Public sentiment surrounding the Ukraine War and NATO-Russia tensions is largely negative and divided, reflecting a deep skepticism towards Ukrainian leadership and U.S. involvement, coupled with fears of escalating military conflict. Many commentators express frustration over potential global implications, including the threat of nuclear war, while calling out perceived Russian aggression and questioning the validity of its narrative against NATO. Key themes include apprehension over military aid, concerns about a third world war, and calls for a more measured response to prevent further escalation.

Ukraine

Russia

NATO

United States


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

Russia is literally making moves on NATO countries now ? [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7401vk4lgzo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7401vk4lgzo)

go_go_tindero

The risk is never zero, but deterrence, global interdependence, and internal pressures make a first strike REALLY unlikely. 

That said, unstable leadership (...cough cough...Trump...) or desperation (like “nothing to lose” scenarios) are exactly why nuclear policy needs constant vigilance.

NanditoPapa

Zero chance.

Europe and the USA have been given scraps to Ukraine and look at how the "3 days special operation" is going,

With the full might of Europe military (yes, even the current state of the Europeans armies), especially air power, Russia does not stand a chance.

They have air and sea superiority.

Thesorus

Russian here.

&gt;what if Putin decides that he has nothing to lose?

I don't understand why people keep thinking Putin is a suicidal lunatic. He definitely has imperial ambitions, but from all we've seen he's definitely not a person willing to die.

  
As for the war, I don't see it happening with the whole of NATO. But if NATO collapses, or countries leave, or a small-scale war starts and NATO doesn't react - that is definitely a possibility.

Dacadey

There 2 areas where they can really can make a move on NATO.  Baltics and Romania. Those are the weak points.  Realistically, what it makes the most sense is actually Moldova. Borders NATO and Ukraine, highly devised with a high pro-russian population, close to Odessa and they already have an army in Moldova. I am 100% sure a Belarus like scenario for Moldova was always the second step in the Ukraine war and further. Sundays election in Moldova are very important if you are interested in the topic.

jimcke

Nuclear war between superpowers or Nato-aligned countries? No. The future is continual griefing, needling of boundaries/limits, ratfucking, right wing political poisoning etc, all the way down. Ukraine invasion was a costly overstep and not the norm.

However, a tactical nuclear strike on non-Nato members or other weaker nations is absolutely on the cards. And bear in mind, S&amp;P predict a 50% chance of hitting +2.3ºC warming in 15 years. That is an unthinkably changed world where resource conflict will be almost essential for nations to survive.

missinglabchimp

If they win the war in Ukraine then yes, that's their only hope to even be capable of being a threat. If they lose in Ukraine as they did in Afghanistan, then they will be licking their wounds for next decade. Actually losing in Afghanistan contributed to fall of Soviet Union. It's up to west if we support Ukraine enough. If west proves we are weak, there will definitely be a war eventually, especially if US, France, Germany and others start sending signals that their citizens won't be dying for Estonia or Poland.

abc_744

In the current state of affairs, no, Russia can’t launch an attack on NATO.
HOWEVER. 
If the US withdraw from NATO or show signs of not helping NATO on an eastern theater (might be because of a Taiwan conflict or political disengagement) AND the EU unravels on the question of how to answer to Russian aggression; then Putin may have a window. He also needs some sort of victory in Ukraine. 
I also suspect that it wouldn’t be immediately crass as tanks rolling into Poland. It might well be a couple years of hybrid attacks from Belarus onto the Baltic states, perhaps to draw NATO troops onto Belarus territory for example. 
THEN if things go terribly wrong for either Russia or EU forces, then there could be a real risk that nukes start flying.

Brisbanoch30k

It seems Putin is about to run out of gas literally and figuratively. History suggests when things get too tight, the population gets antsy regardless how tightly they have been controlled. 


Unless things turn around dramatically for some unforeseen reason, it seems likely that Putin might not only run out of gas, he might lose his head literally and figuratively. You can bet the oligarchs have been discussing how much they like having money and if his losses keep mounting, they risk losing everything too, soooooooo


If it's him, or them....

