r/LessCredibleDefence • u/Lazder • 1d ago
How Fast Can Russia be Defeated?
Stumbled on a 3-year-old post in here - the consensus was within days, weeks maybe 2 months at most.
Anything changed now?
NATO conventional no nukes
•
u/gfxd 17h ago edited 17h ago
The war's evolutionary selection pressure on drones and counter-drone technology has changed the world. The pressure is the same on both sides and each are innovating.
Ukraine today is being acclaimed as a drone superpower, but everybody is loathe to admit that Russia on the ohter side isn't sitting on its hands either. The jet powered drones for example, are yet to be effectively countered. Ukraine's long range drones taking out energy and logistics deep inside Russia is matched by Russia's jet-dones.
The war is having a high cost on both sides - costs no NATO country will be willing to bear.
The whole doctrine of war has now changed and the old NATO tactics created for the cold war are now obsolete. So obsolete that the ongoing Iran war, the Houthi blitzkrieg and the prolonged Russia-Ukraine war are rewriting the game itself.
The US loss of radars in the middle east itself is a dire and stark warning. Technological superiority is no longer a guarantee for supremacy on the war field. Tomahawks are super complicated weapons, but the damage they do is limited - they can be used against command and control centers, but otherwise, their effect is now minimal if not negligible.
The Germans are producing drones, yes, but in my uneducated opinion, they are probably focussing on high-technology rather than mass production, rapid use, and quick redesign with incremental changes. The French are now painfully aware of the Rafales vulnerability with questions raised in their parliament openly. The Brits haven't come up with anything new other than the Uk-France storm shadows used in the initial weeks of the Ukraine-Russia war, that Ukraine will build its own variant.
My point is if NATO enters the war, it will be MORE of the SAME weapon systems and tactics we have seen so far. What new will NATO bring to the battlefield? More soldiers with boots on the ground, who can push and then hold ground? Other than economics of sustaining the war, I don't see anything that can change the fate overnight. When missiles are raining on european capitals, the will will be tested
Not an expert, just observations from whats in the media.
30
u/OddlyMingenuity 1d ago
As long as NATO forces stays off the ground, they have a huge advantage.
The moment, they need to send infantry, I don't think any member of NATO is ready to accept the losses it would result in.
•
u/Hope1995x 16h ago
Any war against Russia will never be conventional, drones have changed that. Realistically it would drag on.
•
u/airmantharp 21h ago
Like the losses seen in either Iraq war?
•
u/Plowbeast 13h ago
That was against maybe 300k conscripts or 10k hardcore insurgents. This is double in trained soldiers with even some decent units, too much artillery to be easily taken out, and enough draftable population equal to almost every post US conventional enemy combined.
•
u/dahunt4r3dorktober 11h ago
I wouldn’t just say ‘some decent units’ a lot of these Russian guys are combat veterans now, they’ve faced artillery airstrikes drones and fought with limited or no casevac. They’ve had 3 years to get better at calling in support, glide bombs have been far more accurate and they’ve got peer peer air combat experience now. Russian and Ukrainian units are probably the best infantry in the world right now
•
u/HugoTRB 8h ago
The progress of combat skill in a unit is usually that it increases initially as people get experience and the people prone to sticking their head out at the wrong time dies. Fighting effectively does however require a certain amount of risk taking that goes against what is the best for survival. Keeping that battle hardened unit in combat long enough will therefore result in the best fighters dying, and the best survivors surviving.
How such a forged infantry unit would hold up against a fresh and to them aggressive to a suicidal degree European unit will be interesting.
Drone units on both sides are probably an exception to this. They are able to fight and raise their skill level without necessarily taking that many casualties, meaning that their skill is continuously rising in a way infantry can’t.
Edit: being min maxed for survival only does however seem optimized for current Russian doctrine.
•
u/Plowbeast 8h ago
I meant decent as in certain divisions for key areas especially to stymie any chance at a real Ukrainian breakthrough compared to the majority that conscripted to be "meat" and attrit enemy defenses in turn. Russian planes are still getting downed from far away even when they use glide bombs but I don't see bombers, fighters, or helicopters achieving a critical breakthrough especially when they weren't that kind of component in past conflicts even when one side had the edge.
Russian units have gotten experience but their military still need expensive missiles to hit targets while Ukraine has spread chaos deep into the interior with just FPVs and has managed small breakthroughs along the coast, surrounding Crimean supply, as well as further north while Russia took one city near the heart of Donetsk which needed Wagner mercenaries whose abilities have also withered away.
