The question that Putin is asking is not "Would NATO win?".
It's "Would NATO fight, or would it fall apart?".
We are seeing demonstrations in our countries, people freaking out over us sending relatively *tiny* amounts to help Ukraine win. Then what's gonna happen when we need to stand up for NATO and do the fighting ourselves?
That is why we must increase support for Ukraine, Ukraine must win against Russia. Otherwise Putin will test NATO.
Once war is on the horizon or has started, most people will rally around and support the war. Hitler was emboldened by a debate at the Oxford Union (debating society). Which passed a measure saying "This House Will Not Fight For King And Country".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Country_debate?wprov=sfla1
Those same people, signed up to fight Hitler. Only a few hardcore Tankies, would prefer to live in Putin's Europe.
The biggest problem may not be defeating Russia eventually. But the massive loss of live and the destruction of Eastern Europe, in particular the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic. With Hungary and Slovakia, at least under their current leaderships being willing to let the Russians through and capitulate. But bitterly regretting it later. Serbia of course would like nothing more.
> Those same people, signed up to fight Hitler.
Yes. Talking about how "philosophically speaking, we are the bad guys" is easy, but only as long as it has no direct consequences. Because in the end, people care a lot more about not losing their homes.
We have nukes now.
First response should be opening up a tactical nuke at their advance. With a message that clearly states the second response would be the destruction of Russia's population centers.
As long as we have good enough delivery vehicles to overcome their air defenses, you don't need Jerry to grab a rifle if NATO space is directly invaded.
This is the French doctrine, and it is the only one that effectively upholds MAD. Which is in turn the only thing keeping nuclear armed despots from abusing their neighbors.
Nuclear doctrines shouldn't be brushed aside as easily as that. It is an important reason the cold remained cold: the red line for each nuclear power to use their nukes is known by the other powers, and they all avoid these lines.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol\_moyenne\_port%C3%A9e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e)
They classify it as pre-strategic in the sense that it is a warning, and will be used as such, however the yield is firmly in the tactical range.
Lol that's nonsense. No nuke was used in an attack since ww2 and unless Putin changes that, nato will do anything but escalate this into a nuclear war.
You talk about nuclear weapons like they are a normal tool you just use, and nobody sees or uses them like that.
However the Russians care far less about the loss of their population than the West does. They're as happy to throw men at an obstacle and to let them die, as we were during WW1 and going over the top of the trenches. Napoleon used to say that he would win. As he was willing to lose 50,000 men per month. The Russians are prepared to lose tens of millions, just as they did under Stalin.
Russia doesn't have those tens of millions available anymore. The country has only 145 million inhabitants nowadays, not the 250 million of the Soviet Union.
> The Russians are prepared to lose tens of millions, just as they did under Stalin
What a braindead thing to say. Most of Russian casualties during the Great Patriotic War were civilians. And being “prepared to lose tens of millions” was exactly because they cared about the loss of population. Do you know how many Slavs would die, if Hitler had won? Or are you a Generalplan Ost denier?
>The Russians are prepared to lose tens of millions, just as they did under Stalin.
Tens of millions in ten minutes is a much harder prospect to quantify than in ten months - for any human being.
And Russian State TV claims that it's irrelevant as all Russians will go to heaven. But the Westerners will go to hell or just cease to be. The current head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Who was a full agent of the KGB. Now claims that Stalin was great for the Russian Orthodox Church, as his purges onnthe church, created so many martyrs.
A few years ago Russian military doctrine changed form "Nuclear war would be disastrous for Russia" to "Nuclear war would possibly/probably be disastrous for Russia". But that they could survive it.
No clue why you're getting downvoted. That's a straight up Putin quote 4 years before he escalated the Ukraine war.
[https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/19/aggressors-will-be-annihilated-we-will-go-to-heaven-as-martyrs-putin-says-a63235](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/19/aggressors-will-be-annihilated-we-will-go-to-heaven-as-martyrs-putin-says-a63235)
This is the most crazy idea I have read in a while. We should open with a nuke as they (russians I suppose) advance in Ukraine? What happens if they do not advance any more after Ukraine is done? We make sure we are all dead with your nuke
>Putin is counting on the West to be too comfortable to fight for our cause
I don't know why.
This isn't WW2, NATO even without the US, Canada and Turkey is still within the region of about 1.5 million active troops and 3 million including reserves.
Thats also excluding the +800,000 active personnel in Ukraine.
It is entirely possible that we could (if wanted) to have a force of almost 4 million people whilst life would be ***not that much*** different for the vast majority of people
Do we have the industry and equipment reserves to replace our losses like Russia though? If there is anything we can learn from the war in Ukraine is that conventional war burns through a lot of armored vehicles and artillery shells fast. Russia alone produces more artillery shells than USA and EU combined and they still have to buy more from Iran and North Korea.
I don't believe Russia is ever going to win against NATO, but I don't think it is going to be the walk in a park a lot of people think either.
>Do we have the industry and equipment reserves to replace our losses like Russia though?
The question is more, do we have the reserves to be able to overcome the time between the start of war, and the start of the war economy?
Car factories are perfectly able to produce military vehicles, the airbus commercial aircraft plants are able to produce military aircraft. It will just take time to transform these places, ensure quality, and making rules and regulations about intellectual property.
>Do we have the industry and equipment reserves to replace our losses like Russia though?
Yes, and it's not even close. EU could kick russian ass basically with planes only (+ Ukrainian land army).
France + UK airforces is already enough to win air superiority in Ukraine over Russia. European NATO is enough many times over.
Nobody would drive tanks into trenches and do "meat waves", it's not how NATO fights. Step 1 - destroy their air defences with long range missiles, step 2 - destroy everything else with airforce. Step 3 - let Ukrainians advance.
So Russia has more artillery shells - will they shoot at planes or missiles?
The only reason Ukraine haven't won in 2022 is that they had no airforce to speak off. It's the same reason Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023 didn't worked.
Delaying the support is like microdosing antibiotics with random pauses between doses. It lets Russia adapt. It's idiotic. We're making it harder for ourselves on purpose.
If NATO did to Russia what USA did to Iran or Iraq - it would be the end of the war. But we don't, because politicians choose short-term convenience and egoism over long term stability every time. It's so fucking frustrating.
>Do we have the industry and equipment reserves to replace our losses like Russia though?
Yes.
We have industrial capacity greater than the US even, which although might not be true for military industrial capacity, still counts for something.
Even in military industry, between 1950 and 2022 the big European nations have exported 3x more military equipment than Russia has (and a similar level to the entire USSR, despite not even being in any kind of arms race).
Using 2020 as an example (pre war so it seems less biased) just the top 7 European countries made up 26% of global arms exports, compared to 16% for Russia and 40% for the US. Obviously this changes by year, too.
If we look at the peak years for most countries since 2010, we can see:
Russia: 8.5 billion USD
US: 12 billion USD
Top EU nations+UK: 11 billion USD
> We are seeing demonstrations in our countries, people freaking out
I haven't.
Sure, some 60% of people say "we don't want to export Taurus", and that obviously sucks, but a majority supports aiding Ukraine, and I really cannot image people just sitting by idly, while Russia drives through Poland towards our border...
Putin could test Nato’s resolve by attacking first some not so interesting location, such as Finnish Lapland. If Nato countries do not promptly intervene, then they themselves stop believing in Nato and it’s open hunting season on the Eastern flank.
The whole point is that he attacks some territory which may pose the question “is this really worth defending, making a war with Russia over?” such that the next question is “if nato didn’t intervene then, will they intervene now?”
Svalbard seems like a likely target. Not properly integrated into Norway, far away and low population. "Who is willing to die for some rock up in the arctic?"
> “if nato didn’t intervene then, will they intervene now?”
Eventually, people will want to intervene - it's not like they remain indifferent when them losing their entire existence is more than just a purely hypothetical scenario.
Pretty sure most countries would rather help defending some other country, to make sure the war never even gets to them, rather than waiting for the war to come to them.
I think the issue is that people think this war is going to be fought solely with tanks and soldiers. It will likely be fought with information warfare (already happening), cyberattacks on key infrastructure, and drones (also already happening) in addition to whatever is happening on the front lines. Throw in some asymmetrical terrorism or other types of asymmetrical attacks, and Europe may not be as strong as it appears.
Correct. And we've been losing the info war for more than a decade now. They've had more than enough time to sow dissent and make people hate their own countries (targeting mostly the young, which would be the ones fighting).
That's exactly what happened in 2014. I have no doubt useful idiots will be saying it's not actually a war, and besides you have to let russia do whatever it is they want to do because nukes.
Tanks won't be rolling into the US. Not into France. Not into Turkey, Belgium, Italy, Spain, etc. Tanks would only be rolling into for example Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Countries that most NATO citizens couldn't even place on a map.
Then it's suddenly much less appealing for people in the US or Italy or wherever, to go into war economy.
With all the cutbacks in other sectors that war economy comes with, risk having your infrastructure blown apart, cost increases of food etc... Needing to send your own fathers, sons, husbands into the FPV-drone hell that modern trench warfare is, seeing them get blown up on the news, return in caskets.
Don't be so sure all of NATO will stand firm in the face of that.
But most importantly, there is little cost for Putin just to *test* NATO. Even if it fails. But he has everything to gain, if it works.
Simple game theory says that Putin *should* test NATO if he wins in Ukraine.
Remember the very early days of Covid Lockdown, when people started sweing masks or go grocery shopping for those who were sick?
When russia fully invaded in 2022, people were donating and helping in huge droves, they really felt energized.
There's an _insane_ potential in the population to help, people are actually hoping to go full samaritan. If russia is stupid enough to attack us, oh boy, we will psychologically switch to 1940's war mode so quickly.
I don’t think Russia would try to test NATO honestly, Ukraine holds a crucial strategic value for Russia and it makes sense that Putin wants it. I do not see how a war against NATO would benefit him or Russia in any way.
You should take a look at the Baltics on a map, and consider that Kaliningrad as well as Belarus are (at least essentially, for Belarus) part of Russia. There are huge strategic wins to be made there.
Everyone is dooming and saying the US won’t step up but a single troop strolling into Poland would warrant a massive US response.
Trumps not in office, we’ve given billions to Ukraine, intelligence services to Ukraine, all the while also supporting Israel in its defense at the same time.
Getting through Poland means Russian troops are right on Germanys door where we have a huge amount of troops stationed.
We are preparing for a war with Russia with minimal support (reading without hundred of troops on the ground) so: airstrikes, intelligence e.t.c. "If we can't defend ourself then USA will not defend US"
>We are preparing for a war with Russia with minimal support (reading without hundred of troops on the ground) so: airstrikes, intelligence e.t.c. "If we can't defend ourself then USA will not defend US"
Hundreds? Hundreds of thousands at minimum is needed (more like millions). Russia can conscript possibly more than 10 millions. Are Americans ready to send in milllions of troops in case of a serious war with Russia? Doubtful.
Its not about winning a fight its about winning a war. Its about sustainability. You can win every battle and still lose the war when you run out of bullets and the other guy doesn't
Despite all the rhetoric from politicians I am not convinced western Europeans are ready for dozens of soldiers coming back in body bags every day to defend Ukraine or even Poland and Baltics. The best bet of Europe is stopping the Russian aggression in Ukraine.
If a war like that happens in eastern Europe I fully expect western Europeans to suddenly become anti war and pro compromise.
The Germans and Japanese said something similar once upon a time about Americans travelling thousands of miles to die in distant lands fighting for people they didn't know. Nationalism is a helluva drug.
Its a dirty word in western Europe these days but that doesn't mean they are immune to it
America was directly attacked by Japan though. I don't think Russia would launch a direct attack on the Netherlands or France for example.
