3 ms·
The limiting number for a "Russia goes bananas and decides to steamroll into Portugal" event, based on what we've seen in the invasion of Ukraine so far, seems
by hnbad 2y ago
The limiting number for a "Russia goes bananas and decides to steamroll into Portugal" event, based on what we've seen in the invasion of Ukraine so far, seems to not be the number of soldiers but the amount of functional equipment.
Russian production numbers sound good if you ignore that most of them refer to stored Cold War era equipment being reactivated. Their main and most successful staple has been artillery and that mostly worked because it could be fired from the safety of being on a side of the border NATO pretty much told Ukraine not to cross - for a time. It also seems like the "saber rattling" Russia did in the lead-up to the invasion by positioning military around the Ukranian border was less of an intimidation tactic and more of a necessary part of the process.
I'm not saying Russia couldn't do a lot more damage in an all-out war into the West even without involving nuclear weapons (which already assumes European countries with nuclear weapons or the US wouldn't use them either). But based on the underwhelming performance of the Russian military relative to its supposed numbers, I don't think Russia could have pulled off the kind of Blitzkrieg you're envisioning, let alone once supply lines become a problem. Especially if you consider that the plan for the invasion of Ukraine clearly was built around a surprise attack on Kyiv, which failed spectacularly because the terrain and weather meant the tanks had to drive slowly in a line and somehow Russia didn't bother providing infantry support.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoI'm not suggesting that Russia vs the west would be successful. I'm only suggesting that this conflict is nowhere near as mobilized and driven as what Russia has shown it capable of in the past in WWII. Apparently this is a controversial take given the responses I've been getting.
- throwaway237289 2y agoIt's not a controversial take. You just lack understanding of the English language. OP: Looking at two countries in an actual long running war... You: This isn’t really all hell breaking loose actual war. Nobody used the term "all hell breaking loose". You did. You redefined the conversation to be about 100% mobilization (from Russia), and then got all pissy that people called you out.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoI hope nothing I wrote could be considered “pissy.” I thought I was articulating my point well enough but I guess a nerve was struck given how many people pounced to say my opinion is wrong, using throwaways to boot. Opinions are opinions, they are neither right or wrong.
- hnbad 2y agoGiven that Russia is not facing an existential threat comparable to that of Nazi Germany, I don't think there's any way the conflict could be anywhere as driven as that. Could Russia mobilize more? Yes, absolutely. But based on what we've been seeing they lack the supply lines, resources and frankly military competence (which is unsurprising given how Putin deals with anyone but yes-men) to be able to do anything with that if they had it. Also, as I said, the NATO response to invading, say, Poland would also look extremely different from the current NATO response to invading a non-NATO border state. The Soviet Union's main advantage during WW2, other than receiving immense support from the Allies (both in supplies and military equipment), was that it was fighting the Nazis on their back foot. The Nazis had made a similar fumble as Russia did in Ukraine by misjudging the climate and seasonal weather and they also didn't have a reliable supply line. The Soviet Union did deal a devastating blow in Stalingrad but the Nazis there were pretty much stranded in hostile territory without support at that point and many soldiers were suffering from frost-related health issues. When the Soviet Union actually invaded Germany the Nazis' troops were already spread out all over Europe and into Africa and losing ground in the various occupied territories. The Soviet Union suffered massive casualties and contributed more sacrifices to defeating fascism than any other country involved, but militarily its capabilities do not translate into any scenario involving modern Russia NATO analysts would lose sleep over. Russia is "holding back", yes, but so is NATO and especially the US. Even the "modern" equipment the US has started sending to Ukraine is decades behind on what the US military has available. Ukraine's stronger allies have very much been holding out on "the good stuff" and instead mostly cleaned out their dusty reserves. Russia OTOH doesn't seem to have the production capacity nor resources to churn out its newer equipment (which is still years behind what the US etc have access to) and is already falling back on decades old stock and desperately buying ammunition from North Korea of all places.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]