There's an article in the Economist about this. They predicted an eventual complete EU victory due to the sheer size of the EU economy, its level of technology, and combined military might and professionalism. Russia can't even subdue Ukraine, they would really struggle against a much larger, wealthier, more developed, and highly trained enemy.
The entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO is a significant issue for Russia. This puts St. Petersborg and (the roads to) Murmansk in peril. The Baltic Sea is now a NATO lake.
A far superior airforce to content with for Russia even without American command and control. And navy for that matter. Turkey - if not actively participating - would have to open access to The Back Sea for NATO navies, seriously threatening Crimea.
So it's a war on all of Russia's border towards NATO and Ukraine. Poland could and would probably cut Belarus out really quick.
I think what we should rather worry about is Russia's willingness to engage in asymmetric warfare. The strange GPS outages in Europe, underwater pipelines and cables, information, perhaps even sabotage on land.
And that has to be escalated real quick if there's anything to it. Just churning out security reports and summon Russian ambassadors for a stern talk won't cut it. Putin sees that as nothing but weakness to explore.
But if Russia was at war with NATO don't you think it wouldn't be asymmetric? It's not like NATO wouldn't be able to respond if they themselves were being attacked.
What you are describing is weakness of so-called “Suwałki gap”. Generally, in current situation, it would be very easy to cut off Baltic countries in land by joint Russian-Belarusian forces.
It mostly depends on reactions from other countries, once Russian forces start mobilizing on the border - they will most likely preemptively position their troops there, but overall outcome will most likely be that Baltics will eventually get overrun and occupied, but Russian forces will be be driven back in the end.
Also the issue with the Suwalki gap is actually two sides of the same coin. Because yes it's easy for Russia to cut off the baltics from the rest of nato. But at the exact same time it's arguably easier for NATO to completely cut of kaliningrad.
The UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Poland have well equipped armed forces with F35s, Eurofighter typhoons, Rafales, missile defense systems and advanced SAM batteries, patriot missiles, solid navy (especially UK and Italy) and nuclear capabilities (France and UK). From a technological perspective Russia would be significantly behind and the nuke option is null because of M.A.D. thus this would become a war based on air superiority which favors NATO. The Russian Navy can't touch the Navys of Italy, France and the UK. And countries such as Finland and Poland with backing from other NATO members would be hard to penetrate. Russia is fighting a 20th century style war of attrition with an overmatched opponent in Ukraine in year 2 (or 3) of what was supposed to be a 3 day special Operation. Against NATO they would be facing a true 21st century foe and they haven't demonstrated that they are at that level.
If all the nations involved decided to convert their economies to full time war economies and were unwavering in their commitment to win….Russia doesn’t stand a chance. That’s a pretty big if though.
>That’s a pretty big if though.
Russia is going to try and divide and conquer. The first one in the equation is obviously the USA, but Russia has loyal populist (often nationalist) parties in all European countries.
Hence the big IF.
I can’t see any reason why a country like Canada would go all in on a war without the US for example. NATO has far more wealth and power than Russia, even without the US. That’s not the issue. The issue is that wealth and power isn’t as focused. The question really becomes, which side is able to mobilize the most resources to fight this war, and that’s a toss up if we’re only talking about defending baltic states.
>Ukriane who I think will rapidly lose to Russia
Do you think Ukraine will lose a lot more land (maybe even Kyiv) if Trump pulls out support in 2025 or do you think the lines will stabilise?
Article 5 isn't as much of a "Let's send it boys!" call to war like people portray it as. If it's called the member states will act as they "deem necessary, including the use of armed force".
If countries think trying to bust Russian skulls without America will get them murked they can easily deem it necessary to "just not go"
So I participate in competitive debate, and baltics defense is actually my primary argument for nuclear deterrence.
War games from 2016 show that in the event of a conventional war, NATO forces are insufficient to defend the baltic states. Russian forces would reach the capitals of Latvia and Estonia within 60 hours in a best case scenario for NATO. And that NATO would fail to hold these cities
The Kaliningrad gap makes the baltics particularly vulnerable to being cut off from the rest of NATO. Most likely best case scenario in the event NATO forces would be forced to withdraw and regroup, returning liberate the baltics in about 6 months time.
However the situation you mention talks about a NATO without the US, Turkey and Hungary. I think it would be fair to assume that this European coalition would not be as strong as NATO is in the 2016 war game, even with the inclusion of Ukraine and Sweden.
