Why the US/NATO could never win and will never fight a war against Russia – unless the #EmpireAtAllCosts cult somehow seizes the reins of power, in which case, it will become the biggest catastrophe in US military history, and likely result in a nuclear war:

1/

For me, one of the most intriguing aspects of the unprecedented levels of propaganda beclouding the ongoing Ukraine War are the incessant claims, from the very beginning, of the alleged strategic, tactical, and logistical ineptitude of the Russian military.

2/

The theme of the bumbling Russians was clearly preconceived and coordinated, and commenced in earnest within the first 24 hours of hostilities. It is also apparent, to me at least, that it has emanated almost exclusively from the CIA/MI6 analyst/think-tank complex.

3/

CIA/MI6 fronts like Oryx, Bellingcat, and ISW have pumped out this narrative so relentlessly that it has now been ubiquitously enshrined as “received wisdom”, even to the point of entering into the body of assumptions embraced by many who I expected to be more discerning.

4/

One of the more inexplicable narratives included in this disinformation package has been the allegation that Russian troops are poorly trained conscripts, who are thrown into the meat grinder with antique weapons, little ammo, and so little food they are literally starving.

5/

These tall tales are then woven back into the main strand of the narrative: the Russian army is a disorganized mob of demoralized “orcs” whose only real talent is plundering household appliances, raping young women, and randomly gunning down old folks on the streets.
6/

Attached to this constant refrain are repeated comparisons to the allegedly incomparable professionalism, organization, training, and weaponry of US/NATO forces. The implication is that any company of American soldiers would be a match for an entire battalion of Russians.
7/

I’ve concluded this unrelenting narrative must have as its aim the persuasion of the public and policy-makers in NATO countries that western militaries are so vastly superior to their Russian counterparts that no one should have reservations about making war against them.

8/

I’ve concluded this unrelenting narrative must have as its aim the persuasion of the public and policy-makers in NATO countries that western militaries are so vastly superior to their Russian counterparts that no one should have reservations about making war against them.
9/

And thus we continue to hear calls for immediate NATO intervention into the war; the establishment of a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine, and “boots on the ground” to teach the presumptuous and inept third-world Russian army a lesson it will not soon forget.

10/

Never mind the numerous reports from western mercenaries and foreign legion volunteers who managed to escape back to their home countries after brief and terrifying “tours of duty” in Ukraine, all of whom relate similar accounts.
11/

They talk about encountering overwhelming firepower for the first time in their military careers, and they soberly warn anyone else thinking of embarking on a “safari” to kill Russians that it was “nothing like Iraq” and they feel very lucky to have made it out alive.
12/

Never mind also the fact that, to my knowledge, there are few if any conscripts among the Russian forces in Ukraine, and few if any reports in Russian independent media sources of demoralized, under-supplied Russian battalions in any theater of the war.
13/

Quite to the contrary, every indication I have seen suggests that Russian morale is sky high, both among the soldiers doing the fighting and the Russian public at home. To be sure, there have been Russian casualties: best estimates are ~5000 RF and ~8000 DPR/LPR KIAs.
14/

These numbers pale in comparison to the western propaganda mill fantasies of ~100k total Russian casualties, including 35k – 50k KIAs, which, were it true, would be unmistakably reflected both in the morale of the army itself and the public at home – and it clearly is not.
15/

Nor is any of this manufactured narrative consistent with constant Ukrainian appeals for massive replenishment of lost heavy weaponry, and repeated mobilization of territorial guard troops and expansion of the conscript window to include 18 – 60 year-olds and even women.
16/

On the other side, Russian troops rotate out and back in to the battlefield, rested and refitted. Russia has not ordered a general mobilization, and has about the same number of soldiers in the theater that they started with (175k – 200k).
17/

So I leave the reader to judge the facts of the matter in terms of Russian military ineptitude and massive logistical failures.

And with that preface, let’s turn to the primary question: could NATO fight and win a war against the Russians on this same battlefield?
18/

My answer is an emphatic NO, and for three distinct but equally disqualifying reasons:

1) There is zero evidence that NATO soldiers are superior to Russians.

