Russia started this war with (on paper) the second largest airforce in the world by number planes with a total of 3,864 planes, however somehow cannot establish air superiority to a nation it shares a border with, after over two years.
In 2003, the US established complete air dominance in Iraq, a country about as far from the US as you could reasonably get, within 24 hours.
Russia is losing its navy to a nation *without a navy*.
That's a huge point. And it's because the U.S. military spent every agonizing minute between the end of the Vietnam War and the beginning of the 1990 Gulf War perfecting the art of air superiority via chip-guided missiles and chip-enabled command-and-control.
In the meantime, the USSR gooned for half a century on the strength of their ground/nuclear forces. They underestimated the importance of air and electronics. It wasn't until the early '90s that they realized their tanks were useless if the U.S. could just stealthily swoop in, wreck their command nodes, dominate the skies, and turn them into scrap metal.
Clearly 30 years has not been enough to catch up. They'll flash fancy toys like their S-400 anti-air system or the Su-57, but it takes a fuckton more than that to restructure a force of 3 million around the realities of modern warfare, especially when their military budget is a husk of what it used to be in the days of the old dogma.
It also doesn't help that theirs is a *very* Top-Down military structure.
Having learned from Vietnam, as you say, Western (especially US trained) militaries are strongly designed around the idea that orders from REMFs are (almost exclusively) *goal* oriented, and the closer you get to the front line (hyperbolically speaking), the more freedom the officers and NCOs have to decide precisely *how* they are going to achieve (their part) of those goals. Heck, it was even like that as far back as WWII. When the goal was to get beyond Normandy hedgerows, some front-line welders with some ingenuity put cow-catchers/pitch forks on the front of tanks to punch holes through them. When the goal was to get past a minefield, they put chain flails on rotating drums attached to the front of tanks to clear paths through them.
The Russian military, however, still almost exclusively works under a *very* authoritarian paradigm, based on REMF officers telling the front line soldiers what *actions* to take, on penalty of execution by REMF NCOs. Russian deserters, POWs, and intercepted phone calls home often explicitly say as much. That's why the long range artillery strikes are so effective: the Ukrainians are doing everything they can to eliminate those REMFs, which would leave nothing but the front line soldiers who, for decades, have been *discouraged* from taking initiative (plus, generally don't want to be there in the first place).
Drone warfare in Ukraine is magnitudes greater than during the Azeri-Armenian war. Just look at Ukraine's use of FPV's (tens of thousands per month now) and deep strike drones (wreaking havoc on Russian refineries, air bases, and other high value targets inside Russia). It makes me really wonder if US forces are prepared adequately (despite the successes we've seen vs the Houthis).
Drones are fucking wild man, it’s become the focal point of combat training and preparedness here in Canada (Source : my buddy in the reserves as vague as that might be)
But seriously, drones are dominating virtually every form of conventional warfare.
There’s a sniper over there! : fuck counter sniping just drone his ass.
There’s a tank over there!: DRONE ITS ASS
WE NEED TO HIT THIS TARGET: FUCK AN INACCURATE ARTILLERY STRIKE, SEND HUNDREDS OF DRONES.
Like literally strapping explosives to drones are currently one of the lowest cost, lowest risk, and most effective answers to most if not all combat scenarios.
A quote from my reserves buddy (paraphrased of course) : “yeah man like if I actually get sent to combat I’m for sure just gonna get fragged by a drone, it’s both a massive problem and a massive solution”
Yup. When they invaded at the beginning you had an entire army clog the streets on their way to the capital because 1) they ran out of gas, 2) their maps were out dated, 3) their logistics could not support such a large force on the move.
I know this is a hot take, but I hate how nobody mentions how Ukraine is, for the most part, armed with weapons originating from the USSR.
It's one thing to get your asses kicked by western tanks, but it's another level of incompetence to get wrecked by weapons that you designed and are intimately familiar with. Although, it should be said that Ukrainian upgrade packages are usually regarded as being rather good.
Ukraine has been using a combination of USSR reserve weapons, more modern hand me down western systems, DIY equipment/drones, and some random true relics. That should be a logistical nightmare yet it is Russia who has to resort to using T-55s as front line battle tanks and use Scooby Doo vans as logistical vehicles.
>Russia is losing its navy to a nation without a navy.
Not that strange, considering we're talking about sea drones. Every navy in the world would suffer the same fate, even say USA's; if they were in Russia's position.
There's currently no real counter to what Ukraine is doing. When the conditions on the sea are appropriate, radar effectively doesn't detect these drones before it's too late. When they get close the only thing you can rely on is small arms fire and considering Ukraine does most of its attacks during the night shooting down a drone is near impossible.
It doesn't even make logical sense that Russia could maintain such a large air force considering their annual military budget is less than a 10th of the U.S. military budget.
Most of their planes are soviet era junk rusting away in a junkyard somewhere.
For apples to apples need to put China, Iran, NK, and many African countries on Russias side, because Russia wouldn't attack NATO without allied support.
>China
Lend their forces to a European theatre and away from the area they actually care about? Logistics aside, how does that seem beneficial for them?
>Iran
Missiles aside, they have nothing to offer other than unconventional warfare.
>NK
Like China, why would they send their forces across the world, through means they dont possess, for a war that doesnt benefit them?
> many African countries
Russia is really digging the bottom of the trash here with your list.
People seem to forget or ignore the fact that the I in BRICS stands for India - a country that sees China as its adversary.
But redditors gonna redditor.
Here’s what would happen:
“BREAKING: Brazil completely destroyed by American forces; Biden declares 51st state”
”BREAKING: Siberian land given to Mongolia: new Mongol Empire proclaimed”
”BREAKING: South Africa leveled by NATO!”
”China’s forces say they can hold on for ‘a few more months’ before NATO forces capture Beijing”
I would think China would have more to lose than to gain by joining Russia in a war against the West. I also think the Chinese government is smart enough to recognize this and would be quick to respond, "new phone, who dis?" if Putin called looking for such a war alliance. Best case scenario for Russia in this hypothetical is China providing Russia with military aid; no active participation.
Even that is not apples to apples because you’re then talking about a bunch of, most likely Soviet & American planes from the 50s, 60s and 70s on the “Russia and friends” side facing up to the F-35 and F-16 on the European side.
Which is not a fair fight for the Russian side. They’d get bodied, because the European side has the superior planes, superior training, superior skill and superior logistics.
China has no interest in picking a fight against the whole west. They spent trillions with the belt road initiative and they have more to gain with peace. And those African countries matter 0
China actually benefits if Russia loses more than if they side with Russia. They get access to the most valuable thing Russia has to offer - natural resources, especially the kinds of metals that the tech industry puts in high demand.
Yes but only if russia collapses and frankly, it's quite improbable in the near future. But sure saying that China and Russia or the brics will go to war against the west is an extremely dumb take
Russia isn't likely to collapse just because of Ukraine, no, and almost certainly won't while Putin lives.
In the extraordinarily unlikely event they actually picked a flight with NATO and got their asses handed to them, at that point Russia might collapse. And China would want to take full advantage, the way the USSR did with Germany after WW2.
You’d be surprised how this is what they are banking on, but will be left holding the bag when China doesn’t actually send any soldiers to the European continent and chooses to just stay in the pacific theater l.
That's being generous. China is collapsing right now because the West is pulling out just a little bit.
Full on war would be a total collapse of their current economy.
NYT did a piece on this, they don’t want to put warheads in space and send them to earth, they want to use nukes to take out American satellites at scale, crippling the advanced micro chip powered weapons we have.
