Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Nato vs. Russia: Who would win a war?


Eldorado
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, and then said:

^ Yep...  Mind aunty doesn't label you a drama queen. :lol:  Seems in her studied opinion, military miscalculations and insane decisions are just things that human beings did in the past   With the news today that Biden is sending another combat brigade to the region and several NATO nations are moving a few assets into position, the game just keeps building momentum.  Putin is a thug and, as such is at least more sane than a religious nutter in robes, but he may be pushed to respond in ways that could cause a very serious problem for the world. 

Even if the dim bulbed old man in DC refuses to resist Putin, that in itself could cause the little tyrant to go too far.  Anyone who thinks the little strongman is just going to allow his plans to be shut down and his efforts mocked, doesn't understand his position or his culture.  He could EASILY push this to the brink, especially knowing that Biden doesn't want war and that he'll blink at the last moment.

US is having a Pentagon session discussing NATO invading Ukraine before Russia, so that we grab it first.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, Cookie Monster said:

US is having a Pentagon session discussing NATO invading Ukraine before Russia, so that we grab it first.

source cookie?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

On Sky News

Read through all stories on sky news related to this - there is no suggestion of invading Ukraine either before or after the Russians. 

there is talk of 8500 more troops and supplementing rapid response teams - but again no text on entering Ukraine at any stage. 

unless it was some commentators verbal musings

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RAyMO said:

Read through all stories on sky news related to this - there is no suggestion of invading Ukraine either before or after the Russians. 

there is talk of 8500 more troops and supplementing rapid response teams - but again no text on entering Ukraine at any stage. 

unless it was some commentators verbal musings

Yep, its not got an article on yet but its on the news reel.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RAyMO said:

do you have a source I could read?

I took a quick look and found several articles with those keywords but ALL were dated months in the past.  It took time to build those forces so lots of articles are out there and maybe CM found one without checking a date.  I agree, if it IS new, that's not good at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

US is having a Pentagon session discussing NATO invading Ukraine before Russia, so that we grab it first.

I've seen the decision to put a brigade size unit with support elements on high alert, ready for imminent deployment but nothing yet that sounds like anyone is thinking of putting U.S. troops in place as a "tripwire" like the forces we have in the ROK.  IMO, THAT would be a grave mistake.  

Edited by and then
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 1:02 AM, Abramelin said:

I wonder what's happening in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

I'll bet little rat face wants them back too.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania announced last week they would provide defensive aid to Ukraine, including anti-armor and antiaircraft missiles after the United States approved the transfer of the U.S. supplied weapons.

https://www.rferl.org/a/latvia-ukraine-russia-nato-weapons/31669295.html

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2022 at 3:54 PM, Cookie Monster said:

The Russian land army is actually more powerful and larger than the American one.

That is largely inaccurate.

For land army America has approximately 1,100,000 soldiers split between army, national guard, and reserve with a further approximate 280,000 marines for a total of approximately 1,380,000 soldiers in a land combat role.  Russia has approximately 352,000 split between its ground army and VDV.  I'm probably leaving out a significant chunk as that isnt factoring in paramilitary or reserves but that will be largely unimportant anyway.

In terms of total military man power America has approximately 1,832,000 soldiers while Russia has about 1,350,000 soldiers.

Essentially America's land combat alone is slightly larger then the entirety of the Russian military so even leaving out reserves and paramilitary earlier it doesnt really have an effect cause those are added into the total military man power.

In terms of equipment that is far more complicated as America and Russia have completely different combat doctrines so that effects the equipment that is used.  

For tanks America has approximately 5,000 Abrams in active service with approximately 3,000 in storage.  Total is approximately 8,000 American tanks.  Russia has 370 active T-90s, 450 active T-80s, and 2,030 active T-72 with 200 T-90s in storage, 3,000 T-80s in storage, and 7,000 T-72 in storage.  Total is approximately 13,000 tanks.  In active tanks America has a near 2 to 1 advantage but in total tanks Russia has a close 2 to 1 advantage.

Artillery, conventional and rocket/missile, Russia has a significant numbers advantage but Russian military doctrine calls for mass artillery while America has moved a lot of that role to various jets so generally fields far less artillery.

Armored vehicles that arent tanks are relatively close in numbers, America has about 10,000 to 15,000 more but it's like 45,000 to 30,000 so they are close enough.

Infantry equipment is a big difference as the average American soldier is better equipped then an average Russian soldier.  The elite units of the Russian military are just as well equipped as American units but there are a lot of Russian military units still poorly equipped while in America equipment is more or less equivalent between all units.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would be way better for a conventional army numbers game not to be played out. 

Hard to see any other outcome than the losing side in a conventional war not resorting to nuclear if the war spreads out of Ukraine. 

with the exception of the US who are geographically removed, should things go against NATO 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius
2 hours ago, RAyMO said:

it would be way better for a conventional army numbers game not to be played out. 