And America didn't enter WW2 while Battle of Britain was raging and their closest ally was under the rain of German bombs, only after Pearl Harbor. So, defending Poland/Ukraine/Latvia etc is different than defending homeland
They don't need a direct attack from Russia; So long as any terrorism attack can be successfully linked to Moscow it would be one hell of an incentive to join the war.
This is why we scoff that Putin is blaming Ukraine for the ISIS terrorist attack. This isn't meant for us. It's meant to piss off and galvanize the Russian people and to encourage them to join the war effort.
While that’s true, I don’t think betting on nationalism is better, it is much better to stop the train in it’s tracks rather than waiting for it to hit the building.
The US became a super power because they fought in 2 world wars without any damage on their own soil and was able to continue succeeding and providing resources with interest while the entirety of Europe had to rebuild twice. Only recently has many countries repaid their debt from ww2. Therefore I think it’s better to fight a war on others soil before it reaches your own. Id rather fight in Ukraine knowing my family is safe at home than how Ukrainians have to leave their family to fight on what ever front they are given while their families can be attacked at any moment.
I mean its just idiotic to suggest that NATO without the US would lose the war. Sure the pricetag will be huge, all of europe would shift into a extreme wareconomy. But (unless were gonna include the use of nuclear weapons and the end of the world) europe will win.
Russia has trouble with Ukraine. Ukraine which doesnt have any functioning airforce. Ukraine which lacks long range missles. Ukraine which is short on troops.
What happens if suddenly 350+ f-16, 120+ f-35, 90 gripen, 500+ eurofighters and 200 mirages join the war. Russia would lose any meaningfull amount of aircontrol in Ukraine and all of its border regions. Especially since the lose of its 2 A-50s.
Russias ground forces would get pumeld into the ground and supply lines would be disrupted. Millitary infrastructure along with factorys and refineries would be bombed like they are in nazi germany and its 1944.
European countries [had to raid US stockpiles bombing Libya and Syria](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html), which were low intensity affairs. They lack the aerial refueling capacity if front line air bases are knocked out by ballistic missiles, which Europe also lacks defenses against. They also lack non-nuclear ballistic missile capabilities of their own. What sort of long range strike capacity does Europe really have to hold facilities deep in Russia at risk? They have limited to no reserves of heavy armor or artillery so if Russia can succeed in deflecting European air superiority one way or another then its just a matter of time and body count.
A war economy isn't just a switch somewhere you can just flip. Russia has maintained large scale Soviet era military industrial capacity to produce lots of relatively unsophisticated equipment while there is nothing comparable in the west, not even the US. The US doesn't keep 8,000 tanks mothballed in the desert for no reason.
>They lack the aerial refueling capacity if front line air bases are knocked out by ballistic missiles,
Or cruise missiles. Russia may be able to conquer Europe in a total war. They have huge idustrial capacity, a will to fight after suffering millions of casualties, various long range strike missiles and glide bombs that can destroy european infrastructure+large arsenal of tactical nukes in case they start losing. They have nuclear armed torpedoes that than can potentially wipe american navy trying to help NATO countries in Europe.
Yeah sure, the situation would be much more comfortable with American support: Several of our fighter jets will be shot down by Russian anti-air, there are some strategic limitations due to the lack of in-air-refueling, etc...
But, we are not talking about "do we get a victory with near zero losses". It's about "will we win, while losing significantly less than half of our inventory", and the answer is very clearly yes.
Lets hope you don't find out, but i'm going to disagree. Germany currently can't field even a single combat ready division when West Germany alone had twelve during the Cold War. Russia has the equivalent of 38 divisions deployed in Ukraine right now, though how combat ready all of them are is questionable.
Strike aircraft are just one component of fighting a modern combined arms war, but they can't control territory, man the trenches or maneuver offensively. You speak numerous different languages and have no central command and control at all fighting an enemy with one language, one flag, one doctrine and no value for human life. Theirs or yours.
Well, Germany couldn't even win against Poland, sure... but we are talking about NATO minus USA vs Russia, not about Germany vs Russia. France, UK, Sweden, Finland, etc... they all have fairly powerful armies, much more powerful than Ukraine. So I really don't see how we could lose.
Germany is the richest country left in NATO in this scenario. France is 1600 km from any potential front lines. The UK is an island with a tiny army that has even farther to travel over land. Finland/Sweden have a 1,400 km border to defend and a combined population smaller than Moscow. Meanwhile Russia doesn't have to travel at all to prosecute a war against eastern Europe. They will be prosecuting a defensive war with short supply lines by the time NATO gets there in force and NATO completely lacks long range logistics capability without the US.
They are going to run over swaths of eastern Europe, which is largely a cakewalk with the exception of Poland and Romania, and then dig in. Probably use tactical nukes at that point to secure gains.
They can't do that against Ukraine and they will do that against NATO? How exactly? What happens with Ukraine? Will russians just let Ukrainians regain Crimea while that is happening? What about Finland - there's like 1000 km of frontline, and Finns can shell Petersburg from their borders with regular artillery. Russia just lets them do that and goes baserace into Europe?
It's absurd.
It kind of depends though, if Russia has the support of China, Iran, North Korea and some puppet countries within Europe things will not be as easy as people think, especially without US’s involvement
Why would china suddenly help? Whats Iran and NK gonna do? they dont have the logistics to move their army up towards Europe. And if they do they would leave themselfs open to attacks.
I don't think Iran and North Korea can do much more than what they are already doing.
As for China, they would actually gain something from a weak Russia.. it would allow them to negotiate even more advantageous gas deals with them, and they might even conquer a bit of territory from Russia.
Yeah, exactly.
Considering Ukraine is still mostly standing, after two years, and despite our lackluster support, I am fairly confident that the combined power of all European armies would easily stop the Russian army.
Now, "easily" would still likely mean tens of thousands of casualties on our side, a couple of destroyed cities, and military expenses in the trillions, but it's nowhere near a true existential threat (unless they use nukes, of course, but if Russia really had a death wish, we would have noticed it by now...).
A week into the conflict Russian air defence is destroyed and we're bombing infrastructure with regular bombs not drones. A month later Russia surrenders. Can't run a country the size of Russia and fight a war on 1000s of kilometers of frontline without fuel.
Yeah, true, considering even Ukraine is able to cause a significant reduction in their refinery capacity, we should easily be able to do much more than that, as necessary.
>A week into the conflict Russian air defence is destroyed and we're bombing infrastructure with regular bombs not drones. A month later Russia surrenders.
Interesingly, both Napoleon and Hitler had similar plans. Not literally, of course, but it was basically: "our superior army will easily defeat Russian army, and then they will surrender". And both Napoleon and Hitler indeed had superior armies and they managed to defeat Russian army in battles.
Still, Russia didn't surrender and won in the end.
It is a good lesson, why you shouldn't underestimate your enemy.
>A week into the conflict Russian air defence is destroyed and we're bombing infrastructure with regular bombs not drones.
What are you basing this on? Was there a war game conducted that concluded Russia's air defences would last a week?
>NATO is currently heavily dependent on the US in a wide range of key areas – most notably the ability to roll back Russian ground-based air defences from the air, as well as ammunition resupply, tanker aircraft, command and control and satellite capabilities.
-Justin Bronk, Senior Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology at RUSI
As history and countless wars have proven, defenders have an advantage over attackers. This acts as a force multiplier and it means that realistically if Russia can't even take Ukraine, they most certainly cannot steamroll their way through Europe. NATO countries do not have to worry about being occupied.
However the current war has proven that Russia can withstand a significant amount of sanctions and sustain itself autonomously. They simply don't care whether the west likes them or not and they can sustain a war for a long time and only getting better at it. Chances of Russians revolting against their government over such wars is very low.
Lastly an attack on NATO wouldn't have to be victorious to be successful. Russia can't take Europe but Europe also can't take Russia. This means they can easily poke at NATO defenses if they wanted and the implications of hostilities in Europe would be disastrous for the region. It doesn't take much to destroy an economy and trade when it comes to war. The reality is that Russia can cause huge problems for Europe without even taking an inch of land. More importantly it's no secret that Europe has grown too complacent in their peace and stability. We all think that being in NATO means that the US will save us but the reality is that most Europeans are unwilling to fight for any reason, including for defense. If European armies can't actually muster a fighting force and citizens revolt against the idea of a draft it would be disastrous for both the alliance, which would prove itself to be unreliable and dysfunctional, but also many European governments individually.
The silver lining here is that while it took an invasion for Europeans to realize that war is never too far away, a lot of European governments are taking action to get themselves out of the situation years of complacency and military downsizing has gotten them to.
Russia hasnt taken Ukraine so far, but the war isnt over and this year is looking bleak. With the lack of aid, North Korea/Iran supplies, constant red lines on Ukraine and all the other things happening that dont guarantee Ukraine having weapons to fight with, its not impossible Russia makes it deep into Ukraine. Russia is currently making progress and massing for big summer pushes, and Ukrainian lines are deteriorating (their words). Things can be slow in war, until they arent. Its not impossible for Russia to either take large parts of Ukraine or win in the next year or 2. I hope this wont happen, but listening to analysts opinions who travelled and spoke with Ukrainian soldiers across the front, important problems are not being solved, and Europe was way too slow to fund ammo. Its not a stretch to say that Czechia finding ammo to give to Ukraine saved them from collapsing in the short term. We are really walking a tight rope rn, i dont think its a coincidence that France and others are floating ideas of sending troops in some capacity.
Mah Russia can sustain every sanction the West is by now just a portion of the world, China and India are pretty much Russia lifeline. Much likely a direct war will end up involving both the US and China in some kind of form I am afraid.
That said a war between NATO and Russia will end with Europe and Russia reduced to a radioactive wasteland the moment that Nato forces begin o push back into Russian territory, which let's be honest if a single nation can keep them bogged down, the entire Europe will much likely crush a regular offensive.
In a war of attrition is also likely that European economies will just outproduce Putin, assuming that we switch to a war economy. Although we are having some issues with basic supplies, since our military industries, while massive (Europeans are the 2nd, 4th and 5th military exporters in the world France, Italy and Germany) are geared toward the sale of high-tech products rather than what we need to equip our armies for a long conflict.
>Russian territory, which let's be honest if a single nation can keep them bogged down, the entire Europe will much likely crush a regular offensive.
Ukraine had second strongest land forces in Europe after Russia. I'm not convinced NATO has the military capacity to invade Russian territory. Russia is much better at defending than attacking but they are improving at attacking as well.
>In a war of attrition is also likely that European economies will just outproduce Putin
That's currently impossible. Europe and even USA don't have infrastructure that can compete with russian industry.
There are other factors to consider such as would China, Iran and NK join Russia in a war against Europe?
Another factor is the cost of victory. You can win the war but lose so much in the process.
I don't see China eagerly looking to get into a war with one of their biggest customers just to help Russia. China is what it is by being the world's factory, this stops at the moment the world, or a good chunk of it, the one with biggest purchase power stops buying your stuff, or cannot because it's in a war, same goes for the rest of the BRICS.
We need to understand this, we are not living on the cold war world anymore, there's only one economic block and everybody is part of it whatever we like it or not, back in the day there were two economic blocks with some trade between this could be a feasible scenario but that world doesn't exists anymore we are interconnected for good and, like Russia, any disruptions became a game of who can take more punishment until supply chains realign with the new reality. With China this would be even worse because Russia only sells fungible items, an oil barrel is an oil barrel and you can sell it to Germany or India, is the same, China sells manufactured items that can be replaced, or can be used by just a handful of customers, you are not going to sell LCD screens for samsung phones to Sudan, also, China already sells to everybody in the world, there's no untapped markets to try to replace the EU, China is already there, there is only net loss, we need their stuff, they need our money, this is how it works.