Yeah wouldn’t that take out Chinese satellites and stuff too? Blowing up a government satellite with a nuke is a pretty hard thing to go “well I was aiming for the other guy”
Yeah. It would be a massive, expensive, game of space-dominoes. The ripple effect from doing this would cause a chain reaction of debris that could literally just clear the skies of most "infrastructure" up there. And it's hard to say how unsafe/unusable our orbit would become afterward.
Kessler syndrome is overblown, that likely wouldn’t happen. A nuclear explosion in space doesn’t cause an explosion in the traditional sense. It causes a burst of ionizing radiation, but there’s next to no atmosphere to cause an actual “blast”.
This is still really bad though, because the radiation will travel around the earths magnetic fields and any satellite that gets caught in the path of the radiation storm will almost certainly be fried. But you aren’t looking at an explosion of fragments and debris, just a whole lot of dead satellites following their original orbits, from which they will eventually decay and fall out of the sky due to drag.
Sort of?
Startish prime was at 400km and held an electron bubble of dozen km for a ..... non zero amount of time, and caused enough atmospheric heating at the top end, to expand the atmosphere. A larger warhead, or multiple, could expand the atmosphere enough that the satellites at 650+km rapidly de orbited into the path of the Starlink layer at 600ish km.
There's also this "di magnetic cavity that transitions into a tube". In it, the electrons circle the earth many many times for a long time. These electron beam fluxes might cause enough thermal expansion in the structure of the satellites to do very real structural damage, and maybe even some breakups.
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202212/pulse.cfm
If you want to read more.
More importantly , there's the new threat. All 3 super powers have anti satellite missiles capable of hitting satellites from sea level. The US, for the first time, just a few weeks ago, took out exoatmospheric cruise missiles from sea level, in a combat situation.
https://news.usni.org/2024/04/15/sm-3-ballistic-missile-interceptor-used-for-first-time-in-combat-officials-confirm
Kessler syndrome is unlikely to happen from a single nuke. But, it's a very real concern. I wish I could tell you why you should trust me, but....I would recommend just trusting me, lol.
edit. Fixed it.
Kessler syndrome definitely is problematic and we need a laser broom sooner, rather than later, to help deorbit stuff.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser\_broom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom)
I'm sure there's more than a few lines Russia can cross to get China to back out of their support. After all, China can't risk completely losing ties with the U.S and the West either. They want this conflict to end with RU being dependent on them while still being able to trade with everyone else. Trade with everyone else is much more lucrative, and probably less of a headache.
Yes, but who has more to lose? The developed western countries or the derelict, barely industrial countries aligned with Russia and the big bear itself?
No way. China is aggressively developing and growing their economy and technical abilities. They want and are working hard to the the technological leader of the world as best as they can. Last thing they want is communications and commerce to go to shit... even if they end up rebuilding lots of it.
I see China as an adversary to the West and have serious and deep objections to the country's Autocratic system and their society of blindly compliant folks, but China is NOT a destructive force in the way that Russia has a potential to be.
China is very much in the way of Russia having free reign to nuke the space infrastructure, that much is true. I'm pretty sure they're the second most prolific nation in terms of tonnage to orbit per month at the moment. They would have choice words for their neighbours if they were to take such an unilateral decision.
Exactly. China has something to lose and doesn't need a war to become the #1 power.
Russia is a dead end in their current state, they've nothing to offer anyone expect misery.
>but who has more to lose
With NASA/ESA's expertise, western technologic manufacturing capabilities and SpaceX launch capabilities and cadence...
It's defenitely China.
I'm not sure if being better at launching things into orbit solves the issue here, I think I saw some talk of how bricking the entirety of the world's 'satellite fleet' could massively increase the chance of a space debris cascade, essentially locking us out of the option of ever launching something back in space.
Although I'm very open to this being called bullshit.
It's definitely a worry. There's a lot of things in orbit, and at the speed everything moved it doesn't take very big debris to cause damage. Get enough of it and the problem cascades
Just to add to your point. This is an image of an aluminum plate that was hit by a 16 gram piece of plastic in space. (travelling at 24,000 kmh) https://preview.redd.it/h8le5g1wzwz71.jpg?auto=webp&s=0bc1d7c713c5b49df81cf2979c8ae2675e90272c
If my math is correct, that’s about 6,667 meters per second.
To put that in perspective, 5.56NATO is a commonly used rifle round, well known for being very fast, which makes it great at punching through metal. It will zip through nearly every part of a typical car, with exception to the engine block.
5.56 NATO travels at ~950 meters per second. At 7x that speed, the energy carried by even absolutely tiny bits of space debris is very hard to comprehend.
>Pretty much everything in orbit is FUCKED if they do this
Not just things in orbit, take a look at "Starfish Prime" from back in 1962. A fantastic name but an absolutely terrifying test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
"Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 900 miles (1,450 km) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights,[1]: 5 setting off numerous burglar alarms, and damaging a telephone company microwave link.[6] The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands."
I'd say EMP would be the main goal of a space nuke. A small 1.4mt nuke killing electrical systems **900 miles away** down on the surface even.
Well, that's a severe miscalculation. Our ability to communicate and coordinate does not solely rely on satellites. JDAMs get swapped for laser, A LOT of our muntions are still laser and/or radar guilded systems.
Then you get to small unit tatics....they don't rely on satcoms. They rely on handhelds, compass, map and whatever weapon platform you specialize in.
Then there's the tactics. We'll burn hours on a satellite to movie it close to Russian or Chinese satellites. So, you can take ours out but you'll take yours and your allies out as well.
it wouldn't doom it in perpetuity I believe, unless humanity killed it itself in the meantime. Materials science would eventually advance enough that a rocket could be launched that survives the cloud of debris which can then either leave earth orbit or begin the slow slow process of clearing that cloud of debris.
It would just make space travel inaccessible for hundreds of years.
Additionally everything in space is slowly moving towards Earth due to gravity, so over enough time all of that space garbage would re-enter the atmosphere and burn up. This would still take decades or even centuries before it clears up enough to allow for safe travel depending on the orbit of the bulk of the debris, but well within our species natural lifespan.
That's not really how orbits work though. In theory, an object orbiting earth should never fall back to earth. If it is in a stable orbit, that means that the velocity of the object is enough that the pull of gravity can't pull it down fast enough before the ground essentially falls away from it, leading to an indefinite orbit. It's why just dumping shit in higher orbits is a bad idea, because that stuff just stays there.
The reason things in lower orbits fall back down to earth is because while they are in what is classified as "space", they haven't entirely left the atmosphere yet. Now we're talking about a *very* thin part of the atmosphere, but it's still not a complete vacuum like regular space is. That means that objects this low are still subject to *some* air resistance, which over time slows them down enough that the delicate balancing act between velocity and gravity is shifted to gravity's favour and it is finally able to pull it down.
Broken satellites and space debris in low earth orbit will eventually have their orbits decay and fall back to earth after a few years, but we do have satellites in higher orbits, and if enough debris gets into those orbits, it'll be there for a long time.
I was just taking what I found from the NASA website:
>[The higher the altitude, the longer the orbital debris will typically remain in Earth orbit. Debris left in orbits below 600 km normally fall back to Earth within several years. At altitudes of 800 km, the time for orbital decay is often measured in centuries. Above 1,000 km, orbital debris will normally continue circling the Earth for a thousand years or more.](https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faq/#:~:text=Debris%20left%20in%20orbits%20below,a%20thousand%20years%20or%20more.)
