Even without the USA, Nato would still win in a fight
Even without the USA, Nato would still win in a fight
www.telegraph.co.uk
Even without the USA, Nato would still win in a fight
13 comments
-
-
I hate all the posturing. If NATO is so strong, then show it! For 3 years, there have been breathless articles about the power of Nato.
But if the EU can't even supply weapons to Ukraine, then they're a paper tiger. Supply Ukraine, then talk about how NATO is strong.
-
In a conventional fight Russian forces would be wiped off the Ukrainian map in less than a week. The problem is that nobody dares to engage them now that they are at their absolute weakest. The situation might look very different depending on how much time they get to rearm and the stance that the Americans will take.
-
In a FAIR fight. We all know the Russkis don't do fair. Expect Skripal-like poisonings in order to sow chaos and distrust.
-
Expect? Russia is already at war with every at least somewhat democratic society, and they just won in the US.
-
-
That article mentions “nuclear” once.
I believe when facing NATO, Russia would not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
NATO vs Russia is a completely different conflict without the US in NATO.
-
France and UK have nukes too.
-
I don't think russia would use nukes. That would open them up to retaliatory nuking. France and Britain both have nukes and the russian border is a lot more porous and a lot longer than the european ones. Much easier to get a nuke to moscow than to london.
-
France and uk have plenty enough nukes to assure the mutual destruction of russia.
-
13 comments
What about if the US is supplying arms to the other side?
I don't like presenting things as black and white but I also feel the same - if US is no longer part of NATO we should expect them to be in opposition to it.