Could Russia win a war against NATO?

While France was not part of the NATO command structure, they were NATO allies. I found an OB on their unit deployments for a later post, along with the British Army of the Rhine OB also, for Walker's fyi. France had units deployed in Germany at various points. These are circa 1976-78. Mostly the deployments conform to the post-war zones of control in the main; rather unrealistic, with the Brits to hold the northern plains with the lavishly supplied Americans in the more rugged territories, just about perfectly the opposite of what they should have been.

 

Well getting back to the issue, although I think the Soviet Union had a fairly good chance of winning a conventional land war in Europe up until the early 80's, I don't think Russia could do that now. For one thing, they have a lot more "Europe" to fight through. They don't have Tank and Motorized Rifle Divisions stationed in Poland and East Germany.

 

Russia's capabilites would allow them to win a war with the EU by itself, near Russia's borders in area like the Ukraine. It would also allow them to win a regional war involving the Ukraine and the US pitted against them. The US has many, many troops around the world, dealing with other threats, while Russia's threat is close to home, so they can afford to deploy dense concertrations of troops and firepower. I'm only one of probabily a dozen that will respond to this, but remember the Ukraine knows it can not defeat Russia by itself (hence it ceded the Crimea), and the US has no troops in the Ukraine. Russia has S-300 and 400 missles capable of shooting down our F-15's, 16's, 22's, and 35's. Their fighters, the newer ones, like the Su-30 and 35 (Superior to F-15's and 16's), the F-15 rival the MiG-29, and also the MiG-35, which is coming out shortly make it very difficult for us to battle the Russians. Our nearest airbases is father away from Ukraine for us than Russia, so refueling them is tough. Our aircraft carriers, if we decide to use them, will diffinitely be attacked. Russia has non-nuclear EMP weapons, capable of devasting an enemy. They're the only country that has them. Russia has a decent navy that can project regional power, and has stealth subs that will create chaos for American Navy ships. Russia's missles are designed to defeat the patriot missle system. I'm sure a lot of Americans, with their pride, will say Russia will be destroyed, it won't last long, it can compete, but regionally, especially with the Ukraine, if it was full out, Russia would win. Europe relies on Russia for a lot of it's gas.

In the region of eastern Europe, where the conflcit is most likely to take place, Russia would win. If it was globally, they definitely would lose against the US, they don't have the ability to send there forces in mass very far.

 

Taxcutter says:
With the US disarmed and forced into neo-isolationism, Russia completely whips NATO if the light goes green today.

NATO (less the US) couldn't handle Serbia or Libya.

 

If worse came to worst, China and Russia are major allies, in order to get an advantage for the future, I see China would support Russia, in the Pacific, all out against the US. Now China might not have as much technology as us, but their possible military size is enormous. China outnumbers us about 4 to 1. They could easily convince North Korea to attack South Korea, and Japan, were the majority of the US troops near China are Stationed. China and North Korea could easily take over any opponents in the Pacific, only if they could wipe out the US air and naval presence in the area. If China could get a invasion force to the west coast, I could almost guarantee the US would loose almost all of the west coast. The US would then proceed to move all of the stationed troops in Afghanistan and the middle east, into mainland China, forcing a new front. The main thing is, military size, our military is spread across the world, while China's military is close to home, like Russia's. We simply couldn't get a large enough force together to capture China's major industrial cities, which almost all of them are on the coast. The only way we could win in this situation is if the EU occupied Russia, and then could push into China from the west. I believe that nuclear weapons would have to be used, if China had a unshakable foot hold in the US. That's just some of my opinion on how the war could get outta hand. The one thing is that I forgot to mention is that our military leaders have more experience in war than mostly any other country. China's last battle happened in like the '70s so their military leaders would not have the experience ours would.

 

If worst came to worst China would invade Russia's for east and take it, then the Russians would start dropping nuclear warheads on China. The US and Europeans would at this point back off and support which ever side is weaker to keep the war going to weaken both. Russia and China can't be strategic allies, they have far to many competing interests in central Asia, Mongolia and the Far east.