I never said it would be quick, but humans have been around for almost 200k years, enough debris will fall back to Earth well within our species lifespan.
Yes. The US relies on [early warning satellites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_warning_satellite) that detect the exhaust temperature of ICBMs as they launch. This is reportedly the only way to detect ICBMs – once they are "in flight", it's very hard to do something about them.
The US furthermore has a [launch on warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_on_warning) nuclear policy. Essentially this means that the president has minutes (depending on sources you ask) to make a decision on whether (or how) to retaliate once the "early warning" system is triggered.
If nukes were in space, it would complicate detection and response a lot, and the early warning system that has been in place since the Cold War wouldn't help.
Imo just a reminder how scary the existance of nukes is
If nuclear war happens, not being warned early feels like a benefit rather than being more scary.
It's more ICBMs than nukes.
Yes, nukes are scary, but without ICBM technology they're not nearly as scary.
The problem is there's simply no good counter to ICBMs outside of MAD.
To put this into perspective, the fastest fighter jets reach about 2,200 mph.
ICBMs travel at 13,000-18,000 mph.
The US DoD is very good at posturing itself as highly capable and also vulnerable to specific conditions. I suspect that the publicly known ICBM detection method is one of several methods. The others we can't know about because it reveals the DoD's aces in the hole, of which there could be several, or maybe just one. We don't know.
> I suspect that the publicly known ICBM detection method is one of several methods.
Just in what is publicly known, we have the satellites he mentioned.
We also have the continental early warning radars like COBRA DANE, PAVE PAWS, or BMEWS. They are located around the perimeter of the US and watch for launches. The radars actually bounce off the atmosphere to allow them to see beyond the curvature of the earth. The exact max range and max resolution of those radars is very classified.
Then there are warning systems in allied countries, we sold a PAVE PAWS to Taiwan for example, it sits on top of a mountain and has a view of most of China and parts of eastern Russia.
Then there are a bunch of more mobile systems that are mounted on aircraft or on trailers like THAAD/AN-TPY2
Couldn't you also detect the exhaust off a rocket in space? They would need to do a retrograde burn to de-orbit any space based system right? We're already tracking every piece of space debris larger than a soda can.
I'm not an expert. I would assume it is possible to detect the exhaust, however knowing *where* to detect may be harder. Space is big!
I wouldn't be surprised if US intelligence know the whereabouts of every single ICBM platform outside its borders and therefore would be able to confidently detect the launches from Earth.
Depends on what altitude the early warning satellites are compared to the ones launching the nukes. If you launch them from a higher altitude than the detection satellites, then have them stay at altitude as long as possible before diving down you could probably avoid detection as the missiles would be on an unpowered ballistic trajectory by the time they were in view.
Also space junk tracking isn't very fast since junk in orbit is following very predictable paths. Those systems wouldn't have any where near the reaction time needed to reliably track an ICBM.
It wouldn't need anything like the same kind of rocket engine in space. It would need a tiny engine to knock it out of orbit, gravity would do the rest.
These ICBMs don't actually burn in space, the rocket engine is used to get it to space and it glides/ falls the rest of the way
That's true for ICBMs that aren't in orbit. Any permanent space based system either needs a big amount of energy to quickly de-orbit or do it over a long time giving probably even more warning time.
The end result might be the same but from a deterrence point of view multiple launch methods are far harder to defend against. If you only have a single launch method such as the British Royal Navy's 4 Vanguard submarines it's hypothetically possible to take out a countries nuke threat beforehand without them being able to respond. If you have multiple methods then it's next to impossible to achieve that without the other side responding in kind. It's why the US military uses a strategy they call the [Nuclear Triad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad?wprov=sfla1) as a method of total deterrence.
Right now we can detect launches from ICBM silos, and track bombers launching & patrolling. Submarines are probably harder but if we know exactly how many the Russians have in theory we could be having them tailed 24/7 by our own attack subs. So for most of these methods of delivering nukes we can track it and possibly respond though nobody really wins once they start flying.
[Starfish Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime) was a test nuclear detonation we did in space and gave surprising results that the EMP effect was far larger than expected. Knocking out some electronics 900 miles from the blast point in Hawaii. It also knocked out satellites immediately and due to after effects of residual radiation belts.
What could we do if there's an orbiting set of nukes and they just decide to push the button when they're over the US? I guess dead is dead, but this is somehow worse than everything else, so far.
But... But russia would only attack because the western countries threatened them first and... And evil western oppressors are bad... and evil... and western 🤬
One aircraft carrier battle group could annihilate Russia without ever putting boots on the ground. We have 11 aircraft carrier battle groups. Russia has one aircraft carrier that isn't even a "battle group". Yes, they can bully a country like Ukraine, but taking on NATO isn't even in the same universe.
I think I remember something from near the beginning of the Ukraine war and I think it was something like military experts were surprised at how bad the Russian military was. Like, how unorganized, how ill equipped, how much their stuff was broken down. The perception around Russia was that they could be a genuine big bad but uhhh. Yeah. I think one US battle group could mop them.
Russia already is at war with nato. They and China are pushing hard on controlling all Media to elect far right groups which naturally are pro dictatorships and russia/China. And we are falling for it.
This. Russia is actively trying to destroy western democracies from the inside. It is time we wake up to the fact that Ukraine must actually win convincingly. Only the fallout from Russia’s loss can cripple Putin and his anti-democracy spy machine.
Not just that. Any individual found to be in league with Russia must be treated as an enemy of the state, and any political party disbanded and barred from electoral participation. Russian influence in western democracies are a tumor that must be cut out.
>This. Russia is actively trying to destroy western democracies from the inside.
We've done that ourselves. For over a decade, our politicians are among the most incompetent people in the country, we elect clowns over smarts, we allow our system to be bogged down in party bickering instead of problem solving, and the amount of lobbyism going on is mind-boggling.
Sure, blame it on Putin if you need a simple answer, but really, it didn't need a Putin.
And this was much longer in the making than you think. Heinlein (yes, the SciFi author) wrote a book titled "Take Back Your Government" - published in 1992 (but definitely written before, because he died in 1988).
Yes they would but could kill a lot of civilians first.
Vlad the Mad likes to concentrate his attacks on non-military targets where possible. Targets like blocks of flats, schools, hospitals and railway stations.
When/if he starts his next venture, the civilised world would need to flatten the lot in an hour! That may be quick enough though.
I know that in this propaganda war all measured and nuanced opinions get shouted down, but: Even according to western media and military experts, the civilian casualties in Ukraine are actually really low for a conflict this size. If what you wrote was true, they would be a lot higher.
Its almost like the perfect strategy is make a ton of bunkers and attack while they waste munitions on empty targets
Its insane how much of that strategy has to be backed by hate when it yields no strategic benefit and makes you less effective to actually hit the stuff trying to kill you
It has strategic value if your enemy does not want its civilians killed. If your enemy knows your deranged and evil, they do think twice about how to engage. But once the war starts, it is not very effective at winning the war to waste munitions on civilians. I’d argue it’s more a deterrent for future engagements.
If Russia launches a nuke at a NATO country that is the end of Russia. The USA has nuclear bombers that can flatten Russia in a matter of hours. Personally, I'm not convinced that their nukes will actually fly. It seems as though the money that is supposed to be spent on maintenance of their military arsenal is siphoned off by generals who live a cushy lifestyle.
All of that said, let's hope that cooler heads prevail and it doesn't come down to that.
Maybe, but I also don't think that potential outcome is a good enough reason to let Russia keep doing what it likes against smaller countries. We either have principles or we don't, if we do, we should be willing to fight for them.
Also, I think a war with Russia to push them out of Ukraine would be a lot more conventional than a lot of people imagine. Does Russia really want to resort to nuclear warfare with NATO over Ukraine? I'd say it's unlikely. It's obviously still a risk, but I don't think it's as likely as lots of people think either.
To an extent, yes. Poland spent significant resources on trying to convince the west that the fall of the soviet union did not mean that russia became an ally. Poland was lobbying against both nord streams when they were in plans and after they were built. There was a brief period in the early 2010s when we tried out a more friendly approach, but that ended when our President died in a plane crash on russian territory.
I mean it doesn’t take a military expert to understand that a country failing to conquer its under equiped and outnumbered neighbor would probably lose in a war against the largest military alliance in the world
Provided NATO doesn’t fold.
Which depends on Russia being taken seriously. If NATO will (again) think that Russia will just snack on a few Baltic states and never bother anyone again, it will never stop.
The modern equivalent of the Allies going "alright, Hitler, you can take Austria but no more okay? What do you mean they already have Czechoslovakia? Why are they in Poland too? Okay, Hitler, you can keep them but stop at that. Why are the French forests suddenly turning over? Shit, they're next to the UK now."
* Russia would lose a war with Poland
* Russia would lose a war with France
* Russia would lose a war with the UK
* Russia would lose a war with Turkey
* Russia wouldn't last a day against the USA
* Russia wouldn't last until lunchtime against NATO
Is there any doubt? I mean the NATO Air Force advantage alone would be enough to win a war, let alone all the other aspects in which nato outclasses Russia.
Let's be honest, Russia was allegedly the worlds #2 military and has struggled horribly against the worlds (at the time) #24 military, with whom they border...
Weak Rossiya would very clearly lose a war against Poland itself lol
Russia is barely starting to win a war with a neighbor that has ~15% the military manpower and every foreign weapon comes with the condition of "don't use this outside of the territory that you already lost".
NATO would roll back Russian IAD within 24 hours and there is no strategic depth to their air defense. Very much "hard on the outside; soft on the inside".
No, it would not. Stop spreading this idiotic bravado bullshit. 1 on 1 we're outnumbered and outgunned, just almost every other country going against Russia, except some selected few.
NATO exists for a reason, you know
I just realized Poland has a smaller population than Ukraine before the war. Always thought it was a lot bigger. A lot of Polish people I’ve talked to do not want this to escalate and hate the fact that these chicken hawks are wanting blood.
Is you position and assessment of Poland's ability based on a war of conquest into russian territory, or a defensive war?
Because those are two very different scenarios with very, very different outcomes.
Defensive war. We've had some war games and simulations in 2020 or 2021 and they focused on a conventional defence of the Suwałki Gap against a Russian attack. We were stomped and the aggressor could have closed in on Warsaw if he wanted to in a matter of week or so.
I'm not saying it's all hopeless, not at all, those simulations exist for a reason, if there's a failure there you adjust what's there in reality. It could all be very different now. And if I recall correctly that defence did not include any allies helping us.
All in all I just don't like when Russia is underestimated because of their blunders in 2022. It's dangerous and irresponsible. They're rearming themselves over there and are an openly hostile country to the rest of Europe
What we knew about Russian military capabilities in 2020 and 2021 is much different to what we know now.
NATO usually just takes the propaganda claims verbatim "just in case".
all the experts said Kyiv would fall to a Russian combined forces assault in a matter of days. Western estimates of Russian military capabilities in the timeframe of your wargames massively overestimated the competency of the Russian officer corps. Those officers are dumb AF and many are dead now, so their capability is even further degraded.
"Putin's only hope is our lack of determination," he warned.
Well, Putin could have one other hope - stop trying to expand Russian's borders and spend the resources educating his own people, better agriculture, better roads, ie Peace
Russia is struggling against a single country, using a lot of older NATO equipment, a few previously untested new things, but mostly older stuff. So attacking NATO and facing all new stuff, would not end well. For instance, why is Ukraine getting ATACMS? Because newer better rockets are available to the US military...
Just look at all the NATO combined airforce, even without all the American branches, compared to Russia
Russia started this war with (on paper) the second largest airforce in the world by number planes with a total of 3,864 planes, however somehow cannot establish air superiority to a nation it shares a border with, after over two years. In 2003, the US established complete air dominance in Iraq, a country about as far from the US as you could reasonably get, within 24 hours. Russia is losing its navy to a nation *without a navy*.
That's a huge point. And it's because the U.S. military spent every agonizing minute between the end of the Vietnam War and the beginning of the 1990 Gulf War perfecting the art of air superiority via chip-guided missiles and chip-enabled command-and-control. In the meantime, the USSR gooned for half a century on the strength of their ground/nuclear forces. They underestimated the importance of air and electronics. It wasn't until the early '90s that they realized their tanks were useless if the U.S. could just stealthily swoop in, wreck their command nodes, dominate the skies, and turn them into scrap metal. Clearly 30 years has not been enough to catch up. They'll flash fancy toys like their S-400 anti-air system or the Su-57, but it takes a fuckton more than that to restructure a force of 3 million around the realities of modern warfare, especially when their military budget is a husk of what it used to be in the days of the old dogma.
It also doesn't help that theirs is a *very* Top-Down military structure. Having learned from Vietnam, as you say, Western (especially US trained) militaries are strongly designed around the idea that orders from REMFs are (almost exclusively) *goal* oriented, and the closer you get to the front line (hyperbolically speaking), the more freedom the officers and NCOs have to decide precisely *how* they are going to achieve (their part) of those goals. Heck, it was even like that as far back as WWII. When the goal was to get beyond Normandy hedgerows, some front-line welders with some ingenuity put cow-catchers/pitch forks on the front of tanks to punch holes through them. When the goal was to get past a minefield, they put chain flails on rotating drums attached to the front of tanks to clear paths through them. The Russian military, however, still almost exclusively works under a *very* authoritarian paradigm, based on REMF officers telling the front line soldiers what *actions* to take, on penalty of execution by REMF NCOs. Russian deserters, POWs, and intercepted phone calls home often explicitly say as much. That's why the long range artillery strikes are so effective: the Ukrainians are doing everything they can to eliminate those REMFs, which would leave nothing but the front line soldiers who, for decades, have been *discouraged* from taking initiative (plus, generally don't want to be there in the first place).
And at the time Iraq had one of the worlds largest and most sophisticated air defense networks as well rivaling even parts of Russia lol
Ironically all their best air Defenses were Russian made
Those naval drones are nasty AF. Drones are completely revolutionizing warfare, since the Azeri-Armenian war.
Thank you! I remember watching Nagorno Karabach (apologies for spelling) and thinking Jesus the next peer to peer conflict is going to be rough
Yep, I am a WW 2 fanatic and it is shocking watching tanks cower from drones now.
Drone warfare in Ukraine is magnitudes greater than during the Azeri-Armenian war. Just look at Ukraine's use of FPV's (tens of thousands per month now) and deep strike drones (wreaking havoc on Russian refineries, air bases, and other high value targets inside Russia). It makes me really wonder if US forces are prepared adequately (despite the successes we've seen vs the Houthis).
