Washington DC unapposed, and surrounds it with a motorcade for 50+ days, and not so much as a paint chip is separated from a single vehicle.
          sounds pretty ludicrous if you ask me.

          >Russia surrounded keev in 2 days, and sat parked around it for 50+ days, completely untouched.
          Then why didn't they take Kiev if it's "so easy"?
          What you say doesn't add up, Vatmoron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Coping and Seething I see.
            YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT, just more 'vatmoron' spam
            >Then why didn't they take Kiev if it's "so easy"?
            a 'good-faith' gesture to legitimize the core issue of Crimea and the Annexed territories added to the Russia Federation post referendum.

            you nafo people are disgusting, and are truly the worst-effort ~~*they*~~ have ever attempted online or otherwise
            it will be like Christmas, a day to celebrate for eternity, when keev is brought teary-eye'd in the throes of delusion to the table to fully conceede.

            Idiot ukro's literally made it "illegal" to negotiate with Putler.
            the absolute hysteria of the scene will be priceless on Z-DAY

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              fuck off spam b8 cunt

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What makes you think any European country would try launching an invasion alone? They aren't retards like Russia, they know they have competent allies.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.
    Yeah because it's retarded to even think about

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is an army designed for limited defensive operations not capable of launching a massive European invasion?

    All you shitskins who are growing complacent because Europe happened to be in a peaceful mood the past seventy years need to remember the Falklands war to see what happens when white people get angry. What most people don't realise is that the war was over in two months. This was not a case of Britain spending years preparing an expeditionary force to launch a trans-oceanic invasion. They grabbed whatever ships just happened to be sailing through the area, sent them 6000 km outside the range of their nearest airbase into Argentine controlled waters, sky, and land, and blew the shit out of everything they found.

    You think your shithole has a chance against Britain or France? Just fucking try it. Shithole nations are shit at everything.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You think your shithole has a chance against Britain or France?
      I think Turkey, India, Japan, South Korea or even North Korea stand more than a chance against France, yeah. They have only 200 tanks ffs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah good luck taking France or Britain in a tank fight when none of those countries has any chance of defeating them at sea and landing troops

        Do i need to remind you how France completely humiliated Turkey in the Mediterranean?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tell me bc I'm interested
          What about the Italian navy

          Not him btw

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Do i need to remind you how France completely humiliated Turkey in the Mediterranean?

          When? All I remember is France sending some ships to stop Turks sending aid to Libya (funny how people forget France working with Russia there), Turks completely ignoring them and sailing past and when the frogs tried to pull some tough guy bullshit and stop them, Turkey straight-up jammed them which led to French media to go apeshit for about 2-3 days speculating about Turkish wunderwaffes disabling weapons and bitching impotently.

          In fact the past several years have just been France taking a virtually uninterrupted string of L's in terms of anything to do with Africa.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Serval was pretty cool, albeit stretched logistically

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Serval was in 2013 though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Utterly delusional
        >muh numbers

        Typical shitskin/bugman

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How did those 3000 tanks work out for Russia against an army using surplus NATO anti-tank weapons?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear fire will wipe the slate clean.

        The traumatized brown shitskin people will not resist.

        All women will be forced to get pregnant, using pure white genes only. We will cleanse you with fire, then slowly purify the inferior genes out of the people.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Said the impotent bong who can't even lift a finger against paki rapist gangs
          It's so fucking funny reading your tryhard ramblings while native Brits can't even stop Pakis from replacing them in their own countries (and from raping your women).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don’t live in a European country. You have no idea what you are talking about and I reckon you have never met a British or Pakistani person in your life. Utter delusions prefixed with a lack of argument.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because as Russia demonstrated raw number of tanks is a great metric for gauging a country's military capabilities.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        oh yeah japan and south korea are notorious shithole third world nations you really got him there anon

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not my fault if Europeans still think it's the 19th century and haven't realized they're not all powerful anymore.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >turkey
        They wouldn’t have to since they seem to be in a perpetual coup cycle

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They have only 200 tanks
        What kind of WW1 level cope is this?
        >"the only thing that can defeat a tank is another tank"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Turkey got embarrassed by semi starving illiterate Kurds with 70 year old AKs. They lost a number of brand new leopards to shitty Russian gear.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The UK almost lost to Argentina, the Kurds are far more stiffer competition than the Argies

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Turkey got embarrassed by semi starving illiterate Kurds with 70 year old AKs.

          PKK has been taking basically non-stop losses since 2017 after Turkey stupidly tried for peace due to US/EU bitching, let them stockpile weapons and supplies and then had to drive these rats out of Turkish cities once they stabbed Turks in the back. And that's when you consider that the US has been funneling weapons, supplies and training them not-so-secretly.

          >They lost a number of brand new leopards to shitty Russian gear.

          That was ISIS and it was using western ATGMs. Funnily enough old Turkish Sabras managed to survive hits in that same operation that blew the fuck out of those Leopards but no, it can't be that it's an overengineered piece of garbage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >This was not a case of Britain spending years preparing an expeditionary force to launch a trans-oceanic invasion. They grabbed whatever ships just happened to be sailing through the area
      werent they also in the process of heavy military budget cuts? Like some of the hardware was literally days from getting scrapped when argies chimped out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        pretty much, a lot of it was already scrapped. It was because of that the argies figured out they could have a go at it. But you shouldn't mess with a lady that has bigger balls of steel than the SAS

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >But you shouldn't mess with a lady that has bigger balls of steel than the SAS
          The one along side scrapping off the armed forces. destroyed all our industry by selling it off her city friends
          Thatcher was a fucking mistake, now piss off

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They dont need to fight us in a conventional war when we opened our borders to all types of shitskin that outbreeds us 10:1. Europe is finished in 50 years without a single shot fired by the invader.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Europe is finished in 50 years without a single shot fired by the invader.
        This but 30. 2050 and it's game over.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >why do Americans hate us
    >posts the poor faith horseshit that makes Americans hate him
    gnomish levels of self awareness

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >start shit
      >NOOOOOOOO WHY EUROS ARE SO CRUEL TOWARD US NOOOO

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The Euro lashes out at you. You victimize him by not entertaining his preferred fantasy version of reality on the planet Earth in the 21st century.
        This is why people hate you.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The euromoron cries out as he strikes you

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Their militaries are really good for what they need to be which is either a stopgap until the Americans show up or a cutting edge to bully third worlders and impress the World.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. We are the kings of large scale warfare. The Euros are excellent allies for being small scale forces that can more easily updated. The nature of the USA's overwhelming overmatch in all areas of conflict means that updating every individual asset takes a backseat to high end assets that provide capabilities to the entire force that no other nation can match.
      We are natural allies, we have developed ourselves to be such, and beyond a certain point of politics there's no sense in being bitter about one's place in that dynamic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's fucking retarded.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, but you are.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous
  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.
    how do you know?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You underestimate the power of some people here.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      because he's number fagging and not looking at those armies from a economic, experience, strategic mindset

      European nations aren't fighting offensive wars so what's the incentive to hold a large army? the small armies they have are specially trained and are some of the most experienced foreign fighters. UK doesn't have any border with anyone and France only has borders with the germs and Spain, both of them are aligned with France this isn't the 1930's Europe isn't going to war with each other and don't have large empires to maintain there is no need for a million man army

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lmao you're retarded
        first you're actually retarded cuz u didnt count half the borders france has
        now if you use your brain twice as much you remember france has also french guyanna and does actual operations there
        and then you also remember france still has territory in almost every seas that exist and they have a regiment on them all

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          why yes the french are in dire treat from the belgo-luxemburgish-swiss-italian alliance that will attack at any moment now.
          Just as it has to fear it's colo.... overseas territories and departments being invaded. Like new Caledonia, Martinique and la reunion. The only one under any theoretical treat is french guyanna that also houses the European space program. So the surinam army is constant treat and the Brazilians that have to come over hundreds of miles of fucking dense jungle to get to anything of importance will be met by the combined military power of the EU member states and the UK because the UK is still in the space program and doesn't have precedent of being rather gung ho about south american adventures.

          You need a lot less military if all you care about getting involved in are defensive wars, places you are welcomed and some african shit holes.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lmao you're retarded
        first you're actually retarded cuz u didnt count half the borders france has
        now if you use your brain twice as much you remember france has also french guyanna and does actual operations there
        and then you also remember france still has territory in almost every seas that exist and they have a regiment on them all

        You technically also are retarded because you did not counted Italy, switzerland , belgium, andorra and Monaco just for continental France. And technically britain too.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >France only has borders with the germs and Spain
        And Italy.
        And Switzerland.
        And Belgium.
        And smaller/less relevant countries/borders like with Luxembourg, Andorra, Suriname and the Netherlands (on Saint-Martin).
        Oh, and the longest land border France has, with fucking Brazil.

