[Goose]

My daughter Lt Claire in Army Logistics served in theater near Grafenwoehr, Germany 2015-2017 after Russia took Crimea.  
She was impressed with the Polish soldiers, but the Germans were wholly inadequate -- except in repairing vehicles.  
"They can't shoot a lick.  Poorly trained with armaments".  
The Wehrmacht is a shadow of its former self, more than decimated by losing two world wars, and by German Millennials who look down on even serving.

I don't know if your daughter was referring to infantry small arms shooting or armored vehicles. It is really, really sad if it was armored vehicles. The Germans regularly won the Canadian Army Trophy for armored vehicle marksmanship from 1973 on. The US only won it once.
 
There hasn't been a Wehrmacht  since 1945. The Bundeswehr was founded in 1955. It was therefore not "decimated" by the losses of the world wars. By 1975 the Bundeswehr was far better, man for man and tank for tank than the US Army deployed in Europe. It was not close. A lot of that can be traced to the post-Vietnam "situation" but arguably the German  superiority persisted until the end of the cold war. The Bundeswehr fielded 12 divisions, all inside Germany. These forces were all combat ready and highly motivated. The troops understood why they were there and what the tasks were. The Bundeswehr was blessed with a professional officer corps that looked both backwards into history and forward towards what they would be asked to do in a war. It was a very eclectic group. Some were from "old military families" and others were lower middle class guys that had discovered they liked being soldiers and could lead troops. A few of these guys were crazy in a good way :-). Probably more importantly the Bundeswehr was also blessed with a very professional long-serving NCO cadre. They knew how to take draftees that were only going to serve 18 months and make competent soldiers out of them. Some of those draftees would actually apply to extend their service. The NCOs could make things happen. One did need to realize that if asked to do something, they would literally do as asked. That might not be exactly what you expected :-).
 
The US Army in 1990 had 18 active divisions and 10 National Guard divisions. Few of the National Guard forces were ready to deploy into a European armored war on short notice. The US Army was all "professional", no draftees. That had its good points. It also had its disadvantages. In general, the US Army enlisted men were less adequately educated for mechanized warfare than the German army draftees. That had an effect on how the forces would fight. The US therefore fielded 18 divisions from a population of 249 million (1990), while Germany fielded 12 from a population of 62 million. That speaks for itself.
 
Today, Germany notionally fields 3 divisions. However, a cursory examination of the Table of Organization of these divisions shows that Germany has one "legitimate" Panzer division, 1st Panzer. It might be a bit light on tanks, but it is at least "close". The next division, 10th Panzer, is actually more of a Panzergrenadier division. Recently attempts have been made to increase its tank strength by the addition of the  Panzerbrigade 45, but that unit is not yet up to strength (and may never be). The third division is the Rapid Forces Division, which is a sweep-together of airborne forces, mountain troops, and anything else that isn't a proper part of an armored division. To all this, one can only say Ouch! Germany was encouraged to take the end of the Cold War seriously. The Russians were understandably concerned about a re-united Germany. Don't scare the bear was a real thing, not just a slogan. Obviously, the German politicians and public were quite happy with their "peace dividend". They eagerly cashed the whole thing. Thus the current generations see no reason they should have to defend their country.
 
The US OTOH only cashed most of our peace dividend. We still had responsibilities in other parts of the world. Today the US has 10 active army divisions. It has exactly ONE armored division. While the switch to Brigade Combat Teams arguably allows the armored component of infantry divisions to provide armor capabilities that isn't at all comparable. The 3rd ACR and the 11th ACR augment the US armored capability, but for sure "they aren't what they were". In 1990 the US had 4 Armored (Panzer) divisions and 8 Mechanized Divisions (Panzergrenadier +/-) divisions. So 12 of our 18 divisions were capable of fighting what a war in Europe was expected to look like.

Three months ago Britain and France were each talking about sending "25,000 Peacekeeping troops to Ukraine (boots on the ground)" -- until the press asked them about the Rules of Engagement: "What if the troops are fired upon by Russians; can they shoot back?  What if they kill Russians; are we at war?"
Britain and France had NO ANSWER. 
It's all bluster from EU -- and Putin knows that.

Maybe. But what if its not totally bluster? What if the UK and France send 25,000 peacekeeping troops without clear rules of engagement? What if they do shoot back? It is IMO a recipe for an accidental war. A poorly resourced and poorly thought out intervention can easily be worse than nothing.

Nobody is going to send 200,000 troops to push Russia out of Eastern Ukraine. 
And that wouldn't do the job against 200,000 mines and artillery.  #StopTheKilling.

Probably not, but coupled with 500 aircraft IMO they easily could force the Russian troops in Ukraine to abandon their position due to logistical collapse. Minefields that can't be defended are pretty easy to lift. Artillery with no ammunition is scrap metal. Of course, the only nation that can provide the 500 aircraft (and probably the 200,000 troops) is the United States. We aren't going to do that, so you are quite correct.

Europe and Obama didn't do much about Crimea either in 2014.

Not much has improved in Europe... 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12...ven-worse/

Quite a bit of truth in this article. Europe isn't "ready" for the current situation, and no new leaders are coming forth that gives one confidence that the way ahead will be any better than the present.

