Kiev Is Burning

[Yama]

Mine hit? Seems recoverable unless Russians send a drone to finish it off, though risky on that site.

[glenn239]

On 11/27/2023 at 9:35 AM, Josh said:

Because they never have before? Because they rely on Israel, Iran, and China for their current inventory or borrowed designs? Name one active type of Russian built UAV with the ability to carry a load of Lancets. Russia was far behind places like Iran and Turkey in UAV/loitering munition development;

"Was" far behind.  Before the war, in 2020.  Russian doctrine and industry on the drone front was rudimentary.  Now  drone development is a top industrial priority with no chance of this state of affairs changing in coming decades.  You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Russians will now construct tens of thousands of drones and missiles  in the post war.  But to me, it's a no-brainer.  This is what Joe Biden has asked them to do, to assemble missiles and drones in their factories, working at three shifts a day for decades until they care capable of delivering truly staggering numbers of attacks.

Quote

If and when China starts cranking out weapons for Russia, start an "I told you so" thread.

Russia wants China's subcomponents for their own weapons production, and Putin's recent announcement is that they want to cooperate on strategic projects in which Russia does not have the resources to go it alone.   I see nothing to suggest that China will not move forward with Russia on both fronts.

Quote

But the fact that a full mobilization never happened for *this* war seems to indicate that their capability/willingness for mobilization simply isn't there.

Like with Sino-Russian cooperation, you see the enemy as being sure to make the choices required that will bail the US out of a dilemma.  The Russians would of course need to undertake a large mobilization if at war with the USA so that the total % of casualties that NATO could inflict on Russian forces would be below the threshold needed for success by way of attrition.  Russian territory itself is of a scale so huge as to be a sanctuary, and the Russians would exploit that to rotate units to and from the battle fronts in Belarus or Ukraine.  From this unassailable position, they would be backed by the full weight of the Chinese economy delivering masses of war material to their ally.  

Quote

USAF purchases have been >500 for the last four years, with a full capacity 550 buy requested for 2024 and additional money requested to increase production to 850/year. I haven't been able to locate an exact count; it would probably take a review of all budget documents and lot numbers. The CSIS Taiwan wargame estimated 6000 AGM-158s of all types (A, B, C) for a war envisioned in 2026. Given production rates, that implies a current total inventory of ~4000-5000, roughly split between the A and B versions, with around 400 LRASMs fielded as well.

So let's say your high side estimate of 5,000 missiles of which 3,000 are a 'never touch' reserve for war with China and Iran. That leaves about 2,000 for Russia, of which defenses (active, EW, decoy, counterstrikes) will account for maybe 40%, leaving 1,200 war shots that hit against an army of 2 to 3 million.  
 

Quote

But my example of a couple dozen bombers being able to deploy 600+ weapons daily for days or weeks on end was just to provide an example of the kind of volumes a NATO-Russian war would involve. F-15Es out of the UK could easily carry twenty small diameter bombs and a full set of drop tanks, and there's over ten thousand of those.

I don't think conventional aircraft carrying small diameter bombs at high altitude are a viable prospect against Russian air defenses.   Aircraft operating from the UK would need to land and refuel before making their strikes, reducing overall tempo.  Nor would basing in the UK make them immune from missile and drone counterstrikes.   Tactical airpower will have to be closer to the front, where they would be subject to constant attrition on the ground and in the air.

Quote

We haven't even gotten into F-16s or F-35s yet, or the USN or non US NATO members. We also haven't addressed the vast number of PGMs the US Army would deploy in such a fight - there's at least one US artillery brigade of 36 M270s in Germany, which would represent a 72 salvo ATACMs strike. About a dozen HIMARS battalions in the CONUS could add to that, plus whatever the Europeans have.

No doubt such weapons would kill tens of thousands of Russian troops, even while Russian weapons of a similar nature did damage in the other direction.  The problem is that tens of thousands is chump change to an army of 2 to 3 million with another 5 or 6 in reserves,  The simple fact is that the Americans can never commit more than a fraction of any of their resources to war with Russia, because of China.  I don't see where the scale of what can be done is anywhere even remotely to the level needed to resolve the problem.  To my eye, you're just proposing with modern kit all the same follies of Operation Barbarossa in a theatre where the distances defeat such schemes.