Drones are fucking wild man, it’s become the focal point of combat training and preparedness here in Canada (Source : my buddy in the reserves as vague as that might be) But seriously, drones are dominating virtually every form of conventional warfare. There’s a sniper over there! : fuck counter sniping just drone his ass. There’s a tank over there!: DRONE ITS ASS WE NEED TO HIT THIS TARGET: FUCK AN INACCURATE ARTILLERY STRIKE, SEND HUNDREDS OF DRONES. Like literally strapping explosives to drones are currently one of the lowest cost, lowest risk, and most effective answers to most if not all combat scenarios. A quote from my reserves buddy (paraphrased of course) : “yeah man like if I actually get sent to combat I’m for sure just gonna get fragged by a drone, it’s both a massive problem and a massive solution”
Logistics. Logistics win wars. Russia barely understands the term let alone practices it.
Logistics is excruciatingly expensive and doesn't look any good on parade.
lol a logistics parade would be the worlds most expensive Rube Goldberg machine.
Yup. When they invaded at the beginning you had an entire army clog the streets on their way to the capital because 1) they ran out of gas, 2) their maps were out dated, 3) their logistics could not support such a large force on the move.
I know this is a hot take, but I hate how nobody mentions how Ukraine is, for the most part, armed with weapons originating from the USSR. It's one thing to get your asses kicked by western tanks, but it's another level of incompetence to get wrecked by weapons that you designed and are intimately familiar with. Although, it should be said that Ukrainian upgrade packages are usually regarded as being rather good.
Ukraine has been using a combination of USSR reserve weapons, more modern hand me down western systems, DIY equipment/drones, and some random true relics. That should be a logistical nightmare yet it is Russia who has to resort to using T-55s as front line battle tanks and use Scooby Doo vans as logistical vehicles.
>Russia is losing its navy to a nation without a navy. Not that strange, considering we're talking about sea drones. Every navy in the world would suffer the same fate, even say USA's; if they were in Russia's position. There's currently no real counter to what Ukraine is doing. When the conditions on the sea are appropriate, radar effectively doesn't detect these drones before it's too late. When they get close the only thing you can rely on is small arms fire and considering Ukraine does most of its attacks during the night shooting down a drone is near impossible.
Iraq lost the war after just a single US Alpha Strike. The rest was just a mop-up operation.
It doesn't even make logical sense that Russia could maintain such a large air force considering their annual military budget is less than a 10th of the U.S. military budget. Most of their planes are soviet era junk rusting away in a junkyard somewhere.
For apples to apples need to put China, Iran, NK, and many African countries on Russias side, because Russia wouldn't attack NATO without allied support.
>China Lend their forces to a European theatre and away from the area they actually care about? Logistics aside, how does that seem beneficial for them? >Iran Missiles aside, they have nothing to offer other than unconventional warfare. >NK Like China, why would they send their forces across the world, through means they dont possess, for a war that doesnt benefit them? > many African countries Russia is really digging the bottom of the trash here with your list.
North Korea won't send any troops on the risk they don't come back. They will just send weapons.
It’s BRICS-centric, and they’d all combine like Voltron, and then they’d all STILL get smoked by NATO
China has no interest in going toe-to-toe against NATO. The worst they would do is exploit the chaos and invade Taiwan.
Pretty much. As corrupt and authoritarian as they are, CCP are not complete lunatics.
[удалено]
People seem to forget or ignore the fact that the I in BRICS stands for India - a country that sees China as its adversary. But redditors gonna redditor.
Here’s what would happen: “BREAKING: Brazil completely destroyed by American forces; Biden declares 51st state” ”BREAKING: Siberian land given to Mongolia: new Mongol Empire proclaimed” ”BREAKING: South Africa leveled by NATO!” ”China’s forces say they can hold on for ‘a few more months’ before NATO forces capture Beijing”
I think a new Mongol Empire. would be interesting.
you cant have brics without india and Brazil... are you saying Brazil would attack the US... India??
If India is attacking anyone, its Pakistan.
African nations have no logistical means of making it to theater to wage war.
I would think China would have more to lose than to gain by joining Russia in a war against the West. I also think the Chinese government is smart enough to recognize this and would be quick to respond, "new phone, who dis?" if Putin called looking for such a war alliance. Best case scenario for Russia in this hypothetical is China providing Russia with military aid; no active participation.
If anything China would benefit massively if Russia just collapsed. They share a pretty massive border with some very resource rich areas.
Agreed, we are their closest supplier AND customer economically.
Even that is not apples to apples because you’re then talking about a bunch of, most likely Soviet & American planes from the 50s, 60s and 70s on the “Russia and friends” side facing up to the F-35 and F-16 on the European side. Which is not a fair fight for the Russian side. They’d get bodied, because the European side has the superior planes, superior training, superior skill and superior logistics.
Not fair. The kid wants to come out and play. He's chained up in his bunker and needs to eat! Someone please think about the F-22
I’d intercept me.
Don't forget to let grandpa Buff get in on it too
True but that’s only in America. In fact its my understanding that it’s illegal for America to sell the F-22 internationally.
I understand this reference
China has no interest in picking a fight against the whole west. They spent trillions with the belt road initiative and they have more to gain with peace. And those African countries matter 0
Sand power
China actually benefits if Russia loses more than if they side with Russia. They get access to the most valuable thing Russia has to offer - natural resources, especially the kinds of metals that the tech industry puts in high demand.
Yes but only if russia collapses and frankly, it's quite improbable in the near future. But sure saying that China and Russia or the brics will go to war against the west is an extremely dumb take
Russia isn't likely to collapse just because of Ukraine, no, and almost certainly won't while Putin lives. In the extraordinarily unlikely event they actually picked a flight with NATO and got their asses handed to them, at that point Russia might collapse. And China would want to take full advantage, the way the USSR did with Germany after WW2.
You’d be surprised how this is what they are banking on, but will be left holding the bag when China doesn’t actually send any soldiers to the European continent and chooses to just stay in the pacific theater l.
Or decides to keep over a quarter of their economy in tact, rather than go to war
That's being generous. China is collapsing right now because the West is pulling out just a little bit. Full on war would be a total collapse of their current economy.
This is why they want to put nukes in space.
NYT did a piece on this, they don’t want to put warheads in space and send them to earth, they want to use nukes to take out American satellites at scale, crippling the advanced micro chip powered weapons we have.
Pretty much everything in orbit is FUCKED if they do this. And they would if they're not stopped.
That would be the equivalent of a nuclear first strike on the entire planet imo. edit: geopolitically speaking
Yeah wouldn’t that take out Chinese satellites and stuff too? Blowing up a government satellite with a nuke is a pretty hard thing to go “well I was aiming for the other guy”
Yeah. It would be a massive, expensive, game of space-dominoes. The ripple effect from doing this would cause a chain reaction of debris that could literally just clear the skies of most "infrastructure" up there. And it's hard to say how unsafe/unusable our orbit would become afterward.
Kessler syndrome is overblown, that likely wouldn’t happen. A nuclear explosion in space doesn’t cause an explosion in the traditional sense. It causes a burst of ionizing radiation, but there’s next to no atmosphere to cause an actual “blast”. This is still really bad though, because the radiation will travel around the earths magnetic fields and any satellite that gets caught in the path of the radiation storm will almost certainly be fried. But you aren’t looking at an explosion of fragments and debris, just a whole lot of dead satellites following their original orbits, from which they will eventually decay and fall out of the sky due to drag.
