Public sentiment is sharply divided and ranges from urgency for strong NATO action against Russian provocations to skepticism and frustration over perceived inaction and misleading narratives. Many users express concerns about escalating tensions and the adequacy of responses from NATO, with significant calls for accountability regarding U.S. leadership and accusations of misinformation. Overall, there’s a clear demand for assertive responses to safeguard against further aggression and maintain NATO’s credibility.

NATO

Russia

Ukraine

United States

Poland

&gt;a full scale war against NATO?

Your premise is wrong. Russia wants to destroy NATO, not fight NATO. 

NATO is a political and military alliance. Article 4 or 5 consultations are consensus decisions where everyone has veto power. Russia is doing this to break NATO's political unity. They do this by gradually escalating and undermining NATO politics with individual NATO members (Hungary, etc.). Eventually, either NATO responds strongly and Russia backs down, or NATO consultations water down the response every time, and NATO is done. Trump as president this is more likely than ever. 

Russia has easier time when the only defense of Baltic states is small group of Russian neighbors like Finland or Poland.

LtCmdrData

Russian geopolitics always circles back to history. They believe that they successfully defeated 3 of the greatest European military minds/powers via overwhelming numbers and refusing to stop advancing no matter how catastrophic their losses were, even with inferior technology each time. If it worked on Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler, why shouldn't it work against Nato? The only way they would hope to beat nato conventionally is to make our losses so high the public would lose the will to fight. European motivation to defend our countries is already at historic lows. Meanwhile, it could cost Moscow a million men to take Warsaw, and they would do it anyway. They've shown in Ukraine that even in the 21st century they will still employ human wave attacks against a position until the enemy runs out of ammunition or they finally inflict enough damage.

thedirtyswede88

My suspicion is that this was an act of psychological warfare that backfired. They were hoping to get those drones into Germany, Denmark, Czechia, wherever, as a reminder that these places are still within Russia's reach. 

  
Although Russia cannot win a conventional war against NATO, it can make that war very costly in lives and resources. That's why we haven't done it yet (plus the risk of nuclear escalation, of course).

Sabertooth767

Russia would fair very poorly in a conventional war against NATO. Their limitations have been on full display since 2022, limitations that will only get worse as they try to significantly increase the scale and breadth of the conflict, especially as NATO strategic fires hit deep into Russia (which have been minimal up to this point for a number of reasons).

NATO is already on a war footing (executing via Ukraine) so the communications/coordination is already present, Western Intelligence has been keenly focused on this for years, and NATO has been preparing for this very contingency for 76 years.

SpartanShock117

Russia's assessment is that they can outlast US weapons production.

Once American Allies lack that critical requirement, Russia believes the countries will fall.

They don't care how many Russians die in the process, because the value of the object is extremely high to Putin.

happy_snowy_owl

I think Poland could stomp them on their own, Ukraine has had manpower and weapon shortages since the very beginning, they probably dont wanna mess with the guys who have been preparing to throw hands with them for at least the last decade

BahamutInfinity

What's going down in Ukraine right now is not how any military plans its Invasions.

You want to achieve your strategic goals as fast as possible, subdue the populace with a massive bombing campaign, and take the Capital.

Russia tried that, and it only failed because of heroic ukrainian Resistance (and russian incompetence)

You look for something like Iraqi Freedom, shock and awe. This is where all those numbers on paper dont matter, when the defender has not mobilized or is taken by surprise. You can achieve a lot during that initial attack, even if you have equal forces on paper.

Russia obviously has no shot against all European Militaries in an even fight, even without the US, but could they rush deep into the Baltics under the threat of nuclear escalation? Absolutely imo. It's such a small gap to close and cut them off from the rest of Europe, it's not impossible.

No one knows how fucked Putins brain really is, but Russia has reserves for a move like that imo. Not that it would be smart or get them anywhere, but they could pull it off.

aquilaPUR

In any conventional conflict Russia would have far less success in Poland vs Ukraine even without NATO help.  Russia just trying for distraction because things are so poor in Ukraine

Mammoth_Professor833

My darkest interpretation is that Vlad wanted to eliminate the drunkest stupidest people from his population and prisons and is just using Ukraine as a place to do that, with the added bonus of access to Donbas minerals as a cherry on top.

My possibly more realistic interpretation is that China paid Russia a lot of money to keep
America busy in Europe as it gets its Taiwan invasion together.  

My most idiotic interpretation is that Vlad is fucking terrible at risk.

DoktorFreedom

No nukes? Three weeks, give or take few days and we (NATO) celebrate Victory Day in Moscow.

Bonkers_Reality

Scaling up for war is a much more complicated task than it looks. In World War Two, America had already been in the process of re-arming for several years by the time the Japanese bombed the U.S at Pearl, and it still took several years to become fully war built. That was under a highly successful, and highly cooperative coalition government. Now to think that in this era of fractured politics you could push through all those things? I’m pretty sure many political leaders would be thrilled to see their enemy parties losing a war, and use that to get every future vote they can, whether occupied or not. 

You are also making the assumption that Russia is basically at a stalemate, which is untrue. They are winning the war, albeit slowly. They have been progressively pushing Ukraine back since around 2022 when Ukraine had that successful counteroffensive, as well as a minor Ukrainian raid into Russia that served to unite the Russian people even further, even though justified. 

Ukraine has been very slow to rebuild defensive lines for morale purposes, but also because it’s hard not to have their dozers bombed.  After a certain point, they will not have dug in defenses anymore, and be much more vulnerable. They aren’t getting the aid they desperately need. Without strong American support, Europe aid is insufficient.

It takes a really, really long time to build factories, train factory workers, build or expand mines,  draft or recruit and train hundreds of thousands of people. And Russia has years of battle experience, albeit fairly poor performance, it still works. 

Russias real concern is mostly just their poor air forces, which I don’t think would do well vs combined European air forces. Other than that Russia would have the full advantage.

They are miles ahead of the west in battlefield drone warfare with FPV wireless and fiber optic drones, producing and using millions of them per year. That’s a big disadvantage for the west.

