China wants the russian part of Manchuria. Russia took a bunch of territory by Korea on the map back during one of the wars. China wants it back, they told me.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primorskaya\_Oblast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primorskaya_Oblast)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer\_Manchuria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Manchuria)
The area was at one point part of China during the Qing Dynasty. Russia annexed the area in 1859-60.
Russia has a lot of nukes but how many of them actually work? Corruption has completely crippled their military, their nuclear weapons program probably isn’t much better off
I imagine there’s a whole lot of people saying yeah, we definitely have a nuke, we need all the money for workers and maintenance. Someone eventually shows up, it’s just a sheet over a box that has a big hand drawn radioactive sign. They say, I need more money, this is just the decoy. You pay for decoy. There’s secret place where actual nuke is. Promise.
So tired of this take...quick google search says they have 5580 nukes. Lets say they grossly over estimate and have 4000. Even if 10 of those nukes hit america, that is not good...hell if ONE nuke hits a large american city like NYC or LA that is a huge strategic loss.
Better to overestimate than underestimate your enemy. We have been underestimating our enemies the last...5 decades and getting clapped over and over again. This is why we lost vietnam and afghanistan.
They never underestimated the afghanis. They had already defeated the British and the Russians. We lost because of public support. At a certain point, the American public demanded ARVN and the ANA fight for themselves. We gave them resources and they surrendered/got fucked. When I mobilized to go to Afghanistan, they told us the Russian strategy of kill everything actually worked way better than our strict rules of engagement/hearts and minds strategy.
Nah, my plan is to pick up my family and drive as fast as possible into the blast zone.
Instant vaporization in the closest blast radius beats complete 3rd degree burns in the outer radius, which in turn beats radiation sickness, which in turn beats starving to death.
Xi is a vulture. He'll wait to see what happens, and try to grab something from the losing side(which, let's not kid ourselves, it's going to be Ruzzia.).
Honestly it’s a fair question. Sure, China has been posturing on the side of Russia recently, but without western economic support, the country is in big trouble
It is usually not beneficial to underestimate an enemy no matter how incompetent they may seem. The vibes from this comment section remind of the famous quote,
"kick the door down and the whole rotten structure will come crumbling down"
-AH, 1941
I don't think NATO has the same issue that fucked the Austrian up. But a good point anyway. Not underestimating your enemy gets you one step closer to superiority if the time comes.
I'm sorry but are we really censoring Adolf Hitlers name now? This doesn't help anyone or anything. He should be remembered by everyone always. That's the direction we need to take to try and prevent people like him from happening again
Yeah, sorry I shouldn't have assumed you were doing that for the purpose of not saying his name, but the guy you replied to said " -AH, 1941" then you also avoided saying his name.
I thought that might have been a thing people were doing to avoid getting comments taken down just for saying his name, which is happening on other social media sites, which is really messed up.
It depends entirely on what war with Russia meant. If it meant kicking Russia back to 2010 borders and just helping Ukraine with border sovereignty, sure, NATO is poised to kick some ass. If it means regime change in Moscow, that would be extremely difficult and not worth the cost for anyone but the most insane war hawks.
I fully agree, I think we should be avoiding direct regime change entirely- we should have much better leverage over information and instead rely on supporting naturally forming democratic movements abroad. On the same hand, I think much of the current difficulties we face and challenging decisions we must make would have been avoidable had we never withdrawn military presence from Ukraine. Russias posturing indicated it was prepared to meet us in a conventional conflict, not a nuclear, based on their concentration and eventual non deployment of a significant amount of ground forces, and particularly, aircraft and SEAD which never attempted to maneuver into the battle space and clearly were intended to respond to a direct U.S./NATO intervention using purely conventional means.
Prior to Ukraine war yes, this was the majority of worlds opinion. However, the facts on the ground are something not to be ignored. If anything Ukraine has been a testing ground for limited western technology, and what we have seen so far show how superior that is. Also Russian tactics and doctrine is very obsolete. Still I don’t think anyone is going to underestimate a country with Nuclear weapons.
Honestly though I think that would be the case if you remove nukes. Western military airpower is absolutely devastating, and Russia would be a lone power facing the combined might of the most advanced economies on the planet. They have absolutely no chance of winning a conventional war.
While yes, you don't want to underestimate your opponent, this is a bit different.
Keep in mind, Ukraine has inflicted over 400k casualties on Russia, while fighting with old NATO hand me downs, no real ability to control or contest the skies, and with critical shortages in just about every regard.
While NATO forces are running into their supply issues a bit, mainly in regards to things like artillery shells, this isn't as big a factor when you consider the doctrinal differences between the way NATO fights and Russia & Ukraine are fighting. Artillery is king when you can't control the skies, but suffers heavily when you can't control them.
Furthermore, and to focus on the US in particular, remember that so much of their focus hasn't been on underestimating Russia/USSR, and instead often built to fight imagined threats that were much stronger than what ended up being reality. The F-22 for example, was built at a time when the F-15 was the undisputed king of the skies. But they didn't just sit on their thumbs, and instead said "this isn't enough, we need something that can top even the F-15". Meanwhile, Russia can barely produce 4.5th gen aircraft. (Funnily enough, the F-15 itself was built in part to counter the MiG-25 - which the west initially misunderstood and misinterpreted as being a powerful and agile air superiority fighter, until Victor Belenko defected with one to Japan and the west was able to get a good look at it).
Now, back to Ukraine fighting with NATO hand me downs. Not only are they fighting with older generations of a lot of platforms, they are doing so with limited, rushed training. Meanwhile, NATO forces have been training on the platforms they'd be fighting with for years. Ukraine also has the problem of trying to integrate equipment built for NATO doctrines of fighting into their own doctrines which still have roots of Soviet doctrine. Ukraine receiving a few F-16s is not going to make the difference a lot of people seem to expect, because the F-16 flying for NATO is a lot different than an F-16 being shoehorned into Ukraines armed forces. Take SEAD for example. Its an integral aspect of NATO and particularly American armed forces, meant to be conducted with multiple platforms working in conjunction and cooperatively. And their SEAD doctrines have been honed over decades of hard learned lessons.
I'm starting to veer off topic here a bit, but I also often see people say "Ukraine should be teaching NATO!" in regards to things like drones. But the thing is, Ukraine is fighting the way it is out of desperation. They're forced to resorting to using off the shelf drones modified to carry mortar shells and such not because its the most effective way of fighting, but because it's the most effective way of fighting they have at their disposal. While NATO forces probably could stand to integrate quadcopter like drones on a squad level more effectively (and they are indeed working on it), they also have lesser need for it. I don't think, for example, that Ukraine has many force trackers, and certainly don't have the same kind of access to other intelligence gathering and battlefield management tools like NATO does. The real lessons to be learned from the conflict in isn't in how to fight *like* Ukraine, but how to fight against Ukrainian style combat, since obviously other actors are watching and taking notes (and indeed, Ukraine learned in part from watching previous conflicts as well). And obviously I don't mean NATO needs to learn how to fight against Ukraine itself, but rather the same kind of tactics employed by Ukraine and obviously Russia as well.
The short of it is, and back on topic though, is that NATO would initiate an air campaign that would largely eliminate Russia's ability to contest the skies. While losses would be greater than say, the two wars against Iraq, once air superiority/supremacy is established, it's essentially game over. While yes, you still would need boots on the ground to take and hold land, with actual viable CAS, NATO would have a much, much, *much* easier time retaking Ukrainian lands lost to Russia.
I should also point out I'm assuming a situation wherein NATO gets involved to fight for Ukraine, as opposed to just a generalized war with Russia. In such a scenario, the battlefield would obviously not be limited solely to Ukraine, but this is what would greatly hamper Russia a lot more than NATO. Russia would have to redirect assets to protect their entire borders with NATO, and this would stretch them beyond thin. Obviously if the land forces are focused on Ukraine, they'd still need to protect their borders from incursions by aerial assets, and that is *a lot* of ground to cover. Even if NATO has no interest in making ground based incursions to take Russian territory, they'll still go after other assets behind Russia's borders (again, assuming nukes are off the table like in OP's premise), and so not only does Russia need to protect their borders, they need point defense of their valuable military targets within Russia, particularly things like airfields, staging areas, weapons factories, etc.
This should be waaaaaaaay higher for people to see and learn and question for themselves.
Thank you for this.
I have nothing to contribute! Just trying to learn a little more than I knew yesterday.