The China army on paper outnumbers the US army and marines about 2.5-1 with the other Chinese numbers coming from internal paramilitaries. So China doesn't outnumber the US that much, then if we take into account logistics and training, the operational numbers are about the same. The Chinese could send 1 million men against 300,000 Americans soliders and the US would likely win. The US trains in divisions including logistical support and air support. The Chinese train in brigade size without logistical support, just air support. The US could set traps for oncoming Chinese divisions and whip them out, they would cut though Chinese lines at will and destroy their logistics with special forces. The Chinese don't have this capability. Rather the Chinese will use different versions of their mass attack waves supported with speical forces to break the US lines. However the US can move around they can change their lines tactically or strategically. If the war came to Korea again and the Chinese went to war they would find the South Korea's and Japanese would be no pushover, even without US troops they could defeat North Korea and holdout for months against any initial Chinese attack.

As for China being able to convince North Korea to attack I am not sure that China could, the DPRK knows what war with the US means they don't want war. The US couldn't invade China from Afghanistan the geography and logistics doesn't allow for it.

 

I now agree with what you have said, the part I don't agree with is the South Korea and Japan. North Korea has an active military size of around 1.1 million. Their reserves is about 8.2 million. Also, they spend 25% of their GDP on military. Japan has an active military of 230k, with a reserve of 41k. Their total GDP spending is 1% on military. South Korea has a total of 640k active, and 2.9 million, with a military spending of 2.5% of GDP. While SK and Japans military spending is about 9 times more than North Korea's, North Korea simply has more men, and their culture is so militaristic, it would be similar to WW2 Era Japanese soldiers. North Korea has about 5 million more soldiers then the other two combined. North Korea also has nuclear warheads, however crude they may be, they might still have the capability to be launched into South Korea. Even if the did take over North Korea, China would send in so many troops it is simply impossible to hold out that long. China has a total of 600 million citizens fit for service. About 2.3 million active right now, with 800k reserve. They have 20 million people reaching military age every year. The USA has a total of 1.4 million active, and 850k reserve. USA has 4 million troops reaching military age every year, and about 120 million fit for service right now. China simply has to many troops, they have 10 times amount of new recruits every year. The USA could not have a prolonged war with China, we would run out of troops within a few years. China would have fresh soldiers at a constant rate.

 

How many of this North Korean force is trained, my guess is not more than 300,000. They can't feed their forces and have poor weapons. The issue is would the South Koreans and Japanese be willing to work together, I don't think they would beyond limit actions by the Japanese to protect their waters and air space. So it becomes South Korea with US support against North Korea with Chinese support. I see only one winner South Korea in the end. Now I don't expect South Korea to take North Korea, rather I would expect the government in North Korea to change after an agreement between China, US, South Korea and North Korea, passed into law by the UNSC.

You try training and equiping 120 million or 600 million people it isn't going to happen. The largest army in history is 7 million of the WW2 Soviet army. It would be very hard to go much beyond that number. Also only 2 wars in history have been Total state on state wars, I don't see why a war between the US and China would be or even could be a Total war. I wouldn't expect a war between the US and China to involve more than 1.5 million soliders, sailors and airmen on rotation. The China people wouldn't accept the huge loses they took in the Korean war, however the Americans couldn't say what the US would accept.

 

Short easy answer.

If the US sits on the sidelines, Russia eats NATO up. There is nothing to stop them until they hit the Atlantic Ocean. How well they can occupy it is another question.

If the US gets involved, Russia goes nowhere.

This is why Putin has to goad the torpid bear into action NOW. In 2017 there will be a new President and probably won't be a co-operative as Hussein Obama. In 2017 the window of opportunity probably slams closed.

 

Yes, the Russians have millitary Duty this means they can mobilize nearly 40% of Populatio, and send them with an AK-47 on the front...


AFAIK the Russians have the Most Tanks ans LAVs

the NATO leads thanks the US in Aviation and Navy

 

Conventional war ...

Russia can cause tremendous damages to Western continental Europe [we can compare its capability to the extension of the military effort of Nazi Germany], overall thanks to its missile brigades [long range cruise missiles, even if with conventional warheads can destroy entire quarters of a city in a while or industrial districts, streets, bridges, railway stations ... as well ...].

EU anti missile defense are specialized to intercept nuclear attacks, a very massive conventional missile attack would be devastating.

But the counter attack would be as quick as lethal for Russian ground forces, Russian navy and their air bases.

