Russian/NATO tensions are at an all time high.
Well, except for the time they invaded Crimea in 2014, or the time they staged a mock invasion
of Eastern Europe in 2017, or the time they threatened to nuke Europe in 2021.
Ya know, besides all those other times tensions were at all time highs.
This all begs the question, what would a Russian/Nato war look like?
Back in 2017, Russia conducted a series of military exercises known as Zapad, or “exercise
West”.
With their roots in the Soviet Union, Zapad military exercises have traditionally been
shows of force, meant to let NATO know that Russia was willing and ready to fight.
Despite Russian claims that the 2017 Zapad exercises were only preparations for counter-terror
operations, the exercises that were supposed to feature only 10,000 personnel turned into
a 100,000 strong mock-invasion of eastern Europe with one clear message: Russia's military
might is back.
After an embarrassing performance in the 2008 Georgian-Russian war, where Russian forces
dwarfed Georgian ones 4 to 1, but still struggled to achieve key objectives, Russia dramatically
modernized its armed forces.
New T-90 tanks and Su-57 and MiG-35 aircraft dramatically improved its capabilities both
in the air and on the ground.
On top of that, Russia's military has seen a huge increase in the size of its volunteer
forces, which traditionally have much better performance and morale compared to a conscripted
army.
An increase in heavy road transport units meant to carry tanks to the front lines has
reduced Russia's reliance on rail transport, which would be a natural first target for
NATO bombardment.
Russia also doubled down on the one area it has traditionally outperformed NATO in, ground-based
anti-air platforms.
The introduction of the S-400 and S-500 anti-air defense system has given NATO war planners
serious concerns, and with a range of up to 250 miles (or 600 kilometers), a single battery
of S-500 units can threaten large swathes of a European battlefield.
They were even allegedly successful in locking onto stealth F-35s in Syria.
But what about the raw numbers?
NATO maintains an active-duty force of about 2,000,000 personnel versus Russia's 1,000,000.
NATO also has an air force of 13,000 fighter, strike and bomber aircraft, versus Russia's
3,914.
It’s on the ground where Russia has the biggest advantage, with over 20,000 tanks
versus NATO's 10,000.
One asterisk on those tanks.
Russia still counts thousands of decommissioned Soviet-era tanks in its official figures,
that even if they brought back into service, would be outclassed by modern Abrahms tanks.
NATO’s article 5 reads:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
shall be considered an attack against them all
*
You may have noticed that Ukraine is not one of the 30 member states of NATO, if Russia
were to take Ukraine it would put them within striking distance of the heart of Europe.
Many NATO members, including the U.S., UK, France, Spain, and others have mobilized forces
in Ukraine to help counter the potential Russian invasion.
Even if NATO itself doesn’t join the conflict, 7 of the 10 strongest members of NATO have
already committed to defending the country.
And the secretary general of NATO is leading the negotiations.
*
Recent declassified US intelligence documents show Russia amassing 175,000 troops in hundreds
of BTGs (or battalion tactical groups) in four locations along Ukraines border.
A successful invasion of Ukraine would need to quickly take the country and set up defensive
positions, in essence telling the west that a counter invasion would cost far more lives
than Ukraine is worth.
This is how Russia's ideal invasion would go.
Ukraine has 8 air force bases that would quickly be bombarded by hundreds of long range missile
systems.
And a quick skirmish of naval nuclear submarines against ukraines navy in the Azov sea would
give Russia complete bombardment capabilities over Ukraine.
From there battalions near Persianovka would quickly move into the eastern provinces of
Donetsk and Luhansk which are effectively already under the control of pro-russian armed
insurgents.
These forces would meet with the forces from Crimea to take the area east of the Dnieper
river
This section of Ukraine would be the easiest to control as nearly half the population identifies
culturally as Russian and speaks it as their native language.
The flat plains of Eastern Europe would make defensive operations incredibly difficult,
especially against large masses of Russian tanks.
It was these same flat plains that saw some of World War II's largest tank battles, and
will see them again should Russia launch World War III.
As the battalions from Persianovka move west.
Any resistance they meet could be attacked from behind by the 2nd staging area in Boyevo.
Besides attacking Ukrainian forces from both sides, they could pinch off supply lines leaving
them isolated from reinforcements.
After these first battles commence and Ukrainian attention is diverted to the east, the first
staging group near Yelena could make a beeline for the capital of Kyiv.
Because Russia has so many more troops than Ukraine, either Ukraine has to move forces
from the capital to defend the eastern parts of the country (leaving the capital exposed)
or by devoting their forces to the capital, they would concede half the county.
