Which European Army is the Most Powerful?

[@chrisrobert5252]

France is present in all the oceans, has the world's second largest maritime economic zone (EEZ) and the world's largest underwater zone. A good part of the defense budget is therefore allocated to their surveillance and protection.

[@chrissmith2114]

LOL, Britain has the best navy in Europe... and the best 'Blue Water' presence....

[@KaushikAdhikari]

Rule Brittania

[@daishiiro5426]

@@chrissmith2114 Source : Trust me bro i saw it on the BBC and have a shrine dedicated to Elizabeth II in my bedroom.

[@NDScalio]

@@chrissmith2114 Lol no, France has a bigger fleet than that of Britain today

[@davidty2006]

@@NDScalio Only way to find out is to get em in the channel and fight.

[@viggokalman7256]

I would've liked to hear from Finland in this video. How amazing is it that Germany is buying 35 F-35s when we're buying 64, and also building many of them in our own factories. I would say that Finland has one of the most lethal armies compared to its size.

[@Tommi414]

Lmao, very funny

[@DOSFS]

German military problem is procurment process (which is just bad and turn many procurment program into overbudget but underachieve result) They already spend more than FR or UK before Putin war but achieve far FAR LESS than other two with one of the worst readiness in the world. German CAN become one of the strongest, but they gonna need a lot more than more budget to do it.

[@riccardogemme]

Italy has ordered 75 F-35s and does build the A model in its factories. However, that does not make the italian military particularly good. That said, Finland does punch way above its weight.

[@nadrile]

It’s defense forces and not army, there’s a huge difference in doctrine. That alone removes it from the conversation. If we disregard nuclear weapons were still looking an army that quite lacks in maneuverability (mechanization level for troops) for large scale offenses and the active combat forces being 200k-300k. For defense it’s very capable against anything non-nuclear, certainly to a level that it’d not be worth it. Capable for smaller scale offenses, but not enough to sustain air superiority, naval superiority or large occupation campaigns.

[@hughjass1044]

Yeah, I've worked with just about every military in Europe at one point or another in my career and I gotta say, I've always been pretty impressed with the Finns. Great soldiers, good kit, switched on, motivated, smart..... I'd definitely rather have Finland on my side than against me.

[@ronreagan7950]

France has historically focused on home-made defense equipment at all levels of its military. French believe that an independent military industry will allow France more flexibility and less reliance on other powers. For example, the UK relies heavily on US equipment and spare parts (i.e., F35, Apache chopper, nuke technology, other aircraft like the C-130). Although France also has some foreign military equipment, it tries very hard to limit that reliance. So France developed its own auto- loader tank (LeClerc), it’s own main aircraft (Rafale) , it’s own nuke powered aircraft carrier and its own short range and intercontinental nuke missiles (sub launched although they are developing land based mobile launch pads too). Independence from the US is a strength in the long term.

[@Totalplonker]

Who said "let's not embarrass President Putin" 🤔

[@TheBenj30]

It's not really a strength to not use allies weapons if you need the allies in question to move your heaviest equipment. France fields less American equipment but it also fields less modern fighter jets for example where it's numbers are pushed up by nearly 49% of it's air combat fleet being a upgraded Cold War Mirage and when it possess absolutely no heavy lift capability leading to it requiring it's allies to deploy assets alongside French forces because France doesn't have anything that can do it.

[@redwithblackstripes]

@@TheBenj30 Because its not France's role to do the heavy cargo lifting, their role within Nato is to spearhead as they are professional high speed expeditionary army, from desert storm to kosovo and afghanistan their role was to be among the first/deep assaulting forces and then to wait for logistics to come in so they can support further operations. Even now with Ukraine France main intervention Force is now situated closest to the front in Romania. In case of Nato interventions the first nato planes in the air would be US and UK but the first boots and tanks on the ground would be French (also Belgian/Dutch as they are part of the task force).The UK doesn't have the same projection capabilities as France but have greater interoperability this is why they typically are embedded within US force and relied upon for logistics by other coalitions forces.The French can project well by themselves but not sustain it easily, the UK cannot project well alone but can sustain it better, strength becomes weaknesses and vice versa, its all context dependant. Unless you are the US with unlimited capabilities and do both equally well of course.

[@TheBenj30]

@@redwithblackstripes That's not even close to being true or logical, countries have expertise certainly and because of that they will often lead in those capabilities in NATO but that doesn't mean countries are expected to place their focus on some areas and ignore others, which is exactly what France has done - the UK has a focus on air and naval power and yet still has more capabilities in relation to it's army logistics than France, that's in direct contradiction to your point. As for the rest, I don't think you really understand the makeup of the British Army at all - firstly... Kosovo, the majority of the initial boots on the ground in Kosovo wasn't even French, it was the British Army using it's vehicles to quickly move across the country, something you mistakenly think only France can do - in fact, Kosovo is the perfect example as to my point, the UK was able to do what it did in Kosovo because the army is backed up by Air Force Equipment which can provide a logistical capacity when allows your troops to move faster. The comment on France vs UK in projection makes no sense at all, I mean it directly contradicts itself in title. The entire point of projection is that you can deploy a credible force anywhere in the world and supply it, the fact you're arguing the French can do this and the UK can't whilst arguing that France can't do the core component without support whilst the UK can, shows you really don't understand this concept. If you're sending an army overseas you need a strong naval presence which is where the UK exceeds France, a strong air force in terms of logistical capability where the UK exceeds France and a strong auxiliary Navy where the UK exceeds the top 4 other European militaries combined. If you can't resupply your troops overseas without someone doing it for you then you don't have power projection capability.

[@samwisehuluberlu2210]

@@TheBenj30 stfu poor liar of French bashing hater. How can you be taken seriously when you claim than Navy had bigger supply and equipment when it's factually stated than France has second most large overseas landscape as second most powerful of entire world, only trailing US. France relies on nobody about equipments, artillery and nukes or nuclear weapons. You did. US are your uncle for everything now. French are known to have one of very best global quality training, special forces ane weapons on entire world, along with US and their Israël pupil. And check out History. England always thinking and claiming being upper hand on France, but in fact, History tells exact opposite. And now than both of these ancient powers were decreased a lot, it stay exactly as it was before.

[@jacquesdahlet7207]

A strong advantage of the French armies is that they rely less on American weapons. Don’t get me wrong, American weapons are great, but you need permission from the US to use them for any other reason than self defense. France has more freedom to use their ships, subs, fighter jets, helos, tanks, military satellites, etc… as they want whenever/wherever they want. The weak point is that French armies suffered budget cuts for years (like many countries), and as a result they specialized toward fighting terrorism inside and outside their boarders. They are heavily under-equipped in terms of weapons, amos, and soldiers for high intensity wars.

[@livevine3351]

I gotta say that France has some really interesting weapons. Plus the advantage of positioning.

[@ldnstan2454]

I mean that comment about US weapons is largely a myth, however France does have a very strong military, only matched by the UK in Europe. It is geared towards expeditionary forces and guarding French colonial interests, which they do exceptionally well. Their doctrine is also very different with a focus on light armour which is interesting.

[@arthas640]

Kinda. They rely on international vendors and joint European programs which are inherently less efficient than having 1 big country develop something on their own as opposed to a dozen smaller countries. Even "French" companies like Airbus are internationally owned with 4 different HQs. They're not reliant on America, they're reliant on a handful of countries.

[@Pax.Britannica]

You do not need American permission to use weapons you brought, at all. And if you think France is free to bomb whoever they like, take a quick look at Turkey.

[@alioshax7797]

@@arthas640 Everyone is reliant on other countries in today's globalized economy. The goal is just to limit this dependancy, which, we have to give them that, the French do very well.

[@VITORB82]

I could imagine Charles Leclerc driving a Leclerc tank

[@ankitkawale9748]

I like how u think

[@dougerrohmer]

Nah, he's a Monaco dude (Monagask? Or something). Not French at all. Nooooo, not French.

[@Cancoillotteman]

Was named after general Philippe Leclerc who took back Strasburg during WW2, btu yeah why not Charles at the wheel ^

[@spacecube8561]

he'd probably still do better than with F1-75

[@zaydansari4408]

More reliable than the F75 he drives

[@PabloTBrave]

Not just numbers , technology and equipment, its strategy , tactics, logistics , skill and training.

[@Bb13190]

and legislation, the german army cannot do anything without the explicit approval of the parlement. That is very restrictive.

[@TheBooban]

@@Bb13190 how so? Yes, but parliament is bound to act. They are NATO. If Article V is called, they fall under the Supreme commander of allied forces in Europe. Do they not?

[@TheBooban]

Yes. You will find all the European forces are hollow and can barely act without the US. It would he similar like Russia. Big machines but then can’t fight in war.

[@Bb13190]

@@TheBooban i don't know if they fall under a supreme command. But that's in case of a defensive war when an NATO member is under attack, that is the least likely scenario. I was more talking about operation abroad.