ArrowsOfFate

They wouldn't. They just want to do low-intensity stuff like launch some drones. Nothing serious, just enough to cause fear/tension, cost NATO money, and economic loss among the Eastern members of NATO.

BulkyText9344

If we’re talking hypotheticals a NATO–Russia conventional war wouldn’t stay isolated to Eastern Europe. 

It would trigger a domino effect across the globe. 

The biggest factor is the level of U.S. involvement full U.S. commitment means Russia is crushed conventionally, but that also raises the risk of China stepping in  not because they love Russia but because they don’t want to see NATO establish total dominance and leave Beijing exposed.

That in turn creates ripple effects. The Middle East becomes unstable fast  oil markets, proxy conflicts and regimes recalibrating where they stand.

And if the U.S. looks tied down fighting Russia, China might see an opening in Taiwan.

On top of that political will in the West is not guaranteed.

A president like Trump probably wouldn’t commit to a drawn-out NATO war with Russia, which completely shifts the calculus.

Basically it’s not just NATO vs Russia  it’s the spark for a global realignment.

Once the first domino falls, the number of possible scenarios is endless.

Majestic-Effort-541

So first and foremost, your hope of no nuclear weapons being involved is of course the biggest fear in a war with Russia, their massive nuclear arsenal. The West was slow to arm Ukraine largely for fear of crossing one of Putin's red lines. These fears would be magnified in direct conflict with Russia. Another issue is that right now, the Russian military is struggling with manning. Because Ukraine is a "special military operation" with no declaration of War, Russia is limited in its ability to conscript and mobilize it's people in a way it wouldn't be with a declaration of War against NATO. They would probably still have equipment shortages, but they have been replacing equipment at an impressive rate so far, and in the event of war with NATO, China might provide more in the way of lethal aid. I bring all this up not to say that I think they could win, but not should we look at them in Ukraine and think we could curb stomp them.

WTI240

The European fear of a wider war is legit, Russia could just decide to go All-out.
But not at there current size of their military. They would need time to rebuild what was lost in Ukraine, over 4 THOUSAND tanks/IFV's or various ages and capabilities. Over a MILLION men dead and a few hundred thousand wounded.

Russia would need to do a full scale call up of eligible males from an all ready dwindling supply. This would mean that men from the Western areas of Russia would no longer escape military duty. This would also mean a huge political back lash against Putin would become a reality. Would it be enough to stop the call up, who knows. Men would have to be trained, equipped, fed and transported, from a Russian logistical system that is near the breaking point because of Ukraine.

Then there is the vehicle production issue. Russia would need to create the funding, find the materials and the production capacity to ensure they are able to build the necessary vehicles necessary to take on Western Europe. But the current tank production numbers are stuck at 200 VARIOUS models being built every month. I understand the T90 tank is the majority of this amount up to 90, I could be wrong.  

Then there is the issue of an aging Russian Air Force. They just don't have the capacity to maintain and build new jets to keep pace with the ones lost in Ukraine. Every pilot and air frame lost can not be replaced within a tangible time frame. 

Then there is the Russian Navy. Which is in the same, even worse shape as the Air Force. They've lost the Black Sea Fleet to a Navy that has no blue water ships. What was once the pride of Russia has been shrunk down to a fleet that can't go to war, mainly because the ships left are far too valuable to lose.

SilentRunning

markeydusod

Russia does not want war with NATO. NATO's superior weapons and military training would wipe Russia out. They must surely be feeling the strain already from this war rumbling on in Ukraine. They still use the old age tactic of overwhelming the enemy with numbers like WW2 without thinking of the cost to their own human life not a way to fight wars in this day. I seriously doubt their ability to take on all of Europe. We should have had the bollox and taken Putin out at the start instead of looking weak and scared.

Smsuperfly1

The way that NATO have been acting, the ruzzians would conquer Europe and either stop short of the US, or only then, article 5 would be invoked...when it's the only country left in the alliance.

toshibathezombie

Once Russia has established that A) Trump won’t ever do anything of consequence and B) NATO won’t do anything offensive on their own, the war will be over before it starts.

DrStrangelove2025


Comment guidelines:

Please do:

    * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, 
    * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
    * Be polite and civil, curious not judgmental
    * Link to the article or source you are referring to,
    * Make it clear what your opinion is vs. what the source actually says,
    * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
    * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
    * Write posts and comments with some decorum.

 Please do not:

    * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
    * Start fights with other commenters nor make it personal,
    * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
    * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
    * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment. Those belong in the MegaThread

    Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. 
    
 Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, 
 leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Pre-2022 Russian army was not geared towards full-blown conflict. 

It was meant for smaller scale, regional conflict and power-projecting duties. 

This is best reflected by the use of battalion tactical groups (BTG). These were born out of the necessity of the first Chechen conflict, and made a virtue by the second, being the modus operandi during Georgian war (2008) and Krim (2014) and also the start of Ukrainian war (2022). 

This was due to the fact that Russian army operated mostly on Soviet principles of small peace time cadre fortified by conscripts of various training levels. Division structure that Soviet army was based on during war time necessiated the use of mobilization of reservists to bulk up the units. However, during peace time mobilization was not possible due to the laws and public outcry. 

This left them only option to hoard professional soldiers (trainers, leaders, specialists etc) from various units to ad-hoc battlegroups. Reflections of the first Chechen war gave away the lack of coordination and combined arms warfare. This necessiated the integration of support (artillery, engineering, AA, EW etc) to the ad-hoc battalions.

Benefit of those BTGs was that they packed a punch above their weight, pretty much carrying around brigade or division level support on battalion level. Also the Soviet drawback of small HQ staff was mitigated by having brigade and division level command on the line. 

Result was swift (at least from Soviet perspective), heavy-hitting force that could rapidly advance in restricted battlespace against guerrilla or less-than-peer adversary. 

However, full scale near peer war in Ukraine showed that BTGs lacked the manpower to actually sustain any kind of battle damage and remain combat effective. Many times these BTGs became combat ineffective because their few infantry was shot to pieces, with support intact. Also, because the vast front of Ukraine required many BTGs, they started to have a coordination problem as they didn't have the higher intermediate levels to coordinate a few battlegroups at the time; army command commanded _dozens_ at the same time.