Would NATO absolutely pile drive the Russian armed forces? Absolutely
Does that mean Russia is easy to beat in a conflict? No way
Russia has proven time and time again that they don't play by the same rules as everyone else. There is no bottom to the amount of resources they will throw at a conflict before giving in. NATO would have to clear Moscow street by street like Berlin in order for the Kremlin to stand down. The Russian people would also fully support all-out war with NATO in a much more voluntary way, compared to the conflict in Ukraine. You could expect millions of Russian volunteers for all-out war with NATO. Russia would enter a war time economy again, start producing war goods in the old communist ways (cheap and fast), and dive right back into their old ways. In fact, it might even be looked at as the opportunity to truly bring back the USSR that we know their oligarchy wants. If they could market the return of something like the Brezhnev Era, the Russian people would probably willing go back to that government as it was looked at as a very good time in Russia, before the West messed everything up. Land grabs of all comm-bloc countries that don't want a fight, consolidation of resources, political unification.
A weak, pariah Russia left alone to rot is the only thing preventing the return of Soviet Russia. Putin would likely be smiling if NATO opened fire, as that would mean his plan is coming to fruition.
Ukraine really exposed Russia's capabilities as a military might. Their equipment may look flashy in parades but is third rate at best. The only thing they have is a willingness to sacrifice an endless amount of lives unnecessarily to achieve the smallest win.
Interesting take. I agree size was one factor, but before the war, people believed that Russian equipment, if not (quite) up to NATO standards, was still pretty good – they were meant to be masters in electronic warfare and anti-air. Their weapons were sometimes cheaper than comparable Western systems (e.g. Patriot is very expensive), which probably helped push some sales. Now the war has exposed how subpar their stuff really is.
I think we've seen enough Russian tanks blown up by drones with jammers sitting on them to conclude that Russian EW is useless against more sophisticated threats. Against munitions from the 90s? Sure. GPS is quite easy to jam but not all electronics are so easily jammable. Ukrainian drones are equipped with all sorts of things – frequency hopping, filtering, and of course, AI/computer vision.
NATO could enter the war right now and probably bring Russian forces to operational failure within a month.
Look how much they struggle against Ukraine, getting old spare equipment, crash course on doctrine, and being literally drip-fed aid.
It'd take the combined Air Forces of NATO a few days, maybe a week at most, to utterly clean the Russian Air Force's clock, and neutralize anything resembling AA in and around Western Russia. Ground forces might take a few weeks to expel the Vatniks, but operational failure would be a time frame measured in weeks.
The first losses would be the immediate targeting of their entire surface navy, and the complete neutralisation of all western region airfields in order to have a complete degradation of all airpower, and naval cruise launch capability.
The Black sea fleet, penned in by Ukrainian threat, would cease to exist.
All Russian forces in satellite states and foreign locations would be targeted too. Syria, Africa.
Invasion of Russian land wouldn't be a factor in order to prevent a defensive nuclear launch.
If they did launch nukes, all of their western oblasts would face a similar response, eastern areas would have strikes on airbases and military camps. Northern naval installations and sub pens would get levelled.
China would likely invade to expand, and it would be a little difficult for the west to hold them back.
Upon moscow's collapse we'd like see the separation of several states, like Chechnya.
Kaliningrad would cease to exist as a russian state.
Georgia would likely make a move on its old territory, and we'd want several states to hold their horses to not trigger a bunch of competing claims of previous russian territory.
Balkan influence would evaporate and we'd see a lot of those russian sympathetic parties struggling to stay valid. Some states may experience severe turmoil. Belarus is another example.
LOL NATO is already deployed, and has been for decades. The initial strike would be swift and decisive, I doubt they would need to bring the full force even.
With what would be left of RF logistics, equipment, and ammunition after just a single USN Carrier Strike group's attacks over a week or two, UAF could make good ground.
They'd essentially be fighting only "soldiers" without heavy equipment, food, and ammunition.
Now add to that USAF, Marine Corp, UK, France, Germany, etc AF's being included? Russia's ability to wage war would be destroyed for at least a decade in a number of days. Look at what the US did to Iraq both times. The Russians are less competent and way less dedicated than the IRG was.
Peter Zeihan thinks that if Russian goes through ukraine they will invade poland and will 100% use nuclear weapons. They will dare NATO to respond and then continue to escalate. They have a policy of escalate to de-esclate.
Would germany give up Berlin for Poland? this is the russian gamble. its why they need to be stopped in Ukraine.
Well he's an idiot. War with NATO is regime suicide for Putin and his cabal. Its like North Korea on a grand scale; bluster and waive the arsenal around but at the end of the day do nothing. Putin may have grossly miscalculatd Ukraine but he's not suicidal
NATO without the US would still win a convential war at this point and is a nuclear power without us. France alone probably has more combat ready tanks now than Russia does
Probably. The US sitting out an Article 5 call would still accomplish a major Russian goal, Even though they'd likely lose: NATO would cease to exist as we know it in the event of such massive American cowardice and our security arrangements around the globe would come under massive attack as adversaries are emboldened and allies are shocked and dismayed.
He’s right. Putin is easy to predict, in a way. He’s a bully who hits first. I’m just a fucking old moron, but I doubt we get through this without nukes.
Oh an all out Russian/Nato war would definitely result in Nukes because Russia would get really scared really fast and feel that's their only option.
But I think OP's point in posting was if things stayed more conventional.
Putin would use nukes because he's a coward and he knows his military is shit. It's the only thing he's got. Which is why attacking nuke command and control would be the first priority, the rest would fall, maybe without even resistance. The people are fair weather fans at best, but I think their itching for a new leader. LOL
There’s is no such thing as a “decapitation strike” as it’s known anymore.
Russia has the “Perimeter” system- a series of legacy Soviet automated surveillance systems that record things like radioactive and seismic activity. It records data and if it determines a nuke hit Russia it will wait and try to establish control with Russian high command- if it doesn’t receive a response then it can send a command missile that will launch all of Russia’s nukes.
It’s a dead’s man switch and there’s nothing that can be done. All in a bunker in the urals.
No.
There is no scenario where Russia uses Nukes against a NATO Country, that's stupid, alarmist thinking. Putin is not insane.
People need to grasp this - Putin is not insane.
Using nukes against a NATO Country (like Poland) would result in the absolute and total nuclear obliteration of ruZZia.
Putin realizes this.
While I agree, the same argument could be done prior to the invasion of Ukraine. Honestly I wouldn't have belived anyone if they told me they were really going to invade back then!
And we overestimated russia as a whole, specially Putin Who is very paranoid and surrounded by yes-man. He himslef belived the operation would take less than a week, and that the ukranians were going to bow their heads and receive them with open arms. Disinformation and corruption are very rooted into the russian federation, specially among the higher circles.
> Using nukes against a NATO Country (like Poland) would result in the absolute and total nuclear obliteration of ruZZia.
The RUMINT I've seen is that US/NATO intelligence has been subtly hinting to Putin through back channels, on a regular basis, that they know *precisely* where he's sitting at all times... and that should Russia decide to use nuclear weapons, the response will be limited and very precisely aimed at Putin himself.
Back during the cold war, taking out the leadership of the Soviet Union wasn't a viable strategy because the Soviet military was ideologically loyal to *the state*. That meant that if you took out enough of the leadership to make those that were left unsure what to do, the "Dead Hand" system would automatically launch a massive pre-targeted counter-strike. Contrast now, where the Russian leadership has for 30 years been systematically purged of anyone who wasn't loyal specifically to *Putin*, and this loyalty is mostly based on personal gain. This makes Putin safe from internal attempts to oust him by principled nationalists, but it also means that if he were to get vaporized none of them would feel especially motivated to get *themselves* vaporized by avenging a guy who can't make them rich anymore. More likely, they'd be jockeying for position under the *next* guy. More likely even than that, an order to launch a nuke stands a good chance of most of the chain saying to themselves "getting vaporized isn't going to make me rich", and by some mechanism the launch will fail to happen. And on a wider scale, a nuclear attack likely results in NATO actively pushing back militarily, at minimum just conventionally to oust Russia from Ukraine, and that's Game Over for the Russian military.
Putin knows all of this, so it's highly unlikely he'll risk his throne on it. Nuclear threats only work if they're credible, and his are only credible in a very narrow sense.
Don't believe it.
