French general Delawarde: "NATO can not win against Russia". With 15x higher budget?

Geopolitics
#1

Hello, here is an article that I would like to share with you written by the French General Dominique Delewarde. He is rather pro-Russia and seems to be at least a frequent collaborator of “reseauinternational.net” which gathers together different anti-US-empire articles.

This is the original article, I translated some parts below with www.DeepL.com

After explaining why it is an “special operation”, Russia alledgedly avoiding collateral damage etc, and that the military involvement of Russia is around 10 % of its full capacities, he develops the following:

Russia has not used its huge reserves (reserves that are almost non-existent in the EU). It has much more than a week’s worth of ammunition, as it demonstrates every day on the ground. We are not so lucky in the West where the shortage of ammunition, the obsolescence of major equipment, their insufficient maintenance, their low DTO (Technical Operational Availability), the absence of reserves, the lack of training of personnel, the sample nature of modern equipment and many other elements do not allow us to seriously consider, today, a military victory of NATO against Russia. This is the reason why we are content with an “economic” war, hoping to weaken the Russian bear.

He then explains his knowledge about NATO war games, here one example :

For high-intensity warfare, evaluations take place in a large military camp located in Nevada: Fort Irwin
All the mechanized and armored brigades of the US Army regularly go to this camp for training and control. I had the privilege to attend many of them. After three weeks of intensive training in this camp, with all the major equipment, there is a full-scale exercise to conclude the period, before the brigade returns to its garrison city. The brigade is pitted against a small regiment equipped with Russian equipment and applying Russian military doctrine. It was called OPFOR (Opposing Force).

Statistically, by the admission of the commanding general of the camp and director of these high-intensity military exercises, the US brigade loses the game 4 times out of 5 against the Russian OPFOR … Few American brigade commanders can therefore boast of having won against the “Russian OPFOR” at Fort Irwin.

He goes on explaining that war games against China and Iran were also lost…

I’ve looked up the military budgets of NATO which is a 10x or 15x higher than Russia if we include main NATO members.
(List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia)

Now add to that the fact that Russia was supposed to be ruined and looted in the 1990s, there is something I just can’t figure out clearly…

So what’s your take on this?

3 Likes
#2

I don’t know anything about the capability of the U.S. military, but I can make a few other observations.

First, there’s not necessarily a one-to-one correlation between the number of dollars spent and a country’s military capability. The fact that the U.S. military budget is 10 times bigger doesn’t mean its military is 10 times more powerful. If Russia hasn’t been invaded and occupied yet, and it can get by on 1/10 the U.S. military budget, all that means is the U.S. spends way more than it needs to on its military.

A large percentage of the U.S. federal budget doesn’t actually get used for productive purposes – it’s just money spent on inflated government contracts meant to enrich political contributors and influential groups, especially the military-industrial complex and the banking industry. The U.S. could waste so much money because it has controlled the world’s reserve currency and could print as much of that currency as it wanted. So it’s not that the Russian military budget is ridiculously low; it’s that the U.S. military budget is ridiculously high.

Second, I think we need to consider what “NATO defeating Russia” would entail. The West can’t just drop a couple big bombs and expect them to surrender, since the Russians have big bombs too. The idea that the West is in a position to win economic warfare against a country that exports and controls so much of the world’s critical natural resources is totally ridiculous. There’s another idea that has been floated: that the West is going to incite a popular revolt against the current Russian regime. When I consider what daily life was like in Russia under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, then compare it to what it’s like today – at least in the major cities – I have absolutely no problem believing Putin has the support of a huge majority of his population. What exactly is going to make enough people turn on the regime to topple it? What reason do most Russians have for disliking Putin, when he has brought about relative prosperity and restored a sense of national pride? And, knowing Russia, who thinks the government would let a regime-toppling revolt happen without suppressing it?

What option, then, would NATO have for defeating Russia? It would have to invade and occupy the place, in a devastating, protracted war. Do we think the Russians would welcome NATO forces as liberators or fight to the last man to defend their native land? Are Americans and Europeans willing to sacrifice thousands, or millions, of their citizens’ lives for regime change in Russia?

This whole debate needs a serious dose of realism.

7 Likes
#3

Thx for your remarks. I surely agree wrt to Putin and evolution of Russia: many economical and demographic factors show that things have dramatically improved.

However, I did not imagine a direct full blown military conflict (don’t know what scenario they were playing in Fort Irwin anyway…) since indeed it makes no sense. Conflicts between super powers tend to happen on secondary battle fields.