Of course, Russia has learned and went back to the Soviet style brigade and division structure. 

Yes, Russia lost many of its professional soldiers during first year and two of the war, matters worse these were often the instructors and leaders of their conscripts and cadre for war time divisions. 

However, now they know what near peer war actually needs. Their units are bigger and more damage sustainable. Their economy and production is geared towards the war.

Ukraine cannot threaten Russia existentially unlike NATO does. But Ukraine revealed the weaknesses that would have made Russia doomed against NATO. 

They learn and that makes them a threat.

Threat has two components: ability and will. Russia has better ability to threaten NATO than it had pre-2022. Will can change on a whim. Attacking Ukraine was not a rational decision from our point of view; however, from Russian POV it made sense. And we cannot know when attacking NATO makes sense from their POV.

Free-Engineering6759

I think Russia looks more aggressive yet less capable as the war grinds on. A war of attrition in Ukraine is favourable for the West because it grinds down a very powerful opponent who is very dangerous to counter more directly. The wear and tear of equipment is equivalent to combat losses when considered at scale. I also think that if you look at the fall of Syria and the disintegration of Iranian proxies, Russias allies are in a weaker position than they were before previously. The Russian economy remains resilient yet it is also under a lot of pressure and over time sanctions will be crushing as they have been for North Korea and Iran. Add into that equation the changing power balance that will come as Russia becomes increasingly reliant upon China. That dependence was probably inevitable but its acceleration will reduce Putins control over his own foreign policy. My biggest fear with Russia is actually a peace negotiation while Russia remains strong rather than waiting until they have endured enough losses and attrition to make them weaker and more willing to negotiate seriously. They are quite capable of short term gains and aggression may cause the West to capitulate out of fear of a Ukrainian collapse. I think support for Ukraine should be escalated to help support them given the immense pressure and suffering they face. The analyst Perun estimates that Russia can sustain its current burn rate for about 2 more years before they will start running out of hardware.

Hendo52

I think the answer depends on the results in Ukraine.  Russia would need a peace agreement that looks like victory, but equally important, it would need to undermine European promises to Ukraine and demonstrate Europe's failure to collectively solve the problem.  Russia would also need substantial Chinese economic aid to keep its economy running on a war production footing, so we would have to assume China wants this.  Finally, it would require the Russians to believe that the US would not act decisively.  A bad peace in Ukraine increases the risk that the US declines to fight for Europe.

Russia will not launch a full scale invasion of NATO, but it might grab some land in the Baltics and test NATO's response.  Let's assume the US is distracted by an earthquake or domestic terrorist attack.  Let's also assume Russia has prioritized acquiring the latest Chinese/Russian air defense systems.  Now the question of European solidarity becomes paramount.  Who will take the lead in throwing out the Russians?

LibrtarianDilettante

Technically speaking, the Russian military right now vastly surpasses the Russian military from 5 years ago. So they are a threat. 

That being said, I also doubt Russia would attack NATO, because strategically speaking - they are at a significant disadvantage. 

However… will something escalate into an open Russia-NATO war due to a direct NATO intervention in Ukraine? 

Maybe.

poopybuttguye

I think it’s actually very very low. I can try to find it but there’s a short clip of Putin admitting that they can’t take on NATO because of their wealth disparity and he sees poking NATO as “standing up to oppression”. From a tactical perspective I think one misconception that some people have is that Ukraine is a good representation of NATO fighting but it really isn’t. They have received some training and equipment for sure but it is so much less than NATO as a whole which is to say I don’t think a fight with actual NATO would look all that close to what we’ve seen in Ukraine with the key difference being a massive air campaign by NATO. Russian ground forces do have decent parity against nato but I really don’t think the VKS would hold up for long

Ghostrider556

I would argue that the risk of a continental war in Europe will be greater in the next 5 years then at any point since at least the early 1980s. From whenever combat operations end in Ukraine to \~2030, Russia will have an brief window of unprecedented relative military advantage over NATO while the US is distracted trying to deter China, and Europe's modernisation and rearmament catches up with its own. 

The fleeting nature of this opportunity will incentivise Russia to use it before it loses this generational chance. We have already seen Putin has a long history of jumping on such opportunistic advantages, from Syria to Georgia and obviously Ukraine itself. If he believes that this window offers him a chance to undermine NATO, and thus achieve Russia's single greatest overarching foreign policy goal, I would not bet against him taking that risk. 

While Russia lacks the means to go sweeping across the north European plain like it's the 1980s still, a limited incursion into somewhere like the Baltics to test the alliance's response, and potentially expose it as hollow would be well within their power. Importantly, whether they  actually had the means to do this or not, as long Putin/his staff *believed* they had a good-enough shot, war would still break out, devastating even if NATO triumphed.  

This risk is further exacerbated by the wider deteriorating global security picture. If a major conflict breaks out in, say, the South China Sea, that is going to suck up US resources and attention, further levelling the balance of power between Russia and the alliance. Given NATO's almost-exclusive reliance on the US for several critical enablers like Airborne EW, the diversion of US attention currently would be crippling to many of the capabilities NATO leans heavily to counter peer adversaries, like SEAD/DEAD. This risks further incentivising Russia to strike while the iron is hot, particularly in the event of a stand-off over Taiwan (and visa-versa).

The Russia armed forces have not exactly covered themselves in glory in Ukraine, but I would be cautious about underestimating them. The Russian army has tripled in size since 2022, and while they are slow learners, they do learn, and now have more modern combat experience than any other army outside of Ukraine. Nor is it as if NATO is the thrumming, well-oiled machine is was in the cold war either. Many of the alliances' own deficiencies are only being fixed slowly, and constituent national armies, still operating in a peacetime posture, have been even slower to digest and adopt lessons and practices that are now ubiquitous among both forces fighting in Ukraine. Given 18 months to regenerate their force structures, re-implement higher-level exercises, and complete a training cycle, they would be a formidable threat in a limited conflict against NATO, particularly in the absence of US support. 

The good news is effectively deterring such a conflict is well within Europe's power, even without significant US assistance. The more troubling news is this would likely require more, and more immediate effort than many alliance members have so far shown, though this is changing for the better and some (notably Poland) have shown an admirable alacrity. This puts the ball in Europe's court as to how likely war is to break out in the immediate future. 

