I do not want war but I also am not sure what will happen. I feels bad to just let Russia have Ukraine (if it covers to that). Because you know they will not stop there.
Edit: whoever downvoted me is delulu about Russia lmao
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.
There’s more issue than just that it would be a war between nuclear powers, large-scale conventional warfare is still devastating for all involved groups, but the threat of nuclear war is massive, I agree.
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 haven’t moved, their strategy was to open with shock and awe and then push for protracted war, taking advantage of surprise. They didn’t expect to topple Ukraine in a week, that’s largely a misquote from the early 2010s.
“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 moved to take Crimea only after the Ukranian govt was couped by the USA, because there’s a Russian naval base on the Crimean peninsula
being surprised by this is like saying the USA wouldn’t invade South Korea (or any of the 100s of states with US bases) if their govt was couped by another government
as always, you’re more patient than I, comrade, I respect you immensely
Yep, when it comes to Russia liberals start thinking about their actions, past, present, and future, in terms of how evil they are, rather than as another country. It’s always too weak yet too strong, always capable of steering foreign elections and taking on all of Europe but also about to collapse, etc. It’s tiring, because after the dust settles the liberal cope will always be that NATO didn’t support Ukraine enough for them to win, which will always be an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
I think if NATO did go to war with Russia, it knows it has a much larger military and supposedly “better” equipment.
I think they’d try to end it really quickly and either totally devestate russia quickly or take out their industry.
Okay wild fantasies aside, back here in the real world, what’s NATO supposed to actually do? If they try to ‘devastate’ Russia, as in attempt to turn it into Gaza, Russia will 100% nuke the offending countries seriously firing this kind of barrage against them. They’ve been reasonable against Ukraine because Ukraine has hardly been a threat (in fact most Russians would probably say too reasonable), but if a threat they’ve credibly been fearing for decades decided to pull out all the stops, so will they; NATO knows this which is why they weren’t officially in the war this whole time; the best time to be involved was literally day 1, the next best time was day 2, and so on and so forth.
The simple fact is when Ukraine falls, the war is over; you want a country that was willing to risk their safety to get involved in a conflict? You have Yemen, they showed what a country willing to get bombed is willing to do; Euro countries don’t want to get bombed; Let me say that again: Euro countries don’t. want. to. get. bombed. All these countries in Europe had their chance to show how far they were willing to oppose Russia, back when Ukraine had a lot more people to throw in the meat grinder; there’s a lot less Ukrainians now who can and will fight, and Euro forces would have to bear the brunt of the fighting, and if they were willing to do this, they would’ve done it far earlier. Europe. Is. Scared. They won’t join this fight.
I love libs in this thread, some of them are like “Ukraine is winning” and some like “Russia will invade entire Europe”. They gained both takes by following the same propaganda.
If they had to, then they would try shock and awe. Protracted war wouldn’t work out, whoever has industry holds the cards long-term. Russia would go for stall tactics, I would think.
Weren’t all these points equally valid when the West actively thrust Ukraine into war, too?
You’re assuming NATO instead maybe cares about the lives of non-Ukrainians in Europe, I wouldn’t rely on that. We are all meat for the MIC profit blender. Winning or losing the war is almost irrelevant, no citizen of the core is safe so long as their deaths might make line go up in the short term.
Ukraine is an attack dog for NATO, and porkie would love to send workers to war, but not if it hurts their bottom line. That’s why they’ve tried to use proxies like Ukraine.
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.
You’re confusing the monetary price with actual, qualitative results. The same widget costs more money to produce in the US than it would in Russia, Russia has lower labor costs and higher industrialization. There’s also effectiveness, drones are cheap and can often achieve the same or better results than traditional ballistic missiles that cost more. The fact that the west spends a lot is due to the millitary industrial complex. To equate capital investment across different economies is an error, you can find the same medicine in the US for hundreds of times the price as you can in Canada, as an alternative example.
Why do you think it cost 10 times more to produce it in the USA? How many american and european engineers do you know that works in russia for 10x cheaper salary?
Assuming what you say is true should we move to compare war assets? What’s the russian counterpart to hundreds of F22 and the b2?
There’s also effectiveness, drones are cheap and can often achieve the same or better results than traditional ballistic missiles that cost more.
USA has been using military drones for more than two decades
you can find the same medicine in the US for hundreds of times the price as you can in Canada, as an alternative example.
You are messing up things. That’s the price the consumer pays for medicines because of a monopoly
Cost of living is higher in the US, ergo wages are higher, ergo production costs more. This is true across all fields, plus the lack of industrialization means it’s more difficult to manufacture. Why are all of your goods made in China, Vietnam, etc?