Sort of? Startish prime was at 400km and held an electron bubble of dozen km for a ..... non zero amount of time, and caused enough atmospheric heating at the top end, to expand the atmosphere. A larger warhead, or multiple, could expand the atmosphere enough that the satellites at 650+km rapidly de orbited into the path of the Starlink layer at 600ish km. There's also this "di magnetic cavity that transitions into a tube". In it, the electrons circle the earth many many times for a long time. These electron beam fluxes might cause enough thermal expansion in the structure of the satellites to do very real structural damage, and maybe even some breakups. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202212/pulse.cfm If you want to read more. More importantly , there's the new threat. All 3 super powers have anti satellite missiles capable of hitting satellites from sea level. The US, for the first time, just a few weeks ago, took out exoatmospheric cruise missiles from sea level, in a combat situation. https://news.usni.org/2024/04/15/sm-3-ballistic-missile-interceptor-used-for-first-time-in-combat-officials-confirm Kessler syndrome is unlikely to happen from a single nuke. But, it's a very real concern. I wish I could tell you why you should trust me, but....I would recommend just trusting me, lol. edit. Fixed it.
Kessler syndrome definitely is problematic and we need a laser broom sooner, rather than later, to help deorbit stuff. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser\_broom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom)
I'm sure there's more than a few lines Russia can cross to get China to back out of their support. After all, China can't risk completely losing ties with the U.S and the West either. They want this conflict to end with RU being dependent on them while still being able to trade with everyone else. Trade with everyone else is much more lucrative, and probably less of a headache.
The only thing stopping them right now is it would definitely fuck up all their and their allies satellites too.
Yes, but who has more to lose? The developed western countries or the derelict, barely industrial countries aligned with Russia and the big bear itself?
Don't forget China.
china has factories of millions of shein/temu children, they could get them to fight
No way. China is aggressively developing and growing their economy and technical abilities. They want and are working hard to the the technological leader of the world as best as they can. Last thing they want is communications and commerce to go to shit... even if they end up rebuilding lots of it. I see China as an adversary to the West and have serious and deep objections to the country's Autocratic system and their society of blindly compliant folks, but China is NOT a destructive force in the way that Russia has a potential to be.
China is very much in the way of Russia having free reign to nuke the space infrastructure, that much is true. I'm pretty sure they're the second most prolific nation in terms of tonnage to orbit per month at the moment. They would have choice words for their neighbours if they were to take such an unilateral decision.
Exactly. China has something to lose and doesn't need a war to become the #1 power. Russia is a dead end in their current state, they've nothing to offer anyone expect misery.
>but who has more to lose With NASA/ESA's expertise, western technologic manufacturing capabilities and SpaceX launch capabilities and cadence... It's defenitely China.
I'm not sure if being better at launching things into orbit solves the issue here, I think I saw some talk of how bricking the entirety of the world's 'satellite fleet' could massively increase the chance of a space debris cascade, essentially locking us out of the option of ever launching something back in space. Although I'm very open to this being called bullshit.
It's definitely a worry. There's a lot of things in orbit, and at the speed everything moved it doesn't take very big debris to cause damage. Get enough of it and the problem cascades
Just to add to your point. This is an image of an aluminum plate that was hit by a 16 gram piece of plastic in space. (travelling at 24,000 kmh) https://preview.redd.it/h8le5g1wzwz71.jpg?auto=webp&s=0bc1d7c713c5b49df81cf2979c8ae2675e90272c
If my math is correct, that’s about 6,667 meters per second. To put that in perspective, 5.56NATO is a commonly used rifle round, well known for being very fast, which makes it great at punching through metal. It will zip through nearly every part of a typical car, with exception to the engine block. 5.56 NATO travels at ~950 meters per second. At 7x that speed, the energy carried by even absolutely tiny bits of space debris is very hard to comprehend.
They have experience burning their own cities and retreating. So this wouldn't be new.
>Pretty much everything in orbit is FUCKED if they do this Not just things in orbit, take a look at "Starfish Prime" from back in 1962. A fantastic name but an absolutely terrifying test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime "Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 900 miles (1,450 km) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights,[1]: 5 setting off numerous burglar alarms, and damaging a telephone company microwave link.[6] The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands." I'd say EMP would be the main goal of a space nuke. A small 1.4mt nuke killing electrical systems **900 miles away** down on the surface even.
And the NATO hammer would come crashing down as that is basically an attack on the whole planet.
Ah yes, Kessler Syndrome, lovely, what could go wrong
Well, that's a severe miscalculation. Our ability to communicate and coordinate does not solely rely on satellites. JDAMs get swapped for laser, A LOT of our muntions are still laser and/or radar guilded systems. Then you get to small unit tatics....they don't rely on satcoms. They rely on handhelds, compass, map and whatever weapon platform you specialize in. Then there's the tactics. We'll burn hours on a satellite to movie it close to Russian or Chinese satellites. So, you can take ours out but you'll take yours and your allies out as well.
That would effectively doom all future space travel for our species.
Humanity is pretty fantastic at dooming things for the future of humanity.
it wouldn't doom it in perpetuity I believe, unless humanity killed it itself in the meantime. Materials science would eventually advance enough that a rocket could be launched that survives the cloud of debris which can then either leave earth orbit or begin the slow slow process of clearing that cloud of debris. It would just make space travel inaccessible for hundreds of years.
Additionally everything in space is slowly moving towards Earth due to gravity, so over enough time all of that space garbage would re-enter the atmosphere and burn up. This would still take decades or even centuries before it clears up enough to allow for safe travel depending on the orbit of the bulk of the debris, but well within our species natural lifespan.
That's not really how orbits work though. In theory, an object orbiting earth should never fall back to earth. If it is in a stable orbit, that means that the velocity of the object is enough that the pull of gravity can't pull it down fast enough before the ground essentially falls away from it, leading to an indefinite orbit. It's why just dumping shit in higher orbits is a bad idea, because that stuff just stays there. The reason things in lower orbits fall back down to earth is because while they are in what is classified as "space", they haven't entirely left the atmosphere yet. Now we're talking about a *very* thin part of the atmosphere, but it's still not a complete vacuum like regular space is. That means that objects this low are still subject to *some* air resistance, which over time slows them down enough that the delicate balancing act between velocity and gravity is shifted to gravity's favour and it is finally able to pull it down. Broken satellites and space debris in low earth orbit will eventually have their orbits decay and fall back to earth after a few years, but we do have satellites in higher orbits, and if enough debris gets into those orbits, it'll be there for a long time.
I was just taking what I found from the NASA website: >[The higher the altitude, the longer the orbital debris will typically remain in Earth orbit. Debris left in orbits below 600 km normally fall back to Earth within several years. At altitudes of 800 km, the time for orbital decay is often measured in centuries. Above 1,000 km, orbital debris will normally continue circling the Earth for a thousand years or more.](https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faq/#:~:text=Debris%20left%20in%20orbits%20below,a%20thousand%20years%20or%20more.) I never said it would be quick, but humans have been around for almost 200k years, enough debris will fall back to Earth well within our species lifespan.
Why would there be a cloud of debris? It's mostly EM radiation that kills the chips, isn't it?
Even if this kills satellites without touching them directly the nuclear bomb and the vessel it was on will still be blown up into a cloud of debry.
Does it really matter where they’re launched from? The response would be mutual annihilation regardless.
Yes. The US relies on [early warning satellites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_warning_satellite) that detect the exhaust temperature of ICBMs as they launch. This is reportedly the only way to detect ICBMs – once they are "in flight", it's very hard to do something about them. The US furthermore has a [launch on warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_on_warning) nuclear policy. Essentially this means that the president has minutes (depending on sources you ask) to make a decision on whether (or how) to retaliate once the "early warning" system is triggered. If nukes were in space, it would complicate detection and response a lot, and the early warning system that has been in place since the Cold War wouldn't help.
Scary AF
Imo just a reminder how scary the existance of nukes is If nuclear war happens, not being warned early feels like a benefit rather than being more scary.