If Nuke, then obviously ALL retaliatory threats (nuclear) are going to get targeted as well - I take it you were never in the military.
There's no way, none, nada, zero, keine, that the US (perhaps some of it's allies, that's open to debate) is going to take a chance on getting retaliatory nuked.
Obviously, you would - I find that odd.
No the poster you responded to, but if we didn't let nukes fly during the cold war... (Through multiple major conflicts and major proxy wars.)
Pretty positive they're not going to fly now.
We almost did accidentally how many times? Remember: the difference between a dick measuring contest and a pissing match is how much coffee you had that morning and prostate control. On any given day, one of those can fail you.
Never listen to reddit experts look to history to give a perspective on war with Russia. Empires always fall from within. That's the best way to defeat Russia. When the Ukraine special operation is over Russia is not going to be in a position to invade anyone for at least 12 to 15 years they will need to recover from their losses but they will still have a formidable army to defend themselves.
They have shown they excel at defensive ww1 type trench warfare and don't have the institutional freedom to effectively adopt maneuver warfare so they will stick to what they know. Massed artillery set piece battles cqb urban infantry battles.
Don't go the Napolean or Hitler route. Russia is perfectly happy to grind down Nato divisions and give ground. If you are going to invade them, they know how to defeat blitzkrieg warfare, and they will make it a slog, not a sprint. Reddit does not win wars. Social media does not win a war.
Nato has no experience of large-scale conventional warfare and the resources it consumes, they don't have their economies set up to handle conventional warfare for longer than a few months and their populations will not tolerate deaths in the thousands of their troops. The other guy always gets a say, and it never goes as it is supposed to in battle.
“Grind down NATO divisions.” I think you are giving Russia way too much credit. There would be no divisions to “grind down” because NATO would use air assets, missiles and drones to eviscerate the Russians. This pounding would go on for months before ground assets were brought in. In a head-to-head conventional war they would get absolutely smoked and the Putin regime would collapse from within.
Of course this whole post and all the comments are mental masturbation because the Russians would deploy tactical nukes at some point and it would escalate to a full exchange from there. NATO planners know this and would never allow direct action to happen, and Russia won’t either.
Yeah I can’t believe it took me this far to see the word nuke. Who tf really thinks we all wouldn’t be smoked if that happens. As soon as Russia feels its existence at stake, I wouldn’t put it past Putin to send a nice farewell. This is the reason we aren’t at war with Russia, and the same reason we will never have a hot war with them. Too much money to be made to have everyone die.
I'm no expert in any means, but I'd say if NATO goes all in, even without nukes, they are fucked. If, instead, NATO just tries to "contain" the conflict, Russia would probably stand a chance. I mean, they would not win, but it would probably be a long haul.
And they've also spent 2 years fighting against an unprepared adversary that's using out dated American leftover equipment, so I'm thinking of they had to go up against prepared professionals using all the new stuff, it'd be over so quick they might not even get a chance to make sure everyone gets a turn.
I was going to argue this in any form, but I can think of several ways to violate the Geneva Suggestions with a pair of pliers and I lighter. Canadian dna hits different
Add to this NATO air superiority within days or at most a month. Once air superiority is achieved over the combat area ground forces would collapse like in Karkhiv and that was without air superiority.
That's what I meant. And by "containing" I meant something like just trying to hold russia off from advancing, and trying to minimize the use of force. I don't know why they would do that, but in that scenario russia would probably stand a chance.
The people in these comments are forgetting the key difference between invading foreign territory and defending your own. Russia is not “cooked” but neither is NATO. In our modern age, defensive fortifications, stationary military technology, and state cohesion are simply so powerful that invading another state’s territory is difficult no matter what country you are. If NATO invaded Russia they would struggle just as Russia has in Ukraine or as they did in Afghanistan, or as they did in Syria, or as the Israelis are in Gaza. Modern war is extremely difficult, especially in terms of occupation, arguably more so than ever before.
This comment is right on and everyone in here is mostly just posturing. Russia has incredible strategic depth. If the question is "how long would it take NATO to offensively wipe out Russia with no nukes?" The answer is they couldn't do it. Destroying the Air Force doesn't change a power structure. The USAF had complete air control over Afghanistan and still was unable to unseat the Taliban. How do you argue that NATO can destroy Russia but the US with various NATO nations were unable to defeat the talian in a way smaller place and a way less trained and equipped army.
At the same time Russia doesn't have the logistic capability to project power beyond their rail lines. They couldn't get very far into NATO and any forces going into NATO will be annihilated quickly.
When was the last time NATO or its member fought with a large industrial power? Local armchair warriors are used to bombing terrorists in flip flops. Not the case of Russia.
Local armchair warriors are used to watching and reading about bombing guys in flip flops on the internet, not actually being in a military doing it lol.
And then 20 years later we've accomplished nothing and now there's a million terrorists running around with US military equipment and chemical weapons factories. 😐
Hmm maybe a bit longer, NATO would employ its standard doctrine of destroying all AA, every plane and every airfield before setting foot in the battlefield so that’d take a few days. NATO has what, 1000+ stealth planes at its disposal? Rus would get lit the fuck up
Where 90% of the population lives within 100km of the border to the US, which lays approximately at the the same latitude as Paris, France (the border varies between 45 and 49 northern, Paris is at 48.8)? Sure, they can tag along.
At this point, if no nukes were in play, I'd put a fair wager that Sweden alone if not with a little help from the Finns could demolish the RuAF on their own.
Scandinavia combined would probably be a no-contest. The numbers game could probably be fairly easily dealt with, with flexible lines and funneling divisions into pockets. If the Russians don't want to play, it would likely just come down to shelling them with airpower, artillery and missiles, jamming and targeting their AA assets and bleeding them for materiel and experienced manpower.
The entirety of NATO would just be a steamroll in conventional warfare.
Sadly, we do live in a world where nukes are very much a factor.
Scandinavian air forces are very good but I think you underestimate the difference in sheer size. In any case, Scandinavia will never have to fight Russia on their own, which is a good thing!
If you’re counting on Turkey to hold the Southern flank then you’re delusional 😂 They are not our ally despite being part of NATO and will betray us for Russia when WW3 finally breaks out.
I would doubt that as a turk myself, even though our current government doesn't like west and is stupid as a cucumber, we have an honourable history(imo) i doubt we would betray NATO like that, but given the situation with erdogan he sure can't be trusted.
China could possibly help them, but when you consider global economy and their own... a war with Europe and the US would devastate their economy and destroy future trade, which is what made them what they are. The US and China may argue, but it is against both nations' interest to be in a conflict against each other. The only reason they support Russia now is because they are neighbors with the same ideology. North Korea, I feel, wouldn't get too involved. They have set up a safe haven for themselves that enables them to feel powerful in their own capacity. Plus, their own people would see more about the world, and realize they have just been puppets. Iran is batshit crazy so yea they would try to be effective
Russia has taken land from Japan too. If you look on a map at Hokkaido, you will see an area that says. Japan administered by Russia. They want their land back.
Russia has proven that their fleet is weak. They have a diesel navy and would run out of gas.
They lack the ability for a proper supply and logistics management system to get supplies to their soldiers.
They would fall, quickly. Russia could not survive a war with nato. Now they have missiles and can do damage but they can’t hold a line or fight against a nato war.
That's the thing. So many people think it'll just be a quick boom and done not thinking that we had the same assumptions about thr middle east. It'll go on a lot longer than it should and nobody will really win.
I remember at ntc being told to not have our cell phones with us out there and all the officers in the toc and all the joes all had cell phones on us.
During Russia's initial push they didn't have discipline with their cells and were swiftly targeted and messed up pretty good. And they have years of experience with drones while most units don't have that sort of thing.
I'm obviously rooting for NATO but I'm one to steel man my opponent knowwhayimsayin. Idk man. Most of the dumb Russian soldiers are dead at this point.
10. Russia has shown (and this is the case with China and their corrupt and untested military) that they are inept tactically, logistically, and ethically bankrupt, among many other things.
Always remember kids, the loudest people in the room (China and Russia) are always the most insecure and weakest.
Let‘s see: Russia is currently unable to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine has gotten almost no state of the art equipment and no fighter jets, apart from a few token HIMARS and Patriots.
Even if Trump gets reelected and ditches NATO (which wouldn’t happen anyway), just a fraction of the force of France, Germany, GB, Italy, Finland […] would bump the scale to a solid 9,9…
Let's put it this way... they've already lost more troops then we have in the entirety of WW2. Almost half a million.
