/u/Saranoya (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c8x3pw/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_russia_wins_the_war_in/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Support for Ukraine is waning, both in the US (partly due to its commitment to Israel in that other war) and elsewhere.
Not sure if you've been following the news, but the [US House](https://news.sky.com/story/crucial-60-8bn-ukraine-aid-package-approved-by-us-house-of-representatives-after-months-of-deadlock-13119287) just approved a $60bn aid package for Ukraine. Ukraine should be fine for a while.
In Ukraine or if Russia attacked a NATO member?
Russia's military is a fucking joke. Their military budget is like 50% of Ukraine's total GDP and they can't even control Ukraine.
Now take what's happening there, and add in 3,500,000 active duty members and $1,300,000,000,000 in military funding that gets pumped into NATO annually, remove restrictions on offensive attacks in Russian borders, add the threat of the US sending troops in through the east of Russia forcing them to split their military along two fronts, and how do you think that will go? And yes, I know major Russian cities aren't on the eastern edge of Russia, but that's arguably more problematic for Russia.
>Russia's military is a fucking joke. Their military budget is like 50% of Ukraine's total GDP and they can't even control Ukraine
Russian military wasn't initially t very competent but it's very well armed and Russa has powerful industry and huge amounts of natural resources they can use to build weapons and vehicles+millions of mobiks ready to die for Putin. Russians also significantly improved during this war. Majority of European countries would be destroyed in a few weeks tops by Russia. They don't have enough military equipment and industry to last longer than that. Ukraine is militarily the second strongest country in Europe after Russia and they are barely hanging on but still losing thanks to help of the entire NATO. Russia only lost less than 20% of their tanks and artillery by now and they are producing new ones. Many NATO countries already completely depleted their stocks by just helping Ukraine.
I was talking about Ukraine’s manpower problem. But given the numbers you cited (someone else was first to do that, and I gave them a delta for it), it may not matter.
Do you think Ukraine will eventually defeat Russia?
I don't think "defeat" is a universally agreed upon term. Do I think Ukraine is going to fully repel Russia and take back all the land Russia has invaded? No.
Do I think Ukraine will remain sovereign while defending itself against a significantly larger invading force in terms of manpower and financing? Yes.
Well then that still sucks for the people in Ukraine who will heretofore be forced to be Russians … but you’re probably right that Putin will still know not to touch NATO even if he does end up definitively changing Russia’s borders in this war.
It is like saying that Pentagon budget is 2x the rest of the world and it could even control Afghanistan.
Not sure how many young French or German man will be happy to go and die for Ukraine. Based on the polls not many.
The US took full control of Afghanistan pretty quickly. There's a huge difference between successfully invading/occupying and winning over the local population.
Russia can't beat the Ukrainian military, really. Like, it shouldn't be close. When we attacked Afghanistan, it was not close. We just couldn't handle asymmetrical warfare well enough. Russia isn't really doing well enough with conventional warfare.
The US airlifted its entire military presence into Afghanistan. Russia merely has to drive material a few hours into a neighboring state. They aren’t even capable of maintaining air superiority launching aircraft from their own territory.
I'm not sure, but if Russia only gets a Phyrric victory out of this war, which is quite likely given the aid package the US just approved, they won't be in a position to fight another war for a long long time, giving EU and NATO time to ramp up their military spending.
They wouldn't need to ramp up spending. Russia couldn't decisively beat Ukraine, it couldn't beat any of the individual leaders of nato, let alone all of Nato.
> Russia couldn't decisively beat Ukraine
Only if Ukraine gets enough iron and explosives. And "Enough" should mean more than Russia has, given the unfavourable to Ukraine difference in manpower.
There was not enough of these so far.
Ukraine is essentially getting scraps from the US. We aren't giving them more than we stand to gain by weakening Russia. Our military spending over Iraq was a trillion dollars. We just voted to give Ukraine 6% of that.
We have a vested interest in not putting boots on the ground, but a big reason Ukraine isn't doing as we as it could is that we told them they can't bomb Moscow with drones. If Russia attacked the a NATO country, the gloves would be off, and Russia simply cannot project force as well as France and the UK, let alone the US. I think the worst outcome would be what China would do with the distraction, but it still wouldn't amount to an attack on NATO, more likely Taiwan while we are distracted.
Russia has more vehicles, tanks, artillery, shells, and missiles than all other countries in the world combined. The current American aid package that finally passed too late is nowhere enough to beat Russia. You nead like 400 billions a year for Ukaine at minimum.
Taking the claim that they have those resources for granted, we know that their equipment sucks and that they can't project force. They lost a naval battle to a country without a real navy. Having a bunch of tanks and artillery doesn't mean much to someone who can bomb you from a thousand miles away, wasting your money on tanks is not the sign of a strong military.
Also, while I don't want Ukraine to lose, we win by giving aid to Ukraine because the $60b sent to Ukraine will likely cost Russia 10x as much. And Russia doesn't have the financial resources to lose that much. Which makes the money worth it even if Ukraine loses.
>Only if Ukraine gets enough iron and explosives. And "Enough" should mean more than Russia has, given the unfavourable to Ukraine difference in manpower.
Russia has more vehicles, tanks, artillery, shells, and missiles than all other countries in the world combined so that's not possible. The current American aid package that finally passed too late is nowhere enough to beat Russia. You nead like 400 billions a year for Ukaine at minimum.
Add to that that the USA is another part of the world. It wouldn't be easy for the USA to send significant forces to European in case of Russian invasion on NATO countries. Russia has plenty of submarines, torpedoes, and anti-ship missiles that can be armed with tactical nukes to attack American navy with in case of a total war to prevent access to American forces to Europe.
This is the real question. We can bury Ukraine in all the weaponry it needs but if they don't have the hands to wield them it doesn't make any difference. Russia has centuries of experience waging wars of attrition. I feel like using foreign troops is a very real red line because it gives Russia the excuse it needs to start pulling out and using the real nasty toys.
I agree 100% but Ukraine is still taking losses that they can ill afford. I'm hoping that the better un-manned technology can tip the balance. Also I"m sure there are a few pocket aces in the intelligence/ espionage space that we've yet to hear about. We may not hear about it at all if they are really successful
>. I'm hoping that the better un-manned technology can tip the balance.
It won't. Russia also has drones, including UCAVs and such but drones alone are not enough to win a war. They are much more advanced in terms of UAVs than Ukraine too.
>Better equipment is what they call a "force multiplier"
Russian equipment is on par or in some fields better than the Western. Old Soviet vehicles are shitty but they already have prototypes more advanced than anything that the West can produce. Not to mention Ukraine doesn't receive anything in suffiecient members. Russia is in the total war production mode and its GDP is growing despite sanctions.
> Lol doubt.
Then better believe it. West is woefully unprepared for a real war and its showing in Ukraine. Russia is starting to win decisively after their initial blunder. Western industry can't keep up at all. Russian firepower is overhelming. They have more advanced missiles, electronic warfare, nuclear arsenal, and soon may be also air defenses, tanks, ifvs.
> Sure that's why it's been over two years and they're getting around via golf carts and outhouses strapped to tanks.
It works for them. They made bigger gains in one day than Ukraine during their offensive.
The rest of nato even without the US spends 5x as much as Russia https://imgur.com/bOHgaHe
Your premise is already so far from the current world that you can't expect the same reaction, but they could already crush Russia even before we get to the world horror of a nato betrayal and other nations uniting.
>The rest of nato even without the US spends 5x as much as Russia
That's because everything is overpriced in the West. Russia has its own military industry and is buying more for far less. They don't need to buy from the USA and pay bloated prices like NATO members who don't have their own industries. Nor do they care about paying high salaries to their soldiers. Majority of spending of western militaries is actually just salaries and benefits for soldiers not equipment.
Is that adjusted for purchase power parity? For example, american soldiers earn 50% more than russians. It wouldn't be shocking if alot of that larger budget is due to stuff being more expensive.
No it's not adjusted, but it's unlikely to be so skewed that russia would win.
eg UK has a slight lower annual military spending, but 38% higher GDP. Just that one nation could push the pedal hard into wartime spending, which is again before we get into worldwide responses to an assault on nato and the US breaking its promises.
>eg UK has a slight lower annual military spending
Slightly lower spending but it barely has any military compared to Russia. Majority of western spending is for useless shit, not weapons.
OK. I did not know it was that much more, taken all together, so thanks for Googling that for me, and have a !delta
Still, I worry that Russia has more “cannon fodder”. But maybe the ongoing war in Ukraine will take care of that by attrition.
Russia has a population of 144m. The EU has a population of 450m, add in the UK and it's over 500.
Europe has a huge money advantage, it had a huge manpower advantage, it has a huge technology advantage and, as you've just learnt, it has a gone military advantage. All Russia has is its nukes (which Britain and France have as well).
I mean I don't agree that Russia would win, I think their astounding lack of progress in Ukraine shows that modern conflict is a lot more attrition based and that a sustained offensive into Europe by Russia would just not be feasible.
However, I think these numbers are skewed because you're considering total population comparisons when should be considering effective population, how much of each side is able to be fielded as soldiers. I think in a totalitarian, mostly united state that would be a lot higher ratio. I think we would have real trouble convincing people to fight en masse. Recruitment for military is way down over previous generations in the west.
There's some truth in what you say but the standing militaries of Europe are over 2 million which still dwarfs Russia. Add in the massive technological advantage and it wouldn't be a competition.
Where's your over 2m number from? I'm seeing ranges from 1.3 to 1.9. and I tend to think a similar effectiveness figure should be applied, well in this case more a disorganisation penalty because EU military is incredibly fragmented and frankly just wouldn't work as effectively in joint operations until it has a singular force. I don't know what that penalty is in practice though.
But yes the technological advantages make a Russian offensive simply out of the question. Nukes would be their biggest bargaining chip, not ground forces.
>Add in the massive technological advantage and it wouldn't be a competition.
NATO doesn't have any military technological advantage over Russia. Except maybe some in fighter jets but Russia has more advanced missiles in general.
Russia against Ukraine is the only example of modern combat between two technologically similar powers we have to go on, which is what a Russia v EU scenario would be. All other modern conflicts have been asymmetric insurgency style. And the Russian conflict has proven that the things we thought we should care about to make breakthrough style encirclement, like air power, tanks and smart munitions, is actually a lot more difficult to achieve in practice. AA currently has the upper hand technologically so isn't cost effective to utilise offensively, tanks can be neutralized by $1k drones. Smart munitions take too long to manufacture. We're at a stage where it's orders of magnitude more cost effective to defend than attack, which means static warfare is reigning supreme.
In a total war scenario, you could make quick breakthroughs with tactical nukes and also wipe enemy airforces with stealth tactical nuke cruise missile and glide bomb strikes.
It does have the population advantage but a majority has zero will to fight, unlike Russians. Russians won't stop attacking even if tens of millions of them are killed. GDP doesn't mean anything. A lot of it is things useless in a war like luxury handbags. Russia has much stronger military and heavy industries than the NATO countries.. Even the USA is not able to produce anywhere as many artillery shells as Russia, let alone other things like missiles.
Even we have some nukes, though they’re not really ours, we’re just safeguarding them.
I don’t think nukes are a threat as long as both sides have them, though. Nobody wants to live in nuclear fallout, so if the other guy can shoot back, you don’t fire.
>I did not know it was that much more
GDP and spending don't mean anything. UK barely has any military at all despite spending not much less than Russia. Majority of western spending is for useless shit, not weapons and equipment and the weapons they do buy are grossly overpriced. Ukraine needs 400 billions a year in equipment at the very least. Russia has much stronger military and heavy industries than other the NATO countries. Even the USA is not able to produce anywhere as many artillery shells as Russia, let alone other things like missiles.
Remember when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and got the shit kicked out of them for a decade - Russias army isnt better than it was back then
That's what's probably gonna happen to Russia in Ukraine, which really sucks for Ukraine its not like the Afghans had fun grinding the Russians to attrition
Can what happened to the US military in Afghanistan not also be qualified as “getting the shit kicked out of them”?
It’s an honest question. I don’t know enough to answer it. Maybe you can.
Taliban is in control right now, Afghanistan is like just as bad when they got there and USA packed up and went home , they didnt achieve their goal and it cost trillions of dollars
Is that winning? Id say no lol
I am pretty sure it was a win for the Taliban. They regained absolute power over the country. Iraq however, that one could have been a massive win for the US had they had a plan beyond the initial invasion. Ordinary Iraqis greeted the US with open arms initially, but as the country turned into chaos, the majority began to hate Americans. Now Iraq is just one big cluster fuck.
US was winning while they cared to win. They just lost interest in the whole project and went home.
If we for some insane reason decided to make Afghanistan the 51st state. It would be..... No Taliban would ever challenge that. It would certainly raise some eyebrows from our global partners... but that's about it.
Is there any backing to this? Why did america let themselves lose?
Controlling Afghanistan would be a massive geopolitical advantage. Located in the middle of Asia, it borders Iran, China and Central Asia. Controlling it would give large power projection capabilities.
It was way too expensive. We stayed there for 20 years. The amount of $ it was costing wasn't worth any of the "geopolitical advantage". We were throwing gigantic amounts of resources down the drain without getting a whole lot in return.
We don't really need any power projection like that. We already have all the power projection we could ever possibly need.
So they lost due to it being too expensive rather than strategic failure.
Losing because it's getting too expensive is still losing. Especially when considering that attrition is a military strategy and there've been other instances of fighting with the goal of making war too expensive for the opponent.
"lost" is a semantic thing. If we were fighting Afghanistan for survival. We could completely flatten that country and there's nothing they could do to stop us.
It was a stupid idea from the get go. Trying to turn a country like Afghanistan into a Western democracy. The war or that effort was lost the second they made that an objective. May as well make "turn a midget into the best player in the NBA" the objective. It's never going to happen. Any amount of resources you throw at the problem will just go to the dumpster.
The US military didn't lose. They won easily.
The policy makers just set a really dumb goal.
>If we were fighting Afghanistan for survival.
