Bullet-Tooth Tony
BFBS Forces News
comments
Comments by "Bullet-Tooth Tony" (@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-) on "Military Vehicles Join Troops For A Mock Battle And Mine Clearing!💥 • OP CABRIT TRAINING | Forces TV" video.
@Raw Potato
A quick review of Wikipedia Sources shows that NATO’s overwhelming superiority in financial assets, troop quantity and training, military technology, electronics and logistics would eventually repel any Russian occupation. Such a Russian defeat would happen even if the US remained uninvolved. NATO’s population (at 508 mil) is nearly four times that of Russia (143 million). NATO’s active military is at 1.4 million, vs 766,000 for Russia.
Russia’s military expenditure is $66 Billion. NATO’s military expenditure (without the US) is $256 Billion. Russia’s GDP is at $2 Trillion, and its national net worth is about $2 Trillion. The EU’s GDP is at $20Trillion, with a net worth of nearly $80 Trillion. Russia’s available Nuclear Warheads number 1920. Their combat Armored Fighting Vehicles number about 90,000. The EU’s available Nuclear Warheads number about 515. Their AFVs number about 63,000.
Russia’s air arm has about 3100 fixed wing aircraft and 1000 rotary wing aircraft. NATO has 6700 fixed wing and 1000 rotary wing aircraft. Russia’s Navy has 145 surface ships, 1 aircraft carrier and 60 submarines. NATO has 549 surface ships, 4 aircraft carriers and 61 submarines.
NATO combat personnel have much more diverse weapons and equipment training than their Russian counterparts. Pilots have more hours flying time and Navy personnel have more ocean water sortie time.
Russia can invade any non-NATO country along its border in Cold War Style attack, complete occupation in a matter of hours, days or weeks, and absorb it into Russia’s sphere of national defense in a matter of months. Russia attempted this with Afghanistan in the 1970’s. In the long run, the occupation failed.
Russia can war against the same non-NATO border countries by using insurgencies. This involves mixing military and para-military forces to occupy and strong arm the target state’s political process. In March 2014, Russia was successful in opening such a war against Ukraine, a non-NATO state. It occupied Crimea sent insurgents into eastern Ukraine.
However, the conflict quickly turned into civil war, and Russian victory has not yet been assured.
Indeed, beginning in February 2018, with the help of NATO training, intelligence, weapons and technology, Ukrainian Forces have been advancing into the Russian occupied area. Despite a large pro-Russian population, Moscow has not been able to bring closure to the war they initiated in 2014.
NATO’s European leaders fear the Russians could do the same with NATO member states, such as the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) or with Poland. With Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the US participation in NATO strained by US Whitehouse policy, NATO’s European members have worked to increase their integration and responsiveness.
Were Russia to attempt an open attack or an insurgency attack on a NATO state, it would probably have success in opening a conflict. But, the longer the conflict dragged out, the less likely would be Russia’s success.
8
4