Could Russia win a war against NATO?

Could Russia win a conventional war against NATO in this current political/military climate? What kind of scenario would it take for Russia to actually win?

 

Russia could not win. NATO has the ability to starve Russia of the economic power needed to support a prolonged conflict and has the military capacity to decimate anything (short of Nukes) that might come up against it.

Russia will never force a war with NATO, if only because it is aware it means the end.

 

First off NATO isn't a thing, it is the US in reality using a military alliance to manipulate and control the bigger European powers, it is the same with the EU. I don't think it is in my country the UK's best interest to fight a war with Russia for the US in central and eastern Europe. Now the US has the UK in an impossible position in military terms, in that the US wants the UK to have a supportive military capability to backup the US, which the UK doesn't really need. On the other hand if the UK moved to a military re-armament program to defend itself from Russia in the North Sea without needing the US, the US would then support Norway and Denmark to counter British military domination of the North Sea. It is the same everywhere else in Europe from Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain and France, however the main country losing because of this is the major naval threat the US, which is Britain. My guess is if Russia invaded eastern Europe the NATO alliance would collapse, with Germany and Britain joining Russia against the US in the medium term. Though in the short term the UK and Germany would be nutural and still allow US forces to operate in a limited manner from their territory.

That being said the best case for NATO would be Russia controlling Eastern Europe to the German border and NATO forces being removed from the Baltic, North and Black sea's before the US counter attack supported by Canada, UK and Turkey, the French, Italians, Spanish and so on would have a very limited role in any war with Russia. With German taking the biggest load on land in holding the Russians in Germany. In all this through the main factor is the US military being superior to the Russian military, of this we can't really be sure until it happens. In the small seas around Europe the Russian navy has a massive advantage and they will be able to take up defensive positions in Eastern Europe supported by pro-Russians in European Europe. The major factor in my view is Turkey, if its military is able to open a second front with US support the Russians are finished. Which is why Russia must control the Black sea and pipelines from the Caspian sea and Black sea to limit Turkey's actions. Then you have the other factor of the US could make an agreement with Iran to lift sanctions and give it control of the Gulf if it joins the US, then you have China which always wants more resources. The Russians could endup being totally destroyed with only their core still standing and no buffer from further invasion.

 

Interesting (if naïve and biased) interpretation of thi9s scenario. While I can understand your feelings of United States desires of empire and control....I wish to point out that the U.S is but a player in NATO, and in fact is not situated anywhere near Europe or Russia.

 

Well ofcourse my view is biased, but it is far from naive. My guess is nobody outside Britain can understand my feelings about the US. The US created NATO and only works because of the US, so without the US there would be no NATO. You can't say the same about any other countries in the alliance. No the US just has total control of the North Atlantic, North sea and Mediterranean, so it dominates Europe and Russia. The way Britain did.

 

No "conventional" war between Russia and NATO would remain "conventional".

To save face or hope to scare the enemy into backing down, eventually a losing side would employ some form of tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield. That opponent, also to "save face" and in demand from its populace for vengence or retribution, would launch a similar strike.

Immediately "use it or lose it" would be invoked...the idea that "If we don't fire off our ICBMs they'll be destroyed in their silos, as the other side has clearly shown they will use nukes first....we must launch now, without warning"......their opponents would detect that action and launch....

and the Northern Hemisphere would become a very quiet neighborhood for many generations to come.

 

Russia could not win, period. They would be fighting all of Europe, the US and Can, Aus and NZ along with some others thrown in. FYI it might become a two front war quickly, there is only a small hop between North America and the Eastern shore of Russia and their oil feilds. Prime targets.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortaunatel;y with the likes of Putin you are probably correct.

 

NATO was created originally to keep the Russians out of Western Europe and the Germans allied with the old World War 2 allies. You may think the US is some sort of puppetmaster manipulating NATO for our own interests, but to me, it looks like NATO has worked out for everyone in Western Europe, including the UK. It's insured that the Russians wouldn't invade and it's provided a security that's allowed the Europeans to basically pawn off the expense of maintaining their own military's to the United States. I'm not sure what massive advantage other than US bases all over Europe, that NATO has brought to the US that it hasn't also brought to the other NATO partners.

If there had been no NATO, and the US has taken it's toys and gone home after WWII, we would be looking at a totally different Europe now, and I suspect a vastly inferior version to what really exists due to NATO.

 

Sir, with all my respect.

I do strongly disagree.

Do not feel offendet please...

I am german. If Russia would attack Poland, Germany would ask the british nayvy to back Germany in the Baltic Sea and to wipe out all russian bases.

German troops with US troops and french air support would of corse back Poland. High tech armed european and american forces, would harshly strike back.

Germany would propose a certain amount of money to every russian soldier who will desert 10-20% of the russian army would simply disappear into the nighlife of Berlin and stop fighting, I am not joking. By that, the structure of such army would be in trouble.