[@michawojc6945]

You are forgetting about essential things - morale and the will to fight (of soldiers, of the whole nations). Ukraine has proven how meaningless the statistics are.

[@cobra4640]

When it comes to Poland they are not only buying weapons but building new factories that will produce them. Poland has signed joint venture agreement with Korean companies. This will include military as well as building nuclear power plants near Warsaw. Interesting enough Poland will likely join KAI KF-21 Boramae development program( 5th generation jet fighter ) 🇵🇱 🇰🇷

[@MN-vz8qm]

A most welcomed news. From France the view was often that Poland was just a client state of uncle Sam when it came to their equipment (plus the frequent disputes with France in recent past haven't helped people to be objective on poland), but a nation needs its own war industry if it is to be powerful. I keep hearing that Poland is vastly increasing its land forces.

[@jakubniwinski4349]

Krzysztof, straszne bzdury tu napisałeś.

[@danielefabbro822]

It just remains to train those troops.

[@BS-vm5bt]

Poland will be the biggest european land force for maybe 5-10 years then collapse on itself like soviet union did by completely ignoring the civilian economy. I can not understand why one would see the soviet unions economic priorities and copy that dysfunctional model. Why should we build thing sustainable when we can just think of short term solutions, fuck our future. If we want a stable and sustainable deterrence it is a EU army since that at our current size is 3.7 million troops. The EU has a population of 500 million and a gdp of 24 trillion dollars. Ofcourse the EU can offer a more sustainable and stronger deterrence then this type of solution. I hope america does not get a republican since that would be the end of NATO deterrence. We can see that with fox news there using pro putin talking points, poland will be screwed without a NATO or EU army since poland does not have the ability to fight sustainable in a high intensity war alone. I think poland will fight as hard as ukraine and get a lot of victories but eventually run out of munitions and manpower. We swedes won battle after battle with russia during the northern wars then eventually we lost the war. The primary reason was because russia was way larger then us. We can give them a good fight the problem with many european nations like ours is that we do not have the resources nor the manpower to be able to sustain a high intensity war. This is why ukraine needs to west to resupply their millitary otherwise they will run out of equipment. It is important to see the big picture rather then the details since that can screw us over. With what is happening I think we are doing the worst possible decisions, like germany did with removing nuclear power plants to replace them with russian natrual gas energy. Short term it might make sense but in long run it will be disastrous.

[@p4weafter_pl]

@@jakubniwinski4349 A jakie to niby bzdury napisał ? ... bo ja nie widze żadnych , wiadomo zawsze moze cos nie wypalic ale to zdaza sie najwiekszym jak kontract woskowy Francji jak plany Niemiec ze bedą hadlarzem gazu na EU itp ...itd .

[@l4ndst4nder]

French policy makes sense. It increases military capabilities of the west without simply pumping up American power, while dovetailing with America’s military strengths.

[@noobster4779]

It only makes sense for France and as a NATO army makes no sense

[@kolerick]

@@noobster4779 only if your strategic vision of Nato is buy American forever more because we sabotage our own defense industry, including the research sector...

[@BS-vm5bt]

I mean its the french that one of the best idea in the EU that is a EU army. France has always pushed for self reliance and I am annoyed that people do not follow the french model of the EU.

[@noobster4779]

@@BS-vm5bt so what heppens 8f France wanrs to use the EU army for one of its colonial wars but lets say 2/3 of eu members say the aemy cant be deployed for that? Eather an WU army has to be a seperate force to some degree from national armies that only follow EU commands and not national once or everything gets combined into one EU army but every country gives up souveraignity of its military forces (dont see that happening). Also how would things like arms production work. Some counttres have state owned companies and some have privat ones. Who gets the eu army contracts then? Will it be open competition or directed by the EU. Will certain nations like France or Germany give up their domestic arms prduction? Dont need 3 different types of MBT for a united EU army after all. I would love to have this b7t as usual with french ideas its great in theory but fails in reality.

[@PreservationEnthusiast]

We can't let the Germans buy advanced weapons. They will start another World War!

[@idraote]

France has an extensive landmass it needs to protect plus large territorial waters... and the overseas territories... It essentially needs two armies, one for continental France and one for overseas, especially considering its ambitions to become a world power that is relevant in the Pacific as well. Germany and Poland, on the other hand, don't have any overseas territories and they can focus more effectively with less money. The UK, as an island, is better served by a very strong navy plus airforce that is also uselful for its overseas territories.

[@lucadesanctis563]

A series of videos depicting every single nation plan would be awesome

[@NotContinuum]

"Project Scorpion" sounds like a Bond villain's plan to take over the world.

[@gideonmele1556]

It probably is. The Napoleon 2.0…

[@maynamar2517]

@@gideonmele1556 LOL😁

[@RabbitShirak]

”Scorpio! He'll sting you with his dreams of power and wealth. Beware of Scorpio! His twisted twin obsessions are his plot to rule the world And his employees' health. He'll welcome you into his lair Like the nobleman welcomes his guest With free dental care and a stock plan that helps you invest! But beware of his generous pensions Plus three weeks paid vacation each year And on Fridays, the lunchroom serves hot dogs and burgers and beer! He loves German beer!

[@NotContinuum]

@@RabbitShirak I read that in Shirley Bassy's singing voice, ala Goldfinger.

[@kgw72]

@@gideonmele1556 4.0, actually ;)

[@necronom4792]

Long live Poland from Greece 🇵🇱🇬🇷

[@Flight_of_Icarus]

Wait, you're telling me military in Europe is a competition between Britain and France, but now Germany is going to come as a potential dark horse and challenge them both? I swear I've heard this somewhere before... No wonder Poland is going so hard to try and outcompete them all..

[@erwanmarie8756]

You are sooooo yesterday mate.

[@kexek7975]

I think we’ve seen that episode before 🤣🤣🤣

[@bruno5336]

“We will be back.” 👴🏻

[@flussigeswasser251]

This Situation really isnt comparable to the past. There is a completly different political landscape in Germany rn.

[@wormwood8071]

@@erwanmarie8756 that's what people in 1939 said to the guys from 1917.. they were idiots aswel.

[@JefElder]

Combat experience : 1. France, UK ; 2. Italy, Spain, Portugal Combat readiness : 1. France,. UK ; 2. Poland, Italy, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark Assault troops (paratroopers, marines, mountain troops, others) : 1. France ; 2. UK ; 3. Poland, Italy, Spain ; 4. Finland, Czech Republic, Belgium, Denmark Special forces : 1. UK, France, Italy, Spain, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Croatia, Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, Greece, Belgium, Czech Republic ; 2. Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Germany, Slovakia, Slovenia High intensity capabilities :

[@pierrestaut2335]

your queen said "french paratroupers was the strongest in the world" ;) RIP Madame je ne suis pas royaliste mais je l'aimais bien

[@leeprince9283]

Joke

[@ChrisCrossClash]

@@pierrestaut2335 That made no sense you French 🤡

[@kostaskladianos2809]

You know nothing about Greece mate, this video is not only bulshit but based also. Combat readiness Greece for sure 3rd, Assault troops Greece in 3rd team, High intensity capabilities 2 months for Greece, Air supremacy capabilities Greek air force is second for sure in europe. Many people now nothing for greek military but the truth is that Greece is a military powerhose in europe.

[@peterturnham5134]

I'm English but have worked in the French Aerospace/Defense industry for many years. The french spend far more on defense than they declare. They have been bailing out loss making companies BIGtime in order to maintain their factories and autonomy. Their Kit is first rate, damn fine engineers. Since they ended conscription and became professional their soldiers are so much better. My French brother in law was conscripted, he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.

[@smal750]

Damn

[@redwithblackstripes]

France also spends a lot more indirectly because unlike the uk its nuclear capabilites are 100% independant and domestic, the UK doesn't spend nearly as much in r&d as a lot of it is US made. France do almost everything in house but that independance has a price.Their Aerospace sector (Arianespace,Thales,Airbus,Dassault) is involved in their nuclear programme to a degree few people realise and this is why it is so important for them to keep it afloat, its not so much that they are bailing them out its just that they are part of the militaro industrial complex and just like the US one they have other goals than just being profitable.

[@Artpsychee]

Also, France has a different recipe for nukes. That doesnt make it better but they cook their own nukes.

[@smal750]

@@Artpsychee yo

[@dt3692]

@@redwithblackstripes uk is now ranked 5th in the world France is 9th for 2023

[@MayorMcC666]

the fact a european army would have so many poles in the ground forces just seems right to me.

[@10hawell]

EUarmy 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤢🤢🤢🤢 We keep arms length away from Garmany and France, we work with US, UK, Nordics, Baltics, Romania and Ukraine. We don't trust countries who want Eurasian Union "from Lisbon to Vladivostok", we want to be wedge keeping US in, Russia out, UK up, Germans down.