ExcitedGirl

Russia has no interest in being the clear aggressor because that would put China in an awkward position in which they cannot claim neutrality because Europe clearly has no interest in actually engaging in a war. If Europe is undeniably forced I wouldn‘t bet on China if I was Russia because after all, the West is a bigger market than Russia and its unreliably allies with individual interests.

Industrus_

There's a chance, but keep in mind that nuclear escalation is not automatic. It's not that nukes immediately start flying once tanks roll out.

curiouslyjake

I think more division and trying to create stronger right wing party support in Europe. 

picknicksje85

NATO has promised retaliation but its a little tricky when you send non-russian Nationals to do your dirty work.

k-lar_

No, they can’t defeat Ukraine, they just wish to sow dissent and distract forces and equipment from the front lines in Ukraine.

Orangesteel

Define "move." Screwing around? Teasing and testing? Little Green Men, hacking, all that backdoor shenanigans? Or an actual ground invasion? They're stretched to the breaking point in Ukraine, how are they going to go after NATO in any meaningful way? They'd get clobbered.

johnp299

There is a chance, but it is a small one. If you attack first, you might be able to survive better, if you can take out almost all of the other country's nukes. It may be suicide, but there is no guarantee that the leader of any country is sane at any time. Trump is not all that rational all of the time either.....

25TiMp

There are moves made in this "game" now as it was during the cold war.
Proxy wars and conflicts are nothing new in the nuclear age, the great powers have high tolerance for pain without going nuclear.

If Russia invaded Finland to test nato, nato would not launch nukes, it would be a conventional fight in Finland. There would not be a mad dash to Moscow at all.

No one wants nuclear war, france, uk, us wont risk it over Finland, or any of the border countries. 

If Nato responds, Russia would be able to reteat and nobody would follow them.

There would be no total war unless they did something insane (and they wont)

Norseviking4

Extremely unlikely. Ukraine is already showing NATO how to shut down Russia's economy.

AI drone swarms can essentially enforce a 100-200 mile buffer zone inside Russia's border that kills all mechanised transport and troops a few waves of radar and air defence killer drones would give NATO air superiority over Russia and a few hundred cruise missiles would be enough to shut down Russia's Oil &amp; Gas industry.

Another key point is that Ukraine has seriously downgraded Russia's military hardware and there is not enough time between this war's end and 2030 for Russia to bring its inventory back to a level to support a major war.

Putin may decide he has nothing to lose but his supporting 'cast' are likely considering that they'd like to keep their money and status. Putin is likely to fall out a window pretty soon if he doesn't give up on his 'special military operation'.

farticustheelder

Big issue is that China does not want it, and Chinese opinion is very important to Russia even though they are also kinda pissed with how China behaves...for example flooding Russia with their cars and other goods, forcing beneficial deals on natural gas and wood etc., at the same time protecting their own market from Russia's produce. Or not helping much in the war.
When it comes to Europe, France or UK obviously will not make any nuclear moves and Finland will not go on offensive to reclaim lost territory. Maybe if in some way Putin pisses off Trump there could be such a thing but I doubt it. For all the rhetoric Trump is cautious when it comes to serious stuff 

DueAnnual3967

Russia is already making moves on NATO on an almost daily basis.

However, there seems to be a spike in nuclear scaremongering on this subreddit, so I will write here what I wrote on the last post:

No, it's extremely unlikely and people nuclear scaremongering are usually working in Russia's interests - there are corporations and individuals that want to normalize relations with Russia (big population = big market), so pretending the nuclear threat is bigger than it is, is a way of avoiding dealing with a very easily dealt-with problem. Russia is actually very weak, and could be slapped down militarily quite easily. We should be doing this. It has been nearly four years and Russia hasn't been able to defeat a country a fraction of its size.  Corruption is rampant, the economy is going to shit. You have nothing to worry about besides the fascist idiots and corporations who want to befriend Putin and exaggerate the threat that he poses to the west.

