5 ms·

Russia can't win against Ukraine supported with about 0.5% of NATO military budget. If it started a war against actual NATO it would end in Iraq-style massacre

by ajuc 2y ago

Russia can't win against Ukraine supported with about 0.5% of NATO military budget. If it started a war against actual NATO it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army. Even without significant USA support - European NATO countries have enough airpower to manage. This is all PR to slow down help to Ukraine. They did the same in 2008 and in 2014.

protomolecule 2y ago
> it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army More like with Hiroshima-style massacre of European cities.
- ajuc 2y ago
  You have 2 important cities in Russia. Moscow and Piter. You bomb that and Russia's over. There's more than that in Germany alone, and then you have 20 other countries in EU. Russia is in an uniquely bad position to start a nuclear war.
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    Britain and France have only 8 SSBNs of which only several are on patrol at any given time. Track them, make them the first target and the snakes are defanged. The US will not risk getting involved at this point.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      France alone has 100s of planes capable of launching nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Looking at russian success rate in Ukraine at shooting down these - 2 will suffice :)
      - protomolecule 2y ago
        Sure, those stocks[0] are a target for the first strike too. [0] https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-facilities.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-faci...
  - swores 2y ago
    But assuming Russia doesn't keep all of their nukes in those two cities, destroying them may not be enough to prevent many bombs launching towards far more than 2 European cities? If you're on the receiving end of a nuke it won't be of much solace to have a minute of thinking "hah at least Russia is fucked".
    - ajuc 2y ago
      There's probably 500 more important cities to bomb in Europe before they get to my city. Which is 9th biggest in Poland, but still. The point is that Russia can't hope to win in either conventional or nuclear war. So they won't start it. It really is that simple. BTW the only reason they started war in Ukraine is that they thought they will win easily. They had an article prepared that praised the army for 3-day victory. It accidentally went live early in the war :) They weren't alone in that miscalculation - NATO thought that too. Nobody serious thinks Russia can win a war against NATO. Even Russia does not pretend that. Instead they pretend to be crazy. But they are rational, just evil.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Who starts a war is really a matter of perspective though. And often the answer, especially during the war, is that the other side started it and you had no choice. Russia judtifies the Ukraine exactly the same way. And honestly it's really impossible to dispute, if Russia believed that Ukraine and/or NATO was posing a fundamental risk to Russian sovereignty or the Russian people, was their invasion offensive or defensive? I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong.
        ajuc 2y ago
        Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? It can just go back to 1992 Ukrainian borders. Some bruised pride. Lots of money wasted. That's it. > I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong. This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it).
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Do we really want to push everyone to the brink and see who is and isn't willing to use nukes though? Russia has mobile ICBMs and, if I'm not mistaken, their deadman switch system is still in use. NATO wouldn't be able to take out Russia's entire nuclear capability before Russia responds. Even if we technically could, that's absolutely not a world I would want to live in anyway.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      The alternative is a new nuclear arms race. Look at it from the POV of neighbors of China and Russia if UN and NATO backs down from nuclear blackmail. In that world security guarantees mean nothing. If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. The only chance to survive is to build your own nukes. Fast forward a few decades and you have like 50 countries with nukes. Good luck maintaining peace then. The problem with appeasement is that people ignore the alternative costs. It always looks good when you assume only your actions have consequences. But inaction also have consequences - you can't just assume status quo remains when you do nothing.
      - protomolecule 2y ago
        >If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. You mean like Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria? >The problem with appeasement Putin decided two years ago that he is done appeasing the West and look where we are now.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        If we're leaning into the tragedy of the commons problem, sure we're all screwed no matter what. We only have another arms race if countries decide to join the race.
_heimdall 2y ago
War between Russia and NATO would look so much different than the Ukraine war though. For one thing, Russia almost certainly wouldn't be as restrained with what targets its going after or the tactics they use. The Kremlin has to be aware that they can win a war of attrition here, especially if they can lean in to erode western support for Ukraine. With both the wars in Ukraine and Gaza it seems like many observers have forgotten just how bad wars can get. We're counting deaths in Gaza by the thousands, and though military deaths in Ukraine have been estimated into the hundreds of thousands for both sides, civilian casualties are almost nonexistent.
- ajuc 2y ago
  If we responded in 2008 or 2014 like we responded in 2022 - there wouldn't be any more russian agressions. Instead we let them think they will win easily. The easiest way to avoid further wars in Europe is to help Ukraine win quickly.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Well that's a whole other ball of wax. I was always extremely frustrated with the American response to Russia's invasion of Crimea. When the Russians made clear it wasn't them entering Ukraine, we should have gotten them on the phone to confirm and make them aware that we have bombers in the air scrambled to hit all invading forces that have crossed the border. We also would have to follow through with that threat, Obama's red line with Syria was a pointless mess that just made us weaker. If Russia really wouldn't claim the invading force, who would say we were out of line for helping Ukraine defend their soverign borders from an invading paramilitary force?

by ajuc 2y ago

protomolecule 2y ago

> it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army More like with Hiroshima-style massacre of European cities.

ajuc 2y ago
You have 2 important cities in Russia. Moscow and Piter. You bomb that and Russia's over. There's more than that in Germany alone, and then you have 20 other countries in EU. Russia is in an uniquely bad position to start a nuclear war.
- protomolecule 2y ago
  Britain and France have only 8 SSBNs of which only several are on patrol at any given time. Track them, make them the first target and the snakes are defanged. The US will not risk getting involved at this point.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    France alone has 100s of planes capable of launching nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Looking at russian success rate in Ukraine at shooting down these - 2 will suffice :)
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      Sure, those stocks[0] are a target for the first strike too. [0] https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-facilities.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-faci...
- swores 2y ago
  But assuming Russia doesn't keep all of their nukes in those two cities, destroying them may not be enough to prevent many bombs launching towards far more than 2 European cities? If you're on the receiving end of a nuke it won't be of much solace to have a minute of thinking "hah at least Russia is fucked".
  - ajuc 2y ago
    There's probably 500 more important cities to bomb in Europe before they get to my city. Which is 9th biggest in Poland, but still. The point is that Russia can't hope to win in either conventional or nuclear war. So they won't start it. It really is that simple. BTW the only reason they started war in Ukraine is that they thought they will win easily. They had an article prepared that praised the army for 3-day victory. It accidentally went live early in the war :) They weren't alone in that miscalculation - NATO thought that too. Nobody serious thinks Russia can win a war against NATO. Even Russia does not pretend that. Instead they pretend to be crazy. But they are rational, just evil.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Who starts a war is really a matter of perspective though. And often the answer, especially during the war, is that the other side started it and you had no choice. Russia judtifies the Ukraine exactly the same way. And honestly it's really impossible to dispute, if Russia believed that Ukraine and/or NATO was posing a fundamental risk to Russian sovereignty or the Russian people, was their invasion offensive or defensive? I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong.
      - ajuc 2y ago
        Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? It can just go back to 1992 Ukrainian borders. Some bruised pride. Lots of money wasted. That's it. > I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong. This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it).
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Do we really want to push everyone to the brink and see who is and isn't willing to use nukes though? Russia has mobile ICBMs and, if I'm not mistaken, their deadman switch system is still in use. NATO wouldn't be able to take out Russia's entire nuclear capability before Russia responds. Even if we technically could, that's absolutely not a world I would want to live in anyway.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    The alternative is a new nuclear arms race. Look at it from the POV of neighbors of China and Russia if UN and NATO backs down from nuclear blackmail. In that world security guarantees mean nothing. If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. The only chance to survive is to build your own nukes. Fast forward a few decades and you have like 50 countries with nukes. Good luck maintaining peace then. The problem with appeasement is that people ignore the alternative costs. It always looks good when you assume only your actions have consequences. But inaction also have consequences - you can't just assume status quo remains when you do nothing.
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      >If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. You mean like Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria? >The problem with appeasement Putin decided two years ago that he is done appeasing the West and look where we are now.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      If we're leaning into the tragedy of the commons problem, sure we're all screwed no matter what. We only have another arms race if countries decide to join the race.

_heimdall 2y ago

War between Russia and NATO would look so much different than the Ukraine war though. For one thing, Russia almost certainly wouldn't be as restrained with what targets its going after or the tactics they use. The Kremlin has to be aware that they can win a war of attrition here, especially if they can lean in to erode western support for Ukraine. With both the wars in Ukraine and Gaza it seems like many observers have forgotten just how bad wars can get. We're counting deaths in Gaza by the thousands, and though military deaths in Ukraine have been estimated into the hundreds of thousands for both sides, civilian casualties are almost nonexistent.

ajuc 2y ago
If we responded in 2008 or 2014 like we responded in 2022 - there wouldn't be any more russian agressions. Instead we let them think they will win easily. The easiest way to avoid further wars in Europe is to help Ukraine win quickly.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Well that's a whole other ball of wax. I was always extremely frustrated with the American response to Russia's invasion of Crimea. When the Russians made clear it wasn't them entering Ukraine, we should have gotten them on the phone to confirm and make them aware that we have bombers in the air scrambled to hit all invading forces that have crossed the border. We also would have to follow through with that threat, Obama's red line with Syria was a pointless mess that just made us weaker. If Russia really wouldn't claim the invading force, who would say we were out of line for helping Ukraine defend their soverign borders from an invading paramilitary force?