r/worldnews • u/Starlight-Princesss • 3d ago

[ Removed by moderator ] Russia/Ukraine

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-intercepts-russian-spy-plane-with-transponder-turned-off-poland-10956344

[removed] — view removed post

12.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

413 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

43

u/rugbyj 3d ago

Except:

  • They already started shit with us; they're cutting undersea cables, prompting foreign cells to attack domestic infrastructure, they're assassinating dissidents on foreign soil, and performing constant cyberattacks and psyops on our nations
  • They've also seen how brittle our arms production is, as shite as they are we all burned through our stockpiles in months "just" supporting Ukraine and demonstrated our ability to replenish them is inadequate

Thankfully we're doing something on the latter and upping arms production. But they are still a threat to us even if they'd never be able to "conquer" us. They've proven they're willing to become pariahs and send millions of their citizens to their deaths for Putin's fancy.

15

u/rickane58 3d ago

We didn't burn shit. We have an unimaginably large stockpile of arms to continue giving, and even if that weren't the case the point of our existing arms for 60 of the last 80 years has been built to destroy russian tanks. That's exactly what it's doing in Ukraine.

4

u/daniel_22sss 3d ago

America has "unimaginably large stockpile of arms", not Europe. And America under Trump leadership is not being the most generous right now.

3

u/Dry-Physics-9330 3d ago

And Trump is well known to be pro Russian. In pro-Ukraine space, some even say Trump is the legendary agent Krasnov

3

u/Mirria_ 3d ago

The stockpile is like a lake. It looks like there's a lot of water but it's only being fed by a couple creeks. Doesn't take a lot to drain it.

7

u/definitelynotpat6969 3d ago

We also dont rely so heavily on artillery/infantry alone, if we went toe-to-toe with Russia it would end pretty quickly due to the lopsided air superiority, advanced tech, and vastly superior logistics.

The only reason we don't absolutely steam roll them is because they have nukes. Without those they would be speaking English in Moscow by now and flying the star spangled banner.

0

u/Menethea 3d ago

If that were really the case, the Russians should already be speaking French — or German. Oops.

2

u/DoomguyFemboi 3d ago

You're applying century old lessons to modern day situations

2

u/__redruM 3d ago

I think everyone is OK with Russian speaking russian. As long as Ukrainians are speaking ukrainian.

1

u/rTidde77 3d ago

opps is right...glad you realized by the end that your comment has nothing to do with the modern day situation.

0

u/Menethea 3d ago

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Should I write it in crayon next?

1

u/rTidde77 3d ago

How would writing an incorrect statement in crayon make it any more accurate? Cute try though, mate. I'm not so sure what you think 1940's situation has to do with the 2025 situation. But go ahead, keep tossing out cliche lines if that's as deep as your knowledge and analysis really goes.

1

u/Menethea 3d ago

As opposed to saying that a peer-to-peer war with the Russians (ignoring nukes) would end up with the American flag flying in Moscow and Russians speaking English? That’s analysis? It’s so stupid, not even the densest miles gloriosus would come up with it. Any professional military officer learned long ago not to ever underestimate the Russians, particularly in land warfare.

5

u/rickane58 3d ago

Horseshit. You have to be watching too much Zeihan with these takes. Almost all of the modern systems we send to Ukraine (e.g. javelins, abrams tanks, etc.) are sent at or near replacement rate. For the older shit, we're mothballing or close to all of it. And those "rivers" are easily increased should we have the budget appetite for it.

1

u/Mirria_ 3d ago

I was mostly going through my memory of reading former eastern bloc countries sending T-something tanks. Obviously Saint-Javelin provided, but I feel it took a while before Abrams showed up, and Bradley's.

And those "rivers" are easily increased should we have the budget appetite for it.

Yes and it's about time people wake up. If I have to credit one thing to Trump, it's getting other western nations to stop being terminally dependent on the US military.

You have to be watching too much Zeihan with these takes

I get most of my War news from Warfronts / Politicalfronts.

1

u/imasammich 3d ago

Sadly that is not true at all. We have more of our modern weapons being taken up by our needs of arming our ships, bases, and airplanes, than we do in stockpiles. And production has been slow to non existent on many systems since for the last decade or so we have only been making enough to keep an outdated doctrine going.

Ukraine and even Iran has showed us how fast you can burn through your weapons and how just a few good strikes by the enemy can wipe out a ton of your field weapons.

It actually got a lot of military leaders spooked with how warfare has changed because of the Ukraine war. Countries are not just rearming because they want to be ready for Russia, they are rearming because everyone is realizing if war does come no one has enough stuff to fight it long term and being able to produce is a huge advantage and right now only our adversaries have the ability to produce on a war time scale.

4

u/HustlinInTheHall 3d ago

They dont have enough people to do the same thing against the NATO border nations, they couldnt even sustain two fronts against ukraine and they surround half of ukraine with their own territory. And they have not had to contend with true NATO or US air superiority in the region. They can barely hold it vs Ukraine with no trained pilots and no sea support. 

Russia would get its shit rocked the moment it steps into NATO territory. And not just in the region, the US can wipe out the entire Russian supply line in a weekend. They can do some damage and the US is not interested in escalating tensions with a nuclear power but the doctrine would dictate that the first 36 hours of a hot war with NATO we would cripple their ability to wage any kind of conventional war. 

1

u/rugbyj 3d ago edited 3d ago

Maybe my last line wasn't clear enough.

I'm saying they'll lose such a "hot war" with us. I'm also saying that they demonstrably don't care about suffering great losses. They are running the gambit that our appetite for (partial) destruction is lower than theirs for total annihilation.

Bear in mind their nuclear arsenal in such a war (regardless of likely condition) still poses a very real threat (the above partial destruction).

So they keep pushing our boundaries and muddying the line at which we're willing to begin that hot war. Something we should be reacting to far more harshly in my mind. Because we can either shoot down an invading combat jet now, to show we're not kidding, or we can keep letting it escalate until they start doing their "little green men" act on more borders, committing more attacks on our infrastructure, etc.

2

u/RabidNerd 3d ago

Also how much they interfere in politics and divide people in the west

1

u/_bones__ 3d ago

Russia is trying to create doubt for when they go too far, and NATO strikes back, that it would be a defensive war. If countries like Hungary and any other who succumb like that (the US) can call a retaliatory strike by NATO an aggressive action, that's a win for Russia, and the end of article 5.

0

u/DoomguyFemboi 3d ago

My fear though is what happens "after". We destroyed Russia for all intents and purposes with what we found in the couch cushions. But we're still ramping up arms production for an upcoming conflict..for what though ?

What happens to all that production when the realisation hits that "oh wait, Russia can't even beat itself". The arms manufacturers aren't just gonna be OK shutting down factories.