NATO can’t field an actual war against Russia, NATO countries don’t have the industrial capacity to do so. NATO has big scary tools, but not many of them, and in a protracted war where the industrial power wins Russia would win out. It would be very bloody, long, and NATO would lose, so it’s unlikely that there will be all-out war.
The only actual issue in a confrontation between NATO and Russia is that it’s a conflict between nuclear powers. Whatever the balance in conventional or drone warfare would turn out to be, the fact that either party could, if pushed to desperation, decide they have nothing to lose and might take a chance on the enemy’s retaliation strikes failing: That is the risk of open war between NATO and Russia.
No matter who you’re rooting for, we may all end up losing.
They are steadily achieving all of their stated objectives for the SMO. Russia isn’t trying to do a Marvel-style total destruction of Ukraine like you see in hollywood depictions of war.
“steadily” as in… they complete one every couple of years? How long until they’re done? 10-20-30 years? They started this in 2014 and 11 years later they’ve accomplished next to nothing beyond creating a pile of bodies.
If germany took this long to take poland it probably wouldn’t have been world war at all.
The SMO started in 2022. In 2014, after the western-backed Euromaidan coup, Crimea was annexed but then there were multiple attempts to resolve things peacefully, called the Minsk Agreements, which Kiev broke both times. In 2014, Donetsk and Luhansk seceded from the new far-right led Ukraine, fastforward to 2022 after a decade of fighting and Russia agrees to go in and resolve things by force.
Since 2022, Russia has steadily been gaining more and more territory, and has nearly completely taken the four oblasts they declared as their targets for annexation. Ukraine has slowly but steadily been losing ground, and NATO has proven to be incapable of matching Russian industrial output. Russia isn’t trying to do a Blitzkreig, they are going carefully to fully demillitarize Ukraine and prevent casualties on their own end. They have the industrial capacity to field a protracted war, so they are playing to their advantage.
Russia stops at Zaporishia and Dniepro (and Donetsk) if Ukraine wants to keep losing. Kherson, Odessa, Karkiv if Ukraine really insists. They have other territories they are willing to trade to facilitate important liberations without having to destroy what they liberate. At any rate, the pace of Russian advance has increased in last year, and increased again in last months. It is far higher than the 3.5 year average of the SMO.
They aren’t trying to take Ukraine, though, and they can progress faster as frontlines are broken through. Pokrovsk, as an example, is currently encircled by Russian forces and will probably be abandoned by Kiev soon, or a large-scale siege will occur.
Whether you’re pro-Ukrainian or not, it’s important to recognize that Ukraine is steadily losing ground and has far less staying power in a protracted war than Russia does. Russia’s advancing slowly and basically forcing a long-term war, which works in their favor.
Shame Russia is doing so poorly after so long and with so many casualties. Plus their own economy is in the shitter. Having to import oil and gas now since their refineries seem to always be on fire. And pick up soldiers from Africa and Indonesia and let’s not forget North Korea.
Can you please explain how a list of countries with the highest military expenditures is evidence that weapons used by the US aren’t bought/produced for a ridiculous markup?
Like, the claim m352 is making is “the american military spends unreasonable amounts of money on weapons for no benefit, because of how much graft and how many middlepeople exist in the american weapon supply chain”.
And the evidence you use to counter this claim is “the US spends much, much more money on weapons than Russia”. And like, yeah, no kidding the US spends much more on its military than Russia does, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with m352’s claim.
So can you please draw the connection for me? How does your response here address the comment you’re responding to?
Can you please explain how a list of countries with the highest military expenditures is evidence that weapons used by the US aren’t bought/produced for a ridiculous markup?
NATO outspends Russia 10-1. That doesn’t translate to actual firepower or sustained war capacity. Russian production is much cheaper for comparable quality.
If the same thing is 10 times cheaper i would argue that the quality is not comparable. USA alone outpower any other country in war capacity and assets, if you add the the rest of NATO countries it sound like a joke to claim russia could match them.
Russia produces 4x the amount of artillery shells as all of NATO. SU 35 is half the cost of F35, with better flight availability. Missile technology of Russia is far (at least 5 years) ahead of US. Drone technology is Russia, China, Ukraine only capable. Nuclear powered torpedo is undetected annihilation of any carrier fleet or port in the world. US military spending is just corruption for political cronies. Incompetent pursuit of higher tech they are incapable of implementing, but get paid for anyway.
Russia produces 4x the amount of artillery shells as all of NATO
Whatever USA is producing is 4x times more advanced than that.
SU 35 is half the cost of F35, with better flight availability.
Assuming we take for granted that a fourth generation plane is better than F35s, keep in mind that USA alone has more than 500 of these and hundreds of F22
Missile technology of Russia is far (at least 5 years) ahead of US
Russia technology is overall 10 years behind of US
Drone technology is Russia, China, Ukraine only capable.
USA started using military drones more than 20 years ago.
US military spending is just corruption for political cronies.
I’m sure there’s plenty of corruption and any cent spent on military and war is useless. by not acknowledging USA war assets i think you are downplaying how trillions of public money are being wasted.
This thread is legit pure standup comedy. Cowbee the one and only one who understands the military complex like no other. Here you go, welcome to my blocklist, you shant be missed.
Moldova next because it’s not in NATO. Next Romania with Serbia and Hungary as ally. After that all old Yugoslavia. That can be like 2030 agenda. Many would say that Poland is next but they have big border with Russia, USA military bases and no value other than terrain and Russia have no problem with terrain. It’s easier and more profitable to go just south and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. That opens up border with Africa with Middle East and cuts down Europe from south Oil and Gas sources.
So what happens when Ukraine loses? Are we at war with Russia then?
NATO can’t field an actual war against Russia, NATO countries don’t have the industrial capacity to do so. NATO has big scary tools, but not many of them, and in a protracted war where the industrial power wins Russia would win out. It would be very bloody, long, and NATO would lose, so it’s unlikely that there will be all-out war.
The only actual issue in a confrontation between NATO and Russia is that it’s a conflict between nuclear powers. Whatever the balance in conventional or drone warfare would turn out to be, the fact that either party could, if pushed to desperation, decide they have nothing to lose and might take a chance on the enemy’s retaliation strikes failing: That is the risk of open war between NATO and Russia.
No matter who you’re rooting for, we may all end up losing.
Russia can’t even beat ukraine.
They are steadily achieving all of their stated objectives for the SMO. Russia isn’t trying to do a Marvel-style total destruction of Ukraine like you see in hollywood depictions of war.
Their goalposts have moved. Originally they attacked on all fronts including the capital and expected to topple Ukraine within a week.
Russia withdrew from Kyiv because they were fooled into thinking they got a peace deal.
“steadily” as in… they complete one every couple of years? How long until they’re done? 10-20-30 years? They started this in 2014 and 11 years later they’ve accomplished next to nothing beyond creating a pile of bodies.
If germany took this long to take poland it probably wouldn’t have been world war at all.
The SMO started in 2022. In 2014, after the western-backed Euromaidan coup, Crimea was annexed but then there were multiple attempts to resolve things peacefully, called the Minsk Agreements, which Kiev broke both times. In 2014, Donetsk and Luhansk seceded from the new far-right led Ukraine, fastforward to 2022 after a decade of fighting and Russia agrees to go in and resolve things by force.
Since 2022, Russia has steadily been gaining more and more territory, and has nearly completely taken the four oblasts they declared as their targets for annexation. Ukraine has slowly but steadily been losing ground, and NATO has proven to be incapable of matching Russian industrial output. Russia isn’t trying to do a Blitzkreig, they are going carefully to fully demillitarize Ukraine and prevent casualties on their own end. They have the industrial capacity to field a protracted war, so they are playing to their advantage.
I read a few articles that said at russias current pace it would take them a hundred years to take Ukraine.
