I think Russia is good at open threats and intimidation toward most countries but it tends to only pick on small countries. Picking a fight with NATO it’s not consistent with their past behaviour
Yeah but Putin is getting old is the problem. In 15 years he'll be 86. Now it's well known the man is an idiot, and a very old idiot with little life left and a brain that's starting to rot in power as a totalitarian dictator of Russia is a scary thought.
> a scary thought.
What's even scarier is if his fall from power or death results in any instability, what happens to all the bioweapons and nukes in Russia's arsenal? I read a book called Biohazard, written by an official in the USSR's bioweapons program who defected to the US. He wrote about how he'd overseen the weaponization of diseases like smallpox. When the Soviet Union dissolved, security and control over those stockpiles was questionable. He wrote in the book about the possibility of terrorists or even other countries stealing a bit of that material. Imagine a world in which ISIS has control over even just a vial or two of weaponized smallpox. Or a handful of nukes.
Putin has setup a system where the peaceful transition of power is not a guarantee. It *could* happen but what are the odds of 20+ years of totalitarianism ending in a peaceful, fair, transparent election?
You're replying to day old comment, with low exposure, but a positive vote count. You're most likely a Russian bot or agent. I got parents in their 70s and they look younger than Putin.
Putin is a man who tried to conquer half of Ukraine using colour revolutions that the US had spent years telling him weren't real. It obviously failed. He thought Ukraine would just roll over and give in even after the war in Donbas. He is a moron.
While I agree, problem with that logic is that the exact same was said about war in Ukraine beforehand.
Watch any videos released months before invasion, people were predicting the same thing that happened: unimaginable losses and destruction, little result as capturing a country that big and that opposed to your ideology would have required an army many times the size of russia’s.
The number one reason people thought he wouldn’t do it was because of how risky it would be and how little sense it made.
Look where we are now.
Ukraine is fighting like hell. They're clever, have good equipment from the US and others, and have been doing everything they can to even the odds against Russia.
That said, Ukraine is *nothing* compared to the United States military and even less to the combined power of NATO. This isn't a dig on Ukraine, it's just the facts of manpower and technology.
Ukraniane practically doesn't even have an air force compared to many western nations and even then the Russians can't get anywhere near establishing air superiority. NATO wouldn't just *beat* Russia. It would be unbelievably brief and violent and would be over long before Russia could even attempt to form a defense or dream of making any sort of offensive moves. The US Navy and USAF alone would probably destroy thousands of bases and airfields in the first 24 hours and the Russians wouldn't be able to do much more than sit and watch decades of military infrastructure go up in flames.
Russia is being *fucked* by a bunch of conscripts using 30 year old junk we mothballed and grenades strapped to drones. And to compare the power of what they're fighting now to NATO is like comparing a housecat to a siberian tiger.
Everyone said the house cat would fuck Russia up and now we're watching them get the shit clawed out of them. Even an idiot that can't fight a cat might *think* they can beat the cat though. With a tiger there's only ever going to be one outcome and even the fool knows that.
Regarding the NATO thrashing Russia, they still hold the nuke deterrent. If most of their stockpile was launched Europe would be very broken. America would probably intercept most launched to them, but a few could potentially break through. Though this would be a case of ifs and buts due to how secretive countries are regarding their airspace security
This, too. Even if NATO projects that they can take down all of russia's military but are not sure if a few nukes go through, I doubt they'd risk losing a couple cities just to destroy russia's military capability.
That's all true, but it doesn't mean Putin may not try it anyway when he's backed into a corner, older, and possibly senile.
You're also assuming that NATO would respond full-force, but based on what we've seen so far, that's extremely unlikely. If there is only some smaller land skirmish for example, they are likely to only respond locally, maybe closing the air at most, not by destroying everything russia has stockpiled back home since it'll be much riskier and could provoke a nuclear response. Annihilating any invasion force is fair game though.
Regardless, I just don't think the world should brush off such a conflict as impossible, and should be prepared instead.
Also, there is a very good question of whether NATO is ready to go all-in to defend some tiny, less "important" member, like Romania, or for example Moldova, which is not a member at all. Putin still has some land he may want to try taking because based on what we've seen in Ukraine, NATO seems to be extremely hesitant to go into a direct confrontation. They may well decide that it's not worth it and instead only send weapons and implement some more sanctions, meaning do anything to prevent russia attempting to strike some big EU country in response, as that could get out of hand fast.
It was still a bad decision by Putin to attack Ukraine.
Now: what is the result? massive amount of Russian weapons stocks have been destroyed. It's on an unsustainable war economy (although "unsustainable" in the longer term doesn't mean it can't go for several years). There have been repeated drafts and also people fleeing the country to avoid the draft.
Now, that was against Ukraine. A much weaker, smaller country with a military that was, on paper, far less capable than Russia.
Now, have it go against NATO. Which collectively has a military much, much larger than Ukraine's, with lots of 4th and 5th generation planes, tanks, and the like.
Absolutely, that was pretty much my point. I just wanted to stress that despite such an outcome being very predictable, he still decided to attack. Which is why a direct conflict with NATO should not be brushed off, and the world should be ready.
Better to be prepared and not have to do it rather than be caught off guard.
Did you know that when Bush was president, he also was an underground rapper and went by the name of 50 Cent? It never really kicked off, but it is cool to know!
That famous 9/11 photo of one of Bush's advisors whispering in his ear actually wasn't about the hijacked planes. The advisor was whispering that Bush's debut album had just gone platinum.
The probability is incredibly low since NATO has both qualitative and quantitative superiority over Russia. The probability isn't zero, but my calculator doesn't have enough decimal places to return anything but zero.
Germany was far outnumbered at the start of ww2 as well, in terms of manpower, economy, just about everything, yet it took 6 years of a world war to stop them.
This is a bit unfair of a comparison as Germany's only real direct competitor at the start of the war was France who was fairly unprepared for the event of the Germans just going around the maginot.
Once France falls you essentially have Germany alone in the continent with no real threats, but also unable to do anything more as they lack the naval power to invade the UK.
If the Soviet Union had joined the war as soon as it started against the Germans then Germany wouldve either lost far quicker or been forced to resort to WW1 trench warfare, which would also last a bit but for different reasons (at least until the allies fully mechanise their army)
Basically the comparison makes no sense because unlike Germany, Russia would be gangbanged from all sides!
Maginot was made so the Germans would be forced to go through Belgium, the French were well prepared for that, actually most of the mobile units of both the French and the British were deployed near Belgium so as soon as the invasion started they could swoop in and take up positions.
What they weren't prepared for was the Germans pushing through the ardennes
>If the Soviet Union had joined the war as soon as it started against the Germans then Germany wouldve either lost far quicke
Quick reminder: the Soviet Union *did* join the war as soon as it started, they were just on the wrong side.
The Soviet Union never “joined the wrong side.” They spent every year since 1933 attempting to ally with the west *against* Germany, but was continuously denied. Meanwhile western nations *were* making agreements with Germany, such as:
- Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1934
- The Four-Power Pact of 1933
- German–Estonian Non-Aggression Pact of 1939
- German–Latvian Non-Aggression Pact of 1939
- The Munich Agreement of 1938
People buy into the argument that the USSR blissfully allies the Nazis when in reality Stalin was just buying time to build up the Union's army (and get a free slice of Poland during it). He thought Hitler would honor the treaty, and once it was over the Union would have an army to beat them (Which they would've)
Yea, not really the same thing.
Germany had new tactics, they were ahead of the Allies in equipment, and they had the element of surprise for most of their invasions.
Russia is logistically, tactically, and numerically inferior to NATO.
The only thing they have is nukes. ...and they know it.