[@NAYRUthunder99]

​@@10hawellthis just confirms my fears, that the greatest threat to Europe comes not from Russia.

[@jacksmith787]

The poles wouldn’t want to be part of a European aemy

[@dylanmurphy9389]

Russia is a European army, I think you mean EU army

[@10hawell]

@@NAYRUthunder99 >Germans and Russians destroy Europe again and again >We don't want that >"Poles are clearly the bad guy" Did you sustained brain damage as a child?

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Poland rebuilding its winged hussars with its purchase of 1000 Korean K2 tanks.

[@Aleks96]

And Abrahams.

[@snugglecity3500]

Its weird that they chose the k2. They are gonna need to be able to make them in poland.

[@Aleks96]

@@snugglecity3500 Poland will also do K2 in Poland in the future.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

@@snugglecity3500 It's not weird at all. They chose K2 because the Koreans were willing to redesign it to suit Polish needs and they were willing to facilitate technology transfer so the Poles could build them at home. The Americans and Germans would never agree to that.

[@snugglecity3500]

@@AWMJoeyjoejoe its just weird they didnt go with one of their traditional allies. It also seems like a bad time to get new tanks. Every country is on the verge of upgrading their tanks. The americans only have a few stop gaps to go and the germans already showed off a potential future tank.

[@Uteelo]

The global firepower index has Russia as #2 , I don’t think them rankings mean much at all.. I’m surprised you didn’t mention it

[@victorlebon4502]

I would say same for USA who literally lost a 20 years of war with Afghanistan

[@雷-t3j]

@@victorlebon4502 There's a difference between losing a war and deciding the country you've been propping up for two decades isn't worth it anymore. If the US wanted to they could've stayed in Afghanistan, but they'd already killed Osama and it was pretty clear it was a lost cause

[@victorlebon4502]

@@雷-t3j nah it’s a lost either way US have the strongest military and yet lose a war like nah

[@victorlebon4502]

@@雷-t3j It makes other countries have a second thought about about the U.S. military

[@Dhjaru]

@@victorlebon4502 Gave up is a better phrasing. They failed in setting up a western democracy in afghanistan but the taliban was definently not a threat to the american armies until they left. Then american intelligence and a fraction of thier equipment helped ukraine annihilate russian pushing power and give ukraine the artillery advantage. I have no doubt that the american army can annihilate any countries army on earth without the use of nukes.

[@greyhammar]

Ugh, I've been spoiled by Perun. Not bad, just not in depth enough for me these days.

[@DarkHarlequin]

I mean it IS TLDR new not 'details analysis of a speciffic topic' news. their entire credo is to deliver timely primers with all the cornerstone info so you can better do your own research in other sources should you want to go into the nitty gritty details of any topic!

[@mariusztoporek4107]

same man, same

[@inconnu4961]

@@DarkHarlequin This is a good site for all of us North Americans who are criminally underserved by our legacy media! And better than that, having people from the nations discussed adding their input to offer better context! well worth the subscription price!

[@Kavurcen]

the ranking that put Ukraine above Poland was... suspect, to put it mildly

[@CountScarlioni]

I think the clue is in the name - TL:DR. It's not meant to be in-depth. It's to quickly get an overview of something happening in the world. Perun is for the military anoraks of KZbin who want an hour long powerpoint presentation on the details of defence economics. And I have to say, when it comes to that niche, Perun is unrivalled!

[@KavishTanna]

Would like to see tldr cover security and defence in more detail, more often 👍🏽

[@Nerohessler]

So Great Britain and France are currently the strongest in Europe, but they could get company from Poland and Germany in the future. That is good for europe's defence. As long as they don't start using their armies against each other.

[@PabloTBrave]

Up until the 20th century that was a European countries hobby

[@davidty2006]

I mean when are we NOT fighting the french?

[@asianbandit4054]

unlikely the Anglo-French forces train side by side and (at least when I was in) and Germany has always been seen at the first line of defense for western Europe. Also look at Poland's history, its well within its rights to say f-ck all yall to the Uk, France and Germany but won't.

[@PabloTBrave]

@@davidty2006 yeah we have done it more than. 20 times , we have been on same side a few times too

[@edgardebruin5539]

that's why we created the EU for peace

[@MorningNapalm]

Good informative video, thanks. By the way, the German Z is pronounced like "ts", so Tseitenwende, not Seitenwende.

[@AjarTadpole7202]

Like Tuh-si-ten-ven-duh?

[@berlindude75]

@@AjarTadpole7202 Zeitenwende = TSITE-UN-VEN-DUH (approx.)

[@MorningNapalm]

@@AjarTadpole7202 no gap between t and s.

[@ce1834]

France and the UK are honestly so similar in so many metrics its creepy lmao

[@paul1979uk2000]

Probably not as creepy as it seems with the one-upmanship France and the UK have over history lol. But I do think France is looking more promising longer term, partly because of Brexit being a constant drain on the UK, but also because France will have the advantage of being in the EU and the cooperation that can brings. Also, the UK economy is in really bad shape and cuts are likely going to happen across the board over the next decade or so and it makes you wonder if the UK can maintain it's military budget longer term, especially as the economy really starts to bite, France are in a much better position on this as they are pushing for cooperation on the military front with the EU and it's members, that longer term will have a lot of advantages and cost savings.

[@johndoe-cd9vt]

they are not, France is independent, UK is not, french have independent nuclear tech, UK need to ask permission to the US, since it was given by them, this is a big difference. Also UK doesn't build nuclear aircraft carriers, only 2 countries do that France and the US and soon China

[@ce1834]

​@@johndoe-cd9vt seems like a very common belief in francophones, but the UK's nuclear programme is completely operationally independent like all countries lol, despite collaboration with the US (that was a key condition) - that being said *all* NATO countries are very unlikely to use them alone on a first strike. The UK has 2 aircraft carriers with tonnage of 65000t each - each navy is geared for their own unique objectives, comparisons are simply for the vanity of nationalists - Europe's defences need to be integrated (cant see the UK agreeing to that though lol)

[@ce1834]

​@@paul1979uk2000 I think the one up manship will keep their defence spending up 😂true, Brexit was a serious act of economic self harm, though not detrimental to growth completely especially with their growing population and industries (have all been slowed though by Brexit and Truss lol). Programmes like Tempest/FCAS split in two are extremely wasteful, when all national parties have the same overall interests in NATO and Europe

[@johndoe-cd9vt]

@@ce1834 100% wrong, it's not about UK, it's about the USA, when they sell you something or give you something it ALWAYS comes with strings attached. The nuc has been given to UK, so UK doesn't have any right to use it without consulting the US. That's all.

[@kgw72]

Is there any reason why you didn't take into account Spanish and Italian armies, which are in the process of re-strength themselves?

[@Nicola-qx5lb]

can u tell me more about it?

[@mateuszzdyb3547]

the reason i think is the length of the clip. talking about every country in the EU would take half an hour. he focussed on leaders and countries who can surpass the leaders. i guess Spain & Italy have less ambitious plans, 1- due to economy size (aka Germany), 2 due to geopolitical location (aka Poland borders russia & belarus)

[@alvaroponce709]

Yeah I wonder the same since both the Italian and Spanish armies are stronger than the Polish

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Because , basically they are useless...?? Hope that helps..?

[@tadzionl]

I think it will depend on who the enemy is. When the Russians are the enemy, the Polish will be unstoppable 😉 I love you, Polish 😘

[@jab376]

Nope UK is most powerful.

[@mariuszhanc9716]

@@jab376 nie rozumiesz. Jeśli wrogiem będzie rosja to nikt nas nie zatrzyma bo nienawidzimy rosji od momentu urodzenia

[@rob5197]

What a waste of time and resources - - you all fools - - we have been arming since 1945 and what for ? - - ifs ifs ifs.... ..

[@tadzionl]

@@rob5197 You see what we are arming for. To fence of people like Vlad the Poisoner and Beard Monkey.

[@Leptospirosi]

Biggest to do what? You cannot expect Grece to have the same kind of army composition of Poland, France to have the same army composition of Germany, Italy the same army and navy composition then the UK because the foreseeable deployment scenery are different. For example, a Mediterranean Navy has different requirements from one that needs to protect distant assets across the world, despite bothe being focussed on Navy, while Germany and Poland would focus rather on land forces and litoral defences.

[@Demun1649]

We can compare. Britain has LESS tanks than SERBIA. That shows just how weak and cowardly Britain has become under the Tories.

[@graceneilitz7661]

@@Demun1649 Britain is also an Island. So the UK doesn’t need as good of an army as it does a navy.

[@Demun1649]

@@graceneilitz7661 What military education have you received?

[@Demun1649]

@@graceneilitz7661 And it doesn't have the ships or crews, in the navy, to cover all the tasks it needs to. You need to get a military education

[@Baddy187]

Seems like an expensive time for Poland, these budget increases and the big influx of refugees from Ukraine. Still, Poland always comes out on top. Cheers for Poland!

