Minus nukes, Nato much stronger than Russia militarily; probably even without the US

[uihawk82]

These numbers still have the US added in as they should be that if Russia attacked a Nato country now the US would side with Nato as it is treaty bound.

I dont think even Trump, or rather the smarter people around the US, wants to be known as turning the US's back on treaty bound countries.

NATO Russia military comparison 2024 | Statista

As of 2024, NATO had approximately 3.39 million active military personnel, compared with 1.32 million active military personnel in the Russian military.

www.statista.com

 

[tarheelbybirth]

These numbers still have the US added in as they should be that if Russia attacked a Nato country now the US would side with Nato as it is treaty bound.

I dont think even Trump, or rather the smarter people around the US, wants to be known as turning the US's back on treaty bound countries.

NATO Russia military comparison 2024 | Statista

As of 2024, NATO had approximately 3.39 million active military personnel, compared with 1.32 million active military personnel in the Russian military.

www.statista.com

Trump will not defend NATO. Period. He's never honored a commitment in his entire life - personal or professional. They'll be lucky if he doesn't send US troops to fight with the Russians.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Thread bragging about how NATO doesn’t need the USA bashes Trump for not coming to NATO’s aid in an attack that hasn’t happened. You people really are “special”.

 

[NDallasRuss]

"Minus nukes" kind of invalidates the whole comparison. Those nukes are a pretty big part of the math.

That's like saying "minus speed, I have the fastest car in the world!"

 

[GES4]

"Minus nukes" kind of invalidates the whole comparison. Those nukes are a pretty big part of the math.

That's like saying "minus speed, I have the fastest car in the world!"

Nukes are what would certainly get us into the fight so I don't really see them as in play. But crazier things have happened in world history.

 

[noleclone2]

TBH, I think the former Baltics, Poland, and the Scandinavian countries could kick Russia's ass right now., especially from a defensive perspective.

Some big things we have learned the last 3 years of war in Ukraine:

• The airforce and air defense of Russia are shockingly bad. They could not even establish air superiority in a non NATO country with barely an airforce due to vulnerability of missiles shooting them down. The air superiority of the west would reign terror on the Russians
• Their equipment and fighting forces are massively depleted, they are sending literally WWII tanks in and using North Korea and Iranian stuff
• Their troops are poorly trained and officers depleted
• The equipment is way out dated tech wise because of the the funneling of dollars for research and equipment buys to enrich military high ups with palaces and yachts
• It is going to take a decade plus for Russia to recover from Putin's mistake. He has lost a world war level amount of equipment and men in one singular European country not in NATO.

 

[MitchLL]

Thread bragging about how NATO doesn’t need the USA bashes Trump for not coming to NATO’s aid in an attack that hasn’t happened. You people really are “special”.

You understand the word "commitment".

Dumbass!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

"Minus nukes" kind of invalidates the whole comparison. Those nukes are a pretty big part of the math.

That's like saying "minus speed, I have the fastest car in the world!"

You don’t need more nukes than Russia…you just need enough to destroy Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk…maybe a few others. Their population is very highly concentrated. Could they disperse that population? Sure…and they’d starve with no infrastructure to support them.

 

[Bonerfarts]

This is why Russia is begging Trump for a cease fire. They are stretched thin, and their economy is on the brink of collapse.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

This is why Russia is begging Trump for a cease fire. They are stretched thin, and their economy is on the brink of collapse.

Reagan would have doubled - maybe tripled - down on support to Ukraine were he up against Putin.

 

[hexumhawk]

Reagan would have doubled - maybe tripled - down on support to Ukraine were he up against Putin.

You are comparing two entirely different things however. The Soviet Union of the 80's and Russia currently are not the same thing- not even close to the same threat to our country and our way of life.

 

[GES4]

You are comparing two entirely different things however. The Soviet Union of the 80's and Russia currently are not the same thing- not even close to the same threat to our country and our way of life.

Modern Russia and the USSR of the 80's are very similar animals. Crazy to say they are entirely different. The only difference might be that the threat level is higher today.

 

[goldmom]

Nukes are what would certainly get us into the fight so I don't really see them as in play. But crazier things have happened in world history.

