It's well known and much discussed that NATO is bound to mutual defence of its members. But would the nuclear option hinder a response to a Russian incursion into a NATO country? How would NATO respond if Russia were to begin stirring up trouble in a country such as Latvia, for example, then sending in Crimea-style troops? Perhaps denying they are Russian troops when everyone knows they are. Could the risk of a conventional war spiraling into nuclear war actually prevent NATO from carrying out its mutual defence obligations?
23 Answers
Simple--
- With nukes: everybody loses.
- Without nukes: Russia loses.
Russia couldn't even stand toe-to-toe with a united EU. The EU is the largest industrial center on the planet with more riches than any economy on the planet and -- frankly -- several times more people, wealth, technology and potential than Russia.
That said, the EU would not be going it alone. Any attack on EU is effectively an attack on all of NATO and any attack on NATO involves an attack on the Commonwealth which effectively drags in Australia as well. It would end up being Russia Vs. the USA, UK, France, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, Italy, Canada, Australia and likely a few other characters.
Not good odds.
This is probably the clearest shot of reality we have, as NATO stopped practicing, arming and training for a large ground war. Some sobering truth about NATO and its capabilities versus Russia.
How can nuclear be on the table when most were removed from NATO and there isn't even a troop alert in the West. Russia is on full alert status
Russia cannot nuke Europe without fallout in Russia. EU (of the few weapons they got that might even work) cannot nuke Russia without fallout on China and eventually USA.
There won't be a NATO-Russia war, as we are still running away from them. The force posture of Georgia didn't even happen, with NATO easily 1/3 as powerful now than then. Technology and might is well overestimated in the press and among the common uninformed person who have not been to war.
The question is whether Nato emerges reinvigorated, or shaken apart. “I think there’s about a one-in-three chance this goes very badly – that it spirals into a new cold war or, if you will, a big freeze,” says Admiral James Stavridis, supreme allied commander at Nato until last May.
First, Russia is and has been active in the Baltics stirring up trouble.
So far, the West already reneged on defense obligations of Ukraine's borders.
Based on posture and action, there is great anxiety among NATO members that mutual defense is not actionable. UK has already stated they won't be able to increase Defense spending, even with recent events. It is simply a political impossibility at this time. Negotiation is the only possible alternative with a fragile hand.
Russia is not the decayed and anemic Military many armchair strategists or Internet smart folks believe. Military expenditure (% of GDP)
The western press consistently gets Russia wrong. NATO is by no means weak, however it is a vastly hollowed out force, compared to the past. Nato: Northern exposure - FT.com Notice of all this EU defense spending, most was for a small number of expensive troops and almost no equipment.
The question isn't of Nuclear weapons, as Prompt Global Strike (PGS) provides an advantage in an Intra-Europe conflict. A capability nobody else presently has, besides the US. As parallels to Cold War will continue to surface, we won't get Global Nuclear war even if there are some exchanges and Europe loses some more land.
Russia and others benefited tremendously from the knowledge Mr. Snowden freely provided and may never be public. Intelligence trumps all in a real conflict. Western powers admitted they don't even have Intelligence resources on the ground along Ukraine's borders on the Russian side. (I am sure there are now) Russia Plotting for Ukrainian Influence, Not Invasion, Analysts Say
This is why troop massing was undetected reliably, which is the same thing that happened with Georgia.
If the opinion of Russia losing without nukes held any truth, Georgia and Crimea would not have happened. Putin outspent EU in Defense spending growth by a substantial margin and more and better tanks than ALL of EU Combined.
Having witnessed much of Georgia occur to the shock of the West, many smart people said Ukraine is too important and it won't be anything like that.
Back then, watched EU go cold silent and NATO members deny transit and airspace. Everyone was afraid of Russia and that has not changed. Russia at that time used Google Maps (and Open Source) to target Georgia and only went white out when it was confirmed, but too late. Indirectly, these tools killed people.
A difference is NATO was on Alert and many pieces were put in motion that didn't happen this time. Now, the very survival of NATO and not war is an issue. Possibly this was a strategy from the start, but its a game of Will and not might or any real power. Even the abilities of the UN are being heavily tested now. America does want to get out of Europe, much due to cost. Discussion of an EU only force has gone on for years, even parallel to NATO. It is likely a PAN-EU force will need to be self sustaining and internally funded at some point in the future.