2) Sufficient NATO forces could NEVER be assembled and equipped to defeat the Russians in their own backyard.
19/

3) Even the attempt to concentrate sufficient US forces in the region to take on the Russians would result in the disintegration of the global American Empire and rapidly accelerate the already-in-progress transition to a multipolar world.
20/

As to point #1 above, it bears repeating what I have argued multiple times in recent weeks: this war has seen the Russian military quickly evolve into a battle-hardened and surprisingly nimble and quick-to-adapt fighting force. The US has not faced such a force since WW2.
21/

Many believe the US is a “battle-hardened” force. This is utter nonsense. Of the many thousands of troops in current US combat units, only a minute fraction has experienced ANY battle, and NONE have experienced high-intensity conflict such as is taking place in Ukraine.
22/

I submit that one of the inadvertent and unforeseen byproducts of this war is that, even as the NATO-trained and equipped Ukrainian army has been devastated, the Russian army has been transformed into the single most experienced army on the planet.
23/

Needless to say, this is NOT what US/NATO strategists intended to achieve. But it does explain why we now see them doubling-down on efforts to prolong this war – both to (hopefully) degrade Russian capabilities, and to buy time for themselves to determine what to do next.
24/

You see, if NATO had to go to war today against Russia, and all their troops and equipment could be magically teleported to the battlefield, they simply could not sustain high-intensity conflict for more than about a month, as this analysis shows:

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare
25/

The dim-witted will undoubtedly reply: “But muh awesome American air power would destroy them from the sky.”

The average Call of Duty warrior believes such nonsense, but I guarantee very few in the Pentagon harbor such delusions.
26/

To the contrary, they understand perfectly well that Russian best-in-class air defenses would savage attempted US/NATO airstrikes. It would be a massacre, the results of which after even the first 48 hours would see wiser heads calling for an immediate ceasefire.
27/

Not only that, but even attempted, but catastrophically failed NATO airstrikes against Russia would result in a massive series of counterstrikes against NATO bases and warships at distances never seen in previous wars. It would be a no-holds-barred affair.
28/

Staging areas in Poland and Romania would be hit hardest, but strikes would almost certainly range over all of Europe and the Mediterranean. Russian missiles and submarines would sink several ships within hours, including, almost certainly, a US carrier.
29/

In my estimation, the Russians would NOT sit back and watch the US/NATO methodically conduct a Desert Storm-style buildup over the course of a year (or more) – which is how long it would take to assemble a force large enough to launch a war against Russia.
31/

Just as they preempted Ukrainian designs to retake the Donbass and Crimea, they would likewise strike NATO forces long before they reached a level of strength sufficient to conduct operations against Russia. (This pertains to point #2 above, in tweet #19.)
32/

One final observation on this whole notion of the US/NATO making war against Russia:

People neglect to consider the fact that US forces are dispersed all around the world, in over 800 foreign bases of varying sizes and strategic importance.
33/

In other words, most fail to appreciate the fact that US military might is *highly diluted*, and the only way to possibly concentrate a force sufficient to take on the Russians would be to literally evacuate almost every significant US base on the planet.
34/

Japan, Korea, Guam, Syria, Africa, Turkey, etc. A massive power vacuum would be created all around the world, and would constitute an irresistible temptation for “hostile powers” to exploit.

It would spell the end of American global empire and hegemony.
35/end

klarry79:
As much as Russia has a formidable military strength, we needs to understand that a war with NATO will not favour Russia. It's a war against many countries that have very Capable Armed forces. Even Sweden and Finland joining are bringing some value to the table. Russia fighting on multiple fronts well..... note that even the IndoAsian strength is coming in India, S.Korea, Australia and Jàpan ...these are not toy armed forces with very sophisticated systems.

In my view Russia has allowed itself to be baited into a war it should not have entered into and PUTIN of all people should have learnt from the fall of the Soviet Union. The West did not succeed in the collapse of Soviet by tanks a d guns but by penetration of western influence. It is a lot worse now since Russia is also a global player in the scheme of things doing business with the West and enjoying the luxury and lifestyle it offers. These sanctions are the Wests foothold and they won't let go. Even though Russia is minimising or mitigating against it now, the fact that it's in place is already a minus for Russia. It is a noose around their neck.