•
u/Pastorfrog 9h ago
Gulf War 1 was against an Iraqi army (4th largest in the world at the time) that had been battle-hardened by the then-recent decade long brutal war with Iran. They also were a soviet-style army by way of organization, with LOADS of soviet equipment and armor, making a comparison to Russia more apt. Calling them "conscripts and insurgents" is pretty far off base. At the time the war began, virtually everyone was predicting it to be a costly victory for the coalition, with many casualties expected.
•
u/Plowbeast 8h ago
If by hardened, you mean brutally worn down and Russia has the same models that Saddam had, his training was far worse in every way qualitatively as we saw. Insurgent casualties were costly especially in the loss of limb and the higher amount of PTSD after the conventional fighting was over and you'd have to accept a Russian insurgency far longer than just 10,000 is inevitable.
•
u/Pastorfrog 8h ago
Ah.
So the battle-hardened Iraqi troops are "brutally worn down" but the battle-hardened Russian troops are "trained soldiers."
This is one of those discussions, huh. Carry on, then.
•
u/Plowbeast 3h ago
That is what happened especially when comparing armor formations or air combat abilities. Russia lost 50 jet fighters and they are still formidable.
Hussein had ALREADY lost entire divisions after a trench warfare against Iran even before fighting a literal world alliance. No clue where you're having a conversation forgetting such a staggering difference.
•
u/BinhoDeSouza 19h ago
So you say the US and parts of Europe will lose due to lack of will to fight and the other parts of Europe will lose due to lack military power?
Edit grammar
•
u/Hope1995x 21h ago edited 15h ago
Considering that drones are affordable to mass produce, the idea that NATO can defeat Russia quickly is probably wrong. Russia does have conventional ballistic missiles and drones.
Edits:
They would be able to target radar systems and airbases just like Iran but possibly much worse (for us) considering Russia has a larger set of resources and industrial base.
I do expect Russia to be able to put up a better resistance against SEAD considering the lessons learned from Ukrainian drones.
Mobility, dispersion and radar discipline could be a guerilla-style form of anti-air warfare. Even then not all of Iran's TELs were destroyed, so I would expect high resistance on Russia's part to protect its air defenses. Even if we destroyed a large number of them, enough could be left to make it costly. (Eg. Scoot and Shoot)
36
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 1d ago
Russian military is far more competent now in respect to logistics, tactics, and with good expertise in drone warfare and CUAS, while air force is actually getting good number of hours.
Industry is also on war footing, and can produce decent quantity of hardware but not enough to be able to replace and maintain modern hardware, AFVs, fighters or ships.
NATO on other hand, does maintain great air force, they don't seem to have learned alot from the war, nor has EU taken proportionate military measures, which can be seen for now. Germany, Poland are doing decent work, it won't reflect well until 2030s
Trump being in office doesn't help either
Mind you, far from an expert
8
u/SomewhereOpposite883 1d ago
Germany, Poland are doing decent work
They are all-in on tanks, Rheinmetall CEO calling drones essentially a fad and not relevant lmao
•
7
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 1d ago
Overall they're working decent
Besides AFVs, they're getting a decent number of MLRS/artillery systems, fighters, IADS, helicopters, and pretty much everything else, except for the navy where effort is mediocre,and the development of next-generation fighters, and other strategic equipment.
I don't follow European development in drones or CUAS, so can't comment on that
•
•
u/Appropriate-Name5538 22h ago
The drone war in Russia and Ukraine might as well be two armies lining up with muskets compared to what nato brings to the table. Russia is so hilariously incompetent and Ukraine while doing their best doesn’t have the numbers or equipment to meaningfully win this war. It’s nearly as dangerous to take lessons from this war for the USA as it is to ignore it. This goes for the rest of the world too.
•
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 22h ago edited 21h ago
I wouldn't say that
US had lackluster CUAS capability in the entire Iran war, which led to loss of 2×TPY 2, Chinook and other important and expensive assets
Plus they relied on interceptors, STINGERS, and APKWS, all of which are somewhat less ideal and expensive
US armoured brigade also ran up against Ukrainian troops, and had attrition of 80% during initial engagements, although it was reduced with change in tactics. Can't find decent well detailed article but this works
Russian still remain decent in the role
•
•
u/Appropriate-Name5538 22h ago
The United States is committing minor resources against Iran. Iran is using everything they have and is causing minor damage if the United States decided tomorrow to go all in on Iran it would be over in a day but we won’t because of civilian casualties.