[@Ilamarea]

Ukrainian refugees integrate seamlessly, are culturaly close and contribute more to the budget than they receive. Strange it doesn't look the same in the Muslim countries around Syria.

[@johnpatricklim4509]

You could thank South Korea for that.....

[@creatoruser736]

"The number of personnel or vehicles isn't a perfect metric for an army's actual effectiveness." Yeah, as Russia has been demonstrating.

[@yvindjenssen7254]

As a Norwegian, I have long been annoyed at our government. Wether it is a right wing or a left wing coalition running out country, they still rely too heavily on NATO for defence. We need to have a strong military of our own, and only view NATO as a strong backup. But that is not the case. This have been my opinion before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it is much more relevant now that it has occured. Strong defence is still hugely important, as there are always powerhungry people out there wanting more and more.

[@inconnu4961]

Is this due to fear of provoking Russia? I watched a program on how the Fins were reluctant with military for fear of provoking the ire of Mother Russia! So while you are bit further away, you might still find yourself on the Bear's menu? I'm sorry if I am a bit ignorant of Norway & its situation.

[@yvindjenssen7254]

@@inconnu4961 Not exactly fear. Unlike the Finns, (and Ukraine) we don't have a history of belonging to the Russian Empire, or The Soviet Union, so Russia don't have a historical pretext to invade us like they do Ukraine, Finland, The Baltic States, and so on. We also have never had a beef with Russia, even though we are a founding member of NATO. We have historically cooperated with Russia on different projects in the Arctic too. We do have a history of trying to "appease", all our neighbors wether they are our close allies, or Russia. Being much too naive for our own good. Our government did just announce a major overhaul of out defence spending, but we still fall a bit short of the 2% of GDP goal. Which dissappoints me a lot....

[@rikulappi9664]

As a Finn I agree. Finland is by no means hoping to rely on NATO instead of a strong national defence. NATO will help us to strengthen the national defence, it will not replace it. Similarly, Europe should be able to defend itself while having the US as an powerful ally.

[@inconnu4961]

@@yvindjenssen7254 My understanding is Norwegians are generally quieter & more introverted than other Europeans (& Americans) so that naivete is understandable! Thank you for the reply and interesting insight!

[@inconnu4961]

@@rikulappi9664 I had just watched a video on the delicate dance that Finland must do next to that lumbering giant called Russia! Finland has certainly Given Russia fits in a way most of us couldnt imagine!

[@roccosoldi8678]

2 questions: 1. will the Polish army have wings? 2. Can I join?

[@mjm3091]

1. No. Aside air force. Also cringe. 2. Become Polish citizen and join the army, so yes. It may take time though.

[@dennispommes100]

@@mjm3091 cringe

[@Ilamarea]

@@mjm3091 You are cringe af bro.

[@Ilamarea]

Sure do. Be wary that the Poles will look at you like there's something wrong with you until you first have a drink with them.

[@SyBo27]

On thing that most people forget is that France also has the ultimate escape route for defectors by offering citizenship to those who serve their foreign legion. That has recently not been as important as it used to be, but it is certainly a great tool to make any opposing soldiers who feel any doubt consider it as an option.

[@avisdunrandom]

The citizenship is offer after years of service. If I remember you have to first minimum 3 years in the legion before you are be able to asked the french citizenship so add weeks or months to get you citizenship. (knowing french bureaucracy you might wait this long but maybe in the military are they are more "efficient")

[@vizender]

@@avisdunrandomno if you served your 3 (or 4 ?) years you get citizenship as soon as you leave the legion. Because when you join it you lose your previous identity, if you did not get the French citizenship when leaving the legion you’d be without and citizenship of any country.

[@johnwotek3816]

The legion is aroung 7000 or 9000 people in the entire french armed force, that is made of roughly 400 000 personnel. And they don't accept blindly anyone without backcheck since WW2. I war time, an ennemy soldier trying to enlist would get a little visit from the DRSD.

[@matthewslentz5481]

I would place my money on Poland over Germany. For three main reasons. Firstly, a single cash investment, even at 100 billion dollars, just isn't enough to overhaul an army that sustained decades of neglect. Armies need consistent spending, for things like maintenance, troop pay, and resupply. Poland is committing to consistent increase in military spending. Secondly, Germany has way too much bureaucracy in its military. And while that does lead to more transparency and accountability in military spending, it also gives us stories about how Germany's military has spent over a decade trying to buy and test helmets for its army. Or spending billions to fix a glorified sailboat. Poland has comparatively less red tape, which can lead to corruption sure, but allows for swifter response and quicker action. Thirdly, Germany is simply more pacifist than Poland, who has a history, as well as a current border, with a hostile neighbor. German people probably aren't as willing to fight, or support expeditionary operations like Poland's population would be. If anyone was gonna unseat France as Europe's strongest power, it would probably be the Polish, followed by maybe the Ukrainians.

[@mjm3091]

The issue with that - modern government most likely will change next year (finally). And even if Russian war is a big issue right now, its unlikely we will continue the idea of 5%. Especially with how bad PiS ruling has been for the stability of our economy. Germans are in more stable situation and even if the history makes the vary of pushing for better military, they have better resources to accomplish the goal and a history of improving their military in short time. Mind you they got hit after First War and they still were able to bounce back to create the horrors of Second War. It really boils down on who will br ruling Europe in upcoming decade really. Even, if Polish people are more likely to defend themselves and be ok with rising our defences, we are still hardcore pacifists. The best scenario for Poland would be for the Russian war to end and Russia becoming docile less important state afterwards. And that would cut the need for even further mobilisation of the army here, as Belarus is a miniscule threat.

[@balcerzaq]

@@mjm3091 They will continue spending. Trust me. It is not republicans/democrats change or conservatives/labour type. Oposition (PO) is based on the same people with similiar biographies a the government (PIS) thats why politics is so heated in Poland They are all conservatives so they make up the fake divisions inbetween.

[@kragth]

I Second This, but Germany will continue spending. As Good as the 5% of GDP polands sounds, it’s just around 33 billions. Germanys 2% are worth three times as much. It’s around 97 billions. So, even if they Dont be effective on spending it will overwhelme poland in some years. Plus the Sondervermögen of 100 Billion. Dont mind if Germany think they can increase percentage of gdp a Bit.

[@lazyprotato9486]

Your second and third points are correct, however, I will definetly have to disagree with your first one. First of all, the 100 billion € investment, which is already a lot, is of course not the only thing that´s going to happen. As said in the video, Germany will rise their defense budget to 2% of its GDP in the next years. While Poland´s 5% might sound more, its not. 2% of Germany´s GDP alone is around 90 billion Euros. 5% of Poland´s GDP are just 35 billion Euros and you have to keep in mind that them reaching these 5% without economic problems is not certain at the time. Another thing you have to keep in mind is that, while Poland will struggle to reach its 5% GDP goal and the overall goal of their army growth, it would be easy for Germany to give its army extra spending if needed, given its enormous economic power. It also has the ability to buy and develop further advanced military technology. Germany already has a relatively big, definetly modern and worldwide well-respected military industry. It also has the ability to reactivate parts of the industry and spend much money on production and development if needed to. Germans are very hard working people too and if (sadly) needed (or not), they will definetly get the job done - thats the German history part, remember how Germany got its economy and military up after both world wars (which it both lost). In the end I think that Germany definetly has better capabilities given its massive economic advantage over Poland, so I wouldn´t be so sure about Poland being an overall better army in the future. Keep in mind: Quantity (and big words, which is nothing suprising from polish politicians) alone doesnt mean much - Quality and economic power does.

[@matthewslentz5481]

@@kragth this is a fair point, but I would remind you that purchasing power parity favors the Poles. A dollar in Poland will go farther, and buy more, than a dollar in Germany. While that may not be enough to help Poland outspend Germany, it will certainly help narrow the gap.

[@Tracing0029]

Hi! Could you do a video in the future on different European countries military modernisation programs? Thanks!

[@kurtismarkie6157]

I used to work for Thales, it's actually pronounced Ta-les.

[@sonneh86]

That's actually how I always thought it was pronounced. But I'm not an anglophone

[@TheGobou77]

are you french ? XD

[@miguelangelamezcuarosales7687]

That is awsome! How would you describe working there? How good of a company do you consider it to be?

[@davidjames4915]

It's named after the Greek philosopher of the same name, where the pronunciation is with a dental fricative, so as far as anglophones are concerned a correct pronunciation would have it too, i.e. just because the French can't pronounce a Greek letter doesn't mean the English who can shouldn't.

[@lucaj8131]

@@davidjames4915 Or, get this, its a french company, so pronunce it the way every one else pronouces it (so, yk, everyone can understand you without having to write it down). Nobody wants to hear about linguistics or greek philosophers.

[@felixweinlinger]

I love that english speaking media always translates special words into english except when it comes to german words. They instead opt to butcher the words instead of just using translations for them.