Hard to see any other outcome than the losing side in a conventional war not resorting to nuclear if the war spreads out of Ukraine. 

with the exception of the US who are geographically removed, should things go against NATO 

Putin is posturing to save his ass, he may very well consider it worthwhile to put boots on the ground in the Ukraine but he is not stupid enough to let the situation run away from him to a nuclear confrontation - how would that possibly further his objective of solidifying his power base in Russia ?
Putin is not Mad or stupid he has a plan with an objective - which we are unfortunately not privy to.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

Putin is posturing to save his ass, he may very well consider it worthwhile to put boots on the ground in the Ukraine but he is not stupid enough to let the situation run away from him to a nuclear confrontation - how would that possibly further his objective of solidifying his power base in Russia ?
Putin is not Mad or stupid he has a plan with an objective - which we are unfortunately not privy to.

Br Cornelius

I agree with you, but best laid plans and all that. Putin I suspect is only interested in Ukraine and will stop there. 

However if NATO reacts militarily, even if hostilities are initially restricted to Ukraine, then I think Putin's planning is out the window. 

Above all else Putin cannot afford defeat. he can afford bloody and deadly victory, but not defeat. 

 

However, my reading of the situation is that NATO will not put boots on the ground in the event of an incursion into Ukraine, relying on arming Ukraine and sanctions. NATO will only act if members are threatened. 

Furthermore I suspect that NATO behind the scenes will be pressuring Ukraine to fully implement the Minsk Agreement, specifically,  self-government for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in accordance with Ukrainian law, and acknowledge their special status by a resolution of parliament. 

If this is implemeted I believe Putin will have enough  to claim victory and avert invasion. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

Putin is not Mad or stupid he has a plan with an objective - which we are unfortunately not privy to.

That may be so but it wouldn't be the first time a war began over a simple miscalculation or even an accident.  During the previous administration we had several instances of Russian aircraft dangerously buzzing U.S. vessels in the Black Sea.. They also played chicken with some of our aircraft as well.  Wrapping a Sukoi onto the bridge of a U.S. Destroyer and killing both the pilot and a few dozen U.S. sailors could turn things very bad, very fast.  Both sides would bluster and blame the other.  One thing is pretty certain.  Backing down from a bully leads to some generally poor outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RAyMO said:

Furthermore I suspect that NATO behind the scenes will be pressuring Ukraine to fully implement the Minsk Agreement, specifically,  self-government for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in accordance with Ukrainian law, and acknowledge their special status by a resolution of parliament. 

If this is implemeted I believe Putin will have enough  to claim victory and avert invasion. 

I hope you're right, but I'm afraid that's exactly how the actual war will start.

(Even if Minsk agreement is implemented, which is impossible because separatists don't really want it, separatists will attack, in self-defense against peace agreement, I know, I've seen it in my own land, Putin will claim it's not Russian forces, believing that's enough to avoid sanctions, but sanctions will be implemented, that's the moment when he'll either back off, either finally attack in the south, where he actually has to attack to fix the unsatisfactory situation with occupation of Crimea. Especially since his precious bridge is probably going to be blown up at some point, possibly even by Russia, to make casus belli. Etc.)   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, and then said:

That may be so but it wouldn't be the first time a war began over a simple miscalculation or even an accident.  During the previous administration we had several instances of Russian aircraft dangerously buzzing U.S. vessels in the Black Sea.. They also played chicken with some of our aircraft as well.  Wrapping a Sukoi onto the bridge of a U.S. Destroyer and killing both the pilot and a few dozen U.S. sailors could turn things very bad, very fast.  Both sides would bluster and blame the other.  One thing is pretty certain.  Backing down from a bully leads to some generally poor outcomes.

Let it be documented that I agree with this particular post of yours. Especially with the bolded part. 

 

But you're still a drama queen :P  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erdogan’s offer to mediate between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders reflects Ankara’s growing fears over the conundrums it could find itself in should war materialize.

January 24, 2022

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s offer to mediate between Russia and Ukraine could be seen as a laudable peace effort or grandstanding, but the growing spectre of war is a cause for real alarm for Turkey, a country among the first in line to feel the fallout of a military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. 

Erdogan’s mediation offer reflects Ankara’s fears of the conundrums it could find itself in should war in eastern Ukraine materialize. Despite his close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Erdogan has caused anger in Moscow — not only by displaying staunch solidarity with Kyiv, but also by backing NATO’s strategy to expand its presence in the Black Sea region, including through moves that have raised questions over Ankara’s commitment to the 1936 Montreux Convention, which is crucial for Russian interests in the Black Sea. The convention regulates maritime traffic through Turkey’s Bosporus and Dardanelles straits — the maritime link between the Mediterranean and Black seas — and imposes strict limitations on the military ships of non-littoral states, effectively restricting the access of US and NATO naval forces to the Black Sea.

But now that the war drums are beating and Washington expects Ankara to stay steadfast, Erdogan is trying to put Turkey in a neutral position, at least in appearance. In phone calls with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this month, Erdogan invited the two leaders to Turkey. But with Russia shrugging, he now plans to visit Kyiv in early February and hopes to travel on to Moscow.

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/01/why-turkey-wants-mediate-ukraine-crisis

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.