Quote

The question to me isn't how long could NATO keep that volume of fire, but how long before the entire Russian war machine simply fell apart under that kind of stress?

Generally speaking, NATO airpower can only even reach a small part of the total Russian landmass.   Most of the country is inaccessible and would be receiving more material from factories in China, Iran, and North Korea than NATO itself could provide.  It will not, 'fall apart'.  In order to attempt to deliver the maximum tempo that you outline to the deepest depths of Russia possible, Western airpower will have to base close to the front line, and exercise maximum tempo.  Casualties to drones and missiles strikes will be  unsustainable.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by glenn239

[Strannik]

21 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

"Was" far behind.  Before the war, in 2020.  Russian doctrine and industry on the drone front was rudimentary.  Now  drone development is a top industrial priority with no chance of this state of affairs changing in coming decades.  You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Russians will now construct tens of thousands of drones and missiles  in the post war.  But to me, it's a no-brainer.  This is what Joe Biden has asked them to do, to assemble missiles and drones in their factories, working at three shifts a day for decades until they care capable of delivering truly staggering numbers of attacks.

Russia wants China's subcomponents for their own weapons production, and Putin's recent announcement is that they want to cooperate on strategic projects in which Russia does not have the resources to go it alone.   I see nothing to suggest that China will not move forward with Russia on both fronts.

Like with Sino-Russian cooperation, you see the enemy as being sure to make the choices required that will bail the US out of a dilemma.  The Russians would of course need to undertake a large mobilization if at war with the USA so that the total % of casualties that NATO could inflict on Russian forces would be below the threshold needed for success by way of attrition.  Russian territory itself is of a scale so huge as to be a sanctuary, and the Russians would exploit that to rotate units to and from the battle fronts in Belarus or Ukraine.  From this unassailable position, they would be backed by the full weight of the Chinese economy delivering masses of war material to their ally.  

So let's say your high side estimate of 5,000 missiles of which 3,000 are a 'never touch' reserve for war with China and Iran. That leaves about 2,000 for Russia, of which defenses (active, EW, decoy, counterstrikes) will account for maybe 40%, leaving 1,200 war shots that hit against an army of 2 to 3 million.  
 

I don't think conventional aircraft carrying small diameter bombs at high altitude are a viable prospect against Russian air defenses.   Aircraft operating from the UK would need to land and refuel before making their strikes, reducing overall tempo.  Nor would basing in the UK make them immune from missile and drone counterstrikes.   Tactical airpower will have to be closer to the front, where they would be subject to constant attrition on the ground and in the air.

No doubt such weapons would kill tens of thousands of Russian troops, even while Russian weapons of a similar nature did damage in the other direction.  The problem is that tens of thousands is chump change to an army of 2 to 3 million with another 5 or 6 in reserves,  The simple fact is that the Americans can never commit more than a fraction of any of their resources to war with Russia, because of China.  I don't see where the scale of what can be done is anywhere even remotely to the level needed to resolve the problem.  To my eye, you're just proposing with modern kit all the same follies of Operation Barbarossa in a theatre where the distances defeat such schemes.

Generally speaking, NATO airpower can only even reach a small part of the total Russian landmass.   Most of the country is inaccessible and would be receiving more material from factories in China, Iran, and North Korea than NATO itself could provide.  It will not, 'fall apart'.  In order to attempt to deliver the maximum tempo that you outline to the deepest depths of Russia possible, Western airpower will have to base close to the front line, and exercise maximum tempo.  Casualties to drones and missiles strikes will be  unsustainable.

 

 

Why would Russia choose to fight the whole NATO conventionally?  There is no reason for RU to attack NATO and if NATO starts - it's lights out.  And in the unlikely case when Polish cavalry gets nuked east of Carpathian mountains -  I have my doubts that US would choose to respond...  

Edited November 29, 2023 by Strannik

[Perun]

5 hours ago, Strannik said:

And in the unlikely case when Polish cavalry gets nuked east of Carpathian mountains -  I have my doubts that US would choose to respond...  

