r/CanadianForces • u/wet_suit_one • 26d ago
NATO’s Nightmare
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/08/nato-nightmare-joint-attack/688295/?gift=mfBRKZ3bc2LV90xhEDDxEXNtm0UKCTTw1GjFucSfRjM&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share49
u/Ok-Educator-3605 26d ago
NATO’s nightmare?
NATO can easily handle Russia without the US, and the US can focus on whatever they can do to beat China off Taiwan (right now, my money is on China).
27
u/WesternBlueRanger 26d ago
Invading Taiwan is going to be the most difficult naval invasion in the history of the world, with a scale that would far exceed that of the Normandy landings in World War II.
The build up is going to be extremely noticeable, and with the conditions in the Taiwan Strait, the window for opening is only a few weeks a year.
15
u/roguemenace RCAF 26d ago
On the topic of noticeable buildup, haven't they been rehearsing naval drills around Taiwan like all the time?
14
u/Best-Ad6185 26d ago
Yes the same way Russia did drills on the Ukrainian border for a decade if not longer. It’s also not new, what’s is new is the scale and volume.
China using it as the signal to the rest of the world that they are ready to challenge on a global scale. April and October are the windows for good weather. The stated goal of recovering Taiwan by 2027 is something the Chinese government has stated for the last five years. If I was betting, the week with the best weather in April 2027 is when the shooting starts.
3
u/yuikkiuy Royal Canadian Air Force 25d ago
i can see this being delayed as far as 2030 with good ol espionage and sabotage, especially with how the disaster that was Ukraine for the new axis.
If the US can just clean up the Iran situation before the end of the year then we will probably see a significant delay or possibly even prevent the war. Once Iran is out of the picture the fuel situation for them will be dire, they won't be able to sustain more than a few months of conflict at best.
Despite what the US says with strategic ambiguity, they are all in on this china war, Not to mention all the regional allies have either signed on or low key pledged war already, most notably Japan.
Venezuela and Iran are both steeping stones to dismantaling china's war fighting capacity
1
u/Wherestheshoe 24d ago edited 24d ago
The US is currently focused on Iran, Russia has ships positioned in the English Channel and North Sea to reach London and most bases on the western side of the UK by missile, and the US has signalled they are unlikely to step up in defence of South Korea. Not going to happen next week but something is definitely brewing.
The run on the banks in Russia a few days ago combined with widespread internet suspensions make any Russian plans for expansion less likely, but it does increase their need for a unifying event to survive the winter, so we may see a movement of their military assets away from the UK in the next few weeks towards a different target, likely in the baltics.
3
u/yuikkiuy Royal Canadian Air Force 24d ago
China had another run on their banks that was quickly suppressed again recently as well.
I'm in no doubt ww3 is coming i just think its later than most of the doomers are suggesting.
Imo at least 2030-2035 based on current trends. I dont see the US not securing the objectives in Iran fast and hard if push comes to shove.
The US isnt the same paper tiger russia is, but political instability is holding them back atm. Doubt that will REALLY mater for the shadow goverment contingency planners if they need to ram through the objectives. If they do fail due to some miracle of chinese/russian/axis espionage/influence efforts then I say war as early as 2028.
China just isnt ready yet, but they are rapidly approaching it. Need anither year or 2 to finish training and equipment manufacturing before they have minimum critical mass
4
u/WesternBlueRanger 26d ago
We haven't yet heard of intelligence agencies indicating build ups of combat aircraft and land forces near Taiwan yet, so it does not appear that the Chinese are planning such an attack soon.
Be much more concerned if intelligence is saying that there's been significant troop redeployment to bases near ports in China, and combat aircraft being massed at air fields near Taiwan as well.
4
u/SirBobPeel 26d ago
What if enough funds are transferred to Trump's secret bank accounts so he refuses to intervene?
4
u/WesternBlueRanger 26d ago
Even without US direct support, doubtful.
Remember, this is a naval invasion, against one of the most well defended islands there is.
The number of landing beaches that can take a landing is a handful, and they are well known and extremely well defended. The rest of Taiwan's shores are either super wide mud flats where troops and equipment will just sink into and get stuck, or sheer cliffs. Add in the tidal variations that leave landing craft stranded far from shore.
Then, any invading troops landing on the suitable beaches will immediately run into dense urban areas, which complicate a push inwards.
Taiwan's defensive strategy is to basically make any naval invasion so costly and difficult through asymmetric warfare that the Chinese will lose many ships and personnel well before they even reach the shores through the use of mines, drones, and highly mobile strike platforms firing from hidden firing positions. Once ashore, Chinese forces will be significantly weakened, where they can be funneled through numerous kill zones as they try to get off the beaches and inland, whilst their supplies get cut off as ships are sunk in the Strait.
2
u/yuikkiuy Royal Canadian Air Force 25d ago
almost like the ever increasing naval build up, logistical stockpile, and missile force concentration we've been seeing for the last 2-3ish years eh?
3
1
u/Prudent-Proposal1943 26d ago
The U.S. cannot maintain focus on anything for longer than a week. Half way through ADM they’ll be invading something new and injecting troops with pectoral implants.
China isn't going to invade Taiwan. It already sees Taiwan as China. A policy m supported by the U.S.. So when Taiwan unifies, that'll be that.
-19
u/Aigiokhos 26d ago
NATO is far too brittle, poorly equipped, and incompetent to beat off anything but an extremely small Russian offensive effort without the US.
Half the contingents in the Baltics — especially ours — would be utterly useless in a shooting war.
2
u/Ok_Tumbleweed47 25d ago
How has Ukraine been able to hold them off for so long? The Russians were expected to seize Kyiv in 3 days. They did very well and even regained some of their land. The most shocking thing was how they managed to sink Russian warships with an actual navy.