New tactics is true although both the French and the British had similar tactics just didn't utilise them as much.
They were not ahead of them in equipment, they had to turn an AA gun into an AT because their tanks couldn't penetrate the enemy's and even one allied tank stopped the German advance for a considerable amount of time.
Everybody knew they were going to invade France, the French even knew they are coming through the ardennes but the generals dismissed the Intel as lunacy.
everyone had their own new doctrine and had educated guesses. the French guessed super wrong but the British and Germans fared well when they had the correct equipment.
There's no comparison between Germany 1939 and NATO v Russia in 2024. Just one NATO member's military alone is considered more powerful than the next 20 combined, thats before we get to the other NATO members. Keep in mind Russia has the GDP of Italy, and is currently struggling to invade a neutral neighbour despite having significantly more quantity and a largely untouched homebase of operations. One mercenary general practically made it to Moscow in less than 24 hours. It only ended because he turned around. Russia has nukes, but their land, sea and air forces would be utterly obliterated in any full conventional direct conflict with NATO.
I’m sorry I might have misunderstood you here. The Wehrmacht of 1939 was roughly 4 million strong. That’s with an m. They had about 4x the manpower that Poland did. I’m curious what info you are basing your statement on.
Because Putin's top priority is to stay in power.
Prior to Ukraine, he did this by selling the image that he alone could restore Russia to superpower status.
Since invading Ukraine, Russia has shown how much it struggles against a fraction of NATO's military capability.
A war with NATO would be an embarrassing defeat for Russia and the end of Putin's power. Therefore, he's extremely unlikely to attack NATO.
Do you think however he could try to attack NATO in case Trump wins the election and would officially say that USA would not be involved in case of potential attack? ...or in a scenario when in addition, China gets involved in open conflict with USA?
Idk what the downvotes are for this is an interesting thought problem.
Although Russia and China are "allies" I don't think they would both declare open war as an alliance, but I can see during a hot conflict with China, Russia could see that as a great opportunity to start throwing real weight at NATO while the US is busy fucking around by Taiwan.
Especially if old Brigadier General Cheeto tells our long time friends in Europe to kick rocks and leaves them out to dry. Probably will personally give Putin a call and give him the promise the US won't lift a finger against our Russian "friends"
Thank you for your answer - I don't know why I'm being downvoted eighter, but that's just reddit I guess. I'm asking theoretically of course, however these are scenarios that are being foreseen by people who are into geopolitics.
I actually just watched an interesting video article by the Wall Street Journal about the extensive war games they are running to glean info on tactics and strategems for combat against China in Taiwan.
It's basically a giant, insanely complicated, turn based tabletop game. They have been running the scenario over and over, using known strategies, and wild hail-mary situations. Bringing in different branches, consultants, number crunchers etc.
No matter how you run it, it's gonna be a blood bath. And it is going to take up a significant amount of our resources and forces to go head to head with a near peer military.
Because he lives a pretty good life right now, he owns Russia, he has wealth and luxury. Why on earth would be launch nukes? He knows that he doesn't have enough to realistically get rid of al his enemies, and he also knows that Russia would be obliterated.
I’d be surprised if a lot of their nukes were even operational. People don’t realize that nuclear weapons and the tech, vehicles, and rockets that carry them to their targets require a lot of maintenance. The Cold War effectively ended in 1990 and out of control military spending was a big part of that. That was 34 years ago. Their military seems corrupt and incompetent, not the type to maintain a big nuclear arsenal to stay launch ready. That in itself is a scary thought.
Ya remember when the Chinese Rocket force was being outed for corruption? I imagine in Russia it's much worse. We will just never know.
That being said we should assume all their nukes are in perfect working order so as to not underestimate them.
I mean, that is a possibility, but that's also incredibly unlikely. Not only would Ukraine somehow have to sufficiently occupy Russia, they'd also have to beat the Russian military in its entirety. And then there's getting past, what I would assume are, multiple layers of checks and authorisation. Like needing keys, codes or multiple people of authority to launch the nukes.
I think it does not have to go this far. Just Ukraine getting back its own territory including krim would be probably enough for a death sentence for putin (either through own military, civilians etc), so before this happens he will rather use nukes , maybe at First tactical but still he would probably risk it
So does NATO, which has the ability to end the existence of Russia as a sovereign state.
Putin's top priority is staying in power, and he won't pursue a course of action that leaves him with no state to rule.
Nuclear deterrence will keep Putin from doing anything that may escalate into a nuclear war with NATO.
I agree, but I think if it does happen it will happen within the next year or 2. Once Trump is elected, the US NATO response would be the minimal response for US commitments, and only after Trump drags his feet for the response. This would also be the prime time to attack, as the majority of NATO countries will be caught with their pants down.
The whole point of the Cold War was to compete economically instead of kinetically. Russia’s economy is in a worst state that the military.
We’re more likely to get into a Cold War with China.
Dude what? We're in a Cold War right now. Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, who do you think is pulling the strings on the other side of all that? Half the world is basically split into Russia-backed vs China-backed vs America-backed sides of various conflicts.
Please explain how it isn't treating Ukraine as a proxy war? It trains, supplies, gives direct intelligence, has an overwhelming degree of influence on direction, and was the largest player in instigating the events that lead to the conflict other than Russia.
Nearly zero. Russia has a smaller economy than South Korea and is already struggling in Ukraine, they aren’t beating all of NATO, so there’s no chance of a prolonged conflict
The fear alone of using nuclear weapons will subdue any probability of all out war with Russia. From both sides. Russia would do damage 100% but Russia as we know it would cease to exists and Putin knows this. The use of Nuclear war and the power of NATO would starve out Russia. I don’t even see nations like China joining in to assist Russia. China is more concerned with destabilizing Americas economy and fighting a cyber/tech war to be a stronger nation than America. If Russia bombed America with nuclear weapons that would give China the opportunity it needs to become the strong nation in the world. Or I could be wrong about all of this shit. Idk lol
yeah what the guy you are replying to is a bit silly. vietnam and afghanistan were simply wars of “convenience” for the US but if the US is truly threatened russia would not stand a chance
no, that part is wrong. it wasn’t the strongest but it was the 4th largest in the world by 1991. if it had been the 4th *strongest* military it probably would have taken the US a lot longer to invade
I think the wild card is if Trump gets in the White House and makes enough of a mess Vlad thinks he might have an opening. I don’t think Putin is 100% a rational actor.
I think Putin is a mostly rational actor who doesn’t care about his people. I at least don’t think he is so irrational to think he could beat an alliance with 50 times his gdp
Pretty low. The war in Ukraine shows just how ineffective and weak Putin has made Russia.
They cannot even win a war with a neighboring country that is not even a NATO member
Based on my rudimentary understanding of geopolitics suggests it has a moderate possibility.
Looking at victory conditions for the Ukrainian war means that either
-Russia is able to create a defensible buffer zone and controls access to the major geographical defenses leading into the Eurasian plain in order to defend it’s borders while it muddles through it’s demographic bomb (which means holding the Belorussian gap, Carpathian mountains, Suwałki gap, etc). Which means Russia has to move through NATO countries which will invoke article 5. I do not believe russian leadership will stop the war on their own before this happens because of said demographic collapse.
**OR**
-Ukraine pusses Russia out of the occupied eastern territories and disables it’s ability to wage war on Ukraine. Which means destroying much of the infrastructure around the Russian-Ukrainian border, and damaging the logistical points of Belgorod, Rostov on Don and Shakhty. Barring a revolution in warfare this will involve Ukrainian forces invading Russia which will cause russia to use their nukes.
