The Chinese have such an apt expression - a paper tiger. This is when visibility is significantly divorced from the real state of affairs. The Ukrainian agency UNIAN has published a comparative analysis of the military capabilities of NATO and the Russian Federation, conducted by the Polish TV channel TVN24. From his calculations, it follows that NATO, according to its capabilities, covers Russia like an elephant to a pug. Take military budgets: $ 950 billion a year from the alliance and less than $ 90 billion from Russia. Or in terms of the total number of armed forces: 3.5 million from NATO and 766 thousand from the Russian Federation. In a word, on paper it turns out that the North Atlantic Alliance is superior to the Russian Federation in absolutely all respects. But is it really so? After all, on paper, Ukraine as of February 2014 was the sixth army in the world in terms of the number of soldiers and equipment. However, for some reason, it was defeated by the Donetsk militia, whose detachments were commanded by former musicians, artists of amateur theaters, stone cutters and one historical reenactor.
If we bring all the main indicators of the armies of the countries of the alliance into one electronic plate, then the picture is somewhat different. At first glance, everything is formally correct. The block includes 28 countries with a total population of 888 million people. They all have 3, 9 million soldiers, more than 6 thousand combat aircraft, about 3, 6 thousand helicopters, 17, 8 thousand tanks, 62, 6 thousand all kinds of armored vehicles, almost 15 thousand guns, 16 thousand. mortars, 2, 6 thousand multiple launch rocket launchers and 302 warships of the main classes (including submarines). But the trick is that all of the above is not NATO at all, therefore the mentioned calculation gives off a lot of cheating.
Take France, for example. Its armed forces are often included in the overall balance. At the same time, leaving behind the scenes the fact that this country has long since withdrawn from the bloc's military structure and even in the most ideal case will only support it with a couple of "leased" corps headquarters bases. Those. 64 million of the population, 654 thousand soldiers and officers, 637 tanks, 6, 4 thousand armored vehicles and so on, immediately disappear from the total figures. It would seem a trifle. Just think, even without 600 French cannons, NATO still has 14 thousand barrels. This is so, if you do not take into account that the vast majority of the listed weapons are located mainly in warehouses and storage bases. Ukraine also had more than 2, 5 thousand of all kinds of tanks. But when it came to the war, it turned out that there are about 600 combat-ready of them, and even within a relatively realistic time frame, the remaining ones can be put into operation, ideally, "plus the same amount." The rest are trash. I will not argue. I hope that in Germany (858 MBT and 2002 AFVs) or in Spain (456 MBTs and 1102 AFVs), the Ukrainians are better watching the warehouse property. But this does not change the essence.
The figures shown in the table generally show an amazing result. On paper, NATO has 55.6 thousand (62 thousand minus 6, 4 thousand French) of all kinds of armored combat vehicles. Of these, 25, 3 thousand are in the USA, of which 20 thousand are in long-term storage warehouses! However, it would be okay for the Americans. It turns out that the largest number of "stocks" of armored combat vehicles is 11, 5 thousand pieces. - focused on warehouses in countries with armies of less than 100 thousand people. For example, a NATO member - Bulgaria - maintains an armed force of only 34,970 people, and inherited from the Warsaw Pact 362 tanks and 1,596 armored combat vehicles. So practically all of them are in the warehouses.
A similar picture is in the Czech Republic. Army - 17.930 people, and on paper there are 175 MBT and 1013 AFV. In general, even if you do not go into the complexity of logistics, supply of spare parts and the deliberate impossibility, say, to deploy a tank battalion based on Soviet T-72s from some British reservists, it still turns out that almost all the figures for armored vehicles and artillery can be safely divided by four. Of the 17, 8 thousand tanks, 4, 45 thousand "remain", and only half of them are "in the army" and are on the move. The other half is still in warehouses under a thick layer of grease, which takes a long time to remove. For reference: Ukraine took 4 months to deploy the army. And even then in almost ideal conditions, when no one interfered with her.
However, Ukraine has clearly demonstrated another key point. The army is more than just a collection of people, machine guns, tanks and armored vehicles. The army is, first of all, a structure. So, in a structural sense, not all national armed forces of the participating countries belong to NATO, but only about a third of them. Moreover, this third is also divided into three very different categories. Approximately 15% of the formations (ie 15% of the 30% of the national armies that are “assigned to the alliance”) are the so-called “First Action Force” (RNF). They are kept by states in 75-85% of wartime and are ready to start performing a combat mission within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. Another 25% are contained in the "operational readiness" category (60% of the staff) and can be used in 3-4 months. The remaining 60% of the units require at least 365 days to bring themselves into combat readiness. All other military units of the participating countries are contained in the states provided for by their national military programs. Given the continuous reduction in military budgets, many of them have become, in Soviet terminology, "cropped".