So far it's still all to be proved that they are able to intercept our stealth units. If not [as I suspect] stealth bombers could reduce a lot the real duration of the large scale missile strike, forcing Russians to fight in a more direct way.

Stealth F22 Raptors can make the difference in air to air combat and also conventional EU fighters [like Eurofighters and French Rafale units] can make it not that easy to Russians in the sky.

Russians can try and attack also US and UK [with more probability of success than the Nazi ... to say all, the US in the age of Nazi was out of their operative range], but this would reduce a lot the density of the attacks and the US anti missile defenses are very, very, very better than the EU ones.

Add that the US Navy battle groups [with some EU battle groups] could project a lot of force towards the Russian coasts [while Russians would have troubles in putting active carriers on the seas].

No, a conventional war between Russia and NATO would see Russia "gaining points" in Western Europe in the brief term, but in the mean term NATO powers would retaliate forcing Moscow to surrender in less than a couple of months.

 

Not very likely.

There are several things I will take on one at a time.

First, Russia has not really been in a serious war since 1989, when they pulled out of Afghanistan. NATO on the other hand has the largest group of combat experienced forces in the world, having been almost constantly involved in conflicts for over 20 years.

Secondly, Russia is mostly getting by on Soviet era equipment, a decade or more behind Western European and US equipment. Yes, they do have some modern equipment (550 T-90 tanks, 25 Su-30 fighters), but the vast majority of their equipment is Cold War era (3,144 T-80 tanks, 350 Su-27 fighters). These would fare poorly against US and European forces, which have predominantly equipment that dates within the last 25 years.

Thirdly, the political climate. Russia is still in many ways dependent on European exports, much more so then Europe is dependent upon Russian exports. An invasion would see NATO bind together to resist, even "sunny weather" members like France. Meanwhile most of the former Warsaw Pact nations have either left the Soviet sphere of influence, if not actively joined in with NATO themselves.

Now, if you are asking if Russia attacked they would be able to make a massive invasion and take a big chunk of Europe, that is a different matter. I think they could indeed take about half of Europe, but I do not think they could hold it. Without their satellite states to help support them and provide cannon fodder, I do not think they would last against the NATO counter-attack (akin to North Korea after UN forces got involved).

And Russia would not have a nation like China to help bail them out when the tide of war turned against them as North Korea did.

 

With US sitting it out (and Russia studiously offering no provocation) Russia easily wins a limited scope war (eastern Europe).

If they try to go further, their logistics begin to break down.

That's why I say they stop at the Oder. Maybe they make a deal with Germany to let Germany reclaim historically German provinces in Silesia and Prussia. Without Germany and the US, NATO is completely helpless.

 

Q. Could Russia win a war against NATO
A. No

1. Manpower: While Moscow has set a goal of fielding a 1 million-man army, the actual number may be as low as 700,000. According to recent report by the Swedish Defense Research Agency the country’s vast public health problems and low birthrate have left half of potential recruits disqualified from service.

2. Economics: Already, Russia is paying a serious price for seizing Crimea – tens of billions in capital outflows, a faltering stock market, potentially negative growth and political and economic isolation. Those problems, exacerbated by international sanctions, would look like child’s play if Russia were ever to tangle with a NATO country. Indeed, it’s likely one explanation for why Russia has demurred in sending troops into Eastern Ukraine – fear of the larger political and economic consequences. The fact is that Russia is an exponentially larger threat to itself right now than it is NATO.

3. NATO is stronger militarily: The United States, United Kingdom and France have among the six largest military budgets in the world; on the ground operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and a whole bunch of nuclear weapons. In all, NATO can field 2 million troops and, because of its exponentially larger economies than Russia, can mobilize and re-arm far more effectively and quickly than Moscow.

Read more: http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/05/dc-insiders-are-wrong-nato-could-beat-russia/83626/

 

Depends on what you consider as a victory. If the objective is to occupy Youropz, then it is not going to happen, if the objective is to run their economy to the ground or to defend yourself it is not a big deal. Can be done with several valves shut down and a handful of missile strikes.

 

Even 30-40 years ago they wouldn't have won; their assault forces in East Germany and elsewhere on the borders of Europe only had an intrinsic supply of around 6 days at best.

Launching from Russia today they would be lucky to make it half way across Poland on the ground, even without resistance from anybody.