The risk is that an under-estimation of the threat and its proximity, or a over-confidence in our ability to rapidly rearms, sees us put up too little, too late to effectively deter conflict from occurring. This is essentially what lead to the outbreak of the second world war, where the militarily-superior (but less experienced) allies' sluggishness to rearm and attempts to spend at little as possible doing it lead them to fail to deter German opportunistic expansionism, forcing them to pay the incalculably-greater costs of fighting the Second World War instead. That experience shows how real the possibility of misjudging this sort of thing is.

Corvid187

Well, you have a friend in the Polish armed forces. My view of Europe, Poland included, is that they talk like Russia will invade soon, but don't really act like it. There is a fun back-of-the-envelope calculation that I like to make when it comes to the land army size vs. authorised formations vs. what fraction of the authorised formation can be at very high readiness at any moment

\- In 1989 the British Regular army was \~150,000 with another 50,000 in the Territorial Army (at least the part of the Territorials that met their minimum training requirement). The Army would provide four full divisions at mobilisation in the British Army of the Rhine.

\- The French army is about 110,000 with two divisions recently and with the experience in Mali, looking at their ORBAT, each unit from the battalion level down could put together about a third of their formations

\- The US army is about 450,000 with 10 division equivalences and they can have around a third of the brigades available for permanent forward deployment.

So, my guesswork is that at 40-50,000 total Army personnel/division, an army can have at least one or so brigade at high readiness at all times, per division. Basically a third. It can be every brigade has one battalion at high readiness, or one whole brigade out of every three brigades. The other twos are in some part of the training/rest-refit cycle. I suspect Poland's numbers are a bit off: they have 110,000 in seven division equivalences. The math is more of the bare minimum.

The Bundeswehr had some variations of readiness problem and off Wikipedia, they have about 63,000 in 3 divisions.

These are of course, guesswork. The "true" number of readiness or manning levels are some of the most vital and best kept secret. You can go and ask your friend a random question like "say, what's the manning levels of your platoon/company/battalion", and see how fast he clamps down and not revealing it. If he actually says it, don't tell me publicly.

SmirkingImperialist

NATO airpower far outclasses anything the Russians have and airpower wins conventional wars.

Russian drone factories would be decimated by long-range munitions and any Russian army movements near NATO would be pulverized from the air with precision. Any remnants of Russian ground forces near NATO countries would be mopped up by NATO artillery. Any Russian navy ships or subs at sea would be gone on day 1/2.

Russia simply does not have the ability to go toe to toe with NATO and will not have so before the end of the decade. They don't have the technological prowess, quality of soldier/officers, or infrastructure capabilities of NATO.

Ignoring nuclear weapons of course. Their only realistic option is asymmetrical, "grey area" warfare or destabilizing actions.

sublurkerrr

[deleted]

Im always interested in what people actually mean when they throw around phrases like “russia will attack NATO”? 
Who, what, where and why? 
I generally cannot articulate many (any?) reasonable targets that would come anywhere near the big NATO countries. 
So lets say they go “small” NATO, is the sequence of events then that NATO only seeks to expel them from that area or does doctrine say they go for jugular and NaTO goes to Moscow? 
At what point does it turn into a war of obliteration?

Ecstatic-Bug3472

Every war ever fought in history has been fought with a goal, whether it be land, resources or political/military advantage due to location. 

This is exactly why a war that guarantees triggering Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is something Russia and even China would do anything to avoid, because any war with an existential threat to a NATO country carries a huge risk of a nuclear exchange. A nuclear exchange, even with a country that has only 2-300 nukes is an exchange that would be catastrophic enough to eliminate any positive outcome or gain from the conflict. I.E. the sustained damage to land and resources on both sides would be far too great to see any long term gain. 

The threat of nuclear war has its own advantages, it keeps escalations small and creates a limitless number of "red lines" and "escalations" creating the constant illusion that just one more wrong move is the move that could trigger a global war, keeping the threat alive ensures that the west isn't emboldened enough to take any meaningful measures, staying within the fine lines of what is considered a "direct attack". It also means that the general population of NATO countries are afraid of the prospect of an all out war, which means protest and civil unrest, all of which are advantageous, the spiral effect results in economic struggles which further reduces the support NATO countries can offer to Ukraine, things like the 5% gdp minimum on military spending is music to Putin's ears. Whilst we are cutting back and damaging our economy, bolstering defences we will never really need, we lack the resources to continue support for Ukraine. 

Meanwhile, Russia is collaborating with China because Xi also knows very well that European and the US economies are bleeding whilst China is building a big enough military to achieve their own ambitions. So China will be able to reunify with Taiwan and Russia will get the deal they want for Ukraine, both simultaneously achieving their goal. 

Following that, an emboldened North Korea will likely move in on South Korea, which China will support because Xi has North Korea in his pocket. So he gets Taiwan chip factories fuelled by Russian oil and what will then be known as just Korea in his back pocket. Making China the economical powerhouse of the world. Or at least I believe that is end goal. 

It won't be long after that the west will forget like we always do and China make trade deals with several European countries, which will be too good to refuse. Obviously, the West doesn't want this to happen. 

Of course, this puts Europe and the US in a tough situation, we have no choice but to bolster our military and carefully tread to avoid triggering a global conflict, Putin knows this so he will continue to delicately balance the prospect of peace against the threat of nuclear war to keep the west guessing and keep us moving cautiously. 

I don't think this was ever supposed to be a quick military operation, I think Putin wants everyone to think that and we stupidly do, the invasion in 2022 came very shortly after Russia and China announced their "no limit partnership" it's a war of attrition to keep us busy whilst China keeps building. There's a goal and an all out war destroys that goal, which is precisely why world war 3 won't happen. There's no point in being the economical powerhouse to the 50 surviving humans trading bottle caps 🤷🏻 (yes that was a fallout reference) 

The main thing you need to remember is that world war 1 and world war 2 were both wars of ambition, each as horrific as the last but neither catastrophic enough to risk the fall of civilisation. Each was fought with an achievable goal in mind, I.E. each war was fought by a side that was sure they could win. But today if you ask any leader who would win in a conflict that involves nuclear powers, the answer is always the same "no one would win"

Andromadine

I saw a clever comment which described the situation well. I'll try to paraphrase but won't do it justice:

&gt;Russia is simultaneously about to collapse any day now and a gigantic threat to the world. It is being crushed by Ukraine on the battlefield yet the West must donate far more or this will reverse. Supporting Ukraine has already massively eroded Russian might, yet Russia can steamroll NATO if it invades.

