5 ms·

This shouldn't be entirely surprising. The states that have developed nukes have done so not just for defensive purposes--the threat of nuclear retaliation for

This shouldn't be entirely surprising. The states that have developed nukes have done so not just for defensive purposes--the threat of nuclear retaliation for an attack--but also as a not-so-subtle threat against their enemies. It is surely why Iran would like to join that club. it is also not so surprising that Russia would pull this card out, when it has become clear that in a conventional military sense, Russia would lose in a fight with the full force of NATO against it.

kbelder 5y ago
I'm now convinced that Russia would lose a conventional military fight against a quarter of the force of NATO.
- Someone 5y ago
  Looking at what happened in the past weeks, I don’t think it would need a quarter. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php says both Spain and Italy have a better army than the Ukraine. If that’s correct, it seems to me those two combined could beat Russia is a conventional war. Of course, that ranking now seems way off for Russia, so it may be way off for other countries, too. Looking at https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-countries-spend-on-defense/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count..., the USA does about ⅔ of all NATO military spending and (Spain+Italy) about 4%. That doesn’t necessarily make their army 4% of the full the power of NATO, but I don’t see it getting up to 25%. Things might change if the fighting took place in Russia. Its military probably would be more motivated, would have fewer logistics issues, etc.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    On paper, Russia had a better military than Ukraine, but "paper" doesn't account for intangible factors like "ability to plan and execute". Moreover, from my understanding, Russian generals or intelligence officials were kept out of the loop until a week or two before the invasion was launched--they planned for a military exercise. So it's possible that the Russian military is a lot more capable, but that Putin foolishly hamstrung it.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      The main thing it didn't account for is two decades of graft and mismanagement's influence on operational readiness and troop morale.
  - Finnucane 5y ago
    The worrisome thing, of course, is that if Russia succeeds in Ukraine (for some value of 'succeeds' that is not complete failure), then there will be some squirrelly part of Putin's brain that will tell him that he could make that work against Romania or the Baltics, which would trigger a direct NATO response.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > which would trigger a direct NATO response. In spite of everything that has been said about this: or not. I'm not convinced that NATO is going to actually deliver on its obligations, after all, if we're willing to let a country of 45 million people be invaded and murdered wholesale I have a hard time convincing myself that NATO's obligations will suddenly make everything different if for instance say Estonia (much, much smaller) would get invaded.
      - TillE 5y ago
        I've seen this take before, but I don't understand it at all. The whole point of a defensive treaty is to draw a line in the sand. Ukraine is on the other side of that line, unfortunately. This is black and white. Russia would certainly screech threats of nuclear retaliation in response to conventional defenses, but NATO has no choice but to defend all its members. To do anything else is madness, it destroys the treaty entirely.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Indeed it does. Now ponder that for a while. NATO has never been actually tested, except when it was convenient (see: the coalition of the willing/bribed). I totally understand the point of the treaty. But the treaty never took into account nuclear blackmail - because that is what is happening here - and if that works once I don't see any reason why it would not work again. Country 'x' should leave NATO or we'll nuke everybody. After all, why not? Once you've crossed the line of using nuclear weapons for blackmail I really don't see why you'd stop.
        5y ago
- TillE 5y ago
  On current evidence, Russia would easily lose a conventional war against the EU (Germany, France, Italy, etc), which is the scenario that would theoretically arise if they attacked non-NATO Finland.
- postalrat 5y ago
  And how much to defeat the USA after our failures in afghanistan and iraq?

kbelder 5y ago

I'm now convinced that Russia would lose a conventional military fight against a quarter of the force of NATO.

Someone 5y ago
Looking at what happened in the past weeks, I don’t think it would need a quarter. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php says both Spain and Italy have a better army than the Ukraine. If that’s correct, it seems to me those two combined could beat Russia is a conventional war. Of course, that ranking now seems way off for Russia, so it may be way off for other countries, too. Looking at https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-countries-spend-on-defense/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count..., the USA does about ⅔ of all NATO military spending and (Spain+Italy) about 4%. That doesn’t necessarily make their army 4% of the full the power of NATO, but I don’t see it getting up to 25%. Things might change if the fighting took place in Russia. Its military probably would be more motivated, would have fewer logistics issues, etc.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  On paper, Russia had a better military than Ukraine, but "paper" doesn't account for intangible factors like "ability to plan and execute". Moreover, from my understanding, Russian generals or intelligence officials were kept out of the loop until a week or two before the invasion was launched--they planned for a military exercise. So it's possible that the Russian military is a lot more capable, but that Putin foolishly hamstrung it.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    The main thing it didn't account for is two decades of graft and mismanagement's influence on operational readiness and troop morale.
- Finnucane 5y ago
  The worrisome thing, of course, is that if Russia succeeds in Ukraine (for some value of 'succeeds' that is not complete failure), then there will be some squirrelly part of Putin's brain that will tell him that he could make that work against Romania or the Baltics, which would trigger a direct NATO response.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > which would trigger a direct NATO response. In spite of everything that has been said about this: or not. I'm not convinced that NATO is going to actually deliver on its obligations, after all, if we're willing to let a country of 45 million people be invaded and murdered wholesale I have a hard time convincing myself that NATO's obligations will suddenly make everything different if for instance say Estonia (much, much smaller) would get invaded.
    - TillE 5y ago
      I've seen this take before, but I don't understand it at all. The whole point of a defensive treaty is to draw a line in the sand. Ukraine is on the other side of that line, unfortunately. This is black and white. Russia would certainly screech threats of nuclear retaliation in response to conventional defenses, but NATO has no choice but to defend all its members. To do anything else is madness, it destroys the treaty entirely.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Indeed it does. Now ponder that for a while. NATO has never been actually tested, except when it was convenient (see: the coalition of the willing/bribed). I totally understand the point of the treaty. But the treaty never took into account nuclear blackmail - because that is what is happening here - and if that works once I don't see any reason why it would not work again. Country 'x' should leave NATO or we'll nuke everybody. After all, why not? Once you've crossed the line of using nuclear weapons for blackmail I really don't see why you'd stop.
        5y ago
TillE 5y ago
On current evidence, Russia would easily lose a conventional war against the EU (Germany, France, Italy, etc), which is the scenario that would theoretically arise if they attacked non-NATO Finland.
postalrat 5y ago
And how much to defeat the USA after our failures in afghanistan and iraq?