Nukes would mean a very short but very destructive event.
And not even a “long goodbye””.

 

[Huey Grey]

Trump will not defend NATO. Period. He's never honored a commitment in his entire life - personal or professional. They'll be lucky if he doesn't send US troops to fight with the Russians.

He will send troops against Ukraine. I feel this is more likely than not at this point.

 

[goldmom]

Thread bragging about how NATO doesn’t need the USA bashes Trump for not coming to NATO’s aid in an attack that hasn’t happened. You people really are “special”.

Yep.
Where did NATO get the majority of their military equipment and ordinance?

 

[hexumhawk]

Modern Russia and the USSR of the 80's are very similar animals. Crazy to say they are entirely different. The only difference might be that the threat level is higher today.

No the are not. They have almost no global power and their military is weak- hence the 3 year battle to try to take back a small chunk of land.

Now, you can make the case that LIVING in Russia is better than it was in the USSR but even that would be a tough argument. Their economic growth is similar but now there is a giant wage gap that never existed before.

 

[Kelsers]

Yep.
Where did NATO get the majority of their military equipment and ordinance?

Why does it matter?

 

[GES4]

No the are not. They have almost no global power and their military is weak- hence the 3 year battle to try to take back a small chunk of land.

Now, you can make the case that LIVING in Russia is better than it was in the USSR but even that would be a tough argument. Their economic growth is similar but now there is a giant wage gap that never existed before.

Nukes are nukes. At least in the 80's they had a politburo and a web of bureaucrats. Now it is one guy with all the power to push buttons.

 

[GES4]

Why does it matter?

Narrator: It doesn't.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

You understand the word "commitment".

Dumbass!

Do you understand the word “reality”?

Dumbass!

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

trump don't care. he only wants to fill his pockets. If that comes from putin, which it has in the past, f**king over our allies doesn't bother him a bit.

 

[franklinman]

Ireland is sending 5,000 long range missiles to UKRAINE. which russia may not invite in .

 

[MitchLL]

Do you understand the word “reality”?

Dumbass!

You live in a bubble?

The WH wants isolationism and also wants a White Nationalist population.

Their actions speak louder than their words.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

"Minus nukes" kind of invalidates the whole comparison. Those nukes are a pretty big part of the math.

That's like saying "minus speed, I have the fastest car in the world!"

to an extent. It is if no one else touches their accelerator. Nukes are likely never to be touched. Why: the adults (nato) are not going to invade Russia, hence Russia has no need to use nukes (ie touch the accelerator)

 

[libbity bibbity]

These numbers still have the US added in as they should be that if Russia attacked a Nato country now the US would side with Nato as it is treaty bound.

I dont think even Trump, or rather the smarter people around the US, wants to be known as turning the US's back on treaty bound countries.

NATO Russia military comparison 2024 | Statista

As of 2024, NATO had approximately 3.39 million active military personnel, compared with 1.32 million active military personnel in the Russian military.

www.statista.com

I say let's see how NATO fares without the United States and our 70% funding of that organization. It would fold like a cheap suit.

 

[libbity bibbity]

trump don't care. he only wants to fill his pockets. If that comes from putin, which it has in the past, f**king over our allies doesn't bother him a bit.

Same old Democrat talking point, you guys need some different material to spew.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

TBH, I think the former Baltics, Poland, and the Scandinavian countries could kick Russia's ass right now., especially from a defensive perspective.

Some big things we have learned the last 3 years of war in Ukraine:

• The airforce and air defense of Russia are shockingly bad. They could not even establish air superiority in a non NATO country with barely an airforce due to vulnerability of missiles shooting them down. The air superiority of the west would reign terror on the Russians
• Their equipment and fighting forces are massively depleted, they are sending literally WWII tanks in and using North Korea and Iranian stuff
• Their troops are poorly trained and officers depleted
• The equipment is way out dated tech wise because of the the funneling of dollars for research and equipment buys to enrich military high ups with palaces and yachts
• It is going to take a decade plus for Russia to recover from Putin's mistake. He has lost a world war level amount of equipment and men in one singular European country not in NATO.

Spot on.

We had them right where we wanted them, and trump is going to give it alllll back.