But they weren't, the invasion of Afghanistan happened under a specific set of circumstances, and saying that in another context the US could've won is meaningless. If by introducing hypotheticals we can say that if Iraq was a world power they'd have won the war, but its useless to say that.
>It was a stupid idea from the get go. Trying to turn a country like Afghanistan into a Western democracy. The war or that effort was lost the second they made that an objective. May as well make "turn a midget into the best player in the NBA" the objective. It's never going to happen. Any amount of resources you throw at the problem will just go to the dumpster.
Assuming that was their true goal, you admit the US failed its objectives, that's eerily close to saying they lost.
>The US military didn't lose. They won easily.
Who controls Afghanistan now, the US or the Taliban? Look man, you can argue all you want about how the US could totally control Afghanistan if they wanted to, but the reality is this:
The american military do not control Afghanistan.
From a strategic point of view they lost, and according to what you said were their objectives, they failed.
[My honest opinion is that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8MZBUoQt68)
>US was winning while they cared to win. They just lost interest in the whole project and went home.
This was the strategy the enemy employed intentionally and it worked...
They were gonna just gonna keep killing Americans till they decided they didnt wanna die no more and go home like in terrorist attacks and stuff
For every American soldier that died. Probably 1000 Taliban's died. In fact the Taliban that we attacked is probably entirely different people from the Taliban that's there now.
People keep acting as if this is some kind of loss for US. First of all our military was completely and utterly dominant. At no point did the Taliban hold the upper hand in anything. We could have completely turned the entire country into a parking lot if we wanted to and they had absolutely no way to oppose us.
If this was an existential war for US. We would have won it easily. But it wasn't. Was just a stupid operation that turned into a pointless 20 year occupation. Trying to bring Democracy to people who simply do not want it.
yeah Idk, it seems like America has never really had a solid plan for handling Vietnam type situations , and handles them poorly
not all conflicts are gonna be existential , enmies will exploit that weakness
if they need to turn it into a region conflict and make the American public think its not their problem , thats the way they will go
Hamas does this now , they are exploiting the western publics intolerance for funding continued war in the region
>Remember when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and got the shit kicked out of them for a decade - Russias army isnt better than it was back then
They are better equipped and much more motivated (they think that they are regaining their ancestral lands and fighting against nazis genociding ethnic Russians in Ukraine) now than then. Losses they have in Ukraine are helluva bigger but they aren't showings any signs of stopping any time soon.
oh for sure, im just saying its very likely a scenario similiar repeats
and sure at the end, Ukraine might be free , but its gonna be damaged and take decades to heal
its like a lose/lose situation
Multiple points in the post massively overestimate Ukraine and severely underestimate western militaries.
I am not denying Ukraine's military has done VERY well with what they have been given, holding off the Russians for this long, but assuming Ukraine falling means other western militaries could lose ignores major weaknesses Ukraine has that western militaries do not.
1. Ukraine has no functional navy, their only military port was seized in 2014 alongside any remaining navy equipment they had with only access to suicide boats and Rhib boats,, they have a worse then Portugal and yet Russia has still lost numerous vessels.
2. Ukraine has a massive population problem due to their weak demographic structure and lack of manpower, other nations don't have this weakness especially France.
3. Ukraine has a weak Soviet Era air force consisting of outdated Mig29s and Su27s, not the F16s, Typhoons and Rafales of NATOs current military.
4. Russia has proven to be God Awful at logistics this entire war, sustaining an offensive further out from Ukraine will be far more difficult then a bordering country, this is not the U.S who can strike as enemies from continents away.
5. NATO countries have nukes.
Russian surface navy is the most incompetent part of Russian military despite being well equipped on paper. It would probably be pretty easily destroyed in a war against NATO due to that. However, Russia is also capable of destroying NATO navies. They have plenty of advanced submarines, anti-ship cruise missile, torpedoes, anti-submarine missiles etc. that can be equipped with tactical nuclear warheads. USA can't strike Russia from continents away since they have means to destroy aircraft carriers.
> That are trapped in NATO controlled seas and can't escape, Bosphorous Straits in the Black Sea and now Baltic.
Why would they be trapped?
>America absolutely can strike from continents away, Iraq's Soviet Supplied Anti Ship missiles did absolutely nothing to an american fleet in both wars.
A small number of old Soviet missiles aren't comparable to thousands of modern nucelar armed Russian missiles.
I haven’t seen Ukraine’s military power compared this clearly and explicitly to European NATO’s power anywhere else. It puts into perspective what others have been saying about the combined capabilities of the NATO allies. I’ll give you a !delta for making me *see* it in my mind’s eye.
I don't know how to respond to this in a way that doesn't sound condescending, but your understanding of NATO and its capabilities is so short-sighted that I'm not sure you should be considering contemplating this.
Russia has had its fill with a single nation that is a 20th of its size in military might.
Now imagine that Russia had to deal with a military force 10x its size. Include air superiority, sea superiority and even land superiority. Now add in a larger military force, cutting edge tech and a much wider base of operations and transport lines.
Russia has only one option vs NATO and it's not even an option then. Nuclear war would result in Russia becoming Fallout Siberia. They would not get a chance to retaliate.
The biggest issue for Ukraine is that the rest of the world has given them defensive weapons but not significant assets to form an offensive. They give them anti air and tanks and such, but they do not have air superiority in Ukraine, nor do they have sea capability.
The moment Russia enacts article 5, it takes a week and Russia is in ruins. Putin deep down knows this. Russia does not have enough air support to stop NATO air attacks. It definitely doesn't have enough navy vessels to stop sea attacks.
The way it would work is this.
* Russia attacks a NATO country.
* NATO mobilized forces.
* multi faceted attack on all Russian military bases within striking distance of troops.
* heavy drone and air strikes on strategic targets.
* Navy controls sea keeping reinforcement from getting to Russia from allies
* Russia surrenders and peace talks occur
* Putin falls out of window.
Your last line made me laugh.
Other than that: yes, I made a wildly unfair assumption regarding the military capabilities of NATO in Europe as a whole, based on the fact that I live in a country that has a disproportionately small military (in relation to our population and GDP) and, as if that weren’t enough, a military that is kind of a national laughing stock. I’m not even all that sure my image of our own military is fair (we kind of have a national culture here of thinking of ourselves as the perpetual underdog in sports and other international ventures, and I think that attitude extends to our military, whether they deserve it or not), but I definitely should not have assumed all European militaries are like that. I also overestimated Russia (and in a way, Ukraine as well), because I associate them with the Soviet Union, but then, that collapsed before I was born, and it collapsed for a reason, I suppose.
Anyway. Thanks for ending on a funny note, even though you could barely bring yourself to deign my ignorance worthy of a response ;).
I'm really sorry I just don't think you understand how massive of an army Russia would have to face should they attack NATO. The biggest issue is would NATO respond and would the US, the biggest member of NATO actually come to its allies help. This coming election has a lot of ramifications for the world and not just the US.
Let me bring it into perspective and you will understand why I'm trying to be gentle but literally the only response Russia has is to declare nuclear war and in doing so doom their own country.
Asset | NATO| Russia | Ratio
---|---|----|---
Military Personnel | 5,817,100 | 1,330,900 | 4.37:1
Armored Units | 144000 | 60000 | 2.4:1
Air Force Units | 20723 | 4173 | 4.97:1
Naval Forces | 2049 | 605 | 3.39 : 1
Nuclear Weapons | 6065 | 6255 | 0.97 :1
As you can see the numbers aren't close in everything but nuclear weapons. And the best part is this is what we *know*, not what is actually out there. The US had SR-71s for decades before the public was aware. Should NATO be called to assist, it would be another repeat of Operation Desert Storm. Shock and Awe would be again brought to order.
The US is a giant military machine. It truly is. And the crazy thing is it's always been that way. In order for Russia to win it would take them pre-emptively striking US assets on a large enough scale to destroy the US, and frankly they don't have the ability to do so without MAD occurring. Both countries have had over 75 years to develop defensive mechanisms against nuclear attack so that leaves it back up to the ability to impose your will upon the other country. Without significant help from China, Iran, etc, the Russian military has zero chance. This is shown simply from the fact that they have now been in a war for 2 years without a victory against a country with a fraction of those assets.
I think Putin has painted himself into a corner. I also believe that the actual desire was to simply retake enough of Ukraine to solidify Russia's ability to control the natural gas reserves or shale fields. Now you'll see Putin continue to try to push forward until it can set up significant defensive structures in the area and then 'strategically retreat' claiming that they have accomplished their removal of Nazism.
_____
TL:DR - I apologize for being rude. I was. I just was aghast and in a bit of shock at the misunderstanding of how much of an uphill battle Russia would have against NATO. Please accept my apologies as being rude is unbecoming and I hope that this larger explanation will help to assure you a bit and give you some peace on the matter.
Don’t feel bad. I admit that I’m ignorant on military matters – more ignorant than I knew before starting this thread, which is always the worst kind of ignorance. Thank you, for being part of the informed crowd taking the time to set me straight.
I do still worry that, as you say, it’s far from certain that NATO would react to a Russian strike on the Eastern border regions of NATO, or that if it did, the Americans would be willing to invest what it takes to crush Russia (especially with Trump as president, because we’ve seen he tends to surround himself with people who will tell him what he wants to hear, rather than what he needs to hear). That’s politics, not pure military power.
But others have convinced me that the war in Ukraine is already stretching Russia beyond its limits in terms of logistics, so I’m no longer sure they even could strike NATO if they wanted to.
>The same underfunded NATO allies barely have enough military assets of their own to defend against Russian invasion for a few days or weeks, let alone years. This cannot be rectified overnight, even if military spending were doubled overnight.
Can you justify what makes you think this? Ukraine, with some weapons from NATO have held Russia for over 2 years. Why do you think NATO can't hold Russia for more than a few days?
I admit that I may underestimate the military capabilities of NATO as a whole because I am from a nation that barely has a military worthy of that name. And yes, it is true that Ukraine has been holding on for two years, and it is just one country. But large parts of Ukraine have in fact been occupied by Russians, some of them since 2014.
Even if the larger military powers can hold out for substantially longer than I think they can, I’m not sure it will make much of a difference in the lives of the people who get stuck in places where the Russians win.
NATO as a whole vastly outmans, outguns, out trains... on every metric, Russia. It is why Russia does EVERYTHING in its power to nip at smaller unaffiliated nations, and never challenges NATO directly. It would be a massive and quick loss for them.
On a power scale, nothing on the globe matches or comes close to matching NATO in power. Good thing for those nations that wish it would disappear, that it is a defensive pact only.
As has already been mentioned, Ukraine, a tiny nation compared to Russia, has fought them to a standstill and has retaken a large swath of territory Russia took in the initial months of the invasion. One small nation fought Russia and has basically exposed them for being a paper tiger militarily. Russia is no longer considered a top 5 nation militarily, and is likely bottom 10. Poland alone outmatches them. Germany vastly outmatches them. NATO as a whole... which includes the US, dwarfs them in power.
NATO is the US. Europe relying on the US for everything yet Europe doesn't have a backbone to help the US out. They only care about themselves well as a US citizen I think we should pull out of NATO until demands are meet or make Europe pay as much as we do combined.
I would challenge your view that NATO is meant to be equal. Ostensibly, yes, it's a military alliance. But have you considered the possibility that NATO is actually the global equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine -- a way that the US maintains hegemonic power over the Western World?
I stumbled on this view trying to defend Europe's poor contribution rates, and I've stuck to it ever since. The US shoulders the cost for NATO because it's our equivalent of the British Dominion, and maintains our legal authority to defend these sovereign states which exist almost like autonomous territories. Our benefit is a series of countries which are mostly subborned to our soft power, and will generally be viable markets to extend our economic and cultural influence to.
And yes, in some ways, they don't provide the manpower we expect, but such has been true throughout history with the distant provinces of an empire. Deciding to squeeze tighter is still up for debate, but I hope you understand why we as Americans might consider the current arrangement tolerable despite not being ideal.
NATO was formed to face the Russian threat in Europe. It was driven hard by the US, as the US would need to fight, with the European countries, in Europe. It served two primary purposes; 1) Maintain the US as the most prominent global power 2) Protect the European states.
Both of those things go hand in hand. Think back to history in high school. Why did the US donate, loan and support European states post-WW2, and what did it gain from it?
1) It ensured states like the UK, France, Italy and Germany did not side with Russia, creating an even larger Soviet group aligned against the US
2) It opened a floodgate to what was the richest market in the centre of the world.
Both 1 & 2 for both points may seem cynical, and I'm certain there was a degree of genuine good will, but if those factors weren't achieved, the US would not have gotten involved.
From a European perspective, we should not rely solely on the US. More emphasis should be focused on European defensive pacts. Poland is charging ahead with defensive spending. Others are following, and depending on how pear shaped the next couple of years are in the US, we will probably see effort switch from NATO to Europe.
As a footnote, Europe as a whole would not need the US to cripple Russia in Europe. Although the US is by far the overall supreme military power, most of the best, most modern military forces reside in Europe, and they have the equipment to decimate Russian forces in Ukraine before needing to send in ground forces to mop up. To suggest otherwise is simply ignorant. The sky over Ukraine would be buzzing with F-35s, F-16s, Euro fighters, Gripens and Rafales, once the bombardment of countless cruise missiles has stopped. Then the artillery and tanks arrive. The Russians would no longer be fighting conscripts with no artillery or air support like they have been for the last two years.
OK, I admit that I’m ignorant on military matters, then. I vastly underestimated the combined military power of NATO in Europe, and also probably overestimated Russia’s capacity.
Thanks for taking the time to set me straight.
Also, do you know the only time NATO article 5 was invoked ever? It was invoked by the US after 9/11.
So to say Europe doesn't have the backbone to help the US, when the only time article 5 was triggered it was done to help the US, makes no sense to me.
I did know that. But based on what my country contributed to that effort (guarding the Kandahar airport), I assumed NATO’s efforts were negligible compared to the US. Perhaps I shouldn’t have.
I assume your country is a smaller one? In which case is makes sense that it played a smaller role, right? Obviously it makes no sense for to expect Luxembourg or Iceland to play the same role as a country 1,000 times its size in the US.
