--- how long NATO has feared the invincible Russian bear-----

Skip to first unread message


May 13, 2022, 1:31:17 PMMay 13
Liberals United ·
Answered by
Alex Mann

Did Russia’s Putin teach a lesson to NATO countries and the West by
attacking Ukraine?
Oh ya- Putin taught NATO lessons like he was a professor.

Lesson 1: Russia sucks

I cannot overstate how long NATO has feared the invincible Russian bear-
a military that could muster 15,000 tanks and swarm Europe. The US has
spent 700 billion dollars PER YEAR building to face this exact threat.

NATO developed special tactics to deal with Russia including specialized
defense-in-depth (definition in comments) procedures, specialized
weapons training, and tactical concepts meant to target Russia’s weak

The big question was “would it work”. Would these untested tactics,
strategies, and weapons work in the face of a large-scale Russian invasion?

Ukraine didn’t really have much of an Army prior to 2014. Then Putin
annexed Crimea and started fighting in the Donbas. Suddenly Ukraine had
to build an army very quickly with the singular goal of defending
against a Russian invasion. So naturally, they turned to NATO for
training and NATO gave them everything- the weapons, the tactics, the

Turns out it did work! The tactics used by the Ukrainians are NATO
tactics (with some alternations) and the weapons proving to be the
deadliest are NATO weapons.

So now we know for sure that the US military would dominate the Russian
military in short order. Ukraine is managing to really give the Russians
a bloody nose with minimal training, minimal equipment, and minimal support.

Russia has failed to control the air space in the face of about 500
anti-air weapons, a handful of Helicopters, and 225 Aircraft. The US has
6,000 Aircraft, 3000 Helicopters, and over 2000 highly advanced anti-air
missile guidance weapons.
Russia has struggled against a few thousand APCs- the US has over 10,000
plus 250,000 Humvees
Russia has struggled against the 1,500 outdated Ukrainian tanks- the US
has 8,000 Abrams tanks and 6,000 Bradleys.

Lesson 2: Russia has weak points

The entire Russian military isn’t bad. Their Navy is pretty modern,
though it lacks carriers. Their Airforce is also something to behold.
How much of the airforce is functional and combat-ready? Not a ton. But
even if Russia could sustain combat operations with 25% of their
Airforce it would be deadly.

But Russia has some serious flaws here too.

Their logistical capability is…. subpar to say the least. They lack
manpower, trucks, and even tires. Russia is down to using civilian
trucks to haul supplies to the frontlines. It’s not like Ukraine is a
superpower either. Ukraine was able to unravel the entire Russian
logistical system with a few drones. In fact, it's unlikely that Russia
could have supplied its forces without Ukrainian intervention. By week 2
of this conflict, Russian troops were looting markets for food and
abandoning tanks due to a lack of gas.

Their tactical depth is bad. When a war starts and you send all your
guys forward how far can they go before they run out of food, fuel, and
ammo? The further the better obviously. Well, Russian troops can’t
operate more than 90 km from a supply depot. This means they cannot
strike deep into enemy territory or employ flexible creative advances.
They have to hop-frog from city to city because cities can serve as
ample supply depots.

Ukraine knows this and it's why to defends its cities so strongly
Russia has bad SEAD (definition in comments) capabilities. Step 1 of any
war is to destroy your enemy's fixed-wing aircraft (or airports) and
then target anti-air weapons by bombers, cruise missiles, artillery, you
name it. Russia hasn’t even destroyed the very small Ukrainian Airforce
yet and Ukraine still possesses loads of anti-air weapons.
Russia relies on conscripted troops too heavily. Someone forced into the
army, given little training, and paid virtually nothing is not going to
fight hard or well.

Russia has too much old equipment. There are lots of obsolete Russian
tanks, planes, helicopters, trucks, guns, artillery- you name it. These
old weapons systems are not doing well.
Lesson 3: Putin is not to be trusted

Putin's goals are clear- reform the USSR (in terms of size) and he is
willing to go to war to do so.

Putin cares little for peace or for his own people. He should be viewed
like we viewed Hitler in 1938.

In summary, Russia is inferior to most modernized nations militarily due
to their many flaws and Putin is something a rouge dictator- and a
threat to world peace.

84.7K viewsView 2,168 upvotesView 8 sharesSubmission accepted by
Tamer Aydogdu

Profile photo for Joe Hoff
Joe Hoff
· Mon
Best quote heard in youtube video. “We thought Russia had the 2nd best
army in the world. Turns out they have the 2nd best army in Ukraine”. <Zing>

Profile photo for Vincent Bligh
Vincent Bligh
· Mon
Prefer the line Third best in Ukraine after the Farmers Tractor Brigade

Profile photo for Neil Bravo
Neil Bravo
· Tue
I think Farmed Forces of Ukraine sounds better.

C. Harrison
Hey I’m an actual farmer and I think it should be the Farmers

Robert Coker
· Tue
Excellent commentary but at least one huge factor has not been accounted
for. Corruption. Putin’s large group of compatriots has milked his new
regime for all they can get- at the cost of military efficiency. We’ve
all read the stories of how fuel is somehow not available, neither is
food. These and…

Andrzej Ława
· Tue
In relation to item 4: Russia (and earlier the Soviet Union) had failed
at creating strong NCO core. They rely on unskilled conscripts
micromanaged by enlisted officers, quite often quite high ranking (this
is why so many of their generals got “terminated with extreme prejudice”).

Barry Hudson
· Wed
Lack of non-coms is their biggest flaw. The U. S. Army and Marines
rebuilt their millions of men with the few career non-coms from the
peacetime forces. Without them it would have taken years and possibly
another 500,000 dead to win WWII. You will be hard pressed to find any U
S. Officer with anything but praise for his senior non-coms. They are
the backbone of all effective infantry. But Russia doesn’t have them
because they are expensive, they require as much development and
training as an officer and they require respect which doesn’t exist in
the Russian army unless you are a senior officer. Without effective
non-commissioned officers, unit cohesion, discipline and morale
generally is poor. The non-coms hold things together while those green
2nd Louies are learning the ropes and they protect the infantry against
their foolish mistakes.

Ruben Firstater
· Tue
Excellent analyze, as you always do.
One remark though: There are countries that do rely on conscripts like
mine (Israel) or Finland - both countries even leaning heavily on the
reserves in case of a war but they are very well trained and very
motivated (of course there is a core of professional officers and NCOs)
- therefore I think that Rusia problem is not so much the conscripts but
maybe the attitude towards them.

Anton Gudenus
· Tue
One important limitation of conscripts, is that they are vastly superior
in defense than in offense, especially so in countries that offer their
citizens a good way of life and a society that’s worth defending.

Conscripts will generally fight tooth and nail for their home and fellow
countrymen. But to make them attack into foreign territory is a vastly
more difficult task. One generally only achieved by heavy indoctrination.

Israel and Finland are perfect examples in this regard. Both of them
have high standards of living compared to any possible invader, a very
high social cohesion and deploy their conscripts defensively.

Dolph Watts
· Tue
Big difference between countries with mandatory service and reserve
components and the term conscripts.
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages