Ukraine ‘needs NATO ships in Black Sea’ says Prystaiko
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info
Ukraine’s message to NATO in the last week has been clear: we need weapons, weapons, weapons. Its foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba told a recent NATO meeting that atrocities against civilians could happen unless the country was given more military aid. Horrific scenes at Bucha — a city just north of Kyiv — flooded the world’s press and social media with images of mass civilian murders, some showing victims lying in the streets with their hands tied behind their backs, others showing children strewn across roads, still more depicting women beheaded, all allegedly carried out by Russian troops who had until recently occupied the locality.
It appeared to be the tipping point for NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the organisation’s members after they voted in favour of providing more military support to Ukraine.
In light of this, Russia warned that “pumping weapons into Ukraine” will have a “negative effect” on peace talks — another thinly veiled threat of potential things to come as the conflict protracts and Moscow becomes desperate to end what it started on February 24.
Before the invasion, questions remained over NATO’s military capabilities and logistics.
The organisation owns little in the way of military equipment: a fleet of
AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control) aircraft and five Global Hawk surveillance drones.
But in the wider context, it can be provided with the military hardware and personnel of its constituent member states, some 30 countries.
Since its inception after World War 2 in 1949, NATO has significantly increased its military power.
Today, it has the capability to count on nearly 3.5 million personnel, troops and civilians combined.
Each member state agrees to contribute with different strategic weight and influence, as well as allocating a certain percentage of GDP.
They regularly perform military drills together, the costs of which they cover, like providing fighter jets and tanks.
The collective nature of NATO means that the organisation as a whole far outnumbers Russia in terms of aircraft (20,723 to 4,173) and naval power (2,049 military ships to 605).
Russia’s ground vehicle capacity is more competitive, however, with 12,420 units, to 14,682.
And, even with the combined nuclear arsenal of the US, UK and France, Russia still has the lead, with 6,255 to NATO’s 6,065.
JUST IN: Putin’s economy in freefall as Russian Railways crashes into default
Using statistics collected by Statista, Express.co.uk has mapped out NATO’s current military capabilities.
Total military personnel: 5,405,700
Active soldiers: 3,366,000
Reserve forces: 1,301,000
Paramilitary units: 738,700
Total aircraft: 20,723
Ground attack aircraft: 1,048
Transport aircraft: 1,543
Special aircraft (e.g reconnaissance): 1,014
Tanker aircraft: 678
Total helicopters: 8,485
Combat helicopters: 1,359
Ground combat vehicles
Main battle tanks: 14,682
Armoured vehicles: 115,855
Self-propelled artillery: 5,040
Tower artillery: 5,495
Self-propelled rocket launchers: 2,803
Is the Czech Republic in Nato? [REPORT]
China secretly sends massive arms shipment to Serbia [INSIGHT]
Humiliated Putin purges more than 150 intelligence staff [ANALYSIS]
Total military ships: 2,049
Aircraft carriers: 17
Patrol boats: 298
Nuclear warheads: 6,065
Before this month’s NATO meeting, alliance countries had already sent scores of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine.
Initially, the weapons being sent were earmarked as defensive so as to avoid any accusations from Russia that the west was instigating attacks on its military.
However, Mr Stoltenberg has since made clear that there will be no distinction between defensive and offensive weapons, signalling a major shift in NATO’s position.
He said: “When it comes to Ukraine, there should be no such difference as between defensive weapons and offensive weapons.
“Because every weapon used in the territory of Ukraine, by the Ukrainian army, against a foreign aggressor is defensive by definition.
“So this distinction between defensive and offensive doesn’t make any sense when it comes to the situation in my country.
“And those countries who are saying we will provide Ukraine with defensive weapons but we are not in a position to provide them with offensive weapons, they are hypocritical.
“This is simply an unfair, unjustified approach.”
Source: Read Full Article