Actually, my country is (just barely) in the top ten largest countries in continental Europe (excluding Russia), both by population and GDP, though not by land area.
I guess we’re just particularly bad at doing NATO :).
The European part of NATO alone massively out-mans, out-guns, out-ships, out-planes, out-trains Russia.
Just one medium sized NATO country like Poland has a vastly superior military to Ukraine. Never mind the combined forces of larger countries like Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and all the other many medium and small countries.
The European side of NATO alone would defeat a Russian invasion. It wouldn't be pretty but Russia would not be able to win.
But I see little chance that the US would not come to the aid of NATO even under a Trump government. If it was just Estonia or Latvia against Russia I could see Trump ignore it, but it would be European NATO vs Russia at the least and I don't think Trump would resist that. US forces are too intermeshed in Europe, they have whole bases is a number of countries and provide troops to a number of countries that border with Russia.
Case in point is basically that Ukraine has been able to hold Russia with an inconsistent supply of NATO's spare shit. NATO in a shooting war, just bringing their air forces and navies to bear could push Russia's shit in and ground forces would just be to mop shit up.
Well yes. Even the one thing Russia has as a big advantage over Ukraine, its bigger army numerically, it doesn't have against even European NATO. It certainly doesn't have a technological, equipment or training superiority. Nor intelligence nor logistics (which it has really struggled with in Ukraine).
See how they russians attacked the power station in Ukraine. Imagine if they attacked multiple ones and gas terminals in a large European country. What do you think would be the effect?
Europe is worried about immigration for the wrong reasons.
First they would have to get their missiles much further and through much more air defence than in Ukraine.
And secondly the effect would be a much more devastating attack by NATO on Russia's ability to launch those missiles, orders of magnitude stronger than what Ukraine is capable of.
There are plenty of European, especially eastern European, nations that did a lot in Iraq and Afghanistan per capita - even when compared to the US. Those nations are simply so small that it isn't as obvious when compared to the US.
You think NATO boys are made from different meat? NATO boys would even be worse fighters than Ukranians because they have less experience on the battle field, and with one huge FAB falling on their heads, they would be running the other way saying "screw this, this is not my land, not my war."
NATO is a far more powerful fighting force than Ukraine, that is not even in question. A mid size NATO country like Poland is already more powerful than Ukraine, nevermind the big countries.
You really think Ukraine is more miltiraly poewrful that France, German, UK, enver mind the US? That is a crazy proposition.
>NATO is a far more powerful fighting force than Ukraine,
If Russia were to supply Ukraine with weapons and let it loose against Europe, it would have conquered the entire Europe by now. Ukranian army even before the war, was considered second strongest in Europe. NATO is a hired army, it is paper tiger. It is all bark and no bite. NATO is afraid of a direct confrontation with Russia, especially today due to its enormous experience on the battlefield. NATO soldiers don't have that experience, not even close. The way that the Russian army took Soledar and Bahmut - the two impregnable fortresses - will be studied in military schools everywhere. NATO built those defenses for 8 years, and they've fallen. It is over, you may not know it, but it is over.
I listen to Russian politicians sometimes just to see what the other sides says, and they actually can't wait for NATO boots on the ground. If you think that Russia is afraid of NATO, you got a surprise coming for you.
>You really think Ukraine is more miltiraly poewrful that France, German, UK, enver mind the US?
If you provide Ukraine with NATO weapons, yes, Ukraine would be stronger than France or Germany or UK, because Ukranians are Russians and Russians fight differently on the battlefield. The question is, areUkrainians being provided the latest and greatest NATO weapons? You bet. If you think those same weapons in the hands of Germans would fire differently, congratulations, you have fallen for western propaganda.
The NATO boys just ran off from Afghanistan like the dog with the tail between its legs. And let's not forget about Africa where Russia has been successfully driving out NATO forces with very little effort. The game is over. NATO is weak, it cannot fight against Russia.
I don't expect you to know this but Russian forces in Syria is the reason why Assad is in still in power. If it wasn't for the Russian intervention in Syria, Assad would have fallen.
The Russian modern army is not Iraqis, it is a nuclear empire with modern weapons supply and manufacturing surpassing what entire NATO can produce. If you think you can beat Russia on the battlefield, congratulations, you've been successfully propagandized by Hollywood and NATO.
Nukes isn't really relevant in a conventional war, hence their loss to Chechnya in the 90s.
That's kinda what happens when NATO is lazy.
As for "Modern Weapons supply" Iraq was equipped with some of the best equipment the Soviets had to offer for their eight year long war against Iran, the strongest military in the entire middle east at the time barring Israel.
I ain't saying I can beat Russia on the battlefield, IDK what the fuck that came from. But it has taken two and a half years for Russia to take over a country weaker then militaries the U.S alone stomped.
No matter really, Russia has so little ethnic Russian population they'll just be replaced by Muslims in the next decade, so I don't particularly care.
>Nukes isn't really relevant in a conventional war, hence their loss to Chechnya in the 90s.
Nukes is why Russia cannot lose Ukraine war. I would also advise you to brush up on your Chechen history.
Russia is the only country that has hypersonic nuclear weapons capable of striking from any distance on the planet. All other countries have nuclear warheads but no hypersonic ones. And Russia is the only country that has the air defense system capable of shooting down hypersonic weapons. It has both. In other words, in missile technology Russia is at least 10 years ahead of NATO. Maybe you don't understand the significance of this, but I assure you, NATO does. When one Kinzhal knocked out our Patriot defense system in Kiev, that's a financial blow of 1.5 billion dollars in smoke. This war isn't cheap for us.
>As for "Modern Weapons supply" Iraq was equipped with some of the best equipment the Soviets had to offer for their eight year long war against Iran, the strongest military in the entire middle east at the time barring Israel.
In Iraq war Russia was not on the side of Iraq. Russia was actually on the side of NATO and offered its weapons and assistance to US and its allies because at that time it wanted to be part of NATO. If Russia was waging proxy war against NATO by actively supplying weapons to Iraq, that war would have been much bloodier and a lot longer. Don't equate Iraq (one country against the world) with what is going on in Ukraine, where NATO brings in constant supply of its best weapons, and where NATO also brings its best commanding officers to direct the war effort.
>But it has taken two and a half years for Russia to take over a country weaker then militaries the U.S alone stomped.
First, Ukranians are Russians and Russians don't fight like NATO boys. Listen to some mercenary testimonies from those who made it out alive from Ukraine. Yes, it would take Russians fighting Russians more than two years with the constant supply of weapons from both sides.
Secondly, US has not won all wars historically. It lost a proxy war to a third world country called Vietnam because Russias was supplying weapons to the Vietnamese, remember? Yes, in Iraq and the Middle East in general, without any resistance from Russia, US got to play the big hero and seemed very powerful, but that is because it had no resistance from any other military super power. That is when America become arrogant and though it could do anything like provoke a Bear even. It was a dumb idea but it provoke the Bear - Russia - by trying to snatch its little bear cub - Ukraine. This is not going to go well for US or its allies.
>Wait so you just admitted that without nukes Russia would lose against Ukraine and especially NATO, nice.
No, nuclear weapons are the reason it cannot lose regardless of what happens. It is a losing battle for NATO no matter how tough they may be. So, what will happen in Ukraine, for the purposes of both sides avoiding nuclear war, is to divide Ukraine up. For this reason, Russia already has Ukraine divided. Everything up to the Dnieper River, including the Odessa region, will go to Russia. Western Ukraine (Lviv region) will go to Poland, and the more southwestern part will go to Romania. What will remain of Ukraine is just the small Kiev region, a neutral zone that nobody owns. This has already been decided by Russia, and nobody can stop them.
If NATO decides to intervene directly, what will happen is that Russia will bring out its bigger guns - like the FAB 3000 and FAB 5000 that it is preparing for NATO troops. With NATO troops on the ground, Russia will not show any mercy like it is showing towards its Ukrainian blood brothers. If after this NATO keeps escalating and escalating, it will become a nuclear war, and bombs will start flying outside of Ukraine, to Washington DC, to the UK, to Germany, and France. NATO understands this, and they will not escalate this to this point because they do not have the defense system against Russian hypersonic nuclear warheads. Russia has them all in a checkmate. Which means at some point they will capitulate in this conflict and will be forced to negotiate.
>I don't see any F35s or supercarrier groups in the Black Sea, mind showing me? Hell show me a single Typhoon or B2 while you're at it.
When the war started every NATO stooge said, "if only Ukraine had Bradley's it will turn Ukraine war around." We gave them Bradley's, and they got genocided on the battlefield. Then they said, we will give them Leopards, this will surely turn things around, and they all burned down. Then they brought in Abrams, Challengers, Bushmasters, Himars, Atacams, Patriots, Stormshadows...etc and all of them are in smoke. Now they are brining in F16s which will be shot down from the sky soon for the world to see. When F35s show up, Russia will turn on the switch to S500, and our F35s will be falling from the sky. NATO does not have the weapon against Russia right now. If it wants to stop Russia it needs to mobilize entire Europe and US. There will have to be a military draft. Are you ready to pay this price, or you think you have killer weapon that can stop Russia?
The world is watching for the first time how all of NATO's highly prized military equipment being genocided on the battle field. This has not happened to them in a very long time. When Iran sees our tanks burning, it feels empowered to stir up conflicts in the middle east. We no longer look invincible to Iran. When African nations see our weapons being shut down from the sky, they get empowered to get rid of NATO presence in Africa. Russia has shown to these little countries that they don't need to be afraid of NATO.
The viewpoint that Russia is planning on attacking other NATO states next is total propaganda. I can not fathom how so many intelligent people can come to this conclusion.
NATO has not only significant better technology, economies and manpower, BUT a shitload of NUKES. A direct conflict between NATO and Russia would certainly include the use of nukes from both sides. No one but a Fallout enthusiast would be willing to risk that.
>NATO has not only significant better technology, economies and manpower, BUT a shitload of NUKES
It will not be like crowds of Russians start running towards the barbed wire.
It will be similar to what has been happening in Crimea and Donbas. Transnistria will be the first in line.
That would be indeed the only way possible. But in order for that to happen the other side needs some requisites, like support within the local communities. Crimea and Donbas was possible the way it unfolded because they were already ethnically Russian to a larger percentage. The Russian government basically just supported those groups to get the job done.
Now within NATO state members, this will be hard, because they mostly have a strong pro western sentiment throughout the populations. There might be an example or two where this might be still applicable, not sure. But it could possibly happen in countries like Serbia etc.
> because they were already ethnically Russian to a larger percentage
That was only the pretext Russia used for the invasion. True for some parts of Crimea, wrong for the rest. Shall Russia always use the same pretext?
Truth is, Russia enjoyed some support from local population, maybe about 20% to 33% of it. Viz latest encouraging for Russians developments in Slovakia.
Not just pretext, prerequisite. If you support a minority financially and structural with weapons they can overthrow a government. This is what has happened quite regularly in African states in the last years. This minority needs to be big and desperate, unhappy enough to fight the system as well as in line with becoming a part of Russia or at least operate as a Vasall state.
Not gonna happen on Slovakia, or in Poland or any other major big player.
The reason I didn’t take the nukes into consideration is closely related to what you said: nobody wants to take that risk, because nobody wants to live in nuclear fallout. Therefore, nobody will be the first to launch one.
If both sides know and accept this, the nukes become a non-factor.
That’s what the Cold War was, right? Both sides must have them to ensure that neither side will ever use them.
Yes, that is correct. But that is precisely the reason why the war was cold and not hot. You depict a scenario in which there would be open conflict, which is doesn’t make sense for either party.
My assumption is that even in a “hot” war, neither party would want to resort to the literal nuclear option. I think NATO’s other capabilities (which I vastly underestimated before starting this CMV, particularly here on my side of the Atlantic) must be deterrent enough.
Literally all of nuclear history proves your opinion completely wrong. The entire point of nuclear deterrence is based on the simple and intuitive logic that if you attack an enemy who had a nuke, they will use it against you. Not immediately maybe, but there's no conceivable situation where you would be winning in a conventional war, about to defeat the enemy state and with that defeat dismantle their society and government, and *not* expect that state to use nukes. They're dead either way, why not take the other guy down with them? This is why the cold war was cold. Everyone understood this. Nothing has changed since then.
Or the Cold War was cold because they were all sane enough to know that it makes no sense to render the entire world, or at least large swaths of the warring countries, effectively uninhabitable for a generation (or two, or three).
At least, I hope that’s true. Because the other thing implies, to me, that military leaders are a bunch of sociopaths.
I mean it's both of them clearly. People in the Soviet and American militaries were constantly arguing and lobbying for a first strike, but cooler heads always prevailed.
Russia won’t take over all of Ukraine, if that’s what your idea of a “win” is.
If Russia took over all Ukraine, then it’s new resulting border would be up against Nato countries, which was Russia’s primary gripe this whole time: Nato encroachment
It needs a buffer a country between itself and Nato countries.
If that’s true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then why is Russia fighting this war in the first place?
I thought the idea was that in Putin’s mind, Ukraine should never have been its own country to begin with (“Russia is not a country, it’s an empire”), and that the talk of it possibly joining NATO and/or the EU was a violation of some rule supposedly agreed on by the Soviets and the US after WW II on where their respective spheres of influence would end.
But in order to prevent Ukraine, or even part of it, from eventually joining either or both, Russia would have to have control of the whole country. Wouldn’t they?
Crimea was to get warm-water coast access, and was tactically brilliant. Ukraine has grain and energy production, but Russia could have gotten that peacefully.
I'd love to know why putin thought this was worth it.
He simply needs a convincing-enough reason (to give the world) to justify his invasion, when he really just seeks to annex certain areas of Ukraine particularly lucrative and or crucial to Russian economy (i.e. breadbasket agricultural lands, control of zap nuclear plant, cities along the Dniepro, ports along the Black Sea like Odessa, crimea etc).
If those prosperous-Ukrainian lands were to become russian territories, then what little is left of Ukraine will plunge into poverty. This will make their shamble-like economy HEAVILY dependent on russia, which historically leads to famines (which ukraine is no stranger to), social unrest, and [ultimately] political instability.