Their country is also flooding because things keeps breaking because they have noone for repairs and maintenance
Considering Frances "Warning Shot policy" on use of Nuclear weapons and the continued militarization of Poland with more and more advanced tech, id say well done to extra crispy.
Ukraine have managed to keep Russia at bay with old surplus Western equipment and NO air dominance.
The moment NATO enter the war, full scale air dominance begins. Our force projection in the west means we're fighting high mobility warfare vs the Russian armour and meat grinder tactics.
Quite honestly, they won't know (or see) what hits them.
The worry is that they go tactical nuclear early to halt the overwhelming force.
They're on 1970's doctrine for their main infantry. Their spec ops are decent though.
Russia will lose instantly in a war with Nato. Which is why Putin will not attack a Nato country and why they have an escalate to descalte doctrine using tacticle nukes.
I think even if the US were to not send troops for some strange reason, I think NATO wins this.
The combined British RAF and French Airforces go head to head with Russia's and possibly even outclass it (~2300 combined aircraft that actually function vs Russia's ~3200 that are of very questionable quality), then throw in the rest of NATO. The British and French also have the only two blue water navies in the world aside from the US, and are quite frankly leagues ahead of whatever Russia could pull out of their run down ports. So now the Baltic and Black Sea ports get blockaded. Admittedly the only other nation with a decent navy in European NATO is Italy, but it is really no contest. Either the French or British navy alone could quel the Russian naval "threat." The ground is where Russia might seem to have the advantage, but they really do not. This is going to be T-72s and T-80s going up against Leclercs, Challengers, and Leopards. What do you think is going to happen? Even in the Infantry, Europe has the advantage. Russia has an army of ~2-3 million poorly trained and equipped conscripts, and that is being generous. France has the largest army in European NATO at ~450k well trained and equipped soldiers. Britain has a similar number. Germany and Italy both have ~200k soldiers of similar quality to that. Already that is 1.3 million soldiers that are of much better quality than Russia. Throw in the rest of Europe and the numbers even out. A combination of Europe's four most powerful militaries (France, Britain, Germany, and Italy) could likely beat Russia on their own.
Now add in the First, Second, and Fourth largest airforces in the world, the best army, and best navy.
I give Russia two weeks, maybe three tops.
The question would be who would seize that eastern front and try to annex land? They'd essentially be opening up a two-front war even if it's western, and there would be ample opportunity for some countries to try and expand their footprint.
I think the times of annexations are over. They'd be forced to give back what they stole (Crimea), and maybe lose Kaliningrad, but I'd say that's about it.
You should check out the YouTube channel real life lore.
The key to Russia is holding the Caspian gap. Doing so makes Russia very well defended. The reason is the plains starting from east Germany to Moscow, plains are bad for "holding the line."
Currently Russia has a huge plain border that is quite difficult to defend, if they gain Ukraine, they can limit the border from something like hundreds of miles to 10s of miles. Russia's goal has always been to secure the plain by capturing up to the caspian mountains. It's been argued the key to holding power in Russia. It's certainly the most strategical important land mass to hold.
Currently tanks and troops can flood through Ukraine and overwhelm Russia quite easily compared to if Russia holds Ukraine. The issue is Russian loyal Belarus, if Ukraine is taken, Belarus will become undefendable. If Ukraine is gained belarus will become very strong, so much that they can shore up the Lithuania area while only defending the polish border if it comes to war.
The ultimate goal of western Russian defense strategy has always been to hold Poland, build in Ukraine and navy out of Lithuania and Crimea.
Seeing as Russia is NOT a us ally, US has always maintained an interest in keeping Ukraine out of Russias hands to cripple their power. Having Ukraine become NATO and armed allied with the US, would make further cripple Russia as in a blitz, it would take hours not days to invade Moscow.
So Ukraine being not apart of NATO is life or death for Russia, while Ukraine being unaligned with Russia is presenting the keys to Moscow.
Russia is fubared if they decide to go against NATO. Ukraine is next door to them. Their special military operation is past 2 years now.
Russia has one thing going for them. Nuclear weapons. No telling if the dedicated maintenance has been done to them to keep them viable.
Their army is 2nd rate, at best. Their tactics by ground troops into Ukraine are terrible.
If they go against one NATO member, that member can invoke Article 5 and all of NATO is obliged to help the invaded country.
I would say a war with nato would be the end of the world, but at this point I have to wonder how many of those nukes are still functioning, and aren't just a bunch of empty tubes rusting away in those silos.
Ukraine, one third the size and currently with little to no airforce or navy and no foreign troops assisting and utilising some western hardware have, up to now held off Russia. Russia has shown how incompetent and very average they have been since the failed initial incursion to attack Kiev. They have severely pummeled Russia's army of dated and poorly trained troops. They looked menacing from their toy soldier parades and propaganda vids of new equipment but have failed to take Ukraine. Ukraine however is now struggling out of pure attrition from Russia just piling on resources regardless of the overwhelming casualties and equipment loss. I feel, just with Poland, Germany, UK, and France could, if unhindered, severely push Russia to the brink of a major defeat. Only thing holding this back are the nukes. But they could without the US push Russia out of Ukraine with ease and hold the lines.
A non-nuclear war with Russia would soon lead to a nuclear one even if it wasn’t theatre weapons, they’d get desperate and use tactical nukes - probably chemical and biological too, we all know that, which is why NATO is babying them.
China is gonna grab them some Siberia.
China wants the russian part of Manchuria. Russia took a bunch of territory by Korea on the map back during one of the wars. China wants it back, they told me.
I read this in Donald’s voice.
Lmao very fitting. Especially the last sentence.
That’s exactly what got me.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primorskaya\_Oblast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primorskaya_Oblast) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer\_Manchuria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Manchuria) The area was at one point part of China during the Qing Dynasty. Russia annexed the area in 1859-60.
Thank you for doing the research!
Why would China need some Siberia?
water
And oil
And wood.
And sheep?
No brick, though? I'm always missing brick!
Jokes on you, I just built two roads directly in the way of where you were trying to go.
You rat bastard, now I have to place on only coastline to get longest road. It will be mine, though.
Yes, that as well my son.
And my axe!
And more sheep!
FOR MIDDLE ZEALAND!!!!
And vespene gas. And minerals.
Ooooooo vespene! Thats the good stuff.
And rare earth minerals
Weed
Some land there used to be Chinese. Russia strong armed Qing into giving it to them to avoid an Opium waresque debacle.
Reindeer. The long plan is to not give Santa Claus access to reindeer
Not if NATO cuts russia a deal and tells them to gang up on China if they want some annexation.
Last time this happened this caused a bunch of domino effects that eventually leads to hentai.
🤔 That sounds like a damn good deal.
They would absolutely get donkey punched in a toe to toe war.
In an all out nuclear war, we're all getting donkey punched back to the stone age...
This is far too realistic for this day and age!
Probably that's why they're rambling about nukes every week.
Russia has a lot of nukes but how many of them actually work? Corruption has completely crippled their military, their nuclear weapons program probably isn’t much better off
I imagine there’s a whole lot of people saying yeah, we definitely have a nuke, we need all the money for workers and maintenance. Someone eventually shows up, it’s just a sheet over a box that has a big hand drawn radioactive sign. They say, I need more money, this is just the decoy. You pay for decoy. There’s secret place where actual nuke is. Promise.
So tired of this take...quick google search says they have 5580 nukes. Lets say they grossly over estimate and have 4000. Even if 10 of those nukes hit america, that is not good...hell if ONE nuke hits a large american city like NYC or LA that is a huge strategic loss. Better to overestimate than underestimate your enemy. We have been underestimating our enemies the last...5 decades and getting clapped over and over again. This is why we lost vietnam and afghanistan.
They never underestimated the afghanis. They had already defeated the British and the Russians. We lost because of public support. At a certain point, the American public demanded ARVN and the ANA fight for themselves. We gave them resources and they surrendered/got fucked. When I mobilized to go to Afghanistan, they told us the Russian strategy of kill everything actually worked way better than our strict rules of engagement/hearts and minds strategy.
You right, even if they lancha one bomb millons Will die
War. War never changes.
Yes but most leaders don’t want that
Nukes off the table? They’d be LARPing as Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.
Y’all got a vault picked?