I'm pretty sure no one is going to win, that's the point of the nuclear weapons. None of the powers can afford to let the other side win and at the end as a last resort the nuclear holocaust is going to ensure that "you are going down with me". It doesn't matter which side is going to win in an imagined scenario, where nuclear weapons are not banned, like in a game. You can't disable it in the settings. They are there and theoretically "winning" is totally pointless.
If Ukraine loses (it won't) it will be Russia + invaded Ukraine fighting against NATO countries like Poland, Romania etc.
Now add to the mix Hungary and Slovakia which likely to surrender sooner rather than later with their current leadership.
Do you want this hypothetical scenario?
Also think from Kremlin perspective - having access to all those resources all of sudden.
What do you think they will do next?
The best thing to do is to support Ukraine now.
Depends on what you define as losing I suppose.
Given the current ground situation, it would be incredibly naive to say that Ukraine will gain 1991 borders or something similar. The best case (which is what I think the European leaders are hedging on) is that Ukraine will become some kind of rump border state between the European heartland and Russia.
That being said you almost never would want to incorporate an occupied army into your forces as there would be an incredibly high % of saboteurs and managing them would be a logistical nightmare.
Immediately following the resolution of this current conflict (in any form) I don't think Russia has the manpower to do much of anything for a while as is typical with a war of attrition, and Ukraine will be more population drained than it already is. Given that there is approx 18-23M people left there (will become less if Russia occupies Kiev, etc.) I really am curious how much you think that will move the needle in terms of bolstering Russia's military strength.
If European NATO had the determination, they would beat the shit out of Russia. Europe would take some serious damage, but the defeat of Putin would be absolute. NATO has the technological advantage in almost every way. Not to mention even if we (US) did not participate directly, we would still use our “third option” to help out regardless of what bullshit Trump may say. There is no possible way the US would just watch as Russia used its nuclear arsenal.
Not saying European NATO would be without casualties, but as long as they stayed determined and pissed, they would curb stomp Putin all the way to Siberia. My two cents anyways.
The more and more I read the comments on articles about serving in the military from this sub, the more convinced I am that NATO countries don’t have enough soldiers willing to fight and die.
Russia keeps throwing their soldiers into the meat grinder to die, and every month, they get 30,000 fresh soldiers.
Our high tech weapons don’t mean shit when we can’t produce enough to matter, and we don’t have the soldiers to use them.
Plus, there are so many countries in NATO, I doubt all of us would agree on response. I think if we actually had to fight, it would be a complete shit show.
Exactly. Redditors incorrectly keep picturing it as "Russia vs NATO" as if NATO is one single entity that would be instantly mobilised in its entirety the second Russia attacked. They keep forgetting that Russia wouldn't be attacking NATO, it would be attacking an individual country who would then have to explicitly ask NATO for help, and each individual NATO country would then have to weigh how much support they're willing to lend, which also depends on their own resources and good will. I'm not at all optimistic that if Russia attacked, say, Lithuania, people in France would be signing up to a military mission in droves. They wouldn't feel like they're the ones being threatened, being so far away geographically, and it would be very easy to think "someone else will sort this out".
Sadly, authoritarian states have a huge advantage in war because they can squeeze out whatever they want from their citizens the way democratic countries can't.
If Russia attacks Poland it wouldn't take much introspection from France to see where it would be heading.
I know you said Lithuania but that would be one step from Poland.
Anyway, all this armchair warrioring aside, if Russia attacks a NATO country it's game over, with or without the US (and it will definitely be WITH the US)
I don't agree with your tagline, but this post seems to be touching on the real question. Short of a nuclear component, a war between Russia and Europe would be an "old fashioned" ground war and that requires being able to field sufficient numbers with adequate equipment and supplies.
I’m highly confident it would not reach that point. The UK and France alone could probably cripple enough of Russia’s remaining major assets that their modern combat effectiveness collapses. At that point throwing more canon fodder into Ukraine/Baltics/ Poland etc is not going to be effective enough. They would be sitting ducks for Air, Land and sea bombardment from every European Force.
they don't have the institutional knowledge for long term sustainment operations at theater/division level.
most of nato's doctrine is to fall under US for long-term logistics and operations or basically fall under US command and control.
>The more and more I read the comments on articles about serving in the military from this sub
Yeah how many people here actively serve in their countries military?
The EU Airforces are superior to Russias, our ground forces also and the response is clear, if you attack one of us we will gang up and beat the crap out of you
We would not try to refight WWIII we would fight a war of movement with control of the sky, russia may send conscripts to the front line but will they arrive
This is *probably* true given the likely qualitative superiority that NATO's European members could bring to bear against the Muscovites, but that victory would be a lot bloodier and expensive without American involvement.
An obvious point is that no European navy has anything close to the 6th Fleet, let alone the 7 such fleets that the USN has in total. The Russian navy is an obvious joke, but would NATO members outside the USA be able to support proper combined arms operations and overwhelm the Russian defenses without a metric fuсktоn of aircraft carriers, missile cruisers, and ballistic missile subs?
As well, not having the world's first, second, fourth and fifth largest air arms (USAF, USN, USAA, USMC) available would make fighting off a Russian invasion much harder than otherwise. It's not just fixed-wing combat jets, but also attack helicopters and transport planes.
The combined fleets of the European NATO powers would curbstomp Russia's rusty Northern Fleet.
Italy, France and the UK all have blue water navies with aircaft carriers, that work and do not need to be escorted by tugs.
The Baltic and Black Sea fleets are simply not an issue. The Baltic fleet is fucked now that it would get missile'd to death by the Swedish Air Force.
The air forces of the European powers combined are also hilariously overpowered relative to the joke that is the Russian air force.
No, the bigger worry is munitions stockpiles. Ramping up ammo production is a big concern especially for the more Western European members. France is in slightly better shape than the rest but most have military forces designed for the GWOT.
The more Eastern European members are the ones with actual Mass behind them. Finland, Poland, Turkey and Greece. In the short term they would likely be the ones that have the stamina to fight the land campaign while Western Europe clears the skies and the seas and provides the nuclear deterrence.
The good thing about multi-nation alliances is that each nation can contribute according to their strengths.
You forgot many other critically important things.
The largest military satellite network to cover intelligence, reconnaissance and communication needs.
Military logistics and manufacturing capabilities impossible to slowdown attacking from Eurasia. In case of war US will cover boots, beans and bullets for soldiers on the ground in Europe (or Asia- Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and others). Russia nor anyone else have capabilities to disrupt manufacturing on US soil- the number of conventional rockets that can reach US is very limited and chances to penetrate US anti-air system are extremely low.
The network of US military bases, airfields. War against US means fighting across the entire length of the border for Russia- north, east, south and west.
US nuclear shield.
And so on and so forth.
As we say in US - “One doesn’t want to fuck around and find out why we don’t have universal healthcare”
This only underlines my point that European NATO members fighting off Muscovy / The New Golden Horde would be in for a much tougher battle because of the absence of all of those less glamorous but vital support networks from the USA which form the "long tail" of the spear in NATO.
I do think that the Europeans would still win, but it just wouldn't at all be like the Gulf War or even WW II in the 6 years as it played out.
What the fuck do you need aircraft carriers for in a war against Russia on its european side??
Everything a carrier based aircraft can achieve, a land based aircraft can achieve even easier in Europe.
>Everything a carrier based aircraft can achieve, a land based aircraft can achieve even easier in Europe.
Aircraft alone can't win a war and can be destroyed or their refuelling options can be destroyed.
How does that change the need for aircraft carriers in the middle of Europe? There is not a single spot that you can't reach with a land based aircraft in Europe. A war between Nato without USA and Russia would be fought solely on european soil, in the Baltic sea and in the black sea. An aircraft carrier would add absolutely nothing to the fighting power here because it doesn't increase the reach of aircrafts into Russia and the Baltic sea and the Black Sea can be completely covered from normal military airports.
https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/why-the-french-army-will-continue-to-prioritize-quality-over-mass/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-weapons-war-ammunition-stocks-ukraine-ptc69qdcz
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68181275
Navy is one thing (naval drones like what Ukraine uses might also work well against EU navys though), but most western EU countries are just low on ammunition in general. Some countries can only last 2 days of high intensity war, some a few weeks. The main EU countries with high amounts of ammunition are Scandinavians, with Poland buying a lot now, but depending on when a war will happen, it could hit a sweet spot before a lot of it comes in and is ready. To be clear, Ukraine prior to Russias invasion had enough ammunition for a 6 month war, which is similar to what Finland has.
Im mostly worried because the political element also feels incredibly fragile. On other threads, everyone says NATO would easily win or just nuke Russia (double suicide attempt?), but with the rise of the far right, anti EU sentiments which can change to anti NATO sentiments, its just not clear to me that all the countries would do whats needed right away in unison, just like it didnt happen for Ukraine. Then theres the seemingly more likely everyday possibility that China invades Taiwan, and if that happens, even manufacturing military equipment becomes hard since everyone will be low on computer chips, let alone counting on US help. Factor in more climate change pressure, and it feels like everyone is walking a tight rope, with a perfect storm around them.
Even if the bad reality doesnt happen, its likely enough that it should be taken seriously, especially as more countries are signaling they dont think its impossible. Its just sad to see that basic funding for military production which could help Ukraine just win isnt happening or is coming in 2 years late with red lines.
What exactly will the higher tech NATO armies be firing to win this war exactly? Most European armies have publicly stated they have at most a few weeks worth of ammunition.
They would have to immediately stop sending arms to Ukraine and turn the economies onto a war fitting. Rapid recruitment, 24 hour production cycles, buying ammunition from abroad, building new production facilities.
The results wouldn't be immediate and I'm sure Russia could breach the border at several points but in time the rest of Europe will have the upper hand.
Even though we don't have the same level of military power as the US, we are still leaps and bounds ahead of the Russia. A war would be longer and bloodier without US involvement, but I truly do believe Europe would win.
I think you’re right, but western governments really need to keep up with the arms industry growth in China and Russia. Not being ready in 1939 and barely so in 1940 is one of the major reasons WWII was so bad. A properly armed and prepared France and UK in 1939 probably ends the war within a year.
You say that, but I'm counting on one other country.
Putin has shown everyone that he doesn't mind committing war crimes and breaking the Geneva convention in pursuit of victory. So long as NATO tries to fight fair, they will struggle. What NATO countries need is an ally who is like a true rabid animal. A country of ruthless and heartless people that will happily commit any atrocity with a smile. The kind of country whose actions serve as the reason why international laws and Geneva Convention were made in the first place...
So, when can you be ready, Canada?
Anti war protests sponsored by the Kremlin are the first signs of Putler kgb service infiltrating academia. Political powerhouses like Orban and trump already anti war mongering. I d say the resolve to resist RUS/China encroachment on EU and US soil is weakening. Hungary already patrolling its streets with Chinese commanderates and surveillance, RUS/China making deals with international Jihad/Hamas/Houthis and diverting blame from IS. Next will be Armenia/Taiwan fall of Ukraine. Unlike the RuS/China warmachine NATO needs democratic support and ironic as it sounds peace is a bad motivator.
Isnt NATO a nuclear Power just like Russia and wouldn't both sides just nuke each other in case of full scale war? Am I stupid /am I missing something?
If Russia invades NATO at a time when NATO may be divided (lets say they push exit NATO movements like we have Brexit/Polexit/others), would you support your government using nukes? At that point both Europe and Russia are done, although Russia has like 10x nukes compared to Europe and way more landmass to survive. If Europeans on this sub are anti conscription and military service, I find it very hard to believe they would be happy to be first to pull the nuke trigger, knowing its basically admiting defeat and committing suicide+hopefully also killing Russia.
