If it is a multi-national occupation force, the Europeans will be the weak link. Over the last 10 years, Europeans have been vehemently opposed to having their troops in harm's way, especially when they are taking casualties. Even during the American Revolution and War of 1812, the Whig party in Britain was passionately anti-war (which is why loyalists here in the New World were called "Tories.").

I imagine the Europeans will provide most of the aircraft and technological support, while the third-world armies will provide most of the manpower. Convince (via lots of casualties) the Europeans to recall their troops and equipment, and the third-world armies will be SOL and sitting ducks; basically a WWII-quality occupation force. We'll have a target-rich environment and only mediocre resistance.

The X-factor here is China. China has the technology like Europe does, but also has massive numbers of troops AND doesn't regard human life, so the Chi-coms won't mind sending legions and legions of troops to their death. Russia has a similar wartime philosophy.

On equipment: You get what you inspect, not what you expect.
On training: Our drills are bloodless battles so that our battles are bloody drills.
On tactics: Cheating just means you're serious about winning.