TMWNN

Britain and Europe must elevate their defences and rearm faster than Russia as President Putin prepares for a war with Nato, the Ukrainian defence minister has said.

On a visit to London, Denys Shmyhal, newly appointed to the role, said the Russian leader had demonstrated his country’s “aggressive intentions” for the next decade and if Ukraine and Europe were not strong, he would strike again after any peace deal.

In an interview with The Times in an underground room, he said: “We should not just pause this war. We need to finish this war. Don’t let Russians attack again”

TimesandSundayTimes

I keep reading this type of narrative but can’t square it with the fact that for the last 3 years Russia has failed miserably to accomplish much at so in Ukraine! Where is this massive add successful military that should have NATO trembling? 

To me it sneaks a lot like the 1970’s when the defence contractors did everything to frightening voters in order that governments rushed to stands more in defence. With fear stoked as stories of USSR supremacy in every newspaper nobody was pushing back when huge sums rushed to the defence contractors and social services suffered.

I think this is a coordinated campaign to extract trillions from governments in the West and funnel them in to the always deep pockets of defence contractors.

Few-Worldliness2131

I support Ukraine fully, but come on, awfully convenient for a Ukrainian defence minister to make this argument isn't it? Not exactly an impartial party here.

Russia is in no shape to wage an offensive, conventional war against anyone. They have no death wish either, nukes will be an insurance policy against an incursion into their territory while they recuperate over the next 20+ years.

... Now after they recuperate, that's another story.

Mysterious-Coconut24

No shit , when you arm your neighbor against his neighbor and call for regime change and try to cripple their economy you kinda do make yourself their enemy

Eru421

Can we quit this fearmongering already? This shit is getting old

TehSmitty04

At this point either side would be stupid if they’re not preparing for war. 

No_Abbreviations3943

How is Russia going to attack NATO if they can't even take over all of Ukraine?

ChrisF1987

Do you guys see it as a coincidence that we have all the turmoil in France just when this happens?

particle

Probably to the extent of Russia attacking any NATO troops on Ukrainian soil. That sounds plausible.

Adeptobserver1

No way Russia fights without China and DPRK joining them.

Sad-Awareness-6778

As it should. NATO is an existential threat to Russia.

AstaraArchMagus

I'm sorry, but no. Ukraine+Poland would kick Russia's ass at this point.

That said, if Russia could, Russia would, and for that reason, and the fact that Ukraine is clearly on the defensive, we should massively support Ukraine.

SparseSpartan

This is dangerous bullshit. 

It's the NATO being aggressive towards Russia for at least 20 years now.

Barxxo

Look, with Putlers next move all pieces will fall into place and unveil his Masterplan he had all along.
We Westtoids just can't comprehend his 6D Chess.



/S

Fiplerino

They're a paper tiger. They look tough on paper but clearly couldn't handle the war in Ukraine. Too bad they don't have the balls to pull out and end the war. More of their citizens have to die to appease the ego of a madman.

Coldkiller17

I’ve seen 345 Russian soldiers kill themselves on the battlefield. Counts for something, but certainly not strength

VonBoski

It is just half of the equation.

The other half is that during the war they were very hardly pressed to innovate and refine their tactics, while NATO is still arming for yesterday's war, and only now awakening that artillery no longer causes 80+ % of casualties - drones do. And EW + physical obstacles are the best form of defence.

Add to that the fact that in case of conflict with NATO you would have China + Iran + N. Korea as their allies and you would get today's war experience with virtually limitless supply of meat. And that might put NATO at huuuuuge disadvantage.

Skrabalas

Even though the russians perform very badly in Ukraine, they still have such a huge force and can just throw meat into the battle. As a Lithuanian reservist in the Armed Forces, I think it would be very scary to fight the russians just because they have such huge forces and industry to easily take over the Baltic countries, even though our military is way more professional than theirs. Size matters. We don’t have the land to trade for time like in Ukraine.

francisl4d45

It’s a little premature to say. It’s a job for historians.

Astrosurfing414

&gt; They revealed how weak the Russian military is by struggling against a country with a very weak military in terms of technology and air power. There was a time when the thought of Russian tanks rolling across Europe struck fear. Not anymore.

Only people who base their view of the war on 2022 memes think that. Russian army of 2025 is not the russian army of 2022. If people still think that it will be the tanks rolling across the Europe, they need to reevaluate their doctrines and fast. Or we will get to the level of US army anti-drone manuals of handwaving.

&gt; The invasion has greatly strengthened NATO. NATO members are spending more money on defense. More countries have joined NATO.

That's barely the case with spending. What this invasion also demonstrated is that no country is even willing to expand on critical production. EU is willing to expand their anti-missile interceptors. In 2026. To make in a year enough interceptors to match russian missile production... of one month.

&gt; The Russian economy is permanently weakened. European countries are eliminating dependencies on Russian gas and oil and cutting economic relationships with Russian companies. A large number of talented young Russians have fled the country in a massive brain drain. Russia is economically weakened by this invasion.

Russian economy also domesticated a lot of weapon production and found new markets for their oil. They built strong economic ties with Iran and North Korea (breaking the UN embargo, thus completely destroying international order credibility). China and Iran did a huge tech jump on drone warfare, with China being the leader of drone productions, with US counterparts being... well... how to put it mildly... overexpensive shit.

Russian brain drain is also partially a myth as majority of people who left in fear of mobilization in 2022 returned back.

Don't underestimate russia. They have tech (that is frequently is even ahead of NATO tech). They have people willing to fight and die. They have allies that are willing to commit long term. They have the experience of actual modern war.