Agree on that, after all US can survive whitout Poland but can not survive if themself (US) are nuked

[mkenny]

16 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Probably the first video confirmation (in good quality) of Leopard 1A5 loss in battle, Svatovo region

https://t.me/creamy_caprice/3348

It is 3 separate films. The first bit is the tank firing and then reversing out without any damage. The tank getting shelled is  further to the  left of the original one and could even be a different tank. Then the close-up views of the disabled tank. All in the same field which is heavily criss-crossed by Leopard tracks (they are distinctive) so I presume this tank(s) made a habit of advancing, shelling the Russians and then pulling back. The Russians noted the routine and  perhaps remote-mined the field which disabled it and made it  ideal for target practise. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by mkenny

[BansheeOne]

Oh ... Leopard 1 A5. Here I was puzzling who might have supplied Leopard 2 A5 to Ukraine, or whether it might be a Strv 122. It doesn't help that with all the add-on turret armor, it looks rather 2-ish on a cellphone ...

After that's cleared up, I'm actually surprised it's not a burnt-out hulk. After all that talk about weak Leopard 1 protection, I sorta expected them to blow up from as much as being hit by a tree branch. 😄

[mkenny]

The Leopard is c. 2km from the nearest Russian soldiers

[glenn239]

13 hours ago, Strannik said:

Why would Russia choose to fight the whole NATO conventionally?  There is no reason for RU to attack NATO and if NATO starts - it's lights out.  And in the unlikely case when Polish cavalry gets nuked east of Carpathian mountains -  I have my doubts that US would choose to respond...  

I realize that, but in the discussion Josh and I are having, I am saying that NATO cannot defeat Russia even in a conventional war.  So we're setting the nuclear aspect aside with an unspoken assumption that both sides will be launching conventional attacks on each others' homelands, but being selective and careful.  The country is just too damn big, and thanks to Biden's incompetence, Russia now has too many powerful allies willing to back it.  Josh supposes that the USAF will do some sort of Desert Storm operation with thousands of sorties a day, and soon the Russians will throw in the towel.  Hitler thought the same thing, turned out Russia is a big place and size counts.

Edited November 29, 2023 by glenn239

[Strannik]

2 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I realize that, but in the discussion Josh and I are having, I am saying that NATO cannot defeat Russia even in a conventional war.  The country is just too damn big, and thanks to Biden's incompetence, Russia now has too many powerful allies willing to back it.

Purely theoretically excluding political aspect, assuming all actors would mobilize and no nukes - yes.  But it's more productive to discuss the properties of unicorn horn.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It doesnt need to defeat ALL the country. Thats the point you dont get. It only needs to destroy, or dominate, the forces along the European frontiers. The rest is wholly irrelevant.

In 1905, Russia dwarfed Japan. But it didnt matter, because only the forces Russia had in the far east could be easily outmatched and destroyed. When it attempted to reinforce its naval squadrons, they were bitten off and destroyed by a force that again could easily match it. This is called defeat in detail in case you wondered.

Besides, the Russian military isnt as big as you think it is. This isnt the 130 division juggernaught of Yesteryear. Its probably not even 100 brigades these days. And if it tried to redeploy from Ukraine, or bring up the last dregs of its forces from Kaliningrad and Siberia, they would have to do it either over a sea that is wholly dominated by NATO, over air wholly doinated by NATO, or over tracks destroyed by NATO airpower.

No matter how many times you play this handwaving game, Russia is wholly outmatched. Even the much vaunted S400 seems incapable of intercepting NATO missile on a regular basis. Jesus Christ, Russia has even met its match with Ukraine, with its 40 year old combat jets. What hope do you think the RuAF would have going up against F35's and B2's?

Powerful allies? So thats Venezuela and Cuba then? In case you didnt notice, China is increasingly throwing in its lot with America. Not because it wants to, but because it simply cant affort NOT to.

 

[mkenny]

42 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Powerful allies? So thats Venezuela and Cuba then? In case you didnt notice, China is increasingly throwing in its lot with America. Not because it wants to, but because it simply cant affort NOT to.

Perfect example of ignoring reality and only seeing what you desperately want to see.  It is hard to let go of your dreams about war-winning game-changing unstoppable wunder-waffen.