[Goose]

My daughter Lt Claire in Army Logistics served in theater near Grafenwoehr, Germany 2015-2017 after Russia took Crimea.  
She was impressed with the Polish soldiers, but the Germans were wholly inadequate -- except in repairing vehicles.  
"They can't shoot a lick.  Poorly trained with armaments".  
The Wehrmacht is a shadow of its former self, more than decimated by losing two world wars, and by German Millennials who look down on even serving.

I don't know if your daughter was referring to infantry small arms shooting or armored vehicles. It is really, really sad if it was armored vehicles. The Germans regularly won the Canadian Army Trophy for armored vehicle marksmanship from 1973 on. The US only won it once.
 
There hasn't been a Wehrmacht  since 1945. The Bundeswehr was founded in 1955. It was therefore not "decimated" by the losses of the world wars. By 1975 the Bundeswehr was far better, man for man and tank for tank than the US Army deployed in Europe. It was not close. A lot of that can be traced to the post-Vietnam "situation" but arguably the German  superiority persisted until the end of the cold war. The Bundeswehr fielded 12 divisions, all inside Germany. These forces were all combat ready and highly motivated. The troops understood why they were there and what the tasks were. The Bundeswehr was blessed with a professional officer corps that looked both backwards into history and forward towards what they would be asked to do in a war. It was a very eclectic group. Some were from "old military families" and others were lower middle class guys that had discovered they liked being soldiers and could lead troops. A few of these guys were crazy in a good way :-). Probably more importantly the Bundeswehr was also blessed with a very professional long-serving NCO cadre. They knew how to take draftees that were only going to serve 18 months and make competent soldiers out of them. Some of those draftees would actually apply to extend their service. The NCOs could make things happen. One did need to realize that if asked to do something, they would literally do as asked. That might not be exactly what you expected :-).
 
The US Army in 1990 had 18 active divisions and 10 National Guard divisions. Few of the National Guard forces were ready to deploy into a European armored war on short notice. The US Army was all "professional", no draftees. That had its good points. It also had its disadvantages. In general, the US Army enlisted men were less adequately educated for mechanized warfare than the German army draftees. That had an effect on how the forces would fight. The US therefore fielded 18 divisions from a population of 249 million (1990), while Germany fielded 12 from a population of 62 million. That speaks for itself.
 
Today, Germany notionally fields 3 divisions. However, a cursory examination of the Table of Organization of these divisions shows that Germany has one "legitimate" Panzer division, 1st Panzer. It might be a bit light on tanks, but it is at least "close". The next division, 10th Panzer, is actually more of a Panzergrenadier division. Recently attempts have been made to increase its tank strength by the addition of the  Panzerbrigade 45, but that unit is not yet up to strength (and may never be). The third division is the Rapid Forces Division, which is a sweep-together of airborne forces, mountain troops, and anything else that isn't a proper part of an armored division. To all this, one can only say Ouch! Germany was encouraged to take the end of the Cold War seriously. The Russians were understandably concerned about a re-united Germany. Don't scare the bear was a real thing, not just a slogan. Obviously, the German politicians and public were quite happy with their "peace dividend". They eagerly cashed the whole thing. Thus the current generations see no reason they should have to defend their country.
 
The US OTOH only cashed most of our peace dividend. We still had responsibilities in other parts of the world. Today the US has 10 active army divisions. It has exactly ONE armored division. While the switch to Brigade Combat Teams arguably allows the armored component of infantry divisions to provide armor capabilities that isn't at all comparable. The 3rd ACR and the 11th ACR augment the US armored capability, but for sure "they aren't what they were". In 1990 the US had 4 Armored (Panzer) divisions and 8 Mechanized Divisions (Panzergrenadier +/-) divisions. So 12 of our 18 divisions were capable of fighting what a war in Europe was expected to look like.

Three months ago Britain and France were each talking about sending "25,000 Peacekeeping troops to Ukraine (boots on the ground)" -- until the press asked them about the Rules of Engagement: "What if the troops are fired upon by Russians; can they shoot back?  What if they kill Russians; are we at war?"
Britain and France had NO ANSWER. 
It's all bluster from EU -- and Putin knows that.

Maybe. But what if its not totally bluster? What if the UK and France send 25,000 peacekeeping troops without clear rules of engagement? What if they do shoot back? It is IMO a recipe for an accidental war. A poorly resourced and poorly thought out intervention can easily be worse than nothing.

Nobody is going to send 200,000 troops to push Russia out of Eastern Ukraine. 
And that wouldn't do the job against 200,000 mines and artillery.  #StopTheKilling.

Probably not, but coupled with 500 aircraft IMO they easily could force the Russian troops in Ukraine to abandon their position due to logistical collapse. Minefields that can't be defended are pretty easy to lift. Artillery with no ammunition is scrap metal. Of course, the only nation that can provide the 500 aircraft (and probably the 200,000 troops) is the United States. We aren't going to do that, so you are quite correct.

Europe and Obama didn't do much about Crimea either in 2014.

Not much has improved in Europe... 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12...ven-worse/

Quite a bit of truth in this article. Europe isn't "ready" for the current situation, and no new leaders are coming forth that gives one confidence that the way ahead will be any better than the present.