By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite current confidence in a swift victory should conflict arise, concerns are mounting within NATO that Russia is actively preparing for war by 2030. Recent assessments by German military officials suggest an attack on NATO members could occur within two to three years, with Norway also acknowledging the possibility of territorial invasion to protect nuclear assets. Furthermore, large-scale exercises have exposed significant weaknesses in NATO’s preparedness for modern warfare, particularly concerning drone deployment and overall readiness.
Read the original article here
The assertion that “we will win every fight with Russia if they attack us now” is a bold statement, certainly, and one that deserves a closer look, especially considering the nuanced reality of the current geopolitical landscape. It begs the question: what exactly constitutes an “attack” in the modern era, and are we, collectively, already engaged in such a conflict? The sentiment behind such a declaration seems to imply a certain confidence in NATO’s military superiority in a conventional sense, a belief that overwhelming force would prevail should Russia initiate direct military action. However, the very phrasing, particularly the emphasis on “if,” hints at a potential disconnect from the ongoing, less overt forms of aggression that Russia has been employing.
When we talk about being “attacked,” it’s crucial to acknowledge that the battlefield isn’t always defined by tanks rolling across borders. Sabotage, the disruption of vital infrastructure like undersea cables, pervasive disinformation campaigns designed to sow discord and undermine trust, and the subtle funding of political actors who serve specific agendas – these are all tools of modern warfare. In this context, the idea of a future, hypothetical attack by Russia seems to overlook the reality that many perceive an ongoing, albeit hybrid, conflict already underway. This perspective suggests that Russia, regardless of whether formal war has been declared, very much considers itself in a state of antagonism with NATO and its allies.
The underlying assumption in the optimistic “we will win” pronouncement appears to be a straightforward military confrontation without the specter of nuclear escalation. This is a critical caveat. The devastating consequences of a large-scale conflict, even a conventional one, are undeniable, with Europe bearing the brunt of the devastation, infrastructure damage, and human cost. The idea that Russia wouldn’t attack NATO, and that any discussion of hypothetical wars remains just that – speculation – is a comforting thought for some, but perhaps not one that fully accounts for the unpredictable nature of international relations and the potential for miscalculation.
Furthermore, there’s a concern about the timing and motivation behind such a declaration. If the confidence is rooted in current capabilities, what about the future? Unless the statement specifically excludes nuclear warfare, its scope is limited. The worry is that if the capacity for a conventional victory is assumed, it might lead to complacency or a failure to adequately prepare for the multifaceted nature of modern aggression.
Indeed, some perspectives argue that in the broader sense of “attack,” Europe has already been on the back foot for years. The argument is that Russia has established a significant advantage in hybrid warfare, effectively dominating online discourse and influencing public opinion. The notion of having an “enemy in your pocket,” whether it’s a political leader or widespread societal division, paints a picture of a struggle that transcends traditional military might. From this viewpoint, a statement of impending conventional victory rings hollow if the foundational elements of influence and public discourse are already compromised.
The effectiveness of such a statement in achieving its intended purpose is also questioned. Who is this supposed to impress or reassure? For those who are acutely aware of the ongoing hybrid threats and the perceived current disadvantages, the declaration might seem oblivious to the existing reality. The mention of specific events, like training exercises where Ukrainian soldiers reportedly outperformed NATO units, serves to underscore the skepticism about absolute military dominance.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that a strong response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine is paramount, not just for the sake of Ukraine but as a deterrent to further aggression. However, the perception of a “weak response” from Europe has fueled doubts about the continent’s resolve. The narrative of “all talk and no action” suggests that declarations of future victory don’t necessarily translate into tangible actions that prevent current suffering or deter future encroachments.
The idea that Russia cannot win a conventional war against NATO is frequently contrasted with the possibility that its power lies in exploiting other avenues. The assertion that Russia might draw a line in Ukraine, forcing NATO into a choice between a futile war or a quagmire, highlights a strategic complexity that might be overlooked in a simple “we will win” outlook. This suggests that Russia’s strength might not be in direct confrontation but in its ability to create untenable situations for its adversaries.
The notion of “losing fights” extends beyond the immediate geopolitical arena for some, encompassing events like Brexit and internal political shifts within European countries. This broader interpretation paints a picture of a Europe that is struggling to assert its influence and maintain its unity, making the prospect of winning a direct military confrontation with Russia seem even more challenging. The admission of losing the “misinformation fight” further reinforces the idea that the current struggle is multifaceted and that NATO is not winning on all fronts.
The claim that Ukraine has “ground down” Russia is a significant point, suggesting that the current conflict has revealed vulnerabilities and limitations in Russia’s capabilities. This, in turn, might bolster confidence in NATO’s eventual superiority. However, the counterargument that NATO is disunited, and a unified Russian army is stronger, presents a stark contrast, suggesting that internal cohesion is as vital as individual military strength. The dire warning that NATO would lose a land war without nuclear weapons is a sobering reminder of the stakes involved.
The focus on military exercises, like the reported scenario involving Ukrainian soldiers and drones defeating NATO battalions, raises questions about NATO’s preparedness for modern warfare. The dependence on Western technology, even for Ukraine, is acknowledged, but the long-term implication of Russia eventually overcoming these dependencies is also a concern. The call for “stop with that shallow bragging get your sh*t together” encapsulates a frustration with what is perceived as empty rhetoric rather than concrete action and preparation.
The assertion that Europe’s response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine has been insufficient is a recurring theme, implying that past failures to act decisively have emboldened Russia. The idea that some within Europe may be actively desiring a conflict, detached from the personal consequences, is a cynical but potent observation. The detachment of policymakers from the realities faced by ordinary citizens in the event of war is a significant criticism.
The economic constraints on Russia are also brought up as a potential deterrent, suggesting that a direct attack might not be financially sustainable for them. However, the unpredictability of leaders like Putin is also a significant factor, making purely rational economic analyses insufficient. The sentiment that “douche-bag-dork is trying to make his agenda a reality by leaning heavily on ancient nuclear bombs” reflects a deep distrust and concern about the motivations and methods employed.
The perspective that Russia views itself as being under attack is also presented, citing the use of NATO weapons systems on Russian territory with NATO intelligence and command. This paints a picture of a mutually antagonistic situation, where the lines of aggression are blurred. The argument for diplomacy and skilled diplomats, rather than those perceived as escalating tensions, is a plea for a different approach to conflict resolution.
The question of how “winning” against Russia would even look like, particularly in the context of nuclear implications, remains a major unanswered concern. The reliance on the US arsenal and the potential for a lack of US engagement under certain political scenarios raises doubts about Europe’s ability to stand alone. The fear that Russia might exploit a disunited NATO, or that a US president might not be inclined to retaliate against a nuclear strike, highlights the complex strategic dependencies.
The comparison to past pronouncements, such as the talk of “don’t use a nuclear weapon” in late 2022, suggests a pattern of shifting narratives and potential underlying anxieties. The fear that Russia might consider tactical nuclear weapons, even if not seriously, underscores the gravity of the nuclear dimension. The argument that Russia might cease an attack if confronted by NATO, but not if defeated by Ukraine, presents a psychological dynamic that is crucial to understand.
Ultimately, the assertion that “we will win every fight with Russia if they attack us now” is a statement that resonates with a desire for strength and reassurance. However, a closer examination reveals a complex web of ongoing hybrid warfare, potential vulnerabilities in conventional military readiness, and the ever-present shadow of nuclear escalation. The crucial “if” in the statement underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of the current threat landscape, one that extends beyond traditional battlefield scenarios and addresses the multifaceted nature of modern conflict.