The thinking of an American drawdown was EU would pick up the slack, but unfortunately that didn't happen . In fact EU host countries have progressively withdrawn privileges and encroached with taxes, along with significant work VISA restrictions. This has made US operations in Europe significantly more expensive to the taxpayer. Russia watched this patiently and took action without penalty. There is more candy to be had without genuine penalty.
Americans (myself included) want to believe US is strong and powerful, but things have changed the last decade at home and abroad. Governments can change overnight and invasion can occur without any declaration.
Contrary to popular belief, America has significantly reduced the Combat footprint in Europe (as in Korea). US Military Overseas Structure. A short time ago there were FOUR US Army Heavy Brigades in Europe, it is on track to become only ONE and these structures are much smaller than pre 1991. One Brigade and token EU troops cannot stop Russia in a short conflict. Baltic protection had not been a priority for decades. Central EU is heavily dependent on reserves that take a long time to activate and mostly haven't been used before.
Tech or Economic Superpowers or not, The West is woefully unprepared to face a Russian Military that has had 200K troops on alert and in active exercise in the field for 3 months that is fully supplied and logistics in use.
Much of Europe believed these exact same considerations (Ukraine) of their Military and essentially all European doctrine is a delaying tactic until the US arrives. The question now is to build confidence they will. Turning Crimea into 'Putinland'?
Europe has credible Industrial power, but they no longer know how to produce weapons except for UK or France of any real merit. Manufacturing mattered during the Cold War and WW2, but in this case it has no value if its not on the front line and deployed. Worse is the lack of trained Uniformed Military to even use said weapons if they had them. A conflict will be over before anything useful is built or personnel trained. Sticks and Stones Economic thinking in this case is 50 years out of date.
The key weapon Europe has in the future is stop buying Russian Energy products, which has been a slow and largely ignored strategy.
Anxiety is much greater in non-NATO parts of Scandinavia where there are many resources and exceptionally weak military. Norway is a very ripe target, since the citizens likely won't defend themselves (Military will fight until overwhelmed) and they have notable Oil.
Russia bought Iceland for about $5B in a loan that never needs to be repaid. called a no strings attached loan. Why Russia is bailing out Iceland
Will Afghanistan security take backseat to Europe? After a decade, the great might of the west still has not beat a determined enemy, whom many have likened to cavemen. Instead of winning in the weeks analyst predicted, we are giving up and probably nobody has won. Overconfidence and arrogance loses wars. In the Balkans, Smart bombs and missiles were defeated by a microwave oven. In early iraq, Russians jamming GPS requiring the use of dumb bombs.
Estonia is a more likely target with no fighter air force and a tiny military smaller than many western cities police force. Estonia also has energy resources,as Crimea does. Estonia could be taken in about 4-8 hours. NATO can't even get a meeting to create a News Release in this amount of time. Estonia has a long history of welcoming invaders and not fighting. First country to be free of Jews after German invasion in WW2, are their citizens happily turned over their friends and neighbors sent them to their death. Highest level Russian SPY caught in a decade, working for Russia and running Estonian Intelligence.
If Russia invaded the Baltics, the first order of military business would be to wipe out Kaliningrad and this would likely mean wiping it off the map because of mobile short range launchers. These weapons do not need to be nuclear or even hit a target, the mere presence of them creates big psychological issues. Few systems can defend effectively against a mobile threat (like an RPG on the ground) in large number, including Patriot and Iron Dome.
In what we know today, what might likely happen is NATO capitulates in talks with Russia lasting months, while Russia absorbs the ground they capture. From here, we will have simply lost Baltics with much of the population given automatic red passports.
NATO militaries are heavily underfunded and in Libya NATO Allies ran out of bombs in less than 14 days. NATO greatly lacks airlift to move large numbers of troops quickly, leaving rail lines that would be at the top of list for Russian saboteurs to disable. NATO and US moved away from capability to engage Russia in a land war because we didn't think they were an enemy anymore. Russia never stopped cold war military, their economy did. EU delayed adoption of heavy airlift acquisitions in favor of their own and very expensive platform. It will be decades before they have them, while they cut their original numbers.
Almost none of these measures were executed, because its a very different NATO now
Should actual shooting occurred, Russia might last a week.
It is unlikely to spiral out of control, simply by the world's reluctance to engage Russia expect with paper and words.
Even if shooting or bombing did occur, it likely would end very quickly.
This is certainly a pessimistic view than few would share or even understand, however nobody predicted Crimea.