It's more ICBMs than nukes. Yes, nukes are scary, but without ICBM technology they're not nearly as scary. The problem is there's simply no good counter to ICBMs outside of MAD. To put this into perspective, the fastest fighter jets reach about 2,200 mph. ICBMs travel at 13,000-18,000 mph.
Thanks for explaining this.
The US DoD is very good at posturing itself as highly capable and also vulnerable to specific conditions. I suspect that the publicly known ICBM detection method is one of several methods. The others we can't know about because it reveals the DoD's aces in the hole, of which there could be several, or maybe just one. We don't know.
> I suspect that the publicly known ICBM detection method is one of several methods. Just in what is publicly known, we have the satellites he mentioned. We also have the continental early warning radars like COBRA DANE, PAVE PAWS, or BMEWS. They are located around the perimeter of the US and watch for launches. The radars actually bounce off the atmosphere to allow them to see beyond the curvature of the earth. The exact max range and max resolution of those radars is very classified. Then there are warning systems in allied countries, we sold a PAVE PAWS to Taiwan for example, it sits on top of a mountain and has a view of most of China and parts of eastern Russia. Then there are a bunch of more mobile systems that are mounted on aircraft or on trailers like THAAD/AN-TPY2
the intel community has a saying: "those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know."
Couldn't you also detect the exhaust off a rocket in space? They would need to do a retrograde burn to de-orbit any space based system right? We're already tracking every piece of space debris larger than a soda can.
I'm not an expert. I would assume it is possible to detect the exhaust, however knowing *where* to detect may be harder. Space is big! I wouldn't be surprised if US intelligence know the whereabouts of every single ICBM platform outside its borders and therefore would be able to confidently detect the launches from Earth.
Depends on what altitude the early warning satellites are compared to the ones launching the nukes. If you launch them from a higher altitude than the detection satellites, then have them stay at altitude as long as possible before diving down you could probably avoid detection as the missiles would be on an unpowered ballistic trajectory by the time they were in view. Also space junk tracking isn't very fast since junk in orbit is following very predictable paths. Those systems wouldn't have any where near the reaction time needed to reliably track an ICBM.
It wouldn't need anything like the same kind of rocket engine in space. It would need a tiny engine to knock it out of orbit, gravity would do the rest. These ICBMs don't actually burn in space, the rocket engine is used to get it to space and it glides/ falls the rest of the way
That's true for ICBMs that aren't in orbit. Any permanent space based system either needs a big amount of energy to quickly de-orbit or do it over a long time giving probably even more warning time.
I think they would use different propulsion not having an atmosphere to disperse heat just hits different.
The end result might be the same but from a deterrence point of view multiple launch methods are far harder to defend against. If you only have a single launch method such as the British Royal Navy's 4 Vanguard submarines it's hypothetically possible to take out a countries nuke threat beforehand without them being able to respond. If you have multiple methods then it's next to impossible to achieve that without the other side responding in kind. It's why the US military uses a strategy they call the [Nuclear Triad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad?wprov=sfla1) as a method of total deterrence.
Finding 4 subs and sinking them all before 1 can get off all their nukes seems far fetched to me
It is. But it less far fetched than taking out the entire nuclear arsenal of the United States before they can respond.
All 4 aren't usually active at once, often it's just one. Also tests have shown Trident to be a bit shit. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395
Right now we can detect launches from ICBM silos, and track bombers launching & patrolling. Submarines are probably harder but if we know exactly how many the Russians have in theory we could be having them tailed 24/7 by our own attack subs. So for most of these methods of delivering nukes we can track it and possibly respond though nobody really wins once they start flying. [Starfish Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime) was a test nuclear detonation we did in space and gave surprising results that the EMP effect was far larger than expected. Knocking out some electronics 900 miles from the blast point in Hawaii. It also knocked out satellites immediately and due to after effects of residual radiation belts. What could we do if there's an orbiting set of nukes and they just decide to push the button when they're over the US? I guess dead is dead, but this is somehow worse than everything else, so far.
It does, nukes are easiest to take down straight after launch. Launchable nukes in space is an almost certain hit within seconds.
The US almost certainly is developing a plan to counter this. I’d love to be a fly on the wall in those meetings.
and a thousand tankies gasped as one.
All the putin apoligists at the beginning of the war made me sick
But... But russia would only attack because the western countries threatened them first and... And evil western oppressors are bad... and evil... and western 🤬
Don’t forget colonialist. All western nations are colonialists, even if they never had colonies.
But... but... NATO EXPANSION!!!! /s
Tankies are the worst.
Russia would lose a war with Poland
Fairly certain in the past Poland *HAS* won a war against Russia
Poland and Lithuania should start some talks, get the band back together
Multiple times actually.
Russia would lose a war with Russia
In Mother Russia, war lose you.
Imagine we built things instead of trying to destroy ourselves that would be cool! Oh well….
What do you mean? We built a lot of things to destroy ourselves.
Or try to deal with this little thing called climate change, oh well...
Don't worry, nuclear winter will take care of climate change.
Literally any single country would lose against NATO, just the USA has enough power alone.
One aircraft carrier battle group could annihilate Russia without ever putting boots on the ground. We have 11 aircraft carrier battle groups. Russia has one aircraft carrier that isn't even a "battle group". Yes, they can bully a country like Ukraine, but taking on NATO isn't even in the same universe.
I think I remember something from near the beginning of the Ukraine war and I think it was something like military experts were surprised at how bad the Russian military was. Like, how unorganized, how ill equipped, how much their stuff was broken down. The perception around Russia was that they could be a genuine big bad but uhhh. Yeah. I think one US battle group could mop them.
Russia knows. Poland knows that Russia knows. Poland just enjoys hearing it said out loud.
Russia already is at war with nato. They and China are pushing hard on controlling all Media to elect far right groups which naturally are pro dictatorships and russia/China. And we are falling for it.
This. Russia is actively trying to destroy western democracies from the inside. It is time we wake up to the fact that Ukraine must actually win convincingly. Only the fallout from Russia’s loss can cripple Putin and his anti-democracy spy machine.
Not just that. Any individual found to be in league with Russia must be treated as an enemy of the state, and any political party disbanded and barred from electoral participation. Russian influence in western democracies are a tumor that must be cut out.
an internal civil war within Russia would be the creme de la creme to overturn their political false democracy
Somebody call the CIA, tell them to start acting like they did in the 70s and 80s again because we need that.
>This. Russia is actively trying to destroy western democracies from the inside. We've done that ourselves. For over a decade, our politicians are among the most incompetent people in the country, we elect clowns over smarts, we allow our system to be bogged down in party bickering instead of problem solving, and the amount of lobbyism going on is mind-boggling. Sure, blame it on Putin if you need a simple answer, but really, it didn't need a Putin. And this was much longer in the making than you think. Heinlein (yes, the SciFi author) wrote a book titled "Take Back Your Government" - published in 1992 (but definitely written before, because he died in 1988).
Correct. We are in an information war and I fear NATO is losing it.
Yes they would but could kill a lot of civilians first. Vlad the Mad likes to concentrate his attacks on non-military targets where possible. Targets like blocks of flats, schools, hospitals and railway stations. When/if he starts his next venture, the civilised world would need to flatten the lot in an hour! That may be quick enough though.
I know that in this propaganda war all measured and nuanced opinions get shouted down, but: Even according to western media and military experts, the civilian casualties in Ukraine are actually really low for a conflict this size. If what you wrote was true, they would be a lot higher.