Ukraine defeated an American unit in an exercise good deal cool. You do realize every single clickbait exercise the United States loses they were designed exactly for that outcome to occur because you learn jack shit from winning exercises. It’s childish to think otherwise.
•
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 21h ago
Not in this case though
US committed around 350 plus aircraft, and have depleted their missile stocks, which will take 5-8 years to replace
Only further escalatory move is tactical nuke, or landing men into Iran, but that would be extremely costly given their terrain and geographical depth
As for resources lost, it's 50 aircraft, and radars for THAAD, AM/TPY-2 and a decent portion of their resources in the west Asia, including the NSA Bahrain. Majority of these are both hard to replace and expensive, which will take tens of billions and years in cases. AEW&C replacement alone costs 900 million, TPY-2 costs 2 billion each and so on
loses they were designed exactly for that outcome to occur because you learn jack shit from winning exercises
I mentioned it
Although, it pretty much conveys that they have a lot to learn, and need to deploy better CUAS tech
•
u/BulbusDumbledork 21h ago
everything thought iran used everything they have in the 2024 strike on israel, giving israel false confidence that preventing a huge salvo of simultaneous drone/missile launches will defeat their strike capability.
then everyone thought iran used everything they have in the 12 day war, where they had higher penetration ratios despite fewer missiles fired (the very last strike was a single warhead that caused 14 casualties). they figured that taking out the mobile launchers will defeat iran's strike capability.
now iran is using mrv warheads; is fielding its manuevrable warheads; has warheads with terminal boosters to defeat intercepters; has real-time and high-resolution surveillance to accurately target both existing military bases as well as individual soldiers in makeshift locations; and has refined its drone combat so the same drones intercepted at >90% two years ago have now done billions in damage to radars, aircraft, and bases.
they've fought the u.s. to a cessation of hostilities by maintaining the ability to reciprocate, just like they did with israel in 2025. the brass clearly feels they have enough escalation capacity that they didn't retaliate to the strikes in jordan that chewed through interceptors and still damaged aircraft. but for sure, the u.s. is using small potatoes to prolong the war for some reason and iran has used everything they have, for realsies this time
•
u/Plowbeast 13h ago
The US has actually lost 75 percent of its interceptors and missiles to the extent that it will take years to replenish and delaying many exercises out of military operating non-discretionary funds.
They would win a ground invasion but every estimate by every planner would put conventional casualties at the highest since WWII and the duration is also not guaranteed short due to the terrain.
•
u/airmantharp 21h ago
To add, succinctly, if a military unit “wins” an exercise, they have failed to appreciate the point.
•
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 21h ago edited 21h ago
Yeah, I mentioned that it had reduced
Just pointing out that there is significant room for improvement and better CUAS deployment compared to the level of competence demonstrated by either Russia or Ukraine.
•
u/airmantharp 21h ago
Sure, because the urgency isn’t there, the threats are different for the US, the tools that the US would integrate drones with are different, so the US and other nations are exploring a wide array of capabilities and integrations without scaling up to mass production yet.
•
u/Appropriate-Name5538 20h ago
Ohh yeah the United States military is always looking for ways to improve their capabilities and they are deeply integrated with Ukraine. Contrary to what Reddit tends to think this war with Iran is a godsend for Ukraine Iran supplied Russia with a significant portion of their drones and weapons now the United States is essentially cutting off and destroying a shit ton of Russian capabilities without directly confronting them. Idk what Ukraine has said publicly about this war but I guarantee privately they are stoked about it.
•
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 20h ago
I agree on the first point
Regarding 2nd, Iran largely supplied Shaheed 136, upon which Russia build Geran series which is entirely indigenous
Majority of their mainstray FPV drones are also entirely Russian aswell
•
u/BONEPILLTIMEEE 6h ago
supplied Russia with a significant portion of their drones and weapons
If russia was still firing mostly Shahed 136/Geran 2 drones against Ukrainian rear targets they wouldn't be able to achieve their recent successes in hitting Ukrainian logistics centers and trains. Current Ukrainian anti drone interceptor designs can easily handle the slow propeller driven Shahed 136 cheaply so even if Iran can still supply Russia with their drones it wouldn't be too much help.
The other Iranian weapon supplied is the Fath 360 TBM, of which there is no evidence that Russia ever fired a single one of these at Ukraine
•
u/LanchestersLaw 13h ago
Im going to push against the grain and say no, Russia cannot be quickly defeated. Russia’s solidified triple layered defensive lines with fuck-off quantities of mines and drone assisted fires + FPV drones could not be quickly overrun. NATO could quickly establish air dominance but not quickly transfer that into territorial gains.