        Education in the USA is a trainwreck.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lmao you're retarded
        first you're actually retarded cuz u didnt count half the borders france has
        now if you use your brain twice as much you remember france has also french guyanna and does actual operations there
        and then you also remember france still has territory in almost every seas that exist and they have a regiment on them all

        [...]

        You technically also are retarded because you did not counted Italy, switzerland , belgium, andorra and Monaco just for continental France. And technically britain too.

        Whether he left out other countries or not is irrelevant because it isn't the takeaway. We are not in a state of war so numbers are irrelevant, furthermore NATO as a whole is a formidable force to potential adversaries so measuring individual countries active personnel is silly

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Look at the numbers on Wikipedia
    >Don't think about a nations ability to mobilize, deploy, supply and command a fighting force to a battlefield

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    europeans dont need to be strong because they know the us will bail them out

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >europeans dont need to be strong because they know the us will bail them out
      I see this talking point advanced by the Americans a lot and it's so blatantly false I need to speak out. No, the truth is far more cucked than that. We don't have proper armies because war is sad and bad and scary to investors and the middle class (also the lefties). We also hate Americans because Americans bring war and that is sad and bad.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, sorry. You're alone in your butthurt and delusional blame-shifting

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >We don't have proper armies because war is sad and bad and scary to investors and the middle class (also the lefties).
        Yes, anon. War is sad and bad and doesn't make any money for anyone except defense contractors.
        "War is bad" is a valid argument against war and fundamentally peaceful societies are much more powerful and much more prosperous than militaristic ones. Look what 80 years of peace have managed to accomplish in Europe.

        Europe has no need for large-scale exploratory military action and power projection and Europe has no enemies that can feasibly reach it.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    gnomish destruction of society is why.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if you add up ll of the european armies you get the third military of the world.
    The problem is that it's all spread out so there isn't the flashy stuff like multiple nuclear carriers or the fuck ton of infantry spam of the chinks
    But some of those even retard small militaries have some pretty good stuff. Belgium is one of the best nation on earth on dealing with mine sweeping because hey had to get good at it and chose to stay good at it.
    France tries to be a mini usa
    Italy has the med on lockdown and has some of the best mountain troops.
    IF and that's a big IF europe got together and formed a federation like the usa they could be a more credible challenger to the usa than the chinks. But they don't have any incentive to do so.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every past historical example available says they would start blasting eachother to pieces the moment they felt someone got a little too powerful, before they would ever be a threat to America

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they've spent the last 80 not doing so
        and as I stated that would only work if they would federate and become one if not nation, state.
        The euros could have said the same in 1914 about america given the civil war.
        and hitler thought the same would happen again when a state or two had a spat.
        Heck look at how divided and combative the usa's politics have become again. The EU look positively stable as a block of marble on a bed of reinforced concrete compared to the past 10-6 years of us politics.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          what you dont get is politics and economics behind it
          shit's gonna go down for the European Union and i cant wait to see it collapse
          maybe it gives a peaceful vibe from another continent but seeing how here states are fighting each other just to get dibs on oil export from middle east the whole european solidarity stick isnt gonna last long

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            As much as I might like that. Don't bet on it the economies and people have become so integrated that separation isn't an option. Even the UK that kept about as separate as you could in the EU are hurting bad from brexit.
            As for the politics even the most hardcore nationalist parties work together with in the EU frame work and get shit done together.
            For all the nordics vs meds memes you see on PrepHole their far right parties get along very well.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              yeah i know how it is but shit is gonna blow up at some point
              when population will get tired enough and one of the major countries that made EU decides to quit the whole thing's gonna fall appart
              i know it isnt likely rn but hey a man can dream

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it is far more likely to become a federation like the usa
                the ruling political families, liberal, socialists, cristian democrats and now also greens have all said that's the goal. It's also the goal of the council and the oposition as you will from the ECH and the nationalist is focused on changing not stopping integration.
                Just look at how more funding and staff for the common border force was cheered on by anti-immigration nationalist. And that's now the part of the EU with the most staff

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How does Italy have the med on lockdown?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >But they don't have any incentive to do so.
      Europe benefits from appearing weak and divided, because it paradoxically makes the position on the negotiation table stronger.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine thinking war is just between two countries, for fuck sake

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    1. you are of "asian" descent according to UK terminology 2. being delusional, even europeans agree on this point which is why europe doesn't want to stop importing migrants and why the french desperately want the rest of europe to be unified as their expeditionary arm to fulfill their overseas objectives without begging the US again

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >barely launch an offensive for more than a week.
    neither could russia, and they liked to pretend they were the 2nd stronkest military in the world.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because Europe has been thoroughly subverted by Soviet assets and it keeps getting worse by the year.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unpreparedness here is actually driven by the capitalist way of life, not any imagined Communist subversion. Of course there are the Green gommies who think we should all return to monke, and don't even think that our more belligerent neighbours won't necessarily respect our monke eco-utopia

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >capitalist way of life keeps European armies perfectly fine until the end of the cold war
        >yet it is somehow to blame for the sudden softening afterwards, instead of the fact that we lowered our guard

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How do you know it did? Even France got its ass kicked in Algeria and didn't even want to be in NATO. European armies weren't battle tested at all.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >posts the french
    lmao, google their intervention in mali and read up on how much men and gear they transported to some african shithole in a very short time on their own. I get that eurofag armies are laughable compared to the US but we actually have decent QRFs and are capable of deploying anywhere basically. If we were to deploy a dozen brigades to fight alongside the Ukrainians wed BTFO the russians in a month.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >google their intervention in mali and read up on how much men and gear they transported to some african shithole in a very short time on their own. I
      With American navy, you know that?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Dixmude is US navy?
        US allowed France some C-17s to use though.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >US allowed France some C-17s to use
          hahahhahaha

          >2 Belgian C-130
          >1 Canadian C-17
          >1 Danish C-130
          >3 German C-160, 1 German A310
          >3 Dutch KDC-10, 4 C-130, 3 Chinook
          >1 Spanish C-130, 1 C-295
          >1 Swedish C-17
          >2 United Arab Emirates C-17
          >2 British C-17, 1 Sentinel R1
          >5 US C-17, 5 KC-135

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The armed forces of the European Union alone have closer to a million and a half men, standing. Several million more in reserve. And this is all in relatively peaceful times.
    Over eight thousand tanks, over twenty-five thousand armored fighting vehicles, over twelve thousand! Just because they're defensively organized and subjected mostly to their member nations doesn't mean there isn't firepower or capability

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      over twelve thousand artillery pieces*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The armed forces of the European Union

      So zero men. There are forces of sovereign nations like France or Italy, there are no forces of EUSSR vermin.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the EU has several brigades seconded by their member states to a separate task force.
        And while deploying those would need the approval of their nations, the choice to deploy them would also have to be made by their member nation in the council of ministers.

        The european countries are kind of weak in very general terms militarily when it comes to conventional warfare like the ones in Ukraine. There are some countries that could put up a good fight like Poland and Finland but aside from that it was thought of as a waste of money. For countries like France and the UK they mostly have kept an expeditionary force capability with relatively advanced equipment and relatively low numbers but well trained. This was suited to the Africa shenanigans and middle-east adventures that happened every once in a while. For countries like Germany with the fall of the Soviet Union they were surrounded by friendly countries or irrelevant countries so spending X% of GDP on a large scale military was deemed pointless. Now that militaries are becoming more relevant with Russia and China chimping out countries like Poland and Finland only need to reinforce the existing assets and training and France and the UK need to just increase the amount of expeditionary forces. For countries like Germany this is a nightmare scenario because even in the best possible scenario where funding isn't an issue it would take a decade for the Bundeswehr to become a force capable of doing anything. The German military industrial complex is still pretty competent but it is heavily influenced by German politics.

        the main problem for the Bundeswehr and other nations that weren't keeping a large enough force is the will to rebuild their armies.
        But in terms of the mindset that you want an army and having an army is good. But to commit to the expense of having an army even when budgets are tight. You can bet that a decent chunk of the rearmament budget promised by the German government will be siphoned of to other stuff than putting boots and shells back in the army.
        Because making an announcement is cheap making it happen as the economy is hurting is electorally very hard.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >combined
        Learn to read and use your brain for once, instead of knee-jerk assumptions, you lizard-brained fuck.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Whatever Sanna wants!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The armed forces of the European Union alone have closer to a million and a half men, standing
      Two thirds of that number is contributed by just five nations: German, France, UK, Italy and Poland. I think of them as the Big Five of European defence.

      >Over eight thousand tanks, over twenty-five thousand armored fighting vehicles, over twelve thousand
      Unlikely.
      The Big Five of European defence have only, by my count, 1,700 tanks and 1,589 heavy artillery pieces (not counting mortars and light pieces).