German soldiers would use the Autobahn and they would get in cars to the front sort of. After having bombed the lousy train connection in Belo Russia, russian soldiers would have a hard time to move.

I guess the first goal for the german army could be to take Königsberg, ex german city in russian hands nowdays, north from Poland.

I also guess after russians army would have some very strong experiences, they would go back and ask for armestice. That must be done before nukes are used, otherwise no peace is possible.

Germany would never ever fight the USA with Russia and Britain. I guess such szenario is part of british humor.


I give you a very realistic szenario from the war done by soldiers and generals of all countries involved (in german); go in from minute 56 about!

The szenario is taken place in 1990. Germany is that time not reunified and Russia freaks out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpodgUrmXjE


Nowdays Germany does seem and is a very peaceful country. I do not know any german who is lokking for any war szenario. But if germans are forced, if there is no choice, germans would fight better than most would imagine, I am 100% certain. But not with any pleasure, with any enthusiams.

I also think such development would be visible before - that would cause that Germany would get a crash program to get re-armed.

 

Russia couldn't defeat the US so it could hardly defeat the US and allies.

 

Ironically, it wasn't that long ago that it was France and Britain that were more of a nuclear deterrent than the U.S., as they were far less reticent about using their tactical nukes in a war against a Soviet invasion of Europe than the U.S. was. France in particular waved the nuke card around quite freely.

 

US commanders in Europe had nukes to use at their discretion. There were things like the Davy Crockett which were to be used as soon as the USSR attacked.

 

We had tac nukes, but our policy was using them as last resorts, whereas the French and Brits made it clear using them weren't last resorts for them.

 

The Davy Crockett was to irradiate the battlefield to slow down the Soviets to allow reinforcements to be brought in. They weren't a last resort weapon. They were very small yield nukes.

 

Hmmm, being that I was a Pershing 1 & 2 elctronics tech, I can assure you we were not only defensive in Nature.

 

I know that; and yes U.S. policy was to use them as last resorts. We some 7,000 tactical nuclear warheads of all sorts, missiles, artillery fired, etc. in the '70's, at least by 1978 we did, anyway. Our policy was not to use our first; France and Britain didn't have such a policy.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't say we were; I said U.S. policy was not to use our tactical nukes first in a European ground war.

 

You seem to be saying the US had to hold the UK and France back from going to war with the USSR. The British were not very good and the French banged on about nuclear weapons because there conventional forces weren't upto standard. The more important thing from a British point of view was our 26 plus submarines and large navy.

 

NATO vs Russia in a conventional war?

lol!!!!

the Rusians would be too drunk too fight, and then once they sobored up they would drop their Kalishnikovs to the ground and beg for mercy.

 

Yeah but that program was deactivated in 1967, so it wasn't a factor for most of the Cold War and had nothing to do with NATO planning after that time.

 

I don't know how much the UK force had to do with NATO planning, but the French had nothing at all to do with it. I don't think the French would have used their nukes short of actual Soviet invasion of French soil. They wouldn't have deployed them in concert with any NATO strategy. They took their nukes and went home.

 

I'll dig up the OB's and the policy analysis of those days; they're around here somewhere, as I was reading them a couple of months ago for a discussion on another board. The Brits had responsibility for a part of the northern sector, I don't remember exactly where. The French had air craft and missiles, some naval units, and in the event of a Soviet invasion they intended to attack right off, they weren't going to wait for Soviet units to reach French borders. They preferred to nuke eastern Europe and German soil and avoid warfare on their own soil.

 

And we knew, as the men that would actually use them, that if the NATO forces were looking like they were about to be overwhelmed that we would not hesitate to use them on massed troops, airfields and yes small cities and towns of stratigic importance. Remember this simple Fact, many Nations have Nukes, only one Nation has used them, and we did it Twice, do not think this Nation would hesitate if they felt it was tactically the best move. We could carry up to Five warheads all dirtected at different targets and they come in form outside the atmosphere at over five times the speed of sound, making them nearly impossible to shoot down, by the time you see it coming it is far too late to react. If you do not think we can do the same today do not fool yourself, lets hope it does not come down to that.

 

Yes but France is not really in NATO, so it's hard to gauge what part they would play in a NATO defense of Europe. If they could cut a special deal with the Russians, they would sit any war out, so I don't really consider them as part of any NATO defense planning.

 

No, they weren't in NATO, but they also had an interest in Europe and keeping the Soviets out; I don't think they trusted the Soviets any more than anybody else did at the time, so whatever posturing they did in public their defense establishment was thoroughly on the side of shutting down a Soviet invasion. In fact, over the years, they've voted with the U.S. in the UN more often than almost any other country, at least through to the '90's; they just like to boast and pretend to be 'independent' and make pompous announcements for the amusement of their people. I guess they think they can shake more concessions out of everybody else that way or something.

I'm tired of typing on message boards for the day now; I'll get to the rest later.

 

NATO soldiers are better trained, more professional, and believe in values that are better to fight for.