Lack of training reduces the best equipment into a static target. Russians would not be knocking out Leopard 1s, let alone Leopard 2s, if they had proper crews, and more importantly, proper logistics. NATO likes to brag how they are training Uk troops to NATO standard, but results in the ground say otherwise. One must wonder where all that post 2014 CIA coup NATO training that supposedly went on is. because I haven't seen any sign that your basic Uk infantryman is any better trained or led than the Russian conscript opposing him.

This is not to say I think NATO should be involved at all, nor that NATO should have expanded east from Germany since 1991.

Lack of training reduces the best equipment into a static target. Russians would not be knocking out Leopard 1s, let alone Leopard 2s, if they had proper crews, and more importantly, proper logistics. NATO likes to brag how they are training Uk troops to NATO standard, but results in the ground say otherwise.

This is not to say I think NATO should be involved at all, nor that NATO should have expanded east from Germany since 1991. One must wonder where all that post 2014 CIA coup NATO training that supposedly went on is. because I haven't seen any sign that your basic Uk infantryman is any better trained or led than the Russian conscript opposing him.

Training reduces the best equipment into a static target. Russians would not be knocking out Leopard 1s, let alone Leopard 2s, if they had proper crews, and more importantly, proper logistics. NATO likes to brag how they are training Uk troops to NATO standard, but results in the ground say otherwise.

This is not to say I think NATO should be involved at all, nor that NATO should have expanded east from Germany since 1991. One must wonder where all that post 2014 CIA coup NATO training that supposedly went on is. because I haven't seen any sign that your basic Uk infantryman is any better trained or led than the Russian conscript opposing him.