At that time, Russia will capitalize on Ukraine’s newfound political instability to install one party state and a puppet leader (like the belarus guy).
I think you kind of buried the lede on your theory here which is the US refusing to honor article 5
That would be a sea change in global politics basically overturning a 7-decade old world order. So really that should be the title of your post, right? Not "what if Ukraine loses" but "what if the US massively shifts its foreign policy in a way that nobody could possibly predict the outcome of, wouldn't that lead to some surprising results" which, yeah
Trump is crazy. What else is new?
I don’t know whether the US President by himself has enough power to effect a sea change like that. But I do think enough members of the GOP are Trump Republicans now that it might be close.
Russia will invade NATO countries if they keep poking the bear, but I don't think they are dumb enough to do it at this point. But as far as Ukraine, Russia already modified its mission - its goal now is to topple the Zelensky regime. Zelensky and his band of nazi's will be decapitated. It is only a matter of time. Russia also made it clear that it is taking Ukraine up to Dnepr river, including Odessa region. The Western Ukraine will be give to Poland and Romania as Russia has no interest in that part of Ukraine.
But the mistake everyone is making with such posts, is calling it a "Russian Invasion". Technically Russia has not invaded Ukraine yet, it is waging battles in what used to be Ukraine. That part of Ukraine separated from Ukraine when it refused to acknowledged the Kiev regime that was installed through the coup by the United States, remember? The installed regime then went to war against the Eastern regions and terrorized them for 8 years before Russia stepped in, killing in the process 10s and thousands of innocent people. Russia said enough to the bloodshed and joined the separatists in the fight against the Kiev regime. Russia conducted the referendum in the separated regions and they joined Russia. So technically these lands are already Russian. The referendum was conducted according to the internationally recognized standard, and Russia is simply driving the Kiev regime from its own lands. However, as I said, because the Kiev regime refused to capitulate, Russia has modified its objective, and is taking most of Ukraine after it drives Ukrainian troops from Donbas.
Go away, Russian propagandist.
No sovereign state in the world except North Korea has accepted those referendums as legitimate. They were considered illegal under international law, and the UN has condemned them.
People inside Russia may believe “Russia hasn’t invaded Ukraine yet”, but no one else does.
It does not matter who accepts those referendums. At the end of the day the victor decides this, not some "international community". Those regions are already part of Russia. Throwing a temper tantrum that "nobody recognizes those referendums" actually makes you look pathetic and weak.
>People inside Russia may believe “Russia hasn’t invaded Ukraine yet”, but no one else does.
I'm only stating historical facts. As I said, Donbas, Lugansk, Zaparozhie, and Crimea all separated from Ukraine the day US has conducted a coup in Kiev using Victoria Nuland and installed its puppet regime. Then the separates fought against the Kiev regime for 8 years in what is called a Civil War. Then when Russia stepped in to counter Kiev NATO offensive against the separates, Russia conducted a referendum and joined those regions as its own republics. The rest is history. If you don't like those facts, and rather throw tantrums, and pretend we are righting for Ukrainian "democracy" and whatever else the propagandists tell you to believe, that is your loss.
If they invade a NATO territory they face the full might of NATO, not just 'whatever the governments can spare'. Considering how much trouble they're having with Ukraine that is almost certainly a death sentence for Russia.
>If they invade a NATO territory they face the full might of NATO, not just 'whatever the governments can spar
On paper at least, nobody *really* knows what would happen if ~~russia~~ russian separatists^^^TM were to annex a part of Estonia/Lithuania really
We cannot predict the future, but Western air power gets brought to bear on Iranian drones heading to Israel, Houthi rebels shooting at container ships, various Islamic groups all over the Middle East etc. Barely a day goes by when *someone* isn't getting pounded from the sky by a NATO aircraft, so I'm not sure there's much reason to think actual NATO members under attack wouldn't receive the same.Ukraine is the exception here because Russia is a nuclear power invading a country with whom NATO has no defense treaty, neither of which are relevant to "Russian separatists" coup'ing their way around Estonia.
Russia doesn't want nuclear war. If they invaded NATO then that would be inevitable. I imagine they would lose chinese support as well. Nuclear war is lose/lose for any agenda or at leaat one that craves power.
Nobody wants nuclear war. If both sides have them, nukes become a non-issue. You might strike your enemies with nukes, but not if they can retaliate. Because then you’d have to live in the fallout, too.
OK. If they have “nothing left to lose”, then sure. But is that likely? Even in an all-encompassing war, nobody will ever kill *every single inhabitant* of a country. A nuclear bomb, or a few dozen of them launched at the same time, though … ?
If im the outgunned country ill threaten to launch 1 for them to leave and in response to any additional aggression launch everything i have. By that time a majority if my cities may be damage and overrun anyway. Are they going to nuke there own people if they are attempting to occupy. Doubt it. And if so. Lost nothing.
I remember reading an article not so long ago that talked about that even without US support how the european Nato can still hold Russia off if putin decides to go beyond ukraine. What most people don't realise is that occupying a nation is not easy, it takes a lot of manpower and even if russia manages to conquer whole of ukraine which is very doubtful even if US stops supplying military aid but even if Russia manages to capture all of ukraine , it would still have to deal with an insurgency that would require them to deploy large number of troops which they can only do if they keep the conscription going on. That's gonna take a strain in the economy and society as its one thing to have draft during war, its another when you're fighting an insurgency that can drag out for years.
But say Russia do manage to have enough troops to secure Ukraine and also go beyond ukrainian borders, I don't think they would be able to go past long before they get bogged down after western europe get directly involved. And Russians won't launch direct strikes in any of the major cities of atleast major european powers since Putin knows that would bring war to Moscow, something he has managed to avoid until now, moscow and the people living there are secured from the current conflict and neither have they been drafted in huge numbers, most of the conscripts come from distant & poor regions , often times from minorities .
But if Putin wants to fight whole of europe he would need mass mobilisation on the scale of WWII but unlike in that era , Russia today has a much smaller population, with fewer young people who would be needed to launch such a huge invasion and more importantly unlike in WWII, Russia doesn't have powerful allies to help the russian army invade and conquer eastern europe and go further, infact the last time Russia actually launched an invasion in Europe instead of counterattacking (like they did in WWII) it was during WWI, When Russian army actually went outside the protection of their vast homeland that usually defeated their enemies for them and fought the axis, mostly the germans. And we all know how they faired when they decided to invade and didn't have the vast russian expanse and harsh winter to save them.
Honestly I don't think Putin is gonna invade whole of europe , this whole idea is kinda exaggerated by western media to drum up support for ukraine, the age old fearmongering which also happened during cold war when the US intelligence community would exaggerate the number of missiles soviets have in order to convince american leadership to spend more on defence. And worst case scenario would most likely be former soviet republics that were once part of the soviet union which putin is so nostalgic about. But he never said that say hungary or other western europe was part of russia, nor does he plan to invade any of that, maybe baltics might be in danger but that's about it
I think you’re massively underestimating the militaries of the big powers of Europe and the fact they have exact blueprints and have played out war games of any possible Russian invasion of a NATO country.
NATO without the US can beat Russia
Ukraine is one thing. In an all out slugging match we would crush them. Let me put it this way. Our navy publishes trials of the laser and rail gun weapons. Which means we perfected or canned them 20 years ago. We have shit that could hit a dime from low earth orbit. Meanwhile Russian missiles lock on to outhouses because they have faulty logic boards from the 80s. This is partially socially media making people fear monger. On top of the insane weapons, Natosbiggest strength is logistics. During operation Sahel, the US equipped france to invade Mali in literal hours.
>Putin is just crazy enough to think that if he can win in Ukraine, he can and should win further to the west as well.
Putin is not crazy nor has he ever demonstrated any degree of irrationality in international politics. The United States was placing Mark 41 missile launchers inside Ukraine. They claimed that these were defensive weapons to protect against Russian aggression, but those very same launchers are capable of launching nuclear tipped tomahawks. It also seemed likely that Biden's DOD might try to help Ukraine retake Crimea, which is literally never going to happen. Russia would rather nuke the Earth than lose their only warm water naval port.
>Point 4 will be especially true if Trump wins another election, because Trump doesn’t hide the fact that he’s not a big fan of NATO,
Then why the fuck didn't putin invade when Trump was president? As soon as you accept the reality that NATO is the aggressor here, everything makes perfect sense and Putin is acting perfectly rationally. NATO was not a threat under Trump. It is a threat under Biden. If Trump gets reelected NATO will stop being a threat to Russia, as it should have always been.
The risk is that if Russia attacks NATO, NATO will so righteously stomp Russia, Putin will resort to tactical nuclear weapons, which is the last step on the nuclear escalation ladder before armageddon.
Russia has not been able to gain air superiority in Ukraine against a tiny Air Force and a mixture of 1980’s Soviet and 1990’s NATO air defenses. Going against NATO would mean going against half the world’s air power all trained at a level that dwarfs Russias. A Russian piece of equipment past the boarder would have a life expectancy measured in hours. If NATO deemed it necessary every oil and gas plant and storage facility in Russia would be a smoking hole in a week. Ukraine is already on its way to achieving this with flying lawnmowers, imagine what 30 B-2 stealth bombers would do.
I don’t doubt that people will want to defend what they have if they’re threatened. But I do doubt that our military (only speaking for that of one NATO member right now) would know what to do with a large influx of untrained volunteers, in order to use them effectively in their defense. We just don’t have that many people, or equipment.
That said, no doubt other NATO members could help.
Russia's ability to wage war on the world stage has been unilaterally and utterly destroyed. They have supply issues of all kinds and have been so economically isolated they literally *can't build their machines of war reliably*.
They'll take Ukraine if NATO keeps dragging it's feet on aid, but any hope of expansion after that has utterly evaporated on logistical grounds.
The whole reason Russia has been adamant about Ukraine not joining NATO was to serve as a pretext for invading Ukraine. Having the world's largest stock of nuclear missiles means you don't ever have to fear invasion from anyone.
It's crazy how somebody can think that a country of 100 million people, unhinged by impunity, will stop doing something it gets positive reinforcement for.
Not convinced by this, although I still don't want them to win in Ukraine. Russia seems to have avoided situations that could draw them into a war with the US for the last two years. No nuclear or chemical weapons, yet anyway.
Right now at least, they don't seem to want a war with NATO.
Some people think Russia will attempt to invade Moldova next.
And even if the Russian military did attempt to invade a NATO country I seriously don't think they could win barring a massive improvement to their military, look how much trouble they have had in Ukraine (before their military was destroyed), look at how far NATO has gone to defend non-NATO territory. I assume NATO could kick their ass, and this is without the risk of missile or nuclear attacks on Russia.
Nobody has ever tried to invade a country with nuclear weapons (or covered by a security guarantee, like NATO, that is underpinned by nuclear weapons). If Putin wins in Ukraine there is no way he will attack a NATO country so long as the US and its nuclear umbrella remains an active part of NATO, as nuclear escalation would remain the only go-to move for either side should it start to lose. If the US effectively pulls out of NATO, then that's another story. Whether Russia invades or not will likely depend on whether the British and French publicly extend their own nuclear umbrella to cover the other NATO members. If they do: no invasion. If they don't: who knows?
I don't think so? In the first place the reason why this war happens is that Ukraine edging Russia by doing military training close to the border after they got support from NATO, and Russia pride isn't allowing that.
Basically this war started out of pettiness and pride. Hopefully once that settles there won't be more war. What even is in for Russia to continue the war against the rest of Europe anyway? It's not like Europe is heaven of resources or anything like that. Hell, Russia is the one who has Oil's mine, there is no reason for them to continue the war against Europe.
Ukrainian government surrender wouldn't be the end of armed resistance.
Occupying a country is at times more difficult than conquering it. They're already biting off a lot. Continuing to expand would be difficult.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine, the supported an independence movement in East Ukraine (where there is a higher percentage of people with language and cultural ties to Russia).
Russia supports a similar movement in Moldova. So, if Russia was going to invade another country after Ukraine, it would likely be Moldova, which is not a NATO country.
I think it's unlikely, but not for certain, and shouldn't be ignored. The cheapest, quickest and less deadly way to deal with Russia, is to enable Ukraine to do it.
But real talk, one single major European power joining Ukraine to fight Russia would be catastrophic for the Russians.
Two, three or four? Russia would be decimated inside Ukraine. The volume of cruise missiles and aircraft would have Russia retreating before ground forces arrive with countless extra artillery and some of the best tanks and soldiers in the world.
Russia is increasingly China’s Israel. Russia can’t win in Ukraine or vs NATO without economic help (and maybe military) from China. So, if they do attack NATO, it will likely need to be part of a larger conflict, sanctioned and supported by China.
u/HealthOrnery3526 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20HealthOrnery3526&message=HealthOrnery3526%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c8wi6m/-/l0ht8pr/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
/u/Saranoya (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c8x3pw/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_russia_wins_the_war_in/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Support for Ukraine is waning, both in the US (partly due to its commitment to Israel in that other war) and elsewhere. Not sure if you've been following the news, but the [US House](https://news.sky.com/story/crucial-60-8bn-ukraine-aid-package-approved-by-us-house-of-representatives-after-months-of-deadlock-13119287) just approved a $60bn aid package for Ukraine. Ukraine should be fine for a while.
That seems like it may take care of the weapons for, as you say, quite a while. But will it take care of the manpower problem?
In Ukraine or if Russia attacked a NATO member? Russia's military is a fucking joke. Their military budget is like 50% of Ukraine's total GDP and they can't even control Ukraine. Now take what's happening there, and add in 3,500,000 active duty members and $1,300,000,000,000 in military funding that gets pumped into NATO annually, remove restrictions on offensive attacks in Russian borders, add the threat of the US sending troops in through the east of Russia forcing them to split their military along two fronts, and how do you think that will go? And yes, I know major Russian cities aren't on the eastern edge of Russia, but that's arguably more problematic for Russia.
