OPINION

NATO hollow shield: Europe unready for modern war

 

 

 

NATO’s post–Cold War aura of invincibility is cracking. A recent Russian drone strike that sent more than 20 drones — including cheap foam decoys — into Polish airspace forced the alliance to scramble F-16s, F-35s, and Patriot missiles worth millions. The interception worked, but the message was clear: NATO’s trillion-dollar arsenal is ill-suited for today’s low-cost, asymmetric warfare.

 

Days later, unidentified drones shut down airports in Norway, Denmark, and Germany. From the Baltic to the Black Sea, civilians no longer feel safe. European media brim with speculation over where the next strike might land — Poland? Romania? The Baltics?

 

The Ukrainian battlefield has already exposed NATO’s deeper weakness: its forces are built for high-tech, conventional battles, not the grinding attrition of drone warfare and deep-dug infantry. “Can NATO soldiers survive weeks in foxholes and ruins without communication?” the piece asks — and the numbers suggest not. A Gallup survey found only 23% of Germans and 14% of Italians would volunteer to fight if war came.

 

Meanwhile, Russia’s authoritarian discipline sustains its army through staggering losses. Ukraine, despite Western backing, faces manpower shortages and morale fatigue. NATO’s 1.47 million European troops may sound large, but spread across the continent they pale next to Russia’s focused war machine.

 

The alliance faces an existential dilemma: either pour trillions into rearmament and rapid mobilization, or fund Ukraine decisively — roughly $60 billion a year — to stop Russia now. Europe’s hesitation, the author warns, only invites catastrophe.

 

Key takeaways:

• NATO’s expensive tech arsenal struggles against cheap drone warfare.

• Public willingness to fight in Europe is dangerously low.

• West must choose: arm for total war or back Ukraine before it’s too late.

 

Inspired by AlJAZEERA

 

 

 

 

If you are not bombing big targets, cities, refineries, Airfields then the new game in town certainly seems to be drones of every flavour.

 

NATO needs to....although I imagine it is doing so.......get up to speed with the Ukraine experience of this new type of warfare.

21 minutes ago, Social Media said:

West must choose: arm for total war or back Ukraine before it’s too late.

 

Or quit funding a war that was lost 3 years ago.

That's one reason why Ukraine is a key asset for NATO, and in particular for European countries. It have has the "modern war" experience and know-how, and a strong Ukraine is like a Damocles sword above Russia, in case it would decide to attack a NATO country.

11 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

If you are not bombing big targets, cities, refineries, Airfields then the new game in town certainly seems to be drones of every flavour.

 

NATO needs to....although I imagine it is doing so.......get up to speed with the Ukraine experience of this new type of warfare.

Ukraine are demonstrating that small drones can very effectively target refineries, and airfields.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Ukraine are demonstrating that small drones can very effectively target refineries, and airfields.

 

Far from as effective as a  full out bombing raid, but yes, proving effective.

14 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Or quit funding a war that was lost 3 years ago.

Spilled milk 👎

Whilst European NATO countries are a bit unprepared due to them collectively thinking that it just won't happen, the likely foe, Russia, is hardly in a position to steamroll over NATO borders and crush all in their path either... would be deluded to think that, as it can't even take half of Ukraine in 3 years.

Basically, Ukraine has been given close to end-of-life gear that would need to be decommissioned, mothballed, or just sold off anyhow (which is costly)... might as well donate it and see how it performs against a near-peer adversory, grab the data and make better stuff. Admittedly, Ukraine has benefitted from state of the art intel etc. plus Starlink. 

Russia getting involved in a conventional war with NATO would be suicide for the Kremlin and it knows it. However, what the Kremlin does well is grey-zone tactics/warfare, propaganda, bullying, brinksmanship, and threats. Ukraine's targeting of Russia oil refineries is paying off and the Russian people are starting to feel the hurt, which they don't like.

The clock is ticking for Putin and he might be best off just settling for what he has already managed to get. Trouble with that is, Russia has got itself into a position where it can't afford to lose the war, or win it... it needs to continue as is, otherwise the Russian economy will collapse and we'll see the 90s all over again. Quite the pickle for Putin.

30 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Far from as effective as a  full out bombing raid, but yes, proving effective.

But a lot cheaper!

 

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

A Gallup survey found only 23% of Germans and 14% of Italians would volunteer to fight if war came.

Not all euros are stupid then.

4 minutes ago, FlorC said:

Not all euros are stupid then.

It is one thing to fight to defend your own country  and quite another to  fight to defend someone else's country

(for democracy of course 🤣 )

Comparatively cheap anti drone drones and lazers are already being developed to stop them.

 

That opinion piece came from Al Jazeera I wouldn't take too much notice of it NATO is still more than a match for Russia.

 

As for "NATO’s post–Cold War aura of invincibility" Russia is no USSR either.

9 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

That opinion piece came from Al Jazeera I wouldn't take too much notice of it NATO is still more than a match for Russia.

 

I don't doubt that.  But at least 2 times in Cold War history, preventing nuclear Armageddon came down to one Russkie defying orders and not launching the nuke.  1962 and 1983.  And those are the ones we know about.  No telling how many times a guy in NORAD stopped the nukes from flying. It'll be 50 more years before those documents see the light of day.

 

Is it worth that risk to "save" a portion of Ukraine whose residents seem to prefer being under Moscow anyway?

 

38 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I don't doubt that.  But at least 2 times in Cold War history, preventing nuclear Armageddon came down to one Russkie defying orders and not launching the nuke.  1962 and 1983.  And those are the ones we know about.  No telling how many times a guy in NORAD stopped the nukes from flying. It'll be 50 more years before those documents see the light of day.

 

Is it worth that risk to "save" a portion of Ukraine whose residents seem to prefer being under Moscow anyway?

 

 

I was in the British Army during the Cold War period. NATO is not going to attack Russia or be the first to use nuclear weapons it's Russia or more likely Putin and others like him that want to recreate the USSR that is the problem Putin won't stop at Ukraine that is why Ukraine must be supported and Putin stopped now before he gets any stronger.

 

NATO has to be ready for any eventuality.

 

Nuclear war would devistate the whole world no country would escape the fallout and the after effects from it.

 

As long as they exist there will always be the threat that they will be used, to give in to threats and blackmail only makes that more likely.

 

Since 1945 the only thing that has stopped any country using them is M.A.D.

 

I hope a solution can be found to stop the war.