Privatized industry also costs a lot more, especially the millitary industrial complex. I’m aware that the US has drones, I’m also aware that the drones of today are entirely different and far cheaper to produce.
Technological and industrial level is also higher in the US, expect a military widget manufactured there to be more advanced than one manufactured in a country where production is 10x cheaper.
This is true across all fields, plus the lack of industrialization means it’s more difficult to manufacture.
USA and europe do not lack industrialization.
Why are all of your goods made in China, Vietnam, etc?
Why are they not made in russia? They are made in china because it’s cheaper for western companies to produce there and because they can get away with such exploitation. Your goods aren’t military assets.
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.
.ml loser coping. NATO would have air superiority within hours and crush your balls. You’re using drones instead of artillery and anti tank missiles because you’re so broke.
I’m not Russian, for one, and for two, drone warfare is used by all current conflicts because its cheap and extremely effective. Russia still produces tanks and artillery. I don’t know why people get so bloodthirsty, outright war between Russia and NATO is the last thing anyone should want.
NATO countries have hollowed out their industry for the last century, instead preferring to outsource production and plunder the world. Further, ballistic munitions are still useful, as are drones. There’s no realistic scenario where NATO countries can mobilize to full wartime economies, not with industry as hollowed out as it is.
NATO strategy so far has been “hope Russians believe the lies we tell our people to support this war, and further believe that we have always loved Russians and wanted the best for them.” It’s the free world that would resort to absurdly unpopular fascist mandatory drafts instead of high military pay, because western corruption has always been excuses for oligarchist supremacist weapons profits. People don’t care until they are threatened with austerity and conscription.
So what happens when Ukraine loses? Are we at war with Russia then?
Do people of Europe actually want war with Russia? Wasn’t there a whole scandal in Romania because of people explicitly not wanting to have war?
if war starts, I can only imagine it’ll be Vietnam/Ukraine all over again, except in proper EU territory this time
I do not want war but I also am not sure what will happen. I feels bad to just let Russia have Ukraine (if it covers to that). Because you know they will not stop there.
Edit: whoever downvoted me is delulu about Russia lmao
Why do you say that? Is this based in any parallel with the history leading up to the Ukraine war or just proximity?
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.
There’s more issue than just that it would be a war between nuclear powers, large-scale conventional warfare is still devastating for all involved groups, but the threat of nuclear war is massive, I agree.
With modern warfare, the only one that wins is the arms dealer, if he can escape the hell his products wreak
Russia can’t even beat ukraine.
Russia is literally fighting all of NATO here.
🤡
at least you know thy self
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.
Their goalposts haven’t moved, their strategy was to open with shock and awe and then push for protracted war, taking advantage of surprise. They didn’t expect to topple Ukraine in a week, that’s largely a misquote from the early 2010s.
“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 moved to take Crimea only after the Ukranian govt was couped by the USA, because there’s a Russian naval base on the Crimean peninsula
being surprised by this is like saying the USA wouldn’t invade South Korea (or any of the 100s of states with US bases) if their govt was couped by another government
as always, you’re more patient than I, comrade, I respect you immensely
Yep, when it comes to Russia liberals start thinking about their actions, past, present, and future, in terms of how evil they are, rather than as another country. It’s always too weak yet too strong, always capable of steering foreign elections and taking on all of Europe but also about to collapse, etc. It’s tiring, because after the dust settles the liberal cope will always be that NATO didn’t support Ukraine enough for them to win, which will always be an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
And thanks, I appreciate it comrade!
I think if NATO did go to war with Russia, it knows it has a much larger military and supposedly “better” equipment.
I think they’d try to end it really quickly and either totally devestate russia quickly or take out their industry.
But Israel-iran has showed that not even America has the ability to do an actual war against another industrial power
Operation Barbarossa 2: Surely this time it’ll be like Poland
Okay wild fantasies aside, back here in the real world, what’s NATO supposed to actually do? If they try to ‘devastate’ Russia, as in attempt to turn it into Gaza, Russia will 100% nuke the offending countries seriously firing this kind of barrage against them. They’ve been reasonable against Ukraine because Ukraine has hardly been a threat (in fact most Russians would probably say too reasonable), but if a threat they’ve credibly been fearing for decades decided to pull out all the stops, so will they; NATO knows this which is why they weren’t officially in the war this whole time; the best time to be involved was literally day 1, the next best time was day 2, and so on and so forth.
