In a conventional war, Russia stands no chance against NATO. It's really that simple.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Did NATO formally invade the Houthis, with boots, tanks, and IFVs on the ground? No, they didn't. Bombs and missiles alone won't submit a country, but a jackboot in the face may just do the trick. Also, it's apples to oranges. We are talking about conventional warfare and you are talking about beating insurgents on their own turf. History teaches that one is clearly not the same thing as the other.
Well I hope he's talking about CNSA because if it's about ex-Korean president he's too late.
On this topic, now that Elon "nine thousand years" Musk is letting loose his DOGE on the US government and eyeing cancelling both SLS and bringing down the ISS how likely is CNSA to beat NASA to the moon this time around? Starship is progressing okay and the HLS based on it could by ready by 2030, is there a backup to SLS for lofting Orion to lunar orbit?
On this topic, now that Elon "nine thousand years" Musk is letting loose his DOGE on the US government and eyeing cancelling both SLS and bringing down the ISS how likely is CNSA to beat NASA to the moon this time around? Starship is progressing okay and the HLS based on it could by ready by 2030, is there a backup to SLS for lofting Orion to lunar orbit?
Then why didn't they invade Houthis directly on the ground despite Houthis inflicting some serious economic and strategic damage to both the West directly, and also their holiest overlord/creation being - Israel? Because they are politically and socially in deep shit. Then if they couldn't even summon enough willpower to invade Yemen directly sufficiently, what makes you think they could do that to Russia? They have countries full of 20-30% support rate governments, meanwhile, Putin's is 80-90% supported. They are also literally going broke as we speak, and have many other global commitments. They knew how grueling the invasion in Yemen would have become as people have willpower there on the level of Talibans. NATO invades Russia = you have a collapse of their governments and joint Western organizations in a few months after that.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
What happened to China was collapsing? The fact is this is another case where when the West talks about the “world”, it’s really only the West that’s affected by what they’re complaining about. Yeah China’s over-capacity doesn’t affect the majority of the world. It use to be things like refrigerators and air conditioners were considered luxury items only found in the West. Because of China now they can be found outside the West. The West didn’t bother with building infrastructure in the global south because it was not profitable for their private corporations to do it. So how is China’s over-capacity undermining the “world”? No it’s only rightfully affecting the West who raped the world to which they don’t seem to see as damaging the world ever. It just shows how powerless the West has become. The West cut themselves off from hundreds of billions every year when they stopped selling advanced technology to China. Because of their idiotic decision they won’t admit to, they want China to correct their mistake for them by handicapping its own economy so they can make money where they can’t compete with China. The number one factor why they can’t compete is because everything they do cost them more than for China to do. Trump thinks he can demand countries to give him their rare earth deposits. Problem is does that mean the US will still ship them to China to be refined and processed because it’s still too expensive for the US to do it as usual? The world is growing because of China and the West’s only way they can stop China besides going to war is to get China to voluntarily stop on its own and they’re that arrogant to think they can do that.
Clearly the juice is not worth the squeeze. Again, NATO would have to fight an insurgency war against the Houthis, something they would absolutely lose over time. Time and time again the lesson learned is that you may win the fights on the battlefield but lose the war in the jungles, deserts, and villages. This is why NATO is not going near Yemen with a 10 foot pole. This is not a sign of any kind of Western collapse, it's called learning from history. If China invaded Yemen, it would lose there too even if it won every major battle. There is no winning against an insurgency.
And no, NATO would never invade Russia; it's got 6,000 nukes. And if Russia had nothing else, that would already be enough.
what if Putin deliberately send forces to Kiev to deflect Ukranian from South. It is completely illogical they want occupy Kiev first.
Russia with smallest force took 20% of Ukranian land and used it basically to cripple the whole Europe economy by not throwing out Ukranian government so that Europe keep supporting those parasites. It is not just financial defeat but Psychological defeat to make them crazy. People get emotionally attached to a prolong cause. you can already see Russia didnot stop Railway from Poland to Kiev.
Russia is supremely confident about its advance tech and economics. Also those weopons and training need to be demonstrated for Arabs. Arabs will need all that hard power for there empire.
No one want to reside in Belarus or Kiev thats why all those upgrades are in South of country and 80% of business in occupied part of Ukraine is from Southern Russia and what will be Crimea without Russian muslims snatching it.
What did NATO already receive permission to import weapons from China for that war?
Don't forget, the only reason Ukraine still exist is because China is "neutral"....
Neither does NATO(excluding america) can go offensive against russia and capture the whole nation. If anything it's going to be stalemate. They don't have manufacturing capability that Russia, usa or china has. And if NATO does go offensive against russia then china would definitely come to aid.
Sorry, but it's not "deflection" if you just sit there immobilized for weeks and let the enemy destroy your forces at will; that's called a "slaughter". Very clearly what Putin wanted initially was a brief and violent conflict that would be ended by the ouster of Zelensky and the instatement of someone to his liking. That goal was to be achieved by the Kiev offensive. Russia didn't turn eastwards until well after it became clear that Kiev would not fall. And there is no way in hell that Russia's goal was to somehow only "partially" defeat Ukraine for the purpose of bleeding Europe; this is just too ridiculous an idea to entertain seriously.