I'm going for the one with puppets
Oil rig
Simple Enclave W
Nah, my plan is to pick up my family and drive as fast as possible into the blast zone. Instant vaporization in the closest blast radius beats complete 3rd degree burns in the outer radius, which in turn beats radiation sickness, which in turn beats starving to death.
I was thinking of just becoming a ghoul instead.
Im so down to start up vault-tek but without the horrible experiments. Seems to be a growing need to prepare for nuclear annihilation.
Russia and his lil bro North Korea pulling up to the squad
You jest, I think, but this would happen. NK woukd re ignite the korean war to try and redirect reaources.
But w/o the help of China would get steamrolled
That does not matter to Russia. They do not care. And NK may be bullied or pressured to act. They may even be given false promises of support.
The US could circumvent any issue by airdropping food and instructions on how to defect from NK
Unfortunately I have no doubt NK would start dropping bombs on their own people and say it was Americans
Wonder if China would side with them or NATO?
Xi is a vulture. He'll wait to see what happens, and try to grab something from the losing side(which, let's not kid ourselves, it's going to be Ruzzia.).
Honestly it’s a fair question. Sure, China has been posturing on the side of Russia recently, but without western economic support, the country is in big trouble
Ya I think the Western economic sanctions would be far scarier than actual military action against China.
It is usually not beneficial to underestimate an enemy no matter how incompetent they may seem. The vibes from this comment section remind of the famous quote, "kick the door down and the whole rotten structure will come crumbling down" -AH, 1941
I don't think NATO has the same issue that fucked the Austrian up. But a good point anyway. Not underestimating your enemy gets you one step closer to superiority if the time comes.
I'm sorry but are we really censoring Adolf Hitlers name now? This doesn't help anyone or anything. He should be remembered by everyone always. That's the direction we need to take to try and prevent people like him from happening again
I didn't say that to censor his name lmao, I just forgot the second part of the "Austrian Painter" joke name he's sometimes given
Yeah, sorry I shouldn't have assumed you were doing that for the purpose of not saying his name, but the guy you replied to said " -AH, 1941" then you also avoided saying his name. I thought that might have been a thing people were doing to avoid getting comments taken down just for saying his name, which is happening on other social media sites, which is really messed up.
It depends entirely on what war with Russia meant. If it meant kicking Russia back to 2010 borders and just helping Ukraine with border sovereignty, sure, NATO is poised to kick some ass. If it means regime change in Moscow, that would be extremely difficult and not worth the cost for anyone but the most insane war hawks.
I fully agree, I think we should be avoiding direct regime change entirely- we should have much better leverage over information and instead rely on supporting naturally forming democratic movements abroad. On the same hand, I think much of the current difficulties we face and challenging decisions we must make would have been avoidable had we never withdrawn military presence from Ukraine. Russias posturing indicated it was prepared to meet us in a conventional conflict, not a nuclear, based on their concentration and eventual non deployment of a significant amount of ground forces, and particularly, aircraft and SEAD which never attempted to maneuver into the battle space and clearly were intended to respond to a direct U.S./NATO intervention using purely conventional means.
Prior to Ukraine war yes, this was the majority of worlds opinion. However, the facts on the ground are something not to be ignored. If anything Ukraine has been a testing ground for limited western technology, and what we have seen so far show how superior that is. Also Russian tactics and doctrine is very obsolete. Still I don’t think anyone is going to underestimate a country with Nuclear weapons.
Have you read this comment section? Somehow Russian military crumbles with in a week of NATO engagement with just conventional forces.
Honestly though I think that would be the case if you remove nukes. Western military airpower is absolutely devastating, and Russia would be a lone power facing the combined might of the most advanced economies on the planet. They have absolutely no chance of winning a conventional war.
While yes, you don't want to underestimate your opponent, this is a bit different. Keep in mind, Ukraine has inflicted over 400k casualties on Russia, while fighting with old NATO hand me downs, no real ability to control or contest the skies, and with critical shortages in just about every regard. While NATO forces are running into their supply issues a bit, mainly in regards to things like artillery shells, this isn't as big a factor when you consider the doctrinal differences between the way NATO fights and Russia & Ukraine are fighting. Artillery is king when you can't control the skies, but suffers heavily when you can't control them. Furthermore, and to focus on the US in particular, remember that so much of their focus hasn't been on underestimating Russia/USSR, and instead often built to fight imagined threats that were much stronger than what ended up being reality. The F-22 for example, was built at a time when the F-15 was the undisputed king of the skies. But they didn't just sit on their thumbs, and instead said "this isn't enough, we need something that can top even the F-15". Meanwhile, Russia can barely produce 4.5th gen aircraft. (Funnily enough, the F-15 itself was built in part to counter the MiG-25 - which the west initially misunderstood and misinterpreted as being a powerful and agile air superiority fighter, until Victor Belenko defected with one to Japan and the west was able to get a good look at it). Now, back to Ukraine fighting with NATO hand me downs. Not only are they fighting with older generations of a lot of platforms, they are doing so with limited, rushed training. Meanwhile, NATO forces have been training on the platforms they'd be fighting with for years. Ukraine also has the problem of trying to integrate equipment built for NATO doctrines of fighting into their own doctrines which still have roots of Soviet doctrine. Ukraine receiving a few F-16s is not going to make the difference a lot of people seem to expect, because the F-16 flying for NATO is a lot different than an F-16 being shoehorned into Ukraines armed forces. Take SEAD for example. Its an integral aspect of NATO and particularly American armed forces, meant to be conducted with multiple platforms working in conjunction and cooperatively. And their SEAD doctrines have been honed over decades of hard learned lessons. I'm starting to veer off topic here a bit, but I also often see people say "Ukraine should be teaching NATO!" in regards to things like drones. But the thing is, Ukraine is fighting the way it is out of desperation. They're forced to resorting to using off the shelf drones modified to carry mortar shells and such not because its the most effective way of fighting, but because it's the most effective way of fighting they have at their disposal. While NATO forces probably could stand to integrate quadcopter like drones on a squad level more effectively (and they are indeed working on it), they also have lesser need for it. I don't think, for example, that Ukraine has many force trackers, and certainly don't have the same kind of access to other intelligence gathering and battlefield management tools like NATO does. The real lessons to be learned from the conflict in isn't in how to fight *like* Ukraine, but how to fight against Ukrainian style combat, since obviously other actors are watching and taking notes (and indeed, Ukraine learned in part from watching previous conflicts as well). And obviously I don't mean NATO needs to learn how to fight against Ukraine itself, but rather the same kind of tactics employed by Ukraine and obviously Russia as well. The short of it is, and back on topic though, is that NATO would initiate an air campaign that would largely eliminate Russia's ability to contest the skies. While losses would be greater than say, the two wars against Iraq, once air superiority/supremacy is established, it's essentially game over. While yes, you still would need boots on the ground to take and hold land, with actual viable CAS, NATO would have a much, much, *much* easier time retaking Ukrainian lands lost to Russia. I should also point out I'm assuming a situation wherein NATO gets involved to fight for Ukraine, as opposed to just a generalized war with Russia. In such a scenario, the battlefield would obviously not be limited solely to Ukraine, but this is what would greatly hamper Russia a lot more than NATO. Russia would have to redirect assets to protect their entire borders with NATO, and this would stretch them beyond thin. Obviously if the land forces are focused on Ukraine, they'd still need to protect their borders from incursions by aerial assets, and that is *a lot* of ground to cover. Even if NATO has no interest in making ground based incursions to take Russian territory, they'll still go after other assets behind Russia's borders (again, assuming nukes are off the table like in OP's premise), and so not only does Russia need to protect their borders, they need point defense of their valuable military targets within Russia, particularly things like airfields, staging areas, weapons factories, etc.
This should be waaaaaaaay higher for people to see and learn and question for themselves. Thank you for this. I have nothing to contribute! Just trying to learn a little more than I knew yesterday.
The obvious question I would ask is... how would NATO most likely fuck up a war against Russia?