What this war also demonstrated is that to win against a NATO or NATO ally all you need is to fight for 2 years, and then with the chaos of democratic changes comes exhausting and indifference.

Alikont

Actually Russia has massively improved its capabilities in the past few years. Mobilization is kicking off. They have new drone and counter drone technology. They have made adjustments to their kit, to their tactics, to everything. Their economy hasn't crashed like so many Western commentators speculated would happen. 

But the most important thing here that Russia demonstrates - as it did during WW2 - is unrelenting willpower to carry on in the face of defeats.

The Nazi's had the cool tech, the better training, better equipment, higher morale, better officers, higher education, and so on. And yet they lost. The USSR took a while to get its shit into high gear, but once it did, it steamrolled over them. Yes the USSR had American and British lend-lease. Did we forget that China exists? 

"Quantity has a quality all on its own"

Fabulous_Night_1164

China is the main threat that the US will focus on. Europe will have to be able to beat Russia with little help from the US that will be fighting in the Pacific and Middle East during WW3

Material_Market_3469

Abject-Interaction35

Russia has until 2030-2035 for a large scale European war if they want any change of actually winning and even then it’s a large if. One tends to forget that eu armies have all planned for up scales of their military forces and that’s not counting their already large f-35 air forces. If Russia waits until 2030 to replenish forces then by that time the European sky initiative is fully operational as is the German base in the Baltic and nato forward operating bases in the Baltics and Finland

bippos

Well, real Putin's goal was to cement his position and political system - and so far he is succeed on that. That what he want and people around him. Not to get all Europe to Atlantic.  And in that this war suite them just fine.

vovap_vovap

Not really, the war is larger than Ukraine and is against the liberal world system. They have and keep fostering hate and division in our country so Ukraine is just a battle.

DysphoriaGML

He has Trump. That’s all he needs. He won the social engineering war…UKRAINIANS ARE STILL DYING &amp; BEING GENOCIDED while Putin bides his time &amp; Trump Golfs🔥👊🙌….😡

ScandyGirl

Russia has achieved major strategic aims; i.e the majority of the ethnic Russian Donbas, showing NATO's unwillingness to fight; critical attrition of the Ukranian military which has been in consistent and steady retreat for about a year now; Putin sees mo reason yo stop now because the more he attrits Ukraine then the less capable it will be in a future conflict. Also it reminds the West they cannot dictate terms. Russia has already won.

loki1942

I still can't believe that EGOs like Putin's still exist 2025 and people like him are in charge! Then again we have the same Egomaniac in the USA. Hopefully we can get to 2030.

True_Man787

Ohh god, more NAFO propaganda. This is why experts will never take Redditors seriously.

A quick cursory Google search easily disproves everything OP asserted.

No-Speaker-7158

I missed the discussion, but I'll still speak up.

1. The Russian army is weak only in copium-fueled fantasies. At the start of the war, Russia had 120,000 soldiers in Ukraine, facing nearly a million Ukrainians armed with Western weapons and trained according to NATO standards. The results of this "weakness" were clearly demonstrated at Azovstal and in the events of recent months. A "weak" army attracts volunteers, while how Ukraine replenishes its ranks is evident in the thousands of videos showing people being hunted down.
2. NATO has been joined by political dwarfs, unlike Ukraine, which holds no strategic significance. Even if NATO stationed its entire army on their territory, it wouldn’t bother Russia.
3. A weak economy? How is that reflected? Well, I live in Russia, in a small town a couple of days' drive from Moscow. All I’ve noticed is that the pastries at my favorite bakery have gotten 12 rubles more expensive, and I can’t directly buy games on Steam.

We have thousands of memes about those "talented" folks who fled Russia. Mostly screenshots of their whining on Twitter about how life in the West is very different from their fantasies.

Lit_blog

&gt;There would be a continuous resistance when you consider all the heavily armed men who would remain and join some underground guerrilla resistance.

Russia has occupied a swath of Ukraine (Crimea and much of Donbas) for over a decade now and there was no large scale resistance in those areas. 

The only area where I agree with you is #2 and I'm not sure how long the expanded defense budgets will last as several countries are already playing games with the funds using them for civilian infrastructure projects. Also #3 applies equally to Ukraine. Nearly 7 million Ukrainians have fled the country. The economy is held together only by European aid.

I agree about the state of the Red Army. We were all very surprised. But we've always seen him training like an assault army (or steamroller). Not like a maneuver army with little pawns. When we observe certain images of ambushes or Russians caught under Ukrainian fire, we are entitled to wonder if the crews of tanks or armored personnel carriers have received training... 🤔
Furthermore, the incompetence of the two generals who successively commanded the front was highlighted. 

However... 

With the arrival of General Gerasimov, we began to learn lessons from failures. Never before. 
The Russians had no combat experience in the European theater; now it's done. 
The Kursk trap led to the displacement of 2 Ukrainian brigades from the front: this is considerable! This type of trap is very common among the Russians, it is very surprising that the Ukrainian general staff did not see this coming. 
Now, Ivan is engaging in what he knows how to do very well, the battle of attrition. 

We never point out the fact that the Russians have only sent, until now and for the most part, their least efficient equipment. 

Let's wait and see. With the Russians, you never know what they're going to do.

Sad_Owl44

This is pretty much the quintessential example of the "The World is a Video Game and America is the Only Player" school of history.

In this view, every country and person in the world is an NPC, and the only active agent is the United States of America - I know you said NATO, but that's what this effectively means.  No entity apart from America has agency.  They're all little nodules of code that cannot act on their own, only in response to what America does.  They have no meaningful interests or cognition, they don't make mistakes or have cultural or individual pathologies.  They merely reflect America.  That's their purpose.

So Vladimir Putin doesn't make decisions.  He's just a character that dispenses output based on America's input.  The things he does aren't really his responsibility because he's not actually making decisions.  He's just running his code against America's dialogue choices.

It can only be in that sense that NATO and America caused the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  It's one of the branching dialogue paths.

Now of course, this view of the world carries implications.  It means Americans are superior.  The other people in the world are only human in the biological sense; they have no choice, thus no responsibility, and they are thus less than Americans who do make choices and thus bear responsibility.  And as the only active agents, it is our right and duty to control the world and its people - we simply don't have a choice.