[@okene]

German is similar enough to be able to remember the word

[@felixweinlinger]

@@okene in most cases I believe that english is more similar to french than german when it comes to vocabulary. The german compound words which are found in this video shouldn't be used in an english sentence. Especially when the speaker like in this video clearly doesn't speak german.

[@atklm1]

Every youtube videom no matter what the subject, where even a single german word is used, there's a German coming to correct the translation or pronunciation 😄

[@felixweinlinger]

@@atklm1 first of all I am Austrian and second if people wouldn't insist on forcing german words into every video that has something to do with Germany than I wouldn't be here complaining.

[@okene]

@@felixweinlinger English is more similar to french I'm vocabulary, yes, but in intonation I think it's far more similar to some Germanic languages, it's not even close. English butchers french words much worse than it does Germanic words. Also, the pronunciation doesn't have to be 'right'. I watch some media in foreign languages and they often butcher English words, who cares? What matters is that they convey meaning to the audience.

[@jojodd88]

The funny thing is that, in spite of the historical rivalry, militarily speaking the French and the British are very close. Joint exercises, logistic cooperation, unit with common command, even without NATO, to attack one of them is to attack both.

[@alganis3339]

If i can add as a french citizen our rivalry stopped after Napoleon defeat and since our main ennemy was germany and not the UK.

[@damienreilly4347]

I wouldn't say that the British and French are especially close, being ex military myself, we always had people from all over NATO doing stuff like that. But by far the closest ally we have is America, we do nearly everything together (militarily I mean)

[@chrisrobert5252]

@@damienreilly4347 Thank you for confirming what De Gaulle thought and that's why he always refused the entry of the UK in the EU. Long live brexit!

[@chrisrobert5252]

@@alganis3339 Friction over fishing licenses led BoJo to send a war frigate 30 km off the French coast. We are not friends and have never been

[@danielsurvivor1372]

@@damienreilly4347 Are you British?

[@991106kk]

Recently Poland bought 32 F35s and 50 FA-50s

[@TheFrenchscot]

Which means more American vassalisation in the long term... Knowing that this fleet won't be replaced before 40 or 50 years. But much love to Poland.

[@annoyed707]

Just wait for the blitzkrieg from San Marino!

[@user-aero68]

Biggest difference between France and the UK in my eyes is the quality of French procurement and program management. The difference in outcomes between France's Scorpion program and the UK's similar Ajax program is night and day.

[@Rowlph8888]

That's pretty irrelevant, because it's always been needs must - France has always had a bigger and technologically better prepared army and UK, because UK simply doesn't need one as much.This doesn't even touch on cyber, AI and robotics. You can redeploy most of its military spending since 205 and these industries, whereas France continued focus on its formidable hardware industries. UK are the 3rd most capable cyber and AI military nation, only behind USA and China and ahead of Russia, according to numerous sources if you Google it. France and especially Germany are falling behind in these new emerging industries.France is better at 20th-century hardware, because it's got land borders with formally hostile nations and has always had to to focus on the Also, UK can rely on the 5 eyes initiative and in any crisis will always have the USA backing it due to this alliance .

[@sebbvell3426]

The European Union needs to create a joint military force

[@priyajoseph7108]

At the moment, Ukraine has the most powerful army in Europe

[@boarfaceswinejaw4516]

technically, if only because they have so many top of the line weapons donated to them.

[@jhwheuer]

Oh please, stop fan boying

[@chrisrobert5252]

totally stupid! The power and efficiency of the army is based on the integration, interoperability and coherence of equipment. Let's add that the Ukrainian airforce and navy do not exist or hardly exist.

[@Mat-cf7xj]

@molek ukraine has rather poor air defense and offensive abilities, coast easy to blokade, blocking exports, land forces use up so much artillery shells they wouldn't be able to fight longer than a few weeks by themselves

[@JLSMaytham]

@@jhwheuer 650,000 troops in February 2022 speaks for.itself. Not quite that many now despite our help with training up a few thousand OAPs for them

[@owbu]

It's not called the "Sondervermögen". That just means "special budget" and every time the goverment deals with some sort of crisis, it uses those to get around the "Schuldenbremse" (a rule that we don't spend too much money).

[@futteyde5697]

Which is actually dumb. Because the amount of the debts are exactly the same. But the federal buget loses its transparency through that. Turning off the "Schuldenbremse" for another year would be a way fairer and better way imo.

[@fernbedek6302]

Find the ‘peace dividened’ thing a bit questionable, considering the way Sweden and Finland both spent more money than most of Europe on their militaries while having good social services.

[@noobster4779]

Yeah its bullshit. Tske the US for example. They still pay more per citizen in healthcare then germany despite their giant military budget.

[@anna8833]

7:35 You guys misspelled both, his name and surname... His name is Mariusz Błaszczak. After such research that you do, I suspected that you would also check the names of people that you mention in your videos.

[@illuminati3417]

Poland first soon hopefully. As a Hungarian, I don't get our friendship with Austria/Germany over Poland or Italy, Germans only give us stuff when they forced to, hopefully central-eastern Europe will get stronger soon.

[@Zurvanox]

Hey hey, thats quite the bias you have towards us. Isnt the european union to unite and not to divide. Every Nations has their interests and it just happens that Poland and Hungary often are against European policy until they receive enough money. But i consider you good neighbours as all people profit from a united Europe. (If common ground for arguments is found)

[@ThomasGodart]

3:31 "Thales" should actually be pronounced like "ta - less"

[@B1gLupu]

Considering it's french, it doesn't really matter how it's pronounced.

[@ThomasGodart]

@@B1gLupu I'm saying the French prononciation, as it's the only one that matter. I'm French

[@B1gLupu]

@@ThomasGodart The man is speaking English, not French in the video, so if you are getting your panties in a bunch about wrong pronounciation, you are a small person.

[@Maclabhruinn]

@@B1gLupu Thales is a massive, international company; headquartered in France. Everyone in the entire Western defence procurement industry, across many countries and languages, know this company by the pronunciation "Tallis". That's millions of people working in Defence. If you try to pronunce it any other way, you'll have a lot of people (a) wondering what the hell you're talking about; and (b) deciding that you really don't know much about defence procurement.

[@leoallard4128]

@@ThomasGodartlaisse-le "C'est un américain" lol

[@BarelloSmith]

First I was surprised that Italy was so high on this ranking, but then I remembered that one of our police forces is technically military as well and even at traffic controls, they are equipped with machine guns. xD

[@HansVonMannschaft]

I bet they're not.

[@goganii]

@@HansVonMannschaft yes they are. at least that's what I saw when I went to rome

[@tellyboy17]

Never saw more assault rifles than during a few day's visit to Paris. In some countries heavily armed police is pretty much the norm.

[@BarelloSmith]

@@HansVonMannschaft I come from a very rural area of Italy and even there, they are armed to the teeth for some reason. I have no clue whether these guns are loaded or not, hell they could be props for all I know! xD But the Carabinieri do carry them, which I always thought was a little odd.

[@evillink1]

When my friends and I were in Iraq back in 03 we were sharing our base with Italian Carabinieri. Their MREs were so much better than ours. Apparently they had little wine pouches. Imagine riot police being deployed to the middle east, that's just wild man lol

[@XMysticHerox]

You present the F35s Germany is buying are the main procurement but that does not seem to really be true. They are only meant to replace the old Tornados as ground attack aircraft and nuclear weapon platforms. The main purchase would still be Eurofighters. This should be obvious too. F35s are expensive but not so expensive that such a small number would take up much of the 100 billion budget.

[@st0ox]

As a German I have to say that I don't like to meet with a French that has slept bad and this is reason enough for me not to increase my military spending. Jokes aside, I think for Germany it really makes more sense to support other EU countries financially and help to improve energy and transport infrastructure in east Europe so that these countries can better help each other in all sectors... And of course Germany should have never been so energy dependent on Russia (this was a big industry decision in Germany and nearly no one I know would have ever supported such a move). But I think Germany should increase military spending to a certain point. The goal is not to become a regional military super power, but to be able to help our neighbors effectively.

[@baird5682]

I can tell you this. Rest of europe dosn't needs your military to be big, we need your factories to produce the machines, sell them to allies at relatively good price and serviced normally and not on current unfavourable conditions. That's why Poland is abandoning german leopards and focuses on cooperation with south korea to build their tanks in poland

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@baird5682 not quite. 1. polands current government is right wing nationalist and is pushing an anti germany course for 8 years by now. (look at the BS with reparation payments etc) 2. polands government demanded a full technology and license transfer from the german companies, so that polish industry can produce outside the RHM and KMW company groups. KMW and RHM really are not into this. Another example for that is, why the PzH2000 send to Ukraine have to be repaired in germany or lithuania. Because poland would only allow a repair plant in poland, if they get a full technology and license transfer for the PzH2000. Again a deal breaker. Hyundai is willing to hand over licenses and technology transfers to polish industry, to gain acess to the european market, wich is currently dominated by RHM, KMW and NEXTER.