Both a lose-lose strategy.
From there Russia would control the vast majority of Ukraine, and could begin digging in their
forces.
One of their biggest difficulties in achieving this, especially before a NATO counter offensive
can be launched, will be urban conflict.
While much of the terrain east of the Dnieper River includes rural fields and forests, there
are several major urban areas that a Russian mechanized force would have to either take
or bypass and besiege.
Kiev has almost 3 million inhabitants, Kharkiv has roughly 1.5 million, and Odessa and Dnipro
have 1 million.
If defended, these large urban areas could take considerable time and casualties to clear
and occupy.
In the First Chechen War, it took Russian forces 40 days to wrestle control of Grozny,
then a city of less than 400,000, from a few thousand Chechen fighters.
In the Second Chechen War, the re-siege that same small city still took six weeks.
The one brightside to an urban WW3, is we might finally get some good Battlefield maps.
Russia could skip these urban areas at first, and mop them up later, but Kharkiv is just
over the border from Russia, and is a major road and railroad junction.
If Russian forces don’t take control of Kharkiv, it would seriously harm their logistical
capabilities to support a push toward the Dnieper River and beyond.
Keep in mind we said this is how Russia's ideal invasion would go.
In reality it would be a far cry from this.
Starting in the black sea.
Russia's navy would be demolished.
Russia has the second largest navy in the world, but only has a single aircraft carrier,
and not only is it not stationed in the Black Sea near Ukraine (instead it's part of the
northern fleet) it's undergoing modernization and isn’t expected to return to service
until 2023.
Of their two largest Kirov Battlecruisers, both are part of the northern fleet as well,
and one is also undergoing modernization and not expected to return to service until 2023.
The Black Sea fleet is made up of a single Slava cruiser, two Krivak frigates, three
grigorovich frigates, and 25 smaller frigates, most of which are less than 1000 tons and
more than 30 years old.
Just to tell you how small those are, on November 12th alone the USS Mount Whitney and USS Porter
arrived at the Black Sea port of Constanta and combined weigh 28,000 tons.
More than all of the 25 smaller frigates combined.
Apart from just those two ships, US and NATO forces have dozens of more powerful and modern
ships in the area.
The USS Harry Truman carrier strike group stationed in the Mediterranean alone is made
up of an aircraft carrier with 50 planes, a cruiser, and three guided missile destroyers.
This strike group of five ships alone would beat out Russia's rather small Black Sea fleet.
And that’s if Russia would even be willing to have a Navy destined to be destroyed leave
port.
And Russia’s air force wouldn’t fare much better.
The Sukhoi Su-57 is Russia's most advanced fighter, incorporating stealth technology
and advanced avionics, but they’re still in production and only have 3 ready for combat.
The majority of Russia's fighter planes are MiG-29’s and 31’s and Su-27’s manufactured
in the 1980’s and far worse than the dozens of F-35s stationed around Europe.
Keep in mind technology is far more important than numbers.
In the Falkland War, British harriers shot down 31 enemy aircraft with 0 losses due to
enemy aircraft, so F-35s will dominate the skies in any European conflict.
Many wars have come down to logistics.
And whatever side has the best logistics capabilities often prevails in the end.
As tensions mount, an invasion that begins in February would have the advantage of frozen
ground to support the cross-country movement of a large mechanized force.
February is usually the coldest and snowiest month of the year in Ukraine, averaging 10
hours of daylight during the month.
But if fighting is prolonged and continues into March, mechanized forces would have to
deal with the infamous Rasputitsa, or thaw.
In March, the frozen steppes thaw, and the land again becomes at best a bog, and at worst
a sea of mud.
This would make a prolonged conflict a nightmare for Russia.
There is a Russian expression: “the first blini is always a mess.”
In invading Ukraine, Russia will be conducting its largest arms operation since the Battle
of Berlin in 1945.
The 2008 Russo-Georgian War saw just five days of combat and engaged only 70,000 Russian
soldiers.
Approximately 120,000 Russian soldiers are mobilized near Ukraine, with tens of thousands
more ready to deploy into combat.
It will be a logistical challenge for Russian command to move all of these forces into their
attack positions without the massive number of soldiers and vehicles moving on a limited
number of muddy roads from becoming one gargantuan traffic jam.
Of course, this is assuming any conflict would only be using conventional arms, and not nuclear
ones.
Do you think NATO should risk nuclear war to defend Ukraine?
Let us know what you think in the comments!
If you liked this content, check out our video on what the Future of warfare could look like.
And remember, there is always more to learn.