That said, the threat he and complicit Russians pose to Ukrainians is \*worse\* than the nuclear option. Ukrainians have been violently r\*реd and t\*rtured, children stolen, homes lost. The long drawn out death, physical and spiritual, that comes from Russians invading is so much worse than a quick nuke. 

MountainOpposite513

With what equipment. From what I understand russian has no really usable tanks left in reserve. There using military trucks from the 1950's or donkeys to shift stuff around. There only really strength right now is manpower.

EaterOfLemon

No.  Putin and Russia can't cripple its neighbor.  Its much more likely that Russian actors perfotm a bunch of asymmetric warfare on nato countries.  Imagine is non stat Russian actors were, let's say, operating out of Iran, and performed cyber attacks daily on nato infrastructure.  They aren't Russian state sponsored attacks.  They aren't Iranian sponsored attacks.  But they are funded by Russia and given cover by Iran.  That's about their only effective war fighting capacity against a nato country.  Their traditional military would probably fall 100:1 in a traditional engagement.

IrishThree

Yes. With help from Trump's America. Putin didn't bankrupt his country just to have Ukraine.

Toadfinger

Zero chance.

1. Russia isn't strong enough. It doesn't have enough people to take and hold European ground. On average you need 1 soldier for every 20 local people wherever you intend to occupy. The only reason it works in Eastern Ukraine is they actually want them there.

2. For what? What does Russia gain from invading Europe?

ParticularClassroom7

Only if backed by the Chinese and the US can be assuredly removed from intervening.. 

The Russian economy is currently a dumpster fire, and its lost a lot of its Soviet era stockpile of material in Ukraine, it can't really fight a war into NATO even if it wanted to.

CammKelly

The definition of war is slowly changing.

Denying security instead seems a lot more menacing. Swarm of drones. Closing airports. Cyberattacks. Economically choking countries. 

The political echelon is a bit too slow to realize this and a lot of countries have already invested a lot in conventional weaponry so they'll keep this recent development under the wraps for as long as possible, but that PR shield is cracking (Denmark).

ChrisTchaik

Hybrid warfare tactics aside, suppose US does manages to exit NATO and UK follows and then a LePen type character wins in France...it's guaranteed they will go after Baltic states, possibly Finland, Moldova, Poland and Georgia, maybe more, maybe less. The issue is the presence of nuclear deterrent or not and without US, UK and France there is no guarantee, anything is possible especially with China and India backing among other Brics nations. This is why nuclear arming the rest of Europe is not a question of should but how soon.

activedusk

Any move Russia tries to make against the rest of the world could very well be their last. their military is complete garbage, their economy is almost gone, oligarchs are being defenestrated, and because of massive corruption, I very much doubt any of their nuclear weapons are in working order.


This might he the best time to wipe out Russia and bring back stability to the world. It would also send out a warning to China that they're next if they don't end their dreams of invading Taiwan.

Milnoc

Nope. Russia has no business with nato other than the constant fear of being invaded. That's the only reason the war in ukraine is even happening

DependentFeature3028

The only country in the world that is likely to strike first with a nuclear weapon is Israel. Period. 
Russia and all of the other nuclear powers will use this type of weapon only as a final deterrent, meaning if there is an attack on their mainland jeopardizing their existence. 
Also, I doubt that Russia would ever risk direct conflict with NATO, and even if NATO collapsed they would not be making a move on Poland or any other major country as I fail to see any utility in this. The only potential flashpoint would be the Baltics, if they tried to connect Kaliningrad with their mainland, but this is possible only in the case of a total collapse of NATO. 

Srfaman

Elixir of life. Absolutely hates anyone that could clone him! 

Independent Scientist, Mad Scientist! 

Multilinguals...

Dreaming_Bot

The more plausible is the scenario where NATO decides to invade Russia while it's weakened by Ukraine. But as a "defensive alliance", they can't start shooting without reason, so at first they will burn down Reichstag again and say "it was Russians highly likely".

cuterebro

This feels like the Monty Python sketch where the armless black knight tries to kick and provoke king Arthur to fight him. "Come on then!"