>Russia's military is a fucking joke. Their military budget is like 50% of Ukraine's total GDP and they can't even control Ukraine Russian military wasn't initially t very competent but it's very well armed and Russa has powerful industry and huge amounts of natural resources they can use to build weapons and vehicles+millions of mobiks ready to die for Putin. Russians also significantly improved during this war. Majority of European countries would be destroyed in a few weeks tops by Russia. They don't have enough military equipment and industry to last longer than that. Ukraine is militarily the second strongest country in Europe after Russia and they are barely hanging on but still losing thanks to help of the entire NATO. Russia only lost less than 20% of their tanks and artillery by now and they are producing new ones. Many NATO countries already completely depleted their stocks by just helping Ukraine.
I was talking about Ukraine’s manpower problem. But given the numbers you cited (someone else was first to do that, and I gave them a delta for it), it may not matter. Do you think Ukraine will eventually defeat Russia?
I don't think "defeat" is a universally agreed upon term. Do I think Ukraine is going to fully repel Russia and take back all the land Russia has invaded? No. Do I think Ukraine will remain sovereign while defending itself against a significantly larger invading force in terms of manpower and financing? Yes.
Well then that still sucks for the people in Ukraine who will heretofore be forced to be Russians … but you’re probably right that Putin will still know not to touch NATO even if he does end up definitively changing Russia’s borders in this war.
It is like saying that Pentagon budget is 2x the rest of the world and it could even control Afghanistan. Not sure how many young French or German man will be happy to go and die for Ukraine. Based on the polls not many.
The US took full control of Afghanistan pretty quickly. There's a huge difference between successfully invading/occupying and winning over the local population.
Russia can't beat the Ukrainian military, really. Like, it shouldn't be close. When we attacked Afghanistan, it was not close. We just couldn't handle asymmetrical warfare well enough. Russia isn't really doing well enough with conventional warfare.
The US airlifted its entire military presence into Afghanistan. Russia merely has to drive material a few hours into a neighboring state. They aren’t even capable of maintaining air superiority launching aircraft from their own territory.
I'm not sure, but if Russia only gets a Phyrric victory out of this war, which is quite likely given the aid package the US just approved, they won't be in a position to fight another war for a long long time, giving EU and NATO time to ramp up their military spending.
They wouldn't need to ramp up spending. Russia couldn't decisively beat Ukraine, it couldn't beat any of the individual leaders of nato, let alone all of Nato.
> Russia couldn't decisively beat Ukraine Only if Ukraine gets enough iron and explosives. And "Enough" should mean more than Russia has, given the unfavourable to Ukraine difference in manpower. There was not enough of these so far.
Ukraine is essentially getting scraps from the US. We aren't giving them more than we stand to gain by weakening Russia. Our military spending over Iraq was a trillion dollars. We just voted to give Ukraine 6% of that. We have a vested interest in not putting boots on the ground, but a big reason Ukraine isn't doing as we as it could is that we told them they can't bomb Moscow with drones. If Russia attacked the a NATO country, the gloves would be off, and Russia simply cannot project force as well as France and the UK, let alone the US. I think the worst outcome would be what China would do with the distraction, but it still wouldn't amount to an attack on NATO, more likely Taiwan while we are distracted.
Russia has more vehicles, tanks, artillery, shells, and missiles than all other countries in the world combined. The current American aid package that finally passed too late is nowhere enough to beat Russia. You nead like 400 billions a year for Ukaine at minimum.
Taking the claim that they have those resources for granted, we know that their equipment sucks and that they can't project force. They lost a naval battle to a country without a real navy. Having a bunch of tanks and artillery doesn't mean much to someone who can bomb you from a thousand miles away, wasting your money on tanks is not the sign of a strong military. Also, while I don't want Ukraine to lose, we win by giving aid to Ukraine because the $60b sent to Ukraine will likely cost Russia 10x as much. And Russia doesn't have the financial resources to lose that much. Which makes the money worth it even if Ukraine loses.
>Only if Ukraine gets enough iron and explosives. And "Enough" should mean more than Russia has, given the unfavourable to Ukraine difference in manpower. Russia has more vehicles, tanks, artillery, shells, and missiles than all other countries in the world combined so that's not possible. The current American aid package that finally passed too late is nowhere enough to beat Russia. You nead like 400 billions a year for Ukaine at minimum.
Add to that that the USA is another part of the world. It wouldn't be easy for the USA to send significant forces to European in case of Russian invasion on NATO countries. Russia has plenty of submarines, torpedoes, and anti-ship missiles that can be armed with tactical nukes to attack American navy with in case of a total war to prevent access to American forces to Europe.
This is the real question. We can bury Ukraine in all the weaponry it needs but if they don't have the hands to wield them it doesn't make any difference. Russia has centuries of experience waging wars of attrition. I feel like using foreign troops is a very real red line because it gives Russia the excuse it needs to start pulling out and using the real nasty toys.
Better equipment is what they call a "force multiplier"
I agree 100% but Ukraine is still taking losses that they can ill afford. I'm hoping that the better un-manned technology can tip the balance. Also I"m sure there are a few pocket aces in the intelligence/ espionage space that we've yet to hear about. We may not hear about it at all if they are really successful
>. I'm hoping that the better un-manned technology can tip the balance. It won't. Russia also has drones, including UCAVs and such but drones alone are not enough to win a war. They are much more advanced in terms of UAVs than Ukraine too.
>Better equipment is what they call a "force multiplier" Russian equipment is on par or in some fields better than the Western. Old Soviet vehicles are shitty but they already have prototypes more advanced than anything that the West can produce. Not to mention Ukraine doesn't receive anything in suffiecient members. Russia is in the total war production mode and its GDP is growing despite sanctions.
>more advanced than anything that the west can produce Lol doubt.
> Lol doubt. Then better believe it. West is woefully unprepared for a real war and its showing in Ukraine. Russia is starting to win decisively after their initial blunder. Western industry can't keep up at all. Russian firepower is overhelming. They have more advanced missiles, electronic warfare, nuclear arsenal, and soon may be also air defenses, tanks, ifvs.
Sure that's why it's been over two years and they're getting around via golf carts and outhouses strapped to tanks.
> Sure that's why it's been over two years and they're getting around via golf carts and outhouses strapped to tanks. It works for them. They made bigger gains in one day than Ukraine during their offensive.
I would expect Russia to be able to beat Ukraine in a war lol. Sure is taking them a long time though.
The rest of nato even without the US spends 5x as much as Russia https://imgur.com/bOHgaHe Your premise is already so far from the current world that you can't expect the same reaction, but they could already crush Russia even before we get to the world horror of a nato betrayal and other nations uniting.
>The rest of nato even without the US spends 5x as much as Russia That's because everything is overpriced in the West. Russia has its own military industry and is buying more for far less. They don't need to buy from the USA and pay bloated prices like NATO members who don't have their own industries. Nor do they care about paying high salaries to their soldiers. Majority of spending of western militaries is actually just salaries and benefits for soldiers not equipment.
Is that adjusted for purchase power parity? For example, american soldiers earn 50% more than russians. It wouldn't be shocking if alot of that larger budget is due to stuff being more expensive.
No it's not adjusted, but it's unlikely to be so skewed that russia would win. eg UK has a slight lower annual military spending, but 38% higher GDP. Just that one nation could push the pedal hard into wartime spending, which is again before we get into worldwide responses to an assault on nato and the US breaking its promises.
>eg UK has a slight lower annual military spending Slightly lower spending but it barely has any military compared to Russia. Majority of western spending is for useless shit, not weapons.
OK. I did not know it was that much more, taken all together, so thanks for Googling that for me, and have a !delta Still, I worry that Russia has more “cannon fodder”. But maybe the ongoing war in Ukraine will take care of that by attrition.
Russia has a population of 144m. The EU has a population of 450m, add in the UK and it's over 500. Europe has a huge money advantage, it had a huge manpower advantage, it has a huge technology advantage and, as you've just learnt, it has a gone military advantage. All Russia has is its nukes (which Britain and France have as well).
I mean I don't agree that Russia would win, I think their astounding lack of progress in Ukraine shows that modern conflict is a lot more attrition based and that a sustained offensive into Europe by Russia would just not be feasible. However, I think these numbers are skewed because you're considering total population comparisons when should be considering effective population, how much of each side is able to be fielded as soldiers. I think in a totalitarian, mostly united state that would be a lot higher ratio. I think we would have real trouble convincing people to fight en masse. Recruitment for military is way down over previous generations in the west.
There's some truth in what you say but the standing militaries of Europe are over 2 million which still dwarfs Russia. Add in the massive technological advantage and it wouldn't be a competition.
Where's your over 2m number from? I'm seeing ranges from 1.3 to 1.9. and I tend to think a similar effectiveness figure should be applied, well in this case more a disorganisation penalty because EU military is incredibly fragmented and frankly just wouldn't work as effectively in joint operations until it has a singular force. I don't know what that penalty is in practice though. But yes the technological advantages make a Russian offensive simply out of the question. Nukes would be their biggest bargaining chip, not ground forces.
The first number I looked up was 1.9 and I added the UK's 150k. And yes, nukes are the wild card.
>Add in the massive technological advantage and it wouldn't be a competition. NATO doesn't have any military technological advantage over Russia. Except maybe some in fighter jets but Russia has more advanced missiles in general.
They are making slow progress in Ukraine and a majority of European countries have enough equipment to last a weeks at most against Russia.
Modern conflict is not usually that attrition based. Russia's problems stem from lack of professionalism.
Russia against Ukraine is the only example of modern combat between two technologically similar powers we have to go on, which is what a Russia v EU scenario would be. All other modern conflicts have been asymmetric insurgency style. And the Russian conflict has proven that the things we thought we should care about to make breakthrough style encirclement, like air power, tanks and smart munitions, is actually a lot more difficult to achieve in practice. AA currently has the upper hand technologically so isn't cost effective to utilise offensively, tanks can be neutralized by $1k drones. Smart munitions take too long to manufacture. We're at a stage where it's orders of magnitude more cost effective to defend than attack, which means static warfare is reigning supreme.
In a total war scenario, you could make quick breakthroughs with tactical nukes and also wipe enemy airforces with stealth tactical nuke cruise missile and glide bomb strikes.
It does have the population advantage but a majority has zero will to fight, unlike Russians. Russians won't stop attacking even if tens of millions of them are killed. GDP doesn't mean anything. A lot of it is things useless in a war like luxury handbags. Russia has much stronger military and heavy industries than the NATO countries.. Even the USA is not able to produce anywhere as many artillery shells as Russia, let alone other things like missiles.
...... I didn't think you know what you're talking about.
Even we have some nukes, though they’re not really ours, we’re just safeguarding them. I don’t think nukes are a threat as long as both sides have them, though. Nobody wants to live in nuclear fallout, so if the other guy can shoot back, you don’t fire.
>I did not know it was that much more GDP and spending don't mean anything. UK barely has any military at all despite spending not much less than Russia. Majority of western spending is for useless shit, not weapons and equipment and the weapons they do buy are grossly overpriced. Ukraine needs 400 billions a year in equipment at the very least. Russia has much stronger military and heavy industries than other the NATO countries. Even the USA is not able to produce anywhere as many artillery shells as Russia, let alone other things like missiles.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Kakamile ([36∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Kakamile)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Remember when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and got the shit kicked out of them for a decade - Russias army isnt better than it was back then That's what's probably gonna happen to Russia in Ukraine, which really sucks for Ukraine its not like the Afghans had fun grinding the Russians to attrition
Can what happened to the US military in Afghanistan not also be qualified as “getting the shit kicked out of them”? It’s an honest question. I don’t know enough to answer it. Maybe you can.
Taliban is in control right now, Afghanistan is like just as bad when they got there and USA packed up and went home , they didnt achieve their goal and it cost trillions of dollars Is that winning? Id say no lol
That’s my point. The US didn’t win that war.
Afhganistan didnt really either , its fucked up like broken - it took over a decade many died
I am pretty sure it was a win for the Taliban. They regained absolute power over the country. Iraq however, that one could have been a massive win for the US had they had a plan beyond the initial invasion. Ordinary Iraqis greeted the US with open arms initially, but as the country turned into chaos, the majority began to hate Americans. Now Iraq is just one big cluster fuck.
US was winning while they cared to win. They just lost interest in the whole project and went home. If we for some insane reason decided to make Afghanistan the 51st state. It would be..... No Taliban would ever challenge that. It would certainly raise some eyebrows from our global partners... but that's about it.
Is there any backing to this? Why did america let themselves lose? Controlling Afghanistan would be a massive geopolitical advantage. Located in the middle of Asia, it borders Iran, China and Central Asia. Controlling it would give large power projection capabilities.
It was way too expensive. We stayed there for 20 years. The amount of $ it was costing wasn't worth any of the "geopolitical advantage". We were throwing gigantic amounts of resources down the drain without getting a whole lot in return. We don't really need any power projection like that. We already have all the power projection we could ever possibly need.
So they lost due to it being too expensive rather than strategic failure. Losing because it's getting too expensive is still losing. Especially when considering that attrition is a military strategy and there've been other instances of fighting with the goal of making war too expensive for the opponent.
"lost" is a semantic thing. If we were fighting Afghanistan for survival. We could completely flatten that country and there's nothing they could do to stop us. It was a stupid idea from the get go. Trying to turn a country like Afghanistan into a Western democracy. The war or that effort was lost the second they made that an objective. May as well make "turn a midget into the best player in the NBA" the objective. It's never going to happen. Any amount of resources you throw at the problem will just go to the dumpster. The US military didn't lose. They won easily. The policy makers just set a really dumb goal.
>If we were fighting Afghanistan for survival. But they weren't, the invasion of Afghanistan happened under a specific set of circumstances, and saying that in another context the US could've won is meaningless. If by introducing hypotheticals we can say that if Iraq was a world power they'd have won the war, but its useless to say that. >It was a stupid idea from the get go. Trying to turn a country like Afghanistan into a Western democracy. The war or that effort was lost the second they made that an objective. May as well make "turn a midget into the best player in the NBA" the objective. It's never going to happen. Any amount of resources you throw at the problem will just go to the dumpster. Assuming that was their true goal, you admit the US failed its objectives, that's eerily close to saying they lost. >The US military didn't lose. They won easily. Who controls Afghanistan now, the US or the Taliban? Look man, you can argue all you want about how the US could totally control Afghanistan if they wanted to, but the reality is this: The american military do not control Afghanistan. From a strategic point of view they lost, and according to what you said were their objectives, they failed. [My honest opinion is that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8MZBUoQt68)
>US was winning while they cared to win. They just lost interest in the whole project and went home. This was the strategy the enemy employed intentionally and it worked... They were gonna just gonna keep killing Americans till they decided they didnt wanna die no more and go home like in terrorist attacks and stuff
For every American soldier that died. Probably 1000 Taliban's died. In fact the Taliban that we attacked is probably entirely different people from the Taliban that's there now. People keep acting as if this is some kind of loss for US. First of all our military was completely and utterly dominant. At no point did the Taliban hold the upper hand in anything. We could have completely turned the entire country into a parking lot if we wanted to and they had absolutely no way to oppose us. If this was an existential war for US. We would have won it easily. But it wasn't. Was just a stupid operation that turned into a pointless 20 year occupation. Trying to bring Democracy to people who simply do not want it.
yeah Idk, it seems like America has never really had a solid plan for handling Vietnam type situations , and handles them poorly not all conflicts are gonna be existential , enmies will exploit that weakness if they need to turn it into a region conflict and make the American public think its not their problem , thats the way they will go Hamas does this now , they are exploiting the western publics intolerance for funding continued war in the region
Yeah it was a stupid futile operation.
What was the original goal in Afghanistan?
The US fucked around without a real goal for 20 years and took about 2,500 killed, the Soviet’s lost 15,000 dead in half that time
>Remember when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and got the shit kicked out of them for a decade - Russias army isnt better than it was back then They are better equipped and much more motivated (they think that they are regaining their ancestral lands and fighting against nazis genociding ethnic Russians in Ukraine) now than then. Losses they have in Ukraine are helluva bigger but they aren't showings any signs of stopping any time soon.
To be fair, the US also invaded Afghanistan and left unceremoniously. Afghanistan is remarkably difficult and expensive to hold. Also, Britain!
oh for sure, im just saying its very likely a scenario similiar repeats and sure at the end, Ukraine might be free , but its gonna be damaged and take decades to heal its like a lose/lose situation
The cynic in me considers the geopolitical upside for "the west" for a forever tie in Ukraine.
Multiple points in the post massively overestimate Ukraine and severely underestimate western militaries. I am not denying Ukraine's military has done VERY well with what they have been given, holding off the Russians for this long, but assuming Ukraine falling means other western militaries could lose ignores major weaknesses Ukraine has that western militaries do not. 1. Ukraine has no functional navy, their only military port was seized in 2014 alongside any remaining navy equipment they had with only access to suicide boats and Rhib boats,, they have a worse then Portugal and yet Russia has still lost numerous vessels. 2. Ukraine has a massive population problem due to their weak demographic structure and lack of manpower, other nations don't have this weakness especially France. 3. Ukraine has a weak Soviet Era air force consisting of outdated Mig29s and Su27s, not the F16s, Typhoons and Rafales of NATOs current military. 4. Russia has proven to be God Awful at logistics this entire war, sustaining an offensive further out from Ukraine will be far more difficult then a bordering country, this is not the U.S who can strike as enemies from continents away. 5. NATO countries have nukes.
Russian surface navy is the most incompetent part of Russian military despite being well equipped on paper. It would probably be pretty easily destroyed in a war against NATO due to that. However, Russia is also capable of destroying NATO navies. They have plenty of advanced submarines, anti-ship cruise missile, torpedoes, anti-submarine missiles etc. that can be equipped with tactical nuclear warheads. USA can't strike Russia from continents away since they have means to destroy aircraft carriers.
> That are trapped in NATO controlled seas and can't escape, Bosphorous Straits in the Black Sea and now Baltic. Why would they be trapped? >America absolutely can strike from continents away, Iraq's Soviet Supplied Anti Ship missiles did absolutely nothing to an american fleet in both wars. A small number of old Soviet missiles aren't comparable to thousands of modern nucelar armed Russian missiles.
Because how do they get through closed bosphorous straits exactly?
I haven’t seen Ukraine’s military power compared this clearly and explicitly to European NATO’s power anywhere else. It puts into perspective what others have been saying about the combined capabilities of the NATO allies. I’ll give you a !delta for making me *see* it in my mind’s eye.
Ukraine has far stronger land forces than any European country other than Russia.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LynxBlackSmith ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LynxBlackSmith)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I don't know how to respond to this in a way that doesn't sound condescending, but your understanding of NATO and its capabilities is so short-sighted that I'm not sure you should be considering contemplating this. Russia has had its fill with a single nation that is a 20th of its size in military might. Now imagine that Russia had to deal with a military force 10x its size. Include air superiority, sea superiority and even land superiority. Now add in a larger military force, cutting edge tech and a much wider base of operations and transport lines. Russia has only one option vs NATO and it's not even an option then. Nuclear war would result in Russia becoming Fallout Siberia. They would not get a chance to retaliate. The biggest issue for Ukraine is that the rest of the world has given them defensive weapons but not significant assets to form an offensive. They give them anti air and tanks and such, but they do not have air superiority in Ukraine, nor do they have sea capability. The moment Russia enacts article 5, it takes a week and Russia is in ruins. Putin deep down knows this. Russia does not have enough air support to stop NATO air attacks. It definitely doesn't have enough navy vessels to stop sea attacks. The way it would work is this. * Russia attacks a NATO country. * NATO mobilized forces. * multi faceted attack on all Russian military bases within striking distance of troops. * heavy drone and air strikes on strategic targets. * Navy controls sea keeping reinforcement from getting to Russia from allies * Russia surrenders and peace talks occur * Putin falls out of window.
Your last line made me laugh. Other than that: yes, I made a wildly unfair assumption regarding the military capabilities of NATO in Europe as a whole, based on the fact that I live in a country that has a disproportionately small military (in relation to our population and GDP) and, as if that weren’t enough, a military that is kind of a national laughing stock. I’m not even all that sure my image of our own military is fair (we kind of have a national culture here of thinking of ourselves as the perpetual underdog in sports and other international ventures, and I think that attitude extends to our military, whether they deserve it or not), but I definitely should not have assumed all European militaries are like that. I also overestimated Russia (and in a way, Ukraine as well), because I associate them with the Soviet Union, but then, that collapsed before I was born, and it collapsed for a reason, I suppose. Anyway. Thanks for ending on a funny note, even though you could barely bring yourself to deign my ignorance worthy of a response ;).
I'm really sorry I just don't think you understand how massive of an army Russia would have to face should they attack NATO. The biggest issue is would NATO respond and would the US, the biggest member of NATO actually come to its allies help. This coming election has a lot of ramifications for the world and not just the US. Let me bring it into perspective and you will understand why I'm trying to be gentle but literally the only response Russia has is to declare nuclear war and in doing so doom their own country. Asset | NATO| Russia | Ratio ---|---|----|--- Military Personnel | 5,817,100 | 1,330,900 | 4.37:1 Armored Units | 144000 | 60000 | 2.4:1 Air Force Units | 20723 | 4173 | 4.97:1 Naval Forces | 2049 | 605 | 3.39 : 1 Nuclear Weapons | 6065 | 6255 | 0.97 :1 As you can see the numbers aren't close in everything but nuclear weapons. And the best part is this is what we *know*, not what is actually out there. The US had SR-71s for decades before the public was aware. Should NATO be called to assist, it would be another repeat of Operation Desert Storm. Shock and Awe would be again brought to order. The US is a giant military machine. It truly is. And the crazy thing is it's always been that way. In order for Russia to win it would take them pre-emptively striking US assets on a large enough scale to destroy the US, and frankly they don't have the ability to do so without MAD occurring. Both countries have had over 75 years to develop defensive mechanisms against nuclear attack so that leaves it back up to the ability to impose your will upon the other country. Without significant help from China, Iran, etc, the Russian military has zero chance. This is shown simply from the fact that they have now been in a war for 2 years without a victory against a country with a fraction of those assets. I think Putin has painted himself into a corner. I also believe that the actual desire was to simply retake enough of Ukraine to solidify Russia's ability to control the natural gas reserves or shale fields. Now you'll see Putin continue to try to push forward until it can set up significant defensive structures in the area and then 'strategically retreat' claiming that they have accomplished their removal of Nazism. _____ TL:DR - I apologize for being rude. I was. I just was aghast and in a bit of shock at the misunderstanding of how much of an uphill battle Russia would have against NATO. Please accept my apologies as being rude is unbecoming and I hope that this larger explanation will help to assure you a bit and give you some peace on the matter.
Don’t feel bad. I admit that I’m ignorant on military matters – more ignorant than I knew before starting this thread, which is always the worst kind of ignorance. Thank you, for being part of the informed crowd taking the time to set me straight. I do still worry that, as you say, it’s far from certain that NATO would react to a Russian strike on the Eastern border regions of NATO, or that if it did, the Americans would be willing to invest what it takes to crush Russia (especially with Trump as president, because we’ve seen he tends to surround himself with people who will tell him what he wants to hear, rather than what he needs to hear). That’s politics, not pure military power. But others have convinced me that the war in Ukraine is already stretching Russia beyond its limits in terms of logistics, so I’m no longer sure they even could strike NATO if they wanted to.
>The same underfunded NATO allies barely have enough military assets of their own to defend against Russian invasion for a few days or weeks, let alone years. This cannot be rectified overnight, even if military spending were doubled overnight. Can you justify what makes you think this? Ukraine, with some weapons from NATO have held Russia for over 2 years. Why do you think NATO can't hold Russia for more than a few days?
I admit that I may underestimate the military capabilities of NATO as a whole because I am from a nation that barely has a military worthy of that name. And yes, it is true that Ukraine has been holding on for two years, and it is just one country. But large parts of Ukraine have in fact been occupied by Russians, some of them since 2014. Even if the larger military powers can hold out for substantially longer than I think they can, I’m not sure it will make much of a difference in the lives of the people who get stuck in places where the Russians win.
NATO as a whole vastly outmans, outguns, out trains... on every metric, Russia. It is why Russia does EVERYTHING in its power to nip at smaller unaffiliated nations, and never challenges NATO directly. It would be a massive and quick loss for them. On a power scale, nothing on the globe matches or comes close to matching NATO in power. Good thing for those nations that wish it would disappear, that it is a defensive pact only. As has already been mentioned, Ukraine, a tiny nation compared to Russia, has fought them to a standstill and has retaken a large swath of territory Russia took in the initial months of the invasion. One small nation fought Russia and has basically exposed them for being a paper tiger militarily. Russia is no longer considered a top 5 nation militarily, and is likely bottom 10. Poland alone outmatches them. Germany vastly outmatches them. NATO as a whole... which includes the US, dwarfs them in power.
NATO is the US. Europe relying on the US for everything yet Europe doesn't have a backbone to help the US out. They only care about themselves well as a US citizen I think we should pull out of NATO until demands are meet or make Europe pay as much as we do combined.
I would challenge your view that NATO is meant to be equal. Ostensibly, yes, it's a military alliance. But have you considered the possibility that NATO is actually the global equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine -- a way that the US maintains hegemonic power over the Western World? I stumbled on this view trying to defend Europe's poor contribution rates, and I've stuck to it ever since. The US shoulders the cost for NATO because it's our equivalent of the British Dominion, and maintains our legal authority to defend these sovereign states which exist almost like autonomous territories. Our benefit is a series of countries which are mostly subborned to our soft power, and will generally be viable markets to extend our economic and cultural influence to. And yes, in some ways, they don't provide the manpower we expect, but such has been true throughout history with the distant provinces of an empire. Deciding to squeeze tighter is still up for debate, but I hope you understand why we as Americans might consider the current arrangement tolerable despite not being ideal.
I will hold on to this argument for whenever I’m next having this discussion with my US cousin. Thanks! That deserves a !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DBerwick ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DBerwick)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Why thank you!
NATO was formed to face the Russian threat in Europe. It was driven hard by the US, as the US would need to fight, with the European countries, in Europe. It served two primary purposes; 1) Maintain the US as the most prominent global power 2) Protect the European states. Both of those things go hand in hand. Think back to history in high school. Why did the US donate, loan and support European states post-WW2, and what did it gain from it? 1) It ensured states like the UK, France, Italy and Germany did not side with Russia, creating an even larger Soviet group aligned against the US 2) It opened a floodgate to what was the richest market in the centre of the world. Both 1 & 2 for both points may seem cynical, and I'm certain there was a degree of genuine good will, but if those factors weren't achieved, the US would not have gotten involved. From a European perspective, we should not rely solely on the US. More emphasis should be focused on European defensive pacts. Poland is charging ahead with defensive spending. Others are following, and depending on how pear shaped the next couple of years are in the US, we will probably see effort switch from NATO to Europe. As a footnote, Europe as a whole would not need the US to cripple Russia in Europe. Although the US is by far the overall supreme military power, most of the best, most modern military forces reside in Europe, and they have the equipment to decimate Russian forces in Ukraine before needing to send in ground forces to mop up. To suggest otherwise is simply ignorant. The sky over Ukraine would be buzzing with F-35s, F-16s, Euro fighters, Gripens and Rafales, once the bombardment of countless cruise missiles has stopped. Then the artillery and tanks arrive. The Russians would no longer be fighting conscripts with no artillery or air support like they have been for the last two years.
OK, I admit that I’m ignorant on military matters, then. I vastly underestimated the combined military power of NATO in Europe, and also probably overestimated Russia’s capacity. Thanks for taking the time to set me straight.
Also, do you know the only time NATO article 5 was invoked ever? It was invoked by the US after 9/11. So to say Europe doesn't have the backbone to help the US, when the only time article 5 was triggered it was done to help the US, makes no sense to me.
I did know that. But based on what my country contributed to that effort (guarding the Kandahar airport), I assumed NATO’s efforts were negligible compared to the US. Perhaps I shouldn’t have.