Edited November 29, 2023 by mkenny

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well as far as abandoning reality, lets reflect on how Russia seems unable to intercept NATO cruise missiles with any kind of reliablity. If they dont seem to have a problem finding their target, hung under a Su24, I fail to see why they wont do exactly the same or better hung under a Typhoon or an F35.

Its not about Ukraine winning the war. Short of Ukraine pulling something out the bag, its a hung war and will remain so. Equally Russia has lost the glorious, continent defining victory it had set its heart upon. Daily it erodes combat power.  I refuse to indulge this 'Rossiya Stronk' horseshit ive been hearing since the first day of th war. If you havent been disabused of that with the first week of the war, and accept Russia is once again the decrepit military machine it usually turns out to be at the start of a new war, then I guess you wont.

Its not about wunder waffen, its about facing akward realities that slap you in the face like a wet kipper. If Russia cant win against Ukraine, its hardly going to do any better against NATO as well. Fairly self evident I should have thought.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Perun]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Hitler thought the same thing, turned out Russia is a big place and size counts.

Some other thought the same and they were defeted because people who are living there defended that big place

[Josh]

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

"Was" far behind.  Before the war, in 2020.  Russian doctrine and industry on the drone front was rudimentary.  Now  drone development is a top industrial priority with no chance of this state of affairs changing in coming decades.  You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Russians will now construct tens of thousands of drones and missiles  in the post war.  But to me, it's a no-brainer.  This is what Joe Biden has asked them to do, to assemble missiles and drones in their factories, working at three shifts a day for decades until they care capable of delivering truly staggering numbers of attacks.

What drones/munitions do they produce now outside Lancet, Orlan10, and Geran (Forposts seem to have been exhausted or shelved)? The first one is successful munition that just entered production prewar to my knowledge; the latter is a Group 2 UAV popular before the war for its relative simplicity and prolific production (using a lot of western commercial components), the final one is Iranian in design if not production (to date). That is no a particularly deep bench of UAVs and the last one is not particular sophisticated or Russian.

I have no numbers for Russian UAV/loiter production; do you? Please post. I imagine it is far short of "tens of thousands". I think Shaded usage is in the upper hundreds to low thousands to date. It would perhaps be accurate to say that Russia produces and or buys tens of thousands of UAVs, counting all types and purchases from Iran and China, and that all of them fall below Group 2 except the Iranian production/copies that are slow one way INS/GPS cruise missiles.

US and EU production of all classes of UAV probably still outstrip Russian production. I notice you never mention the fact NATO might product its own loitering munitions - the Polish warmate seems roughly equivalent, if not superior, to the Lancet series. There are numerous US manufacturers producing UAVs in this class as well, although only Switchblade has been adopted to date. But the LASSO program likely will involve loitering munitions from multiple manufacturers to speed production.

ETA: the US Army also has its ALE program centered on the Altius 700, though this is more of a Group 2/Orlan10 equivalent. And the US more broadly is discussing putting thousands of UAVs into operation in the next two years:

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/08/replicator-revealed-pentagon-initiative-to-counter-china-with-mass-produced-autonomous-systems/

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Russia wants China's subcomponents for their own weapons production, and Putin's recent announcement is that they want to cooperate on strategic projects in which Russia does not have the resources to go it alone.   I see nothing to suggest that China will not move forward with Russia on both fronts.

Fair enough, I've no doubt China will stop being a fountain of sub components for Russia, so long as Russia is willing to pay for them.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Like with Sino-Russian cooperation, you see the enemy as being sure to make the choices required that will bail the US out of a dilemma.

I don't see any dilemma at all. Let Russia mobile several million soldiers. Even assuming they have the equipment, logistics, and training capacity, they will just be additional targets. The current war has shown that concentrating more troops tends to just make an easier target for artillery. As a result, the fighting around Avdiivka seems to have adopted the tactics of Bakhmut - infiltration by nothing larger than a platoon. Right now the Russians are struggling with Ukraine, and NATO is on a technical and resource level far above that. But IMO, the fact that mobilization hasn't occurred yet in a peer competition that really could have used that level of effort indicates either they can't or won't.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 The Russians would of course need to undertake a large mobilization if at war with the USA so that the total % of casualties that NATO could inflict on Russian forces would be below the threshold needed for success by way of attrition.  Russian territory itself is of a scale so huge as to be a sanctuary, and the Russians would exploit that to rotate units to and from the battle fronts in Belarus or Ukraine.  From this unassailable position, they would be backed by the full weight of the Chinese economy delivering masses of war material to their ally.