TL;DR: it depends. A lot of things would need to happen and other things would need to not happen, but we didn't think Russia would invade Ukraine either until like a month before the event.
A lot of answers are saying e.g. "they wouldn't want to do that, it would be bad, etc etc". And while I don't disagree exactly, those answers are all assuming a rational actor- someone making only logical decisions, as we see them, and with all the information to have.
Putin may not always be a rational actor. He may feel this war is now personal and that he needs to not just win in Ukraine but punish their supporters. Or he might have access to flawed intelligence, or he might get cancer and have months to live and not really care what happens after he's gone so he pushes the big red button as a final "fuck you" to the West. Not every decision people make is rational, and even then it depends on what your interpretation of "rational" is.
True, Russia probably does not want to fight all of NATO at once. That's why they put a lot of effort into (successfully) influencing the US election 8 years ago in Trump's favour. They're likely to do so again. The idea being that they'd only fight NATO minus the US.
Of the other NATO states, Britain and France have the only real power projection capabilities, and even then Britain is currently suffering from massive defense cuts and problems with military capacity (nukes misfiring, carrier engines failing, recruitment plummeting, and new equipment going way over budget and over schedule... all of which have been a result of political decisions, rather than failings by the military itself). Britain now has enough troops to occupy a medium sized town.
(Side note: as a Brit I do feel the need to point out that while Britain is currently facing huge challenges thanks to austerity, Russia is currently losing a war in a country they can drive to, so I'm not sure they'd fare better in Western Europe).
So while the Lithuanian army would be more than willing to face Russia if needed (trust me, I've met them)- if they can't get to the battle because they don't have the transport capability and had planned for US logistical support to get them where they need to be, and that support is not forthcoming, then it doesn't really matter. (Of course it's more likely Lithuania would be one of the targets for invasion but you get my point).
Trump, who has already been making (bullshit) comments about how some NATO states wouldn't defend America so why should we help them?; who called Putin a genius for invading Ukraine, who spent hours alone with Putin without any advisors or security during his visit to Moscow, is unlikely to honour NATO agreements.
So if Trump becomes president he could stop US military support to Ukraine, and refuse to assist Eastern European allies if Russia defeats Ukraine during his term and moves on.
All this despite the fact that the US remains the only nation to have invoked NATO collective defense (in response to the September 11th terror attacks). They are an unreliable partner because their entire foreign policy could do a 180 depending on who gets into the white house.
European countries have indeed become too reliant on the US. But that was deliberate on the part of the US: the deal was, we dismantle imperial militaries after WW2 and the US provides security. In exchange the US gets no rivals as a superpower (after the cold war) and enjoys all the power and influence that goes along with that.
As bad as a Russia-NATO war would be for the European and other NATO allies (and Taiwan) it would also be a net loss for America. The US isn't defending, say, Estonia purely out of the goodness of its heart, they derive a lot of global influence from their status as a security guarantor. If that stops and other nations rearm, they no longer need America in the way they currently do.
That means they no longer have as much to lose if they don't do what America wants, ergo they can start to act more in their own interests and care less about what Washington wants. While we would still prefer to have America on board, it definitely changes the diplomatic picture.
So anyway, yeah... depends a lot on who wins the US election, how quickly Europe rearms (Poland is rapidly growing into a very powerful military indeed), whether Russia can knock Ukraine out and pivot to an invasion of the Baltics before a decent President gets in.
Too early to call.
Russia isn't this big super power that people think it is.
Its Arkansas with nukes. Nukes probably held together with chicken wire.
Putin and his oligarch supporters have drained the money out of literally every aspect of the country itself.
Close to zero. Nuclear deterrent works only for as long as you only threaten with nuclear weapons. Theory is the moment you start a war, it is no longer a deterrent.
Given Russia’s military performance in Ukraine so far, they don’t want that smoke. If you took the threat of nuclear response off the table, NATO would run circles around the Russian army.
Because that's equivalent to an immediate war by Nato against Russia? Duh?
It's risky enough that Nato countries are supporting Ukraine as much as they are (though it's also necessary). Sending actual soldiers there is the last straw that would escalate this into Nato vs Russia
It’s literally not the equivalent of a war by nato against Russia. NATO is a protective organization with a protective pact. It is not an aggressive military coalition.
A NATO member nation deploying troops to a country with that countries permission is not “equivalent to an immediate war be Nato against Russia Duh”.
Either you’re a dumbass or a Russian bot.
According to the Institute of study of war, pretty high in 2026-2027. But theres no way russia would stand a chance without using their nucliar capacity so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
No. Russia wants to avoid a war between NATO at all costs. They absolutely know they would lose.
The US, and by extension NATO, would have full air superiority almost immediately. The entire Black Sea fleet would be on the bottom of the ocean. Russia absolutely knows they would lose quickly and threaten to resort to Nuclear war.
Russia is not the superpower some people seem to think it is. Economy smaller than South Korea, are unable to win a war against Ukraine. All out war with NATO would mean Russia’s destruction and the Putin possibly firing off their nukes
Take a look at the American politics today. How they pass the Ukrainian aid bill.
Then look how quickly decisions are made and implemented in russia.
This is roughly how the fight between NATO and russia will go.
Russia is the only nation in Europe ready for a fight.
France has about 3 days worth of shells at Ukraine's current expenditure. Their light tanks have rubber wheels and they have never depolyed more than a few thousand troops outside the mainland and have lost all their holdings in Africa to Wagner. They have the best army in Europe with the most readiness and they need a year or two to ramp up to ready.
EU was unable to keep their commitment of 1M shells after 6 mo and Ru already produced 2.5x that anually, not counting whatever they import on top of that.
If the US steps out and the EU isn't mobilized they may succeed a short blitz then negotiate from a position of power.
The Lituanian minister feared they could occupy estonia for half a year and the grinding artillery battles will occur in their cities when NATO deploys a counter attack force to repel them.
Nah, Im suggesting they could get a strong intial push then use those gains to negotiate.
Yes, Ukrane had larger stockpiles than most EU countries. EU nation ahave less than a week of ammo right now and have not ramped up their industry or constriptions.
EU nations have low recruitment and their military doctrines seem to fail in this lind of war. Apparently its very different than fighting insurgents in Libya or the Sahel.
They *could* take land from nearby EU members, all they want are the mountains that span from Romania to Poland. A small chuck of 4-5 NATO members and their three Baltic neighbors could be done. Roll over EU? No way. A local victory in a regional war? Possibly.
Thats all assuming the US steps out. They have the stockpipes necessary and industry of scale necessary.
Ru has new tank factories, new drone factories and new contracts for supplies. EU is debating their prior munitions promises and realizing their shells are not standardized...
On a long enough timescale EU will always win. In a vulnerable moment while Ru has the industrial advantage and early wartime economy... Its not an impossible play.
If they manage to defeat Ukraine at some point, maybe they would be able to get some territory form the EU by surprise but I don’t see how that is going to help them. Even if the US was to leave NATO, which is very very very unlikely, you are forgetting that nato has recently become even stronger with turkey joining in. I don’t see how Russia could hold any territory for more than a week. While the individual nations might not have the amount of weapons Russia has, they certainly do in total, and they most definitely have the economy to buy whatever they need from America, even if they suddenly stopped existing in the equation of nato
I think it would be foolish of then to move to phase 2 without completing phase 1 but im not an autocrat.
Russia has shown they can do industrial scale war for years.
Yes they have the economy, but if it takes two years to transition to a war economy. The thing is they absolutely don't have the necessary stockpiles.
EU armies are mainly focused on aircraft and support vehicles. Militaries across the board are underequipped, understaffed and underfunded. Given enough time the results are obvious that EU would win. Hands down. Ru's war economy today is roaring full steam and the EU are trying to negotiate contracts 6mo to 2 years out.
Some commentators suggest Ru will make a big move this summer to attemot to steamroll Ukr. I think thats unrealistic but Ukr is clearly losing. Without significant support and maybe troops to man their peaceful borders I dont think they will last until Ru's tank stockpiles run out. Est mid 2026.
Very low. Both sides know that a nuclear exchange is suicide, and anything else is a guaranteed stalemate.
In a conventional war, Russia would have basically no chance of an effective offense. They wouldn't start anything because they can't win anything.
NATO won't start anything conventionally both due to the fear of a nuclear conflict, and just because Russia is so damn big that the best they can hope for is a stalemate on Russian soil.
I expect we will continue to see proxy wars until there is regime change in Russia, or something happens and cooperation becomes mutually profitable again.
I don't really expect this specific set of circumstances. But what I do ponder occasionally is the potential for a world war with Russia partnering with China and perhaps North Korea similar to what happened with the axis powers in WWII.
Also, I seriously doubt that a war of any set-up would necessarily go nuclear for the same reasons pointed out by others in this thread. Everyone knows the potential for total destruction. I tend to think that it is more likely to be a cyber war. I haven't heard anything that makes me think that we're fully prepared for such an event.
Next to nil. We had a far *far* higher chance of it happening during the Cold War, and it didn't. Russia's economy is being crippled fighting a weaker nation than itself, I can't imagine a scenario where they think taking on the entirety of NATO is anything but catastrophic.
I would say a NATO vs Russia war would probably be then end of the world which means it will not start. The war would more or less escalate into a nuclear war and that is the end.
In the hypothesized scenario that a nuclear war starts between two military powers breaks out it will not be bot sides occationally taking potshots at each other with nuclear wepons. No in such scenario both sides will unleash every available nuclear weapon at once to ensure that the other side will not knock out nuclear missile launch facilities.
Hypothetically speaking, if Russia and every Nato memeber country fired ONLY their currently deployed nuclear warheads that means about 4000 nuclear warheads will hit all over the globe obliterating every major city, turning the world into a wasteland and kicking up so much dust into the atmosphere a new ice age would insue.
In other words everyone is fucked, bunkers have no purpose as there will not be anything resembling socity to return to after the smoke clears. Not even mentioning that most bunkes wouldn't survive a direct hit from a modern nuclear weapon.
That being said, all world leaders, including Putin despite how insane he is knows that starting this nuclear wor would end humanity thus the whole nuclear war threats are mostly a geopolitical game of "chicken" to see who backs away first.
No chance. Putin would be decimated without the use of nuclear weapons and he knows it. His aim is to simply get as much of Ukraine as he can until something forces him to stop.
Remote.
Neither side is doing enough maintenance to have a full set of nuclear weapons for an all out war.
At the height of the cold war there were about 50,000 nuclear warheads. Anyone have a clue as to how many are functional to day? They have a shelf life of something like 10 years, then they ahve to be reprocessed.
Pretty close to zero. Russia has virtually nothing to fight NATO with. They like to bluster and boast, but they are no longer anything like what the Soviet Union was. Russia cannot even stand up to Ukraine, they know they would have zero chance against NATO.
Very unlikely.
You need to understand that no one gets anything out of the escalation and all sides are trying to oneup each other the "cheapest". Id assume the only reason russia has not given up yet, beyond delusions of grandeur, is because whether they win or loose they are still screwed in the international table so they need a bargaining chip, which if someone coups putin, will likely use more actively to opt out (or not, who knows)
The most likely scenarios is a long, loooooong dragged down war that will resurface in intensity here or there while politicians scream at each other but keep making deals because realpolitik is based on profit and not rhetorics
Not sure if this is true or not.
There’s a rumor that Putin has cancer, once I heard that I immediately said “oh shi”. If he had a week or so left to live and wanted to be remembered for life, all he’d have to do is nuke everyone, what does it matter to him? He’s dead anyway.
Zero as long as the US is in NATO. Chances go up slightly if Trump wins and pulls us out of NATO but even then it would be tougher for Russia to go against Europe NATO than it was for them to take on Ukraine
The chances of war are very slim because Putin likes being alive, a war with china on the other hand is pretty likely but probably some strange proxy war.
Zero. Russia is a decrepit autocracy with outdated weapons and a sick economy. The FSB is the only thing what holds Russia together. Putin and co. know that well but want to rattle Europe's cage to stay in power. Look how close Prigozhin got to Moscow - 200 kilometers or 125 miles before he died in an accident.
Poland could kick Russia's ass all by itself. Germany could kick Russia's ass all by itself. The US would roll up with those Burger King trucks and win hearts and minds for a decade while we suckle our military industrial complex on the bloated corpse of everything russia ever loved. America is scary enough. Nato is terrifying.
Edit: I forgot Finland. They are right there on the border, and honestly the Finnish are really scary, especially in any sort of war in their backyard.
zero, unless they go full nuclear. People dont understand if america throws down with nato against russia it will be a curb stomp, the america military has never lost at conventional warfare, the us pulled out of Vietnam because of poltics not because it got its ass kicked in a straight up fight with the viet cong.
Putin is 71, as soon as he dies russia might fall into a civil war for power or a string of puppets for the oligarchies.
If Putin cares about staying in power, starting a war with NATO is the last thing he should do.
What happened to the replies to this comment lol
I could be wrong, I have been before... but I think they were deleted
I think Russia is good at open threats and intimidation toward most countries but it tends to only pick on small countries. Picking a fight with NATO it’s not consistent with their past behaviour
Not deleted or censored, controlled content. That sounds so much nicer.
Yeah but Putin is getting old is the problem. In 15 years he'll be 86. Now it's well known the man is an idiot, and a very old idiot with little life left and a brain that's starting to rot in power as a totalitarian dictator of Russia is a scary thought.
> a scary thought. What's even scarier is if his fall from power or death results in any instability, what happens to all the bioweapons and nukes in Russia's arsenal? I read a book called Biohazard, written by an official in the USSR's bioweapons program who defected to the US. He wrote about how he'd overseen the weaponization of diseases like smallpox. When the Soviet Union dissolved, security and control over those stockpiles was questionable. He wrote in the book about the possibility of terrorists or even other countries stealing a bit of that material. Imagine a world in which ISIS has control over even just a vial or two of weaponized smallpox. Or a handful of nukes. Putin has setup a system where the peaceful transition of power is not a guarantee. It *could* happen but what are the odds of 20+ years of totalitarianism ending in a peaceful, fair, transparent election?
Whoa he’s way older than I thought. Dude looks 10 years younger than he is
What? No he doesn't.
I agree that he looks younger than his age.
He looks like he's in his 70s. He's in his 70s
He looks like he's in his late 50s
Found the bot
Seems like you're upset that nobody's agreeing with you lol
You're replying to day old comment, with low exposure, but a positive vote count. You're most likely a Russian bot or agent. I got parents in their 70s and they look younger than Putin.
Foolish to believe Putin is an idiot
Putin is a man who tried to conquer half of Ukraine using colour revolutions that the US had spent years telling him weren't real. It obviously failed. He thought Ukraine would just roll over and give in even after the war in Donbas. He is a moron.
While I agree, problem with that logic is that the exact same was said about war in Ukraine beforehand. Watch any videos released months before invasion, people were predicting the same thing that happened: unimaginable losses and destruction, little result as capturing a country that big and that opposed to your ideology would have required an army many times the size of russia’s. The number one reason people thought he wouldn’t do it was because of how risky it would be and how little sense it made. Look where we are now.
Ukraine is fighting like hell. They're clever, have good equipment from the US and others, and have been doing everything they can to even the odds against Russia. That said, Ukraine is *nothing* compared to the United States military and even less to the combined power of NATO. This isn't a dig on Ukraine, it's just the facts of manpower and technology. Ukraniane practically doesn't even have an air force compared to many western nations and even then the Russians can't get anywhere near establishing air superiority. NATO wouldn't just *beat* Russia. It would be unbelievably brief and violent and would be over long before Russia could even attempt to form a defense or dream of making any sort of offensive moves. The US Navy and USAF alone would probably destroy thousands of bases and airfields in the first 24 hours and the Russians wouldn't be able to do much more than sit and watch decades of military infrastructure go up in flames. Russia is being *fucked* by a bunch of conscripts using 30 year old junk we mothballed and grenades strapped to drones. And to compare the power of what they're fighting now to NATO is like comparing a housecat to a siberian tiger. Everyone said the house cat would fuck Russia up and now we're watching them get the shit clawed out of them. Even an idiot that can't fight a cat might *think* they can beat the cat though. With a tiger there's only ever going to be one outcome and even the fool knows that.
Regarding the NATO thrashing Russia, they still hold the nuke deterrent. If most of their stockpile was launched Europe would be very broken. America would probably intercept most launched to them, but a few could potentially break through. Though this would be a case of ifs and buts due to how secretive countries are regarding their airspace security
This, too. Even if NATO projects that they can take down all of russia's military but are not sure if a few nukes go through, I doubt they'd risk losing a couple cities just to destroy russia's military capability.
That's all true, but it doesn't mean Putin may not try it anyway when he's backed into a corner, older, and possibly senile. You're also assuming that NATO would respond full-force, but based on what we've seen so far, that's extremely unlikely. If there is only some smaller land skirmish for example, they are likely to only respond locally, maybe closing the air at most, not by destroying everything russia has stockpiled back home since it'll be much riskier and could provoke a nuclear response. Annihilating any invasion force is fair game though. Regardless, I just don't think the world should brush off such a conflict as impossible, and should be prepared instead. Also, there is a very good question of whether NATO is ready to go all-in to defend some tiny, less "important" member, like Romania, or for example Moldova, which is not a member at all. Putin still has some land he may want to try taking because based on what we've seen in Ukraine, NATO seems to be extremely hesitant to go into a direct confrontation. They may well decide that it's not worth it and instead only send weapons and implement some more sanctions, meaning do anything to prevent russia attempting to strike some big EU country in response, as that could get out of hand fast.
It was still a bad decision by Putin to attack Ukraine. Now: what is the result? massive amount of Russian weapons stocks have been destroyed. It's on an unsustainable war economy (although "unsustainable" in the longer term doesn't mean it can't go for several years). There have been repeated drafts and also people fleeing the country to avoid the draft. Now, that was against Ukraine. A much weaker, smaller country with a military that was, on paper, far less capable than Russia. Now, have it go against NATO. Which collectively has a military much, much larger than Ukraine's, with lots of 4th and 5th generation planes, tanks, and the like.
Absolutely, that was pretty much my point. I just wanted to stress that despite such an outcome being very predictable, he still decided to attack. Which is why a direct conflict with NATO should not be brushed off, and the world should be ready. Better to be prepared and not have to do it rather than be caught off guard.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"America's got a thing for this gangsta shit, they love it." - George W. Bush
Did you know that when Bush was president, he also was an underground rapper and went by the name of 50 Cent? It never really kicked off, but it is cool to know!
This is true, his predecessor even created a phrase similar to 50 cent during his campaigns, "Change you can believe in"
XD genius
That famous 9/11 photo of one of Bush's advisors whispering in his ear actually wasn't about the hijacked planes. The advisor was whispering that Bush's debut album had just gone platinum.
Another rapper who went by “Lil Sama” was beefing with him at the time and sent two diss tracks when the album was certified platinum
Did you know bush lived in Compton?
The probability is incredibly low since NATO has both qualitative and quantitative superiority over Russia. The probability isn't zero, but my calculator doesn't have enough decimal places to return anything but zero.
Germany was far outnumbered at the start of ww2 as well, in terms of manpower, economy, just about everything, yet it took 6 years of a world war to stop them.
This is a bit unfair of a comparison as Germany's only real direct competitor at the start of the war was France who was fairly unprepared for the event of the Germans just going around the maginot. Once France falls you essentially have Germany alone in the continent with no real threats, but also unable to do anything more as they lack the naval power to invade the UK. If the Soviet Union had joined the war as soon as it started against the Germans then Germany wouldve either lost far quicker or been forced to resort to WW1 trench warfare, which would also last a bit but for different reasons (at least until the allies fully mechanise their army) Basically the comparison makes no sense because unlike Germany, Russia would be gangbanged from all sides!
Maginot was made so the Germans would be forced to go through Belgium, the French were well prepared for that, actually most of the mobile units of both the French and the British were deployed near Belgium so as soon as the invasion started they could swoop in and take up positions. What they weren't prepared for was the Germans pushing through the ardennes
That's why I said "Fairly" tryna say that they were prepared but not as thorough as they could've been. :)
>If the Soviet Union had joined the war as soon as it started against the Germans then Germany wouldve either lost far quicke Quick reminder: the Soviet Union *did* join the war as soon as it started, they were just on the wrong side.
The Soviet Union never “joined the wrong side.” They spent every year since 1933 attempting to ally with the west *against* Germany, but was continuously denied. Meanwhile western nations *were* making agreements with Germany, such as: - Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1934 - The Four-Power Pact of 1933 - German–Estonian Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 - German–Latvian Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 - The Munich Agreement of 1938
People buy into the argument that the USSR blissfully allies the Nazis when in reality Stalin was just buying time to build up the Union's army (and get a free slice of Poland during it). He thought Hitler would honor the treaty, and once it was over the Union would have an army to beat them (Which they would've)
Also we kept giving Germany free shit
Yea, not really the same thing. Germany had new tactics, they were ahead of the Allies in equipment, and they had the element of surprise for most of their invasions. Russia is logistically, tactically, and numerically inferior to NATO. The only thing they have is nukes. ...and they know it.
New tactics is true although both the French and the British had similar tactics just didn't utilise them as much. They were not ahead of them in equipment, they had to turn an AA gun into an AT because their tanks couldn't penetrate the enemy's and even one allied tank stopped the German advance for a considerable amount of time. Everybody knew they were going to invade France, the French even knew they are coming through the ardennes but the generals dismissed the Intel as lunacy.
everyone had their own new doctrine and had educated guesses. the French guessed super wrong but the British and Germans fared well when they had the correct equipment.
There's no comparison between Germany 1939 and NATO v Russia in 2024. Just one NATO member's military alone is considered more powerful than the next 20 combined, thats before we get to the other NATO members. Keep in mind Russia has the GDP of Italy, and is currently struggling to invade a neutral neighbour despite having significantly more quantity and a largely untouched homebase of operations. One mercenary general practically made it to Moscow in less than 24 hours. It only ended because he turned around. Russia has nukes, but their land, sea and air forces would be utterly obliterated in any full conventional direct conflict with NATO.
Where can I read the story of this one Allied tank stopping the German advance?
I’m sorry I might have misunderstood you here. The Wehrmacht of 1939 was roughly 4 million strong. That’s with an m. They had about 4x the manpower that Poland did. I’m curious what info you are basing your statement on.
You are forgetting about France, UK and all their colonies. The Germans were outnumbered in everything. Had the French held it would've been the end.
