Very nice of him to propose that our kids need to prepare to die for him and his cronies and Von De Leyen lecturing us about the importance of having elected leaders.
He’s just playing Rambo and trying to make it look like European NATO is strong, and that he’s not a loser, after tons of ammo and billions in cash from around 40 countries were sent to Ukraine, thousands of sanctions hit Russia, but none of it slowed the Russians down.
Rutte just calls it "Ukraine is not losing, but the front is moving in the wrong direction."
Look at what happens every time Ukraine (and the Europeans) refuse to accept Russia's terms for ending the conflict. More cash and ammo goes down the drain, Ukraine loses more land and more men, and the country gets destroyed. They only have gas now because Europe keeps supplying it. Power grid is heavily damaged across the country.
But Putin still plays nice. I see people on Telegram talking about why Odessa's ports are still running if Russia could destroy them with missiles so no ships would come to unload or pick up cargo. This would be a massive blow, not only for Ukraine but also countries that have plans related to Odessa ofter the conflict.
Let's be realistic, what fight is Rutte talking about when they have to bring F-16s every time they see a cardboard drone flying overhead?
Most of Europe's ammo got sent to Ukraine, and now only a few countries have anything left for themselves. Some countries are developing new stuff together with Ukraine, but i reckon most of it goes to Ukraine anyway.
He also never mentions the size of Ukraine compared to central European countries. For example, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands combined are smaller than Ukraine.
Look at the size of Ukraine in the middle and the strikes map on the right, then compare it with anything else on the map.
The Russians strike it hard with ground, air, and sea missiles plus drones about once every two weeks.
What Rutte is talking about is just silly. Let’s use AI and check the basics.
This info below is from open sources. Plenty i see is missing, and most of it is just surface level. In reality, nobody knows what Russia really has or the quantities.
Offensive weapons
European NATO countries do not field anything comparable to Iskander, Kinzhal, Oreshnik, or FAB-3000 in operational service. Not in numbers, not in doctrine, and not in current use. Russia built its force around land based missiles, heavy bombs, and mass fires. Europe did not.
Hypersonic and ballistic missiles
Iskander is widely deployed and used. Kinzhal is operational and used. Oreshnik adds MIRVs and longer reach. No European NATO country has an equivalent in service. Programs exist, but they are years away. U.S. systems like Dark Eagle help NATO as a whole, but Europe itself has nothing comparable right now.
Heavy glide bombs
FAB-1500 and FAB-3000 with UMPK kits have no NATO equivalent. A 3-ton bomb simply does not exist in Western inventories anymore. JDAM-ER on 2,000 lb bombs is precise, but it is not the same tool. Russia can flatten hardened positions with one hit. NATO cannot replicate that effect with a single drop.
Drones
Geran-2 is cheap and produced in huge numbers. European NATO countries do not field anything similar at scale. They rely on expensive missiles, fighters, or limited short range systems to shoot them down. That is an unfavorable cost exchange, and everyone in NATO knows it.
Air defence
Europe does have air defence, but it is thin, fragmented, and optimized for peacetime, not mass attacks. Patriots, IRIS-T, NASAMS, SAMP/T exist, but stockpiles are small and coverage is patchy. A lot of systems and missiles did go to Ukraine. That created visible gaps, especially against low cost drones and cruise missiles.
The reality is:
• Almost no European NATO country can defend itself alone
• Most can protect a few critical sites, not their territory
• Low-cost drones exploit a serious gap
• Missile stockpiles are the biggest weakness
• NATO’s defence assumes early warning, fighters, and U.S. systems
Nuclear aviation
Russia runs Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers on a routine basis, armed with nuclear-capable cruise missiles like Kh-55 and Kh-102. These aircraft fly regular patrols and train for nuclear strike missions. No European NATO country fields nuclear bombers. The UK and France rely on submarines for their strategic deterrent, not air-delivered nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Submarines
Russia deploys Borei-class SSBNs with Bulava SLBMs, each carrying multiple warheads. These submarines provide second-strike capability and are continuously modernized. In Europe, only the UK and France operate nuclear ballistic missile submarines, and their fleets are small by design. Germany, Italy, Poland, and others have none at all.
Land-based nuclear forces
Beyond Oreshnik, Russia fields Yars and Sarmat ICBMs, plus nuclear-capable Iskander units across its western regions. This gives Russia layered nuclear options, from tactical to strategic. European NATO countries do not have national land-based nuclear missiles. Some host U.S. B61 bombs under nuclear sharing, but those remain U.S. controlled assets.
Russia has:
• strategic bombers with nuclear cruise missiles
• ballistic missile submarines in regular patrols
• land-based nuclear missiles at all ranges
• a large tactical nuclear inventory
European NATO countries have:
• no independent nuclear aviation
• no land-based nuclear missiles
• only UK and France with SSBNs
• reliance on U.S. nuclear sharing for the rest
Warhead numbers and diversity
Russia holds roughly 5,500 nuclear warheads, with a large share being non-strategic or “tactical” weapons. Europe has no equivalent stockpile. France and the UK together field a few hundred warheads, focused almost entirely on deterrence, not battlefield use.
-----------------
These European warmongers will destroy themselves. No wars needed.