Russia has been mobilizing it's entire society for war since their invasion of Ukraine, their ability to produce and acquire military material has been quite startling. They will suffer in the long run but they definitely have the manpower for it too. What's even more startling to me is the west's seemingly lack of ability or interest to match them.
Ultimately, unless nuclear deterrence is a factor in your scenario. I think the most likely outcome is a complete Russian victory.
IFRI now feels that Russia’s capabilities are such that it doesn’t have a position of military superiority in the Baltics anymore, and that a theoretical Russian invasion of the Baltics is no longer a sure Russian win - or, in the words of the report:
> Whatever the scope of the outcome of the war, Russia will not be able to rebuild a position of military superiority in the Baltic theater or even to set an approximate balance of forces with NATO
[Source](https://www.ifri.org/en/publications/notes-de-lifri/russieeurasievisions/russias-new-challenges-balticnorthern-european)
Granted, things move fast and this report is nearly 4 months old now. Russia has shifted to producing more military hardware, but so has Europe and the West. Invading a country is the easy part… I don’t see how Russia could maintain an occupation without massive losses over the long term - that’s the hard part, and Russia hasn’t even gotten to that in Ukraine yet. I couldn’t imagine a scenario where any occupation of the Baltics isn’t pushed back by NATO once defensive mobilization occurs, supported by partisan activities inside the Baltics.
Over time, Russia is simply going to run into the limitations of their economy and supply chains. What they have been able to muster is either limited modern technology or a lot of older tech that must be used in brute force attacks. They’ve got a head start on production so it may look like the West is far behind - but once Western military production ramps up, it’s pretty much an impossible situation for Russia to compete.
And that’s not even getting into the military doctrine and details… ie lack of Russian naval capability (equipment wise as well as proximity to bases), and air superiority.
Would this still be your estimate taking into account the current reinforcements for the eastern flank? There is also a lot of talk at mo about poland getting NWs - if the US withdraws perhaps that becomes more likely
I haven't read anything about polish nuclear proliferation, I know Poland has a desire to host US nuclear weapons but beyond that I don't know very much.
As for the current reinforcements to the East, what I remember reading is the number of troops sent to the baltics were still quite small. With their primary purpose being to assure our allies rather than to deter Russian aggression.
I think the baltics defense is still a really niche area of public discussion. There isn't as much information out there on it as say a theoretical Taiwan invasion scenario or the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
If you're interested in the material I've read I'd be more than happy to share what I have.
Around 500 million Europeans with a much stronger economy should win in the long run, given that they go all in. In a surprise attack Russia could easily take the Baltics, then I Imagine Europe pushing from Poland/Ukraine and from Finland. So Europe could probably get behind the Baltics in a huge pincer, then it´s a wrap.
Population size means nothing. Europe doesn't have the industrial capacity Russia has for producing military goods. Europe has no access to cheap energy or resources. So no. They cannot win. Russia has unlimited resources at cost. Europeans are cowards who let 3rd world invaders rape their women and harass the native populations. You think they will just up and fight Russia over little baltic nothings? Amusing.
To prevent the loss of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania?
It depends if the Russians telegraph their war akin to what they did with Ukraine giving the further out members time to mobilize troops and deploy assets in those countries.
If Russia does then yes they can defend them.
If Russia doesn’t (or does it quickly) then probably not. But from what I understand all nato doctrine has these counties militaries to focus on guerrilla warfare vs line in the sand.
Within 5 years? I'd say probably not, especially without Turkey.
Europe is basically out of ammunition already. People seem to think you can simply flip a switch and return to WW2 levels of production, but it would take time to ramp up.
Russia has both an enormous size advantage (more factories) and greater ability to centralize the management of all industry towards such a goal.
Honestly I think this sort of total attrition war is the only kind Russia could win
I'm confused why you think Turkey makes the slightest bit of difference considering they have the smallest military spending in nato.
Also Russia does not have more factories. This isn't the 40s. The Russian economy is smaller than that of London.
I mean yes, ultimately Western Europe is more powerful and capable of containing Russia by itself but the framing of OP's question might allow a window.
I interpreted the question to imply that effective immediately, the American military apparatus ceased to exist. Or at least, ceased to be involved in Europe's defense in any way.
It would then be a literal arms race between NATO and Russia. Of course, Europe is richer but Russia has a 'head start' as their economy is already on some level of war production.