      I doubt the other nations contribute significantly more to this count.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that Europeans have always been the most warlike people on Earth. Coincidentally the biggest and strongest too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >China practically empty
      Nice shit wrong map

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ancient Chinese shit was mostly in the east. The west is the desert

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          anon I don't know what the fuck you or that mapmaker are smoking but having southwestern china be empty is fucking hilarious leaving aside literally everything else.
          the area was the scene of multiple rebellions in the 19th century some spanning decades

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      whats with all the dots in us? do skirmishes with indians count as battles?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Most feudal-era battles in Europe were pretty small as well. I think quite a bit of that is CW though

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Battles between European colonial powers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Impossible for India, Persia, and East Asia to be that empty of battles.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They were just too backwards to fight far away project power away from population centers as much as Euros. That or too primitive to record most of their wars.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That or too primitive to record most of their wars.
          This

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nice map, now show your sources

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This map, like that best general in history based on "data" is based entirely, on Properly formatted english wiki pages ONLY. So just like that data based assessment of the best generals its complete bullshit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >dot in middle of northern quebec

      What the fuck happened there?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        some indjuns got uppity?

        https://i.imgur.com/lRAADVn.png

        >UK has the best infantry in the world

        Lel
        Lemao even

        Ukraine lost more men than the entire British standing army (~80,000 men).

        >y has lost more than x has in total so y is better
        by that account the russians must be over trice as good as the ukrainians

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's a whole bunch of battles that were fought around Hudson's Bay, (two of my great great great(?) uncles were caught in one and had to trek two weeks back to Montreal without any food) but I don't know any that far inside the territory.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >All battles ever fought in which Europeans had some stake or passing interest and bothered to record

      Ftfy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That is a map of battles recorded, not battles fought. Those are very different things.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      looks like a map of the gayest countries

      makes sense when you realise all the manliest men genetic stock got wiped out in those battles

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >European battles being counted
      >Battle of dickwad's bulge between the Duke of Arsefuckshire in a drunken post feast of St Valentine skirmish with the local gnomish population. Deaths 0: garden gnomes kicked out of the kingdom of Yamudda.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The european countries are kind of weak in very general terms militarily when it comes to conventional warfare like the ones in Ukraine. There are some countries that could put up a good fight like Poland and Finland but aside from that it was thought of as a waste of money. For countries like France and the UK they mostly have kept an expeditionary force capability with relatively advanced equipment and relatively low numbers but well trained. This was suited to the Africa shenanigans and middle-east adventures that happened every once in a while. For countries like Germany with the fall of the Soviet Union they were surrounded by friendly countries or irrelevant countries so spending X% of GDP on a large scale military was deemed pointless. Now that militaries are becoming more relevant with Russia and China chimping out countries like Poland and Finland only need to reinforce the existing assets and training and France and the UK need to just increase the amount of expeditionary forces. For countries like Germany this is a nightmare scenario because even in the best possible scenario where funding isn't an issue it would take a decade for the Bundeswehr to become a force capable of doing anything. The German military industrial complex is still pretty competent but it is heavily influenced by German politics.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because burgers decimated Euro armies with friendly-fire in Iraq & Afghanistan.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They depend on big daddy America to protect them so they don't take defense seriously.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >europeans dont need to be strong because they know the us will bail them out
      I see this talking point advanced by the Americans a lot and it's so blatantly false I need to speak out. No, the truth is far more cucked than that. We don't have proper armies because war is sad and bad and scary to investors and the middle class (also the lefties). We also hate Americans because Americans bring war and that is sad and bad.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      maybe you should leave then yankies, we wont colonise again, swear

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But you're our colony 🙂

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >pays for bases
          >w..we have colonies
          HAHAHAHAH
          you'll never be able to fit in
          your country and your people will always be the odd people out
          while all the lads are having a laugh high fiving sharing stories bonding like brothers

          your people are stood in the corner looking swarthy and awkward

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah American Marines in the corner gangbanging your girlfriend.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anon. France actually has a fully-built out and independent military, complete with a native industrial capacity to build heavy weapons. Not only that but the frequently use said army to maintain their quasi-colonial empire in east Africa (most notably raping Islamists in Mali in 2013). They don't have the numbers to invade whole-ass countries like the US does. But the french military is fully capable of driving the Russians out of Ukraine by themselves if they had to.
    The rest of Europe either has militaries that are NATO auxiliaries (UK, Poland, Italy), or really shit (Germany), with the exception of Turkey which maintains independent operational capabilities but is nowhere near as sophisticated as France.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >France actually has a fully-built out and independent military
      So does the UK, it also has a large domestic MIC, but instead of designing and producing gear on its own they do most of it with partnerships.
      BAE was building Eurofighter Typoons and upgrading them while most EU militaries did fuck all with theirs.
      Also, France needed the UK to provide heavy lift aircraft to carry pit the Mali operations

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >But the french military is fully capable of driving the Russians out of Ukraine by themselves if they had to.
      Lmao
      The French have no artillery, no tanks. How would they even manage to do anything in Ukraine? Fighting in Africa doesn't provide nearly enough experience. That's actually what happened in 1870 when the French officers were promoted based on their performance in colonial wars. Guess what? These french officers all got fucked when they faced the prussian army.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        again, how did the few hundread if not thousand russian tanks perform ? how deadly 200 leclercs would be against rusty ak's
        russia cant get air superiority against mf ukraine lets see how they do against rafales

        it is far more likely to become a federation like the usa
        the ruling political families, liberal, socialists, cristian democrats and now also greens have all said that's the goal. It's also the goal of the council and the oposition as you will from the ECH and the nationalist is focused on changing not stopping integration.
        Just look at how more funding and staff for the common border force was cheered on by anti-immigration nationalist. And that's now the part of the EU with the most staff

        yeah okay thats fun concepts for the higher ups but you can be sure that it's not going to happen in the next century in france, probably italy too cuz they already want to get out

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Meloni got elected in Italy with two other euro skeptics. And they aren't gonna do shit. Because the moment italy leaves it collapses.
          I sell books in France, I'm based in belgium the design team is in spain and the printing happens in italy.
          The EU won't be abolished but it can be changed. Just look at how many durkas frontex is already keeping out in the east.
          What is really needed are some rightwing judges in the ECHR or better telling the ECHR to go fuck it's self.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh rightwing judges
            have a nice day literal moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >decent nuclear arsenal to cover their operation under deterrence
        >good air force that can take out russian air defenses
        > 222 Lecrerc main battle tanks
        >a mix of artillery systems several of which are being used in Ukraine as is
        >two carriers with their escort groups plus a lot of other vessels including several nuclear subs
        > a large mechanized and infantry force including the legion

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nuclear arsenal is a joke. Any decently developed nation could get nuclear weapons really fast.
          The French have only 150 rafales, a good plane but outdated. They suck when it comes to drone, they have an army full of non-french with low morale, lack artillery and ammunition. What are they going to do really?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > army full of non-french with low morale, lack artillery and ammunition.
            their army is a lot more ethnically French than the country.
            And the foreign legion is balls to the walls all the fucking time. Migration rules have become so lax that you hardly have to join up to get citizenship. From the guys I talked to while vacationing in Corsica all of them want to fight even the chinks, especially the chinks.
            If you can read french you should go look at french social media, there's hundreds of former and "former" foreign legion guys in ukraine. Pretty much all of the Ukrainians went awol with a slap on the back and a pinch in the cheek.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm fluent in French, can I get exemples of what you're talking about because that's super interesting.

              https://i.imgur.com/dBp3l4k.png

              Because they when engage in special military operations they do it 6000km from home and they win.

              Britain and France working together and joining Hohols in Feb would have genuinely have caused a crushing defeat on the same level as Desert Storm. Air power alone would have heavily fucked the Kiev and Kherson fronts to pieces and sunk the black sea fleet since not only would there be 2 carrier groups but also the unsinkable British carrier in the eastern med called Akrotiri and Dhekelia where Mirages2000-5 and Typhoons could be rapidly staged along with F-35 and Rafales from the QE and DG carrier groups.

              Staging a massive Anglo-French armoured force of 600~ tanks in Ukraine would take probably a few weeks using just french and british logistics but it would have been a massive war ending force multiplier not unlike the hypothetical crushing confederate victory that would have happened just from having the relatively small but highly experienced and highly trained British and French armies assisting Granny Lee. Those would have been the same men who defeated Russia in Crimea the last time.

              >anglo-french coalition in ukraine

              Please stop my penis can only get so erect.

              If the UK or France were to invade a country, it would bring all of NATO along with it

              Why? How would they convince other NATO countries to join in without article 5?

              >When you see how Ukrain is succeeding
              Neither France or UK have as much experience as Ukrainians right now. They also have very low morale.