Still: if we can use the PPA / GDP ratio for Russia (~ 2.3 for 2022) to better estimate the value of its budget, we would get a factor of 7x . However, that would still mean that the NATO military has been tremendously inefficient for decades:
Think also about the descriptions and war games mentionned by general Delawarde: I didn’t expect that level of corruption and loss of performance. Imagine eg Holland having a stronger army than Germany…??

And the real background thought in my mind is the famous “Hidden System of Finance” etc : Where is all the money going? Or did it finally all went up in smoke despite all “high octane” speculations? And where is Mr Global? Giving up US as base? Since to my observation the US is in serious trouble in not a collapsing empire?

#4

Here is a simple historical example where a much bigger country can loose against a smaller one: the Chinese-Vietnamese war in 1979 (Sino-Vietnamese War - Wikipedia). But the explanation of the Chinese loss is rather obvious for me…

Wrt to “realism” of a hypothetical Russia-NATO conflict: think about the situation of Russia in late 1990s: AFIAK, it was so bad that it could indeed be understood as Russia being under control of the US-Empire: Russia was accepted as a member of the G7 (then called “G8”) and the economy was looted by the West.

#5

Natos military hardware is made to cost money and to be upgraded as often as possible.

Russia builds weapons made to last and be as cost effective as possible.

Im sure that russia gets more per dollar then the west gets for x100 of that amount of money.

2 Likes
#6

We can debate the whole capability and the relationship to money spent, but if we don’t stop this runaway government, we will all be dead. Of the $40Billion, only 9 will go to the Ukraine money laundering service but the rest will be redeposited into the 2022 election coffers. The Pennsylvania primary is a good example (if you weren’t paying attention in 2020).

4 Likes
#7

Seems like it’s all over bar the shouting. However I have some hope that an underground movement will develop to out these criminals. It’s just a dream I have.

3 Likes
#8

Well there are millions of people worldwide distrusting the official narrative and working against it by reading, writing, blogging, discussing & messaging stuff. In an information-war, that’s like a huge infantry, isn’t it?

Plus we have Truth on our side, hopefully that helps too?

2 Likes
#9

Absolutely, without getting into foil hat territory I would say that even if you have pretty limited skillsets in terms of media the real threat to this new… erm old world order is just getting together in our flesh sacks. The powers that be hate old fashioned analogue technology. It’s difficult to control and very hard to track.

1 Like
#10

By the time Yeltsin took over, Russia was already in economic and political meltdown. When I was there in 1989, there was rationing of basic foodstuffs, bare shelves in stores, shortages of just about everything. Most infrastructure I saw was decrepit and poorly maintained. When the Western companies came in, Russia was weak and easy to take over. Today’s Russia is a very different story.

I’m not sure what Mr. Globaloney is up to. Right now, it looks to me like he has gone insane and/or is trying to use the Ukraine war as an excuse to impoverish Western populations and force through part of his Reset agenda. I agree it looks as if Mr. Globaloney has given up on the U.S. as his main power base. There’s still a lot Globaloney can steal from the U.S. (both overt and covert money and resources). If I had to guess, I’d say Globaloney is planning to do a “rape of Russia” scenario in the U.S. He has already started in some parts of the EU – Greece, and France under Macron, are two examples.

2 Likes
#11

Yes, I recently read a history of Russia, where the economic decline is described to have started with Leonid Brezhnev: before, the USSR was rather strong economically (maybe like China now), but during the Brezhnev era, USSR had a progressively declining industry and became dependent on export of raw materials. Gorbachev could not fix that.

What is interesting for me in this whole story, is that 30 years of decline and collapse (1970 → 2000) could be recovered so easily including getting rid of leverage for corruption etc, meanwhile Mr Globaloney destroying its power base by mismanagement…

#12

@FiatLux
That “kleptocratic” problem has come home to roost. About any country not EU, USA and Commonwealth know about being robbed blind and killed if you try something to do about that robbing.

Large swats of the EU, USA and Commonwealth citizens still think we bring “democracy” to those poor sods.

Those kleptocrats where licking their chops @ a one world order for robbing the whole world blind and mastering / killing slaves as they saw fit. Infighting is twarthing that. In that whole infighting what is far more difficult to assess is if their are still leaders around with any honor and integrity?

3 Likes
#13

It seems to me quite difficult to have meaningful leaders as long as media & science are so heavily corrupted that the major part of the upper class believe all this nonsense and live in a fake world. You possibly can’t get enough political influence or leadership if MSM & the Deep State are ready for any form of sabotage.

