[tolien]

What would that bilateral agreement look like without the organisation just being a wing of NATO though?

The point I got from the GP is that Russia has a massive military force such that any large scale invasion would inevitably go nuclear because NATO is incapable of fielding the conventional force to counter it.

If the Eastern/Central European countries formed their own organisation, unless they could invoke NATO Article 5, how are they supposed to counter the size of the Russian military any more than NATO can?

A multilateral agreement which establishes relationships between the “Eastern Europe Treaty Organisation” and both sides seems like a better idea, but hindsight’s always 20/20 (and those states might not appreciate being treated as a buffer zone…).

[Giorgi]

You do know US is part of the NATO right? What makes you think US can't deploy 3-4 times more powerful conventional force to counter absolutely outdated Russian junk?

[tolien]

Putting aside that US troops have to get there, and might well be deployed elsewhere already…

Russian military active and reserve personnel: 3,490,000

USA military active and reserve personnel: 2,227,200

[rangibaby]

By the early 80s it was clear that NATO outmatched the Warsaw Pact in conventional military strength. The Soviets developed the world’s mort capable anti-tank, anti-ship, and anti-air missiles.

[JohnStrange]

Maybe in hindsight due to a certain perceived technological superiority, but that's far from clear and from the perspective of the 80s the Warsaw Pact was far superior in conventional force by numbers in Europe. See e.g. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_138256.htm?s...

[jononor]

Since then NATO countries in Europe has lowered their military capabilities quite a lot, haven't they?

[_Codemonkeyism]

All NATO countries in Europe currently increase their military spending a lot.