• SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    that’s not really something that can be disproven

    People treated Russia as a superpower. They fucked up so bad they got successfully counter invaded by the country they were invading. They don’t have 5th Gen fighters and they can’t produce modern tanks. They’re refitting older tanks and giving troops fucking golf carts. They’ve depleted a ton of soviet stock and their air defense can’t even keep their oil infrastructure from exploding once a week. Prigozin nearly marched directly to Moscow with no resistance.

    If NATO was planning to invade, they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.

    Also if NATO somehow forced putin to annihilate his own armor stocks and troops, then they are doing 5,000 iq illuminati bullshit and there’s nothing to be done anyway. I tag those people as NATO propagandists because they’re bigger western chauvinists than they even wish I was lol.

    • Aljernon@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      To be fair, Russia has geological challenges to maintaining an effective air defense; especially in the age of drones. It’s one of the reasons they couldn’t bring their whole air force to bear in the invasion of Ukraine: they had a huge amount of country to maintain coverage over.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      The irony of course being that NATO doesn’t particularly have any interest in vast expanses of undeveloped potato fields giving away to frozen tundra, so they never had any impetus to invade. But Putin is now giving them one and at the same time demonstrating why the invasion would most likely be successful.

    • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Which, as I understand the Russian military relationship with the Kremlin, came as a surprise to even Putin and would certainly incite some panic, renewed propaganda efforts, and saber rattling like we’ve been seeing him do lately.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.

      And still: Europe is increasing it’s military capabilities. How does that fit together? Genuine question.

      • Aljernon@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Paper Tiger is the wrong word. Russia has a dangerous military but is in no way the powerhouse it portrayed itself before invading Ukraine. They had built a small core of a modern professional military that they used a couple of times to great effect but they acted like they’d done that to the whole military. Also, some parts of the Russian military ARE excellent: their electronic warfare capabilities are top notch. They also maintain advanced espionage capabilities.

      • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Because of decades of chronic underspending on the military, as governments convinced themselves that a land war in Europe was unthinkable.

        • Aljernon@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          To be fair, even most Russians in their Military and Intelligence thought a large land war in Europe was unthinkable.

        • bufalo1973@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Underspending because the US didn’t wanted a military strong Europe. Every time Europe has said anything about becoming a military power on its own the US has pushed against it. The US has wanted Europe as a place to put military bases and little more.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          But “chronic underspending” doesn’t fit together with “could take Moscow in days”.

          • Aljernon@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            If you remove the US from NATO, the remaining Military Strength of the alliance would have struggled with the Russia Military prior to the Ukraine Invasion and absolutely would have been unable to launch a meaningful ground offensive into Russia.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Ok. That makes sense. But wouldn’t it have beenmore accurate to claim that the US (and it’s allies) “could take Moscowin days”?

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Chronic under spending doesn’t mean no spending it just means that the size of the military has reduced, which if you don’t believe there is much chance of a land war makes financial sense. But it’s still got some pretty high-end tech. Meanwhile Russia has lost all there good military tech in a pointless war. So now Western tanks designed to fight other modern military vehicles are going up against stuff from the cold war. Multi-stage explosive shells designed to go up against metamaterial armour plating, are instead of being fired at pig iron, which is basically just rust held together with paint.

            The assumption always was that if there was ever a war in Europe it would be a nuclear exchange, and therefore the size of your military wouldn’t really matter, it would be all about readiness and contingencies. They never assumed that a superpower would just sort of disintegrate on its own, and then lash out. That would be an absolutely ridiculous scenario, that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I still don’t really get why the spending has to increase if Russia’s military is so desolate. Why is there discussioneof mandatory military service in Germany if it’s simply to “defend” against an enemy that is too weak to actually be a threat?

              that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.

              Sorry, that is just motivated reasoning to frame Putin as an unstrategic maniac.

              • Aljernon@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                18 hours ago

                The Russians have shown great ability and resolve to switch to a wartime economy and ramp up military industrial production while Europe has struggled for years just to increase their artillery shell production. The belief is that if the war in Ukraine ends, it won’t take Russia long to replace their loses.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  18 hours ago

                  That doesn’t explain why Russia should have any strategic interest in invading Europe, though.

                  • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    18 hours ago

                    They didnt have a strategic case for Ukraine either. Its the personal whim of Putin.

              • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Where do you get the impression that Russia isn’t a threat? Ukraine proves that it very much is.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Where do you get the impression that Russia isn’t a threat?

                  Having a military that’s in such a supposed desolate state is mutually exclusive to being a threat. That’s like claiming a teenager with a slingshot is a threat to a gang of polige officers with assault rifles.

                  Ukraine proves that it very much is.

                  I don’t follow. The invasion of Ukraine had a strategic motivation behind it (so did the annexation of Crimea). What possible strategic benefit would it have for Russia to attack the EU?

                  That’s like claiming that the US is about to invade Mexico, because of the Iraq war(s).