German security officials believe the Kremlin is laying the groundwork for a potential large-scale conventional war with NATO by the end of the decade
-
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/59867996
German media outlets Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, and NDR also cite the report, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears intent on testing NATO’s Article 5 guarantees. The alliance’s mutual defence clause obliges member states to come to one another’s aid if attacked. The assessment suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured.
Honest question. If Russia nuked Krakow, would America retaliate with nukes? Would France? England?
I don't think so. It's not even clear nato would declare conventional war.
Mutually assured destruction only works for countries with nukes. Am alliance is no real deterance.
-
Depends which side the US is on
US has a sizeable advantage in terms of sheer firepower but lacks the collective will to side with Russia in a conflict with NATO. To be clear, the Trump administration might try to side with Russia and the initial consequences of that would be very serious. But, long term, I think that would bring a swift end to the US' global dominance. Potentially even bringing us to the point of total collapse.
That's just one American's perspective though.
-
Considering that Putin got his ass absolutely beat by a small country using second hand and surplus military hardware he'd have to be an absolute moron to pick a fight with NATO. Literally the only card he has to play is nukes and that's kind of an all or nothing sort of move. If nukes are off the table any concerted push by NATO is going to be mopping up in moscow within a few months.
That's also assuming the US doesn't get serious about it, but considering Putin's puppet in the Whitehouse there's a pretty good chance the US would quit NATO and so wouldn't factor in. Even without the US though Russia has demonstrated the rest of NATO is far more than sufficient to handle Russia.
Then again he's going on with cable cutting and other idiocies. I'm not sure some kind of stupid "test run" could be ordered by him, like attacking one of the Baltic countries or Finland.
If the war stops BTW then his days are probably numbered so maybe he'll need some stupid war just to stay in power/alive.
-
So I just looked into the numbers quickly and am probably off by a bit
NATO has 3.2m active military personnel and 2.2m in reserve
Russia has 1.5m active and 2m reserve
BUT, American forces make up 1.3m of NATOs active and 800k reserve
If I were to randomly combine the American army with Russia rather than NATO for no particular reason,
NATO would have 1.9m active 1.4m reserve and the Axis-sorry I mean Russia and America would have 2.8m active 2.8m reserve...
Maybe this is a suicidal plan, Putin is going to die and wants to take the world with him. He is too megalomaniacal and sadistic to do that.
-
US has a sizeable advantage in terms of sheer firepower but lacks the collective will to side with Russia in a conflict with NATO. To be clear, the Trump administration might try to side with Russia and the initial consequences of that would be very serious. But, long term, I think that would bring a swift end to the US' global dominance. Potentially even bringing us to the point of total collapse.
That's just one American's perspective though.
But is there a downside for the guy running our country?
-
Bingo.
And also depends on which side China is on. Their war production dwarfs even the US, and I find it difficult to believe that it will all be spent fighting the US and Taiwan.
There is a very real possibility that these three countries gang up together and divide the world among themselves.
Why would either need to side with Russia? They only have 140m people, a untrustworthy and soon to be unstable government. If you're aim is to carve up territory then you don't give a potential long term adversary access to half a million people.
-
Bingo.
And also depends on which side China is on. Their war production dwarfs even the US, and I find it difficult to believe that it will all be spent fighting the US and Taiwan.
There is a very real possibility that these three countries gang up together and divide the world among themselves.
At this point it seems much more likely that the US sides with Russia than China. The EU is their largest trading partner, they'd never risk losing that market.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/59867996
German media outlets Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, and NDR also cite the report, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears intent on testing NATO’s Article 5 guarantees. The alliance’s mutual defence clause obliges member states to come to one another’s aid if attacked. The assessment suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured.
-
So I just looked into the numbers quickly and am probably off by a bit
NATO has 3.2m active military personnel and 2.2m in reserve
Russia has 1.5m active and 2m reserve
BUT, American forces make up 1.3m of NATOs active and 800k reserve
If I were to randomly combine the American army with Russia rather than NATO for no particular reason,
NATO would have 1.9m active 1.4m reserve and the Axis-sorry I mean Russia and America would have 2.8m active 2.8m reserve...
There's no way the US military would side with Russia, even if ordered to.
-
There's no way the US military would side with Russia, even if ordered to.
-
There's no way the US military would side with Russia, even if ordered to.
-
At this point it seems much more likely that the US sides with Russia than China. The EU is their largest trading partner, they'd never risk losing that market.
Why would Russia risk alienating China?
In realpolitik, China is the more desirable partner than the USA.
-
Why would either need to side with Russia? They only have 140m people, a untrustworthy and soon to be unstable government. If you're aim is to carve up territory then you don't give a potential long term adversary access to half a million people.
You don't 'need' Russia, but it's mutually beneficial to have them on your side.
-
Why would Russia risk alienating China?
In realpolitik, China is the more desirable partner than the USA.
Russia already has alienated China by being an unstable and unpredictable mess of a country.
-
Considering that Putin got his ass absolutely beat by a small country using second hand and surplus military hardware he'd have to be an absolute moron to pick a fight with NATO. Literally the only card he has to play is nukes and that's kind of an all or nothing sort of move. If nukes are off the table any concerted push by NATO is going to be mopping up in moscow within a few months.
That's also assuming the US doesn't get serious about it, but considering Putin's puppet in the Whitehouse there's a pretty good chance the US would quit NATO and so wouldn't factor in. Even without the US though Russia has demonstrated the rest of NATO is far more than sufficient to handle Russia.
Redo the calculations with the USA fighting on Russia's side, and things start to look different.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/59867996
German media outlets Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, and NDR also cite the report, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears intent on testing NATO’s Article 5 guarantees. The alliance’s mutual defence clause obliges member states to come to one another’s aid if attacked. The assessment suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured.
Bunch of rag outlets fearmongering. No way Russia will attack NATO which has nukes.
-
Bunch of rag outlets fearmongering. No way Russia will attack NATO which has nukes.
Hey, some years ago we said the same about Russia invading Ukraine. Maybe Russia's actions aren't directed by logic.
-
US has a sizeable advantage in terms of sheer firepower but lacks the collective will to side with Russia in a conflict with NATO. To be clear, the Trump administration might try to side with Russia and the initial consequences of that would be very serious. But, long term, I think that would bring a swift end to the US' global dominance. Potentially even bringing us to the point of total collapse.
That's just one American's perspective though.
As an European, could you please collapse before siding with Russia over us? That would be great, thanks.
Alternatively, and much preferred, just kick the whole Trump administration into the ocean, hold your own Nuremberg trials and start refreshed into the future. K thx bye.
-
Bunch of rag outlets fearmongering. No way Russia will attack NATO which has nukes.
If Russia knows the USA won't respond, and may even help, this may work differently. It would take a lot to get any NATO country to fire a nuke, especially if they didn't have US support, and Russia knows this.
-
Why would either need to side with Russia? They only have 140m people, a untrustworthy and soon to be unstable government. If you're aim is to carve up territory then you don't give a potential long term adversary access to half a million people.
Alliances aren't forever. Hitler and Stalin made an agreement not to fight each other, which worked to the benefit of both for a while, and the Trump admin and Putin are more closely aligned ideologically than those two ever were. Alliances can be made for expedience even with a potential long-term adversary.