[@vocassen]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Make sense, though I can't imagine they'd have no ability to do common repairs on the PzH2000 in the field themselves. If they don't, that's kinda crappy and I would opt for a different platform as well, just for that

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@vocassen well its for the complex maintenance like electronics, autoloader mechanics, retuning and calibrating of the systems etc. keeep in mind, that modern engines, even in MBT´s etc, require dedicated specialised personnel with a proper maintenance training, wich often takes months, to fix them properly, due to engine control electronics etc. like your high end BMW, you have to go to a dedicated repair shop to fix it. thats with every modern system btw. 90% of Ukraines equipment does not have that problem, because they have either produced it in ukraine or are still producing it. so spare parts, expertise etc is all locally availible. But if for example the US would send M1A1 to Ukraine, they would need a repair plant in poland to fix them too.

[@vocassen]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The thing is, it doesn't have to be this way. If you disillusion yourself that any competent mechanic with the access to the proper tools and parts couldn't fix these engines with a bit of experience then you've bought into the manufacturers propaganda. That BMW needs to be brought to a specialised repair shop because they want it so. The difference is that in a military that is absolutely inacceptible and if you can't fix basic shit in the field it's a bad system.

[@jonwallace6204]

Glad everyone over there is friendly with us and each other.

[@deepderp8483]

"Which European army is the most powerful?" As of now, the Ukrainian one.

[@TheIconicWatermelon]

to be fair the ukranian one is basically America + allies, Ukraine themselves didn’t buy all of that. So I’d say the American one tbh

[@OhNotThat]

I mean it's currently the only one fighting on the frontlines of europe so seems about right.

[@lucadesanctis563]

Ye, with NATO weapons.. Their military budget is laughable

[@deepderp8483]

@@TheIconicWatermelon they stood their ground against russians even before the western aid

[@deepderp8483]

@@OhNotThat exactly

[@revinhatol]

This is the most power army France has ever produced since the fall of Napoleon.

[@Pommelabricot4821]

before ww2, french army was considered the best in the world, however the officers fucked up (Maxime Weygand especially)

[@swamidude2214]

@@Pommelabricot4821 and Russia was now believed to be the second strongest military. The real test is actual warfare and often differs quite a bit.

[@alioshax7797]

People don't realize how small armies are today...in 1914, two weeks after the war was declared, the French army numbered 770 000 men, and at the end of the war, 8 millions people were fighting under the French flag. That's more than 30 times the numbers of the russian soldiers actually fighting in Ukraine (roughly 300 000).

[@Pommelabricot4821]

@@alioshax7797 and the french population was almost two times less many

[@ChrisCrossClash]

@@Pommelabricot4821 Army yes, Navy, they had nothing on the British Royal Navy.

[@itsallogre6411]

I love your channel and have been watching for over a year now. However the Global firepower index does not simply just use "numbers" as a metric, and goes into detail of 50 other things (excluding nuclear weapons) to figure out which country seems to be the most capable. For example Australia is ranked 17th right behind Germany. Despite having only 52 tanks and a minimal amount of artillery. By your metric it would be a lower country. However a lot more comes into this. I understand shortening details it is important to specify how they rank and justify said ranks.

[@christopherchristianvanlan1809]

1. Ukraine. 2. Poland. 3. Russia. 4. Romania 5. Greece 6. Italy 7. Finland

[@claudium6769]

"Poland requested $15.6 billion in financial support from Korea to fulfill its second defense contract. The value of the first financial assistance from South Korea is estimated at 12 trillion won, which is about $9.4 billion." This means $25 billion in loans from South Korea to buy weapons. How many billions in loans from the US? Hope this won't affect the Polish economy by building debt..

[@oisinmcgranaghan2367]

There's something to be analysed about how WW2 has made the german language sound terrifying bc the German words in this sound homocidal at best, but maybe that's just bc I'm associating them with warfare in this context. I'm a German student and understand what these words mean but as a native English speaker they still rattle me for some reason

[@arip172]

probably genetic, it has been proven that our cells retain trauma memory through generations, I know, it's unbelievable!

[@patrickstar5136]

5:50 It's probably not gonna be enough. Estimates from a few years prior said we would need about 140 billion extra to get the Bundeswehr fully equipped and that was before high inflation hit.

[@prypiatshadow]

Allalalalaa, It is obvious Albania Strong, aalbania strongest! Surely not turkey attaturkkk

[@pep-qew]

Based Albanian

[@edwardcone6860]

Thank you for this very insightful description, much appreciated!

[@fasx56]

Very knowledgeable and well spoken young man. In an area of expertise that one would expect to hear from an older Military Officer with many years of weapons analysis behind him. Prime Minister of Finland, in a very serious comment the other day, said Europe cannot at this time defend itself from an attack from Russia without help from America. She said Europe needs to build up their military to be able to handle the Russian threat. That is one of the reasons NATO exists so most of the Free World would step up and help a fellow NATO member if needed.

[@okene]

Is that really true? I don't think Russia is that big of a threat. Perhaps to the countries on it's border

[@dan7564]

pffft, Russia's not even the best army in ukraine, how the heck is it going to invade Europe??

[@okene]

@@dan7564 she was only speaking about FINLAND is my guess

[@fasx56]

@@dan7564 You make a very good point but observing what Russia has and is doing to Ukraine is the threat. Their Army could not win on the battlefield .But they have fired hundreds of Cruise type Missiles and have destroyed thousands of Apartment type complexes. In addition to that in the last few weeks they have knocked out Electrical Generating plants and shut down all Nuclear Power Plants that produce the electricity for most of Ukraine. They have done so much damage and destroyed so much of Ukraine Infrastructure that several million Ukrainians have fled their country for refuge in many parts of Europe with Poland taking in over a Million itself. Your right in the sense that the Baltic Countries are in NATO and if Russia attacked one of them NATO would hit them hard even on Russian Territory. At this time Ukraine is strictly limited to attacking Russian on their soil while Russia sits back and demolishes city after city in Ukraine.

[@radekskaroupka7829]

TLDR should invest in a linguist who would help them with pronunciation of names and words in foreign languages. At the moment, it's really bad.

[@inconnu4961]

Nah, he is fine! As an American, I appreciate those who are equally as bad at foreign languages as us! it takes the spot light off us for a bit! LOL

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

well, thats also part of the more or less inbred linguistic ignorance in english speaking countries

[@Schwuuuuup]

On the other channels I wouldn't care but this is TLDR EU... it's for Europe about Europe. And I don't perfect pronunciation, but here they didn't even try

[@psychedelicspider4346]

@@Schwuuuuup true. No one really expects a native-like pronunciation of non-English names or words, just the attempt at proper articulation of the sounds in another language is appreciated.

[@inconnu4961]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Nah mate, we work hard on our ignorance! Its the benefit of Empire (that everyone speaks your language and cares about your culture) LOL

[@Varangoi]

In a month or two there will be new rankings done by Global Firepower. The list in this video couldn't be more outdated than right before the next ranking.

[@Varangoi]

Cool hearing about new equipment and what's to come.

[@Schwuuuuup]

Most Vs in German are pronounced as F. German Zs are pronounced as a sharp TS. W=V, Z=S. Gs are hard. EI = I So its TSaitenVende (Zeitenwende) ZonderFermerghen (Sondervermögen)

[@joshuddin897]

Danke schön sensei

[@user-op8fg3ny3j]

Schwerer Panzerspähwagen 7.5 cm Sonderkraftfahrzeug 234/4 Panzerabwehrkanonenwagen

[@themetalfox3725]

I wonder why for years you’ve had British Army commercials and die-hard supporters suggesting or even claiming that the British Armed forces desperately need more men, when it’s one of the strongest forces in Europe and the World?

[@davidfraser9365]

Excellent news here 👍👍

[@sergiodario58able]

Italy's navy and airforce are quiete powerful, but no mention of it was even made.

[@sergiodario58able]

@@Mangusta891 Vabbè se vuoi paragonarti alle superpotenze come USA Cina e Russia, non ce n'è per nessuno. Poi ci sono Francia, Regno Unito e India che se gli togli i loro arsenali nucleari hanno più o meno le nostre capacità, poì ci sono Giappone e le due Coree. Tolti questi siamo superiori alla Germania per quanto riguarda la marina, e a tutti gli altri per tutto il resto. Non direi che non contiamo quasi nulla. È pur vero però che non si muove uno spillo se non lo vuole l'America, ma questo vale oer tutti. Ciao

[@jciamretired9767]

Very informational and interesting video. A country's military might is like a person's retirement fund that you can't just build it overnight but through decades of disciplines and hard work. A no nonsense approach is a must otherwise you would get ate up :(

[@michaelthomas5433]

What was Russia's GFP score? Unless it was really low I would question the importance of the rating.