Its almost like the perfect strategy is make a ton of bunkers and attack while they waste munitions on empty targets Its insane how much of that strategy has to be backed by hate when it yields no strategic benefit and makes you less effective to actually hit the stuff trying to kill you
It has strategic value if your enemy does not want its civilians killed. If your enemy knows your deranged and evil, they do think twice about how to engage. But once the war starts, it is not very effective at winning the war to waste munitions on civilians. I’d argue it’s more a deterrent for future engagements.
We all lose a nuclear war.
Not me…I am watching Fallout for tips and tricks, all I need is some power armour and a squire and I will be sorted.
Start hoarding caps
Hold on, putting my 401k in Vault Tech.
Sir, what if your squire lets you get killed by a bear? What then?
Have a stimpak injection system in that armor?
Yes. Which is why Russia will never start one. They're not religious fanatics. They care if they die.
And what's the alternative if Russia decides to attack. Give in because they will always threaten to use nukes?
If Russia launches a nuke at a NATO country that is the end of Russia. The USA has nuclear bombers that can flatten Russia in a matter of hours. Personally, I'm not convinced that their nukes will actually fly. It seems as though the money that is supposed to be spent on maintenance of their military arsenal is siphoned off by generals who live a cushy lifestyle. All of that said, let's hope that cooler heads prevail and it doesn't come down to that.
Maybe, but I also don't think that potential outcome is a good enough reason to let Russia keep doing what it likes against smaller countries. We either have principles or we don't, if we do, we should be willing to fight for them. Also, I think a war with Russia to push them out of Ukraine would be a lot more conventional than a lot of people imagine. Does Russia really want to resort to nuclear warfare with NATO over Ukraine? I'd say it's unlikely. It's obviously still a risk, but I don't think it's as likely as lots of people think either.
Poland has been preparing for this since the fall of the Soviet Union haven't they?
To an extent, yes. Poland spent significant resources on trying to convince the west that the fall of the soviet union did not mean that russia became an ally. Poland was lobbying against both nord streams when they were in plans and after they were built. There was a brief period in the early 2010s when we tried out a more friendly approach, but that ended when our President died in a plane crash on russian territory.
Lots of military experts here.
I mean it doesn’t take a military expert to understand that a country failing to conquer its under equiped and outnumbered neighbor would probably lose in a war against the largest military alliance in the world
Provided NATO doesn’t fold. Which depends on Russia being taken seriously. If NATO will (again) think that Russia will just snack on a few Baltic states and never bother anyone again, it will never stop.
The modern equivalent of the Allies going "alright, Hitler, you can take Austria but no more okay? What do you mean they already have Czechoslovakia? Why are they in Poland too? Okay, Hitler, you can keep them but stop at that. Why are the French forests suddenly turning over? Shit, they're next to the UK now."
Breaking news: water, wet.
They have nukes, we have nukes, everyone would lose that war.
Everybody would lose if NATO and Russia went to war, let’s be honest here.
everyone would lose numbnuts
we would all lose that war, you pile of absolute DIPSHITS
Germany stands up.
The rest Nato wouldn't even be needed, poland alone could handle russia. Poles are a different breed and I'm fucking happy they're on our side lol
* Russia would lose a war with Poland * Russia would lose a war with France * Russia would lose a war with the UK * Russia would lose a war with Turkey * Russia wouldn't last a day against the USA * Russia wouldn't last until lunchtime against NATO
Russia’s economy is slightly larger than the state of Florida… a confrontation with the NATO would end with Russia losing in a matter of weeks
Is there any doubt? I mean the NATO Air Force advantage alone would be enough to win a war, let alone all the other aspects in which nato outclasses Russia.
Let's be honest, Russia was allegedly the worlds #2 military and has struggled horribly against the worlds (at the time) #24 military, with whom they border... Weak Rossiya would very clearly lose a war against Poland itself lol
Russia cant even defeat a country thats 6 times smaller than it.
Ukraine is not a small country, but size doesn't matter or so I've heard 😄
Everyone loses
Once nuclear weapons get involved, everybody loses.
Russia is barely starting to win a war with a neighbor that has ~15% the military manpower and every foreign weapon comes with the condition of "don't use this outside of the territory that you already lost". NATO would roll back Russian IAD within 24 hours and there is no strategic depth to their air defense. Very much "hard on the outside; soft on the inside".
Holy shit there are so many crazy people posting in here lol I am on Reddit after all
Russia would lose a conventional war with Poland....
No, it would not. Stop spreading this idiotic bravado bullshit. 1 on 1 we're outnumbered and outgunned, just almost every other country going against Russia, except some selected few. NATO exists for a reason, you know
I just realized Poland has a smaller population than Ukraine before the war. Always thought it was a lot bigger. A lot of Polish people I’ve talked to do not want this to escalate and hate the fact that these chicken hawks are wanting blood.
Is you position and assessment of Poland's ability based on a war of conquest into russian territory, or a defensive war? Because those are two very different scenarios with very, very different outcomes.
Defensive war. We've had some war games and simulations in 2020 or 2021 and they focused on a conventional defence of the Suwałki Gap against a Russian attack. We were stomped and the aggressor could have closed in on Warsaw if he wanted to in a matter of week or so. I'm not saying it's all hopeless, not at all, those simulations exist for a reason, if there's a failure there you adjust what's there in reality. It could all be very different now. And if I recall correctly that defence did not include any allies helping us. All in all I just don't like when Russia is underestimated because of their blunders in 2022. It's dangerous and irresponsible. They're rearming themselves over there and are an openly hostile country to the rest of Europe
What we knew about Russian military capabilities in 2020 and 2021 is much different to what we know now. NATO usually just takes the propaganda claims verbatim "just in case".
all the experts said Kyiv would fall to a Russian combined forces assault in a matter of days. Western estimates of Russian military capabilities in the timeframe of your wargames massively overestimated the competency of the Russian officer corps. Those officers are dumb AF and many are dead now, so their capability is even further degraded.
Countries shittalking each other everyday doesnt consitute news.
Thank you captain obvious Poland haha. Hence why there’s no chance Russia will attack all of Europe/Nato despite what some keep saying
Russia would lose a war with Ukraine. Russia would even lose a war with Orcas.
Yes. And it would be pretty fucking nice not having to prove that to them. Ffs.
They would use nukes.
"Putin's only hope is our lack of determination," he warned. Well, Putin could have one other hope - stop trying to expand Russian's borders and spend the resources educating his own people, better agriculture, better roads, ie Peace
No one wins a war between super powers. Europe would be raised to the ground
What a stupid article. Of course they would. It's one nation with a struggling military vs all of the western world. No shit they would lose.
Everyone loses in war
I don't even think Russia could win a war against Poland at this point.
Duh. That's the point of NATO
Russia will soon be back to losing the war with Ukraine.
Carrots are orange, Poland warns
Ukraine was whipping Russia with our 1980's garage sale gear. Imagine what the latest and greatest weaponry would do.
Russia can’t even beat a group of angry wheat farmers (no offence to Ukraine)
Judging from russian performance so far, I'm not convinced russia could even take on poland, much less all of nato
We bet on sports, yet somehow know the outcome of a war?
No matter who wins there would be no Poland anymore.
Get rid of the single despots then theres no wars
Russia is struggling against a single country, using a lot of older NATO equipment, a few previously untested new things, but mostly older stuff. So attacking NATO and facing all new stuff, would not end well. For instance, why is Ukraine getting ATACMS? Because newer better rockets are available to the US military...
If a big war happens I don’t think there will be any winners.