It's not like NATO has any ambition of entering Russian territory. All NATO has to do is destroy the logistical support behind the lines and force the Russians back across the border, not conquer Russia. If Ukraine can blow up the odd bridge now and again despite Russia's best efforts, one wonders how the Russians will handle a couple hundred cruise missiles hitting their rail system every several days.

I don't see China's support bailing Russia out of that pickle unless they are sending their air force, ignoring the fact that I don't see China supplying Russia with weapons unless it is already at war with the US on the other side of the world.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

So let's say your high side estimate of 5,000 missiles of which 3,000 are a 'never touch' reserve for war with China and Iran. That leaves about 2,000 for Russia, of which defenses (active, EW, decoy, counterstrikes) will account for maybe 40%, leaving 1,200 war shots that hit against an army of 2 to 3 million.

How would 2000 compare to the total number of cruise missiles Russia has used in this war? I bet it isn't much lower. Add in at lease several thousand ADM-160s which are just going to look like cruise missiles on radar. There is no shortage of SDB or JDAMs (wing kits can be easily added). As for effectiveness, your "40%" number is just something you made up.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I don't think conventional aircraft carrying small diameter bombs at high altitude are a viable prospect against Russian air defenses.

That's how the Russia has been using their glide bombs, so I don't see why NATO couldn't. The VKS isn't going to be anywhere near the border if it wants to survive, given that it is outnumbers by NATO 5th generation aircraft *already*. NATO aircraft either come in at high altitude and speed to maximize range like the Russians or if the SAM threat is too great, skim the surface and pull up last minute like the Ukrainians.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Aircraft operating from the UK would need to land and refuel before making their strikes, reducing overall tempo.

Why? They would need minimal airborne refueling to make the thousand mile round trip. I only picked the UK because it is outside the effective range of most munition types and because historically that is where the US keeps a fighter wing of them.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Nor would basing in the UK make them immune from missile and drone counterstrikes.

It is out of range of most munitions, and those that can make the trip have to travel across more than a thousand miles of NATO controlled airspace in a more or less straight line, over water, to make the trip. Good luck with that.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Tactical airpower will have to be closer to the front, where they would be subject to constant attrition on the ground and in the air.

And no doubt most of it will. I'm just picking individual examples to illustrate what a massive air defense/air force suppression problem Russia will have. I'm not going to bother detailing the entirety of a NATO air campaign; these posts are long enough as is. Perhaps Stuart can accommodate you.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

No doubt such weapons would kill tens of thousands of Russian troops, even while Russian weapons of a similar nature did damage in the other direction.  The problem is that tens of thousands is chump change to an army of 2 to 3 million with another 5 or 6 in reserves,  The simple fact is that the Americans can never commit more than a fraction of any of their resources to war with Russia, because of China.  I don't see where the scale of what can be done is anywhere even remotely to the level needed to resolve the problem.  To my eye, you're just proposing with modern kit all the same follies of Operation Barbarossa in a theatre where the distances defeat such schemes.

I don't see the Russians being able to equip, train, and support such a force and I see it largely as just a series of 200s waiting to happen were they to try to concentrate such a force in face of NATO air power and artillery. And US artillery would likely not need to particularly husbanded for a China war, since there would be minimal ground fighting. 155mm production will be increased six fold inside the next several years.

 

17 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Generally speaking, NATO airpower can only even reach a small part of the total Russian landmass.   Most of the country is inaccessible and would be receiving more material from factories in China, Iran, and North Korea than NATO itself could provide.  It will not, 'fall apart'.  In order to attempt to deliver the maximum tempo that you outline to the deepest depths of Russia possible, Western airpower will have to base close to the front line, and exercise maximum tempo.  Casualties to drones and missiles strikes will be  unsustainable.