[@szymonpiorun]

There's this running joke in Poland ,,Poland have been attacked, tanks have been deployed, both of them"

[@yannischupin7787]

Regarding the current front runners France and The UK, I think that in the coming years it is gonna get clearer and clearer that France is above. Firstly, because the UK is going to renounce leveling up their military budget given their current financial issues. Secondly, France on the contrary is going to raise defence spending (even more than what they should already have), which is gonna bring more ammunition, more artillery, and more personnel into the army. Finally inflation hit the UK harder than France. We already knew that France could buy more stuff for tha same amount of money than the UK. And inflation is gonna reinforce this trend even more...

[@hugosetiawan8928]

Someone spouting some sense in this comment section

[@Karlm01]

You're forgetting that the French armed forces are poorly trained and would surrender in any conflict

[@Rilcy2003]

@@Karlm01 Angry troll comment here.

[@Rilcy2003]

If you add that France relies on its own industry and produces its own equipment, the gap is even clearest.

[@Karlm01]

@@Rilcy2003 NAH Just think back to WW2 all the best

[@loeffelm]

We all know Switzerland has the strongest army by far. Won 2 WW without fighting. That says a lot.

[@archieames1968]

I've heard stories of how Germany's military is basically a vacation club.

[@jeffaddis5715]

yea, it's great. spend all the money on social programs and refugees and let others do the fighting for you

[@ammarhaziq919]

actually Ukraine is strongest military in europe (excluding Russia and Turkey), with hundred of billions of fundings from the west they look like superpower who can combat Russia on battlefield, how about France and UK ? they were in peace for too long their army were untested, but they still had very good military tech.

[@catmonarchist8920]

France has never left Africa and is always fighting

[@IsYitzach]

You sound better at 2x than 1x. The reverb in the room is too much. The room needs some sound treatment.

[@JaegerDreadful]

I would love to see European Military Autonomy happen, so members could spend there 2% (or however much) on stuff they are actually good at and specialize, rather than having to spend a bit on everything (land forces, navy, air force, Cyber, etc.). If we then worked together with all pieces of the puzzle, all countries playing to their strength, no country or countries would feel confident in attacking us. Besides, it's just the smart idea to do to have everyone play to their strengths.

[@tremedar]

And with Europe taking their own defense seriously, the US could put more attention into domestic issues and kneecap the other threat to global peace: China. A reinvigorated civilian economy and industry and getting all the hopelessly unemployed and homeless among us to work would simultaneously starve China and take millions of needy people and remove their needy status. In general, just make the foundation the country stands on much stronger.

[@spacecube8561]

i can tell you 1 reason why that wouldn't work - nationalism take hungary for example. or croatia. and try to convice them to pool their resources so that EU can better protect EU territory - like French Guyana.....Greenland...or Azores - without those countries' presidents rambling on about ''colonialism'' and ''not our war'' crap......... i mean, yea, it sounds stupid, but nationalism usually is. despite the fact that all those territories ARE - EU. European military autonomy IS great idea - but, as we've seen during covid crap, when countries brought their military transports FROM common eu transport-somethingsomething, back to their national states to lift THEIR nationals back from other countries, yea, it usually doesn't work - at least not while national states still have kinda-more-power-than-eu. first thing should be, IF we want EU's military might, to start transforming EU from ''union of states'' - to federal union..... United States of Europe, if you will...... i'd be for it. i'd vote for any and all parties who'd promise to work on making USE happen. sadly, for me, and you, apparently, all those votes come at around 1-2% in any country......

[@hentaihaven8552]

@@spacecube8561 I 100% agreed with more and more problems europe should work much closer together it would help all. But nooooo so many people would rather rely in natinalial partys and telegram information. I find it all so annoying.

[@thereaperlord3738]

@@spacecube8561 I am against such a thing as the USE

[@spacecube8561]

@@thereaperlord3738 well, i am not. i think it'd be tremendous

[@matsal3211]

Poland grows strong 💪

[@piunernamelo7356]

God bless Ukraine

[@B1gLupu]

If there is a god, pretty sure they aren't very interested in the doings of men, considering how many have lost their lives in Ukraine.

[@hwica2753]

Excluding nuclear weapons, I would think Turkey has the most powerful military. It certainly has the largest.

[@mrschuyler]

We're talking Europe here. Except for a sliver, Turkey is mostly in Asia. But yeah, it has a huge army.

[@marcm.]

On a serious note I would like to see a piece detailing or going into more depth into what is considered an appropriate amount of money spent not just on military but any form of governmental spending versus what should be in the private sector in a capitalist market society. Yes I know books and in fact volumes of books have been written on these type of things but a nice little primer even if longer than the normal TLDR would be very interesting as long as of course it's kept at a "layman's" level... Do you think you're up to it???

[@Grisbla]

Everyone: talking about billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers. Greece on every NATO graph :

[@theconqueringram5295]

Honestly, Germany should have been putting more funding in their military since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and the War in Donbas started. I agree with Angela Merkel that we need more cooperation and less confrontation, but we still live in a dangerous world.

[@inconnu4961]

It will never NOT be dangerous! Well perhaps your new chancellor will follow through and get better value for the money than it seems like Germany has in the past (as other Germans have been suggesting)!

[@squidwardfromua]

Merkel meant we need more cooperation with Russia

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

There’s really something wrong with UK financing and industry that make, it equipment-wise, weaker that the French.

[@mando_dablord2646]

This might be a sore point for England, but knowing the ins and outs of the different militaries as well as a civilian can. The French navy and air force are about the same to Englands. The only thing is that England is more geared towards defending it's waters while France's more expeditionary. As for air force, I'd have to give it to France. While the F-35 is very capable, they lack domestic development and production. It's gotten to the point where you can't even compare the Typhoon to the Rafale. The French air force also just has way more aircraft, especially for support in logistics. It's to the point where it's no contest that the French air force is stronger overall, but the English are right behind.

[@TheBenj30]

That's not even close - I'm sorry, you've got it so wrong. You're talking about logistics - France has no heavy lift capability at all, in order to move those assets it relies on allies including when deployed on operations overseas, the UK possess both of those capabilities alone. Naval wise, it's not even remotely close - France has the benefit of a nuclear carrier, downside is that it means it can only have one carrier as opposed to two and if it's in a refit which takes longer for carriers, France loses it's carrier capability for months - on top of that, France fields a lot fewer major surface combatants - it fields less frigates and less destroyers, in fact the only reason it's numbers are so high is because instead of fielding more frigates they produce patrol vessels which have pretty much no offensive capability, certainly not enough to face a near peer navy like Russia. Finally and perhaps most important, a strong Navy requires strong logistics - if you intend on deploying around the world which both the UK and France do, you need a large tonnage in auxiliary vessels to move the logistics to the fleets that are deployed - the UK exceeds France, Italy, Germany and Spain combined in tonnage that it's auxiliary ships can move, it's not even close in this area.

[@mando_dablord2646]

@@TheBenj30 My brother in Christ, that's literally one of the stupidest things I've read. It's even leaning on the edge of cope.

[@TheBenj30]

​@@mando_dablord2646 That would be offensive if it wasn't following the absolute dumb comment you originally made - I mean, seriously - there is being uninformed and then there is what you said. The French Military which fields Cold War out of date jets over half of it's air combat fleet and fields less major combatants and a fraction of the auxiliary of the UK is more capable. Honestly, I'd say do some research but you come off as so dense that I don't see you doing it - the cope comment is just you passing it off before I pointed out that quite literally everything you said was wrong.

[@mando_dablord2646]

@@TheBenj30 You talked about logistics and naval power. France has more in all of those aspects. You've got some funny numbers in that regard. France has about 40 more support and auxiliary aircraft in comparison to the U.K. Also, the Rafale is very likely one of the best multi-role fighter in the world. The fact that it only loses to the F-35 says something to the respect each commands. If you're thinking about the few Mirage 2000's still in inventory, they still make a capable Interceptor and nuclear package delivery. With 6th generation aircraft being designed to replace every fighter in service. Ground forces isn't even a contest between France and U.K. They've had their MIC pumping out new and better products for years, only just behind the U.S. Which leads into the fact the the French MIC is so far mature in the defense sector they can stay independent for most of their projects. Although common European defense is a noble goal that is getting pursued in this development cycle with MGCS and SCAF. The U.K is far more dependent on defense procurement. For the navy the U.K holds more coastal patrol vessels, but that's about it. The Advantage of a nuclear carrier is that it needs to return to port a lot less.

