6 Answers

  1. A military conflict with NATO is not possible. Russia does not need this for anything at all, and NATO does not have such an opportunity, literally.

    They have an undeniably larger air force and fleet, but:

    1. WMD and high-precision weapons, of which the Russian Federation has more than enough, will simply not allow us to concentrate all this power normally. Fuel, infrastructure, ammunition supply and repairs-all this is required in the same way as during the Second World War, only modern equipment is much more fastidious. But during the Second World War, it was not possible to get all this at any depth by means of destruction, and now the Russian Federation can strike at any point to a depth exceeding the range of NATO aircraft.
    2. It is necessary to take into account the huge size of the Russian Federation, which will not allow either to deliver the “instant global strike” so advertised in recent years by the United States, or to ensure the total superiority of aviation in the air to the full depth.
    3. With the land component of NATO, everything is bad. Planes do not capture or hold territory.
    4. Modern weapons are expensive. On this occasion, it is quite small, in fact, when compared with WWII. And, if we talk about NATO, its production is also spread all over the world. This will lead to the fact that it will be eliminated faster than it is produced (if they can produce it at all), even if you forget about WMD. And it will be eliminated. On its territory, the Russian Federation is able to provide this to NATO with terrible force. Firstly, due to a powerful layered air defense / missile defense, advanced electronic warfare system. Secondly, do not underestimate the Russian aviation too – it is quite a few, it is constantly being upgraded, and the experience of pilots in recent years is huge. Despite the fact that it has a large effective range and the ability to keep infrastructure outside the range of a large range of enemy assets, due to the size of the territory. Well, if you do not forget about WMD, then the question is completely removed.
    5. A point that could be called the first, but then it is not at all interesting – the United States, which is the main driving force in NATO, does not have any opportunities to repel the attack of the Strategic Missile Forces of the Russian Federation so that you do not have to think about your own survival later. I don't say anything about the others at all.
    6. The NATO Charter is defensive in nature, and its members are required to consider participation in combat operations in the event of an attack on a participating country, neither as an aggressive scenario. Hence, most of Europe will instantly freeze out of participating in this event, because turning into ashes will not happen in any way. And of those who are hungry-unless Poland is something serious now. But not really.

    So we are not in danger of a military conflict if we constantly maintain the current balance of power on this issue. In modern realities, they fight with opponents of the level of the Russian Federation with money, the decomposition of morals and the unity of society, and not in a military way.

    In general, this is a strange question.

  2. You imagine the Second World War, not a potential conflict between NATO and Russia.

    You can fantasize a lot, but no one knows how it will be and whether it will be.

    The only thing that can be argued is that what is written in the question is not relevant to a potential war.

  3. The Third World War (and the conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation will be exactly that), in my opinion, is likely to be filled with decisive actions.
    It is usually said that this war is likely to be limited to guaranteed mutual destruction, if you know what I mean, but according to some researchers and my personal opinion, World War 3 is already underway. It proceeds through local conflicts all over the globe. If a direct military clash provokes the end of the world, which is unprofitable for anyone, then you have to go to all sorts of tricks, because hostility / rivalry remains. If we look at the recent conflicts that took place in North Africa and in the Middle East, we will notice that everywhere there is a clash of interests between Russia and the West: everyone is interested in the victory of one of the parties to the conflict. In order not to go too far for examples, we can take the current war in Syria, where Russia is on the side of the Assad regime, and the West is on the side of the opposition. And it seems like everything is against the banned DAESH (ISIL in Arabic), but there are many nuances and this is another story

  4. In the event of a military conflict between Russia and NATO, there will be neither trenches nor masses of soldiers running to attack. There will also be no tank breakthroughs or hours-long shelling. All these are attributes of wars that have already ended.

    A new World War (not to be confused with a local conflict!) it will be very fleeting and incomparably more destructive than anything that has happened before. Understanding the huge difference in the military and technological capabilities of Russia and the NATO countries, it is not difficult to name the winner, but everyone will suffer huge losses, humanity will be thrown far back in its development and no one will be able to stay away. ��

    Fortunately, politicians around the world understand this and try not to go to the “edge” in their actions. In general, the probability of a new world war is very small, but the desire of many states to achieve unattainable “parity” at any cost and the arrival of inadequate personalities in politics can lead to the fact that the “edge” will be achieved unnoticed by the participants and even contrary to their intentions.

  5. Fortunately, the nuclear powers are ruled by “greedy and” mean-spirited people (like a nuclear force-pulverizer) who have a lot to lose and just do their own little things, arranging their favorite life: it saves… Disinterested idealists who have gained power through a misunderstanding can destroy the world, simply for poetic reasons, without sparing either their own or someone else's lives.”Thus, some great poets” hanged serfs out of poetic feeling, reverie, or melancholy.

  6. “Not a step back” is more of a yes than a no. In a major war of a high-tech alliance against a country that is three decades behind, it is most logical to use a civilian militia as a mass invasion army to draw the forces of a humanistic, highly developed enemy away from key facilities and communications. During the time that the command will give the order for mass destruction, it is possible to effectively destroy key points on the territory of Europe with tactical nuclear weapons. True, this will not bring victory: when it comes to everyone that the militia is just cannon fodder, special equipment, such as microwave guns, will come into play. So the mobilized will wander in an open field along the border of the “megaradar” zone of operation, and in the meantime, Russian objects will be ironed with drones. The consequences are unpredictable, but a rollback of 70 years in technological development is guaranteed.

Leave a Reply