The strength of the West is long term staying power in whatever strategy they choose to deploy. Let's see how they fair in 20years time. Also Russian strength as currently configured seems to be flouted around Putin's personality. The man is 70yrs old so waiting a few more years is nothing to the West. They probably have planned fnejr post Putin program and it's the Russian people that would be left to cope. Even Zelensky mentioned that Ukrain would continue to exist well after Putin.

When Nato and US Secret says the objective is to weaken Russia (Not Putin) that tells me they have counted their cost and done their homework so they can now boast of supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. That means Russia will be quite busy for sometime... again it's the long term strategy at play to wear the Russians out.

TBH, Russia has not shown the nerve jangling awe the world had perceived them to have in Ukraine and no matter how formidable they claim to be, they can be engaged with some level of confidence.

With 800 military bases around them alonside several capable armed forces they may just want to think twice about an all out war with NATO. And the bases are tactical so the strength of the US forward posture is not diluted in anyway.

klarry79:
As much as Russia has a formidable military strength, we needs to understand that a war with NATO will not favour Russia. It's a war against many countries that have very Capable Armed forces. Even Sweden and Finland joining are bringing some value to the table. Russia fighting on multiple fronts well..... note that even the IndoAsian strength is coming in India, S.Korea, Australia and Jàpan ...these are not toy armed forces with very sophisticated systems.

In my view Russia has allowed itself to be baited into a war it should not have entered into and PUTIN of all people should have learnt from the fall of the Soviet Union. The West did not succeed in the collapse of Soviet by tanks a d guns but by penetration of western influence. It is a lot worse now since Russia is also a global player in the scheme of things doing business with the West and enjoying the luxury and lifestyle it offers. These sanctions are the Wests foothold and they won't let go. Even though Russia is minimising or mitigating against it now, the fact that it's in place is already a minus for Russia. It is a noose around their neck.

The strength of the West is long term staying power in whatever strategy they choose to deploy. Let's see how they fair in 20years time. Also Russian strength as currently configured seems to be flouted around Putin's personality. The man is 70yrs old so waiting a few more years is nothing to the West. They probably have planned fnejr post Putin program and it's the Russian people that would be left to cope. Even Zelensky mentioned that Ukrain would continue to exist well after Putin.

When Nato and US Secret says the objective is to weaken Russia (Not Putin) that tells me they have counted their cost and done their homework so they can now boast of supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. That means Russia will be quite busy for sometime... again it's the long term strategy at play to wear the Russians out.

TBH, Russia has not shown the nerve jangling awe the world had perceived them to have in Ukraine and no matter how formidable they claim to be, they can be engaged with some level of confidence.

With 800 military bases around them alonside several capable armed forces they may just want to think twice about an all out war with NATO. And the bases are tactical so the strength of the US forward posture is not diluted in anyway.

mike8804:
bros you think Russia will fight conventional war with NATO? Have you heard about MAD? Russia Vs NATO is end of the world

BritishNaija:


Well said.Some NL are living in their dreams. I wonder if It's not being delusional, Which Right thing individual will think that russia could match US Military strenght, talkless of NATO.

BritishNaija:


Well said.Some NL are living in their dreams. I wonder if It's not being delusional, Which Right thing individual will think that russia could match US Military strenght, talkless of NATO.

Bentizil:

Stop consoling yourself, we all know NATO is scared of Russia...

BritishNaija:


You are the one consoling yourself, Putin himself said it that he knows NATO is bigger and No match for Russia Military, Reason you see him threatening Nuclear attack all the time as if others will send him pizzas in Return.

BritishNaija:


You are the one consoling yourself, Putin himself said it that he knows NATO is bigger and No match for Russia Military, Reason you see him threatening Nuclear attack all the time as if others will send him pizzas in Return.

Bentizil:

Putin himself??
Hahaha
Putin himself??
Hahaha

1stGenAmerican:
These Nigerian guys have more faith in Russia than Putin does. Russia defeating NATO is wishful thinking. If Putin resorts to nuclear war, Russia will be annihilated before Putin would have time to remove his finger from the button.

