Why do people have such high expectations from Russia in a war with NATO / the West / USA?

[Alexandrubaschet08]

NATO have a bether economy, modern sistems, experience in wars, bigger army, bigger population.
In case of a real war both of the sides number for military force will grow and thous who have more money will olso have more equipment olso NATO have even a bigger population.
In real time the population of Europ is at last 700 millions people will Russia barely get close to 200 millions, if we includ USA and Canada the population explode to 900 for NATO.
Russia still have military service and that mean not all the people get special training like in a profesional army like NATO whitch moust of the countrys don't have military service active and even if they have they still make training whit NATO aly forces.
The only place where Russia stand a very small chance is the ground because they have just more tanks, and >that is all<.

[ADFSDF1996]

A lot of people think Russia is as powerful as it is depicted in movies and video games but in reality Russia has been greatly weakened since the end of the Cold War. They are still a force to be reckoned with but they are not the same Russia from the 1960s. Everyone forgets that they lost the Cold War and the arms race. But despite being at a severe disadvantage due to Russia taking on multiple superpowers at once, neither side would win such a war. By the time NATO’s armies cross Russian borders, the Russians would use their nuclear weapons to play chicken with NATO who also has nuclear weapons thus negotiate an armistice making the whole war pointless.

• Russia has a strong land army but so does the US and the European Union, Russian tanks would have trouble taking on German Leopard, British Challenger 2 and American Abrams tanks at once
• Russia isn’t really known for it’s navy but both the US and the UK are known for their powerful navies
• Russia has a pretty decent Air Force but the US Air Force is currently the best in the world.
• Russia would be taking on 3 different superpowers (US, UK and France) at once, 4 superpowers if we include the European Union as a whole

[Soteris]

Forget NATO, Russia has lost so much might that it can't go toe to toe with the EU in the first place. Granted Russia is trying to upgrade their military currently and I am pretty sure they have been doing it for like two decades at the very least but they are still far from being considered a major military threat.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

I very agree whit you but let be careful not to underestimate it

[BCA6010]

The better question is why do people think the next huge war would be between the US/NATO and Russia? A US/NATO/other allies potentially including Russia against China and its bought and paid for allies would be more likely. This scenario gets very little coverage in news media and even less in entertainment media. The former is because China and/or it's sympathizers own most of the news coverage in the west, and the latter is because their products won't sell in China if they portray China going to war or being in a negative light, and everyone wants Chinese money no matter how much they pretend to condemn their human rights violations.

That said, I think civil wars in the US and/or Europe are more likely than WW3, even though all are unlikely.

[The_Maphio]

The way things are right now, Russia has enough tech and firepower to defeat the US and what is more important, they have more of a backbone than America has. I'm also fairly sure that some of the NATO countries wouldn't intervene in a USA - Russia war as they have too much to lose, considering that Europe is physically attached to Russia and many good supply routes come and go from there or go through there.
Also read, it's almost guaranteed, that if Russia and the US go to war, russian victory is almost guaranteed. Not only their allies are not as close to the US as they purportedly are, but Russia is allied with China, which even though I completely dislike them, are known to be people of one word.

[t-8900]

Where Napoleon and Hitler failed Nato is going to win out? Nato in Somalia? What a mess... When conducting a war the last thing you want if you're trying to be effective is bureaucratic red tape. It doesn't matter how many people live within nato countries. If 200 million russians live in Russia and you are invading their home then almost 200 million russians will be against you. People aren't willing to sign up for another BS war in 2021.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

In a War all population know about theyr involvment and the modern war is not like the old one.
Napoleon and Hitler had 2 complet diferent taktics.
Napoleon go straight for the Capital (ST. Petersburg) in a straight line.
Will Hitler wanted to take evrething (St. Petersburg/Leningrad, Kiev, Odesa, Sevastopol...) in a line from the Nord all the way to the soud border.
Napoleon us formations whit people and canons and some horses.
Hitler use tanks, comunications, more fire power then Napoleon and get more close then him.
Look at Napoleon distance to the Capital and look at Hitler one.
In this situation the worst scenario for NATO will be that Russia move the Capital somewhere more in the east like Kazan or Ekateringburg, that will be a chanlange even for NATO but i don't think imposible because the economy now is even bigger then ww2 time.

