mistaekNot t1_j9ivuo7 wrote
Reply to comment by BlueJinjo in Dutch intelligence services have warned that Russia is "covertly mapping" key energy infrastructure in the North Sea, in preparation for possible sabotage attacks. by green_flash
conventional nato military would absolutely decimate russian forces it would be iraq 2.0 - a true special military operation.
psioniclizard t1_j9je8u6 wrote
NATO forces would win in a conventional battle, but that is different from fighting a war against Russia. Also where will this take place because if you mean in Russia it won't come to that. Their doctrine clearly states they will use nukes to defend Russian homeland. Also NATO has no real desire to invade Russia, it would he nothing like Iraq. It would be very costly for both sides and what would be the long term plan once you oust Putin?
I want to see Russia fail as much as anyone else but the person you are replying to is right. People see this like seem Hollywood movie/computer game but it's not. It's real life. Causalities would be massive on both sides even without nuclear war, which more that likely would happen as soon as NATO started to march on Moscow.
One_User134 t1_j9kknob wrote
I disagree only on the idea that fighting Russia conventionally will lead to massive casualties. IF we imagine a fairy-tale world which Russia does not use nukes, I don’t see too many reasons why the result of an invasion of Russia will not be similar to an invasion of Iraq. Even the planners of Desert Storm expected high casualties and a long stalemate before eventual victory…we know that the exact opposite happened; and Iraq was a formidable enemy.
I’m not saying I’m sure it’ll be a cake walk, but nato, and the US in particular has the technology, the weaponry, and the operational conduct to win these conflicts not involving nukes.
mistaekNot t1_j9kvxr5 wrote
casualties would be massive on the russian side. russia wouldn’t be able to inflict casualties on the nato side, simply because it wouldn’t have the means to do so. russian air force is no match for nato air force, russian anti air would be destroyed either by stealthy planes or nato artillery which is more precise and out ranges the russian artillery. russian tanks would be destroyed from air. there wouldn’t even be much troop on troop engagement as russian equipment would just keep blowing up and they wouldn’t even know how or where the rounds or missiles are coming from. this won’t happen because nukes, but don’t kid yourself that there would be any kind of even matchup between nato/russia military
psioniclizard t1_j9l8s69 wrote
Ok, if that is what you want to believe don't let me stop you.
mistaekNot t1_j9la99d wrote
it’s not a matter of belief. you can already see this with himars. russia is unable to destroy these launchers, as they outrange russian artillery and russian planes can’t get overhead them either. so himars is invulnerable. the damage ukraine is able to inflict with himars is only limited by himars ammunition and the number of launchers they have, which is both low. nato has hundreds of himars launchers and virtually unlimited ammo. that’s just one weapon system….
DrumAway9009 t1_j9j9oyt wrote
That’s what Hitler thought too when Russia was humiliated by Finland in the Winter War. Look how that ended for him.
Maybe the Russian military would be easily destroyed while they’re in Ukraine but that’s MOSTLY due to the non existent Russian morale. Attacking their military within mainland Russia would be a completely different story though.
batmansthebomb t1_j9jwhv0 wrote
Russia also had the support of US manufacturing and logistics during WW2 though.
misyo t1_j9lumad wrote
Whoa whoa whoa, you can't just walk in here with facts and expect everyone to listen to you
orlandrescu t1_j9kgsye wrote
Just like now it has China‘s.
batmansthebomb t1_j9kkju7 wrote
Not even close. Nor will it ever be.
fatpandana t1_j9j0kpi wrote
And then what? U overthrow a wolf that keeps other wolf's in check. It will exactly be same as iraq 2.0. On many fold worse scenario. NATO Coalition control all cities but cant control country side. Russia is too vast for an occupation like iraq. And if you leave some radicals will take over a country that has a lot of nukes or has resources to make nukes.
BlueJinjo t1_j9jjw21 wrote
You think NATO wouldn't suffer losses as well when supply chains are interrupted due to the harsh winters + when a unified Russian front defends itself?
NATO would win but it would burn so much money and most importantly lives on both sides.
There's essentially 0% chance this happens. For whatever reason, this sensationalist sub is rooting for it.. it's similar to the propensity of this sub to expect a full on militaristic invasion between India and china every time there's a border dispute which will continue to happen for the next 10+ years. Stop snorting crack
Open_Blackberry_4901 t1_j9k3y7p wrote
I prefer to smoke my crack, thank you very much.
BadYabu t1_j9jn4nd wrote
A Ukraine being supplied with weapons and training at a trickling pace is embarrassing Russia but the full force of NATO in a non-nuclear war would be a pyrrhic victory. Logic checks out.
BlueJinjo t1_j9jo6xm wrote
Invading a country is significantly harder than defending a country.. If Russia was invaded they'd also use nukes.
If the loss of life would definitely be NONCATACLYSMIC, NATO forces would already be at Moscow's doorsteps..
I don't think you've ever opened a history book. Finish high school and college and then maybe we can have a discussion
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments