In recent days, several political leaders from NATO, but also in Finland, Germany and Poland, have been making very worrying speeches. According to them, the risks are now significant that Russia will decide to attack one of the NATO countries within five years, i.e. around 2030.
Since then, opinions have multiplied on the subject, in the press as well as on the internet, and on news channels. Some see, in Boris Pistorius' statements, a political maneuver with an internal aim. Others see it as catastrophism unrelated to reality, particularly regarding Russian military power. The latter, finally, support the reality of this speech.
To answer this question, it is necessary to clearly state the facts of the problem, i.e. the reality of what the balance of power may be in Europe at this time, but also to analyze all the attrition factors, and the political forces that underlie them. And as we will see in this article, to paraphrase a well-known status on Facebook, it's complicated!
In this section:
What will Russia's military potential be in 2030?
The first question, to assess the risks of war in Europe by 2030, is to be able to assess the military potential that Moscow will actually have at this time.
To achieve this, it is essential to have excellent sources, often beyond the reach of commentators, if not necessarily intelligence services, but also a good dose of divination powers. Indeed, this future potential is based on four factors, each as uncertain as the other.
A very uncertain point of origin and timeline
The first is none other than its point of origin, that is to say what are the military forces that the Russian general staff actually has at its disposal today. This one question alone is a challenge. The information concerning Russian losses, in men and equipment, is most often very variable depending on the sources, and reliably establishing the reality of Moscow's operational system is even more so.
If the nature of the point of origin is uncertain, its timing is equally uncertain. Indeed, no one is, today, able to predict when the war in Ukraine will end, nor the parameters of this possible peace.
Obviously, between a victorious Russia on the one hand, a Ukraine managing to liberate its entire territory, on the other, and the probable hypothesis of a Koreanization of the Ukrainian theater, the consequences on the military potential of the Russian armies can be radically different.
Thus, a Russian defeat would probably lead to significant internal political upheavals in the country, with its share of difficulties in rebuilding an effective military tool.
A victory for Moscow, on the contrary, would give the Kremlin consolidated power over a territory and a population which will have expanded significantly, and would strengthen the authorities' confidence in military power.
75% of this article remains to read,
Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from 6,90 €.
Newsletter subscription
Register for the Meta-Defense Newsletter to receive the
latest fashion articles daily or weekly
The EU countries have around 450 million inhabitants while Russia only has 140.
The demographic balance of power makes a NATO attack by Russia completely suicidal.
And who can believe that Russia will invade NATO countries when it is incapable of taking total control of Ukraine?
We feel the weight of the arms industry lobbies who, by raising the Russian threat, would like massive orders to be placed with them for their greatest benefit.
Assuming that the Europeans manage to mobilize as well as the Russians, assuming that the European countries all commit, assuming that the European countries decide to send all of their resources, assuming... This indicator cannot be ignored, but it is very far from being effective on its own. Israel defeated Egypt and its allies, 15 times more populous, twice in seven years, and took the whole of Sinai from Egypt, and the Golan from Syria. At the start of World War II, France, Great Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands were twice as populated as Germany. Russia was five times more populated than Germany during the First World War.
Hello,
for my part I think that our security is up to us and not always rely on the Americans! I don't like Trump but I agree with him, it's not up to Americans to pay for Europeans.
let's get out of our comfort zone by always complaining and arguing like in a schoolyard.
our defense belongs to us and don't forget that our army is like insurance, it always costs too much when we don't use it.
good thinking and good evening
Trump is an intellectual fraud. European defense via NATO brings billions to the USA each year in industrial operations.
It's very simple, apart from France and a few parts in the UK and Germany, everything is American.
Trump nee only excites the bottom of the front to exist (bla bla foreign danger etc)
In short, if vis pacem para bellum remains the basis. This is common sense, but given the various political variations in the different European countries, will we be able to unify a strategy and proceed with the implementation of an operational policy, nothing is less certain. This forces us to develop a costly but safer counter-random strategy with the few countries that agree to do so. Normally not invading NATO countries but attempting a blow against one of the Baltic countries, we cannot afford to rule it out. Especially since the result of the current conflict has not been recorded and if (we should not wish it) Ukraine collapsed, the geostrategic situation would not be the same. At the moment, whether in Russia or in the USA, we are in a pre-election phase, so we might as well say that the words of the moment will not be those we will hear at the end of the year where realism will prevail. In any case, thanks to Méta Défense for all this work (a new subscriber).