...or, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was caused by Vladimir Putin and Russia.  NATO might have been able to deter them, or it might've started an even worse war.  We don't know, and historians will debate it forever.

But the *cause* of the invasion was the human agents that made the decision, and that was Vladimir Putin and his allies.

Grunt08

"Look what you made me do" is never a credible deflection of responsibility.  The party who caused any war, ever, is always the aggressor.  How could it not be?

Think of it this way:  There's a giant boulder uphill of a village.  Some asshole goes up there and pushes it over and it bowls through the village wrecking homes and killing people.

Now, at sometime before the asshole did that, the people of the village could've built a wall around the rock, they could've removed the rock, or any number of preventative measures that would have stopped the asshole pushing the rock, but you wouldn't say the villagers caused the rock to roll through their village, would you?

Same thing here.  There are things NATO could've perhaps done that would result in the war not happening, but there is only one party responsible for causing the war, and it's not NATO.

XenoRyet

Just look at what she was wearing! She was asking for it.

dwntwn_dine_ent_dist

Russia "caused the war."  Russia was under no obligation to be expansionist power crazed invaders.  Simply saying that someone failed to stop an aggressor does not mean they were the cause of the aggression.

Roadshell

Out of curiosity, do you hold this same view for WWII?

Are the UK/France just as responsible for WWII as Adolf Hitler? Is the US as responsible for Pearl Harbor as the Japanese?

Edit:

Just to be clearer. Both the Germans and the Japanese in the build up to WWII made multiple hostile aggressive actions towards their neighbors. They were met by the future Allied Powers with strong condemnation and in the American case economic sanctions. These did little to deter continued aggression by the Axis powers until ultimately Germany crossed a red line by invading Poland in Sept. of 1939 and Japan attacked numerous locations (Pearl Harbor only being one of them) in December of 1941. So do you blame Allied inaction or the people that planned and wanted a war and fired the first shots.

Vicariocity3880

NATO isn't just as guilty as Russia no. NATO did set up for Russian aggression, but that's because Russia invaded Poland twice. So NATO has a vested interest in stopping the cycles of Russian conscripts slaughtering civilians in mainland Europe. 

But Russia building it's forces in response to NATO force build ups is actually ok. Starting this war not so much.

Eden_Company

Turkey is a member of NATO, Ukraine is not. Therefore, Article 5 couldn’t be invoked by Ukraine. The consequences of attacking Turkey after they shot down a jet would be far greater and Putin is well aware. NATO had no responsibility to defend Ukraine on a legal level. Now, on a moral level, should the west have done more to punish Russia in 2014? Absolutely! Maybe if they had we wouldn’t be here. So you’re halfway there.

Fr33-People

That’s like telling a woman she got raped because she dressed wrong. Fuck that bs. Putin is a warmonger. He saw an opportunity, or maybe orchestrated one, and went to war.

Wind-and-Sea-Rider

I disagree with your assessment of Russia. I say this because between the two dates you’ve cited falls the assault on Deir al-Zour in 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

Russia resoundingly got its hat handed to it. Yet, undeterred it decided to further push the envelope in Ukraine in 2021.

It’s no secret where the majority of NATO funding was coming from at that time or doctrinally how it is arranged. So if, as you say, Russia backs off when met with force it should not have pushed again in 2021. 

Now you can say that Russia was probing and looking for weaknesses to exploit and by not showing Ukraine was defended as well as Deir al-Zour they left the door open for Russian aggression. However, that is a tactical error, not a cause. If NATO had stepped in right away that would not have stopped Russia from probing, it would have just stopped Russia right there.

Like they say, defense has to be successful 100% of the time. Attackers only have to succeed once.

viaJormungandr

Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia is responsible for things it does to other countries. 


NATO exists because Russia has a long and well-documented history of violent subjugation of sovereign countries, and has been responsible for, quite literally, millions of deaths within it's own borders as a direct result of decades of decaying government and corruption.


Russia invaded Ukraine because it needs money and international clout. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia. The EU was not a threat to Russa. 


So to clarify, you're trying to make the argument that an international organization that neither Ukraine, nor Russia belong to, was responsible for Russia invading Ukraine. 


You arrived at this conclusion because you're looking for information that already agrees with your opinion, which allows you to avoid change, instead of seeking information that would disprove your opinion, and therefore teach you something new. 

ThwompSprocket

The party responsible for causing the war is the party who started the war. That’s Russia. End of story. Now, you could say that NATO could have and should have taken actions that would have stopped Russia from starting the war. Ok. But none of that changes that Russia started the war when they shouldn’t have and therefore they were the party that caused the war. 

It’s pro-Russia to blame NATO just as much Russia for Russia starting the war.

the_1st_inductionist

But Ukraine wasn’t a member of NATO. 

Russia cause the situation…if they never invaded Crimea then Ukraine would have no cause to consider joining NATO. Russias continuous aggression is the cause of the situation nothing else. 

We can definitely criticize NATOs response…maybe they could have done more to deter Russia. But that is not the same as causing the war. To say that would make the definition of cause and effect meaningless.

sawdeanz

Given that Russia's invasions of Ukraine involved no NATO country, there was nothing for NATO itself to do on the ground.  They could NOT have put troops along Ukraine's border with Russia, or done anything else to help Ukraine directly.  A member country(s) would have to do that, and then conduct operations under a NATO command.

And NATO has no ability to impose sanctions. 

On the other hand, Western countries could have done a lot more, starting with Obama.    But in the end, Germany and Merkel were the greatest appeasers, with others happy to follow along.  

As for NATO member Turnkey shooting down a Russian plane, they did that more in the capacity of their own country's defense, and did not have to involve other NATO countries in that.

Capital_Historian685

I'm going to argue against your CMV on 3 points.