 

You guys keep forgetting that the US is on the sidelines for the foreseeable future - thanks to Hussein Obama.

The rest of NATO couldn't defeat Libya.

 

[video=youtube_share;b61DgtyLQxQ]http://youtu.be/b61DgtyLQxQ[/video]


Could NATO win a war against Russia
B. No
[video=youtube_share;E1-JnbdqW-A]http://youtu.be/E1-JnbdqW-A[/video]

 

As I posted earlier, the Russian Federation can pose a regional challenge to the United States. They could not win an all out war against NATO though, and NATO could only win after considerable sustained conflict and a signifigant diversion of resources to that conflict. Russia is one of the few countries in the world where they manufacture their entire arsenal. Many, many countries bargan to buy Russia's stuff, be it the MiG-29, T-80, T-90, their RPGs, AK's, T-84, S-300, SU-27, Su-35's, SU-30's, PAK-FA T-50's, BMPs, and S-400's, among many others. Around the world, people are using Russia's stuff. In Desert Storm, we told or F-15 pilots to avoid engaging the MiG-29, which had come out the same era. The S-300 missle system is capable of shooting our F-15's and F-16's. "Well we got the F-22 and 35 now"... some will say. The S-400 will be able to shoot down the F-35 and possbily the F-22. Their MiG-35's, 29's, and SU-30's and 35's rival the F-16, F-15, and F-18 and in some cases are better. Russia has 21,000 tanks operational, while we have 7,000.

Many of those tanks are obsolute, such as the aging T-55's, 60's, and others. The T-72 is the standard in Eastern Europe, so for a regional challegence, this along with T-80 and 90's, is good. If they advance too far, they run into the vastly superior Leopard and Abrahms tanks in Germany. The old Soviet doctrine of armour has left Russia with too many tanks to deal with. Many are rusting are entirely obsolute. The 2006 invasion of Georgia by Russia saw more tanks lost to mechanical failure than actual combat. The troops and equipment stationed near the Ukraine has got to be top class if they smart. Ukraine would be overrun according to the best estimates, within a few weeks. Georgia, some people point out, "look how well Georgia did", well they lost the region in question, and if Russia bore their entire armed forces on the country, they'd be heading in the capital within a hour. Granted the casualitie rates were not too skewed for the Georgians, which was impressive. Spetznaz did the invading of Crimea, and many units were stationed near the Eastern border that were Spetznaz. Russia fought and won the largest war in human history. Their armed forces are mediocre, I guess we would have the advantage of body armour. Russia would feel liberated to move their forces, at least in part, away from the Chinese border, knowing that the Chinese do not like the US. The proof being I have friend who worked as a computer technician in the army and he dealt with cyber attacks against the US by China, against our military. China may help out diplomatically and aid wise. I feel them not joining though. Russia has missle-defence systems capable of shooting down our patriot missles, by deploying flares when it senses a missle coming and at a certain altitude, deploying several missles. They're the only county with the capability of non-nuclear EMP weapons. They shut down our military GPS's so they don't work in Russia. Their missles can be mobilely redeployed while flying, to get mobile targets.

The United States has more aircraft carriers, and a very good armed forces. The US can and probabily would defeat Russia in a non-nuclear war against Russia, but it would be a hard fought, damaging war for the US. In Russia's sphere though they will win. The farther away from Russia you go, the less likely it is they'll win.

 

Do you have a source for this data? I doubt any of Russia's forces are much over 50% operational, but I'm always open for new info. Their Air Force is around 50% operational at any given time, and the usual estimates for their armor forces run to their being lucky to field and maintain around 6,000 tanks tops, on a good day. These are as of last November. And, they have to disperse a portion of those to their eastern and southern borders at all times. Have they had a sudden burst of organizational efficiency recently? Their armed forces are so criminalized it's unlikely they'll last in a war more than a few days.

 

Our allies have good technology for war and backed by the US would pose a serious threat and we have vast industrial might, now if China-Russia joined forces I would be more concerned.

 

It isn't possible to reach Russia,but win it is better not to dream.

 

Funny, I don't remember any such thing.

They fought and won part of the largest war in human history, with help.

Patriots are not IR guided, so what are flares supposed to do?

Source?

No, they didn't.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2014-06-04/no-russia-cant-shut-down-gps