Russia -Vs- NATO

Can Russia defeat NATO?

This, however, is the wrong question. The West’s more pressing concern should be whether Putin, for his own reasons, will force Russia’s military into a clash with NATO regardless of the consequences. The Russian president is a neo-Soviet nostalgist who not only craves revenge for the collapse of the USSR, but who still harbors old-school Kremlin fantasies about the weakness of the decadent West. If Putin’s adventure in Ukraine turns into an attempt to test NATO, his miscalculation would result in massive war. NATO policy now should be to stop the Russians right where they are and to end Putin’s reckless gambling streak..

Are nukes on the table?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Are nukes on the table?

Well its based on real world issues..
Dont see nukes coming play at the start, but maybe if Putin feels like his end is coming he might go to them..

No, they can't because the U.S. is part of NATO. Of course if Russia (or anyone else) were to cripple us with an EMP strike then we wouldn't be much use to NATO and we'd even be susceptible to full scale invasion. We'd be brought to our knees easily in that case. That's the only way Russia could ever hope to defeat us and thus, by extension, NATO as well. Russia has been working on perfecting a weapon like this, by the way (which was shown in the link I posted in other thread), while Obama has done absolutely nothing to strengthen our power grid against such an attack. He actually wants Russia to succeed at this so he can suspend the Constitution, invoke martial law, and declare his muslim-self "king" forever in some kind of sick socialist "utopia".

Russia is not in economic shape to take on NATO. Heck, I don't think they would be even if the US stayed out. They aren't the USSR any more, their military is a shadow of the Soviet machine.

Of course if Russia (or anyone else) were to cripple us with an EMP strike then we wouldn't be much use to NATO and we'd even be susceptible to full scale invasion.

Not even remotely- we have the navy in the way, an invasion isn't happening. Plus if Russia throws nukes, nukes get thrown back, bad stuff happens and they're out too.

Russia isn't crippling anything with an emp strike.

Originally posted by Star428
No, they can't because the U.S. is part of NATO. Of course if Russia (or anyone else) were to cripple us with an EMP strike then we wouldn't be much use to NATO and we'd even be susceptible to full scale invasion. We'd be brought to our knees easily in that case. That's the only way Russia could ever hope to defeat us and thus, by extension, NATO as well. Russia has been working on perfecting a weapon like this, by the way (which was shown in the link I posted in other thread), while Obama has done absolutely nothing to strengthen our power grid against such an attack. He actually wants Russia to succeed at this so he can suspend the Constitution, invoke martial law, and declare his muslim-self "king" forever in some kind of sick socialist "utopia".

Yeah they do haven't you seen Red Dawn?

I'm pretty sure I could take on current Russia all by myself.

NATO is a joke without US support. Only UK and France have a proper military in current times.

As for Russia, it needs a strong economy to sustain an invasion of continental Europe.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
NATO is a joke without US support. Only UK and France have a proper military in current times.

As for Russia, it needs a strong economy to sustain an invasion of continental Europe.

The UK don't thanks to the last 5 years of tory government.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
NATO is a joke without US support. Only UK and France have a proper military in current times.

But who's capable of even taking on France?

Most countries don't have much because they don't need much.

Doesn't Germany have the strongest conventional army on Europe? Feel like I read that somewhere.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Doesn't Germany have the strongest conventional army on Europe? Feel like I read that somewhere.

They have the best tank in Europe (some would argue the world) in the Leopard 2, but they don't have a lot of them, a lot of their equipment isn't battle ready, and they're having trouble finding recruits. The "problem" with Germany is that German citizens already enjoy so many benefits just for being alive and paying their taxes that there's little to no incentive to enlist in the armed forces unless you're really patriotic or have no other prospects.

They also invest a teensy portion of their economic output in defense. If they invested the same proportion of their GDP in defense that France does, they'd be the third or fourth most powerful conventional army in the world. As it stands they're #3 in Europe (behind UK and France) and #6 or #7 in the world.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Are nukes on the table?

Wouldn't it be awesome if there were though? LIke Putin walks in and sees a big ol nuke on the table and everyone is all "hey dipstick, heard you want 40 more of these!".

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Doesn't Germany have the strongest conventional army on Europe? Feel like I read that somewhere.

I'm pretty sure the UK is the most powerful EU country sans Russia militarily speaking though Germany has the strongest economy I think.

Originally posted by Star428
I'm pretty sure the UK is the most powerful EU country sans Russia militarily speaking though Germany has the strongest economy I think.

Well what is it considered an Asian country? I thought mot of it was in Asia, but a part of it wasn't.

Originally posted by Star428
I'm pretty sure the UK is the most powerful EU country sans Russia militarily speaking though Germany has the strongest economy I think.

That could be true five years ago, but right now France is everybit as good as the UK and much more willing to use force.

Originally posted by Bentley
That could be true five years ago, but right now France is everybit as good as the UK and much more willing to use force.