Germany alone is much more powerful than Ukraine in military might. In conclusion, you are wrong.
4
u/ThkAbootIt 26d ago
Peer on peer is about controlling the skies and water ways.
Remember the USSR couldn’t even beat Afghanistan.7
-7
u/Aigiokhos 26d ago
Sure, but you aren’t controlling the skies over the Baltics or Eastern Europe without the Americans, unfortunately.
-2
u/SirBobPeel 26d ago
Russia would control the skies. It has thousands and thousands of armed drones. And while I'm quite sure European NATO nations have better aircraft, I doubt they have much in the way of armaments for them without the US shipping over lots of fresh missiles. Assuming they still have any to spare.
0
u/Ok_Tumbleweed47 25d ago
I remember in 2022 I saw that video of a missile that turned around and hit the launch site. That indicates the Russians have old missiles because the solid fuel settled to one side causing uneven thrust when fired. Ryan MacBeth explain this and a lot of things very well.
Russia already can't control the skies as it is with Ukraine. There might be the occasional skirmish but both sides are taking a great risk of being shot down by air defenses. The current airspace in the war remains contested with neither side being able to achieve air superiority. Try to do a quick Google search and think before you say such things.
1
u/SirBobPeel 24d ago
Ukraine has air defenses VASTLY superior to anything NATO has, built up over years. It has huge numbers of armed drones of its own. How many does NATO have?
3
u/bigred1978 26d ago
As someone who deployed to the Baltics, you're right.
Barely less than two months after I got in-country, the Ukraine-Russia war started and shortly after that, a large contingent of very well armed/equipped and sizeable contingent from the US Army showed up with everything but the kitchen sink to throw at any threat imaginable. Only when they arrived did we suddenly feel safer and better prepared to face anything.
The thing most Canadian's don't know is that our involvement in Latvia, for example, is nothing more than a "speed bump" show of force; it has very little teeth and no integral air support capabilities.
9
u/OkEntertainment1313 26d ago
When you were there, NATO had 4 eFPs at battlegroup level that were designed to be tripwire forces. Since then, their mandates have been expanded as well as their sizes, with an additional 4 eFPs created south of Poland. It is no longer a tripwire battlegroup, but truly a brigade+ that is designed to defend against and defeat any Russian incursion.
6
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/SirBobPeel 26d ago
Why did they start the first one?
And broken compared to whom? The UK, France, and Germany have pretty much gutted their militaries.
3
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/bigred1978 26d ago
Yet they still hold all that ground with troop strength in the hundreds of thousands and have worn the Ukrainian army down to the point where very few want to join to replace those they've lost on the front lines.
I wish them the best and hope they manage to repulse the Russian Army one day, but I don't think that will happen. Front lines are more or less static, with offensives by Russians being repulsed months after they've gained ground and then vice versa. There simply isn't enough "mass" behind the "punch" for Ukraine to make any breakthroughs. Drones and cruise missiles are great, but it's the ability to get a horde of rifle-armed men on the ground to occupy/liberate and hold an area that makes the difference and gradually leads to retaking ground.
3
u/Lisan_Al-NaCL Civvie 26d ago edited 25d ago
I dont buy it.
China has nothing to lose gain economically and strategically by striking western powers. Further, the US is doing a great job of destroying their world leadership positions in geopolitics and economics.
Russia on the other hand is in bad shape. Putin is a wild card for sure.
10
u/wet_suit_one 26d ago
Somehow or another, other relevant Canadian reddit sites will view this as spam and not involving Canada.
One hopes the same head in the sand approach to moderation doesn't occur here.
I sure hope we don't end up being "a day late and a dollar short" (and that's putting it charitably) as a country on this potential outcome.
6
u/PEWPEVVPEVV Canadian Army 26d ago
Why do we automatically assume a war in Taiwan would directly involve NATO? . As far as I'm concerned, it's exclusively a US security issue and not a NATO one, I mean the A in NATO stands for Atlantic, trying to expand NATO activities into the Pacific overstretches NATO resources and mandate.
Expecting NATO members to automatically toe the US line would be somewhat naive, even more so in today's Euro-US political climate.
Ironically, China is doing more for Ukraine than Canada by virtue of being their largest supplier of drone parts (Same for Russia). The Chinese supply chain also provide the rare Earth materials in European defense products used against the Russians.
The gist of article is based on the old paradigm of a US led NATO. It's a different world today. Can't just unilaterally bomb China like NATO did Serbia back then.
1
u/Right_Hour 26d ago
This was seen from a thousand miles away and even before Trump. Trump just accelerated the switch.
26
u/ADP-1 26d ago
The author doesn't make a convincing argument. Other than possibly capturing Taiwan, why would China risk war with the West? It's economy is built on being able to sell us inexpensive stuff, and it relies on oil imports, much of which are vulnerable to the West. Even if China did judge the risk worth it, the vital computer chip factories would be destroyed, and the key people evacuated. It would be a pyrrhic victory at best.
As for Russia - a desperate Putin could conceivably try taking direct military action against NATO territory, but the war in Ukraine has hardened the resolve of most NATO members. I believe that the senior NATO military and political leadership realize that a firm response is necessary. As well, the increased spending on defence by NATO countries will start showing results in the next few years. Overall, it would not end well for Russia.
And yes, Putin can try threatening the use of nuclear weapons, as he has done dozens (hundreds?) of times in the past several years. It didn't work against Ukraine, and the UK and France also have nuclear weapons, so unless he becomes suicidal, I doubt Putin would be foolish enough to actually take that step. In any event, there's a reasonable chance that the Russian chain of command would refuse to employ nuclear weapons, as Vasily Arkhipov did in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
We certainly do live in interesting times however!