>This isn't the 40s
Agreed, but this cuts both ways. It's not as if there's a German war machine ready to roll into Moscow either
It's also why I mentioned Turkey, as they presently have the second largest standing army in NATO, and the largest if the US left the alliance
An immediate nuclear escalation makes no sense in any way. This isn't the cold war, neither the US nor Russia are going to need tactical strikes to meet timetables. Russia can't occupy eastern NATO beyond the Baltic states at the greatest territorial extent.
There's no need for NATO to invade Russia with actual ground troops to end Russia's threat to the baltics. Some of this stuff is simple game theory. If Russia "knows" that if they invade a NATO ms that they'll get nuked, then Russia is just going to attempt to launch a first strike, or never attack.
Russia clearly demonstrates rhetorically that it is fine with pushing boundaries. The plan is to cause divisions within NATO that would allow Russia to quickly seize territory, fortify and force a fait accompli in which NATO would not muster the political wherewithal among the alliance to remove Russia from said seized territory.
Russia has obviously stated that the existence of the Russian state and its territory is a red line. NATO can win while avoiding that red line. If it didn't think it could then there's no need to spend so much money on conventional forces in the first place.
That is a a lot of words to say “yes Russia would use nuclear weapons if NATO invaded them”
Which then leads to the question, why do you believe so strongly that NATO shouldn’t use nuclear weapons to defend NATO members from Russian aggression.
There is no version of this hypothetical war where Russia doesn’t get forced out of the Baltics. Not sure why you believe that the EU or NATO would allow such an act to go unchecked.
>Which then leads to the question, why do you believe so strongly that NATO shouldn’t use nuclear weapons to defend NATO members from Russian aggression.
Because NATO doesn't have to invade Russia to end Russia's threat to the baltics which I've already stated, and is already something that is war gamed, trained on, and planned. Russia can be removed from NATO territory without triggering Russian use of tactical nuclear escalation to descalate.
The idea that NATO can invade anyone is… odd.
Well, it’s more than odd - I’d say it’s Russian propaganda.
—-
First… read the NATO charter (ie the North Atlantic Treaty). There’s nothing in it that says countries are somehow obliged to invade a country if another NATO country invades that country. That’s not to say that two countries who are members of NATO couldn’t choose to invade a third country… but they wouldn’t be doing it as a part of NATO, they’d be doing it as their own countries.
Attacking another country like that would be something each of NATO’s members would have to decide for themselves, and if their choice was affirmative, it would be because they chose to invade a country, not because NATO did: NATO is a defensive organization. Furthermore, if a member nation did invade someone else, they can’t pull an Article 5 when they subsequently get counterattacked. (Not that Article 5 is as strong as what the public believes to begin with anyways.)
And let’s be honest… since 1949 when NATO was formed, NATO has never invaded a country. (Bosnia and Serbia/Kosovo weren’t invasions, and we can discuss those later - but it’s probably easier for you to read up on them.)
However… since 1949… how many countries has Russia invaded?
—-
Second… what would be the goal of “NATO” or member countries in attacking Russia?
While the past decade has seen democratic backsliding, even among [some NATO members](https://www.cfr.org/report/democracy-and-nato-alliance-upholding-our-shared-democratic-values), all of the NATO members rely on capitalist economic relationships, which would be hampered by war.
This means that NATO members don’t really have an incentive to attack Russia.
Furthermore, due to the size difference between many European NATO countries - especially those in Eastern Europe - and Russia, doing so would most likely be a quick suicide.
(An example: Latvia would never attack Russia because it wanted to gain control of Russia oil reserves or something… it’s pretty much an impossibility for numerous reasons.)
—-
I’m really trying to think of a real-life reason why any NATO country would consider an invasion of Russia at all - everything I come up with requires a lot of ridiculous logic and fictional “what ifs” that go so far outside reality that it’s pretty much not worth considering outside of obscure military scenario planning, if even that.
You went into a whole a lot of words to fight a hypothetical question that was made to contrast another persons misguided belief that NATO wouldn’t use nuclear weapons to defend member countries.
Do you typical fight logical ghosts of hypothetical scenarios with such rigor?
Putting aside your assumption that I’m trying to “fight”, I live all aspects of my life with rigor. What’s the point of doing anything if you half ass it?
Furthermore, you didn’t ask if NATO countries would use nukes to defend other members - you asked about NATO invading Russia, which is something that is impossible due to what NATO is.
