4 ms·

"Spain, France and Belgium should keep most of their main battle tanks in Poland and send troops to train there" Would troops and tanks even be relevant in a c

"Spain, France and Belgium should keep most of their main battle tanks in Poland and send troops to train there" Would troops and tanks even be relevant in a conflict between the NATO and Russia in the age of nuclear weapons?

nabla9 6y ago
Russia is not ideological world power like Soviet Union was. Russia is declining state with normal national interests, nothing more. For Russia to go to war they need to have way to win and gain something. If Russia uses nuke against NATO, there would be no road back to normal until there is regime change or surrender. Russia completely isolated from the rest of the world would have famine in few years even if NATO would use only isolate Russian from the rest of the world. Even China would be forced to choose to trade between the West and rest of the Asia or Russia.
- baybal2 6y ago
  NATO being busy with even a starving Russia in coming few years, will mean a near certain move from China in the East. For America, it's uncertain what's more bad, giving China East Asia, or Western Europe to Russia. Russia with West Europe will still be the same starving Russia, with even more depleted stocks of military hardware. China with complete reign in the region means them being few years from building a blue water navy, and transoceanic landing force.
  - nradov 6y ago
    China will have an effective blue water navy in a few years regardless of whether or not they seize part of the Russian far east. US has no way to block such a move beyond some token sanctions. We certainly aren't going to defend the Russian border under any plausible scenario.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      I mean China's move on US allies in the region, not Russia. > China will have an effective blue water navy in a few years regardless US having bases to at least blunt, and slow offensive staging by China in case of war will make all the difference vs. not having them at all.

nabla9 6y ago

Russia is not ideological world power like Soviet Union was. Russia is declining state with normal national interests, nothing more. For Russia to go to war they need to have way to win and gain something. If Russia uses nuke against NATO, there would be no road back to normal until there is regime change or surrender. Russia completely isolated from the rest of the world would have famine in few years even if NATO would use only isolate Russian from the rest of the world. Even China would be forced to choose to trade between the West and rest of the Asia or Russia.

baybal2 6y ago
NATO being busy with even a starving Russia in coming few years, will mean a near certain move from China in the East. For America, it's uncertain what's more bad, giving China East Asia, or Western Europe to Russia. Russia with West Europe will still be the same starving Russia, with even more depleted stocks of military hardware. China with complete reign in the region means them being few years from building a blue water navy, and transoceanic landing force.
- nradov 6y ago
  China will have an effective blue water navy in a few years regardless of whether or not they seize part of the Russian far east. US has no way to block such a move beyond some token sanctions. We certainly aren't going to defend the Russian border under any plausible scenario.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    I mean China's move on US allies in the region, not Russia. > China will have an effective blue water navy in a few years regardless US having bases to at least blunt, and slow offensive staging by China in case of war will make all the difference vs. not having them at all.