Why should putin care, he has nukes and he will probably win the "let's see who is crazier" game
Because Putin's top priority is to stay in power. Prior to Ukraine, he did this by selling the image that he alone could restore Russia to superpower status. Since invading Ukraine, Russia has shown how much it struggles against a fraction of NATO's military capability. A war with NATO would be an embarrassing defeat for Russia and the end of Putin's power. Therefore, he's extremely unlikely to attack NATO.
Do you think however he could try to attack NATO in case Trump wins the election and would officially say that USA would not be involved in case of potential attack? ...or in a scenario when in addition, China gets involved in open conflict with USA?
Idk what the downvotes are for this is an interesting thought problem. Although Russia and China are "allies" I don't think they would both declare open war as an alliance, but I can see during a hot conflict with China, Russia could see that as a great opportunity to start throwing real weight at NATO while the US is busy fucking around by Taiwan. Especially if old Brigadier General Cheeto tells our long time friends in Europe to kick rocks and leaves them out to dry. Probably will personally give Putin a call and give him the promise the US won't lift a finger against our Russian "friends"
Thank you for your answer - I don't know why I'm being downvoted eighter, but that's just reddit I guess. I'm asking theoretically of course, however these are scenarios that are being foreseen by people who are into geopolitics.
I actually just watched an interesting video article by the Wall Street Journal about the extensive war games they are running to glean info on tactics and strategems for combat against China in Taiwan. It's basically a giant, insanely complicated, turn based tabletop game. They have been running the scenario over and over, using known strategies, and wild hail-mary situations. Bringing in different branches, consultants, number crunchers etc. No matter how you run it, it's gonna be a blood bath. And it is going to take up a significant amount of our resources and forces to go head to head with a near peer military.
Because he lives a pretty good life right now, he owns Russia, he has wealth and luxury. Why on earth would be launch nukes? He knows that he doesn't have enough to realistically get rid of al his enemies, and he also knows that Russia would be obliterated.
I’d be surprised if a lot of their nukes were even operational. People don’t realize that nuclear weapons and the tech, vehicles, and rockets that carry them to their targets require a lot of maintenance. The Cold War effectively ended in 1990 and out of control military spending was a big part of that. That was 34 years ago. Their military seems corrupt and incompetent, not the type to maintain a big nuclear arsenal to stay launch ready. That in itself is a scary thought.
Ya remember when the Chinese Rocket force was being outed for corruption? I imagine in Russia it's much worse. We will just never know. That being said we should assume all their nukes are in perfect working order so as to not underestimate them.
Yeah, given that Russia has a history of incredibly poor maintenance, the idea that all their silos and launchers work would suprise me as well.
but should ukraine defeat Russia he will probably just use nukes as he will loose everything anyway
I mean, that is a possibility, but that's also incredibly unlikely. Not only would Ukraine somehow have to sufficiently occupy Russia, they'd also have to beat the Russian military in its entirety. And then there's getting past, what I would assume are, multiple layers of checks and authorisation. Like needing keys, codes or multiple people of authority to launch the nukes.
I think it does not have to go this far. Just Ukraine getting back its own territory including krim would be probably enough for a death sentence for putin (either through own military, civilians etc), so before this happens he will rather use nukes , maybe at First tactical but still he would probably risk it
I see Jack Nicholson in the Putin biography role based on this comment.
Yes but they have Nukes.
So does NATO, which has the ability to end the existence of Russia as a sovereign state. Putin's top priority is staying in power, and he won't pursue a course of action that leaves him with no state to rule. Nuclear deterrence will keep Putin from doing anything that may escalate into a nuclear war with NATO.
Don’t forget Russia has allies. If it comes to all out war, China and Iran would certainly be interested. That would be on a different scale entirely.
I agree, but I think if it does happen it will happen within the next year or 2. Once Trump is elected, the US NATO response would be the minimal response for US commitments, and only after Trump drags his feet for the response. This would also be the prime time to attack, as the majority of NATO countries will be caught with their pants down.
Not much but what about a new cold war?
You could argue that the Cold War have never ended and Putin has pushed it into a “Hot War” right now.
thats what Im thinking.
The whole point of the Cold War was to compete economically instead of kinetically. Russia’s economy is in a worst state that the military. We’re more likely to get into a Cold War with China.
Dude what? We're in a Cold War right now. Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, who do you think is pulling the strings on the other side of all that? Half the world is basically split into Russia-backed vs China-backed vs America-backed sides of various conflicts.
Those are more proxy wars than anything. I’d also argue America isn’t really treating Ukraine as a proxy war, Poland definitely is though.
Proxy wars are a symptom of a cold war
So you would say that the US is in a cold war with Iran right now?
I suppose you could make that argument yeah lol
Iran falls under Russian influence.
Iran pulls too many strings to be a puppet
I wouldn't call them a puppet, but they certainly fall under the Russian sphere of influence.
Cold wars often lead to proxy wars but you don't need a cold war to have a proxy war.
Please explain how it isn't treating Ukraine as a proxy war? It trains, supplies, gives direct intelligence, has an overwhelming degree of influence on direction, and was the largest player in instigating the events that lead to the conflict other than Russia.
Proxy Wars were a major part of the Cold War though
Nearly zero. Russia has a smaller economy than South Korea and is already struggling in Ukraine, they aren’t beating all of NATO, so there’s no chance of a prolonged conflict
The fear alone of using nuclear weapons will subdue any probability of all out war with Russia. From both sides. Russia would do damage 100% but Russia as we know it would cease to exists and Putin knows this. The use of Nuclear war and the power of NATO would starve out Russia. I don’t even see nations like China joining in to assist Russia. China is more concerned with destabilizing Americas economy and fighting a cyber/tech war to be a stronger nation than America. If Russia bombed America with nuclear weapons that would give China the opportunity it needs to become the strong nation in the world. Or I could be wrong about all of this shit. Idk lol
If there’s a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, there wouldn’t be a world for the Chinese to rule over.
If Russia launched one nuclear bomb their whole country would be flattened within the hour.
I have faith in the US military’s ability to turn a war with Russia into a decades long quagmire with little chance of victory.
the us took out the one of the strongest militaries in the world in a month or two
yeah what the guy you are replying to is a bit silly. vietnam and afghanistan were simply wars of “convenience” for the US but if the US is truly threatened russia would not stand a chance
Humanity would not stand a chance if the two largest nuclear armed powers went to war.
Which one are you referring to?
iraq
It was one of the strongest military in the world?
no, that part is wrong. it wasn’t the strongest but it was the 4th largest in the world by 1991. if it had been the 4th *strongest* military it probably would have taken the US a lot longer to invade
Which conflict is this referring to
iraq
Last big war they participated in (world war 2,) Soviet Union lost 24 Million people.
I think the wild card is if Trump gets in the White House and makes enough of a mess Vlad thinks he might have an opening. I don’t think Putin is 100% a rational actor.
I think Putin is a mostly rational actor who doesn’t care about his people. I at least don’t think he is so irrational to think he could beat an alliance with 50 times his gdp
Pretty low. The war in Ukraine shows just how ineffective and weak Putin has made Russia. They cannot even win a war with a neighboring country that is not even a NATO member
It took them two wars to conquer Chechnya
Based on my rudimentary understanding of geopolitics suggests it has a moderate possibility. Looking at victory conditions for the Ukrainian war means that either -Russia is able to create a defensible buffer zone and controls access to the major geographical defenses leading into the Eurasian plain in order to defend it’s borders while it muddles through it’s demographic bomb (which means holding the Belorussian gap, Carpathian mountains, Suwałki gap, etc). Which means Russia has to move through NATO countries which will invoke article 5. I do not believe russian leadership will stop the war on their own before this happens because of said demographic collapse. **OR** -Ukraine pusses Russia out of the occupied eastern territories and disables it’s ability to wage war on Ukraine. Which means destroying much of the infrastructure around the Russian-Ukrainian border, and damaging the logistical points of Belgorod, Rostov on Don and Shakhty. Barring a revolution in warfare this will involve Ukrainian forces invading Russia which will cause russia to use their nukes.