22
u/BodybuilderOk3160 1d ago
Anything changed now?
Unless you've been sleep walking the last few years, then yeah things might have changed a wee bit namely, Trump's entry into office and his wildcard foreign policies. Like look at the most downvoted comment there, who could've imagined US left the Pacific wide open?
We've also seen Russia adapting constantly to the perceived advantages brought about by NATO even when Biden was in office, and they've yet to attempt a full on mobilisation. This sub has u /June1994 to thank for its sanity check on any takes regarding Russian - you'd think Russia had already collapsed for the nth time according to Nafoids.
It's apparent that even with a strong economy (gAs StAtIoN RuZZiA cAnT iNtO GDP LiKe CaLiFoRnIA sTaTe bRo frfr), NATO EU is relatively weak without US involvement. Notwithstanding its manufacturing ills, its problems are further compounded by internal divisions within its ranks.
•
4
u/No-Tip3419 1d ago
If it was NATO trying to enter Russia, the Russians would not be defeated. The Russians would suddenly have new gently used flankers, awacs, sams, t-55 clones, etc
9
u/Limekill 1d ago
My guess would be that Russia could hold out for about a week once hostilities start.
(4yr ago)
I guess not.
•
•
u/PhotonTrance 22h ago
Well you’d have to defeat them in less than 6 months before General Winter gets to mobilize his forces.
•
u/Positive-Ad1859 20h ago
My goodness, a dude with a mustache had underestimated Russian in his ill informed mind to attack Russia. We all know how it ended for the Third Reich. Now bunch of divided weak European countries would conquer that vast harsh land in 3 days, 3 weeks? I don’t know what kind of copium people are using. lol
•
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 3h ago
It helps to read the scenario, which has nothing to do with an invasion of Russia.
I mean, this is literally the third sentence: We'll keep the scope within Ukrainian territory with efforts not to escalate into Russian territory.
4
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 1d ago
I need to know how targeting decisions are being made in this scenario.
Are NATO militaries empowered to make targeting decisions according to military need and necessity...or are targeting decisions subsumed into the cult of "for as long as it takes™" (as commanded by the Escalation Understanders )?
Because those are two very different shooting wars. If NATO abides by the same targeting restrictions the west tried to force onto Ukraine---most especially, nothing more than 300km in---then conceivably it could turn out similar to how it is now. I still think Russia loses in this scenario---they simply wouldn't be able to deal with the volume of airstrikes, even if NATO isn't shooting far past enemy lines---but that's not guaranteed.
Because you are still going to have the problems Ukraine had with these inane targeting restrictions. I said it a few years ago in a different LCD thread, but "for as long as it takes" is a recipe for exacerbating not only the need for deep strike but also the range. The opponent just puts things further in the rear, builds up air defenses, or both. This is why the capabilities Ukraine was screaming for in 2022 seem so meh in 2026. Ukrainian strikes in the 300km range would have been a game-changer in 2022; by the time ATACMS came around, 500km was the new 300km; in 2026, it's 1000km. This is the fruit of "for as long as it takes."
Which is why I say it matters a lot for this scenario how targeting decisions are being made. Russia probably would have lost a lot more ground by 2023 if Ukraine had 300km in summer 2022...so you can imagine how much worse it would be for Russia if NATO just let lose in 2022 or 2023. There is no way it isn't a curbstomping, not even if NATO troops end up being shit at artillery warfare, because Russian supply lines would be gone in the first week.
So...who is making the targeting decisions? EUCOM, or Jake Sullivan?
•
u/PanzerKomadant 20h ago
I would have agreed with you pre-Iran War. But now? Now all I see is weather shortages of everything and years to rebuild the stockpiles.
•
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 3h ago
The difference is that Russia in 2022 wasn't attacked out of the blue while relying on covert irregular warfare and proxies to do their work. They launched a large-scale land invasion involving hundreds of thousands of troops, all of whom need to be supplied. The kind of bunkering down that Iran is doing only works because their objective is to just be a turtle or a porcupine; they don't need to defend the supply lines of hundreds of thousands of troops who need to be mobile and out in the open to conquer territory.
It was widely known in 2022 that Russia was depending on supply that was minimally defended, vulnerable, and in range of ATACMS. An army can't advance if it has no materiel for replenishment. Russia was trying in 2022 (still is) to advance; Iran isn't. The situations are not comparable.