Russia stops at Zaporishia and Dniepro (and Donetsk) if Ukraine wants to keep losing. Kherson, Odessa, Karkiv if Ukraine really insists. They have other territories they are willing to trade to facilitate important liberations without having to destroy what they liberate. At any rate, the pace of Russian advance has increased in last year, and increased again in last months. It is far higher than the 3.5 year average of the SMO.
Russia does not stop
They aren’t trying to take Ukraine, though, and they can progress faster as frontlines are broken through. Pokrovsk, as an example, is currently encircled by Russian forces and will probably be abandoned by Kiev soon, or a large-scale siege will occur.
Whether you’re pro-Ukrainian or not, it’s important to recognize that Ukraine is steadily losing ground and has far less staying power in a protracted war than Russia does. Russia’s advancing slowly and basically forcing a long-term war, which works in their favor.
Shame Russia is doing so poorly after so long and with so many casualties. Plus their own economy is in the shitter. Having to import oil and gas now since their refineries seem to always be on fire. And pick up soldiers from Africa and Indonesia and let’s not forget North Korea.
Ukraine will fight to the last man
Are you serious or joking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
NATO outpower russia 10-1, they would easily win a war against them which is why they are seeking one.
Trashcan for usa military - 10000$
Trashcan for russia military - 10$ maybe?
Therefore we can conclude that russia has ~100x the military production of usa.
NATO doesn’t arm its soldiers with trashcans though
We can assume their weapons will have similar markup, likely even more.
Don’t assume and look at the evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
Can you please explain how a list of countries with the highest military expenditures is evidence that weapons used by the US aren’t bought/produced for a ridiculous markup?
Like, the claim m352 is making is “the american military spends unreasonable amounts of money on weapons for no benefit, because of how much graft and how many middlepeople exist in the american weapon supply chain”.
And the evidence you use to counter this claim is “the US spends much, much more money on weapons than Russia”. And like, yeah, no kidding the US spends much more on its military than Russia does, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with m352’s claim.
So can you please draw the connection for me? How does your response here address the comment you’re responding to?
Again just look at the evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore
These are just some random USA war assets, in case you fail to understand what spending a trillion dollars a year in war gets you.
NATO outspends Russia 10-1. That doesn’t translate to actual firepower or sustained war capacity. Russian production is much cheaper for comparable quality.
If the same thing is 10 times cheaper i would argue that the quality is not comparable. USA alone outpower any other country in war capacity and assets, if you add the the rest of NATO countries it sound like a joke to claim russia could match them.
Russia produces 4x the amount of artillery shells as all of NATO. SU 35 is half the cost of F35, with better flight availability. Missile technology of Russia is far (at least 5 years) ahead of US. Drone technology is Russia, China, Ukraine only capable. Nuclear powered torpedo is undetected annihilation of any carrier fleet or port in the world. US military spending is just corruption for political cronies. Incompetent pursuit of higher tech they are incapable of implementing, but get paid for anyway.
Whatever USA is producing is 4x times more advanced than that.
Assuming we take for granted that a fourth generation plane is better than F35s, keep in mind that USA alone has more than 500 of these and hundreds of F22
Russia technology is overall 10 years behind of US
USA started using military drones more than 20 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdix_(drone)
I’m sure there’s plenty of corruption and any cent spent on military and war is useless. by not acknowledging USA war assets i think you are downplaying how trillions of public money are being wasted.
X Doubt
and behind everything else that is relevant in 2025
They are giving ukraine crap the same way russia is using crap to fight this war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
This thread is legit pure standup comedy. Cowbee the one and only one who understands the military complex like no other. Here you go, welcome to my blocklist, you shant be missed.
Moldova next because it’s not in NATO. Next Romania with Serbia and Hungary as ally. After that all old Yugoslavia. That can be like 2030 agenda. Many would say that Poland is next but they have big border with Russia, USA military bases and no value other than terrain and Russia have no problem with terrain. It’s easier and more profitable to go just south and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. That opens up border with Africa with Middle East and cuts down Europe from south Oil and Gas sources.
deleted by creator