              >very low morale

              Like Ukraine before it got invaded?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >How would they convince other NATO countries to join in without article 5?
                >"Hey USA do you want to help me invade-"
                >"Yes"
                >"You didn't even let me finish"

                Then the other would get involved because they don't want to feel left out, so its UK, US, and France at a minimum. And at that point Germany and most of the rest of NATO will say fuck it, why not, and each send a platoon or two of riflemen along with an entire admin/logistics regiment who will do nothing but exist so that their politicians can say they're helping

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >M-51 and ASMP
            >A joke
            I see you're a man of limited readings.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          222 working leclercs* 406 total
          they plan to put 100+ more on tracks for 2025 and the 80~ other ones for 2030 having the whole batch functional

          Meloni got elected in Italy with two other euro skeptics. And they aren't gonna do shit. Because the moment italy leaves it collapses.
          I sell books in France, I'm based in belgium the design team is in spain and the printing happens in italy.
          The EU won't be abolished but it can be changed. Just look at how many durkas frontex is already keeping out in the east.
          What is really needed are some rightwing judges in the ECHR or better telling the ECHR to go fuck it's self.

          i think it's too corrupt and built like shit to actually change
          best bet is it's gonna fuck up seeing how they fucked themselves over with the sanctions against russia, the currency is going to shit and the winter isnt going to feel nice

          Nuclear arsenal is a joke. Any decently developed nation could get nuclear weapons really fast.
          The French have only 150 rafales, a good plane but outdated. They suck when it comes to drone, they have an army full of non-french with low morale, lack artillery and ammunition. What are they going to do really?

          >a good plane but outdated
          kek

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >How would they even manage to do anything in Ukraine?
        It's simple.
        SEAD
        Buttrape Russian army from the sky
        Ground forces clean up anything that remains.

        Given how incompetent Russian air forces are there's no reason to think they couldn't pull this off. At worse, they take 6 months to buckbreak the Russians instead of the 6 weeks the USA would need.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why is the Italian army a NATO auxiliary?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Name one major military campaign the Italians have participated in independent of NATO.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I know, but why do they never do any independent geopolitcal action, not even military, just geopolitcal, that could be alot of things

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Both projected force in Iraq, Afghanistan and Mali for years. Russian offensives collapse 100km away from its border

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are european armies so weak
    They aren't.
    >We make fun of Russia
    For good reason
    >but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.
    France or Britain would be in Kiev.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Post a goddamn hero trying to diss Europe
    At least post something humiliating or something

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You cowards had guns but did nothing during BLM protests

    are you one of those morons who think the BLM protests burnt down half the country?

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anons, give me a step by step rundown. What if Russia invaded Britain or France instead of Ukraine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Implying they have the logistics to reach Poland, much less Bongland or Froggiestan.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just think about it anon, we could get another Russian Baltic Fleet adventure out of it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ho non, d'ailleur

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >invade britain
      >carrier breaks down
      >invasion postponed
      >comeback with an extra tug boat
      >moskova is somehow only ship not sunk while even the pacific squadron is at the bottom

      >France
      >laugh at honhonhonjokes
      >first hundred km is nice
      >suddenly air cover gets fucked
      >AA gets fucked
      >it's nigh time now
      >hear the fucking bushes speak Vietnamese, mongol and some afrikan shit
      >suddenly half the column is gone
      >at dawn you get attacked by two dozen MBTs that make your t-90 throw their turrets further than the french can trow their weapons surrendering
      >when reinforcements mass on the belgian border they get hit by a tactical nuke while the radios make it very clear that any more funny shit and the big ones come out

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they when engage in special military operations they do it 6000km from home and they win.

    Britain and France working together and joining Hohols in Feb would have genuinely have caused a crushing defeat on the same level as Desert Storm. Air power alone would have heavily fucked the Kiev and Kherson fronts to pieces and sunk the black sea fleet since not only would there be 2 carrier groups but also the unsinkable British carrier in the eastern med called Akrotiri and Dhekelia where Mirages2000-5 and Typhoons could be rapidly staged along with F-35 and Rafales from the QE and DG carrier groups.

    Staging a massive Anglo-French armoured force of 600~ tanks in Ukraine would take probably a few weeks using just french and british logistics but it would have been a massive war ending force multiplier not unlike the hypothetical crushing confederate victory that would have happened just from having the relatively small but highly experienced and highly trained British and French armies assisting Granny Lee. Those would have been the same men who defeated Russia in Crimea the last time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      While reading your message, I got a sudden fantasy of a anglo-french coalition to exterminate Germany once and for all

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        then i got a sudden fantasy of a franco-french coalition to exterminate england once and for all

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The 2nd Crimean war
      I'M READY SEND ME MY CALL UP PAPERS

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    these threads are absolutely pathetic and are nothing more than a dick measurement contest for insecure gays. americans just can't stop screeching at europe at every chance they got, and when you point that out they immediatly gon on the defense and say inane shit like "rent free".
    every army in europe is based on quality rather than quantity, especially western europe. europe houses several big contractors and are absolutely indipendent when it comes to weapons, gear, vehicles etc. americans are obsessed over the handful of gibs grubbing jarheads stationed in NATO bases and pretend they somehow count for a proper deterrent while everyone else is an idiot. the sheer arrogance of them is mind boggling.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Idk Italy's ground forces seem a bit outdated as far as equipment goes, espeically vehicles
      While the air force and navy have more modern stuff, but all 3 are a bit small in numbers, and idk about their training, leaders quality, logistic capabilities, stockpiles, maybe someone here can chime in

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        thats often the rule for european armies, huge budget for navy and airforce or you cant compete and abysmal one for army
        french army only started to replace their 80's equipment less than 10y ago

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why is that the case tho?
          And what about the other stuff I mentioned like training logistics etc

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why is that the case
            It's a truism of national defence going back centuries; you either have a strong land army or a strong maritime navy. (even the USA actually has a strong navy and "weak" army relative to each other.) No country can do both. See: British Empire, French Empire, Germany, Russia, etc

            I know, but why do they never do any independent geopolitcal action, not even military, just geopolitcal, that could be alot of things

            >why
            They have major domestic problems to worry about.

            What does a sphere of influence mean?
            Dont get me wrong I'm not clueless and I'm interested in geopolitcs but i hear that term used alot without a definitom

            >What does a sphere of influence mean?
            The extent and degree of your influence on peers around you to perform political actions (all actions are political really). Rough example given by recent events: Australia falls within the US sphere of influence, as it was persuaded to donate supplies to US interests (Ukraine). Iran falls within the Russian sphere of influence, as it was persuaded to help Russia and not the US. India is arguably neither (in this case) as neither the US nor Russia was able to persuade them to provide significant support.

            It's the country equivalent of who are your mates, anon.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What domestic problems?

              But why do certain countries fall in one sphere or the other, is it choice or being compelled to

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >is it choice or being compelled to
                are you friends with someone because you are forced to, or because you choose to? answer: maybe a bit of the former sometimes, in a toxic relationship, but mostly the latter, isn't it?

                (some people assert otherwise. for example, very early in the invasion Russia tried to sell the idea that Ukrainians are their "brothers" and they were being "forced" to fight by the evil NATO cabal...)

                >What domestic problems?
                A shit economy even by European standards.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why shit economy?
                Arent they the 3rd in europe

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They have some trouble where the north Po valley has all the economy activity and the rest of the country just gets gibs from that + new government every couple of weeks course they can’t get it stable

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We make fun of Russia because they have been talking hot shit but couldn't back up their boast. European countries as a general rule don't and the only two that still retain any interest in being any sort of military power with international force projection is France and the UK. European militaries exist primarily as deterrence and to protect geopolitical interests in smaller scale conflicts in the developing world. There's also the matter of all of them being relatively small. Only Germany exceeds having less than half of the population of Russia. Big dumb wars are generally considered pointless in Europe since the last big dumb war. Why everyone's annoyed with Russia bringing the concept back.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because the MIC has been fronting the bill out of a sheer yearning to smoke more commies since Truman, and now we have to outsource our pinko killers to hohols just to make sure they serve their purpose.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is the Korean cunt again isn't it?

    Please for the love of god just fucking ban him already.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    moron

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If we were attcked by russia thy would be BTFO i 2 weeks.

    When you see how Ukrain is succeeding

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >When you see how Ukrain is succeeding
      Neither France or UK have as much experience as Ukrainians right now. They also have very low morale.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >very low moral
        citation needed

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Neither France or UK have as much experience as Ukrainians right now
        Everything the Ukies did that work was taught to them by NATO instructors, mostly the Brits. Ukie units who didn't have this training just try to zergrush the Russians before getting blasted away by Russian arty.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Everything the Ukies did that work was taught to them by NATO instructors
          That's cool. Now Ukrainians have actually battle hardened veterans. Something France and UK don't.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How do you work that out?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is quite the mental gymnastics that I suppose you yourself don't understand.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You've no understanding of military tradition, innovation or training

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You have no idea what you are talking about and are confusing internal fringe politicking with soldier morale. Ukraine was primarily trained by UK instructors. You dimwit

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You know those protests were just a bunch of dumb Portlanders burning a couple cars and whatnot right? Most of us lost nothing and were not threatened. You may not understand that because some of us are massive drama queens. That happens from time to time in a free nation. You wouldn't understand since you just move on with your day when one of you is publicly executed.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If the UK or France were to invade a country, it would bring all of NATO along with it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If France/the UK concluded that they'd need help conquering another country, they'd form an international coalition. If they concluded that they wouldn't need help, they'd form one anyways because fuck you. It's much more beneficial than sitting on your target's border for weeks and calling everyone who accuses you of planning an invasion retarded.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        also to avoid the embarrassment of the sues crisis

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Europeans think America will come to their rescue

    Their whole lives revolve around our country lmao

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    French air force and navy ran out of ammo when fighting Qaddafi in 2010.