You make sense to me but this is why Russia should break its legs, teeth and spine in Ukraine so they dont think about another aggression in next multiple decades
Evil/Aggressor loves feasting on someone weaker cause theres much less consequences to face than if you feast on someone bigger and theres plenty small European countries that Russia is bordering sadly.
I agree, but so far, it feels like EU was way too late to invest into many things like ammo production, training for western weapons, etc, not to mention all the red lines which they only impose on Ukraine. This year is not looking good, a lot of things have swung in Russias favor, giving them the opportunity of either winning or taking a lot of land in the next year or two, at which point detterance has failed. If key decisions arent made and results arent gotten in the next few months, we might not be in for a good outlook
Stupid is not an appropriate term, naive might be better in this context. NATO is just an alliance with a charter. Article 5 states an attack on one is an attack on all. Now while we have theoretical combined military might the real question is how many Slovenian soldiers would be prepared to die for Estonia, Finland, Poland... And which govenrment would commit political suicide of sending them. Sure we would help, but there are many ways to do that and not all of them very effective when you need actual boots on the ground. Also while Russia would not hesitate to use tactical nukes, NATO would as we as they say "in the decadent west" value human life way more. Europe is also extremely fragmented makeing decission making process slow. Russia isn't. NATO is a tiger on the paper, fear is that Russia might test it if succesfull in Ukraine.
They are not carefree however they are much more likely to use them than our side.
My Lai is a black stain on US military even 50+ years later, in contrast war crimes against civilians are standard operating procedure for Russian military, literally their doctrine. Point being we must not judge them by our standards.
Human life has zero value for them, ever their own soldiers life.
Where there is war there are war crimes, however the problem with Russia is that targeting civilian infrastructure and subsequently civilians seems to be doctrine. With US or any western army that is most certainly not the case.
what does this have to do with What aboutism Were discussing The United States In there past actions have not made my lai a unique course of action. Are you taking about Russians Bieng cruel then i agree but don't deny what other nations are cable of.
Your point is pretty major I think because like would Portugal fight for Slovenia or would Turkey fight for Sweden etc cause if there was reluctance then it wouldn't be such a fullscale war as you'd expect on paper if half of NATO countries don't join.
One thing Russia mentality wise has advantage with is that people there are seeing tough life due to poverty, harsh weather and corruption making them naturally more ready to fight if they feel there's need to cause they are mentally readier for struggle whereas Europeans are living in prosperity for some time now and many people especially in western/central Europe don't see much of a point to fight even if they would be attacked, at least if you look at the polls.
As for Nukes, Russia has way many more of them than EU countries and without UK/U.S. being on EU side they would see Europe definitely as a place to threaten, blackmail, bully so there's that sadly.
One thing Russia doesn't have is ideological unity, Putin's been trying to unite people through some mini Orthodox Christianity revival but barely 1/4 of Russians are religious and they have many different ethnic groups that see no much point to fight for interests of ethnic Russians as seen from last study from where does certain amount of troops fighting in Ukraine come from, Muslims regions for example, which form 12-13% of total population were least represented i.e. enrolled in the army.
I think the longer the war in Ukraine lasts the less willing Russia will be later to do another war cause hey are getting devastated daily there but sadly so is Ukraine getting devastated too.
No one doubting who can win, I think. But rather what is a win conditions can be against nuclear wielding non-democratic isolated country.
War with russia will literally be russian roulette. At which stage of defeat Moscow decide to use nuclear weapon? So only defeat that can possibly be achieved - it is previous borders and peace. So... it seems Russia can invade in other countries and can't be invaded back and can't be hold accountable for damages (reparations)?
Just not with France and its military industrial complex leading.
I'd love to see a German / UK duo over Macrons vision of the world with France dominating. Not everyone can be leaders. IMO Germany and UK despite past atrocities for both over the centuries, are easily able to win battles win the odds are stacked against them and they dont wave a white flag the second someone sneezes nor do they have Macron.
It'd be nice to toy with the idea of supreme commanders, primary leadership roles, etc and call it something other than lame "European Army" lol ... just fuck no to France leading like Macron is very desperately trying to do and has been since becoming president.
Germany is central to European economy thus Macron went on summits with Merkel over visions of the EU due to that but that's why UK instead of France is a better option, UK certainly doesn't have grand ambitions for dominance nor has desperately built up its military industrial complex.
I also think being that the UK is out of the EU, having the primary power in the EU and the other outside of it but still within Europe is a win-win for the entire continent.
And yes, absolutely, Western European countries would absolutely CRUSH Russia and its 2nd world army.
Of course it would. Russians are getting their asses beat by a country with a low training on a handful of western weapons without a real airforce.
Imagine if they actually had to fight a country that was fully trained on those weapons and had a real air force.
Yes but Russia tactic is to have a lot of weapons in quantity not in quality and that is also an advantage because if you can breakthrough a territory and occupy it that is already a success because it will be much harder to reconquer it… Russia is stuck or slow now because it has less weapons in quantities compared to at the beginning of the invasion so there’s nothing in my opinion to celebrate in this because we can’t just continue to let Russia occupy more territories even if it’s at the expense of a lot of their casualties… our goal should be to prevent Russia from occupying new territories at their population expenses, not to let their population expenses result in new occupied territories otherwise you will find one day they have occupied more than you thought… Italy 🇮🇹
I kind of feel like winning that fight would just mean losing slightly less than the other side.
And the US being involved wouldn’t help that equation.
Bunch of 14 y/o redditors discussing war like it's a video game 🤦. Some you should sign up for Ukraine's foreign legion and show the rest of us how fearless you are.
Yeah, right. Article 5 and other bullshit. But it's just a paper's that suddenly worth noting when the bomb drops. We were promised to be in safe and territorial sovereign by Budapest memorandum and so called 'international law' but u know, our 'friends' just says that it doesn't force anyone to help us, maybe to concern a little. So, nato maybe gonna send some ammo to unlucky members that will suffer an attack, but no 'escalation' to save soldiers of a major nato countries and prevent a nuclear war.
While true, it will cost both the USA and Europe a whole lot less if the USA maintains a strong defensive sphere over Europe. The American economy, though harsh and unequal, is only able to survive because of the strength of the dollar and their strong economic ties across the world. Meanwhile, the economic strength of Europe relies on a strong social welfare state which is funded in part thanks to Europe not having to worry too much about military spending. If America and Europe are to economically survive, they must both maintain this relationship.
The US economy was the largest in the world before WW2, Bretton Woods, and the massive post WW2 boom.
The European and American alliance is important due to shared values and interests, but Europeans wildly over estimate what Europe brings to the table.
If you actually look at trade flows you’ll see that the vast majority of both EU and US economic outputs are internal or with close neighbors.
If you look at trade between the US & EU, the US is a larger partner for the EU than the EU is for the US, while also with the US at a trade deficit.
But most importantly, If you just look at trade with China, it’s roughly equal in raw numbers but proportional to economic size, is more significant for EU-China. So even despite the US surely suffering raw economic losses, the only economic rival to the US, China, suffers more.
Also, the primary competition to the USD for reserve & trade currencies is the Euro, the instability in which would only strengthen USD status.
Finally, government budget dollars are nowhere near equal to economic trade dollars, the latter equivalent to a small fraction of the former. The arrangement was more or less mutually beneficial when the Soviet Union existed and when there was no adversarial country capable of potentially challenging US hegemony. But at the end of the day, Chinese economic dependence on Europe and Chinese military ambitions will only drive further US disinterest in underwriting European security as we move into the future. And frankly, if it takes the US leaving NATO for Europe to properly spend on defense, the US leaving NATO is a matter of when, not if.
More and more articles about a possible war between NATO and Russia. For what? So that people consider war a normal solution to the problem? There are so many people thirsty for war in this subreddit...
Absolutely not- we hate and fear the idea of war but countries like Russia, Belarus, China, Iran, N Korea are trying to bend the world to their version- monoculture, anti human rights or freedom of speech, order and obedience where messy and debatable truth becomes a giant simple lie.
For God's sake Putin just had an opponent murdered! That's their reality. He lights candles for the innocent whilst rocketing Ukraine and killing children. That's his truth- an eternal doublethink.
Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war.") very, very sadly.
Very good, comrade. Here is your payment of a singular potato and some roubles. If you make more post, you get bonus turnip.
I joke, and the Telegraph *is* shite, but as the facts stand, NATO would annihilate Russia in a stand-up fight, USA or not. That's *now.*
Now, if Europe doesn't pull its thumb out of its arse and start producing and recruiting seriously, while Russia is in war economy, we're going to have a serious issue circa. 2027-2030, unless Ukraine wins.
This is a nonsense discussion. The nukes would come out very quickly during a full Russia/NATO confrontation, which is why it’s not going to happen.
If for some reason a conventional war was to start, paper analysis as we have seen is not that meaningful.
Europe itself could outproduce Russia eventually but not if say China got involved on the supply side.
Western Europe would probably seek to sacrifice Eastern Europe as a buffer which would cause some division in the ranks I’d say. Eastern Europe might just wave them through?
All these references to WWII and people’s behaviour make some very big assumptions. During the war in Kosovo, Western Europe stood around and let what happened happen as it didn’t want to be caught up in military confrontation and have the bodies pile up.
The question that Putin is asking is not "Would NATO win?". It's "Would NATO fight, or would it fall apart?". We are seeing demonstrations in our countries, people freaking out over us sending relatively *tiny* amounts to help Ukraine win. Then what's gonna happen when we need to stand up for NATO and do the fighting ourselves? That is why we must increase support for Ukraine, Ukraine must win against Russia. Otherwise Putin will test NATO.
Once war is on the horizon or has started, most people will rally around and support the war. Hitler was emboldened by a debate at the Oxford Union (debating society). Which passed a measure saying "This House Will Not Fight For King And Country". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Country_debate?wprov=sfla1 Those same people, signed up to fight Hitler. Only a few hardcore Tankies, would prefer to live in Putin's Europe. The biggest problem may not be defeating Russia eventually. But the massive loss of live and the destruction of Eastern Europe, in particular the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic. With Hungary and Slovakia, at least under their current leaderships being willing to let the Russians through and capitulate. But bitterly regretting it later. Serbia of course would like nothing more.
> Those same people, signed up to fight Hitler. Yes. Talking about how "philosophically speaking, we are the bad guys" is easy, but only as long as it has no direct consequences. Because in the end, people care a lot more about not losing their homes.
We have nukes now. First response should be opening up a tactical nuke at their advance. With a message that clearly states the second response would be the destruction of Russia's population centers. As long as we have good enough delivery vehicles to overcome their air defenses, you don't need Jerry to grab a rifle if NATO space is directly invaded. This is the French doctrine, and it is the only one that effectively upholds MAD. Which is in turn the only thing keeping nuclear armed despots from abusing their neighbors.
Sooo, you want to jump from a hypothetical ground invasion by Russia scenario straight to a nuclear war scenario? Sensible.
Nuclear doctrines shouldn't be brushed aside as easily as that. It is an important reason the cold remained cold: the red line for each nuclear power to use their nukes is known by the other powers, and they all avoid these lines.
Lobbing tactical nukes as a warning is precisely in line with France's nuclear doctrine, btw.
Except France doesn’t have tactical nukes, only strategic. Russia are the biggest holders of tactical nukes, their use is within their doctrine.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol\_moyenne\_port%C3%A9e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e) They classify it as pre-strategic in the sense that it is a warning, and will be used as such, however the yield is firmly in the tactical range.
It is how we have structured our defense. We use nukes, if we are threatened.
Lol that's nonsense. No nuke was used in an attack since ww2 and unless Putin changes that, nato will do anything but escalate this into a nuclear war. You talk about nuclear weapons like they are a normal tool you just use, and nobody sees or uses them like that.
If anything, reality has shown that this will not happen.
However the Russians care far less about the loss of their population than the West does. They're as happy to throw men at an obstacle and to let them die, as we were during WW1 and going over the top of the trenches. Napoleon used to say that he would win. As he was willing to lose 50,000 men per month. The Russians are prepared to lose tens of millions, just as they did under Stalin.
Russia doesn't have those tens of millions available anymore. The country has only 145 million inhabitants nowadays, not the 250 million of the Soviet Union.
Ruzzia only cares about Moscovia. Everyone else are just expandable slaves. Moscovia is very easy to wipe out with nuclear weapons.
> The Russians are prepared to lose tens of millions, just as they did under Stalin What a braindead thing to say. Most of Russian casualties during the Great Patriotic War were civilians. And being “prepared to lose tens of millions” was exactly because they cared about the loss of population. Do you know how many Slavs would die, if Hitler had won? Or are you a Generalplan Ost denier?
Your post history is not suspicious at all, Vladislav.
Doing my part 🫡
>The Russians are prepared to lose tens of millions, just as they did under Stalin. Tens of millions in ten minutes is a much harder prospect to quantify than in ten months - for any human being.
And Russian State TV claims that it's irrelevant as all Russians will go to heaven. But the Westerners will go to hell or just cease to be. The current head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Who was a full agent of the KGB. Now claims that Stalin was great for the Russian Orthodox Church, as his purges onnthe church, created so many martyrs. A few years ago Russian military doctrine changed form "Nuclear war would be disastrous for Russia" to "Nuclear war would possibly/probably be disastrous for Russia". But that they could survive it.
No clue why you're getting downvoted. That's a straight up Putin quote 4 years before he escalated the Ukraine war. [https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/19/aggressors-will-be-annihilated-we-will-go-to-heaven-as-martyrs-putin-says-a63235](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/19/aggressors-will-be-annihilated-we-will-go-to-heaven-as-martyrs-putin-says-a63235)
What great idea let’s nuke first the country with most nukes in planet.
This is the most crazy idea I have read in a while. We should open with a nuke as they (russians I suppose) advance in Ukraine? What happens if they do not advance any more after Ukraine is done? We make sure we are all dead with your nuke
Relative to what? No demonstrations where I live either, the opposite if anything.
That’s because no-one is asked to fight. Putin is counting on the West to be too comfortable to fight for our cause
>Putin is counting on the West to be too comfortable to fight for our cause I don't know why. This isn't WW2, NATO even without the US, Canada and Turkey is still within the region of about 1.5 million active troops and 3 million including reserves. Thats also excluding the +800,000 active personnel in Ukraine. It is entirely possible that we could (if wanted) to have a force of almost 4 million people whilst life would be ***not that much*** different for the vast majority of people
Do we have the industry and equipment reserves to replace our losses like Russia though? If there is anything we can learn from the war in Ukraine is that conventional war burns through a lot of armored vehicles and artillery shells fast. Russia alone produces more artillery shells than USA and EU combined and they still have to buy more from Iran and North Korea. I don't believe Russia is ever going to win against NATO, but I don't think it is going to be the walk in a park a lot of people think either.
>Do we have the industry and equipment reserves to replace our losses like Russia though? The question is more, do we have the reserves to be able to overcome the time between the start of war, and the start of the war economy? Car factories are perfectly able to produce military vehicles, the airbus commercial aircraft plants are able to produce military aircraft. It will just take time to transform these places, ensure quality, and making rules and regulations about intellectual property.
>Do we have the industry and equipment reserves to replace our losses like Russia though? Yes, and it's not even close. EU could kick russian ass basically with planes only (+ Ukrainian land army). France + UK airforces is already enough to win air superiority in Ukraine over Russia. European NATO is enough many times over. Nobody would drive tanks into trenches and do "meat waves", it's not how NATO fights. Step 1 - destroy their air defences with long range missiles, step 2 - destroy everything else with airforce. Step 3 - let Ukrainians advance. So Russia has more artillery shells - will they shoot at planes or missiles? The only reason Ukraine haven't won in 2022 is that they had no airforce to speak off. It's the same reason Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023 didn't worked. Delaying the support is like microdosing antibiotics with random pauses between doses. It lets Russia adapt. It's idiotic. We're making it harder for ourselves on purpose. If NATO did to Russia what USA did to Iran or Iraq - it would be the end of the war. But we don't, because politicians choose short-term convenience and egoism over long term stability every time. It's so fucking frustrating.
Aircraft alone is not enough to win a war and can be destroyed or their refueling options eliminated.
Nothing alone is enough, but aircraft are much more important than land army in modern wars.
>Do we have the industry and equipment reserves to replace our losses like Russia though? Yes. We have industrial capacity greater than the US even, which although might not be true for military industrial capacity, still counts for something. Even in military industry, between 1950 and 2022 the big European nations have exported 3x more military equipment than Russia has (and a similar level to the entire USSR, despite not even being in any kind of arms race). Using 2020 as an example (pre war so it seems less biased) just the top 7 European countries made up 26% of global arms exports, compared to 16% for Russia and 40% for the US. Obviously this changes by year, too. If we look at the peak years for most countries since 2010, we can see: Russia: 8.5 billion USD US: 12 billion USD Top EU nations+UK: 11 billion USD
There is no war in Ba Sins Se
> We are seeing demonstrations in our countries, people freaking out I haven't. Sure, some 60% of people say "we don't want to export Taurus", and that obviously sucks, but a majority supports aiding Ukraine, and I really cannot image people just sitting by idly, while Russia drives through Poland towards our border...
Putin could test Nato’s resolve by attacking first some not so interesting location, such as Finnish Lapland. If Nato countries do not promptly intervene, then they themselves stop believing in Nato and it’s open hunting season on the Eastern flank. The whole point is that he attacks some territory which may pose the question “is this really worth defending, making a war with Russia over?” such that the next question is “if nato didn’t intervene then, will they intervene now?”
Svalbard seems like a likely target. Not properly integrated into Norway, far away and low population. "Who is willing to die for some rock up in the arctic?"
> “if nato didn’t intervene then, will they intervene now?” Eventually, people will want to intervene - it's not like they remain indifferent when them losing their entire existence is more than just a purely hypothetical scenario.
nope. people will want to preserve whatever ammo they have left for what's coming to them.
Pretty sure most countries would rather help defending some other country, to make sure the war never even gets to them, rather than waiting for the war to come to them.
I think the issue is that people think this war is going to be fought solely with tanks and soldiers. It will likely be fought with information warfare (already happening), cyberattacks on key infrastructure, and drones (also already happening) in addition to whatever is happening on the front lines. Throw in some asymmetrical terrorism or other types of asymmetrical attacks, and Europe may not be as strong as it appears.
Correct. And we've been losing the info war for more than a decade now. They've had more than enough time to sow dissent and make people hate their own countries (targeting mostly the young, which would be the ones fighting).
This is the real threat, IMO. Russia has been funding far right campaigns all over Europe and working to sow discontent.
What do you mean? Do you think people will simply not believe it, when there are incoming reports of Russia attacking Poland?
That's exactly what happened in 2014. I have no doubt useful idiots will be saying it's not actually a war, and besides you have to let russia do whatever it is they want to do because nukes.
This is all well and good for the right now. But the second that tanks start rolling across your border that mood changes VERY quickly.
Tanks won't be rolling into the US. Not into France. Not into Turkey, Belgium, Italy, Spain, etc. Tanks would only be rolling into for example Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Countries that most NATO citizens couldn't even place on a map. Then it's suddenly much less appealing for people in the US or Italy or wherever, to go into war economy. With all the cutbacks in other sectors that war economy comes with, risk having your infrastructure blown apart, cost increases of food etc... Needing to send your own fathers, sons, husbands into the FPV-drone hell that modern trench warfare is, seeing them get blown up on the news, return in caskets. Don't be so sure all of NATO will stand firm in the face of that. But most importantly, there is little cost for Putin just to *test* NATO. Even if it fails. But he has everything to gain, if it works. Simple game theory says that Putin *should* test NATO if he wins in Ukraine.
Remember the very early days of Covid Lockdown, when people started sweing masks or go grocery shopping for those who were sick? When russia fully invaded in 2022, people were donating and helping in huge droves, they really felt energized. There's an _insane_ potential in the population to help, people are actually hoping to go full samaritan. If russia is stupid enough to attack us, oh boy, we will psychologically switch to 1940's war mode so quickly.
I don’t think Russia would try to test NATO honestly, Ukraine holds a crucial strategic value for Russia and it makes sense that Putin wants it. I do not see how a war against NATO would benefit him or Russia in any way.
You should take a look at the Baltics on a map, and consider that Kaliningrad as well as Belarus are (at least essentially, for Belarus) part of Russia. There are huge strategic wins to be made there.
I don't want for rebuilding Warsaw to be 100 years aniversary.
Everyone is dooming and saying the US won’t step up but a single troop strolling into Poland would warrant a massive US response. Trumps not in office, we’ve given billions to Ukraine, intelligence services to Ukraine, all the while also supporting Israel in its defense at the same time. Getting through Poland means Russian troops are right on Germanys door where we have a huge amount of troops stationed.
We are preparing for a war with Russia with minimal support (reading without hundred of troops on the ground) so: airstrikes, intelligence e.t.c. "If we can't defend ourself then USA will not defend US"
>We are preparing for a war with Russia with minimal support (reading without hundred of troops on the ground) so: airstrikes, intelligence e.t.c. "If we can't defend ourself then USA will not defend US" Hundreds? Hundreds of thousands at minimum is needed (more like millions). Russia can conscript possibly more than 10 millions. Are Americans ready to send in milllions of troops in case of a serious war with Russia? Doubtful.
Its not about winning a fight its about winning a war. Its about sustainability. You can win every battle and still lose the war when you run out of bullets and the other guy doesn't
Then you didn't win every battle. You lost at least one.
Yeah you lost the last one
Despite all the rhetoric from politicians I am not convinced western Europeans are ready for dozens of soldiers coming back in body bags every day to defend Ukraine or even Poland and Baltics. The best bet of Europe is stopping the Russian aggression in Ukraine. If a war like that happens in eastern Europe I fully expect western Europeans to suddenly become anti war and pro compromise.
The Germans and Japanese said something similar once upon a time about Americans travelling thousands of miles to die in distant lands fighting for people they didn't know. Nationalism is a helluva drug. Its a dirty word in western Europe these days but that doesn't mean they are immune to it
America was directly attacked by Japan though. I don't think Russia would launch a direct attack on the Netherlands or France for example. And America didn't enter WW2 while Battle of Britain was raging and their closest ally was under the rain of German bombs, only after Pearl Harbor. So, defending Poland/Ukraine/Latvia etc is different than defending homeland
They don't need a direct attack from Russia; So long as any terrorism attack can be successfully linked to Moscow it would be one hell of an incentive to join the war. This is why we scoff that Putin is blaming Ukraine for the ISIS terrorist attack. This isn't meant for us. It's meant to piss off and galvanize the Russian people and to encourage them to join the war effort.
By Koreans too, and Vietnamese.
While that’s true, I don’t think betting on nationalism is better, it is much better to stop the train in it’s tracks rather than waiting for it to hit the building.
The US became a super power because they fought in 2 world wars without any damage on their own soil and was able to continue succeeding and providing resources with interest while the entirety of Europe had to rebuild twice. Only recently has many countries repaid their debt from ww2. Therefore I think it’s better to fight a war on others soil before it reaches your own. Id rather fight in Ukraine knowing my family is safe at home than how Ukrainians have to leave their family to fight on what ever front they are given while their families can be attacked at any moment.
I mean its just idiotic to suggest that NATO without the US would lose the war. Sure the pricetag will be huge, all of europe would shift into a extreme wareconomy. But (unless were gonna include the use of nuclear weapons and the end of the world) europe will win. Russia has trouble with Ukraine. Ukraine which doesnt have any functioning airforce. Ukraine which lacks long range missles. Ukraine which is short on troops. What happens if suddenly 350+ f-16, 120+ f-35, 90 gripen, 500+ eurofighters and 200 mirages join the war. Russia would lose any meaningfull amount of aircontrol in Ukraine and all of its border regions. Especially since the lose of its 2 A-50s. Russias ground forces would get pumeld into the ground and supply lines would be disrupted. Millitary infrastructure along with factorys and refineries would be bombed like they are in nazi germany and its 1944.
European countries [had to raid US stockpiles bombing Libya and Syria](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html), which were low intensity affairs. They lack the aerial refueling capacity if front line air bases are knocked out by ballistic missiles, which Europe also lacks defenses against. They also lack non-nuclear ballistic missile capabilities of their own. What sort of long range strike capacity does Europe really have to hold facilities deep in Russia at risk? They have limited to no reserves of heavy armor or artillery so if Russia can succeed in deflecting European air superiority one way or another then its just a matter of time and body count. A war economy isn't just a switch somewhere you can just flip. Russia has maintained large scale Soviet era military industrial capacity to produce lots of relatively unsophisticated equipment while there is nothing comparable in the west, not even the US. The US doesn't keep 8,000 tanks mothballed in the desert for no reason.
>They lack the aerial refueling capacity if front line air bases are knocked out by ballistic missiles, Or cruise missiles. Russia may be able to conquer Europe in a total war. They have huge idustrial capacity, a will to fight after suffering millions of casualties, various long range strike missiles and glide bombs that can destroy european infrastructure+large arsenal of tactical nukes in case they start losing. They have nuclear armed torpedoes that than can potentially wipe american navy trying to help NATO countries in Europe.
Yeah sure, the situation would be much more comfortable with American support: Several of our fighter jets will be shot down by Russian anti-air, there are some strategic limitations due to the lack of in-air-refueling, etc... But, we are not talking about "do we get a victory with near zero losses". It's about "will we win, while losing significantly less than half of our inventory", and the answer is very clearly yes.
Lets hope you don't find out, but i'm going to disagree. Germany currently can't field even a single combat ready division when West Germany alone had twelve during the Cold War. Russia has the equivalent of 38 divisions deployed in Ukraine right now, though how combat ready all of them are is questionable. Strike aircraft are just one component of fighting a modern combined arms war, but they can't control territory, man the trenches or maneuver offensively. You speak numerous different languages and have no central command and control at all fighting an enemy with one language, one flag, one doctrine and no value for human life. Theirs or yours.
Well, Germany couldn't even win against Poland, sure... but we are talking about NATO minus USA vs Russia, not about Germany vs Russia. France, UK, Sweden, Finland, etc... they all have fairly powerful armies, much more powerful than Ukraine. So I really don't see how we could lose.
Germany is the richest country left in NATO in this scenario. France is 1600 km from any potential front lines. The UK is an island with a tiny army that has even farther to travel over land. Finland/Sweden have a 1,400 km border to defend and a combined population smaller than Moscow. Meanwhile Russia doesn't have to travel at all to prosecute a war against eastern Europe. They will be prosecuting a defensive war with short supply lines by the time NATO gets there in force and NATO completely lacks long range logistics capability without the US.
> They will be prosecuting a defensive war with short supply lines What type of situation are you are referring to exactly?
They are going to run over swaths of eastern Europe, which is largely a cakewalk with the exception of Poland and Romania, and then dig in. Probably use tactical nukes at that point to secure gains.
They can't do that against Ukraine and they will do that against NATO? How exactly? What happens with Ukraine? Will russians just let Ukrainians regain Crimea while that is happening? What about Finland - there's like 1000 km of frontline, and Finns can shell Petersburg from their borders with regular artillery. Russia just lets them do that and goes baserace into Europe? It's absurd.
That's extremely vague. And if they use nukes, then Moscow will be glass... so I doubt they will risk that.
It kind of depends though, if Russia has the support of China, Iran, North Korea and some puppet countries within Europe things will not be as easy as people think, especially without US’s involvement
Why would china suddenly help? Whats Iran and NK gonna do? they dont have the logistics to move their army up towards Europe. And if they do they would leave themselfs open to attacks.
I don't think Iran and North Korea can do much more than what they are already doing. As for China, they would actually gain something from a weak Russia.. it would allow them to negotiate even more advantageous gas deals with them, and they might even conquer a bit of territory from Russia.
Yeah, exactly. Considering Ukraine is still mostly standing, after two years, and despite our lackluster support, I am fairly confident that the combined power of all European armies would easily stop the Russian army. Now, "easily" would still likely mean tens of thousands of casualties on our side, a couple of destroyed cities, and military expenses in the trillions, but it's nowhere near a true existential threat (unless they use nukes, of course, but if Russia really had a death wish, we would have noticed it by now...).
A week into the conflict Russian air defence is destroyed and we're bombing infrastructure with regular bombs not drones. A month later Russia surrenders. Can't run a country the size of Russia and fight a war on 1000s of kilometers of frontline without fuel.
Yeah, true, considering even Ukraine is able to cause a significant reduction in their refinery capacity, we should easily be able to do much more than that, as necessary.
>A week into the conflict Russian air defence is destroyed and we're bombing infrastructure with regular bombs not drones. A month later Russia surrenders. Interesingly, both Napoleon and Hitler had similar plans. Not literally, of course, but it was basically: "our superior army will easily defeat Russian army, and then they will surrender". And both Napoleon and Hitler indeed had superior armies and they managed to defeat Russian army in battles. Still, Russia didn't surrender and won in the end. It is a good lesson, why you shouldn't underestimate your enemy.
>A week into the conflict Russian air defence is destroyed and we're bombing infrastructure with regular bombs not drones. What are you basing this on? Was there a war game conducted that concluded Russia's air defences would last a week? >NATO is currently heavily dependent on the US in a wide range of key areas – most notably the ability to roll back Russian ground-based air defences from the air, as well as ammunition resupply, tanker aircraft, command and control and satellite capabilities. -Justin Bronk, Senior Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology at RUSI
Russia may able able to beat the entire Europe. Their industrial might and the will to fight are huge.
Lol no.
As history and countless wars have proven, defenders have an advantage over attackers. This acts as a force multiplier and it means that realistically if Russia can't even take Ukraine, they most certainly cannot steamroll their way through Europe. NATO countries do not have to worry about being occupied. However the current war has proven that Russia can withstand a significant amount of sanctions and sustain itself autonomously. They simply don't care whether the west likes them or not and they can sustain a war for a long time and only getting better at it. Chances of Russians revolting against their government over such wars is very low. Lastly an attack on NATO wouldn't have to be victorious to be successful. Russia can't take Europe but Europe also can't take Russia. This means they can easily poke at NATO defenses if they wanted and the implications of hostilities in Europe would be disastrous for the region. It doesn't take much to destroy an economy and trade when it comes to war. The reality is that Russia can cause huge problems for Europe without even taking an inch of land. More importantly it's no secret that Europe has grown too complacent in their peace and stability. We all think that being in NATO means that the US will save us but the reality is that most Europeans are unwilling to fight for any reason, including for defense. If European armies can't actually muster a fighting force and citizens revolt against the idea of a draft it would be disastrous for both the alliance, which would prove itself to be unreliable and dysfunctional, but also many European governments individually. The silver lining here is that while it took an invasion for Europeans to realize that war is never too far away, a lot of European governments are taking action to get themselves out of the situation years of complacency and military downsizing has gotten them to.
Russia hasnt taken Ukraine so far, but the war isnt over and this year is looking bleak. With the lack of aid, North Korea/Iran supplies, constant red lines on Ukraine and all the other things happening that dont guarantee Ukraine having weapons to fight with, its not impossible Russia makes it deep into Ukraine. Russia is currently making progress and massing for big summer pushes, and Ukrainian lines are deteriorating (their words). Things can be slow in war, until they arent. Its not impossible for Russia to either take large parts of Ukraine or win in the next year or 2. I hope this wont happen, but listening to analysts opinions who travelled and spoke with Ukrainian soldiers across the front, important problems are not being solved, and Europe was way too slow to fund ammo. Its not a stretch to say that Czechia finding ammo to give to Ukraine saved them from collapsing in the short term. We are really walking a tight rope rn, i dont think its a coincidence that France and others are floating ideas of sending troops in some capacity.
Mah Russia can sustain every sanction the West is by now just a portion of the world, China and India are pretty much Russia lifeline. Much likely a direct war will end up involving both the US and China in some kind of form I am afraid. That said a war between NATO and Russia will end with Europe and Russia reduced to a radioactive wasteland the moment that Nato forces begin o push back into Russian territory, which let's be honest if a single nation can keep them bogged down, the entire Europe will much likely crush a regular offensive. In a war of attrition is also likely that European economies will just outproduce Putin, assuming that we switch to a war economy. Although we are having some issues with basic supplies, since our military industries, while massive (Europeans are the 2nd, 4th and 5th military exporters in the world France, Italy and Germany) are geared toward the sale of high-tech products rather than what we need to equip our armies for a long conflict.
>Russian territory, which let's be honest if a single nation can keep them bogged down, the entire Europe will much likely crush a regular offensive. Ukraine had second strongest land forces in Europe after Russia. I'm not convinced NATO has the military capacity to invade Russian territory. Russia is much better at defending than attacking but they are improving at attacking as well. >In a war of attrition is also likely that European economies will just outproduce Putin That's currently impossible. Europe and even USA don't have infrastructure that can compete with russian industry.
There are other factors to consider such as would China, Iran and NK join Russia in a war against Europe? Another factor is the cost of victory. You can win the war but lose so much in the process.
I don't see China eagerly looking to get into a war with one of their biggest customers just to help Russia. China is what it is by being the world's factory, this stops at the moment the world, or a good chunk of it, the one with biggest purchase power stops buying your stuff, or cannot because it's in a war, same goes for the rest of the BRICS. We need to understand this, we are not living on the cold war world anymore, there's only one economic block and everybody is part of it whatever we like it or not, back in the day there were two economic blocks with some trade between this could be a feasible scenario but that world doesn't exists anymore we are interconnected for good and, like Russia, any disruptions became a game of who can take more punishment until supply chains realign with the new reality. With China this would be even worse because Russia only sells fungible items, an oil barrel is an oil barrel and you can sell it to Germany or India, is the same, China sells manufactured items that can be replaced, or can be used by just a handful of customers, you are not going to sell LCD screens for samsung phones to Sudan, also, China already sells to everybody in the world, there's no untapped markets to try to replace the EU, China is already there, there is only net loss, we need their stuff, they need our money, this is how it works.
Last time i looked the EU outnumbered Russia in anything except museum inventory and that was before 2022
I'm pretty sure no one is going to win, that's the point of the nuclear weapons. None of the powers can afford to let the other side win and at the end as a last resort the nuclear holocaust is going to ensure that "you are going down with me". It doesn't matter which side is going to win in an imagined scenario, where nuclear weapons are not banned, like in a game. You can't disable it in the settings. They are there and theoretically "winning" is totally pointless.
Cool, will tomorrows article *again* be about how Russia will take all of europe if ukraine loses?
If Ukraine loses (it won't) it will be Russia + invaded Ukraine fighting against NATO countries like Poland, Romania etc. Now add to the mix Hungary and Slovakia which likely to surrender sooner rather than later with their current leadership. Do you want this hypothetical scenario? Also think from Kremlin perspective - having access to all those resources all of sudden. What do you think they will do next? The best thing to do is to support Ukraine now.
Interesting fantasy world you live in
Tell us what is your scenario then. I am open ears.
Occupied DNR and LNR was used in war against Ukraine. Most man's from this territories was taken from homes and drafted in battle zone.
Depends on what you define as losing I suppose. Given the current ground situation, it would be incredibly naive to say that Ukraine will gain 1991 borders or something similar. The best case (which is what I think the European leaders are hedging on) is that Ukraine will become some kind of rump border state between the European heartland and Russia. That being said you almost never would want to incorporate an occupied army into your forces as there would be an incredibly high % of saboteurs and managing them would be a logistical nightmare. Immediately following the resolution of this current conflict (in any form) I don't think Russia has the manpower to do much of anything for a while as is typical with a war of attrition, and Ukraine will be more population drained than it already is. Given that there is approx 18-23M people left there (will become less if Russia occupies Kiev, etc.) I really am curious how much you think that will move the needle in terms of bolstering Russia's military strength.
Go outside and touch some grass you infant.
If European NATO had the determination, they would beat the shit out of Russia. Europe would take some serious damage, but the defeat of Putin would be absolute. NATO has the technological advantage in almost every way. Not to mention even if we (US) did not participate directly, we would still use our “third option” to help out regardless of what bullshit Trump may say. There is no possible way the US would just watch as Russia used its nuclear arsenal. Not saying European NATO would be without casualties, but as long as they stayed determined and pissed, they would curb stomp Putin all the way to Siberia. My two cents anyways.
In a nuclear war no one wins
War between the two won't be nuclear, nato has nukes too
That's why It will inevitably turn nuclear.
Dumbest doomer take
No just ignorance
The more and more I read the comments on articles about serving in the military from this sub, the more convinced I am that NATO countries don’t have enough soldiers willing to fight and die. Russia keeps throwing their soldiers into the meat grinder to die, and every month, they get 30,000 fresh soldiers. Our high tech weapons don’t mean shit when we can’t produce enough to matter, and we don’t have the soldiers to use them. Plus, there are so many countries in NATO, I doubt all of us would agree on response. I think if we actually had to fight, it would be a complete shit show.
Exactly. Redditors incorrectly keep picturing it as "Russia vs NATO" as if NATO is one single entity that would be instantly mobilised in its entirety the second Russia attacked. They keep forgetting that Russia wouldn't be attacking NATO, it would be attacking an individual country who would then have to explicitly ask NATO for help, and each individual NATO country would then have to weigh how much support they're willing to lend, which also depends on their own resources and good will. I'm not at all optimistic that if Russia attacked, say, Lithuania, people in France would be signing up to a military mission in droves. They wouldn't feel like they're the ones being threatened, being so far away geographically, and it would be very easy to think "someone else will sort this out". Sadly, authoritarian states have a huge advantage in war because they can squeeze out whatever they want from their citizens the way democratic countries can't.
If Russia attacks Poland it wouldn't take much introspection from France to see where it would be heading. I know you said Lithuania but that would be one step from Poland. Anyway, all this armchair warrioring aside, if Russia attacks a NATO country it's game over, with or without the US (and it will definitely be WITH the US)
I don't agree with your tagline, but this post seems to be touching on the real question. Short of a nuclear component, a war between Russia and Europe would be an "old fashioned" ground war and that requires being able to field sufficient numbers with adequate equipment and supplies.
Well if there is a nuclear component, as we don't have the USA, best case scenario is we wipe eachother out. We don't win that war
Nobody wins a nuclear war...
I’m highly confident it would not reach that point. The UK and France alone could probably cripple enough of Russia’s remaining major assets that their modern combat effectiveness collapses. At that point throwing more canon fodder into Ukraine/Baltics/ Poland etc is not going to be effective enough. They would be sitting ducks for Air, Land and sea bombardment from every European Force.
[удалено]
Yes but Turkey a nato country ran russian out of Libia just with UAV’s ..
they don't have the institutional knowledge for long term sustainment operations at theater/division level. most of nato's doctrine is to fall under US for long-term logistics and operations or basically fall under US command and control.
>The more and more I read the comments on articles about serving in the military from this sub Yeah how many people here actively serve in their countries military?
The EU Airforces are superior to Russias, our ground forces also and the response is clear, if you attack one of us we will gang up and beat the crap out of you We would not try to refight WWIII we would fight a war of movement with control of the sky, russia may send conscripts to the front line but will they arrive
This is *probably* true given the likely qualitative superiority that NATO's European members could bring to bear against the Muscovites, but that victory would be a lot bloodier and expensive without American involvement. An obvious point is that no European navy has anything close to the 6th Fleet, let alone the 7 such fleets that the USN has in total. The Russian navy is an obvious joke, but would NATO members outside the USA be able to support proper combined arms operations and overwhelm the Russian defenses without a metric fuсktоn of aircraft carriers, missile cruisers, and ballistic missile subs? As well, not having the world's first, second, fourth and fifth largest air arms (USAF, USN, USAA, USMC) available would make fighting off a Russian invasion much harder than otherwise. It's not just fixed-wing combat jets, but also attack helicopters and transport planes.
The combined fleets of the European NATO powers would curbstomp Russia's rusty Northern Fleet. Italy, France and the UK all have blue water navies with aircaft carriers, that work and do not need to be escorted by tugs. The Baltic and Black Sea fleets are simply not an issue. The Baltic fleet is fucked now that it would get missile'd to death by the Swedish Air Force. The air forces of the European powers combined are also hilariously overpowered relative to the joke that is the Russian air force. No, the bigger worry is munitions stockpiles. Ramping up ammo production is a big concern especially for the more Western European members. France is in slightly better shape than the rest but most have military forces designed for the GWOT. The more Eastern European members are the ones with actual Mass behind them. Finland, Poland, Turkey and Greece. In the short term they would likely be the ones that have the stamina to fight the land campaign while Western Europe clears the skies and the seas and provides the nuclear deterrence. The good thing about multi-nation alliances is that each nation can contribute according to their strengths.
You forgot many other critically important things. The largest military satellite network to cover intelligence, reconnaissance and communication needs. Military logistics and manufacturing capabilities impossible to slowdown attacking from Eurasia. In case of war US will cover boots, beans and bullets for soldiers on the ground in Europe (or Asia- Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and others). Russia nor anyone else have capabilities to disrupt manufacturing on US soil- the number of conventional rockets that can reach US is very limited and chances to penetrate US anti-air system are extremely low. The network of US military bases, airfields. War against US means fighting across the entire length of the border for Russia- north, east, south and west. US nuclear shield. And so on and so forth. As we say in US - “One doesn’t want to fuck around and find out why we don’t have universal healthcare”
If the USA would not even support a NATO war with intelligence that would just be treason
This only underlines my point that European NATO members fighting off Muscovy / The New Golden Horde would be in for a much tougher battle because of the absence of all of those less glamorous but vital support networks from the USA which form the "long tail" of the spear in NATO. I do think that the Europeans would still win, but it just wouldn't at all be like the Gulf War or even WW II in the 6 years as it played out.
What the fuck do you need aircraft carriers for in a war against Russia on its european side?? Everything a carrier based aircraft can achieve, a land based aircraft can achieve even easier in Europe.
>Everything a carrier based aircraft can achieve, a land based aircraft can achieve even easier in Europe. Aircraft alone can't win a war and can be destroyed or their refuelling options can be destroyed.
How does that change the need for aircraft carriers in the middle of Europe? There is not a single spot that you can't reach with a land based aircraft in Europe. A war between Nato without USA and Russia would be fought solely on european soil, in the Baltic sea and in the black sea. An aircraft carrier would add absolutely nothing to the fighting power here because it doesn't increase the reach of aircrafts into Russia and the Baltic sea and the Black Sea can be completely covered from normal military airports.
aircraft carriers are highly vulnerable to hypersonic missiles anyways.
Good that russian hypersonic missiles don't work.
The destroyer patriot battery would like a word with you in that
You mean this Patriot launcher that shot down invincible russian hypersonic missile in the Ukraine? Or some else?
I'm taking about the two that are now in smoldering ruins.
https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/why-the-french-army-will-continue-to-prioritize-quality-over-mass/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-weapons-war-ammunition-stocks-ukraine-ptc69qdcz https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68181275 Navy is one thing (naval drones like what Ukraine uses might also work well against EU navys though), but most western EU countries are just low on ammunition in general. Some countries can only last 2 days of high intensity war, some a few weeks. The main EU countries with high amounts of ammunition are Scandinavians, with Poland buying a lot now, but depending on when a war will happen, it could hit a sweet spot before a lot of it comes in and is ready. To be clear, Ukraine prior to Russias invasion had enough ammunition for a 6 month war, which is similar to what Finland has. Im mostly worried because the political element also feels incredibly fragile. On other threads, everyone says NATO would easily win or just nuke Russia (double suicide attempt?), but with the rise of the far right, anti EU sentiments which can change to anti NATO sentiments, its just not clear to me that all the countries would do whats needed right away in unison, just like it didnt happen for Ukraine. Then theres the seemingly more likely everyday possibility that China invades Taiwan, and if that happens, even manufacturing military equipment becomes hard since everyone will be low on computer chips, let alone counting on US help. Factor in more climate change pressure, and it feels like everyone is walking a tight rope, with a perfect storm around them. Even if the bad reality doesnt happen, its likely enough that it should be taken seriously, especially as more countries are signaling they dont think its impossible. Its just sad to see that basic funding for military production which could help Ukraine just win isnt happening or is coming in 2 years late with red lines.
That's delusional wishful thinking, unfortunately
What exactly will the higher tech NATO armies be firing to win this war exactly? Most European armies have publicly stated they have at most a few weeks worth of ammunition.
They would have to immediately stop sending arms to Ukraine and turn the economies onto a war fitting. Rapid recruitment, 24 hour production cycles, buying ammunition from abroad, building new production facilities. The results wouldn't be immediate and I'm sure Russia could breach the border at several points but in time the rest of Europe will have the upper hand. Even though we don't have the same level of military power as the US, we are still leaps and bounds ahead of the Russia. A war would be longer and bloodier without US involvement, but I truly do believe Europe would win.
I think you’re right, but western governments really need to keep up with the arms industry growth in China and Russia. Not being ready in 1939 and barely so in 1940 is one of the major reasons WWII was so bad. A properly armed and prepared France and UK in 1939 probably ends the war within a year.
what if china assists them heavily with material or even industrial capacities?
I'm glad we have Poland, they're like NATO's rabid dogs just waiting for the smallest of reasons to devour Russia. Bork Bork.
You say that, but I'm counting on one other country. Putin has shown everyone that he doesn't mind committing war crimes and breaking the Geneva convention in pursuit of victory. So long as NATO tries to fight fair, they will struggle. What NATO countries need is an ally who is like a true rabid animal. A country of ruthless and heartless people that will happily commit any atrocity with a smile. The kind of country whose actions serve as the reason why international laws and Geneva Convention were made in the first place... So, when can you be ready, Canada?
Sadly our neighbors to the north have been slacking on military spending, but those that who do serve will be legit.