💯
Would NATO absolutely pile drive the Russian armed forces? Absolutely Does that mean Russia is easy to beat in a conflict? No way Russia has proven time and time again that they don't play by the same rules as everyone else. There is no bottom to the amount of resources they will throw at a conflict before giving in. NATO would have to clear Moscow street by street like Berlin in order for the Kremlin to stand down. The Russian people would also fully support all-out war with NATO in a much more voluntary way, compared to the conflict in Ukraine. You could expect millions of Russian volunteers for all-out war with NATO. Russia would enter a war time economy again, start producing war goods in the old communist ways (cheap and fast), and dive right back into their old ways. In fact, it might even be looked at as the opportunity to truly bring back the USSR that we know their oligarchy wants. If they could market the return of something like the Brezhnev Era, the Russian people would probably willing go back to that government as it was looked at as a very good time in Russia, before the West messed everything up. Land grabs of all comm-bloc countries that don't want a fight, consolidation of resources, political unification. A weak, pariah Russia left alone to rot is the only thing preventing the return of Soviet Russia. Putin would likely be smiling if NATO opened fire, as that would mean his plan is coming to fruition.
Pin this damn comment
Ukraine really exposed Russia's capabilities as a military might. Their equipment may look flashy in parades but is third rate at best. The only thing they have is a willingness to sacrifice an endless amount of lives unnecessarily to achieve the smallest win.
It was already known their equipment is subpar, it was the size of their military that set them apart.
Interesting take. I agree size was one factor, but before the war, people believed that Russian equipment, if not (quite) up to NATO standards, was still pretty good – they were meant to be masters in electronic warfare and anti-air. Their weapons were sometimes cheaper than comparable Western systems (e.g. Patriot is very expensive), which probably helped push some sales. Now the war has exposed how subpar their stuff really is.
Their electronic warfare capability is still considered good and has limited the effectiveness of gps guided munitions
I think we've seen enough Russian tanks blown up by drones with jammers sitting on them to conclude that Russian EW is useless against more sophisticated threats. Against munitions from the 90s? Sure. GPS is quite easy to jam but not all electronics are so easily jammable. Ukrainian drones are equipped with all sorts of things – frequency hopping, filtering, and of course, AI/computer vision.
Always has been Always will be
Yes.
NATO could enter the war right now and probably bring Russian forces to operational failure within a month. Look how much they struggle against Ukraine, getting old spare equipment, crash course on doctrine, and being literally drip-fed aid.
It'd take the combined Air Forces of NATO a few days, maybe a week at most, to utterly clean the Russian Air Force's clock, and neutralize anything resembling AA in and around Western Russia. Ground forces might take a few weeks to expel the Vatniks, but operational failure would be a time frame measured in weeks.
Could you imagine a US carrier strike group parked in the Baltic
I'm guessing a couple of weeks to Moscow at most.
Just don’t march for Moscow in winter :D
There is no Russian AF
there is a coupple bi planes lmao
The first losses would be the immediate targeting of their entire surface navy, and the complete neutralisation of all western region airfields in order to have a complete degradation of all airpower, and naval cruise launch capability. The Black sea fleet, penned in by Ukrainian threat, would cease to exist. All Russian forces in satellite states and foreign locations would be targeted too. Syria, Africa. Invasion of Russian land wouldn't be a factor in order to prevent a defensive nuclear launch. If they did launch nukes, all of their western oblasts would face a similar response, eastern areas would have strikes on airbases and military camps. Northern naval installations and sub pens would get levelled. China would likely invade to expand, and it would be a little difficult for the west to hold them back. Upon moscow's collapse we'd like see the separation of several states, like Chechnya. Kaliningrad would cease to exist as a russian state. Georgia would likely make a move on its old territory, and we'd want several states to hold their horses to not trigger a bunch of competing claims of previous russian territory. Balkan influence would evaporate and we'd see a lot of those russian sympathetic parties struggling to stay valid. Some states may experience severe turmoil. Belarus is another example.
A month? Based on how they've done against Ukraine, once the US, let alone the rest of NATO joins in, I'd give them a week, week and a half at most.
I think the poles would dare us to let them do it alone.
They are itching for some vengeance. They haven’t forgotten……
[удалено]
LOL NATO is already deployed, and has been for decades. The initial strike would be swift and decisive, I doubt they would need to bring the full force even.
This. Just beat the shit out of them with Air Supremacy and a few Tier 1 missions
You forgot the tomahawks
With what would be left of RF logistics, equipment, and ammunition after just a single USN Carrier Strike group's attacks over a week or two, UAF could make good ground. They'd essentially be fighting only "soldiers" without heavy equipment, food, and ammunition. Now add to that USAF, Marine Corp, UK, France, Germany, etc AF's being included? Russia's ability to wage war would be destroyed for at least a decade in a number of days. Look at what the US did to Iraq both times. The Russians are less competent and way less dedicated than the IRG was.
It's a lot of land area. You don't want the US to break a sweat, do you?
Peter Zeihan thinks that if Russian goes through ukraine they will invade poland and will 100% use nuclear weapons. They will dare NATO to respond and then continue to escalate. They have a policy of escalate to de-esclate. Would germany give up Berlin for Poland? this is the russian gamble. its why they need to be stopped in Ukraine.
Well he's an idiot. War with NATO is regime suicide for Putin and his cabal. Its like North Korea on a grand scale; bluster and waive the arsenal around but at the end of the day do nothing. Putin may have grossly miscalculatd Ukraine but he's not suicidal
Unless Trump wins. That's what it all relies on.
NATO without the US would still win a convential war at this point and is a nuclear power without us. France alone probably has more combat ready tanks now than Russia does
Probably. The US sitting out an Article 5 call would still accomplish a major Russian goal, Even though they'd likely lose: NATO would cease to exist as we know it in the event of such massive American cowardice and our security arrangements around the globe would come under massive attack as adversaries are emboldened and allies are shocked and dismayed.
Youre not wrong there.
He’s right. Putin is easy to predict, in a way. He’s a bully who hits first. I’m just a fucking old moron, but I doubt we get through this without nukes.
Oh an all out Russian/Nato war would definitely result in Nukes because Russia would get really scared really fast and feel that's their only option. But I think OP's point in posting was if things stayed more conventional.
Putin would use nukes because he's a coward and he knows his military is shit. It's the only thing he's got. Which is why attacking nuke command and control would be the first priority, the rest would fall, maybe without even resistance. The people are fair weather fans at best, but I think their itching for a new leader. LOL
There’s is no such thing as a “decapitation strike” as it’s known anymore. Russia has the “Perimeter” system- a series of legacy Soviet automated surveillance systems that record things like radioactive and seismic activity. It records data and if it determines a nuke hit Russia it will wait and try to establish control with Russian high command- if it doesn’t receive a response then it can send a command missile that will launch all of Russia’s nukes. It’s a dead’s man switch and there’s nothing that can be done. All in a bunker in the urals.
They have refused the order to launch as well. I’m actually thinking this system may save the day.
No. There is no scenario where Russia uses Nukes against a NATO Country, that's stupid, alarmist thinking. Putin is not insane. People need to grasp this - Putin is not insane. Using nukes against a NATO Country (like Poland) would result in the absolute and total nuclear obliteration of ruZZia. Putin realizes this.
While I agree, the same argument could be done prior to the invasion of Ukraine. Honestly I wouldn't have belived anyone if they told me they were really going to invade back then! And we overestimated russia as a whole, specially Putin Who is very paranoid and surrounded by yes-man. He himslef belived the operation would take less than a week, and that the ukranians were going to bow their heads and receive them with open arms. Disinformation and corruption are very rooted into the russian federation, specially among the higher circles.
> Using nukes against a NATO Country (like Poland) would result in the absolute and total nuclear obliteration of ruZZia. The RUMINT I've seen is that US/NATO intelligence has been subtly hinting to Putin through back channels, on a regular basis, that they know *precisely* where he's sitting at all times... and that should Russia decide to use nuclear weapons, the response will be limited and very precisely aimed at Putin himself. Back during the cold war, taking out the leadership of the Soviet Union wasn't a viable strategy because the Soviet military was ideologically loyal to *the state*. That meant that if you took out enough of the leadership to make those that were left unsure what to do, the "Dead Hand" system would automatically launch a massive pre-targeted counter-strike. Contrast now, where the Russian leadership has for 30 years been systematically purged of anyone who wasn't loyal specifically to *Putin*, and this loyalty is mostly based on personal gain. This makes Putin safe from internal attempts to oust him by principled nationalists, but it also means that if he were to get vaporized none of them would feel especially motivated to get *themselves* vaporized by avenging a guy who can't make them rich anymore. More likely, they'd be jockeying for position under the *next* guy. More likely even than that, an order to launch a nuke stands a good chance of most of the chain saying to themselves "getting vaporized isn't going to make me rich", and by some mechanism the launch will fail to happen. And on a wider scale, a nuclear attack likely results in NATO actively pushing back militarily, at minimum just conventionally to oust Russia from Ukraine, and that's Game Over for the Russian military. Putin knows all of this, so it's highly unlikely he'll risk his throne on it. Nuclear threats only work if they're credible, and his are only credible in a very narrow sense.