    French can't provide its own logistics in Mali and Syria

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mfw when Poland alone could take on the entire Russian army at this point

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >GROM has entered puccia's ass

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aussie has best trained inf in the world

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    European military has been supplemented by American.
    They knew that American presence already bolstered their defense, and if any of them unironically got attacked, they'd be able to defend long enough for America to come with the big guns.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the United States does it for them, allowing politicians to invest in social programs and pocket the extra. Even countries in Europe that are capable, are interlinked with the United States.

    America doesn't mind because our politicians get payouts from arms manufacturers to make more stuff for the cause. Israel for example gets subsidies not to compete with American manufacturers.

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >america fights for 20 years only to get beaten by the taliban
    >burgers bragging & thinking Russia will lose by next week

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.
    Or as Bundeswehr generals complained at the start of this Ukraine circus, "We only have 3 weeks of ammunition and fight in us against peers."

    They're weak because they're politically unreliable (as German gas deals under GDR Merkel demonstrated, along with French funding of biolabs); and Europe is never going to be allowed to furnish the Eurasian Superstate (Communism) with the next gen semiconductors required for breakaway technology. The US decamping from Germany over to Poland solidified this with their bases solidified this.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.
    The point of having nuclear weapons is EXACTLY to deter anyone from dragging us into this situation.

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    France and UK are some of the few nations with the ability to project their strength outside their own borders. If Russia had to attack something that was not in driving distance it would crumble to shit more foul than we'd already seen.

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Burger subsidy. America spends so much so we don't have to. In return they get to export their inflation via the dollar. I am okay with this arrangement.

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the garden gnomes want most of their military power concentrated in the hands of one country so they minimize the risk of a gentile uprising

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Those are the two worst examples. France and the UK HAVE both launched multiyear expeditions very recently.
    Further, they are stronger than Russia. Look at all the times they have pushed in Russia's shit in history, and compare the current clown show to France and the UK in Mali and Afghanistan respectively
    If you don't believe that France/UK are not the world's are not the second or third in terms of quality of equipment and readiness, you're a moron. They are the only countries besides the US who could send a major force halfway around the world in a week.
    No. 2 and 3 for firepower? No. But they are the only countries that can operate across continents.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Further, they are stronger than Russia.
      Lmao
      >They are the only countries besides the US who could send a major force halfway around the world in a week.
      Yeah, armies made for colonial conflict, not for a real war.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They could beat Ukraine.
        Russia can't.
        Cope and seethe.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, they couldn't. You're delusional.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    europe in general relies heavily on reservists. the ratio here is 1/5 officially. places like finland is different. theres a large amount of poor and not so poor european countries that enforce conscription. in my case 10% of the population gets training(its by force but we're well off so morale is really high poor countries maby not), 50% of that gets put into active reserve and 50% gets a note telling them where to show up when war hits. official numbers only count the active reserves. if i where to guess id say the wartime force of my country would easily 5x in active personell with reasonably good training(it wasnt good in 00s to 10s russia tier shit) and another 5-10x the standing force in personell who where trained 2-20 years ago who need serius refreshment. Europa cares for peace not conquest. we are content with what we have unlike the gays to the east.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      oh and the duty to serve doesnt end unthill you're mid 40s so reservist training is pretty enlightening. you get 25 years of experiences and skills shared amongst you. not to mention that you train to defend your home town or city. which helps in every way

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does everybody say France is the 2nd army in the world when they rely on the USA and UK to do anything abroad? Surely if you're reliant on other powers you're disqualified from being 2nd best? USA can do independent ops, so can the UK. Therefore if USA is first, that makes UK second. In reality China is 2nd. It sure as fuck ain't France.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, having friends is a good thing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is, but my point is you can't call France the 2nd most powerful military if they're not doing independent operations. The USA and UK can and do. Hence why I said if we ignore China, UK would be 2nd, not France. In reality China has better force projection that it used to.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They did some pretty independent shit in Mali, IIRC the UK hasn't done something equivalent in a long time and China has basically never.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Mali
            dabbing on ISIS morons while having most of their airlift supplied by NATO and even Saudi Arabia isn't
            >pretty independent shit

            France has a major internal security problem, significant land borders and some overseas territories necessitating overinvestment in patrol boats, light infantry and gendarmes. Ideally they ought to cut some of those and fund more airlift, recon and munitions stockpiles.

            That is why the UK is highly sought in NATO even though they have a small army; because as has been seen in recent conflicts against ISIS and Russia, they have a lot of recon assets, deep munitions stockpiles and the logistics capability to get that shit moving fast.

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What are they gonna do, fight America?

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://streamable.com/y68gye

  54. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >We make fun of Russia, but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.

    First, why should we bother of what an armchair general think, trolling us to the point of using a picture of soldier which die on a battlefield?

    Second, we aren't warmonger, we don't need to invade our neighbor, we are part of NATO, and we know what we can do, and what we can't do with our army.
    Russia deserve what happend, because there's 2 possibility:

    1) They didn't even how shitty their army is, launch an offensive and get rekt,it's their problem.

    2) They did know that their army were shitty, and still launch an offensive. They deserve it even more.

  55. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nato

  56. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The reality is that the US and USSR were the two winners of WW2 and the US is the sole winner of the Cold War, every other country is minor league status and historically fell into either the US or Soviet sphere of influence, as a result, until the Cold War was won, that is why only the US and Soviets had proper combined arms militaries that could deploy millions of troops anywhere equipped with an endless supply of the latest weaponry

    Today its only the US and the reason why China is the target is because in a few decades they could theoretically catch up assuming no war to put them back into minor league status happens before then

    All this nonsense about expeditionary or token nuclear ships is a massive cope, expeditionary is code for not having a real military and the nukes were all permitted by either the US or Soviets

    That said, after the US there is a large power gap, then China, then another less large power gap, then Russia, South Korea, Japan, UK, France and maybe even Turkey or India

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What does a sphere of influence mean?
      Dont get me wrong I'm not clueless and I'm interested in geopolitcs but i hear that term used alot without a definitom

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sphere of influence for all intents and purposes = occupied colony, some have more dressings and makeup than others

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why colony?
          It sounds a bit extreme

  57. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only reason the UK and France are even in the top ten is because of the US and to a lesser extent Russia

    If the US and Russia were to become isolationist or not care about occupying Europe, everybody in Europe would be speaking German, the Germans absolutely mogged the French, Brits and everybody else in Europe at the same time, the combat gap was so large the Germans may as well have been fighting thirdie nations without exaggeration, think of it this way, the Germans had a far easier time conquering France than the UK did holding onto the falklands when Argentina invaded

  58. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Besides Turkey and Spain - which are both a bit of a question mark - there are only five major NATO nations. In my opinion, they are, in roughly descending order of capability; UK, France, Poland, Germany, and Italy.

    These nations average just under 20% the population of the USA. But their defence budgets are about 7% that of the USA. Hence, relative to the perceived size of the nation (ie by population), the average NATO nation is 3 times smaller than a proportionate fraction of the USA would be.

    Therefore, on a per capita basis NATO Europe is still about 3-4 times weaker than the USA, and in fact even less because the USA did not draw down its military post-1991 as much as NATO did; in 2014 NATO's defence budgets hit an all-time low of 1.3% of GDP, on average. Germany in 2014 spent USD 45 billion; the USA, with population 4 times greater, spent $ 648 billion, or 14 times more, or 3.5 times more per capita.

    The benefits of this greater spending is not just more troops and more ammo, but also better equipment, better training, better readiness, better defence infrastructure, and better defence R&D... and it snowballs over the years.

    Thus, saying that "EU apes together stronk" is cope: the five major NATO nations listed above has a combined population roughly the same as the USA. However their combined defence budget and combined military strength is definitely NOT the same as the USA. Combined, the EU actually has a population about 1.6 times that of the USA. However, it can be readily perceived that their military strength is definitely not 1.6 times that of the USA.

    I'm just stating facts and figures.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This just shows that you cannot comprehend military expenditures.