[t-8900]

winning a defensive war is nearly impossible without committing massive war crimes. We learned this in Vietnam and again in Afghanistan. It's really impossible unless you just want to go full nuclear.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

NATO have olso nuclear power and even the active personal and reserv one of soulgers are bigger then Russia NATO is like 1.5 vs 1 Russiam.
And in population is like 9 vs 2

[t-8900]

numbers are irrelevant. its about holding up in strategic locations. A skeleton crew can wipe out loads of men if they are holed up somewhere strong. That's why the Germans held off so much with their defensive points with a few men and some MG-42s. No one wants to go nuclear so it's irrelevant to add that to the equation. NATO wouldn't win. At best it would be a long drawn out war until it became too expensive and they'd back off. Just like Vietnam and just like Afghanistan.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Number are veri revelant in Afganistan USA whas training the national army of Afganistan. In Vietnam population from USA didn't want to fight vs a country that isn't a treat for people and start that shit "make love no war"

[t-8900]

yes and thats 100% relevant. You said 700 mill vs 200 mill. But if 700 mill dont want to fight then what's the point in including them all? Whereas the 200 mill will defend their homes from outsiders, big difference.

[Mango-man]

If I were to guess because of the reluctance of NATO to go into any conflict? I mean it takes us ages to decide even mundane things.

[Mango-man]

*And by conflict I mean large-scale one, not smaller fights.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

yes but in any politic situation the war should alwase the the last and final solution

[Alexandrubaschet08]

war is a very expensive and destructive thing so this kinde of decision can make some time more bad then good

[Alexandrubaschet08]

olso NATO is a defensive aliance and not have any ofensive ideas

[OddBeMe]

I expect Putin to think of Russian citizens before invading other counties and hacking elections. You know, since they have to experience the sanctions.

[007kingifrit]

they have 2 advantages. a vast nuclear arsenal... and they aren't spoiled sissies like the west.

the russians are used to being scrappy losers. they aren't luxurious like we are.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

`The west have the ex-East Blok whitch is even more tough then Russia, that region will fight Russia to the very last person if you give enought equipment.
Nuclear power is irelevant in a 200 vs 6000 nuks because you need just a couple of 10/20 to destroy the entire world.
Thous 2 advantages are completly irelevants

[007kingifrit]

uh no. eastern Europe surrenders to russia all the time... they aren't fighting for crimea now are they?

and it would take well over 50,000 nukes to destroy life on the planet. even then life would recover eventually. we don't have enough nukes to destroy the world

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Not all the East countrys want to fight for Ukrin. planet can be destroy just whit some 100 nuks

[007kingifrit]

no. there are not enough nuclear weapons on earth to destroy the planet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyECrGp-Sw8&t=303s

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Planet will be destroy because it will heat the atmosfer and come a nuclear winter whitch will eras the humanity

[007kingifrit]

... i just gave you the video. there is no nuclear winter. its a hollywood concept

[Alexandrubaschet08]

i sow that video long time ago, i know it
A couple of ten of nuks will not brake apart the Eart but it will still destroy us

[007kingifrit]

... i just explained to you in the video that that isn't true. you're an idiot who doesn't update your worldview with new information

[Anonymous]

2 more things: China and Iran.

Good luck if you think that those cowardly Europeans and sissy Americans can beat the three altogether.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Opinion Owner]

By the way, don't forget the fact that Russia doesn't need to fight 1 million US soldiers (if the US had the capacity to mobilize such a number of troops), they just need to sink 11 aircraft carriers...

And they have tons of nuclear weapons, missiles, nuclear submarines and aircrafts to do so. And the EU army is not a serious challengers.

A war in Europe will end very very very badly to NATO.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Not at all, Europ have enought power to face a Russian invasion whtit he NATO alys.
(the question is just about RUSSIA vs NATO)
China and India have no buisnis for me or this questions.

[Opinion Owner]

Russia won't invade Europe, no one wants to spend money to conquer a land of pensioners with no natural resources. 😆

The only realistic scenarios would be

1) NATO invading Russia.

In this case NATO would be fucked out of existence. Europe alone doesn't have the manpower to beat Russia in its own territory. The US help would be very risky since, as aforementioned, Russia would need only to sink 11 US carriers to cut off all the US ability to attack. And I'm not even talking about China and Iran this time, they would absolutely join Russia if a war breaks up.

2) Russia invading European NATO countries

In this case, Russia would have short-time victories, but it would take too long for their economy to go bankrupt and they end up losing the war.