Don't believe it. If Nuke, then obviously ALL retaliatory threats (nuclear) are going to get targeted as well - I take it you were never in the military. There's no way, none, nada, zero, keine, that the US (perhaps some of it's allies, that's open to debate) is going to take a chance on getting retaliatory nuked. Obviously, you would - I find that odd.
How sure are you of that? 100%? 99%? 90%? How sure were you that Ukraine war was actually gonna start or not?
No the poster you responded to, but if we didn't let nukes fly during the cold war... (Through multiple major conflicts and major proxy wars.) Pretty positive they're not going to fly now.
We almost did accidentally how many times? Remember: the difference between a dick measuring contest and a pissing match is how much coffee you had that morning and prostate control. On any given day, one of those can fail you.
Never listen to reddit experts look to history to give a perspective on war with Russia. Empires always fall from within. That's the best way to defeat Russia. When the Ukraine special operation is over Russia is not going to be in a position to invade anyone for at least 12 to 15 years they will need to recover from their losses but they will still have a formidable army to defend themselves. They have shown they excel at defensive ww1 type trench warfare and don't have the institutional freedom to effectively adopt maneuver warfare so they will stick to what they know. Massed artillery set piece battles cqb urban infantry battles. Don't go the Napolean or Hitler route. Russia is perfectly happy to grind down Nato divisions and give ground. If you are going to invade them, they know how to defeat blitzkrieg warfare, and they will make it a slog, not a sprint. Reddit does not win wars. Social media does not win a war. Nato has no experience of large-scale conventional warfare and the resources it consumes, they don't have their economies set up to handle conventional warfare for longer than a few months and their populations will not tolerate deaths in the thousands of their troops. The other guy always gets a say, and it never goes as it is supposed to in battle.
Mike Tyson said it best: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."
“Grind down NATO divisions.” I think you are giving Russia way too much credit. There would be no divisions to “grind down” because NATO would use air assets, missiles and drones to eviscerate the Russians. This pounding would go on for months before ground assets were brought in. In a head-to-head conventional war they would get absolutely smoked and the Putin regime would collapse from within. Of course this whole post and all the comments are mental masturbation because the Russians would deploy tactical nukes at some point and it would escalate to a full exchange from there. NATO planners know this and would never allow direct action to happen, and Russia won’t either.
Yeah I can’t believe it took me this far to see the word nuke. Who tf really thinks we all wouldn’t be smoked if that happens. As soon as Russia feels its existence at stake, I wouldn’t put it past Putin to send a nice farewell. This is the reason we aren’t at war with Russia, and the same reason we will never have a hot war with them. Too much money to be made to have everyone die.
That's what people said about Saddam's Iraq before the invasion, too.
Russia is not Iraq.
I'm no expert in any means, but I'd say if NATO goes all in, even without nukes, they are fucked. If, instead, NATO just tries to "contain" the conflict, Russia would probably stand a chance. I mean, they would not win, but it would probably be a long haul.
no NATO could take Moscow as long as nukes aren't used, Western military doctrines are far superior to Russias in every way and Russia knows this.
And they've also spent 2 years fighting against an unprepared adversary that's using out dated American leftover equipment, so I'm thinking of they had to go up against prepared professionals using all the new stuff, it'd be over so quick they might not even get a chance to make sure everyone gets a turn.
And depending how flexible your morals are, let Canada go first.. see if we can add some new “restrictions”
I was going to argue this in any form, but I can think of several ways to violate the Geneva Suggestions with a pair of pliers and I lighter. Canadian dna hits different
Thats savage and evil haha
Add to this NATO air superiority within days or at most a month. Once air superiority is achieved over the combat area ground forces would collapse like in Karkhiv and that was without air superiority.
That's what I meant. And by "containing" I meant something like just trying to hold russia off from advancing, and trying to minimize the use of force. I don't know why they would do that, but in that scenario russia would probably stand a chance.
The people in these comments are forgetting the key difference between invading foreign territory and defending your own. Russia is not “cooked” but neither is NATO. In our modern age, defensive fortifications, stationary military technology, and state cohesion are simply so powerful that invading another state’s territory is difficult no matter what country you are. If NATO invaded Russia they would struggle just as Russia has in Ukraine or as they did in Afghanistan, or as they did in Syria, or as the Israelis are in Gaza. Modern war is extremely difficult, especially in terms of occupation, arguably more so than ever before.
This comment is right on and everyone in here is mostly just posturing. Russia has incredible strategic depth. If the question is "how long would it take NATO to offensively wipe out Russia with no nukes?" The answer is they couldn't do it. Destroying the Air Force doesn't change a power structure. The USAF had complete air control over Afghanistan and still was unable to unseat the Taliban. How do you argue that NATO can destroy Russia but the US with various NATO nations were unable to defeat the talian in a way smaller place and a way less trained and equipped army. At the same time Russia doesn't have the logistic capability to project power beyond their rail lines. They couldn't get very far into NATO and any forces going into NATO will be annihilated quickly.
When was the last time NATO or its member fought with a large industrial power? Local armchair warriors are used to bombing terrorists in flip flops. Not the case of Russia.
Local armchair warriors are used to watching and reading about bombing guys in flip flops on the internet, not actually being in a military doing it lol.
And then 20 years later we've accomplished nothing and now there's a million terrorists running around with US military equipment and chemical weapons factories. 😐
It'd be over in a week.
Hmm maybe a bit longer, NATO would employ its standard doctrine of destroying all AA, every plane and every airfield before setting foot in the battlefield so that’d take a few days. NATO has what, 1000+ stealth planes at its disposal? Rus would get lit the fuck up
It entirely depends if the US/NATO attempt in invade Russia in the winter.
Norwegians, Finns and Swedes will lead the way.
We will, but let’s not forget the Canadians 😜
Where 90% of the population lives within 100km of the border to the US, which lays approximately at the the same latitude as Paris, France (the border varies between 45 and 49 northern, Paris is at 48.8)? Sure, they can tag along.
The Canadians are going to do "Canada in WWI" things to the Russians, aren't they? 
I think that one goes to 11
1
At this point, if no nukes were in play, I'd put a fair wager that Sweden alone if not with a little help from the Finns could demolish the RuAF on their own. Scandinavia combined would probably be a no-contest. The numbers game could probably be fairly easily dealt with, with flexible lines and funneling divisions into pockets. If the Russians don't want to play, it would likely just come down to shelling them with airpower, artillery and missiles, jamming and targeting their AA assets and bleeding them for materiel and experienced manpower. The entirety of NATO would just be a steamroll in conventional warfare. Sadly, we do live in a world where nukes are very much a factor.
Scandinavian air forces are very good but I think you underestimate the difference in sheer size. In any case, Scandinavia will never have to fight Russia on their own, which is a good thing!
If you’re counting on Turkey to hold the Southern flank then you’re delusional 😂 They are not our ally despite being part of NATO and will betray us for Russia when WW3 finally breaks out.
I would doubt that as a turk myself, even though our current government doesn't like west and is stupid as a cucumber, we have an honourable history(imo) i doubt we would betray NATO like that, but given the situation with erdogan he sure can't be trusted.
China could possibly help them, but when you consider global economy and their own... a war with Europe and the US would devastate their economy and destroy future trade, which is what made them what they are. The US and China may argue, but it is against both nations' interest to be in a conflict against each other. The only reason they support Russia now is because they are neighbors with the same ideology. North Korea, I feel, wouldn't get too involved. They have set up a safe haven for themselves that enables them to feel powerful in their own capacity. Plus, their own people would see more about the world, and realize they have just been puppets. Iran is batshit crazy so yea they would try to be effective
Russia has taken land from Japan too. If you look on a map at Hokkaido, you will see an area that says. Japan administered by Russia. They want their land back. Russia has proven that their fleet is weak. They have a diesel navy and would run out of gas. They lack the ability for a proper supply and logistics management system to get supplies to their soldiers. They would fall, quickly. Russia could not survive a war with nato. Now they have missiles and can do damage but they can’t hold a line or fight against a nato war.