      The US spends a fuckton more than Europe but it gets different capability from it. Vast majority of Europe builds militaries with either zero or small overseas deployment capability. You will have to spent much more money on a soldier if you will be sending him to the other side of the planet rather than watching your own border. Europe does not want any super carriers, but the US does and they have to spend a lot of money on them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The purpose of my post, dipshit, was to quantify relative expenditure in more definite terms than
        >a fuckton more

        Thank you for pointing out the obvious, retard. Why yes, the fact that Europe in general spends proportionately less than the USA, as I showed, arises from the fact that EU governments have prioritised other expenses besides military power projection. Have you any other brilliant observations to share?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You did not quantify anything. You just said in a long paragraph that US is spending more on military than Europe. The only definitive you gave is even more vague than a fackton more. It just says that it is not the same

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The only definitive you gave is even more vague than a fackton more
            oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you suffer from innumeracy. carry on.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Germany, and Italy.
      Germany is litteraly the gimp of europe.

      >B-but my 100 billions €
      It's for 4 years.
      France in 2019-23 spent 112,5 billions € on their defense (LPM) OUTSIDE regular budget for wages and pensions and etc... And it's their regular spending (and of course france doesn't have germany GPD).
      What we will see is a flurry of foreign purchases (especially to suck up burger cum, more Patriots, F-35, P-8 poseidon...) instead of fixing the bundeswehr.

      Italy is the same in worse, their navy is oddly competant because Italy is a prime provider of naval equipment but their land forces are largely a joke.
      Italian intelligence were notoriously bribing the talebans to keep the peace in their AO.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Germany is litteraly the gimp of europe
        Be that as it may, these are the biggest five countries in defence in NATO and EU, outside of Turkey and Spain.

        Why do I keep discounting Turkey and Spain? Because Turkey's commitment is questionable in the Erdogan era as shown in the absolute gangfuck that was Syria and the furore surrounding the F-35/S-400 incident; their current political interests do not dovetail as closely with NATO/EU as closely as most other members.

        As for Spain... I want to like them, I do, but similar to Italy, they hardly participate in anything. There's hardly any point in figuring them into defence calculations if they may not even show up.

        After these six the next significant NATO country is Canada. Which seems to be just a gigantic money sink; huge budget, tiny Army, tiny aging Air Force, two handfuls of light frigates, no idea where the fuck it all goes.

  59. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they don’t need bigger armies. The reason is NATO. Even without the US, Europe would be able to defend itself from basically anything that would come their way. Countries on the edge of the alliance do keep much larger heavy weapon stocks but what the fuck is for example France gonna do with 2000 tanks? They will never go to war with any of their neighbours so they may only need them for overseas deployment. Or if Russia goes stupid and attacks some NATO member like a balt or maybe Poland then they will send like 150 of them there. UK will send a brigade or maybe a division too and so will Germany and so will Spain and so will Italy and so will Netherlands, and all of a sudden you have tanks in thousands and more cutting edge jets than anybody can oppose.

    They pay for a military that they need not a one that looks nice in an excel spreadsheet.

  60. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but a country like France or the UK could barely launch an offensive for more than a week.

    France launched a year long operation in Mali in 2014 and then followed it up by invading 4 other Central African Countries.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >France launched a year long operation in Mali in 2014
      in which all of its heavy airlift was provided by NATO, because they don't operate transports heavier than A400Ms and NH90s

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its difficult to discern by your post but you almost sounds serious, there are villages in Eastern Europe or towns in redneck USA with less than 10000 people that could conquer any of those "nations" with barely any effort, your examples are literally against the absolute shit-tier of shit-tier as a datapoint of competence, dead serious when I say that on an equal numbers basis there are peoples from the 1300s in eurasia that could have the same or better results with equal or even lesser numbers

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        France has the capacity to send and maintain a brigade in africa 3500+km from home in a place were logistic infrastructures doesn't exist.

        Then once the big of the fighting was done splitting the same brigade in autonomous sub-entities to cover a 6000 km span of desert.

        This isn't a small feat.

        And besides the french you have UK that can possibly do this and that's it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They don't, though. Their operation in Mali wouldn't have been possible without extensive logistical support from NATO allies, namely Britain and Germany.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yeah. because that’s the whole point of having nato and allies for fuck sake. So you don’t have to invest in everything in unecessary amounts that are never used... because if you actually end up needing more, your allies can help and supply it.
            Even the USA spending 730 billions US dollar per year has limited capacities in some areas compared to what they would need if this or that really happens, and remember that even with the largest economy in the world, they can’t afford their army... it’s all financed by public debt.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >UK that can possibly do this
          They can do what France can do x10 lol are you sniffing glue?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not quite x10, but yes, the UK has a heavier transport capability. More heavy-lift Chinooks and C-17 strategic transports, each with 50% more lift capability than medium aircraft.

            yeah. because that’s the whole point of having nato and allies for fuck sake. So you don’t have to invest in everything in unecessary amounts that are never used... because if you actually end up needing more, your allies can help and supply it.
            Even the USA spending 730 billions US dollar per year has limited capacities in some areas compared to what they would need if this or that really happens, and remember that even with the largest economy in the world, they can’t afford their army... it’s all financed by public debt.

            The problem with EU NATO is that nearly every one of them says they're in an alliance so they don't need XYZ capability; each of them says "oh someone else in the alliance will have it"; and round and round the buck is passed... until it turns out XYZ capability is only held by the USA. Which ultimately means that in the end the EU is dependent on the USA in these key capabilities.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            UK downsized its land based capacities and put that money in their navy and F35. Have you take a look at the UK defence budget in the past 5 years ? Have you take a look at the number of units disbanded and closed bases? The reality is if you’re born in the UK and want to become a paratrooper for exemple, your best chance is to join the FFL.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The FFL didn't pull off any airborne op bigger than the UK's capabilities in Mali.

              The UK aims to deliver and sustain a realistically-sized self-supporting force that can project power while minimising the need to ask for assistance from allies, who may have clashing priorities of their own. Hence their focus on the unsexy back end of logistics capabilities and materiel reserves. Yes, it may mean having fewer infantry on paper. But in practice, it means that in a crisis, there won't be a bottleneck of too many shooters sitting around at home unable to deploy for lack of ability to get to the crisis zone. And yes, the RN and the F-35 is a big part of that.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >UK downsized
              True, but still has similar vehicle number to France. Less officer pushers maybe.
              >money on Navy
              Well yeh, that's how you do expeditionary warfare. France should take note.
              >UK def Budget
              It's the biggest in Europe by a huge margin? What did you mean by this lol
              >Closed bases
              Like where? They moved alot to Caterick but all the ones that matter are still running. The ones in Germany are being filled up again.
              >UK paratroopers should join FFL
              Why? We are the only ones in Europe that do the HALO from C17s we have the best capabilities for parachutists across three difference sized planes. Also maybe read this bellow.
              >Exercise Swift Response, which also began this week, sees elements of 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team and 1 Aviation Brigade Combat Team operate alongside French, American, Italian, and Albanian counterparts in North Macedonia. There are 4,500 personnel on the exercise including 2,500 British troops. The exercise involves parachute drops, helicopter-borne air assaults and sees a company of French paratroopers integrated into the 2 Parachute Regiment Battlegroup and an Italian battlegroup working to a British chain of command.
              UK has a much bigger role than France in every current theater so much the French have to be integrated into British units.

              I'm not sure where you get your jnfo from but you seem pretty badly informed. Not trying to knock France either but come on mate...

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not sure where you get your jnfo from but you seem pretty badly informed

                Welcome to PrepHole lmao

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > expeditionary warfare

                Clear indicator of a minor league military nation

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think you know what that word means.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lol I know precisely what it means, but I don't think you understand that anything less than the capabilities to deploy millions of trained combat troops equipped with the latest weapons and sustain a logistical chain indefinitely while engaging in full-scale combined arms warfare then its classic minor league status at best and potentially a non-entity for all intents and purposes as it relates to big-boy combat

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao you just googled it, came back and added on your own little speil to try an avoid looking like a complete retard.

                Let's bite anyway, only the US is capable of that and even then 1 million would be a massive push. "Millions" wouldn't be possible. But this thread isn't about the US it's comparing France and the UK to Russia, or do you want to compare them to the US which has about 5x the population 10x the def Budget and nearly 10x the gdp but of course you wouldn't be that retarded would you?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Expeditionary warfare
                >A nation capable of invading and fighting abroad
                >a bad thing
                Are you high?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's the biggest in Europe by a huge margin?
                Not really. It's only about 6 or 7% bigger than Germany's.

                Congrats, they can join national geographics as honorary members, any multinational corporation can do what you just claimed not to mention sustain and grow operations indefinitely and any private contractor company can do it with better weapons than any the French or Brits possess

                The only country with real power projection capabilities to fight a full-scale war against a modern nation is the US, next is maybe China or Russia, if ww3 breaks out the only thing the French and Brits will do is contribute symbolic obsolete insignificant support and per usual hide behind the US and other allies that can actually contribute real combat firepower, I recognize France and especially the UK as among our closest allies but to draw a line of distinction between them and say Germany, Italy or Spain is like a bunch of midgets arguing over which one is the tallest for bragging rights, just can't take them seriously

                >any multinational corporation can do what you just claimed
                >any private contractor company can do it with better weapons
                Are you high?
                Post PMC with aircraft carrier

                Lol I know precisely what it means, but I don't think you understand that anything less than the capabilities to deploy millions of trained combat troops equipped with the latest weapons and sustain a logistical chain indefinitely while engaging in full-scale combined arms warfare then its classic minor league status at best and potentially a non-entity for all intents and purposes as it relates to big-boy combat

                >capabilities to deploy millions of trained combat troops equipped with the latest weapons and sustain a logistical chain indefinitely while engaging in full-scale combined arms warfare
                A nation that big would be big enough to register on the Kardashev scale, retard

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >N-not r-really
                UK $68.4bn
                GER $56bn
                What are you talking about?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Kardashev scale

                Fucking delusional dumbass, the US can do this easily and indefinitely without breaking a sweat, just because your country can't even dream about putting out 1% of the US firepower does not mean what the US can do is actually that impressive, its de regueur for the US

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the US
                >million((S)) of trained combat troops equipped with the latest weapons and sustain a logistical chain indefinitely
                >has only two (2) million troops in total, all trades, active plus reserve

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                2 million is the definition of millions idiot, this is not even the US on wartime mode, the vast majority of the US population has no hint of any combat threat from a foreign adversary and yet the US has more privately owned firearms than the rest of the world combined to include foreign militaries, if the US got serious the country could easily maintain 10 to 20+ million combat troops, several of the US intelligence related agencies have a budget greater than any other nato country which is not counted in the military budget, the US in all likelihood has a budget in excess of $2 trillion when factoring all national defense related efforts, this can be increased to $5+ trillion in wartime mode if necessary, the US is just playing a completely different game than any nation in the world even China

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Holy shit, what would you call the burger version of armatard? Because we found him

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Congrats, they can join national geographics as honorary members, any multinational corporation can do what you just claimed not to mention sustain and grow operations indefinitely and any private contractor company can do it with better weapons than any the French or Brits possess

          The only country with real power projection capabilities to fight a full-scale war against a modern nation is the US, next is maybe China or Russia, if ww3 breaks out the only thing the French and Brits will do is contribute symbolic obsolete insignificant support and per usual hide behind the US and other allies that can actually contribute real combat firepower, I recognize France and especially the UK as among our closest allies but to draw a line of distinction between them and say Germany, Italy or Spain is like a bunch of midgets arguing over which one is the tallest for bragging rights, just can't take them seriously

  61. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most european armies would trample you retarded corrupt shistskin shitholes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  62. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia is mocked worldwide for not having good logistics, yet they've still managed to sustain 200k troops for 8 months. And they can probably keep at it a while a longer.
    Meanwhile, France has send 400 men to Romania supposedly to scare off Russia (fucking kek), but they can't even supply them properly. 400 fucking men and they have no food, no heating, they are living like animals.
    http://www.opex360.com/2022/11/05/otan-deux-deputes-denoncent-les-conditions-de-vie-des-militaires-francais-deployes-en-roumanie/

  63. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can’t fight one without fighting the other, they are literally allies

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shitskin can't fathom having allies. Look at China, Russia and other authoritarian shithole, no "friends", no allies, no partner. The strong man mentality is inefficient.

  64. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The UK could mount an offensive almost to tge Falkands in the 80s, Russia ran ou of supplies 40km from their border

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The UK could mount an offensive almost to tge Falkands in the 80s, Russia ran ou of supplies 40km from their border
      Russia crushed the totality of western warmaking capability in 8 months, using conscripts and junk.

      the idea that british 'youths' would ever die in a trench to a toy-helicopter grenade are near zero.
      the appalling utterly mindwarped reality of 'modern warfare' is unthinkable for the netflix-n-chill generation

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the idea that british 'youths' would ever die in a trench to a toy-helicopter grenade are near zero.
        Yeah, exactly. It would never happen. Western Youths would NEVER sit in a trench and die to commercial toy drones dropping improvised grenades. It is completely unimaginable.

        >the appalling utterly mindwarped reality of 'modern warfare' is unthinkable for the netflix-n-chill generation
        What you are looking at isn't "modern warfare".

  65. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The guy who said France is the 2nd Army in the world is a retard but France & Italy aren't really the examples you want of this, they have pretty decent funding, strong domestic military industries, etc. and their governments have recently prioritized military spending. Germany, & the UK are the lightweights.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Retard

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >strong domestic military industries
      I wish... I really wish it's still the case... Macaron seems to torpedo everything France is still good at.

  66. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tl;dr mutts malding

  67. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's no scenario in which the UK or France would have to engage in a peer to peer conflict on their own

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They both have overseas territories that may need defending and HAVE needed defending, in the past. There's a concept here, a notion of being able to independently defend the people they're responsible for, which may escape the minds of nogunz gays with no dependents

      Also, even when working within an alliance, France and UK want to have the capability to get shit done, so the alliance doesn't have to put together a mismatched pile of troop contingents, but have at hand a self-contained fighting force which doesn't need augmentation. They don't want to be *that guy* who in every team project can never accomplish anything all by himself but has to have some form of assistance.

      https://i.imgur.com/v65aGGe.png

      [...]
      [...]
      Whether he left out other countries or not is irrelevant because it isn't the takeaway. We are not in a state of war so numbers are irrelevant, furthermore NATO as a whole is a formidable force to potential adversaries so measuring individual countries active personnel is silly

      >We are not in a state of war so numbers are irrelevant
      Oh yeah I'm sure we've finally fought the war to end all wars, job's done this time
      >furthermore the USA is a formidable force to potential adversaries
      FTFY

      >N-not r-really
      UK $68.4bn
      GER $56bn
      What are you talking about?

      >UK $68.4bn
      Are you sure? What year?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They don't want to be *that guy*
        source: my ass

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Go read a defence whitepaper, moron

          >What year
          2021, this year its $72bn-ish and they have committed to 3% of gdp which was $168bn but the inflation rate and exchange rate is fucking stuff up at the minute.
          So yeh, check before posting stats my guy.

          >2021, this year its $72bn-ish
          I was working off 2020, which is $62b for UK and $59b for Germany, making the UK defence budget only 5% higher than Germany's. Each country includes different items in the budget when reporting domestically, I use the NATO definition because it uses the same formula across countries. I haven't checked the latest data.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            2020 was 2 years ago, UK has spent consistently (and considerably most years) more than Germany every year for the past 20 years. What are you trying to say?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >What are you trying to say?
              That the UK spent more, yes, but not
              >the biggest in Europe by a huge margin
              Unless you think <10% to be "huge".

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro you are a clown lol I was going to call you one earlier but didn't want to jump the gun.
                >Year 2021 latest figures for defence budget
                >UK has huge margin over Euro nations
                >$68.4bn vs $56bn
                it's 20%+ you imbecile, which is massive are you stupid? Cope all you want you were wrong and shifted the goal posts when you tried to play osint journo

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Each country includes different items in the budget when reporting domestically, I use the NATO definition because it uses the same formula across countries

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Gets proven wrong
                >"b-but I was talking about 1918 not 2018, so achktually I was right all along"
                Insufferable gay

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >doesn't understand why formula definitions are important
                ngmi

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Gets proven wrong
                >Moves goal posts back in time by two years
                >me and my formula was right all along!
                Touch grass

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even if you use NATO's formula, the estimated difference in 2022 is still only 10%. Maybe you might consider that
                >the biggest in Europe by a huge margin

                Either way, learn something from this experience: GET. YOUR. DEFINITIONS. RIGHT. RETARD.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Not only is she a time traveller, she includes NATOs formula when no one asked
                Go back to the original post

                UK downsized its land based capacities and put that money in their navy and F35. Have you take a look at the UK defence budget in the past 5 years ? Have you take a look at the number of units disbanded and closed bases? The reality is if you’re born in the UK and want to become a paratrooper for exemple, your best chance is to join the FFL.

                >"Have you take a look at the UK defence budget in the past 5 years"
                Does that say and include NATO formula and xyz cherry picked detail? No, it doesn't you simple cunt.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >just take any number, it'll do
                I bet you round pi to the first decimal too
                >UK defence budget in the past 5 years
                Ooh, look who's the time traveller now

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Let's play your mental gymnastic goal post moving game then.

                >UK NATO total 2017-2021
                $331.6bn
                >GER NATO total 2017-2021
                $241.4bn

                https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/220627-def-exp-2022-en.pdf

                UK spent nearly 40% more according to YOUR source numbers and your 'Formula'. So yeah, I refer you to my original statement the UKs budget Is the biggest by a huge margin.
                Tourists, when will they leave...

