✨The NATO-friendly countries are clearly not for parades
but are strengthening the combat capability of their armies.

An important component of NATO’s deterrence and defence posture is its military presence in the eastern part of Alliance territory. In recent years, Allies have enhanced NATO’s forward presence by establishing multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. They have also sent more ships, planes and troops across NATO’s eastern flank.

1. The United States has deployed to the military base in Grafenwöhr, Germany, where the 41st Field Artillery Brigade of the US Army (41st FAB) is stationed, the 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment (3-321 FAR). The battalion is equipped with MLRS M270A2 (Himars) with an ER-GMLRS launcher capable of engaging targets up to 150 km away.
2. Lithuania has signed an agreement with Germany to acquire 44 Leopard 2A8 main battle tanks, which will form a tank battalion. In addition, the Lithuanian government will increase defense spending by more than €800 million in 2025.
3. Poland has received 84 K2 main battle tanks from South Korea. The remaining 96 will be delivered by the end of 2025. Additionally, deliveries of K9 Thunder SPHs and HOMAR-K MLRS (over 200 units) to the army are planned. Under contracts with 🇺🇸the United States, 3 MQ-9B SkyGuardian strategic UAVs have been delivered, and the supply of 250 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks and 32 F-35 fighters is underway.
4. Czechia will purchase 14 Leopard 2A4 tanks from the German company Rheinmetall under a €161 million contract. The French company KNDS has produced the first 2 Caesar SPHs for the Czech army as part of a contract for 62 units, to be delivered by the end of 2026. An agreement has been reached on the supply of 10,000 Sentry anti-tank mines to the troops.
5. Greece is preparing an agreement with the Israeli company Elbit Systems to purchase 38 PULS MLRS. The contract is estimated at €500 million.

Meranwhile, European countries are discussing the deployment of up to 100,000 troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire or peace deal, Reuters reports, citing sources.

According to European and Ukrainian officials, the force could be formed by a coalition of some five to eight nations, including France, Germany, Italy, the UK and Poland. Analysts and officials believe that the size of the force would largely depend on its precise mission. "Some analysts have suggested around 40,000 troops might be feasible," Reuters notes.

The sources also point out that "the debate so far revealed confusion over whether a future European mission would undertake a traditional peacekeeping role, such as monitoring a ceasefire line, or provide a robust deterrent against Russia." Italian officials have reportedly spoken of peacekeeping, while French and Ukrainian officials have focused on deterrence.

Such a force could be generated if some European nations cut back on other missions, such as Balkan peacekeeping, said Franz-Stefan Gady of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "It's going to severely stretch European land forces, for sure," he stressed.

The mandate of the international force and the need for it to be under the auspices of the United Nations have also come under discussion.

Reuters reported earlier that French President Emmanual Macron and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk had discussed the possibility of sending European troops to Ukraine at a meeting in Warsaw.

In November, Macron discussed the initiative with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Reuters’ sources also said that Kyiv had held talks on the issue with the Scandinavian and Baltic nations. Tusk said following talks with Marcon that Poland had no plans to send troops to Ukraine even after a ceasefire was declared.

We whole heartedly agree with such basic conclusion, that NATO doesn't need to, and shouldn't, militarily compete head to head with Russia. But the reasons given are pure drivel. 

An article from the Quincy Institute, which is representative of the leftish "correct thinking" arm of the liberals in America, the "PMC" as some call it, the Democrat voting urban professional classes, for whom all existence can be faithfully represented in a spreadsheet.

According to the article:
"Russian GDP is 24.5 times smaller than the combined GDP of NATO members and 11.5 times smaller than in the U.S. Its population is seven times smaller than the combined NATO population and almost two and a half times smaller than the American population. Its much expanded total military headcount is only 45% of the size of NATO standing armies. In an attritional war with NATO, which Russia has always sought to avoid, it would not have the demographic or economic reserves to win out. They seem to not have noticed a few minor details, such as that NATO seems unable to produce ammunition at scale or that the US has lost every war for the past 3 generations."

Or that GDP is not considered a serious measure of anything by serious economists. 
Or how ridiculously expensive NATO weapons are.
Or the extreme tooth to tail ratios in NATO armies.
Or the fact that there is an ocean between Europe and America (logistics...)
Or the changed nature of warfare.
Or the Middle East, Taiwan and Korea.
Or, or, or...

Nevermind. We celebrate that someone in America sees the error is wanting to compete militarily with Russia, especially in Europe. 

The fact is that Russia does not want to invade NATO or western Europe, but if they don't compete because they think they are all powerful, well, we could live with that.

The likes of the Quincy Institute are what passes for opposition within the American establishment - less war mongering, slightly more reasonable but never really questioning the basic tenets of American exceptionalism. 

In any case, the American military industrial complex don't listen to these "bleeding heart liberals" anyway. The MIC too think America and NATO are all powerful, and that they see as precisely the reason that they can and should take on Russia.

***