1. "Nato is just as at fault as Russia"
2. "The immediate response to russias 2014 invasion of Crimea and Donbass should have been to sanction Russia into oblivion"
3. "In 2021 when Russia started building up troops along the border with Ukraine, NATO should have put troops along that same border"

Counter Arguments

1. Russia is the aggressor in this case. NATO cannot be equally at fault as Russia had to exert effort in order to initiate conflict.  In addition, Ukraine is not a member of NATO so your argument basically amounts to the idea that because NATO didn't take action for an unaffiliated party, it bears as much responsibility as Russia for Russia's invasion.
2. The US did sanction Russia very heavily in 2014 which saw Russia's economy decline heavily during that period.  See the [GDP graph](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/rus/russia/gdp-gross-domestic-product) in this link and you'll notice that from 2014 to 2015 Russia's economy sharply declines.  This is a direct result to massive sanctions imposed.
3. Ukraine is not a NATO country so most NATO states were not in favor of deploying troops.  In fact, in 2021 when the US government was sounding the alarm about Russian invasion plans, Ukraine, discounted the idea that Russia was invading and was not happy with the US rhetoric as they were concerned that the US was creating a problem when there wasn't one.  Ukraine ended up being incorrect here but it's hard to argue that NATO should have deployed troops when Ukraine and most of NATO didn't think that invasion was imminent.
   1. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky even said, that other world leaders have been overstating the likelihood of[ war between his country and Russia](https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-1-28-22/index.html), causing “panic” and destabilizing Kyiv’s economy.

Given this, I cannot agree that NATO was as much at fault with Russia's invasion of Ukraine as Russia was.

Amoral_Abe

The group that started the war is the group that caused it.

Not responding as effectively as you would have liked (with the advantage of hindsight) or having deterrence fail doesn’t mean that side *caused* the war.

You’re doing backflips here to avoid blaming the entity that is actually responsible.

mallardramp

&gt;NATO is just as at fault as Russia

Can two things ever be bad without being equally bad? Nobody thinks NATO handled these situations well, but if NATO really handled this just as badly as Russia, they would have joined in the war against ukraine and massacred a load of civillians on the way.

westfleet

Putin thinks Ukraine and Belarus are errant children that naturally form part of Russia and the only reason they developed as independent states in the 1990s was through internal mismanagement by the USSR. He also believes he will be a great Russian leader if he can reintegrate them during his presidency. The fact that he believes these things is down to him, NATO can’t change that. 

He was on track with Belarus and Ukraine wasn’t too much of a problem while it was under Yanukovych. I suspect Putin’s plan was to subsume Belarus first because Ukraine was the harder one to swallow, and he wanted a precedent.

Maidan changed his calculus and made everything more urgent in his mind. Everything has flowed from there, and his sugar rush of success in Crimea. 

So, yes, if NATO had announced Ukraine’s membership with immediate effect in 2014, then he wouldn’t have invaded. If Maidan protestors hadn’t demanded a future for their country that represented the majority view, then he wouldn’t have invaded. 

But that doesn’t mean they are to blame, because there is a thing called human agency. We don’t blame the US for starting the Korean War because its gradual withdrawal of troops ‘forced’ the communists to invade, or France for the German invasion of Denmark in 1940 because its deterrence wasn’t effective enough. 

In every case it is the invader who starts a war of choice.

Strong_Remove_2976

Nato is the only reason.


Don't cross lines of other great powers.


Why u want to encircle russia ?

Interesting_Waltz103

Your premise is that it is NATO's job to protect any nation against Russian aggression, but the same criteria exists for every country, anyone could have intervened, it could be China's role or Brazil's role, they didn't stop Russian aggression either, but you are not blaming them for the war.  Ukraine was not in NATO, so the members were under no obligation to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression. A group's failure to take action against an aggression does not make future aggression the responsibility of that group.   
  
It's the UN's failure more than NATO, as the UN was founded on the principal that nations would work out their differences in debates rather than seek to militarily invade and seize territory. The UN must be the group to intervene, but the flaws in the design of the UN - with Russia having veto power over Security Council actions - makes it useless for intervention in any conflict that involves the 5 permanent members and their client states like Israel or Belarus.

Klytus_Ra_Djaaran

Russia has a nuclear deterrent. There is a reason that Ukraine wasnt in NATO already

RGS_1994

Ukraine isn’t a part of NATO.

Therefore, not their responsibility.

IceTheFoundr

I would agree that inaction and lack of proper deterrence created the conditions where invasion seemed like an ok idea for Russia. But I think saying that they CAUSED the war is incorrect. 

Cause would mean that without Russias involvement or desire to invade, Ukraine may have still been invaded. Without Russias action, there is no was in Ukraine.

Sg1chuck

Cause and condition are two different things. You claim NATO as causing *some* conditions that the war began under, but that is not causing the war as such. 

Russia is the clear cause of the war given they started it when they certainly did not have to and likely would've been better off not doing, and this shouldn't even be something anyone still tries to dispute.

Not sufficiently deterring Russia doesn't simply cause the war on its own. The war could have happened with or without more deterrence depending on Russia's willingness to risk it. The war could not happen if Russia simply didn't start it, unless of course Ukraine attacked but clearly that is an unlikely scenario and would've been a war of a very different nature.

Havenkeld

I'm curious what your definition is for "causing a war".

Forsaken-House8685

If you have this point of view then everything is responsible.

China not acting on Russia caused the war, western companies not exiting the market caused the war.

Ukrainians deciding not to invest massively in weapons caused the war.

I don't think lack of action can ever be mentioned as a "cause" for something, a cause needs to be something positive, a decision or an action taken. At best it set up the conditions for it to happen, but the cause is still located somewhere else.

SomewhereHot4527

I agree that the U.S. and NATO’s response in 2014/2015 was absolutely horrible and set the stage for this war. It’s one of the few truly huge misses of the Obama Admin, along with the Libya bombing campaign.

But I still believe Putin ultimately set the conditions for this war. 

He initiated the conflict, and he decided to double down on it. Without NATO, the war happens anyway. Without Putin, there’s no war in the first place.

Cornwallis400

If i punch you in the face, is it your math teacher's fault, because they didnt intervene?

ProDavid_

So, in other words, Russia caused the war in Ukraine and NATO didn't stop it.

Hellioning

phewho

Escalating tensions following a Russian drone incursion into Poland have prompted military responses and heightened NATO's posture in Eastern Europe.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict and NATO Response

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want