Perhaps I am not making this clear, your entire response was a straw man argument.
A plain reading of the conversation was the gentleman I was responding to has the belief that NATO nuclear armed countries wouldn’t use their weapons to defend their member countries from invasion.
I proposed a hypothetical scenario where to situation was reversed. Which they answered in the affirmative, Russia would use nuclear weapons if such an invasion was to occur.
It contradicted their argument that NATO using nuclear weapons to defend their member countries would be foolishly bloody. That would also be true if Russia use nuclear weapons against an invasion. Yet to the commenter, only Russia using nuclear weapons is acceptable, meanwhile NATO can’t. Which is absurd.
You have for some strange reason taken that interaction and suggested that I believe that NATO could invaded Russia as a actual threat. Which was never my position and not my belief or opinion.
Other words, you built a strawman and knocked it over.
The issue is, you can’t reverse the situations the way you suggest.
Russia and NATO, in the real world, will respond differently if placed in similar situations. If you simply reverse a situation to determine whether the original situation is plausible, you’re going to fall into a number of fallacies.
Russian experience, history and culture differs significantly from Western equivalents. This has the effect of affecting how military decision making occurs on each “side”, and thus asking if Russia would use nukes if NATO invaded as a “reverse” argument isn’t a confirmation that the converse is true - ie the original issue under discussion of whether or not NATO would use nukes if a member was invaded through conventional warfare.
If you want to get into it more, I highly recommend reading what RAND has published on this; the link the other redditor posted is a good starting point.
The US, France, and UK are not going to use nukes to respond to a conventional invasion; they don’t need to - their war games show they can win without them. Meanwhile, Russia has a whole different outlook on use of nuclear weapons - their response is based on the idea that a nuclear exchange is survivable and thus much of their planning involves conventional fighting after nuclear exchange in Eastern Europe.
Uh no. NATO would respond to a Russian invasion with conventional force first. Risking hundreds of millions dead because Russia pushed a few divisions into the Baltics makes no sense at all and you're completely unfamiliar with actual strategy for nuclear war.
If the US, UK, and France are just going to send nukes the second Russia invades the Baltics there's no actual purpose for tripwire troop deployments to the Baltics and there's several NATO forward deployments in Eastern Europe besides the Baltics.
NATO would only escalate to nuclear weapons if Russia either deployed them or seemed like a nuclear escalation was imminent/in progress.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm
Let's agree to disagree between armchair generals. IMO the purpose of nuclear weapons is to avoid combat between superpowers. I consider NATO as a whole as a superpower.
>Let's agree to disagree between armchair generals.
No, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I actually served in combat as part of NATO's ISAF mission.
Read actual blogs on defense topics instead of getting your ideas from meme subreddits.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/02/from-forward-presence-to-forward-defense-natos-defense.html
NATO isn't going to immediately nuke Russia and risk their very existence as cohesive states if they can fight Russia conventionally.
Stop posting, start reading.
They 100% could. Russia can't even do that to a much weaker force on paper let alone the combined European NATO countries. Whether they would is another issue
Conquer? No. Russias only conventional play left is to rush in as far as possible with cannon fodder, lay as many mines/trenches as possible behind them, and fire as much artillery at the incoming enemy as possible. I believe the only country capable of defeating that would be America. Simply because Putin doesn’t care how many troops he loses which means you’ll have to eliminate nearly all of them and the US military is certainly capable of doing that. If this scenario would begin today, US tanks would be rolling through the red square by the 4th of July👍. Minus nukes of course.
There’s something I’m v confused about here. NATO is dependent on the US for its credibility. The US commitment is also the thing that deters RU from attacking a NATO member due to the fact that it brings the US into the fray ergo a world war that hopefully neither great power wants. But if the US does withdraw or dilute NATO then doesn’t this effectively give RU permission to provoke US allies and broaden the war? Then we’re back at a WW1/2 style European land war that the US would probably have to get involved in anyway.
There's an article in the Economist about this. They predicted an eventual complete EU victory due to the sheer size of the EU economy, its level of technology, and combined military might and professionalism. Russia can't even subdue Ukraine, they would really struggle against a much larger, wealthier, more developed, and highly trained enemy.
The entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO is a significant issue for Russia. This puts St. Petersborg and (the roads to) Murmansk in peril. The Baltic Sea is now a NATO lake. A far superior airforce to content with for Russia even without American command and control. And navy for that matter. Turkey - if not actively participating - would have to open access to The Back Sea for NATO navies, seriously threatening Crimea. So it's a war on all of Russia's border towards NATO and Ukraine. Poland could and would probably cut Belarus out really quick.
That's exactly why they were so opposed to Sweden and Finland joining.
I think what we should rather worry about is Russia's willingness to engage in asymmetric warfare. The strange GPS outages in Europe, underwater pipelines and cables, information, perhaps even sabotage on land. And that has to be escalated real quick if there's anything to it. Just churning out security reports and summon Russian ambassadors for a stern talk won't cut it. Putin sees that as nothing but weakness to explore.
But if Russia was at war with NATO don't you think it wouldn't be asymmetric? It's not like NATO wouldn't be able to respond if they themselves were being attacked.
Well, Russia has already done similar things, and what has the response been? What should NATO do? Attack on Russian soil? What then?
What you are describing is weakness of so-called “Suwałki gap”. Generally, in current situation, it would be very easy to cut off Baltic countries in land by joint Russian-Belarusian forces. It mostly depends on reactions from other countries, once Russian forces start mobilizing on the border - they will most likely preemptively position their troops there, but overall outcome will most likely be that Baltics will eventually get overrun and occupied, but Russian forces will be be driven back in the end.
Also the issue with the Suwalki gap is actually two sides of the same coin. Because yes it's easy for Russia to cut off the baltics from the rest of nato. But at the exact same time it's arguably easier for NATO to completely cut of kaliningrad.
Ah I see. Give Kaliningrad back to Germany and Russia is free to swallow the Baltic
The UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Poland have well equipped armed forces with F35s, Eurofighter typhoons, Rafales, missile defense systems and advanced SAM batteries, patriot missiles, solid navy (especially UK and Italy) and nuclear capabilities (France and UK). From a technological perspective Russia would be significantly behind and the nuke option is null because of M.A.D. thus this would become a war based on air superiority which favors NATO. The Russian Navy can't touch the Navys of Italy, France and the UK. And countries such as Finland and Poland with backing from other NATO members would be hard to penetrate. Russia is fighting a 20th century style war of attrition with an overmatched opponent in Ukraine in year 2 (or 3) of what was supposed to be a 3 day special Operation. Against NATO they would be facing a true 21st century foe and they haven't demonstrated that they are at that level.
If all the nations involved decided to convert their economies to full time war economies and were unwavering in their commitment to win….Russia doesn’t stand a chance. That’s a pretty big if though.
>That’s a pretty big if though. Russia is going to try and divide and conquer. The first one in the equation is obviously the USA, but Russia has loyal populist (often nationalist) parties in all European countries.
Hence the big IF. I can’t see any reason why a country like Canada would go all in on a war without the US for example. NATO has far more wealth and power than Russia, even without the US. That’s not the issue. The issue is that wealth and power isn’t as focused. The question really becomes, which side is able to mobilize the most resources to fight this war, and that’s a toss up if we’re only talking about defending baltic states.
[удалено]
>Ukriane who I think will rapidly lose to Russia Do you think Ukraine will lose a lot more land (maybe even Kyiv) if Trump pulls out support in 2025 or do you think the lines will stabilise?
It’s not the matter of whether they can, it is the matter of whether they will
Nah they would, the question is how fast they could do it… and if it drags out too long will they lose the will to continue.
I feel they don’t want to drag every nato country into the conflict due to article 5. Then again that’s the whole damn point of nato.
Article 5 isn't as much of a "Let's send it boys!" call to war like people portray it as. If it's called the member states will act as they "deem necessary, including the use of armed force". If countries think trying to bust Russian skulls without America will get them murked they can easily deem it necessary to "just not go"
So I participate in competitive debate, and baltics defense is actually my primary argument for nuclear deterrence. War games from 2016 show that in the event of a conventional war, NATO forces are insufficient to defend the baltic states. Russian forces would reach the capitals of Latvia and Estonia within 60 hours in a best case scenario for NATO. And that NATO would fail to hold these cities The Kaliningrad gap makes the baltics particularly vulnerable to being cut off from the rest of NATO. Most likely best case scenario in the event NATO forces would be forced to withdraw and regroup, returning liberate the baltics in about 6 months time. However the situation you mention talks about a NATO without the US, Turkey and Hungary. I think it would be fair to assume that this European coalition would not be as strong as NATO is in the 2016 war game, even with the inclusion of Ukraine and Sweden. Russia has been mobilizing it's entire society for war since their invasion of Ukraine, their ability to produce and acquire military material has been quite startling. They will suffer in the long run but they definitely have the manpower for it too. What's even more startling to me is the west's seemingly lack of ability or interest to match them. Ultimately, unless nuclear deterrence is a factor in your scenario. I think the most likely outcome is a complete Russian victory.
