Russia currently has something that nobody else in the world has - “cheap” infantry. In theory, China, India, and other populous countries might have it as well, but it has not been battle-tested yet.A perennial question. I can tell you, knowing very little about the two units, that a Ranger Battalion, and a National Guard infantry battalion are not going to be equal in a battle. Both are volunteer units (you have to volunteer to get in), but they will have wildly disparate combat effectiveness.
There are some objective qualifiers (physical fitness test scores, rifle marksmanship scores, but generally, it is the intangibles, the strength of will to resist, will to win. In the film Gettysburg, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain tells his men, "Today, we are going to have to be stubborn." That hints at the existence of some intangible quality.
In your examples, you are comparing infantry battalions of the same size; however, Russia might have the potential to mobilize and send more people to the fighting than the West. Yes, I know that EU's population is approximately three times that of Russia, but Europe is most likely unable to mobilize the vast majority of them.
Estonia / Latvia / Lithuania have two issues:If they understand what is at stake, sure. Estonians and Lithuanians especially so. They know that if they get overrun again, Estonia as a nationality might be completely wiped out this time. I would expect Estonians to fight like Spartans against a Russian invasion.
- small armies
- a small amount of land that won’t allow them to buy time and mobilize
Not in the current state, but given a few years to recover after the Ukrainian war (and assuming a “win” for Putin), I am afraid that Russian forces could overrun one or two Baltic countries before the rest of NATO armies could arrive for help.
Last edited: