IN A WAR WITH RUSSIA, NATO HAS NO CHANCE

[Kakaspai]

So couldnt USSR and the hundreds of other nations that tried.

Thats what i am saying.You cant win wars with only money.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Russia may have a budget that is smaller than Saudi Arabia's,but the Saudi Army doesn't stand a chance against the Russia's.
France and UK may have smaller budgets than Saudi Arabia's,but are by faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar stronger and more capable,better trained etc.


Conventionnally,Russia stands no chance against NATO,but the threat Russia poses for Nato is their nuclear weapons.
Yet again,no one is really fool to start a full scall war between both. (Even if some hardcore funboys are literally praying for it...)


Why did i laugh ?

Yes but just recently has SA increased its defence budget- in a couple years it will leave UK and France faaaaar behind.

 

[Vergennes]

Yes but just recently has SA increased its defence budget- in a couple years it will leave UK and France faaaaar behind.

As if they could sustain to spend more than 10% of their GDP to defence.....
Yet again,they can have a budget of 140 billions,they'll still be faaaaaar behind in term of capabilities,training etc.

 

[Lure]

Russians couldn't hold Afghanistan which had no proper military force at that time, then how the hell are they going to dream of invading SA?


So couldnt USSR and the hundreds of other nations that tried.

Well conventional warfare has very limited success against guerilla tactics. US has 10 times more military budget than Russia and 20 years of technological advantage (since US invaded Afghanistan 20 years later than USSR) but still had very limited success.

Just like US withdrawal from Vietnam, USSR withdrawal from Afghanistan had more economical and social reasons than lack of military power.

Let me be clear, if Russia invades Saudi Arabia, they will obtain complete air dominance in atmost two weeks. Meaning Saudi Airforce will be completely off the game. Than in two months the country will be bombed back to stone age. All infrastructure will be destroyed. Russia would have very limited casuality. Than army and marines would start to invade from the ground. That's the point which Saudis would start to hurt Russian forces. They would make guerilla warfare as long as Russians would be sick and tired of fighting.

Until that point Saudi casualties would probably be represented by six digits whereas Russian casualities would be late 4 or early 5 digits. If you call this fighting a war and having a "chance" of winning thats Your definition of success. For me this is no success but to sacrifice Your human resource and wait for the other Side to retreat.

Let's analyze USSR invasion of Afghanistan,

15000 Russian soldiers died.

90000 Afghan figter died, around 1 million Afghan civilian died, 5 million Afghan citizen displaced or left the country.

Well who won the fight? It's very clear who won. Could USSR fulfill it's political desires, that's the point which is subject to debate. Just like the case of US.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Well conventional warfare has very limited success against guerilla tactics. US has 10 times more military budget than Russia and 20 years of technological advantage (since US invaded Afghanistan 20 years later than USSR) but still had very limited success.

Just like US withdrawal from Vietnam, USSR withdrawal from Afghanistan had more economical and social reasons than lack of military power.

Let me be clear, if Russia invades Saudi Arabia, they will obtain complete air dominance in atmost two weeks. Meaning Saudi Airforce will be completely off the game. Than in two months the country will be bombed back to stone age. All infrastructure will be destroyed. Russia would have very limited casuality. Than army and marines would start to invade from the ground. That's the point which Saudis would start to hurt Russian forces. They would make guerilla warfare as long as Russians would be sick and tired of fighting.

Until that point Saudi casualties would probably be represented by six digits whereas Russian casualities would be late 4 or early 5 digits. If you call this fighting a war and having a "chance" of winning thats Your definition of success. For me this is no success but to sacrifice Your human resource and wait for the other Side to retreat.

For Russia to gain Air superiority it would have to send in its full force which is impossible - therefore the Air war will be limited to Air Skirmishes, Pakistan bested Russia in Air Skirmishes during the Afghan war by downing over 11 of their Aircraft with the loss of one. Only soft-spot is the sea, it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to defend its sea, if Russia manages to invade Saudi Arabia by landing their troops they will easily be thwarted by a superior Saudi conventional force. Remember KSA has changed alot, within 5-6 years alone they have increased their Air Force size by 200 jets, that is ONE example of their change.

As if they could sustain to spend more than 10% of their GDP to defence.....
Yet again,they can have a budget of 140 billions,they'll still be faaaaaar behind in term of capabilities,training etc.

This isnt 5 years ago, KSA has changed alot. Look at the vice documentary about Saudi Military, and you will get a glimpse.

 

[TMA]

Lol, NATO's military budget is more than fifteen times that of Russia.