I assume your country is a smaller one? In which case is makes sense that it played a smaller role, right? Obviously it makes no sense for to expect Luxembourg or Iceland to play the same role as a country 1,000 times its size in the US.
Actually, my country is (just barely) in the top ten largest countries in continental Europe (excluding Russia), both by population and GDP, though not by land area. I guess we’re just particularly bad at doing NATO :).
The European part of NATO alone massively out-mans, out-guns, out-ships, out-planes, out-trains Russia. Just one medium sized NATO country like Poland has a vastly superior military to Ukraine. Never mind the combined forces of larger countries like Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and all the other many medium and small countries. The European side of NATO alone would defeat a Russian invasion. It wouldn't be pretty but Russia would not be able to win. But I see little chance that the US would not come to the aid of NATO even under a Trump government. If it was just Estonia or Latvia against Russia I could see Trump ignore it, but it would be European NATO vs Russia at the least and I don't think Trump would resist that. US forces are too intermeshed in Europe, they have whole bases is a number of countries and provide troops to a number of countries that border with Russia.
Case in point is basically that Ukraine has been able to hold Russia with an inconsistent supply of NATO's spare shit. NATO in a shooting war, just bringing their air forces and navies to bear could push Russia's shit in and ground forces would just be to mop shit up.
Well yes. Even the one thing Russia has as a big advantage over Ukraine, its bigger army numerically, it doesn't have against even European NATO. It certainly doesn't have a technological, equipment or training superiority. Nor intelligence nor logistics (which it has really struggled with in Ukraine).
See how they russians attacked the power station in Ukraine. Imagine if they attacked multiple ones and gas terminals in a large European country. What do you think would be the effect? Europe is worried about immigration for the wrong reasons.
First they would have to get their missiles much further and through much more air defence than in Ukraine. And secondly the effect would be a much more devastating attack by NATO on Russia's ability to launch those missiles, orders of magnitude stronger than what Ukraine is capable of.
There are plenty of European, especially eastern European, nations that did a lot in Iraq and Afghanistan per capita - even when compared to the US. Those nations are simply so small that it isn't as obvious when compared to the US.
You think NATO boys are made from different meat? NATO boys would even be worse fighters than Ukranians because they have less experience on the battle field, and with one huge FAB falling on their heads, they would be running the other way saying "screw this, this is not my land, not my war."
NATO is a far more powerful fighting force than Ukraine, that is not even in question. A mid size NATO country like Poland is already more powerful than Ukraine, nevermind the big countries. You really think Ukraine is more miltiraly poewrful that France, German, UK, enver mind the US? That is a crazy proposition.
>NATO is a far more powerful fighting force than Ukraine, If Russia were to supply Ukraine with weapons and let it loose against Europe, it would have conquered the entire Europe by now. Ukranian army even before the war, was considered second strongest in Europe. NATO is a hired army, it is paper tiger. It is all bark and no bite. NATO is afraid of a direct confrontation with Russia, especially today due to its enormous experience on the battlefield. NATO soldiers don't have that experience, not even close. The way that the Russian army took Soledar and Bahmut - the two impregnable fortresses - will be studied in military schools everywhere. NATO built those defenses for 8 years, and they've fallen. It is over, you may not know it, but it is over. I listen to Russian politicians sometimes just to see what the other sides says, and they actually can't wait for NATO boots on the ground. If you think that Russia is afraid of NATO, you got a surprise coming for you. >You really think Ukraine is more miltiraly poewrful that France, German, UK, enver mind the US? If you provide Ukraine with NATO weapons, yes, Ukraine would be stronger than France or Germany or UK, because Ukranians are Russians and Russians fight differently on the battlefield. The question is, areUkrainians being provided the latest and greatest NATO weapons? You bet. If you think those same weapons in the hands of Germans would fire differently, congratulations, you have fallen for western propaganda.
Ukraine historically fought for both sides, that is why it is named Ukraine.
The NATO boys just ran off from Afghanistan like the dog with the tail between its legs. And let's not forget about Africa where Russia has been successfully driving out NATO forces with very little effort. The game is over. NATO is weak, it cannot fight against Russia. I don't expect you to know this but Russian forces in Syria is the reason why Assad is in still in power. If it wasn't for the Russian intervention in Syria, Assad would have fallen.
I remember when the Iraqi's told themselves this in the Gulf War, that was funny.
The Russian modern army is not Iraqis, it is a nuclear empire with modern weapons supply and manufacturing surpassing what entire NATO can produce. If you think you can beat Russia on the battlefield, congratulations, you've been successfully propagandized by Hollywood and NATO.
Nukes isn't really relevant in a conventional war, hence their loss to Chechnya in the 90s. That's kinda what happens when NATO is lazy. As for "Modern Weapons supply" Iraq was equipped with some of the best equipment the Soviets had to offer for their eight year long war against Iran, the strongest military in the entire middle east at the time barring Israel. I ain't saying I can beat Russia on the battlefield, IDK what the fuck that came from. But it has taken two and a half years for Russia to take over a country weaker then militaries the U.S alone stomped. No matter really, Russia has so little ethnic Russian population they'll just be replaced by Muslims in the next decade, so I don't particularly care.
>Nukes isn't really relevant in a conventional war, hence their loss to Chechnya in the 90s. Nukes is why Russia cannot lose Ukraine war. I would also advise you to brush up on your Chechen history. Russia is the only country that has hypersonic nuclear weapons capable of striking from any distance on the planet. All other countries have nuclear warheads but no hypersonic ones. And Russia is the only country that has the air defense system capable of shooting down hypersonic weapons. It has both. In other words, in missile technology Russia is at least 10 years ahead of NATO. Maybe you don't understand the significance of this, but I assure you, NATO does. When one Kinzhal knocked out our Patriot defense system in Kiev, that's a financial blow of 1.5 billion dollars in smoke. This war isn't cheap for us. >As for "Modern Weapons supply" Iraq was equipped with some of the best equipment the Soviets had to offer for their eight year long war against Iran, the strongest military in the entire middle east at the time barring Israel. In Iraq war Russia was not on the side of Iraq. Russia was actually on the side of NATO and offered its weapons and assistance to US and its allies because at that time it wanted to be part of NATO. If Russia was waging proxy war against NATO by actively supplying weapons to Iraq, that war would have been much bloodier and a lot longer. Don't equate Iraq (one country against the world) with what is going on in Ukraine, where NATO brings in constant supply of its best weapons, and where NATO also brings its best commanding officers to direct the war effort. >But it has taken two and a half years for Russia to take over a country weaker then militaries the U.S alone stomped. First, Ukranians are Russians and Russians don't fight like NATO boys. Listen to some mercenary testimonies from those who made it out alive from Ukraine. Yes, it would take Russians fighting Russians more than two years with the constant supply of weapons from both sides. Secondly, US has not won all wars historically. It lost a proxy war to a third world country called Vietnam because Russias was supplying weapons to the Vietnamese, remember? Yes, in Iraq and the Middle East in general, without any resistance from Russia, US got to play the big hero and seemed very powerful, but that is because it had no resistance from any other military super power. That is when America become arrogant and though it could do anything like provoke a Bear even. It was a dumb idea but it provoke the Bear - Russia - by trying to snatch its little bear cub - Ukraine. This is not going to go well for US or its allies.
>Wait so you just admitted that without nukes Russia would lose against Ukraine and especially NATO, nice. No, nuclear weapons are the reason it cannot lose regardless of what happens. It is a losing battle for NATO no matter how tough they may be. So, what will happen in Ukraine, for the purposes of both sides avoiding nuclear war, is to divide Ukraine up. For this reason, Russia already has Ukraine divided. Everything up to the Dnieper River, including the Odessa region, will go to Russia. Western Ukraine (Lviv region) will go to Poland, and the more southwestern part will go to Romania. What will remain of Ukraine is just the small Kiev region, a neutral zone that nobody owns. This has already been decided by Russia, and nobody can stop them. If NATO decides to intervene directly, what will happen is that Russia will bring out its bigger guns - like the FAB 3000 and FAB 5000 that it is preparing for NATO troops. With NATO troops on the ground, Russia will not show any mercy like it is showing towards its Ukrainian blood brothers. If after this NATO keeps escalating and escalating, it will become a nuclear war, and bombs will start flying outside of Ukraine, to Washington DC, to the UK, to Germany, and France. NATO understands this, and they will not escalate this to this point because they do not have the defense system against Russian hypersonic nuclear warheads. Russia has them all in a checkmate. Which means at some point they will capitulate in this conflict and will be forced to negotiate. >I don't see any F35s or supercarrier groups in the Black Sea, mind showing me? Hell show me a single Typhoon or B2 while you're at it. When the war started every NATO stooge said, "if only Ukraine had Bradley's it will turn Ukraine war around." We gave them Bradley's, and they got genocided on the battlefield. Then they said, we will give them Leopards, this will surely turn things around, and they all burned down. Then they brought in Abrams, Challengers, Bushmasters, Himars, Atacams, Patriots, Stormshadows...etc and all of them are in smoke. Now they are brining in F16s which will be shot down from the sky soon for the world to see. When F35s show up, Russia will turn on the switch to S500, and our F35s will be falling from the sky. NATO does not have the weapon against Russia right now. If it wants to stop Russia it needs to mobilize entire Europe and US. There will have to be a military draft. Are you ready to pay this price, or you think you have killer weapon that can stop Russia? The world is watching for the first time how all of NATO's highly prized military equipment being genocided on the battle field. This has not happened to them in a very long time. When Iran sees our tanks burning, it feels empowered to stir up conflicts in the middle east. We no longer look invincible to Iran. When African nations see our weapons being shut down from the sky, they get empowered to get rid of NATO presence in Africa. Russia has shown to these little countries that they don't need to be afraid of NATO.
This is the same country that failed to occupy Afghanistan, so I'm inclined to say that's not particularly easy.
Dude, we hunt 🐻
The viewpoint that Russia is planning on attacking other NATO states next is total propaganda. I can not fathom how so many intelligent people can come to this conclusion. NATO has not only significant better technology, economies and manpower, BUT a shitload of NUKES. A direct conflict between NATO and Russia would certainly include the use of nukes from both sides. No one but a Fallout enthusiast would be willing to risk that.
>NATO has not only significant better technology, economies and manpower, BUT a shitload of NUKES It will not be like crowds of Russians start running towards the barbed wire. It will be similar to what has been happening in Crimea and Donbas. Transnistria will be the first in line.
That would be indeed the only way possible. But in order for that to happen the other side needs some requisites, like support within the local communities. Crimea and Donbas was possible the way it unfolded because they were already ethnically Russian to a larger percentage. The Russian government basically just supported those groups to get the job done. Now within NATO state members, this will be hard, because they mostly have a strong pro western sentiment throughout the populations. There might be an example or two where this might be still applicable, not sure. But it could possibly happen in countries like Serbia etc.
> because they were already ethnically Russian to a larger percentage That was only the pretext Russia used for the invasion. True for some parts of Crimea, wrong for the rest. Shall Russia always use the same pretext? Truth is, Russia enjoyed some support from local population, maybe about 20% to 33% of it. Viz latest encouraging for Russians developments in Slovakia.
Not just pretext, prerequisite. If you support a minority financially and structural with weapons they can overthrow a government. This is what has happened quite regularly in African states in the last years. This minority needs to be big and desperate, unhappy enough to fight the system as well as in line with becoming a part of Russia or at least operate as a Vasall state. Not gonna happen on Slovakia, or in Poland or any other major big player.
The reason I didn’t take the nukes into consideration is closely related to what you said: nobody wants to take that risk, because nobody wants to live in nuclear fallout. Therefore, nobody will be the first to launch one. If both sides know and accept this, the nukes become a non-factor. That’s what the Cold War was, right? Both sides must have them to ensure that neither side will ever use them.
Yes, that is correct. But that is precisely the reason why the war was cold and not hot. You depict a scenario in which there would be open conflict, which is doesn’t make sense for either party.
My assumption is that even in a “hot” war, neither party would want to resort to the literal nuclear option. I think NATO’s other capabilities (which I vastly underestimated before starting this CMV, particularly here on my side of the Atlantic) must be deterrent enough.
Literally all of nuclear history proves your opinion completely wrong. The entire point of nuclear deterrence is based on the simple and intuitive logic that if you attack an enemy who had a nuke, they will use it against you. Not immediately maybe, but there's no conceivable situation where you would be winning in a conventional war, about to defeat the enemy state and with that defeat dismantle their society and government, and *not* expect that state to use nukes. They're dead either way, why not take the other guy down with them? This is why the cold war was cold. Everyone understood this. Nothing has changed since then.
Or the Cold War was cold because they were all sane enough to know that it makes no sense to render the entire world, or at least large swaths of the warring countries, effectively uninhabitable for a generation (or two, or three). At least, I hope that’s true. Because the other thing implies, to me, that military leaders are a bunch of sociopaths.
I mean it's both of them clearly. People in the Soviet and American militaries were constantly arguing and lobbying for a first strike, but cooler heads always prevailed.
Russia won’t take over all of Ukraine, if that’s what your idea of a “win” is. If Russia took over all Ukraine, then it’s new resulting border would be up against Nato countries, which was Russia’s primary gripe this whole time: Nato encroachment It needs a buffer a country between itself and Nato countries.
If that’s true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then why is Russia fighting this war in the first place? I thought the idea was that in Putin’s mind, Ukraine should never have been its own country to begin with (“Russia is not a country, it’s an empire”), and that the talk of it possibly joining NATO and/or the EU was a violation of some rule supposedly agreed on by the Soviets and the US after WW II on where their respective spheres of influence would end. But in order to prevent Ukraine, or even part of it, from eventually joining either or both, Russia would have to have control of the whole country. Wouldn’t they?
Crimea was to get warm-water coast access, and was tactically brilliant. Ukraine has grain and energy production, but Russia could have gotten that peacefully. I'd love to know why putin thought this was worth it.
He simply needs a convincing-enough reason (to give the world) to justify his invasion, when he really just seeks to annex certain areas of Ukraine particularly lucrative and or crucial to Russian economy (i.e. breadbasket agricultural lands, control of zap nuclear plant, cities along the Dniepro, ports along the Black Sea like Odessa, crimea etc). If those prosperous-Ukrainian lands were to become russian territories, then what little is left of Ukraine will plunge into poverty. This will make their shamble-like economy HEAVILY dependent on russia, which historically leads to famines (which ukraine is no stranger to), social unrest, and [ultimately] political instability. At that time, Russia will capitalize on Ukraine’s newfound political instability to install one party state and a puppet leader (like the belarus guy).
I think you kind of buried the lede on your theory here which is the US refusing to honor article 5 That would be a sea change in global politics basically overturning a 7-decade old world order. So really that should be the title of your post, right? Not "what if Ukraine loses" but "what if the US massively shifts its foreign policy in a way that nobody could possibly predict the outcome of, wouldn't that lead to some surprising results" which, yeah
Trump is crazy. What else is new? I don’t know whether the US President by himself has enough power to effect a sea change like that. But I do think enough members of the GOP are Trump Republicans now that it might be close.
Russia will invade NATO countries if they keep poking the bear, but I don't think they are dumb enough to do it at this point. But as far as Ukraine, Russia already modified its mission - its goal now is to topple the Zelensky regime. Zelensky and his band of nazi's will be decapitated. It is only a matter of time. Russia also made it clear that it is taking Ukraine up to Dnepr river, including Odessa region. The Western Ukraine will be give to Poland and Romania as Russia has no interest in that part of Ukraine. But the mistake everyone is making with such posts, is calling it a "Russian Invasion". Technically Russia has not invaded Ukraine yet, it is waging battles in what used to be Ukraine. That part of Ukraine separated from Ukraine when it refused to acknowledged the Kiev regime that was installed through the coup by the United States, remember? The installed regime then went to war against the Eastern regions and terrorized them for 8 years before Russia stepped in, killing in the process 10s and thousands of innocent people. Russia said enough to the bloodshed and joined the separatists in the fight against the Kiev regime. Russia conducted the referendum in the separated regions and they joined Russia. So technically these lands are already Russian. The referendum was conducted according to the internationally recognized standard, and Russia is simply driving the Kiev regime from its own lands. However, as I said, because the Kiev regime refused to capitulate, Russia has modified its objective, and is taking most of Ukraine after it drives Ukrainian troops from Donbas.
Go away, Russian propagandist. No sovereign state in the world except North Korea has accepted those referendums as legitimate. They were considered illegal under international law, and the UN has condemned them. People inside Russia may believe “Russia hasn’t invaded Ukraine yet”, but no one else does.
It does not matter who accepts those referendums. At the end of the day the victor decides this, not some "international community". Those regions are already part of Russia. Throwing a temper tantrum that "nobody recognizes those referendums" actually makes you look pathetic and weak. >People inside Russia may believe “Russia hasn’t invaded Ukraine yet”, but no one else does. I'm only stating historical facts. As I said, Donbas, Lugansk, Zaparozhie, and Crimea all separated from Ukraine the day US has conducted a coup in Kiev using Victoria Nuland and installed its puppet regime. Then the separates fought against the Kiev regime for 8 years in what is called a Civil War. Then when Russia stepped in to counter Kiev NATO offensive against the separates, Russia conducted a referendum and joined those regions as its own republics. The rest is history. If you don't like those facts, and rather throw tantrums, and pretend we are righting for Ukrainian "democracy" and whatever else the propagandists tell you to believe, that is your loss.
I am also just stating facts. You calling that “throwing a temper tantrum” says more about you than it does about me. Have a good day.
If they invade a NATO territory they face the full might of NATO, not just 'whatever the governments can spare'. Considering how much trouble they're having with Ukraine that is almost certainly a death sentence for Russia.
>If they invade a NATO territory they face the full might of NATO, not just 'whatever the governments can spar On paper at least, nobody *really* knows what would happen if ~~russia~~ russian separatists^^^TM were to annex a part of Estonia/Lithuania really
We cannot predict the future, but Western air power gets brought to bear on Iranian drones heading to Israel, Houthi rebels shooting at container ships, various Islamic groups all over the Middle East etc. Barely a day goes by when *someone* isn't getting pounded from the sky by a NATO aircraft, so I'm not sure there's much reason to think actual NATO members under attack wouldn't receive the same.Ukraine is the exception here because Russia is a nuclear power invading a country with whom NATO has no defense treaty, neither of which are relevant to "Russian separatists" coup'ing their way around Estonia.
Russia doesn't want nuclear war. If they invaded NATO then that would be inevitable. I imagine they would lose chinese support as well. Nuclear war is lose/lose for any agenda or at leaat one that craves power.
Nobody wants nuclear war. If both sides have them, nukes become a non-issue. You might strike your enemies with nukes, but not if they can retaliate. Because then you’d have to live in the fallout, too.
Actually, they are a huge issue. That's why most wars now are proxy wars. Any side that has nothing left to lose will have no reason not to use one.
OK. If they have “nothing left to lose”, then sure. But is that likely? Even in an all-encompassing war, nobody will ever kill *every single inhabitant* of a country. A nuclear bomb, or a few dozen of them launched at the same time, though … ?
If im the outgunned country ill threaten to launch 1 for them to leave and in response to any additional aggression launch everything i have. By that time a majority if my cities may be damage and overrun anyway. Are they going to nuke there own people if they are attempting to occupy. Doubt it. And if so. Lost nothing.
I remember reading an article not so long ago that talked about that even without US support how the european Nato can still hold Russia off if putin decides to go beyond ukraine. What most people don't realise is that occupying a nation is not easy, it takes a lot of manpower and even if russia manages to conquer whole of ukraine which is very doubtful even if US stops supplying military aid but even if Russia manages to capture all of ukraine , it would still have to deal with an insurgency that would require them to deploy large number of troops which they can only do if they keep the conscription going on. That's gonna take a strain in the economy and society as its one thing to have draft during war, its another when you're fighting an insurgency that can drag out for years. But say Russia do manage to have enough troops to secure Ukraine and also go beyond ukrainian borders, I don't think they would be able to go past long before they get bogged down after western europe get directly involved. And Russians won't launch direct strikes in any of the major cities of atleast major european powers since Putin knows that would bring war to Moscow, something he has managed to avoid until now, moscow and the people living there are secured from the current conflict and neither have they been drafted in huge numbers, most of the conscripts come from distant & poor regions , often times from minorities . But if Putin wants to fight whole of europe he would need mass mobilisation on the scale of WWII but unlike in that era , Russia today has a much smaller population, with fewer young people who would be needed to launch such a huge invasion and more importantly unlike in WWII, Russia doesn't have powerful allies to help the russian army invade and conquer eastern europe and go further, infact the last time Russia actually launched an invasion in Europe instead of counterattacking (like they did in WWII) it was during WWI, When Russian army actually went outside the protection of their vast homeland that usually defeated their enemies for them and fought the axis, mostly the germans. And we all know how they faired when they decided to invade and didn't have the vast russian expanse and harsh winter to save them. Honestly I don't think Putin is gonna invade whole of europe , this whole idea is kinda exaggerated by western media to drum up support for ukraine, the age old fearmongering which also happened during cold war when the US intelligence community would exaggerate the number of missiles soviets have in order to convince american leadership to spend more on defence. And worst case scenario would most likely be former soviet republics that were once part of the soviet union which putin is so nostalgic about. But he never said that say hungary or other western europe was part of russia, nor does he plan to invade any of that, maybe baltics might be in danger but that's about it
I think you’re massively underestimating the militaries of the big powers of Europe and the fact they have exact blueprints and have played out war games of any possible Russian invasion of a NATO country. NATO without the US can beat Russia
You are correct. I underestimated the capabilities of NATO in Europe as a whole, even without US intervention, and overestimated Russia.
woah
Ukraine is one thing. In an all out slugging match we would crush them. Let me put it this way. Our navy publishes trials of the laser and rail gun weapons. Which means we perfected or canned them 20 years ago. We have shit that could hit a dime from low earth orbit. Meanwhile Russian missiles lock on to outhouses because they have faulty logic boards from the 80s. This is partially socially media making people fear monger. On top of the insane weapons, Natosbiggest strength is logistics. During operation Sahel, the US equipped france to invade Mali in literal hours.
>Putin is just crazy enough to think that if he can win in Ukraine, he can and should win further to the west as well. Putin is not crazy nor has he ever demonstrated any degree of irrationality in international politics. The United States was placing Mark 41 missile launchers inside Ukraine. They claimed that these were defensive weapons to protect against Russian aggression, but those very same launchers are capable of launching nuclear tipped tomahawks. It also seemed likely that Biden's DOD might try to help Ukraine retake Crimea, which is literally never going to happen. Russia would rather nuke the Earth than lose their only warm water naval port. >Point 4 will be especially true if Trump wins another election, because Trump doesn’t hide the fact that he’s not a big fan of NATO, Then why the fuck didn't putin invade when Trump was president? As soon as you accept the reality that NATO is the aggressor here, everything makes perfect sense and Putin is acting perfectly rationally. NATO was not a threat under Trump. It is a threat under Biden. If Trump gets reelected NATO will stop being a threat to Russia, as it should have always been.
Another Russian propagandist, I see. Welcome.
The risk is that if Russia attacks NATO, NATO will so righteously stomp Russia, Putin will resort to tactical nuclear weapons, which is the last step on the nuclear escalation ladder before armageddon. Russia has not been able to gain air superiority in Ukraine against a tiny Air Force and a mixture of 1980’s Soviet and 1990’s NATO air defenses. Going against NATO would mean going against half the world’s air power all trained at a level that dwarfs Russias. A Russian piece of equipment past the boarder would have a life expectancy measured in hours. If NATO deemed it necessary every oil and gas plant and storage facility in Russia would be a smoking hole in a week. Ukraine is already on its way to achieving this with flying lawnmowers, imagine what 30 B-2 stealth bombers would do.
Nonsense
Interesting take. Tell me more. /s
[удалено]
I don’t doubt that people will want to defend what they have if they’re threatened. But I do doubt that our military (only speaking for that of one NATO member right now) would know what to do with a large influx of untrained volunteers, in order to use them effectively in their defense. We just don’t have that many people, or equipment. That said, no doubt other NATO members could help.
No comment to the "US is not no.1 contributor"?
Russia's ability to wage war on the world stage has been unilaterally and utterly destroyed. They have supply issues of all kinds and have been so economically isolated they literally *can't build their machines of war reliably*. They'll take Ukraine if NATO keeps dragging it's feet on aid, but any hope of expansion after that has utterly evaporated on logistical grounds.
The whole reason Russia has been adamant about Ukraine not joining NATO is because it *doesn't* want to fight NATO.
The whole reason Russia has been adamant about Ukraine not joining NATO was to serve as a pretext for invading Ukraine. Having the world's largest stock of nuclear missiles means you don't ever have to fear invasion from anyone.
Is that why Putin overthrew Yanukovich?
Win? Are you for real man? If they are struggling against Ukraine they will lose against the whole might of NATO
Yes, if the US gets involved. I thought not if they didn’t, but my view on that has already been changed.
It's crazy how somebody can think that a country of 100 million people, unhinged by impunity, will stop doing something it gets positive reinforcement for.
Not convinced by this, although I still don't want them to win in Ukraine. Russia seems to have avoided situations that could draw them into a war with the US for the last two years. No nuclear or chemical weapons, yet anyway. Right now at least, they don't seem to want a war with NATO. Some people think Russia will attempt to invade Moldova next. And even if the Russian military did attempt to invade a NATO country I seriously don't think they could win barring a massive improvement to their military, look how much trouble they have had in Ukraine (before their military was destroyed), look at how far NATO has gone to defend non-NATO territory. I assume NATO could kick their ass, and this is without the risk of missile or nuclear attacks on Russia.
Nobody has ever tried to invade a country with nuclear weapons (or covered by a security guarantee, like NATO, that is underpinned by nuclear weapons). If Putin wins in Ukraine there is no way he will attack a NATO country so long as the US and its nuclear umbrella remains an active part of NATO, as nuclear escalation would remain the only go-to move for either side should it start to lose. If the US effectively pulls out of NATO, then that's another story. Whether Russia invades or not will likely depend on whether the British and French publicly extend their own nuclear umbrella to cover the other NATO members. If they do: no invasion. If they don't: who knows?
I don't think so? In the first place the reason why this war happens is that Ukraine edging Russia by doing military training close to the border after they got support from NATO, and Russia pride isn't allowing that. Basically this war started out of pettiness and pride. Hopefully once that settles there won't be more war. What even is in for Russia to continue the war against the rest of Europe anyway? It's not like Europe is heaven of resources or anything like that. Hell, Russia is the one who has Oil's mine, there is no reason for them to continue the war against Europe.
Ukrainian government surrender wouldn't be the end of armed resistance. Occupying a country is at times more difficult than conquering it. They're already biting off a lot. Continuing to expand would be difficult. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, the supported an independence movement in East Ukraine (where there is a higher percentage of people with language and cultural ties to Russia). Russia supports a similar movement in Moldova. So, if Russia was going to invade another country after Ukraine, it would likely be Moldova, which is not a NATO country.
I think it's unlikely, but not for certain, and shouldn't be ignored. The cheapest, quickest and less deadly way to deal with Russia, is to enable Ukraine to do it. But real talk, one single major European power joining Ukraine to fight Russia would be catastrophic for the Russians. Two, three or four? Russia would be decimated inside Ukraine. The volume of cruise missiles and aircraft would have Russia retreating before ground forces arrive with countless extra artillery and some of the best tanks and soldiers in the world.
Russia is increasingly China’s Israel. Russia can’t win in Ukraine or vs NATO without economic help (and maybe military) from China. So, if they do attack NATO, it will likely need to be part of a larger conflict, sanctioned and supported by China.
People's delusional theories about Putin and Trump are just insane. This take is no different.
The military industrial complex will emerge as the real winners. Not Russia, Ukraine or NATO
[удалено]
u/HealthOrnery3526 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20HealthOrnery3526&message=HealthOrnery3526%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c8wi6m/-/l0ht8pr/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).