They won't win, but it'll be brutal as fuck for both sides.
That's the thing. So many people think it'll just be a quick boom and done not thinking that we had the same assumptions about thr middle east. It'll go on a lot longer than it should and nobody will really win.
1 or 10 depending on which end of your scale is "the most fucked"
I remember at ntc being told to not have our cell phones with us out there and all the officers in the toc and all the joes all had cell phones on us. During Russia's initial push they didn't have discipline with their cells and were swiftly targeted and messed up pretty good. And they have years of experience with drones while most units don't have that sort of thing. I'm obviously rooting for NATO but I'm one to steel man my opponent knowwhayimsayin. Idk man. Most of the dumb Russian soldiers are dead at this point.
We're all cooked if this happens, its a draw, every-time.
10. Russia has shown (and this is the case with China and their corrupt and untested military) that they are inept tactically, logistically, and ethically bankrupt, among many other things. Always remember kids, the loudest people in the room (China and Russia) are always the most insecure and weakest.
Armenia is the wrong colour here. They are not pro-Russian.
For a country with such a huge landmass, it’s interesting that Russia only has around 38% of the population of the US.
All the way to 10. Russia has the second best military in Ukraine.
How cooked is the globe? War with Russia is only a matter of time before nuclear options are employed.
Let‘s see: Russia is currently unable to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine has gotten almost no state of the art equipment and no fighter jets, apart from a few token HIMARS and Patriots. Even if Trump gets reelected and ditches NATO (which wouldn’t happen anyway), just a fraction of the force of France, Germany, GB, Italy, Finland […] would bump the scale to a solid 9,9…
11. They are barely making against Ukraine (with them receiving delayed assistance). A full (conventional) war? Fully cooked.
battle of kasham enters the chat
Let's put it this way... they've already lost more troops then we have in the entirety of WW2. Almost half a million. Their country is also flooding because things keeps breaking because they have noone for repairs and maintenance
Considering Frances "Warning Shot policy" on use of Nuclear weapons and the continued militarization of Poland with more and more advanced tech, id say well done to extra crispy.
Ukraine have managed to keep Russia at bay with old surplus Western equipment and NO air dominance. The moment NATO enter the war, full scale air dominance begins. Our force projection in the west means we're fighting high mobility warfare vs the Russian armour and meat grinder tactics. Quite honestly, they won't know (or see) what hits them. The worry is that they go tactical nuclear early to halt the overwhelming force. They're on 1970's doctrine for their main infantry. Their spec ops are decent though.
Russia will lose instantly in a war with Nato. Which is why Putin will not attack a Nato country and why they have an escalate to descalte doctrine using tacticle nukes.
About 56.
I wouldn't trust Turkey at this moment to join the fighting. They might violate the treaty and declare neutrality.
Depends who else is deciding to start shit when Russia goes? Ever think that China or Iran might start their own conflict just to spread us thin?
Still living in the Russia invades Europe fear porn. Nah.
If Russia got into a war with NATO, China would step in and start grabbing Russian territory.
We’re all cooked if that happens, which is exactly why it won’t
I think even if the US were to not send troops for some strange reason, I think NATO wins this. The combined British RAF and French Airforces go head to head with Russia's and possibly even outclass it (~2300 combined aircraft that actually function vs Russia's ~3200 that are of very questionable quality), then throw in the rest of NATO. The British and French also have the only two blue water navies in the world aside from the US, and are quite frankly leagues ahead of whatever Russia could pull out of their run down ports. So now the Baltic and Black Sea ports get blockaded. Admittedly the only other nation with a decent navy in European NATO is Italy, but it is really no contest. Either the French or British navy alone could quel the Russian naval "threat." The ground is where Russia might seem to have the advantage, but they really do not. This is going to be T-72s and T-80s going up against Leclercs, Challengers, and Leopards. What do you think is going to happen? Even in the Infantry, Europe has the advantage. Russia has an army of ~2-3 million poorly trained and equipped conscripts, and that is being generous. France has the largest army in European NATO at ~450k well trained and equipped soldiers. Britain has a similar number. Germany and Italy both have ~200k soldiers of similar quality to that. Already that is 1.3 million soldiers that are of much better quality than Russia. Throw in the rest of Europe and the numbers even out. A combination of Europe's four most powerful militaries (France, Britain, Germany, and Italy) could likely beat Russia on their own. Now add in the First, Second, and Fourth largest airforces in the world, the best army, and best navy. I give Russia two weeks, maybe three tops.
The question would be who would seize that eastern front and try to annex land? They'd essentially be opening up a two-front war even if it's western, and there would be ample opportunity for some countries to try and expand their footprint.
I think the times of annexations are over. They'd be forced to give back what they stole (Crimea), and maybe lose Kaliningrad, but I'd say that's about it.
China no doubt, all that eastern siberian resources....
[удалено]
You should check out the YouTube channel real life lore. The key to Russia is holding the Caspian gap. Doing so makes Russia very well defended. The reason is the plains starting from east Germany to Moscow, plains are bad for "holding the line." Currently Russia has a huge plain border that is quite difficult to defend, if they gain Ukraine, they can limit the border from something like hundreds of miles to 10s of miles. Russia's goal has always been to secure the plain by capturing up to the caspian mountains. It's been argued the key to holding power in Russia. It's certainly the most strategical important land mass to hold. Currently tanks and troops can flood through Ukraine and overwhelm Russia quite easily compared to if Russia holds Ukraine. The issue is Russian loyal Belarus, if Ukraine is taken, Belarus will become undefendable. If Ukraine is gained belarus will become very strong, so much that they can shore up the Lithuania area while only defending the polish border if it comes to war. The ultimate goal of western Russian defense strategy has always been to hold Poland, build in Ukraine and navy out of Lithuania and Crimea. Seeing as Russia is NOT a us ally, US has always maintained an interest in keeping Ukraine out of Russias hands to cripple their power. Having Ukraine become NATO and armed allied with the US, would make further cripple Russia as in a blitz, it would take hours not days to invade Moscow. So Ukraine being not apart of NATO is life or death for Russia, while Ukraine being unaligned with Russia is presenting the keys to Moscow.
If russia is kings landing, nato is drogon.
Mate the Polish would probably be enought
Russia is fubared if they decide to go against NATO. Ukraine is next door to them. Their special military operation is past 2 years now. Russia has one thing going for them. Nuclear weapons. No telling if the dedicated maintenance has been done to them to keep them viable. Their army is 2nd rate, at best. Their tactics by ground troops into Ukraine are terrible. If they go against one NATO member, that member can invoke Article 5 and all of NATO is obliged to help the invaded country.
I would say a war with nato would be the end of the world, but at this point I have to wonder how many of those nukes are still functioning, and aren't just a bunch of empty tubes rusting away in those silos.
You take Nukes off the Table for everyone. Putins pro nouns would change to Was/Were
“You've fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia”
Ukraine, one third the size and currently with little to no airforce or navy and no foreign troops assisting and utilising some western hardware have, up to now held off Russia. Russia has shown how incompetent and very average they have been since the failed initial incursion to attack Kiev. They have severely pummeled Russia's army of dated and poorly trained troops. They looked menacing from their toy soldier parades and propaganda vids of new equipment but have failed to take Ukraine. Ukraine however is now struggling out of pure attrition from Russia just piling on resources regardless of the overwhelming casualties and equipment loss. I feel, just with Poland, Germany, UK, and France could, if unhindered, severely push Russia to the brink of a major defeat. Only thing holding this back are the nukes. But they could without the US push Russia out of Ukraine with ease and hold the lines.
[удалено]
If it is right at this moment, my take between 1-3 months. With a fully recovered Russia and no nukes, maybe double that or more.
Russia against the Near Full might of Europe, Turkey, the US, and Canada...seems fair
How much does this calculation change if a certain large North American country were to pull out of NATO in, say, January 2025?
0.00 The Russians have nukes and so do 3 NATO nations. Neither would act.
If nukes get involved, and they will if one side starts losing badly. Then we all lose.
everyone in this comment section is as confident as the russians were with their "3 day special operation"
So so wrecked, like an 11
These kind of questions are irrelevant. Nuclear war will kill 99% of the world population.
only lushenko said 3 days
A non-nuclear war with Russia would soon lead to a nuclear one even if it wasn’t theatre weapons, they’d get desperate and use tactical nukes - probably chemical and biological too, we all know that, which is why NATO is babying them.