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                anon
                you cant legally own bros like this anymore

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I know what you did, you stupid moronbrain; you didn't account for individual years' exchange fluctuations, you just used one rate for all the years from 2017 to 2021

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, scroll down on the NATO source I provided its already done for you and its in dollars you utter insufferable clown.

                Imagine making an excel file when you could have just scrolled down and had the actual figures provided. Clearly you have mental issues and cannot admit when your wrong but resort to acute autism instead. You been utterly btfo'd twice don't reply again.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >331.6
                >241.4
                You used 2015 constant prices to get these figures, what the fuck would you do that for

                The current price chart gives
                >UK 2017-2021, $310 bn
                >GER 2017-2021, $269 bn
                giving an average of 15% higher expenditure by the UK

                I still don't think 15% average greater expenditure is "huge", but it's true that I myself thought it was <10%. Besides, pre-2015 most of the Continentals were spending way less. So I'll call this a draw.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro are you fucking dense
                >wrong about UK budget size
                >b-but u didn't use Nato formula
                >b-but you didn't account for the exchange rate in the Nato figures which they themselves also didn't
                Here's an easy way to look at it, UK has 2 aircraft carriers, 10 nuclear submarines, 260 nuclear missiles, 8 C17 and 380k tons of navy
                Germany has none of that because its current budget is much smaller and always has been.

                Call it what you want, you have a serious case of cope, you moved the goalposts multiple times and still got btfo'd.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >wrong about UK budget size
                never was
                >b-but u didn't use Nato formula
                you stupid fucking retard can you still not comprehend that you have to use the same formula or your numbers skew considerably? do I really have to spell the fucking thing out for you? some countries include pensions, some don't; some include paramilitary police, some don't; the point is that you have to settle on ONE formula in order to have the least MEANING to your comparison, can you still not grasp this you blockheaded twat
                >b-but you didn't account for the exchange rate in the Nato figures which they themselves also didn't
                scroll UP in the same damn document, fool, and note the difference between CURRENT PRICES and CONSTANT PRICES

                you didn't BTFO nothing, you just spent 90% of the time failing to even come to a common basis of measurement

                >Here's an easy way to look at it
                stupid comparison; easy ways are often overly simplistic, and Germany is land-focused anyway.
                >its current budget is much smaller
                I KNOW, what we are trying to do here is pin down the numerical definition of "much"

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >n-never was
                Yes, you even asked what it was and I had to tell you. Then you back tracked and went on about 2020s budget.
                >but Forumla
                Yeh, I used it, from a Nato document that you wanted to use and it showed the UK spent nearly 40% more than Germany. Which is accurate enough for Nato statistics just by using the 2015 exchange rate as a bass, but some deluded schizo anon cannot cope with that so he plays mental gymnastics all day with excel after his first point was shit on. Also BTW the 2021 estimate for the UK is wrong, it was the highest increase year on budget in a long time so when the table is updated the gap will only increase you drip.
                >Look at my irrelevance!
                Take the L. UK spends way more on Defence if you measure it by Nato or by Statistica or equipment, you haven't a clue what your talking about.

                >B-but comparison Germany Is land based!!
                UK has more readily available armoured vehicles in Germany than Germany has in inventory. UK also has more armoured vehicles deployed with Nato than Germany. The UK land sea or air shits on Germany in every conceivable metric just because you want to say 'muh land power' theoretically maybe but in the real world? Fuck no.
                >Numerical difference
                H U G E

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you even asked what it was
                that weren't me, whoever it was, what I asked you was
                >Are you sure? What year?

                >it showed the UK spent nearly 40% more than Germany
                provably wrong with your own document (Page 7, top chart); the true difference is 15% if you bothered to do the sums with reference to the correct class of figures
                quit comparing fucking apples and oranges, numpty

                >so when the table is updated the gap will only increase
                maybe, maybe not, but in the meantime that's an unresolved matter
                this is why I used the 2020 figures initially, because the 2021 figures had not to my knowledge been finalised yet and remain estimates

                >UK has more readily available armoured vehicles in Germany than Germany has in inventory. UK also has more armoured vehicles deployed with Nato than Germany
                I don't disagree, I've posted that myself in other threads.

                >H U G E
                TL;DR you think it's 40% but it's really 15% in the period 2017-2021

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >that wasn't me
                Cop out.
                >your own document
                That's your source retard I stooped to that level after you shifted the goal posts, next time you move the posts tell us which document page and table you want to work from you insufferable gay instead of jumping between which favours you most when you get btfo'd
                >maybe not
                What? The estimated spend for 2021 is already wrong how can you no know this.
                >I say Land based but didn't mean they had Land based stuff
                Imbecile
                >TL;DR
                After you shifting the posts multiple times you have gone from
                1. Not knowing the annual budget of the UK
                2. Thinking the spending gap was 5%

                Go read a defence whitepaper, moron

                [...]
                >2021, this year its $72bn-ish
                I was working off 2020, which is $62b for UK and $59b for Germany, making the UK defence budget only 5% higher than Germany's. Each country includes different items in the budget when reporting domestically, I use the NATO definition because it uses the same formula across countries. I haven't checked the latest data.

                here....to 10%

                Even if you use NATO's formula, the estimated difference in 2022 is still only 10%. Maybe you might consider that
                >the biggest in Europe by a huge margin

                Either way, learn something from this experience: GET. YOUR. DEFINITIONS. RIGHT. RETARD.

                here...finally to 15%+ here

                The real TL;DR is that you are a clueless cunt who should stfu on things he knows nothing about. Seriously the nerve on you, are you a woman?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I stooped to that level
                learn to STANAG, retard
                >The estimated spend for 2021 is already wrong how can you no know this
                I'll wait for the official figures, thanks
                >I don't understand the meaning of Land based
                you don't understand much anyway
                >Not knowing the annual budget of the UK
                learn to STANAG, retard
                >Thinking the spending gap was 5% to 10% to 15%
                I did admit that, but conversely all you could say was
                >huge
                >huge
                >huge
                with no real inkling, thinking it was 20%+ or 40% based on your retarded random-ass comparisons you found somewhere in the Daily Mail

                if you're right it's only by accident because you have zero clue how to properly compare figures. I'd tell you to have a nice day but it'd be doing you a favour to put you out of your pathetically ignorant misery, so fuck off and don't come back, knobhead

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for the concession. Better luck next time.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Concession, nothing. Wanker.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What year
        2021, this year its $72bn-ish and they have committed to 3% of gdp which was $168bn but the inflation rate and exchange rate is fucking stuff up at the minute.
        So yeh, check before posting stats my guy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Oh yeah I'm sure we've finally fought the war to end all wars, job's done this time
        Not saying that, just the fact that Europe doesn't have imperial empires that are quick to settle disputes by fighting wars anymore, and it is much more of a last resort.
        the USA is a formidable force to potential adversaries
        Their GDP and defence budget might be lightyears ahead but that doesn't mean the other 29 members add nothing. That's like saying out of the whole British empire only the UK mattered in both world wars, when the likes of India contributed just as much

  68. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >yuropoor cope thread
    I can tell the tourists are getting uppity

  69. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Guys I just want to enlist and deploy instead of being a terrone doing nothing what can I do
    Libya invasion when

  70. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It isn't that they're "weak", its that they're so hilariously under powered for the most part in comparison to their wealth.

  71. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its comical how some brits and frogs think they are respected militaries when the entire world looks at them as a joke that only exists because the US allows it

  72. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its actually terrifying to think that the tiny bong army, or the French army which is based more on colonial follies than full on warfighting, would cleave Russia in two.

    When I can sleep at night I try to think of the smallest country that could mogg Russia. Right now, I think probably Austria. Italy could win (if they had something to motivate them to fight), the Spanish would assfuck them, the Nords its only a question if they can win before they run out of men and the Baltics, Dutch and Belgians are all too small and dont have full spectrum armies.

    Even the Greeks would smash the Russians to pieces, and thats even with their 09h00-14h00 work day.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      9h00-12h00
      Lunch is from 12h00 to 14h00

  73. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    France can mass produce vehicles at a rate either Russia or Ukraine can. Do you think that European nations should be stockpiling obsolete crap for decades like Russia? The EU has a standing army of 1.3 million in uniform (not reserves in uniform) it has fast airforce and navy and dominates China or Russia in ground attack, jet fighters, attack helicopters etc. I'm just guessing your post is some vatnik durr hurr euros hate burgers burgers hate euros idiot spam

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The EU has a standing army of 1.3 million in uniform (not reserves in uniform) it has fast airforce and navy and dominates China or Russia in ground attack, jet fighters, attack helicopters etc
      >Their GDP and defence budget might be lightyears ahead but that doesn't mean the other 29 members add nothing
      The "EU army" consists mainly of just five (5) nations: UK, France, Germany, Italy and Poland. These five account for 1 million men in all branches, around 1,700 tanks, 1,600 artillery pieces and 1,000 combat jets.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *