This author claims he is knocking down a falsehood that NATO is helpless before a resurgent Russia:
“The NATO alliance is not prepared to counter a newly aggressive Russia,” or so blared the lead of the latest National Journal Security Insiders poll. Three-quarters of those who are allegedly in the know agree that the largest security alliance in the world is practically at Russia’s mercy. “NATO has neither the will nor the capabilities to counter Russian moves in Ukraine,” wrote one nameless critic. “Our deterrence is nonexistent” said another. “The question is a joke. NATO and the West have virtually dismantled while ‘the East’ is arming at a fast clip,” a third so-called insider warned.
The criticism is consistent with much of the commentary from the national security community about Russia’s foray into Crimea. It’s also fantastical.
He then goes on to establish that NATO is stronger than Russia. Far be it for me to get in the way of his efforts to demolish the "false inside the beltway narrative" of Russian dominance, but his argument does not refute the quotes he relies on to set the narrative.
The fact is, as I've written many times, Russia's military is not terribly good. I've belittled the notion that the subliminal invasion of Crimea demonstrates a renewed Russian military. The Russians have maybe 100,000 decent to good quality ground troops. But their foes within reach in Europe are all weaker than Russia. So Russia has relative weight to throw around on its periphery. Simple.
Equally simple to comprehend is that while NATO has plenty of military power, the vast majority of European NATO military power is static. Portugal's ability to defeat X amount of Russia's troops is completely irrelevant to NATO's ability to defeat a Russian invasion of Estonia. Portugal's military power is pretty much limited to defending Portugal. And that applies to much of NATO's military power. Even Britain--perhaps the best prepared NATO country--is building a ground force capable of supporting a single large brigade in combat indefinitely (by rotating in new troops to replace the initial brigade deployed).
The question is what Russia can take in an initial invasion and whether NATO has the will to gather its superior military power to recapture what Russia might take while they have a power advantage in the short run.
And remember that the quotes are about deterring Russia in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO country. And NATO's logistical infrastructure isn't prepared to deploy NATO's power which is concentrated in the western parts all the way into new eastern NATO countries--let alone across Ukraine to Crimea or the border with Russia. So this should not be considered some fantastical claim.
There is nothing fantastical about noting that NATO is ill-prepared to cope with a threat against Ukraine (and would face challenges in the Baltics) while understanding that NATO's combined (but largely static) military power is superior to Russia's military power.