Here are however some figures to be moderately optimistic on the long run:

  1. I’ve recently seen polls where the distrust in MSM is very high in the U.S., UK and France, I think these 3 countries had the lowest trust in the official narrative, around 30 %.
  2. Brexit, Trump & Yellow Vests prove that in this conflict between the official narrative and the majority of the country, the game is still open.
  3. At least in the US, alternative media are no more fringe, instead JRE & Co are taking the lead.
  4. The power struggle seems rather obvious in the US, so I continue to expect big things to happen the next years if not already this year !
  5. Finally the collapse of the USSR and the relatively fast complete recovery of Russia with Putin shows a possible path…
2 Likes
#14

“If you don’t know what this is about, it probably is about the money” as old adage says. General Delewarde is probably a part of the French MIC which comprises as its American counterpart of many known companies in USA it is Boeing, GD, NG etc. In France Renault, Peugeot ets. Let’s not forget 40% of Renault income comes from Russia. So, no wander French General is upset with the sanctions and the war on Russia.

#15

Unfortunately I must consider your interpretation as too simplistic.

I guess, General Delawarde is much more upset about the decline of his country. And about the sanctions against Russia, his feeling could be better described by “amused”, like the bigger part of many continental Europeans with deep anti-US and anti-UK convictions, hoping that this accelerates the collapse of the EU which is an US protectorate that mutated into 4th Reich…

#16

It’s amazing how fast a strong nation-state, with support from a majority of people, some valuable natural resources, some educated people, and decent technology can turn around. Russia, no doubt, still has problems, including corruption, infrastructure needs (e.g., in Siberia), and so on. I think Putin has spent many years removing anti-nationalist oligarchs from positions of influence or from the country altogether; and that’s probably an ongoing internal battle.

It’s really hard to tell about Mr. Globaloney… There’s definitely infighting, as Dr. Farrell predicted. And heaven knows Mr. Globaloney’s middle managers (those from Ivy League colleges, Oxbridge, or the ENA in France) are probably less competent than they’ve ever been.

2 Likes
#17

@FiatLux
That is why I find those discussions about what side Mr. Putin is on so unfruitful. To begin with, it is a team that is at the helm of a country and Mr. Putin is the figurehead of that team. That team has only so much leeway as they have support from the people. The reciprocity is the difference in breaking free from that one world order in the making or not.

Every country seems infiltrated with fascism fanatics and have to contend with that group. I believe that the Western populous (EU-USA-Commonwealth) are the least aware of any history concerning fascism. That group profited from the wealth those fascist where stealing all around the globe and since technology gives the fascists access to perfect slavery they want the profits all for themselves.

The Western populous is not only thinly aware of facts but also seem the least prepared to take any responsability for looking the other way when those pillages around the world went on. A top down perspective fits the bill of blaming leaders when things go wrong. For a Westener, it seems very difficult to see correlation in reciprocity between leaders and peoples.

Russia at least seems aware of a relationship between peoples of the nation and leaders. The one does not function without the other. So, even if the team of Mr. Putin wins or looses can you put that all on the figurehead and does that alone tell the whole story of what went on?

2 Likes
#18

I agree with you nearly 100%. Most of the Western population has had a fairly easy, prosperous life (compared to the rest of the world) for over half a century now, so the people and their so-called leaders have become complacent, narcissistic, and childish. In other parts of the world, real, life-or-death problems either still exist or are still alive in the collective memory.

In Russia’s case, understandably, the horrific trauma of World War II left a deep mark on the popular consciousness that remains to this day, which accounts for the strong anti-fascist, anti-Nazi feeling in that country. Russians still have an awareness of their country’s history, and it looks like Russia hasn’t let its education system fall into total ruin, as we have in the West. There’s still a sense of national cohesion and identity in Russia (which is being lost in the West) that makes it possible to have strong popular support of pro-national leaders.

3 Likes
#19

I surely agree that the name of a leader is only the title of the team, and that the relationship between government and people is important etc.

But see the difference between Yeltsin and Putin?
You will immediately understand that it still matters somehow. It took me long to understand, but at some point the top of the power structure is crucial… Consider Biden vs US or Macron vs France or so: it’s long time since they do not have the support from the people, but we do not know how to remove them, they are still there and they do not strictly disappear out of unpopularity, unfortunately :frowning:

1 Like
#20

@Apeiron
I think the top of power is “very” crucial. If stacked with people beyond empathy capabilities, the commoner is in deep dudu. Where I disagree with most people is that before a government is stacked with empathy bereft people, citizens for years looked the other way when this was happening and have their share in the happening.

I am a bit sick of the victimhood attitude.

3 Likes