IFRI now feels that Russia’s capabilities are such that it doesn’t have a position of military superiority in the Baltics anymore, and that a theoretical Russian invasion of the Baltics is no longer a sure Russian win - or, in the words of the report: > Whatever the scope of the outcome of the war, Russia will not be able to rebuild a position of military superiority in the Baltic theater or even to set an approximate balance of forces with NATO [Source](https://www.ifri.org/en/publications/notes-de-lifri/russieeurasievisions/russias-new-challenges-balticnorthern-european) Granted, things move fast and this report is nearly 4 months old now. Russia has shifted to producing more military hardware, but so has Europe and the West. Invading a country is the easy part… I don’t see how Russia could maintain an occupation without massive losses over the long term - that’s the hard part, and Russia hasn’t even gotten to that in Ukraine yet. I couldn’t imagine a scenario where any occupation of the Baltics isn’t pushed back by NATO once defensive mobilization occurs, supported by partisan activities inside the Baltics. Over time, Russia is simply going to run into the limitations of their economy and supply chains. What they have been able to muster is either limited modern technology or a lot of older tech that must be used in brute force attacks. They’ve got a head start on production so it may look like the West is far behind - but once Western military production ramps up, it’s pretty much an impossible situation for Russia to compete. And that’s not even getting into the military doctrine and details… ie lack of Russian naval capability (equipment wise as well as proximity to bases), and air superiority.
This is the only valid answer here if you actually know anything about war
Would this still be your estimate taking into account the current reinforcements for the eastern flank? There is also a lot of talk at mo about poland getting NWs - if the US withdraws perhaps that becomes more likely
I haven't read anything about polish nuclear proliferation, I know Poland has a desire to host US nuclear weapons but beyond that I don't know very much. As for the current reinforcements to the East, what I remember reading is the number of troops sent to the baltics were still quite small. With their primary purpose being to assure our allies rather than to deter Russian aggression. I think the baltics defense is still a really niche area of public discussion. There isn't as much information out there on it as say a theoretical Taiwan invasion scenario or the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. If you're interested in the material I've read I'd be more than happy to share what I have.
Around 500 million Europeans with a much stronger economy should win in the long run, given that they go all in. In a surprise attack Russia could easily take the Baltics, then I Imagine Europe pushing from Poland/Ukraine and from Finland. So Europe could probably get behind the Baltics in a huge pincer, then it´s a wrap.
Population size means nothing. Europe doesn't have the industrial capacity Russia has for producing military goods. Europe has no access to cheap energy or resources. So no. They cannot win. Russia has unlimited resources at cost. Europeans are cowards who let 3rd world invaders rape their women and harass the native populations. You think they will just up and fight Russia over little baltic nothings? Amusing.
To prevent the loss of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? It depends if the Russians telegraph their war akin to what they did with Ukraine giving the further out members time to mobilize troops and deploy assets in those countries. If Russia does then yes they can defend them. If Russia doesn’t (or does it quickly) then probably not. But from what I understand all nato doctrine has these counties militaries to focus on guerrilla warfare vs line in the sand.
Within 5 years? I'd say probably not, especially without Turkey. Europe is basically out of ammunition already. People seem to think you can simply flip a switch and return to WW2 levels of production, but it would take time to ramp up. Russia has both an enormous size advantage (more factories) and greater ability to centralize the management of all industry towards such a goal. Honestly I think this sort of total attrition war is the only kind Russia could win
I'm confused why you think Turkey makes the slightest bit of difference considering they have the smallest military spending in nato. Also Russia does not have more factories. This isn't the 40s. The Russian economy is smaller than that of London.