[@TheBenj30]

@@mando_dablord2646 It has more A400M which are medium lift transporters, it has absolutely zero heavy lift transporters in the plane form and no heavy lift in terms of helicopter, which is an area where the UK has substantial amounts of both. The Rafale is on par with the Typhoon, which the UK fields in equal numbers to France alongside the far superior F35, the Rafale doesn't come close to matching an F35 and any belief of that is severe coping - I also never commented on Rafale, what I commented on was Mirage - the fact is that 48% of the combat fleet in the French Air Force is Cold War era Mirage 2000's, they've been upgraded but are far past their prime and should have been withdrawn nearly a decade ago. I believe the French ground forces has a stronger capability purely because it's a military on the continent and therefore fields more equipment, I still believe that by pure equipment the UK equals if not surpasses France in terms of quality, the UK is already going through it's multi-decade programme to replace pretty much every frontline vehicle, which has replacements from APCS, IFVs and a new MBT variant. As for Navy - you're lying. The facts are easily accessible, you're purposely flipping the countries when it comes to Navies. The UK has more destroyers, more frigates, more Aircraft Carriers and more submarines than France, that's an undeniable fact - if you don't believe me, research it, the only benefit of a nuclear carrier vs a conventional in a European factor is that you don't supply it as much, this isn't a problem for the UK because unlike France it hasn't underfunded it's logistical vessels, so it's ships don't need to return to port anyway. The only area France exceeds the Royal Navy is in OPV's which aren't made for combat, they are made for coastal patrol - they have no anti-ship capability and have no place in a modern conflict, those vessels are the only reason France even comes close to the UK in ship numbers, every other category which includes the most important ones in the major surface combatants category the UK leads, you're lying if you are saying France fields more of any of those, the internet proves it. You also ignored my post where I pointed out that if you combine France, Germany, Italy and Spain's auxiliary vessels you still wouldn't match the tonnage of the UK Auxiliary vessels, which means in the event of a war, if you have your carrier deployed you have to keep all other ships close to port to be resupplied because you don't have enough logistics vessels to help.

[@lyou9405]

France : Let's make a sovereign EU Germany : Great idea mate also Germany : Hello US, how much for these F35 ?

[@RuthlessVibesBB]

Jealous

[@piotrhurej6422]

What about Turkey? They had a little quarrel with Russia recently. They shared Syria.

[@nicolas51489]

I was going to say Russia, but then I remembered it's not even the best army in Ukraine...

[@mrschuyler]

Well, it's the second best army in Ukraine.

[@Knight-ym7ze]

Nice video, a comment I would like to make. F-35 are really NOT "hugely expensive", it's a popular myth people say who don't understand military procurement. For example, when Denmark bought F-35s it costed about $85mil per plane which is LESS expensive then some Eurofighter deals. Of course, when Germany decided to buy the F-35 they paid about $240mil per plane, but we really shouldn't compare cost per plane as contract are very complicated and breaking it down per plane just is not how we should look at it. In some ways buying military planes is like buying a computer. You can buy the bare minimum or go all and buy the latest cpu, gpu, etc. In fact, many military analysts recommend purchasing the F-35 now as its cost is likely the lowest, leveraging the large US and international orders. From my observation, Russia has showed it is uncapable of achieving air supremacy in a larger scale conflict. Many military analysts observing this, have also commented that no European air force has shown to be able to achieve this as well though the UK is the closest to be able. They commented if Europe was somehow at war, that their air force would likely be in the same position as the Russians. I believe Germany wants to be able to successfully achieve air superiority in a conflict. Given the state of the German military, I believe their F-35 cost is so high because they are essentially rebuilding the air force from the ground up with the newest toys. My best guess is a lot of that money isn't into the actual planes but training and munitions. Things like ARM, precision-guided munitions, electronic warfare, stand-off tactics, sensor sweeping, etc. Air superiority today is NOT just dog fighting and very complex and needs lots of expensive training and equipment.

[@vizender]

One of the huge metric that made German f35 planes so expensive is indeed not the plane but all the structures Germany would have to put in place to use them. Their fleet of US-made aircrafts was getting old and wasn’t prepared to be replaced with f35s. Also, it was one of the first deals and at that time the economics of the f35 were pretty wrong. The plane was sold as unstoppable (which it’s not, although it’s still an extremely good airframe) and Lockheed promised to have the f35 fully developed in a few years (which was false, and we are still far off today). Now the f35 is still considered in a long term development making it not the perfect replacement to everything that was originally promised. Combining that to the fact that the factories are much more robust, f35s really went down in

[@vizender]

Russian main issue was they failed to conduct successful SEAD missions (basically destroying air defenses with air-to-ground missiles that lock and track enemy ground radars). The fact is that Russia does not appear to possess a sufficient number of those missiles to effectively negate air-defenses. UK however do have some stocks of those missiles (ARM missiles as you said) in the form of the ALARM. Whether it’s enough to negate another country air-defenses is questionable (depends on the country they would attack, success rate of the mission…). France also appears to use the ARMAT ARM missile, although very, very few informations can be found about them. But in general, if we speak strictly about the British , French, and other European air forces, the problems does not lies with their plane capabilities (Germany and the UK have Eurofighters and f35s that can do ground attacks, France has the rafale and the mirage 2000, Sweden has the Gripen, although it’s smaller size limits some loadouts). The main issue lies in the stock of specialized weapons. Those countries stocks of missiles, be them ARM, general air to ground and even air to air missiles are ridiculously low. They are good enough for air policing times, but way to small for war times. The only thing they have enough of is maybe bombs (guided and unguided), with for exemple France using a few of them in recent conflicts like Mail in 2010ish and in other conflicts in the last 20 years.

[@jeffenad5412]

Baltic should focus on anti-tank, anti-aircraft, anti-ship defenses, and small and agile tactics. Poland focus on ground-base defense and number of personnel, while Germany help Poland on equipment, surveillance, cyberspace and air. France and UK should be focus on surface ships, submarines and aircrafts. Everyone should focus on what they good at, and help the others of there weaknesses.

[@marekkac7046]

Why would only eastern Europeans suffer human losess while defending whole Europe? I smell colonialism and racism.

[@jeffreyzervos6938]

France Germany Finland Switzerland and Poland are the top military powers.

[@princessmoon8014]

I think you forgot Finland. It has one of the best military in Europe.

[@KonigGustavAdolph]

If we were to add "willingness to use" that might change some result.

[@trstn7539]

Together Europe could be really powerfull

[@loeffelm]

as we never saw in history, at all

[@hyrikul602]

We have more inhabitants than the USA or Russia, if one day we really ally ourselves, even if we become a kind of united state like the USA, we would become the first world power. But this will never happen, too many differences, languages, old quarrels that will always give bitterness

[@cameronwixcey9692]

Something you didn't look at is combat experience. You could have said how many are deployed abroad, have been to warzones to get an idea. Germany didn't deploy as many to the middle East as the UK so training is all good but having veterans probably counts for alot more. Yes the war will probably be different but having NCO's and officers who have been shot at for real will probably help. Until enough German soldiers have fought I wouldn't count them above the UK or France. Also I expect alot of poles will soon holiday on Ukraine with new Korean tanks

[@cheveu8632]

I came to say this but knew in my heart it had already been said. I would add that there are a lot of joint exercises between France and the UK, especially on Cyber and Air Force, where soldiers can share real first hand experience. Germany has a big gap to cross just in term of modernizing, when you add gaining experience to it, I'm afraid it's going to take them a long time to reach a decent level.

[@thermoss8]

Speaking of French air Force, they have Rafale upgraded block 4,which outclass every aircraft in the World beside F22. Even F35, bought by Germany only to operate US nuclear missiles.

[@adha2913]

Love the way TLDR always tries to find an angle to big up the UK. Reminds me of old Top Gear promoting Jag/LR.

[@Pangeid]

“Italy is the second military in the EU, in charge along with Greece of defending the whole Mediterranean; anyways, let’s talk for ten minutes about the Andorran military”

[@lucadesanctis563]

They're Brits, they're racist towards Southern Europe

[@leedex]

Without watching the video. France is definitely the most powerfull.

[@noobster4779]

When it comes to foreign interventions in africa, yes. When it comes to a large scale ground war they are barely on the scale of Germany. Take the Leclerc tank for example. France has around 200 of them and they arent produced anymore. That will kast them for a week. Even Germany has more :D

[@helinke2599]

@@noobster4779 They continue to produce them, they received 222 out of 400

[@hyrikul602]

@@noobster4779 We may have less but it's still a good tank. And given the geographical situation of France, literally surrounded by allies, it is normal and logical that the bulk of the effort is focused on the navy and the air force.

[@davidcooks2379]

Hopefully Poland is successful in its army building and will be able to take Belarus at the time when the current dictator is at its weakest.

[@cemo3292]

Bruh Belarus is nothing i think even Poland can wipe out Belarus 😂

[@maxalbon9557]

He is just a troll with mental disorder.

[@swetoniuszkorda5737]

@@cemo3292 Only with Belarus people consent. No "referendums";) "even" - Where are you from?

[@hitrapperandartistdababy]

I’m curious if you could potentially gontjrough the various special forces that the European countries have? Some European countries specialize in special forced rather than an overall army, more adept and able to offer support due to the countries limited sizes

[@jetsetradio01]

Why do the recent videos sound like they were recorded in a portaloo?