BritishNaija:


You are the one consoling yourself, Putin himself said it that he knows NATO is bigger and No match for Russia Military, Reason you see him threatening Nuclear attack all the time as if others will send him pizzas in Return.

rottennaija:

How many countries do NATO have?

BritishNaija:


Up to 30.

rottennaija:


So 30 countries alliance to fight 1 country and you expect them not to use nuclear weapons? Why don't say US or Britain just go and fight Russia themselves to make for a fair fight?

BritishNaija:


No Body is expecting them to fight. Beside US those not need the help of Any country to neutralize Russia in a conventional war.

rottennaija:


And yet, in every conflict, the US goes with allies and in most times, abandon them like in Afghanistan?

You know what? The US should fight Russia directly. They are neighbors. They should just do it, instead of using other countries as proxies.

BritishNaija:
Why I believe that Avangard is an elaborate piece of propaganda



The B-52

BritishNaija:


Anti-air systems

Russia has done a lovely job of hyping its S-400 system, to the point that some Western analysts are scared to death of the introduction of the S-500, claimed to have anti-hypersonic defense systems. Other analysis has cast doubt whether the S-400 is truly invincible. Whilst it is possible the S-500 will genuinely be good, there is no evidence to suggest the S-400 is really as strong as it is claimed to be. For instance, Russian-made S-400 systems, and this is a documented fact, are completely powerless against F-35 fighter aircraft, being unable to even detect them, much less trying to shoot them down. If it has no chance against that, it also very likely has no chance against the Raptor and RQ-180, among many others.

The US, on the other hand, has truly powerful anti-air systems. THAAD has been made to intercept ballistic missiles, and has an impressive success rate. Aegis is another ballistic missile defense system which also has an impressive success rate, and has shot down ICBM test targets. Lasers are being developed and configured to blast missiles, hypersonic missiles and aircraft out of the skies. There are even handheld Stinger missiles. The usage of these missiles some consider a turning point in the Soviet-Afghan war, when the USSR was beaten by the mujahideen. Now, they are being used in Ukraine to defend against Russia. Russia has been unable to gain air superiority over Ukraine, which started the war at a severe disadvantage. How do you think they’ll fare in their indomitable Su-35s against the US Air Force? I think F-22 pilots are going to have the time of their life shooting

If Russia thinks Ukraine using MANPADS and drones is bad, a US-launched swarm of Javelins and Switchblade drones as well as strikes by Reapers will rout their army in a way they cannot even imagine. And something tells me they will not die with ‘Hail Putin’ as their last words.

I find the claims they have fielded invincible weapons inconsistent with their poor performance in Ukraine for obvious reasons, and given such poor planning and such a sorry state of Russian military technology, it should become apparent that Russia’s military sucks, and will be a pushover for NATO and the US Army

Verdict: The US absolutely destroys Russia in a conventional war. This will be even worse for Russia than the tremendous defeat the Japanese inflicted on them in 1905

So, now in our hypothetic war, the two come to blows, and Russia is beaten back with extreme losses. Let’s assume it is a Friday, and that our beloved Russian president got himself a little hammered on self-made moonshine. Seeing how badly the Russians got shredded, he gets angry and starts a nuclear war

Nuclear capabilities of Russia

Russia has about 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons. Of these, some Western analysts are most terrified of the RS-28 Sarmat. Configured to carry 10–15 warheads and/or some Avangard missiles, some claim that one missile can wipe out an entire country. This cannot be further from the truth- no missile in the world is capable of blowing up a country. Rather, all these warheads detonating in different places at once will cause radiation fallout which will occlude the skies over a France-sized country. It is scheduled to enter service this year. The UK has an analogue in service already.

The above missile is derived from the R-36, which is capable of carrying 10 warheads over a range of up to 16,000km. Both are alleged to have massive amounts of countermeasures designed to defeat anti-missile systems. It also has submarine-launched ballistic missiles and nuclear-armed missiles to be deployed with bombers.

Nuclear capabilities of the United States

The US deploys around 400 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and a range of up to 14,000km. It is generally considered one of the, if not the, deadliest and most accurate ICBMs in the world. It is capable of carrying up to 3 MIRVs.

The United States lunches its deadliest weapon from submarines. The Trident II D5 in United States service is capable of carrying up to 8 MIRVs (limited to 4. The UK variant can carry up to 12 MIRVs), and is considered to be the most accurate nuclear weapon in the world. It can transport its payload over 7,600–12,000km depending on the load, and is completely impossible to stop with electronic measures

The US also employs air-launched nuclear missiles. In total, the US has about the same amount of nuclear weapons ready to launch as Russia does

The war

Russia will start the war at a severe disadvantage. This is because an attack against a single NATO country will cause the entire alliance to respond. Russia has 1,600 warheads, but these will need to be spread over the entire NATO block to wipe out the huge amount of military installations all over the place. More than 400 alone would likely be sent to the American great plains just to take out the Minuteman silos, which by then would have long since launched. Lets say Putin sends 500 warheads there to make sure the place is blown up. Some, but not all, will malfunction. Some, but not all, will be shot down. He is left with 1,100. Targeting cities will be very costly to him, and he knows this.

In addition, Europe has a number of anti-ballistic missile systems (Aegis Ashore and THAAD) which will need to be taken into account. His missile count is already draining fast and he hasn’t even taken out any military bases yet. The Pentagon says that there are 5,000 US bases, and 600 of these are overseas. Putin will have to prioritise these bases, and his supply will unfortunately run out by the time he is done blowing up as many military bases as he can take down. He might send a nuke at Washington or London for symbolic measure, but he simply cannot afford to attack many cities because it will leave his country open to a devastating aviation attack. Then there’s also the US navy, the Royal Navy and all that which needs to be dealt with. He’ll likely need nukes, because as I’ve explained before, Kinzhal and Avangard are garbage.

Of course, he might resort to nuclear terrorism and bomb cities instead of military bases, but that would be an unthinkable mistake which will spell 100% doom for his country.

If he leaves military bases standing and targets cities, the US Air Force is going to bomb his country into oblivion. There will not be a single city left standing. Although he himself will survive the initial blast, a B-52H will be directed to his bunker armed with a MOP. Game over. But if he starts targeting military bases, he will run out of nukes by the time he has cut off the ability of the USAF to retaliate. Lose-lose

In the likeliest case, the US and Europe lose thousands of bases. Millions die, but countless lives are intact. Both are crippled, but they linger on.

In contrast, the US has slightly less then 1,600 warheads, Britain has over 200, France has nearly 300, and Israel, which likely won’t sit out, has at least 90. They take the resulting tidal wave of warheads and put it in a single place: Russia. Cold War scenarios had at least 60 warheads exploding in Moscow alone.

The US has 11 nuclear submarines, each armed with 24 SLBMs, each armed with an average of 4 warheads… do the maths on how much is going to pour down on Russia from above. And then add to that what the UK and France can do. And then add the 405 warheads in the Minuteman III missiles.

As a result, NATO will be severely battered with extreme loss of life, but because of the nature of the attack military installations will likely bear the brunt, spread over Europe and the US. Most cities will survive.

But Russia will be simply erased from existence. And I hope that, even now, Putin realises trading severely hurting NATO for the complete annihilation of his country is not a fair price to pay

Update: A recent flight test of the HAWC missile was done this March. US officials have said it was not immediately declassified to prevent escalation. The missile flew 300 miles at an altitude of 65,000 feet and hypersonic speeds to smash into its target according to DARPA. The US has also assigned its upcoming GBSD ICBM a new name- LGM-35A Sentinel.

Further Update: Middle May 2022, the AGM-183 ARRW had a successful flight test, after a string of failures. It was launched from a B-52H and accelerated to hypersonic speeds. Separation and gliding was tested as well. Compared to Kinzhal, AGM-183 is a vastly more advanced and complicated system (potentially the most complicated hypersonic weapon in the world), and can go almost twice as fast

rottennaija:


Paper tiger. When they are ready, they should wage a war against Russia. That is when we will see and something tell me it's going to be very soon