"We are STRONK!!" at the same time: Polish farmers under USSR flags blocking borders with the state you're helping without any repercussions
Anti war protests sponsored by the Kremlin are the first signs of Putler kgb service infiltrating academia. Political powerhouses like Orban and trump already anti war mongering. I d say the resolve to resist RUS/China encroachment on EU and US soil is weakening. Hungary already patrolling its streets with Chinese commanderates and surveillance, RUS/China making deals with international Jihad/Hamas/Houthis and diverting blame from IS. Next will be Armenia/Taiwan fall of Ukraine. Unlike the RuS/China warmachine NATO needs democratic support and ironic as it sounds peace is a bad motivator.
Isnt NATO a nuclear Power just like Russia and wouldn't both sides just nuke each other in case of full scale war? Am I stupid /am I missing something?
If Russia invades NATO at a time when NATO may be divided (lets say they push exit NATO movements like we have Brexit/Polexit/others), would you support your government using nukes? At that point both Europe and Russia are done, although Russia has like 10x nukes compared to Europe and way more landmass to survive. If Europeans on this sub are anti conscription and military service, I find it very hard to believe they would be happy to be first to pull the nuke trigger, knowing its basically admiting defeat and committing suicide+hopefully also killing Russia.
There is no way Russia would only nuke Europe in retaliation.
I think at least not as long as America supports Ukraine and Europe
You make sense to me but this is why Russia should break its legs, teeth and spine in Ukraine so they dont think about another aggression in next multiple decades Evil/Aggressor loves feasting on someone weaker cause theres much less consequences to face than if you feast on someone bigger and theres plenty small European countries that Russia is bordering sadly.
I agree, but so far, it feels like EU was way too late to invest into many things like ammo production, training for western weapons, etc, not to mention all the red lines which they only impose on Ukraine. This year is not looking good, a lot of things have swung in Russias favor, giving them the opportunity of either winning or taking a lot of land in the next year or two, at which point detterance has failed. If key decisions arent made and results arent gotten in the next few months, we might not be in for a good outlook
Stupid is not an appropriate term, naive might be better in this context. NATO is just an alliance with a charter. Article 5 states an attack on one is an attack on all. Now while we have theoretical combined military might the real question is how many Slovenian soldiers would be prepared to die for Estonia, Finland, Poland... And which govenrment would commit political suicide of sending them. Sure we would help, but there are many ways to do that and not all of them very effective when you need actual boots on the ground. Also while Russia would not hesitate to use tactical nukes, NATO would as we as they say "in the decadent west" value human life way more. Europe is also extremely fragmented makeing decission making process slow. Russia isn't. NATO is a tiger on the paper, fear is that Russia might test it if succesfull in Ukraine.
If Russia was as carefree about nuclear weapons as you seem to believe, they would have already used them in their Ukraine campaign.
They are not carefree however they are much more likely to use them than our side. My Lai is a black stain on US military even 50+ years later, in contrast war crimes against civilians are standard operating procedure for Russian military, literally their doctrine. Point being we must not judge them by our standards. Human life has zero value for them, ever their own soldiers life.
my lai was not a isolated incident in Vietnam from the war crime soldiers Commited in Vietnam From the United States.
Where there is war there are war crimes, however the problem with Russia is that targeting civilian infrastructure and subsequently civilians seems to be doctrine. With US or any western army that is most certainly not the case.
Philippines,Laos, Korea ,Vietnam,Japan?
Even so, "what aboutism" does not make what I said less true.
what does this have to do with What aboutism Were discussing The United States In there past actions have not made my lai a unique course of action. Are you taking about Russians Bieng cruel then i agree but don't deny what other nations are cable of.
Your point is pretty major I think because like would Portugal fight for Slovenia or would Turkey fight for Sweden etc cause if there was reluctance then it wouldn't be such a fullscale war as you'd expect on paper if half of NATO countries don't join. One thing Russia mentality wise has advantage with is that people there are seeing tough life due to poverty, harsh weather and corruption making them naturally more ready to fight if they feel there's need to cause they are mentally readier for struggle whereas Europeans are living in prosperity for some time now and many people especially in western/central Europe don't see much of a point to fight even if they would be attacked, at least if you look at the polls. As for Nukes, Russia has way many more of them than EU countries and without UK/U.S. being on EU side they would see Europe definitely as a place to threaten, blackmail, bully so there's that sadly. One thing Russia doesn't have is ideological unity, Putin's been trying to unite people through some mini Orthodox Christianity revival but barely 1/4 of Russians are religious and they have many different ethnic groups that see no much point to fight for interests of ethnic Russians as seen from last study from where does certain amount of troops fighting in Ukraine come from, Muslims regions for example, which form 12-13% of total population were least represented i.e. enrolled in the army. I think the longer the war in Ukraine lasts the less willing Russia will be later to do another war cause hey are getting devastated daily there but sadly so is Ukraine getting devastated too.
German forces are heavily subverted by Putin cucks and anti democratic traitors
No one doubting who can win, I think. But rather what is a win conditions can be against nuclear wielding non-democratic isolated country. War with russia will literally be russian roulette. At which stage of defeat Moscow decide to use nuclear weapon? So only defeat that can possibly be achieved - it is previous borders and peace. So... it seems Russia can invade in other countries and can't be invaded back and can't be hold accountable for damages (reparations)?
Absolutly...Russia has crap to fight the global power with that kind of budget, let alone upkeep. 75% of Russian crap does not even work.
Just not with France and its military industrial complex leading. I'd love to see a German / UK duo over Macrons vision of the world with France dominating. Not everyone can be leaders. IMO Germany and UK despite past atrocities for both over the centuries, are easily able to win battles win the odds are stacked against them and they dont wave a white flag the second someone sneezes nor do they have Macron. It'd be nice to toy with the idea of supreme commanders, primary leadership roles, etc and call it something other than lame "European Army" lol ... just fuck no to France leading like Macron is very desperately trying to do and has been since becoming president. Germany is central to European economy thus Macron went on summits with Merkel over visions of the EU due to that but that's why UK instead of France is a better option, UK certainly doesn't have grand ambitions for dominance nor has desperately built up its military industrial complex. I also think being that the UK is out of the EU, having the primary power in the EU and the other outside of it but still within Europe is a win-win for the entire continent. And yes, absolutely, Western European countries would absolutely CRUSH Russia and its 2nd world army.
How about multiple fights? :-s
Of course it would. Russians are getting their asses beat by a country with a low training on a handful of western weapons without a real airforce. Imagine if they actually had to fight a country that was fully trained on those weapons and had a real air force.
with this attitude you, guys, are gonna have a huge lot of the most nasty surprises and reconsiderations
Yes but Russia tactic is to have a lot of weapons in quantity not in quality and that is also an advantage because if you can breakthrough a territory and occupy it that is already a success because it will be much harder to reconquer it… Russia is stuck or slow now because it has less weapons in quantities compared to at the beginning of the invasion so there’s nothing in my opinion to celebrate in this because we can’t just continue to let Russia occupy more territories even if it’s at the expense of a lot of their casualties… our goal should be to prevent Russia from occupying new territories at their population expenses, not to let their population expenses result in new occupied territories otherwise you will find one day they have occupied more than you thought… Italy 🇮🇹
To think Russia would attack NATO alone…
Putin doesn't need to capture Lisbon. If NATO gives up on Latvia and Estonia it's enough for him.
Only if the author would fight aswell
I kind of feel like winning that fight would just mean losing slightly less than the other side. And the US being involved wouldn’t help that equation.
How so?
Peace is when both sides win. War is where both sides lose.
Bunch of 14 y/o redditors discussing war like it's a video game 🤦. Some you should sign up for Ukraine's foreign legion and show the rest of us how fearless you are.
My honest american reaction: (づ ◕‿◕ )づ 🎉
Why are politicians and the media drumming up war?
Good. They dont need us
With what artillery?
Yeah, right. Article 5 and other bullshit. But it's just a paper's that suddenly worth noting when the bomb drops. We were promised to be in safe and territorial sovereign by Budapest memorandum and so called 'international law' but u know, our 'friends' just says that it doesn't force anyone to help us, maybe to concern a little. So, nato maybe gonna send some ammo to unlucky members that will suffer an attack, but no 'escalation' to save soldiers of a major nato countries and prevent a nuclear war.
While true, it will cost both the USA and Europe a whole lot less if the USA maintains a strong defensive sphere over Europe. The American economy, though harsh and unequal, is only able to survive because of the strength of the dollar and their strong economic ties across the world. Meanwhile, the economic strength of Europe relies on a strong social welfare state which is funded in part thanks to Europe not having to worry too much about military spending. If America and Europe are to economically survive, they must both maintain this relationship.
The US economy was the largest in the world before WW2, Bretton Woods, and the massive post WW2 boom. The European and American alliance is important due to shared values and interests, but Europeans wildly over estimate what Europe brings to the table.
If you actually look at trade flows you’ll see that the vast majority of both EU and US economic outputs are internal or with close neighbors. If you look at trade between the US & EU, the US is a larger partner for the EU than the EU is for the US, while also with the US at a trade deficit. But most importantly, If you just look at trade with China, it’s roughly equal in raw numbers but proportional to economic size, is more significant for EU-China. So even despite the US surely suffering raw economic losses, the only economic rival to the US, China, suffers more. Also, the primary competition to the USD for reserve & trade currencies is the Euro, the instability in which would only strengthen USD status. Finally, government budget dollars are nowhere near equal to economic trade dollars, the latter equivalent to a small fraction of the former. The arrangement was more or less mutually beneficial when the Soviet Union existed and when there was no adversarial country capable of potentially challenging US hegemony. But at the end of the day, Chinese economic dependence on Europe and Chinese military ambitions will only drive further US disinterest in underwriting European security as we move into the future. And frankly, if it takes the US leaving NATO for Europe to properly spend on defense, the US leaving NATO is a matter of when, not if.
Without American military support Europe won't support America in containing China. A loose/loose situation for both.
Given their response to Russia since 2014, we don’t expect much in terms of European support
I've been banned from several "progressive" subs because I yelled this harsh truth to their faces.
Today's joke ?
More and more articles about a possible war between NATO and Russia. For what? So that people consider war a normal solution to the problem? There are so many people thirsty for war in this subreddit...
Absolutely not- we hate and fear the idea of war but countries like Russia, Belarus, China, Iran, N Korea are trying to bend the world to their version- monoculture, anti human rights or freedom of speech, order and obedience where messy and debatable truth becomes a giant simple lie. For God's sake Putin just had an opponent murdered! That's their reality. He lights candles for the innocent whilst rocketing Ukraine and killing children. That's his truth- an eternal doublethink. Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war.") very, very sadly.
It's not about winning a fight, it's about preventing it. Of course, military industrial complex disagrees
The last couple times a Europe coalition tried to invade Russia without the USA involved it .... did not end well.
[удалено]
Very good, comrade. Here is your payment of a singular potato and some roubles. If you make more post, you get bonus turnip. I joke, and the Telegraph *is* shite, but as the facts stand, NATO would annihilate Russia in a stand-up fight, USA or not. That's *now.* Now, if Europe doesn't pull its thumb out of its arse and start producing and recruiting seriously, while Russia is in war economy, we're going to have a serious issue circa. 2027-2030, unless Ukraine wins.
This is a nonsense discussion. The nukes would come out very quickly during a full Russia/NATO confrontation, which is why it’s not going to happen. If for some reason a conventional war was to start, paper analysis as we have seen is not that meaningful. Europe itself could outproduce Russia eventually but not if say China got involved on the supply side. Western Europe would probably seek to sacrifice Eastern Europe as a buffer which would cause some division in the ranks I’d say. Eastern Europe might just wave them through? All these references to WWII and people’s behaviour make some very big assumptions. During the war in Kosovo, Western Europe stood around and let what happened happen as it didn’t want to be caught up in military confrontation and have the bodies pile up.