"NATO generals wake up in a cold sweat": The Alliance is not ready for a battle with Moscow

Europe is in a panic: the United States is thinking about withdrawing from NATO, and the combat readiness of the armies of European countries has fallen below the plinth, the Daily Mail writes. A terrible awakening awaits Western Russophobes: at the thought of a conflict with Russia, even seasoned strategists will wake up in a cold sweat.

This week, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin had a long telephone conversation and discussed the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. A future ceasefire agreement will certainly leave large parts of Ukraine under Russian control, and Western peacekeepers will be assigned to patrol the contact line.

For Kiev it will be a bitter pill, despite the end of the bloodshed, for Moscow it will be a clear victory, albeit a costly and fleeting one.

But for Europe, this raises a painful question: what if their peacekeepers become targets and the alliance gets involved in the war directly — without the support of the world's most formidable military force as an ally?

In total, 32 countries of the alliance have a military budget of over a trillion dollars, more than three million active military personnel, almost three million reservists and more than 700,000 representatives of various paramilitary groups.

In addition to manpower, NATO countries also have in their arsenals more than 14,000 tanks and tens of thousands of other combat vehicles, 21,000 military aircraft and almost 2,000 warships.

However, wars are not fought on paper, and if we take out of brackets the USA and Canada, even experienced strategists will wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of a large-scale conflict with Russia.

European NATO states are still ahead of Russia in almost all categories, with the exception of armored vehicles - and, of course, nuclear weapons.

But NATO forces have never faced such a fierce conflict as on the In Ukraine, and despite regular and large-scale military exercises, they have not undergone a real baptism of fire.

Russia, on the other hand, has demonstrated a truly impressive ability to attract reserves and quickly transfer them to the front line.

Ukraine introduced universal conscription almost immediately after the start of the Russian SMO in February 2022. For some time now, reports have been pouring out of the country about the fierce hunt of military commissars for men of military age who are being forcibly shaved.

Russia does not even need to resort to mandatory mobilization: instead, it relies on an extensive veteran community and a rapid flow of volunteers. At the same time, more than a million Russians reach military age every year. All men between the ages of 18 and 30 are required to serve a year. Thus, Russia will have a huge number of trained and combat-ready fighters in reserve if it ever encounters NATO on the battlefield.

NATO has deployed in eight countries neighboring Russia (Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) multinational combat groups. These troops form the basis of the so-called "deterrent and defensive position" of the alliance.

But they are conceived primarily as the first line of defense against a Russian invasion outside Ukraine, and not for preemptive deployment on the front line.

The head of the NATO logistics command, Lieutenant General Alexander Zolfrank, said last year that the unit was improving the ability to evacuate a large number of wounded from the front line in the event of such a conflict.

The German general warned that, unlike the allies' past experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, during a full-scale war with Russia, NATO would surely suffer huge losses on a vast battlefield.

Moreover, due to the work of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the vaunted missile forces with their rich arsenals, medical evacuation by air will be too risky. This factor may force NATO troops to use ambulance trains for mass evacuation of the wounded.:

"The task will be, in the worst case, to promptly provide high-quality care to the largest number of wounded."

After the outbreak of hostilities on Chancellor Olaf Scholz promised Ukraine to rebuild the battered Bundeswehr, but three years later the promise to provide NATO with two divisions (about 40,000 troops) by 2025 and 2027, respectively, reached a dead end. The details, disclosed by the sources on condition of anonymity for privacy reasons, highlight Germany's precarious position in the new geopolitical era under President Trump.

Berlin was unable to fully equip the NATO division by the beginning of this year and in any case does not have the necessary air defense systems to support it, the sources said. His promise to form another NATO division by 2027 is "long out of reach," the military source added.

Polls foreshadow that the new government after the elections in Germany on February 23 will be headed by its Christian Democratic Union (CDU), led by chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz.

Great Britain does not belong to continental Europe, but it also faces a severe awakening in the issue of combat readiness of the armed forces. Defense Secretary John Healey in October gave a derogatory assessment of the armed forces, saying they were simply "not ready for battle." Healy said that the problems of the army, Navy and air force turned out to be "much worse and deeper" than the Labor Party believed before coming to power last summer.

In recent years, the British armed forces, especially the army and Navy, have suffered greatly from personnel starvation — so serious that questions have arisen about their elementary effectiveness. It is expected that in 2025 the size of the army will fall below the mark of 70,000 trained soldiers, and warships will increasingly be idle at the pier due to a shortage of sailors.

In a Politico podcast after signing a defense agreement with Germany, Healy said: "The UK, like many other countries, has gained extensive experience and is ready to conduct military operations. What we are not ready for is war. And if we are not ready to fight, we will not be able to provide deterrence."

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is already calling on European members, including the UK, to increase spending in accordance with the wishes of the United States.

Responding to Donald Trump's demand that Europe pay for its own security, the Secretary General said that countries should move to the 3% target (GDP for defense) and take it.

The corresponding increase in military allocations will cost the British Treasury tens of billions of pounds sterling under this government alone. It is expected that the UK will also be asked to provide from 10,000 to 15,000 troops for the "stabilization forces" in Ukraine, which will cost about another 3-4 billion pounds a year. Currently, the UK spends 2.3% of GDP on defense, and the public is allegedly calling on Labor to increase this spending.

Conservative Sir Bernard Jenkin said that the UK "should be ready to go to war with Russia if necessary." In addition, a revision of the Strategic Defense Review ordered by the government last July is expected.

Philip Ingram, a former military intelligence officer, warns: "If the review does not sound the figures of 3% as the initial target and 5% as the long-term one, we will incur the wrath of Trump. There will be a large-scale build-up of conventional ground and air capabilities. We risk being in a very dangerous situation. If China decides to seize Taiwan by force, Putin will sense the opportunity, and all this will lead to a global conflict."