Paatos

Opposite-Chemistry-0

So, am I getting this straight? Russia has been probing NATO airspace, is currently holding large manoeuvres at the border and now they say that we are technically at war?

TrickResolution9757

Kremlin: lies for internal propaganda

News outlets: BREAKING NEWS

Come on, I know that reporting bullshit from dictators is still useful but at least give it a realistic title like "Kremlin lies about NATO to fuel propaganda". Otherwise you're just helping the propaganda spread further.

Edward_TH

Finally we agree on something.

Yes, Russia has been waging war against us for a long time. Hybrid-warfare, information-warfare. That kind. And then a drone-attack.

The only ones not knowing we're at war, is ourselves.

NomadDK

Russia Vs. NATO: After three years of fighting, Russia has lost a million men, thousands of armored combat vehicles, a cruiser, a submarine...

NATO has still not deployed to the battlefield.

Finwolven

You don't wanna know what a real war looks like

Mikkel65

They're trying to justify a full mobilization. Must have run out of minorities for the meat grinder.

slimvim

I got no idea what are they talking about. 

It’s not war, it’s a „special defence operation” ®

h0ls86

Well, so be it. If Russia feels like aggression is the only way forward, let’s have the muscle flexing on Russian soil.

CptnMillerArmy

So no complaints when we curb stomp your "country" then?

demon_of_laplace

SnooEagles5355

So now we're at war let's establish a no fly zone over Ukraine and kick some russian asses.

kenaddams42

So then I guess it's fine if we close the airspace above Ukraine. Since we are at war already.

QuestGalaxy

Mammoth_Wrangler_659

The most uninvolved war in the history of wars. One you don't even know you're in! Shouldn't this be super embarrassing for them to admit? They're barely hanging on, losing men by tens, hundreds of thousands to an enemy that doesn't even do anything.

JarasM

Blah blah blah same old crap they have been spewing for years. They're just so upset about NATO because their power was greatly diminished after the fall. They wish they could project power like that. No western country wants to invade shit-ass Russia.
Edit: a word

Skreeeeep

And currently they're winning. Because they are defining the terms, making the moves and advancing their goals. NATO must get ahead of this and stop reacting to Russia's paradigm. Defence only works as part of proactive action - NATO must become proactive and decisive. This means, changing the public narrative of vague "threats, war on the horizon", to "grey-zone attacks qualify as conflict, we are willing to talk if /when these stop, but until they stop we will treat them as acts of war". Political will is what needs to be found - with or without the US. The E5 + Baltics and Scandis would crush Russia without effort, if they wake up and find the political will to move.

Seize Russian assets in European banks.

Start impounding shadow fleet vessels.

Any craft found conducting sabotage should be boarded, confiscated and their crew tried in court.

Impose a no fly-zone over Eastern Ukraine.

ErrantFuselage

Please stop spreading russian propaganda.

Thundechile

Fed up with Russia and its attempts at destabilization.  We've got another video trying to destabilize France, and we've had Serbs dropping pigs' heads near mosques in France. It's getting ridiculous

Arnangu25

Russia has de facto started it so, they can't complain now 🙄

cookiesnooper

&gt;NATO is de facto at war with Russia

And then they say that we would be at war if ukraine was no-flight zone. So nothing would change, but EU govt cowards that cannot defend human rights against aggressor do nothing, just introduce gazillionth pack of sanctions that will do minor scratch.

thateuropeanguy15

Hey, white Moustache man? Follow this: does your country still have an army? If “yes” - you’re not at war with NATO.

vojdek

There's a really easy way for Russia to end this imaginary war with NATO, they started and are too stubborn to stop. Just go home.

wiztard

That's Peskov's point for 3years straight now, nothing new. Maybe he waits for NATO to start so he can claim innocence

Mitologist

Russia doesn't even have the galls to call the war with Ukraine as such, it's a "special military operation".

NATO absolutely bulldoze Russia if it comes to an hot war. A costly one, but that Russia cannot win. Russia's nuclear umbrella is the only thing deterring NATO here.