 

[BioHawk]

France, Germany, and England by themselves are far stronger than the Russian military. Maybe Poland too. It would take them a month to obliterate the Russian army with conventional weapons instead of a week if the US were involved. The only issue is they would do it so quickly it would almost guarantee that Russia start using nukes as it would be their only option available.

 

[noleclone2]

Spot on.

We had them right where we wanted them, and trump is going to give it alllll back.

He sure is trying to! Luckily, I think Europe see’s Putin as the monster he is and that Russia is ready for the kill shot, be it economic collapse or collapse of the frontline or both.

 

[desihawk]

France, Germany, and England by themselves are far stronger than the Russian military. Maybe Poland too. It would take them a month to obliterate the Russian army with conventional weapons instead of a week if the US were involved. The only issue is they would do it so quickly it would almost guarantee that Russia start using nukes as it would be their only option available.

agree except uk and france are major nuclear powers with significant deterrence…so that isn’t an excuse to sit on their asses imo. second if they cared two hoots about ukranian victory leave alone lives they coulda shoulda armed ukraine properly but if not at the beginning at least a year into the war. now the options are limited to poor outside of actually committing troops of which there is zero chance (and which is why the europeans are talking big now). a pathetic showing by the europeans from day one imo and it continues

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Same old Democrat talking point, you guys need some different material to spew.

You need a brain that functions. Instead of spreading maganazi lies and russian disinformation, you could probably crawl out from underneath your mother's/sister's trailer and see what's going on in the world. I doubt that you will, but we can hope that because of the lack of intellectual activity in your brain, that the washing will cease a little bit.

 

[B1GDeal]

FTR both UK and France have nuclear weapons. And, I think if Europe is smart they move without US for now. They could use frozen Russian assets they have to help Ukraine. Wouldn’t that be a funny little twist.

 

[luvmyhawks]

No the are not. They have almost no global power and their military is weak- hence the 3 year battle to try to take back a small chunk of land.

Now, you can make the case that LIVING in Russia is better than it was in the USSR but even that would be a tough argument. Their economic growth is similar but now there is a giant wage gap that never existed before.

Oh man, here comes the rationalization and justification for supporting Russia. Never thought I would see the day but, here we are.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You are comparing two entirely different things however. The Soviet Union of the 80's and Russia currently are not the same thing- not even close to the same threat to our country and our way of life.

They’ve helped place the worst person imaginable into the WH. The Oval Office belongs to Putin. They are a far greater threat to “our way of life” than they ever were in the 80’s. Unless a democratic country where the rule of law prevails doesn’t qualify as “our way of life”.

 

[SalAunese]

You are comparing two entirely different things however. The Soviet Union of the 80's and Russia currently are not the same thing- not even close to the same threat to our country and our way of life.

Could you be any more ignorant of Russian history and what the current government in Russia is comprised of? It’s pretty frustrating to see all the dipshit farmers and rubes parroting ill conceived nonsense.

 

[franklinman]

France, Germany, and England by themselves are far stronger than the Russian military. Maybe Poland too. It would take them a month to obliterate the Russian army with conventional weapons instead of a week if the US were involved. The only issue is they would do it so quickly it would almost guarantee that Russia start using nukes as it would be their only option available.

Bring in the BELGIUMS, they are some badasses ya don't fuc with.

 

[goldmom]

Ireland is sending 5,000 long range missiles to UKRAINE. which russia may not invite in .

Why does Ireland even have 5,000 long range missiles?
Blarney.

 

[Aardvark86]

"Minus nukes" kind of invalidates the whole comparison. Those nukes are a pretty big part of the math.

That's like saying "minus speed, I have the fastest car in the world!"

and beyond that, there's always that nettlesome question, "on whose land are we fighting?"

 

[GES4]

Why does Ireland even have 5,000 long range missiles?
Blarney.

Because Russia exists.

 

[Huey Grey]

France, Germany, and England by themselves are far stronger than the Russian military. Maybe Poland too. It would take them a month to obliterate the Russian army with conventional weapons instead of a week if the US were involved. The only issue is they would do it so quickly it would almost guarantee that Russia start using nukes as it would be their only option available.

But they aren't more powerful than us. Trump is going to give Russia whatever weapons they want. You can bet on that.