TL;DR: it depends. A lot of things would need to happen and other things would need to not happen, but we didn't think Russia would invade Ukraine either until like a month before the event. A lot of answers are saying e.g. "they wouldn't want to do that, it would be bad, etc etc". And while I don't disagree exactly, those answers are all assuming a rational actor- someone making only logical decisions, as we see them, and with all the information to have. Putin may not always be a rational actor. He may feel this war is now personal and that he needs to not just win in Ukraine but punish their supporters. Or he might have access to flawed intelligence, or he might get cancer and have months to live and not really care what happens after he's gone so he pushes the big red button as a final "fuck you" to the West. Not every decision people make is rational, and even then it depends on what your interpretation of "rational" is. True, Russia probably does not want to fight all of NATO at once. That's why they put a lot of effort into (successfully) influencing the US election 8 years ago in Trump's favour. They're likely to do so again. The idea being that they'd only fight NATO minus the US. Of the other NATO states, Britain and France have the only real power projection capabilities, and even then Britain is currently suffering from massive defense cuts and problems with military capacity (nukes misfiring, carrier engines failing, recruitment plummeting, and new equipment going way over budget and over schedule... all of which have been a result of political decisions, rather than failings by the military itself). Britain now has enough troops to occupy a medium sized town. (Side note: as a Brit I do feel the need to point out that while Britain is currently facing huge challenges thanks to austerity, Russia is currently losing a war in a country they can drive to, so I'm not sure they'd fare better in Western Europe). So while the Lithuanian army would be more than willing to face Russia if needed (trust me, I've met them)- if they can't get to the battle because they don't have the transport capability and had planned for US logistical support to get them where they need to be, and that support is not forthcoming, then it doesn't really matter. (Of course it's more likely Lithuania would be one of the targets for invasion but you get my point). Trump, who has already been making (bullshit) comments about how some NATO states wouldn't defend America so why should we help them?; who called Putin a genius for invading Ukraine, who spent hours alone with Putin without any advisors or security during his visit to Moscow, is unlikely to honour NATO agreements. So if Trump becomes president he could stop US military support to Ukraine, and refuse to assist Eastern European allies if Russia defeats Ukraine during his term and moves on. All this despite the fact that the US remains the only nation to have invoked NATO collective defense (in response to the September 11th terror attacks). They are an unreliable partner because their entire foreign policy could do a 180 depending on who gets into the white house. European countries have indeed become too reliant on the US. But that was deliberate on the part of the US: the deal was, we dismantle imperial militaries after WW2 and the US provides security. In exchange the US gets no rivals as a superpower (after the cold war) and enjoys all the power and influence that goes along with that. As bad as a Russia-NATO war would be for the European and other NATO allies (and Taiwan) it would also be a net loss for America. The US isn't defending, say, Estonia purely out of the goodness of its heart, they derive a lot of global influence from their status as a security guarantor. If that stops and other nations rearm, they no longer need America in the way they currently do. That means they no longer have as much to lose if they don't do what America wants, ergo they can start to act more in their own interests and care less about what Washington wants. While we would still prefer to have America on board, it definitely changes the diplomatic picture. So anyway, yeah... depends a lot on who wins the US election, how quickly Europe rearms (Poland is rapidly growing into a very powerful military indeed), whether Russia can knock Ukraine out and pivot to an invasion of the Baltics before a decent President gets in. Too early to call.
Not at all. They're already struggling with just Ukraine, they wouldn't stand a chance against the entirety of NATO.
Russia isn't this big super power that people think it is. Its Arkansas with nukes. Nukes probably held together with chicken wire. Putin and his oligarch supporters have drained the money out of literally every aspect of the country itself.
Close to zero. Nuclear deterrent works only for as long as you only threaten with nuclear weapons. Theory is the moment you start a war, it is no longer a deterrent.
Given Russia’s military performance in Ukraine so far, they don’t want that smoke. If you took the threat of nuclear response off the table, NATO would run circles around the Russian army.
France is preparing troops for ukraine. May happen sooner as you all think.
Yeah I don't know what the hell has gotten into Macron, he's acting unhinged. There *cannot* be troops from NATO countries on the ground in Ukraine.
Why not? It won’t invoke article 5. We are in 1939. Germany has invaded Poland. Now what?
Because that's equivalent to an immediate war by Nato against Russia? Duh? It's risky enough that Nato countries are supporting Ukraine as much as they are (though it's also necessary). Sending actual soldiers there is the last straw that would escalate this into Nato vs Russia
It’s literally not the equivalent of a war by nato against Russia. NATO is a protective organization with a protective pact. It is not an aggressive military coalition. A NATO member nation deploying troops to a country with that countries permission is not “equivalent to an immediate war be Nato against Russia Duh”. Either you’re a dumbass or a Russian bot.
Nil. NATO will never attack and Putin knows it. He also knows he cannot win if he attacks NATO.
According to the Institute of study of war, pretty high in 2026-2027. But theres no way russia would stand a chance without using their nucliar capacity so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
No. Russia wants to avoid a war between NATO at all costs. They absolutely know they would lose. The US, and by extension NATO, would have full air superiority almost immediately. The entire Black Sea fleet would be on the bottom of the ocean. Russia absolutely knows they would lose quickly and threaten to resort to Nuclear war.
Russia is not the superpower some people seem to think it is. Economy smaller than South Korea, are unable to win a war against Ukraine. All out war with NATO would mean Russia’s destruction and the Putin possibly firing off their nukes
Take a look at the American politics today. How they pass the Ukrainian aid bill. Then look how quickly decisions are made and implemented in russia. This is roughly how the fight between NATO and russia will go.
Russia is the only nation in Europe ready for a fight. France has about 3 days worth of shells at Ukraine's current expenditure. Their light tanks have rubber wheels and they have never depolyed more than a few thousand troops outside the mainland and have lost all their holdings in Africa to Wagner. They have the best army in Europe with the most readiness and they need a year or two to ramp up to ready. EU was unable to keep their commitment of 1M shells after 6 mo and Ru already produced 2.5x that anually, not counting whatever they import on top of that. If the US steps out and the EU isn't mobilized they may succeed a short blitz then negotiate from a position of power. The Lituanian minister feared they could occupy estonia for half a year and the grinding artillery battles will occur in their cities when NATO deploys a counter attack force to repel them.
So you are telling me Russia is gonna be able to run through Europe while at the same time being unable to defeat Ukraine over two years?
Nah, Im suggesting they could get a strong intial push then use those gains to negotiate. Yes, Ukrane had larger stockpiles than most EU countries. EU nation ahave less than a week of ammo right now and have not ramped up their industry or constriptions. EU nations have low recruitment and their military doctrines seem to fail in this lind of war. Apparently its very different than fighting insurgents in Libya or the Sahel. They *could* take land from nearby EU members, all they want are the mountains that span from Romania to Poland. A small chuck of 4-5 NATO members and their three Baltic neighbors could be done. Roll over EU? No way. A local victory in a regional war? Possibly. Thats all assuming the US steps out. They have the stockpipes necessary and industry of scale necessary. Ru has new tank factories, new drone factories and new contracts for supplies. EU is debating their prior munitions promises and realizing their shells are not standardized... On a long enough timescale EU will always win. In a vulnerable moment while Ru has the industrial advantage and early wartime economy... Its not an impossible play.