I'd be shocked if NATO aircraft ever traveled more than a few dozen miles into Russian airspace. They wouldn't particularly need to and Russia is still a nuclear power; any aircraft penetrating deep into Russian airspace is going risk a nuclear exchange. I don't think Russia as a country will fall ever apart; I think its army as fielded on the NATO border would fall apart. I think the destruction of the local rail system would create another north of Kiev type situation where lack of fuel and other supplies made withdrawal the only choice.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Josh

[Josh]

Mixed results in the efforts to increase artillery production in NATO:

"And in a twist that belies Europe’s reputation for state-owned businesses, its dilemma is set by market conditions, while U.S. progress is made possible by state-control of ammo manufacturing.  

It’s a “a bit of a chicken-and-egg question,” said Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur during a recent visit to Washington, D.C. Industry officials, Pevkur said, say, “‘Please give us contracts and then we can produce’ and then we say that, you know, ‘There is a clear demand. Just start to increase your production’.” 

On the U.S. side, production doubled within a year of launching a crash production program, largely because the Army owns the facilities that make the shells. "

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Josh

[mkenny]

12 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its not about wunder waffen, ...............

Not now it isn't. Go back a year or so  and it was. Every western news outlet  was full of articles explaining how this and that 'game-changing war-winning  high-tech wundwer-waffen was going to lay waste to the shovel-wielding ex-convict  army was  cowering behind its pathetic lines of dragon's teeth. We even got films showing how these lines were to be breached in the much-touted  'blitz' that was going to reach the Sea Of Azov in 8 days. 

 

Now  the same people/outlets are claiming they were 'misunderstood' and it was just a 'shaping operation' with the real attack to come 'next week/'next year/12th of Never.

The economic war on Russia also had great claims made for it and a swift collapse of Russia was never doubted

 

 

Now the last hope of the true believers is the F16s and failing that a dream  that NATO will move into western Ukraine and make sure Zelensky survives and gets to spend more time with his (ex-USA) money and his 2 super-yachts.

Gotta admire their optimism. 

[seahawk]

The war will continue as long as those pulling the strings want it to continue. And no, not the ones pulling the string in Moscow. The pro-West party would be happy to accept any peace deal.

[Wouter2]

19 hours ago, Strannik said:

Why would Russia choose to fight the whole NATO conventionally?  There is no reason for RU to attack NATO 

Of course there is - nato is occpuying Soviet (and thus Russian) lands! Putin did demand a retreat to 1997 lines, and nato didn’t comply. To the contrary, they have increased their antirussian  activities and they expand further, being a clear threat to the motherland. 

 

A bit of denazification and demilitarisation would clearly be in order, were it not for some unfortunate factors like US conventional and military power. Trump will probably neutralise that by 2025, however.

[Strannik]

2 minutes ago, Wouter2 said:

A bit of denazification and demilitarisation would clearly be in order, were it not for some unfortunate factors like US conventional and military power. Trump will probably neutralise that by 2025, however.

Oh, look a "Trump is a Russian asset" personality enters the scene ))

I miss 2016.

[Wouter2]

He's an american patriot. 

[Mike1158]

He would not see which way an American patriot went.  He is wholly a Trump patriot.

[Josh]

Let’s not make this yet another Trump thread. There are several dedicated to or adjacent from in the FFZ.

[glenn239]

7 hours ago, Perun said:

Some other thought the same and they were defeted because people who are living there defended that big place

You mean that war Ukraine is on track to lose before the end of 2025?

[glenn239]

8 hours ago, Strannik said:

Purely theoretically excluding political aspect, assuming all actors would mobilize and no nukes - yes.  But it's more productive to discuss the properties of unicorn horn.

If NATO cannot hope to win a conventional war with Russia, then NATO has no interest in war with Russia under any conceivable circumstances, and the war in Ukraine will be decided by that fact.  Conversely, if Josh is correct and NATO concludes they can win a conventional war, then it is theoretically possible they can convince themselves to give it a try.

[Josh]

30 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

If NATO cannot hope to win a conventional war with Russia, then NATO has no interest in war with Russia under any conceivable circumstances, and the war in Ukraine will be decided by that fact.  Conversely, if Josh is correct and NATO concludes they can win a conventional war, then it is theoretically possible they can convince themselves to give it a try.

NATO has no interest in a war Russia: there is nothing to gain. But Russia has made it clear that neither economic or military costs will keep it from potentially invading its neighbors. So NATO will prepare for that fight.