IMHO, certain folks are misinformed. At least here on Quora to learn, but there are rats in the tower here
Ok since this is hypothetical lets go crazy! Putin swears to the Russian people to return the territories of the former Soviet Union and transfer the new found wealth to the people! The people cheer from Russia to Siberia and NATO's fear of tanks from Russia rolling out upon Europe. In the early days NATO tried to calm Putin and give him concessions but it was all a front as forces of the overthrown countries prepared for a counter attack.
While that is going on Spain and Greece's population openly revolt against their failing governments with fresh Russian weapons and training leading to a completely collapse. France sends troops instantly to Spain to stem the contagion as the world wonders which version of Spain would be better even as the west prepares for war.
In Asia, China is putting pressure on Taiwan that with the West trapped in Europe nobody will come to their aid. Soon they will return to the fold. North Korea increases the tough talk with Russia seeking any advantage has been showering them with knowledge.
In the U.S. defense contractors stock prices are through the roof as worried countries increase their stockpiles to combat the coming wars.
With borders spread to Poland in the west and Iran and Afghanistan in the south in 3 months Russians are flushed with victory and Moscow is jubilant with victory and returned to their status quo.
March 4th, 2017 President Hilary Clinton =0 pronounces to the American public that they will joining Europe to take back NATO member countries but in reality we are drifting into all out war.
NATO strikes back from Turkey they strike North and from Poland and Romania they strike east. The greatest tank battles the war has ever seen are taking place as armor classes in the streets, cities, and plains of Europe. The battle of Minsk is one of the bloodiest as no street or building is giving up without brutal fighting and killing. Sick with the thousands of casualties the front goes quiet in a stalemate of sorts as maneuvering to next moves takes place. And the jets and drones prepare for their roles as the ground war halts in the east.
In the south the war rages in Georgia hell bent on revenge and freedom Georgians give the Russians hell even out numbered with troops coming from Turkey from multiple countries they break through into Russia. Georgians begin burning everything they see. Russian t.v. shows the brutal treatment of Russian towns. Stirs Russians to fight harder in the south.
While NATO is fighting in Russia North Korea attacks the South with cash and influence coming from Russia the army is fed, armed well, and crazy. Hoping to draw the U.S. in a two front war and release some pressure in the west. The south is devastated the whole time the north had artillery aimed and ready to strike hard casualties are enormous. But beyond Seoul the North are stopped by staunch resistance from the South and American forces. North Korea has just got the American people fully behind the war. But the beast is far from being ready.
to be continued...have some business to handle then will finish it
The three star general in charge of all NATO forces was asked the same question today, by a CNN reporter. The answer was that all the NATO countries would do whatever was necessary to drive out any incursion. When asked specifically about use of nuclear weapons, he said, exactly the same thing but added emphasis to the word "whatever ".
I'm not an expert but I think there are some that might be too confident in the current geopolitical establishment and boundaries. I sometimes wonder about Turkey's commitment to NATO. They are a significant component of NATO but they might not meet obligations in the event of a EU-Russia war. NATO is great on paper but it's never been tested in a full-scale world war scenario. I bet some members would opt out, hang out on the sidelines or whatever if things really did get ugly. Also, it will always remain a long march to Moscow. Whatever happens, I would hate to be in Poland.
A relatively gradual buildup on several fronts, then an attempt to seek air superiority. If air superiority is gained, we would (hopefully) only push Russia back to its original bordersante bellum, rather than attempt to seize control of Russia. History has shown that doesn't tend to work out all that well.
Russia did NOT send troops into Crimea: they were already there under the treaty with Ukriane, allowing up to 25,000 troops. NATO is playing war games on the border Russia, while Russia's military operations are within Russia. The danger is not Russia, but NATO, which has broken its promise 11 times that it would not move "an inch East." a promise made to Bush I. It promised not to take in former Warsaw Pact nations but it has broken that promise. What if Russia were playing war games on the US border? Would we then blame the US as the potential aggressor.
Russia does not want war; it wants to make money. NATO, which was designed to contain the USSR, which has not existed for 25 years, should have disbanded. Mutual defense agreements led to WWI and WWII. A much more rational defense concept would be to disband NATO and cooperate with Russia, whose agenda is simply to trade and make money. Since Putin was elected, the Russian wages have doubled (up 700% since the 90's) and the GDP tripled. The Russian defense budget is about 8% of the US budget. In 2012, for the first time in its history, Russia was ranked at a "high income" nation, with a per capita income of 14K (it was 2K in mid 90's). Ukraine,by contrast, has a per capita income of 3.6K, which might explain why the Crimeans prefer to be part of Russia rather than a bankrupt nation on the verge of economic collapse, cutting pensions freezing wages, and with a neo-Nazi regime which is hostile not only to Russia but to the 12 million Russian speakers in Ukraine.
IF Greece exits the EU, it may spell the beginning of the end for NATO, as other nations like Spain and Portugal, may follow. NATO today is the most aggressive military force on earth, ready to jump in even beyond its borders, as in Libya or Ukraine. Russia has never been defeated tho it has suffered terrifly (the Nazis killed 20-25 million.) and the nation is very united behind its military and Putin. We would all be better off if the US made peace with Russia and recognized its legitimate security needs. This would involve winding back NATO and ending sanctions.
Nato has certainly cut spending on its military too much. But America is still very much armed to the teeth, has a vastly superior military and most of the former Warsaw Pact aligned countries joined the EU.
Plus post cold war the Russian military, particularly it's navy, has deteriorated a lot. Recent spending by Russia has reversed some of the post cold war damage, but apart from apart a well trained core it's military is woeful. Even with increased spending, Russia can only afford double the military budget of Great Britain. Plus Russia lacks in heavy industry compared to the EU and Nato.
In a war of Russia VS Nato, conventionally it's a crushing defeat for Russia. In no area conventionally does Russia have any advantage, and nukes are suicide (so still not a win). The EU has a far bigger population alone than Russia. So they can't even swarm their enemies.
Almost all of the Russian tanks are old and in storage. They are not servicable.
And what Nato in Europe lacks in tank numbers it makes up in tank killing aicraft.
Views
Ever since Andropov, Russia hasn't done traditional wars. A war with NATO would be a war that involves nuclear countries. Even with all their nukes, Russia would be seriously damaged by war. Instead, Russia has created a system of exporting terrorism.
by Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa (Ret.), highest-ranking intelligence official to defect from the Soviet bloc
“In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon,” KGB chairman Yuri Andropov told me in 1972. Western Sovietologists generally limit themselves to recalling his brutal suppression of dissidence, his role in planning the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, and his pressure on the Polish regime to impose martial law. But the leaders of the KGB community, when I was one of them, looked upon Andropov as the father of a new era of international terrorism that profoundly changed our lives.Hijacked passenger planes became a KGB terrorist tool in 1969, two years after Andropov rose to head the KGB. Before I broke with Communism in 1978, he took credit for 16 major hijackings of Western passenger planes. They were all organized by his Department for Wet Affairs (“wet” being a euphemism for bloody) and carried out by Islamic terrorists trained by the KGB.
A NATO-Russia war, gauging from how things have been currently playing out, would most likely be one-sided. Russia would wreck havoc on financial markets (Russian hackers placed 'digital bomb' in Nasdaq - report), hack into western military and national security databases, perhaps send proxies into western borders. Depending on whether or not the NATO country has nuclear material, they could either slip muclear material into that country's borders or have their proxies get a hold of the NATO country's nuclear materials. NATO isn't sure whether they are prepared or even willing to respond to this type of warfare:
Putin's Secret Weapon | July 7, 2014
NATO and the West still have no effective response to this development. NATO, a military alliance built to respond to direct and overt aggression, has already found itself at a loss on how to deal with virtual attacks, such as the 2007 cyberattack on Estonia. The revival of the GRU's fortunes promises a future in which the Cold War threat of tanks spilling across the border is replaced by a new kind of war, combining subterfuge, careful cultivation of local allies, and covert Spetsnaz strikes to achieve the Kremlin's political aims. NATO may be stronger in strictly military terms, but if Russia can open political divisions in the West, carry out deniable operations using third-party combatants, and target strategic individuals and facilities, it doesn't really matter who has more tanks and better fighter jets. This is exactly what the GRU is tooling up to do.
I have gone to many sources across the internet and I have compiled a list of nations that would most likely be involved in this war. Since it would be Nato VS Russia, it would be more complicated than just that due to Russia being a part of the BRICS nations agreement.
The first column in each row is a country's name, then the number of ACTIVE front row militants and the amount of USD spent on their military.
NATO NATIONS
Albania - 14550 - $110,000,000
belgium - 35000 - $5,085,000,000
bulgaria - 35000 - $700,000,000
canada - 95000 - $14,700,000,000
croatia - 21500 - $958,000,000
czech republic - 21100 - $2,220,000,000
denmark - 25000 - $4,440,000,000
estonia - 3500 - $335,000,000
france - 205000 - $35,000,000,000
germany - 180000 - $36,300,000,000
greece - 180000 - $6,540,000,000
hungary - 20000 - $1,040,000,000
iceland - does not have one anymore due to only base being closed in 2006
italy - 320000 - $34,000,000,000
latavia - 13000 - $280,000,000
lithuania - 15000 - $430,000,000
luxembourg - 1500 - $231,000,000
netherlands - 50000 - $9,840,000,000
norway - 26500 - $7,000,000,000
poland - 120000 - $9,360,000,000
portugal - 40000 - $3,800,000,000
romania - 75000 - $2,190,000,000
slovakia - 13500 - $1,025,000,000
slovenia - 7500 - $790,000,000
spain -125000 - $11,600,000,000
turkey - 410500 - $18,185,000,000
united kingdom - 150000 - $55,000,000,000
united states - 1400000 - $581,000,000,000
Combined - 3,558,150 - $842,159,000,000
COMMONWEALTH NATIONS (Not calculated because of these nations not necessarily having to help India, South Africa, Canada, or the UK, but it is encouraged and if they can then they should help the other nations in this pact)
botswana
cameroon
ghana
kenya
lesotho
malawi
mauritius
mozambique
namibia
nigeria
rwanda
seychelles
sierra leone
south africa
swaziland
uganda
united republic of tanzania
zambia
bangladesh
brunei darussalam
india
malaysia
maldives
pakistan
singapore
sri lanka
antigua and barbuda
bahamas
barbados
belize
canada (already stated)
dominica
grenada
guyana
jamaica
saint lucia
st kitts and nevis
st vincent and the grenadines
trinidad and tobago
cyprus
malta
UK (already stated)
australia
fiji
kiribati
nauru
new zealand
papua new guinea
samoa
solomon islands
tonga
tuvalu
vanuatu
VS
THE BRICS NATIONS
Brazil - 330,000 - $31,900,000,000
Russia - 766,055 - $46,600,000,000
India - 1,325,000 - $40,000,000,000
China - 2,335,000 - $155,600,000,000
south america - 89,000 - $4,610,000,000
Combined - 4,845,055 - $28,710,000,000
Since India and South America are in a special contract with the brics nations to fight if one of the other countries are attack, just like nato, they would have to fight with the brics nations instead of fighting with the rest of the commonwealth.
Because of this, it would give more soldiers and money to the brics nations. If we go just by soldiers, than the brics nations would win hands down. But if we go by amount spent on the military, Nato would win. If we were going by who has better equipment, Nato would also win.
During times of the past world wars, more people have joined the military in all of the western nations. It now a days would be very similar with the brics nations as well, but for now we wouldn't have a single clue who would win, but we can have predictions due to certain aspects of each side.
My simple answer would be if this were to happen, it would cause world war 3 and would cause the entire world to get involved. Of course if this were to happen, there would be other key players such as south korea and japan, but for this argument, I will leave them out. If you would want to know the numbers of those nations being included, then you can do the math by adding their numbers with the combined totals above.
Russia as USSR has already won a war against united Europe. In WW2 only UK haven't participated in war with USSR. Future NATO countries either supplied resources or directly fought in the war.
Russian army is created for defensive land all-out war. So though I do respect Polish military courage and general EU military skills I see no force in Europe that can oppose Russia.
Russia showed it growing military capabilities during the Ukraine conflict. Soldiers with new state of the art uniforms guard streets,bridges,airfields
I think Russia would win easily. NATO would need some very powerful mechanical weapons to wage war because Russia's A2/AD technology can block all NATO electronics. American Donald Cook was blackouted using this technology. Also, Russia is strategically and tactically very proficient and flexible while NATO is fragmented and incapable of reacting to the situation fast enough. Currently Russia is using all of its scientific potential to create military tech and that's why Russian military tech is light years more superior. The newest American F-35 is a complete disaster.
As Von Motle might be paraphrased ... "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy". A predictive play-by-play is impossible to determine, so there are surely dozens of operational scenarios available to react to the changing battlefield conditions. I doubt Russia could prevail in a conventional war against the combined NATO powers, even if the onset is predicated by a Russian surprise first strike. I entirely doubt Russia could prevail in any nuclear scenarios. I would be surprised if the Russians could successfully "launch" more than 30% of their strategic assets.
I am confident that the combined US/UK navies would obliterate the Russian fleet while suffering little loss.
The land war dimension is a little harder to predict in that it would depend on the will to win on the part of NATO. Initially I suspect there would be a great deal of destruction to the Baltic states and also likely in the former Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.
US troop forces actually deployed is not something easily verifiable. It changes over time as events in Europe change. Due to the Ukrainian problem, the more competent US Admirals and Generals are (most likely) advising the NSC advisor and the President that preparations must be made to deter Russian aggression.
Wow! Some really interesting answers here. Although I agree with many of the points mentioned, I will take a shot at this. Recently, Putin has opened up a new theatre in Syria and to do so, he has had to move troops there and planes and has built up his navy in the Med. Lets say the Russians shoot down a few US jets and Putin becomes the one to draw first blood. This will garner support from the US and European public. Many may join the armed forces just like at Pearl Harbour.
Meanwhile, he has ordered a large force of troops to south eastern Ukraine. Although it is a large contingent, my guess is that it will mostly be conscripts. Putin has split his assets making the Russian forces vulnerable to a NATO offensive. The US, British and French navies will destroy the Russian fleet, at port in Syria and the Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol.
NATO jet fighters from Turkey, Cyprus, the Baltics and Poland will rain down Hell on the Russian forces on the Ukraine border, this will be followed by a large NATO offensive. The planes will hit the first, then the troops and armour will go in, then the planes again, then the troops and so on.
The Russian troops will be in full retreat and completly demoralized. Hopefully then, Putin will see the writing on the wall and capitulate. Then everybody can gather at the UN and discuss how to help Ukraine.
the losses incurred by both sides in the opening salvoes would be so great as to force EU leaders to bring in forced conscription of all able bodied Men aged between 18 and 50 who would be drafted in with minimal training to act as 'canon fodder' against the Russian Bulwark.
Russia, on the other hand, is always in a state of near military readiness and would be able to sustain losses in manpower of up to thirty percent in the opening days while Nato troops would be screaming for reinforcements in the Baltics and Germany as wave after wave of Russian missiles and helicopter gunships eviscerated them.
Nato Air Power would be severely reduced by Russian anti aircraft defences which are regarded by America to be virtually unassailable.
Russia's enormous country and its ability to launch missiles from well inside its territory to strike in the Med and the Black Sea would mean catastrophic Naval losses for Nato and while all of this is strictly academic one thing that would not be is the likely affect of such a confrontation on the Civilian populations of Europe and America.
Likely results would be civil disobedience on a gigantic scale, particularly when they realise their lives of central heating, picnics in the park with their children and reality tv shows about models with big backsides are going to come crashing down upon their heads via mushroom shaped clouds, something that is a certainty if Russia perceives its going to be overrun with anglo saxon vermin
The sight of a blazing American aircraft carrier being broadcast on Fox News or CNN is likely to have a galvanising effect on America's heavily armed domestic population who will all likely march on the White House ready to lynch their leader that would lead their way of life to destruction.
Whatever the outcome for Russia, a nation who have experienced more loss and sacrifice in modern times than any other nation in recent history, the losses to America would be equally catastrophic and of course Europe, as a collection of sovereign nations and peoples would effectively be all but utterly destroyed.
Instead of trying to figure out who will win if war breaks out, consider this. NATO is the side that needs a war. If war does not happen, Russia wins by sitting back and letting the US economy implode.
That being said:
If Russia were to have a conventional war with NATO, Russia would have a good chance if it was on the defensive. If Russia went to war with NATO outside of its own turf, NATO would win easily.
Views
A Trade embargo on Russia is designed I think to create war. Just like that on Germany in WW2 and also the Japan Trade Embargo by USA, led within two years or less, to Pearl Harbor. USA intelligence was I think aware of the Armada heading for Pearl harbor, but looked the other way, wanting war with Japan to gain control of the Pacific and finally the World. Russia is the fly in the ointment. The wild card this time is China like Japan in WW2. War with Russia will lead to a trade embargo I think on China by USA and it's allies. The winner......the Bankers financing both sides. After all they own USA.
The real wild card is the Bombing of Iraq and Syria creating a flood of muslim refugees to Europe, that may bankrupt NATO along with the trade embargo on Russia backfiring on Europe, which is already Economically challenged.
Views
US and NATO can be defeated under one circumstances...destroy US satellites and spaces systems...with that US go blind(comm systems down)....then rain nukes all over US...
other NATO nations piss on their pants..
whatever may the outcome..US has MORE to loose...
let them imagine tasting nukes in their main land..stupid stuffs of going war wont come in their mind
Leave all that:
North korea is the only nation which isnt scared of US...they know NK have missile that can hit upto alaska..so they they poke NK more often..
No comments:
Post a Comment