You do realize the Peninsular War was a guerilla campaign, right? More Frenchmen served in Spain itself then Russia and the spanish had the largest colonial empire in the world, which was of considerable economic importance even if it did get torn apart by the war.
Why you asking me like I have no idea what we talking about? I provided you with a link to incredibly long and thorough documentary of Napoleon life with hundreds of numbers and details provided about everything and you keep arguing. Spanish campaign started before Russian, was not supervised directly by Napoleon most of the time and economic woes doesnt affected ability of Napoleon to field enormously huge grand army to march towards their demise in Russian wastelands. And if you don't know simple facts that there was plenty of guerilla warfare in Russian campaign including scorched earth tactics, setting Moscow ablaze, cossacs raids etc then I have no intention to discuss this topic with you. You are way ignorant to simple historical facts, it's like arguing with idiot, which never works. You was caught so many times on posting bullshits it's beyond my patience.
> Poland is even less dependent on natural gas then Europe's average, primarily because they are a major coal producer and use much more coal.
No it's not that simple, because you need refit boiler stations infrastructure for heat purposes and replacing gas stoves in houses with electrical ones. Who is going to pay for that? It's grandiose money investment. You make it look like energy of one type is directly replacable with another.
Also
http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/safety.html . Another huge money sink.
> If Europe was willing to absorb some costs they could squash Russia like a bug.
No it's not. You need to read on upcoming talks with China on suborbitant amounts of $$$ on natural gas exports which is going to happen in 2018. I gave link already in this thread. If anything is going to happen, Europe will suffer more in long run. And they know that. And in reality, nothing is going wrong, because EU-Russia ties will grow even stronger. It's a win-win, while US posture is just a bully.
>That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions >to clear the air. If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those >things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.
>Let's discuss the advantages NATO has briefly
Yawn...
>1) Complete air superiority.
Oh, here we go.
Bla bla bla.
NATO aircraft... We have top notch SAM's for that (try to google it). Sheer fact that you unaware it's even exists not doing you any favor. Speaking in Civilization terms, it's stupid to use bombers against cities surrounded by mobile SAMS, if you can't clear land units with tanks, which you have in lower numbers (bar logistical nightmare to field it). NATO indeed have best offensive army in the world. But Russia have best defensive combo in the world. You can't beat SAM's + Tanks. It's not going to happen. And for the record, we have top notch rocket artillery too, but you need to make research yourself (google, starts with I).
Arguments about conscription/poor soldiers is stupid. These machines personnel is highly trained and on professional contracts. Nobody is going to send troops. It's rock-paper-scissors game. SAM against Air, Tanks against Troops, Rocket Artillery against... pretty much anything on land. It's an offensive nightmare. And NATO knows it. It's just you, who not aware.
Troop skills... you gotta be kidding be. We live in the age of materiel warfare, what troops you talking about? Shooting poorly trained arabs with ak's?