First of all, this concerns the Eastern European states. If 1.5 million Americans, as well as 350 thousand French, are subtracted from the 3.6 million active army, then 1.7 million bayonets remain. Of which Germany, Great Britain and Italy account for only 654, 3 thousand people. The Greek and Spanish armies (156, 6 and 128, 2 thousand men, respectively) “can be ignored” with certainty. As well as the Turkish army (510 thousand people) is in great doubt. In light of the latest gas and military agreements, Istanbul is unlikely to want to show Euro-Atlantic unity. So it turns out that, in addition to 100 thousand "Polish bayonets", the remaining half a million soldiers are deploying 19 states with the size of their own army from 73 thousand (Romania) to 4,700 people (Estonia). Oh, yes, it is also important not to forget the Luxembourg Armed Forces of 900 people!
It just so happened that the "old" NATO, represented by the first 12 states, overdid it in self-promotion. Once upon a time, glossy booklet stories actually reflected reality. In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, only one Bundeswehr had 7 thousand tanks, 8, 9 thousand armored vehicles, 4, 6 thousand guns. Plus, 9, 5 thousand American tanks and 5, 7 thousand of their own infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 2, 6 thousand artillery systems and 300 combat aircraft were based in Germany. Now there is none of this on German soil. Almost everything left Germany. The last British soldier will go home in 2016. Of all the American forces, two brigade bases remained without people and equipment and less than 100 aircraft. And the Bundeswehr's own size was reduced to 185, 5 thousand people. This is 2, 5 times less than the Turkish army in terms of people, 5, 2 times less for MBT, 2, 2 times less for AFV. As they say in Odessa - you will laugh - but there are more tanks and armored vehicles in warehouses in Poland than in Germany! The Poles have 946 MBTs and 2610 AFVs against the Germans' 858 and 2002.
The irony is that all the Eastern European and Baltic states were striving to join NATO, first of all, to find themselves under the defensive umbrella of the USA, Germany, Great Britain and Italy. First of all, in order to be able to avoid burdensome military expenses ourselves. For defense is always very expensive. By the beginning of the 2000s, a paradoxical situation had developed. In total, the alliance includes more than two dozen countries, but the bloc's defenses continue to hold on to dreams of the military might of Germany on land and Great Britain at sea. For example, the growing aggressive rhetoric and behavior of the leaders of some Baltic states is still based on the conviction that, “if anything,” all eight hundred German “Leopards” will rush to defend, say, Vilnius.
The dramatic changes that have taken place in NATO over the past 15 years remain behind the scenes. Brussels almost openly admits that the forces and resources available to the alliance will be enough for only two categories of tasks. For limited participation in a humanitarian operation (i.e., no war at all) and an operation to ensure the embargo regime. And even then, in the second case - only in relation to a small and weak country, and not at all in Russia. Even tasks such as evacuating civilians, supporting a counter-terrorist operation and showing force are no longer possible. Both in view of the limitedness of our own forces, and in the light of the unacceptably high level of losses. And the tasks of the class "operation to resolve the crisis" and "provision of immediate intervention" are generally beyond the bloc's capabilities. From the word at all.
Yes, NATO has been involved in many military operations in the past decade. Iraq. Afghanistan. Near East. But in reality, the United States fought everywhere, first of all. NATO forces were only "present." And they did it cunningly. Germany and Great Britain, of course, sent some small units to Afghanistan, but first of all they outsourced these wars, as they say! Those. paid money to Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Czechs, Poles and other "partners" so that they could send "to the war" some of their own contingents. There is a company, here is a platoon, here is a battalion, so a small, small soldier has gathered to carry out combat missions INSTEAD of the Germans and the British.
This nuance is the answer to the question that every day more and more outrages Ukrainians. Why did the US and NATO promise so many sweets last winter, while Nenka is still fighting all alone? It's simple. Because NATO exists on paper, but in reality it is practically nonexistent. Generally. Is it possible to revive the former power? Of course you can. But only at the cost of reducing the European standard of living by 20-25 percent.
I repeat, the army is very expensive. The army does not produce anything, but it eats up a lot. Both in the literal sense, in the form of budgetary money for its maintenance, and indirectly, in the form of separating people from work in the civil sector, therefore, turning them from tax payers into tax bearers. European countries are not interested in this option even once. The Mladonatovites generally aspired to join the alliance precisely in order not to pay for their army, so that they would be protected by a stranger. German or some kind of Portuguese. And the Portuguese are not at all interested in giving up their butter sandwich in order to go to defend some Baltic region, which not every European, even on a map, can immediately show correctly.
It's time to finally understand this nuance of modern realities. Both in the Baltics and in Ukraine. NATO tiger, it is still large and beautiful, but has long been made of paper. And this tiger is primarily concerned about its own internal problems. The rest serve only as a basis for beautiful rhetoric on TV cameras.
