In reality, this is absurd. The 30 European NATO nations have a combined population of over 800 million and more than half the global GDP. Their combined forces have 3.5 million troops. Add Ukraine’s 800,000 and you have a force more than four times what Russia can muster. Russia has a population of 140 million and a GDP of $7.7 trillion, which is 3.6 percent of Global GDP. European NATO nations have a combined GDP fifteen times that of Russia. Not surprisingly, the NATO nations closest to Russia spend more on defense and have larger military forces than nations more distant from Russia, like Spain, Italy, France and Britain.
Google Query AI
As of early 2024–2025, the European Union (EU) has a population of approximately 449 to 450 millionpeople . It is important to note that the EU currently consists of 27 member states, not 30, with Germany being the most populous country at over 83 million residents.
They can defend themselves, but not with overwhelming odds. The Europeans now want to step up. The distrust of the US and Trump is fueling them. They need to step up. We can not on our lonesome face Russia and China. China is too powerful. Japan wants to step up as well.
If the U.S. leaves NATO (à la Greenland) you wonder if EUs 27 nations can agree to defend themselves w/o US aid. France failed promptly in WWII in spite of the Maginot Line. Britain survived to lead defense w/o opposition. Modern Europe seems much less than monolithic.
Yes, it is. Europe/NATO is quite capable of defending itself without the US. Of course, with the US is much better. But they can do without us. Especially in the case of Russia, and most especially as of late since Russia has drained their military and economy in Ukraine. Even if that ended tomorrow, it would be suicide for Russia to march westward. It could be ten years before they recover (and I’ve seen estimates even longer) to where they were in 2022.
One doesn’t normally think of Poland as a military powerhouse. However, they spend a lot more on defense because of their proximity to Russia. Their military is modern, well equipped (F35s, Abrams, Korean K2s, etc), and well trained. If Russia thought Ukraine was easy pickings, they will be really shocked if they cross into Poland. And that’s just ONE county in NATO.
The Poles are eager to hurt Russia for starting WWII by invading them from the east, just as they saw Germany get hurt for invading from them from the west. I actually believe, given the miserable state of the Russian army and treasury and morale, that Poland might be able do it all by themselves.
Ukraine is waging an asymmetric war. As defenders they don’t have to post men on no man’s land. With air, land, and sea drones they are inflicting more casualties on Russia than Russia can enlist. Russia beat the Germans in WWII with US supplied gear. That is no longer the case. Russia is losing on three fronts,
Economy
Man power
Material
and…
Kaliningrad
You can’t rely on nukes if you are not willing to use them which makes Russia a non-SuperPower but dangerous as hell.
Perhaps the comparing of populations and economies isn’t the deciding factor?
How about the willingness to fight? And EU military dependence upon US
intelligence, logistics, communications and command-and-control.
In a simulation where Russia breaches the Lithuanian border, Europe struggles to respond without U.S. help.
NATO are girding their nation’s loins by increased defense spending.
But:
French & German voters seem intent on avoiding confrontation.
Merz: Ukraine war won’t end until Russia is economically ‘exhausted’
The West has been predicting the collapse of the Russian Economy since Russia’s intervention in Ukraine nearly 4 years ago. Russia is still standing. And we can see Russia does have the will to fight.
And Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Dennis Laich served 35 years in the Army Reserve rises the question:
And the above is not just about US military capability but US industrial might capability to maintain weapon production to meet that demand. Also the US voter’s willingness to support a defense of Europe. We do know the present president’s willingness is in question.
I think this war game is flawed. It depends too much on German actions only. The Baltic countries and Poland would take Immediate military action which would slow down and deny any Russian success in taking control of any Lithuanian territory. Sweden, Finland and Denmark would immediately help Lithuania and Poland push Russian forces back.
There is no gain for Russia to invade Lithuania and to have wars on two fronts. Russian military already is weak from Ukraine war and unable to support a new front in the Baltics. Russian soldiers do not have the motivation to fight in the Baltics. The EU/NATO soldiers are all highly motivated to protect their countries from Russian aggression.
Germany, France and UK will be coming to reinforce the NATO/EU effort to push and punish the Russian back into there decaying country. No need for USA troops except to provide a nuclear shield.
I think the politics is critical. Superior forces can lose when politicians fail to take action. Often its money. They want to spend the money on other things. And war was not in the budget. Certainly France spent heavily to build the Maginot Line after WWI. But defenses were ineffective against German Blitzkreig.
It was money stupidly spent. They fortified the border with Germany, and stopped right at the border with Belgium. Who could have forseen that Germany would invade through Belgium, and bypass the Maginot line entirely?
Um, almost anyone, I think.
Then again, the French haven’t been known for their military prowess since a century earlier, with Napolean. They were badly led, trained, and armed in WWI, and even worse in WWII. They may have the armaments now, but I still question their capabilities.
You can spend tons and get nothing (Saddam Hussein had the 4th largest army in the world, and was defeated in weeks) and you can spend little and make a stand (see: Ukraine). Quanity of dollars is good, but quality of leadership is even better.
I just watched a program last night; while the French were building the Maginot line, Germany was building a subterranean tunnel system in Berlin, hundreds of meters below the city. (This is amazing to think about given the technology of the day.)
The amount of concrete used was equivalent to 20 Yankee stadiums; it had railroad tracks (small scale, like in a mine, but sufficient for the movement of goods, ammunition, and troops.) It was also capable of being a massive air raid shelter and bunker, connecting dozens of military sites throughout (and beyond) the city.
It was part of Hitler’s plan to recast Berlin as “Germania”, a plan which obviously never came to fruition. In fact, just prior to the launching of his escapades throughout Europe he ceased the construction overnight, leaving many of the spurs in various stages of completion. It was a tremendous waste of resources, but then it provided much needed employment in the Reich, not just to the miners who were doing the work, but to all those associated industries which provided material: cement, rail lines, offices, communications equipment, and so on.
Apparently he had become sold on “Blitzkreig” and thought a static defensive structure would be useless - but only after billions of reichsmarks had been spent. One of the comments by one knowledgable guide said it was so large you could walk through it for five days and not have covered it all.
Germany also invested in the Siegfried Line to counter the Maginot Line. Neither proved useful in the war. Another example of the problem w fixed fortifications.
An enemy can devise ways to counter them. Nothing is absolute. Technologies change. Strategies change. Opponents change.