The simple fact is when Ukraine falls, the war is over; you want a country that was willing to risk their safety to get involved in a conflict? You have Yemen, they showed what a country willing to get bombed is willing to do; Euro countries don’t want to get bombed; Let me say that again: Euro countries don’t. want. to. get. bombed. All these countries in Europe had their chance to show how far they were willing to oppose Russia, back when Ukraine had a lot more people to throw in the meat grinder; there’s a lot less Ukrainians now who can and will fight, and Euro forces would have to bear the brunt of the fighting, and if they were willing to do this, they would’ve done it far earlier. Europe. Is. Scared. They won’t join this fight.
When Ukraine falls, the war is over.
Oh yeah was between NATO and Russia is never happening anywhere outside the mashpiratory fantasies of European liberals
I love libs in this thread, some of them are like “Ukraine is winning” and some like “Russia will invade entire Europe”. They gained both takes by following the same propaganda.
By a shifting of rhetorical focus, and so forth
If they had to, then they would try shock and awe. Protracted war wouldn’t work out, whoever has industry holds the cards long-term. Russia would go for stall tactics, I would think.
Weren’t all these points equally valid when the West actively thrust Ukraine into war, too?
You’re assuming NATO instead maybe cares about the lives of non-Ukrainians in Europe, I wouldn’t rely on that. We are all meat for the MIC profit blender. Winning or losing the war is almost irrelevant, no citizen of the core is safe so long as their deaths might make line go up in the short term.
Ukraine is an attack dog for NATO, and porkie would love to send workers to war, but not if it hurts their bottom line. That’s why they’ve tried to use proxies like Ukraine.
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.
You’re confusing the monetary price with actual, qualitative results. The same widget costs more money to produce in the US than it would in Russia, Russia has lower labor costs and higher industrialization. There’s also effectiveness, drones are cheap and can often achieve the same or better results than traditional ballistic missiles that cost more. The fact that the west spends a lot is due to the millitary industrial complex. To equate capital investment across different economies is an error, you can find the same medicine in the US for hundreds of times the price as you can in Canada, as an alternative example.
Why do you think it cost 10 times more to produce it in the USA? How many american and european engineers do you know that works in russia for 10x cheaper salary?
Assuming what you say is true should we move to compare war assets? What’s the russian counterpart to hundreds of F22 and the b2?
USA has been using military drones for more than two decades
You are messing up things. That’s the price the consumer pays for medicines because of a monopoly
Cost of living is higher in the US, ergo wages are higher, ergo production costs more. This is true across all fields, plus the lack of industrialization means it’s more difficult to manufacture. Why are all of your goods made in China, Vietnam, etc?
Privatized industry also costs a lot more, especially the millitary industrial complex. I’m aware that the US has drones, I’m also aware that the drones of today are entirely different and far cheaper to produce.
Technological and industrial level is also higher in the US, expect a military widget manufactured there to be more advanced than one manufactured in a country where production is 10x cheaper.
USA and europe do not lack industrialization.
Why are they not made in russia? They are made in china because it’s cheaper for western companies to produce there and because they can get away with such exploitation. Your goods aren’t military assets.
Do you know about that thing called capitalism, where the engineers’ wages get stolen by the bourgies?
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.
They’re artillery shells.
Way ahead in missiles. Hypersonics the US has failed at. new 14000km 15 hour range nuclear cruise missile. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-tested-new-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile-top-general-says-2025-10-26/
US still has crap that Ukraine has no use for. New generations test poorly.
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
.ml loser coping. NATO would have air superiority within hours and crush your balls. You’re using drones instead of artillery and anti tank missiles because you’re so broke.
I’m not Russian, for one, and for two, drone warfare is used by all current conflicts because its cheap and extremely effective. Russia still produces tanks and artillery. I don’t know why people get so bloodthirsty, outright war between Russia and NATO is the last thing anyone should want.
20th C thinking.
Ukraine is already not a democracy.
NATO countries have hollowed out their industry for the last century, instead preferring to outsource production and plunder the world. Further, ballistic munitions are still useful, as are drones. There’s no realistic scenario where NATO countries can mobilize to full wartime economies, not with industry as hollowed out as it is.
NATO strategy so far has been “hope Russians believe the lies we tell our people to support this war, and further believe that we have always loved Russians and wanted the best for them.” It’s the free world that would resort to absurdly unpopular fascist mandatory drafts instead of high military pay, because western corruption has always been excuses for oligarchist supremacist weapons profits. People don’t care until they are threatened with austerity and conscription.
We haven’t even started with the Baltics, baby-cakes