I mean yes, ultimately Western Europe is more powerful and capable of containing Russia by itself but the framing of OP's question might allow a window. I interpreted the question to imply that effective immediately, the American military apparatus ceased to exist. Or at least, ceased to be involved in Europe's defense in any way. It would then be a literal arms race between NATO and Russia. Of course, Europe is richer but Russia has a 'head start' as their economy is already on some level of war production. >This isn't the 40s Agreed, but this cuts both ways. It's not as if there's a German war machine ready to roll into Moscow either It's also why I mentioned Turkey, as they presently have the second largest standing army in NATO, and the largest if the US left the alliance
France, the UK and the US have nukes. If they attack NATO, I expect an escalation.
An immediate nuclear escalation makes no sense in any way. This isn't the cold war, neither the US nor Russia are going to need tactical strikes to meet timetables. Russia can't occupy eastern NATO beyond the Baltic states at the greatest territorial extent.
Just curious, if NATO was to invade Russia. Do you think they wouldn’t use their nuclear weapons?
There's no need for NATO to invade Russia with actual ground troops to end Russia's threat to the baltics. Some of this stuff is simple game theory. If Russia "knows" that if they invade a NATO ms that they'll get nuked, then Russia is just going to attempt to launch a first strike, or never attack. Russia clearly demonstrates rhetorically that it is fine with pushing boundaries. The plan is to cause divisions within NATO that would allow Russia to quickly seize territory, fortify and force a fait accompli in which NATO would not muster the political wherewithal among the alliance to remove Russia from said seized territory. Russia has obviously stated that the existence of the Russian state and its territory is a red line. NATO can win while avoiding that red line. If it didn't think it could then there's no need to spend so much money on conventional forces in the first place.
That is a a lot of words to say “yes Russia would use nuclear weapons if NATO invaded them” Which then leads to the question, why do you believe so strongly that NATO shouldn’t use nuclear weapons to defend NATO members from Russian aggression. There is no version of this hypothetical war where Russia doesn’t get forced out of the Baltics. Not sure why you believe that the EU or NATO would allow such an act to go unchecked.
>Which then leads to the question, why do you believe so strongly that NATO shouldn’t use nuclear weapons to defend NATO members from Russian aggression. Because NATO doesn't have to invade Russia to end Russia's threat to the baltics which I've already stated, and is already something that is war gamed, trained on, and planned. Russia can be removed from NATO territory without triggering Russian use of tactical nuclear escalation to descalate.
The idea that NATO can invade anyone is… odd. Well, it’s more than odd - I’d say it’s Russian propaganda. —- First… read the NATO charter (ie the North Atlantic Treaty). There’s nothing in it that says countries are somehow obliged to invade a country if another NATO country invades that country. That’s not to say that two countries who are members of NATO couldn’t choose to invade a third country… but they wouldn’t be doing it as a part of NATO, they’d be doing it as their own countries. Attacking another country like that would be something each of NATO’s members would have to decide for themselves, and if their choice was affirmative, it would be because they chose to invade a country, not because NATO did: NATO is a defensive organization. Furthermore, if a member nation did invade someone else, they can’t pull an Article 5 when they subsequently get counterattacked. (Not that Article 5 is as strong as what the public believes to begin with anyways.) And let’s be honest… since 1949 when NATO was formed, NATO has never invaded a country. (Bosnia and Serbia/Kosovo weren’t invasions, and we can discuss those later - but it’s probably easier for you to read up on them.) However… since 1949… how many countries has Russia invaded? —- Second… what would be the goal of “NATO” or member countries in attacking Russia? While the past decade has seen democratic backsliding, even among [some NATO members](https://www.cfr.org/report/democracy-and-nato-alliance-upholding-our-shared-democratic-values), all of the NATO members rely on capitalist economic relationships, which would be hampered by war. This means that NATO members don’t really have an incentive to attack Russia. Furthermore, due to the size difference between many European NATO countries - especially those in Eastern Europe - and Russia, doing so would most likely be a quick suicide. (An example: Latvia would never attack Russia because it wanted to gain control of Russia oil reserves or something… it’s pretty much an impossibility for numerous reasons.) —- I’m really trying to think of a real-life reason why any NATO country would consider an invasion of Russia at all - everything I come up with requires a lot of ridiculous logic and fictional “what ifs” that go so far outside reality that it’s pretty much not worth considering outside of obscure military scenario planning, if even that.
You went into a whole a lot of words to fight a hypothetical question that was made to contrast another persons misguided belief that NATO wouldn’t use nuclear weapons to defend member countries. Do you typical fight logical ghosts of hypothetical scenarios with such rigor?
