Canada has a bigger GDP than Russia. Do you think Canada can beat Russia, one on one?
Russia started the war largely conventional. So did Ukrainian. The next war won't be the Russians rushing tanks to the front like in 2022.
Read the title of the thread. Its about the end of the USA in NATO. You want to wargame a situation of the USA in NATO versus Russia, go make your own thread.
Yes. Russia could establish one or more lodgements in Canada, but not stay to any effect. It's irrelevant to what we're discussing though, which is a Russia war against NATO in Europe, presumably based primarily on an invasion of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
GDP matters a lot more.
The same applies to red herrings based on Russia vs Canada. But, again, your point is irrelevant. I claim European NATO can defeat Russia, even if a few of the lukewarm NATO members decline to participate.
I dont see a scenario where the Canadian forces go head to head versus Russia alone and comes out on top.
If GDP mattered Russia would have crushed Ukraine by now.
If the entire thread is a red herring, then maybe go somewhere else?
Invading across oceans is hard. It takes a surprisingly large number of ships to mount and sustain a multi-divisional cross-ocean invasion, and usually requires near air supremacy, which is difficult to attain without land-based air cover.
GDP matters when the effort is paramount, which Russia vs NATO would be. Russia has chosen to fight Ukraine without going anywhere near the mattresses. Lots of conflicts are fought with some restraint on one side and total commitment on the other (underdog).
It won't be that short. If Russia ever moves against NATO, that will be the first and last Russia vs NATO fight.
Not forgotten; I just don't think I need to add that brick to the pile to make my argument. Russia would lose all maritime trade through its Baltic Sea and Black Sea ports irrespective of NATO's naval strength. European NATO maritime trade would also be at risk, depending on how long Russia's submarine force lasts. There wouldn't be any air gaps in the North Atlantic.
I imagine the same would be true of Russia? And if they are narrow in scope, Estonia lets say, you foresee total war over Estonia? Especially if Russia signals that strikes on their homeland will escalate to a nuclear response?
I dont see a European Napoleon willing to go to Moscow.
Why would Canada try to fight a land war in Asia? Absurd. I have no interest in that contingency.
Either European NATO respects every member, or it might as well admit that it isn't really an alliance and every member is at risk of being defeated in detail in a one-on-one. That would be unacceptable to the states most at risk; they at least are likely to stick together, which means Poland is in it. And, it isn't just them vs Russia. It's them backed by Ukrainian advice and expertise.
Don't need to. It's a defensive war. All that's needed is to prevent incursions and push back the ones that happen, while squeezing the Russian economy until the Russian people strangle their own government with its entrails.
Again, if its all about GDP Canada should win. But its not all about GDP, is it?
We owe a debt to Ukraine. They are like a kicked dog that still loves us despite all the neglect we have delivered them.
Putin is a madman and would need to be a manman to invade Ukraine... I mean NATO. What i do know is the one real advantage he has is nuclear deterrence and if the USA is on the sidelines, do France and the UK want things to go nuclear?
Never underestimate the Russian peoples tolerance for suffering.
Considering that China wants Taiwan more than it ever wants backwater Russia, a distracted NATO and a Russia ever more reliant on China plays right into their hands
never happen. The EU would never tolerate all those potential pollution sources. The ghost ships travel through EU waters a lot.
Again, I don't care because that scenario has nothing to do with the one I'm writing about. Almost every war that lasts more than about 3 to 6 months becomes a war of attrition, and then it's almost all about GDP. (Enough attrition, and will dissolves along with capability.) Attrition also depends on capacity to mobilize and organize, but most countries that have large GDPs are that way because they have many effective mobilizers and organizers. A few countries with large GDPs simply have mass (eg. Russia, China). I am confident almost all European countries west of Russia can squeeze more out of an ounce of economic potential than Russia.
They aren't kulaks anymore, and haven't been since the early '90s. They've had a chance to experience some of what the western middle classes take for granted.
Taiwan is just a distracting historical political annoyance to be settled for "face" compared to the resources available in Russia's eastern lands bordering China. One of China's overarching aims, perhaps its highest one, is to secure control of resources.
I hope we never have to find out, but as long as Putin is breathing I don't think we can discount the possibility.
Russia is losing 30k soldiers a month. A month. For many months. They have probably lost more than 1 million soldiers during the course of the war. They are sitting with sanctions from most of the western world on them, cut out of swift, isolated from the rest of the world other than China, India and Iran.
China isn't willing to eat a nuke over what it can get for cheap.