SisterOfBattIe

Bro, this timeline is the definition of absurd

Mannyvoz

Oh? Didn't realise..

Shall we begin then?

Sekhen

Gotta distract their brainwashed npc population from the fact that Ukraine has had immense strategic success by targeting their oil refineries.

Pathetic war criminal scum

Thisissocomplicated

Russia: 1M+ casualties 

NATO: 0 casualties

I think we’re winning

Much_Guava_1396

I don't understand what Russias plan is here? I'm assuming they don't actually want to fight with NATO and are just assuming NATO won't act, so they can keep using this propaganda on their own people. Does the average Russian even believe this rhetoric?

RevTurk

Hoe to start a war… blame the other side they started it. Typical russian bullshit playbook.

theonlytater

Slavonka007

So then they don't have an issue, when we start a special operation in Ukraine and Belarus, since we are already at war. 


I hope they know, what they are getting themselves into.


/S.


That are just dumb rhetoric, that shows they're weak.

No_Diver3540

the whole of the kremlin is shitting it's pants

captain-lowrider

if so, why there is no full sanctions to Russia from within EU? why Russia still has its diplomats, journalists, tourists in Europe? maybe best choice to stop allowing them to even stick a finger in any EU country

masi0

Some other Redditor put it best: NATO is a defence alliance. If NATO is at war, it means it has been attacked by someone.

Carpik78

Russia sent drones 190 miles deep into Poland. Russia is at war with NATO.

keith2366

They are telling this for over three years already.

Fun is. NATO did not even started or arrvied to Ukraine.

Yet Russia is in big trouble even with Iran, North Korea and China support..

Hefty-Writer2393

Russia can barely handle Ukraine, Good Luck when Germany, Poland go full mobilization.  Crazy Ivan is planning to escalate just to threaten to go nuclear.

blazze

Dear Russia, if you would stop fucking around, you wouldn't have to worry about NATO. Just chill and NATO will chill also.

Patralgan

TheNoxxin

Link my PC to some drone and I'll end the war with my pilot skills I learnt from watching Mobile Suit Gundam.

bickid

AdvertisingFlashy637

Kremlin needed to be ''visited'' by some drones years ago... Middle school bullies. When it goes bad for them, they bring up NATO and nukes.

Penderbron

If I understand propaganda speech correctly

“Is it a disastrous campaign of the great russian army against puny little Ukraine? Of course not, the difficulties encountered are caused by evil powerful NATO. With whom we are at war with.”

aDeepKafkaesqueStare

Russia apparently really really wants it to be true

Alfa16430

Dont give him the podium for this. This is for internal propaganda messaging only, and people will be monitoring all this. It doesn’t need turned into news entertainment for everyone else.

Monkfich

Pro-Russian public in the West: It’s all a Ukrainian propaganda campaign!! They broke into the Kremlin and released this statement to pull our money from our pockets!!!1! Putin only wants peace!!!

Early_Register_6483

Someone might as well tell the US and while at it remind them which side of it they are on.

ShezSteel

If NATO does finally go to war with Russia, and the capital has been moved to Valdivostok becuase every major city west of the Urals has been taken, they will still claim the war is going well and victory is only 3 days away.

IjoinedFortheMemes

ruzzians can’t accept the fact that they’re struggling with the country that is 1/3 of their size.

Sunscratch

Russian bots have been talking for a long time about tens of thousands of American British and French soldiers their army has supposedly killed in Ukraine lol

lilTukk

It's the only way they can explain the death toll.

USSR pulled back from Afghanistan [after 15.000 deaths](https://www.voanews.com/a/soviets-withdraw-from-afghanistan-nearly-30-years-ago-today-in-history/3851988.html).

How do you explain that you suffered 1.000.000 dead and wounded at the hands of Ukraine only to conquer only a part of its territory ?

Ghaenor

Tensions escalate as NATO leaders discuss responses to Russian aircraft violations, hinting at a possible military confrontation amidst ongoing conflicts in Ukraine.

Ukraine War and NATO-Russia Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want