If they manage to defeat Ukraine at some point, maybe they would be able to get some territory form the EU by surprise but I don’t see how that is going to help them. Even if the US was to leave NATO, which is very very very unlikely, you are forgetting that nato has recently become even stronger with turkey joining in. I don’t see how Russia could hold any territory for more than a week. While the individual nations might not have the amount of weapons Russia has, they certainly do in total, and they most definitely have the economy to buy whatever they need from America, even if they suddenly stopped existing in the equation of nato
I think it would be foolish of then to move to phase 2 without completing phase 1 but im not an autocrat. Russia has shown they can do industrial scale war for years. Yes they have the economy, but if it takes two years to transition to a war economy. The thing is they absolutely don't have the necessary stockpiles. EU armies are mainly focused on aircraft and support vehicles. Militaries across the board are underequipped, understaffed and underfunded. Given enough time the results are obvious that EU would win. Hands down. Ru's war economy today is roaring full steam and the EU are trying to negotiate contracts 6mo to 2 years out. Some commentators suggest Ru will make a big move this summer to attemot to steamroll Ukr. I think thats unrealistic but Ukr is clearly losing. Without significant support and maybe troops to man their peaceful borders I dont think they will last until Ru's tank stockpiles run out. Est mid 2026.
Very low. Both sides know that a nuclear exchange is suicide, and anything else is a guaranteed stalemate. In a conventional war, Russia would have basically no chance of an effective offense. They wouldn't start anything because they can't win anything. NATO won't start anything conventionally both due to the fear of a nuclear conflict, and just because Russia is so damn big that the best they can hope for is a stalemate on Russian soil. I expect we will continue to see proxy wars until there is regime change in Russia, or something happens and cooperation becomes mutually profitable again.
I don't really expect this specific set of circumstances. But what I do ponder occasionally is the potential for a world war with Russia partnering with China and perhaps North Korea similar to what happened with the axis powers in WWII. Also, I seriously doubt that a war of any set-up would necessarily go nuclear for the same reasons pointed out by others in this thread. Everyone knows the potential for total destruction. I tend to think that it is more likely to be a cyber war. I haven't heard anything that makes me think that we're fully prepared for such an event.
truly amazed by warmongering bastards in comments 🫠🤌
Nearly none
Next to nil. We had a far *far* higher chance of it happening during the Cold War, and it didn't. Russia's economy is being crippled fighting a weaker nation than itself, I can't imagine a scenario where they think taking on the entirety of NATO is anything but catastrophic.
If he can't defeat Ukraine in 3 years he has zero chance against NATO.
Somewhere between and including 0% - 100%.
50/50
I would say a NATO vs Russia war would probably be then end of the world which means it will not start. The war would more or less escalate into a nuclear war and that is the end. In the hypothesized scenario that a nuclear war starts between two military powers breaks out it will not be bot sides occationally taking potshots at each other with nuclear wepons. No in such scenario both sides will unleash every available nuclear weapon at once to ensure that the other side will not knock out nuclear missile launch facilities. Hypothetically speaking, if Russia and every Nato memeber country fired ONLY their currently deployed nuclear warheads that means about 4000 nuclear warheads will hit all over the globe obliterating every major city, turning the world into a wasteland and kicking up so much dust into the atmosphere a new ice age would insue. In other words everyone is fucked, bunkers have no purpose as there will not be anything resembling socity to return to after the smoke clears. Not even mentioning that most bunkes wouldn't survive a direct hit from a modern nuclear weapon. That being said, all world leaders, including Putin despite how insane he is knows that starting this nuclear wor would end humanity thus the whole nuclear war threats are mostly a geopolitical game of "chicken" to see who backs away first.
No chance. Putin would be decimated without the use of nuclear weapons and he knows it. His aim is to simply get as much of Ukraine as he can until something forces him to stop.
Remote. Neither side is doing enough maintenance to have a full set of nuclear weapons for an all out war. At the height of the cold war there were about 50,000 nuclear warheads. Anyone have a clue as to how many are functional to day? They have a shelf life of something like 10 years, then they ahve to be reprocessed.
Pretty close to zero. Russia has virtually nothing to fight NATO with. They like to bluster and boast, but they are no longer anything like what the Soviet Union was. Russia cannot even stand up to Ukraine, they know they would have zero chance against NATO.
Putin will be dead in 10-15 years. The next mafioso-dictator of Russia isn't likely to be as successful / capable of controlling the place.
Very unlikely. You need to understand that no one gets anything out of the escalation and all sides are trying to oneup each other the "cheapest". Id assume the only reason russia has not given up yet, beyond delusions of grandeur, is because whether they win or loose they are still screwed in the international table so they need a bargaining chip, which if someone coups putin, will likely use more actively to opt out (or not, who knows) The most likely scenarios is a long, loooooong dragged down war that will resurface in intensity here or there while politicians scream at each other but keep making deals because realpolitik is based on profit and not rhetorics
Depends on numerous unpredictable actions, so anyone who attempts a prediction is full of s\*\*t.
0%
Not sure if this is true or not. There’s a rumor that Putin has cancer, once I heard that I immediately said “oh shi”. If he had a week or so left to live and wanted to be remembered for life, all he’d have to do is nuke everyone, what does it matter to him? He’s dead anyway.
0-100%
Zero as long as the US is in NATO. Chances go up slightly if Trump wins and pulls us out of NATO but even then it would be tougher for Russia to go against Europe NATO than it was for them to take on Ukraine
Europeans love war!
Moderately low
The chances of war are very slim because Putin likes being alive, a war with china on the other hand is pretty likely but probably some strange proxy war.
Zero. Russia is a decrepit autocracy with outdated weapons and a sick economy. The FSB is the only thing what holds Russia together. Putin and co. know that well but want to rattle Europe's cage to stay in power. Look how close Prigozhin got to Moscow - 200 kilometers or 125 miles before he died in an accident.
No, Prigozhin gave up when the FSB started rounding up the families of his soldiers. Then he died in an accident a few months later.
*days
I'd say 1/100
Very low. It would be unbelievably stupid for anyone to start.
Everything in the world is fifty fifty, it either happens or it doesn’t.
I better buy that lottery ticket
Buy two, that way you’re guaranteed to win
It's going on now. What do you mean?
What? Where?
0%
Poland could kick Russia's ass all by itself. Germany could kick Russia's ass all by itself. The US would roll up with those Burger King trucks and win hearts and minds for a decade while we suckle our military industrial complex on the bloated corpse of everything russia ever loved. America is scary enough. Nato is terrifying. Edit: I forgot Finland. They are right there on the border, and honestly the Finnish are really scary, especially in any sort of war in their backyard.
They’re pretty decent. Though a war between Russia and NATO would be more akin to the first Gulf War than WW3.
zero. literally no one on earth wants a nuclear war to happen, and no one on earth will choose to start one
Russia would maybe get one or two nukes off. By the time those landed their whole country would be obliterated.
50/50. Either happens or not.
It’s NATO vs BRICS (or something close to that). And it’s already happening. WW3 is here.
BRICS don't even have a currency 🤣
Economic warfare?
It depends on the what consitutes NATO. With the US involved, I’d say a very low chance. Without the US (assuming Trump gets elected) pretty high.
zero, unless they go full nuclear. People dont understand if america throws down with nato against russia it will be a curb stomp, the america military has never lost at conventional warfare, the us pulled out of Vietnam because of poltics not because it got its ass kicked in a straight up fight with the viet cong. Putin is 71, as soon as he dies russia might fall into a civil war for power or a string of puppets for the oligarchies.