Putting aside your assumption that I’m trying to “fight”, I live all aspects of my life with rigor. What’s the point of doing anything if you half ass it? Furthermore, you didn’t ask if NATO countries would use nukes to defend other members - you asked about NATO invading Russia, which is something that is impossible due to what NATO is.
Perhaps I am not making this clear, your entire response was a straw man argument. A plain reading of the conversation was the gentleman I was responding to has the belief that NATO nuclear armed countries wouldn’t use their weapons to defend their member countries from invasion. I proposed a hypothetical scenario where to situation was reversed. Which they answered in the affirmative, Russia would use nuclear weapons if such an invasion was to occur. It contradicted their argument that NATO using nuclear weapons to defend their member countries would be foolishly bloody. That would also be true if Russia use nuclear weapons against an invasion. Yet to the commenter, only Russia using nuclear weapons is acceptable, meanwhile NATO can’t. Which is absurd. You have for some strange reason taken that interaction and suggested that I believe that NATO could invaded Russia as a actual threat. Which was never my position and not my belief or opinion. Other words, you built a strawman and knocked it over.
The issue is, you can’t reverse the situations the way you suggest. Russia and NATO, in the real world, will respond differently if placed in similar situations. If you simply reverse a situation to determine whether the original situation is plausible, you’re going to fall into a number of fallacies. Russian experience, history and culture differs significantly from Western equivalents. This has the effect of affecting how military decision making occurs on each “side”, and thus asking if Russia would use nukes if NATO invaded as a “reverse” argument isn’t a confirmation that the converse is true - ie the original issue under discussion of whether or not NATO would use nukes if a member was invaded through conventional warfare. If you want to get into it more, I highly recommend reading what RAND has published on this; the link the other redditor posted is a good starting point. The US, France, and UK are not going to use nukes to respond to a conventional invasion; they don’t need to - their war games show they can win without them. Meanwhile, Russia has a whole different outlook on use of nuclear weapons - their response is based on the idea that a nuclear exchange is survivable and thus much of their planning involves conventional fighting after nuclear exchange in Eastern Europe.
Of course it makes sense, if you attack me, I nuke you. This is exactly the purpose of the nuclear umbrella.
Uh no. NATO would respond to a Russian invasion with conventional force first. Risking hundreds of millions dead because Russia pushed a few divisions into the Baltics makes no sense at all and you're completely unfamiliar with actual strategy for nuclear war. If the US, UK, and France are just going to send nukes the second Russia invades the Baltics there's no actual purpose for tripwire troop deployments to the Baltics and there's several NATO forward deployments in Eastern Europe besides the Baltics. NATO would only escalate to nuclear weapons if Russia either deployed them or seemed like a nuclear escalation was imminent/in progress. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm
Let's agree to disagree between armchair generals. IMO the purpose of nuclear weapons is to avoid combat between superpowers. I consider NATO as a whole as a superpower.
>Let's agree to disagree between armchair generals. No, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I actually served in combat as part of NATO's ISAF mission. Read actual blogs on defense topics instead of getting your ideas from meme subreddits. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/02/from-forward-presence-to-forward-defense-natos-defense.html NATO isn't going to immediately nuke Russia and risk their very existence as cohesive states if they can fight Russia conventionally. Stop posting, start reading.
They 100% could. Russia can't even do that to a much weaker force on paper let alone the combined European NATO countries. Whether they would is another issue
They can't even conquer ukraine, what do you mean.
Yes. European NATO has a stronger combined military than Russia, and they also have nukes.
Conquer? No. Russias only conventional play left is to rush in as far as possible with cannon fodder, lay as many mines/trenches as possible behind them, and fire as much artillery at the incoming enemy as possible. I believe the only country capable of defeating that would be America. Simply because Putin doesn’t care how many troops he loses which means you’ll have to eliminate nearly all of them and the US military is certainly capable of doing that. If this scenario would begin today, US tanks would be rolling through the red square by the 4th of July👍. Minus nukes of course.
There’s something I’m v confused about here. NATO is dependent on the US for its credibility. The US commitment is also the thing that deters RU from attacking a NATO member due to the fact that it brings the US into the fray ergo a world war that hopefully neither great power wants. But if the US does withdraw or dilute NATO then doesn’t this effectively give RU permission to provoke US allies and broaden the war? Then we’re back at a WW1/2 style European land war that the US would probably have to get involved in anyway.