Yeah but Russian soldiers are way more motivated than NATO soldiers

 

[rockstar08]

In Call of Duty MW3 Russian Invaded Europe in no time ...

 

[ultron]

Thats what i am saying.You cant win wars with only money.

Good point. The US can't even invade and annex Tuvalu let alone Russia

 

[mb444]

Lol ,your post is a total joke. Looking at NATO's/USA performance against ISIS in comparison to Russia ,I have nothing much to say.

I doubt that even France or Britain would stand a chance against the Russian federation in a conventional or nuclear one.


the usa on the other hand is the only power that can contain russia.

Guest Column From George Abert, Formerly Of Air Force Intelligence - PaulCraigRoberts.org

does Russia have an economy to fight an war with an enemy that is not a bunch of rag tag nutters in the desert.

Russia will cease to be in a war with Britain.

Flying a few planes near UK airspace and subs near UK for internal media consumption is not the same as actually taking on a capable enemy.

Russia's economy is weak, it's armed forces nothing much to fear and it has few friends..... None of that is the case for Britain

 

[ultron]

Napoleon died after invading Russia. Hitler died after invading Russia. Obama or whomever will die after invading Russia. Don't forget, Rus means red. Vikings.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Yes but just recently has SA increased its defence budget- in a couple years it will leave UK and France faaaaar behind.

you are joking right?

 

[Jaanbaz]

This thread is right out of @Superboy's dreams.

 

[vizier]

Firstly there is the concept of asymmetric warfare. Several wars like 2006 Labennon showed that asymmetric tactics can be involved like atgms stopping armor columns. Ofcourse atgm like any weapon is not a God sent weapon and there is nothing to get emotional about it. It worked once before but now there are many counter measures developed and there should be counter counter measures evolving atgms and every other weapon to not to lag behind. Similarly smaller platforms being less detectable and less costly has advantage in a defensive situation over the larger ones like mini subs that can pre detect and attack large bulky ships. Also air defence systems like S500 for example is an exceptional weapon that has no equal but measures should develop to protect radars making them less detectable from above like better decoy-fake emitter technology since it can't employ its full 600km range to low observable targets. Also Sukhoi Pak fa is good for a superiority fighter but a light low cost stealth fighter would complement it better since to counter nato it is better not to make arm wresting but come up with asymmetric solutions giving advantage in a defensive situation.

Other than that usa expands nato even calculates induction of small countries like montenegro and its advantages like further steps just like a chess game. Russia and China combined with several central asian states are strong but on the chess board these are still no more than 5 pieces even strong ones on the other hand usa has the full package including small pawns on the chess board. While considering its interests and making deals with Usa, Russia should also consider strategic countries like Pakistan or Iran in the region and benefits of improving ties with them instead of sacrificing these relations for quick short term offers as single piece does not count on the chess board even it is the strongest. It does not mean much to be culturally similar there is a whole different ball game going on like Germany that Russia until recently or even now considers exceptional partner for example supports extending anti Russian sanctions for Usa even for the sake of its own interests. A rich country ready to offer large juicy deals also does not count for example in the case of saudi arabia it keeps the oil prices low for Usa again hurting Russia even for the sake of its own interests. Countries ofcourse having economic,strategic potential but also having individual interests instead of depending to a third party seem to be more valuable and stable relationship than others being richer or culturally similar but totally unpredictable that you can't turn your back one second.

 

[mike2000 is back]

This thread is right out of @Superboy's dreams.

ahahahah..........who is the OP by the way? It must be superboy with another account.

does Russia have an economy to fight an war with an enemy that is not a bunch of rag tag nutters in the desert.

Russia will cease to be in a war with Britain.

Flying a few planes near UK airspace and subs near UK for internal media consumption is not the same as actually taking on a capable enemy.

Russia's economy is weak, it's armed forces nothing much to fear and it has few friends..... None of that is the case for Britain

HOW MANY COUNTRIES HAVE EVER CONQUERED GREAT BRITAIN THESE PAST CENTURIES??
Now how many countries have we conquered?
That guy doesnt know what he is talking about. Even today, in case of total war only maybe the U.S has the capabilities to launch an invasion on british soil. Russia doesnt even stand a chance. Many people don't even know the types of weapons our defence giants can pump out in the battlefield IF PUSH COMES TO SHOVE.. We are currently living in a time of peace and stability. so no need to rearm to such an extent. BUT TRY US IN A WAR AND SEE.

 

[Kamil_baku]

Good point. The US can't even invade and annex Tuvalu let alone Russia

Why dont you change your avatar flag to Russian flag? Are you shamed to use it or what is the reason?