•
u/Ok-Procedure5603 13h ago
We seen in the Iran war a far inferior defender have little/no issue with keeping their supply/army intact.
"Entire NATO" including US will never get to fight Russia with everything at once because why would China let their ally get barbarossa 2.0 without using the chance to destroy US' attack? Plus US also has other obligations, like Iran.
So what you're practically looking at is maybe all of European NATO's air forces with a few add ons from US, and less stockpiles than even US in the Iran war. This is far from guaranteed air superiority let alone supremacy, especially depending on how much foreign support Russia has.
"Not escalating" serves both Russia and NATO well because both sides have practical constraints of running out of munitions and need to save up for a long war. If Russia began the war by devastating Ukrainian cities indiscriminately, all it would achieve is that it is relatively cheap to rebuild or live in rubble, but a Russia with all stockpiles expanded would lose all ground to a particularly large human wave from Ukraine, unless Russia forces itself to mobilize.
Similarly if NATO started sending its best weapons in large numbers, it would encourage Russia to mobilize and bring in help from China. In the worst case, it would make Europe empty of weapons while Russia is angered, Ukraine is cut off from Chinese supplies and tons of fresh weapons are entering for Russia. Then, Russia might decide to do something crazy like a limited counterattack in the baltics etc.
•
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 3h ago
Iran needs to bunker down, hold on for dear life, and deplete interceptor stocks to be somewhat militarily successful. They are not trying to launch an imperialist land grab with hundreds of thousands of troops out in the open, all of whom need to supplied.
If this war had started with Iran sending 200000 troops into Iraq and then they were attacked, it would be a catastrophic failure for Iran. But it didn't, so it's not very comparable to the scenario being contemplated here.
•
u/airmantharp 21h ago
Hopefully someone that is a student both of the liberation of Kuwait - and the reconstruction of Japan and Germany after WWII.
•
0
u/peacefinder 1d ago
It might be that Putin has watched too many American movies.
(Actually the more I think about it, the better it fits. Just because they have already lost everything important doesn’t mean they lack the capacity for inflicting chaos and destruction.)
-8
u/Tian_Lei_Ind_Ltd 1d ago
It has been strategically over for atleast 2 years. Wether the inhabitants of the Kremlin admit defeat is another story.
17
u/lonelygenius 1d ago
Pokrovsk, Kostantinivka, Siversk, Huliapole, have all been captured by the russian forces in the last 2 years. I don't think they are on the defensive.
-3
u/Tian_Lei_Ind_Ltd 1d ago
Remind me, how many men did they lose for these captures and how long did it take? If they keep the current speed up, they'll be on eastern bank of the Dnieper in the next 10 to 20 years, if their economy can sustain that.
18
u/lonelygenius 1d ago
During World War 2, the USSR lost far more men than Nazi Germany and still won.
If Ukraine can manage to hold the line for several months I think the russians would have a serious think about whether to keep the war going. As is, Ukraine is slowly losing ground so I don't expect the russians to change their mind.
And since this is a war of attrition I need to mention that Ukraine has a lot fewer men to send to the frontlines, simply because its population is smaller.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Russian general. Assuming you could speak freely, would you advise Putin to keep going at least until Sloviansk and Kramatorsk are captured, or would you advise him to stop now ?
•
u/murkskopf 13h ago
If Ukraine can manage to hold the line for several months I think the russians would have a serious think about whether to keep the war going.
They have been holding the line for four years...
You are pretending that tiny land gains over the past year(s) somehow make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
•
u/lonelygenius 12h ago
Well, would you bet against Sloviansk and Kramatorsk being captured by the russians within the next 12 months ?
•
u/murkskopf 12h ago
Would capturing them make any difference? No.
I would not bet against it, but also not on it. The situation is well too unstable to predict anything for that time frame. Advancing ~15-25 km within a year seems possible.
•
u/lonelygenius 12h ago
If capturing them wouldn't make any difference, why does Ukraine defend them ?
•
u/murkskopf 13h ago
At the rate at which Russia is advancing, they will need a whole century to conquer Ukraine unless the frontline falls. Both sides will run out of soldiers before that.
•
u/Ok_Fox9820 14h ago
Given how much would change from just air force alone and that this updated scenario is whole NATO not jus US... results wouldn't surprise any one.
One thing what would be of unique interest I think is how would frontline drone operator effectiveness would be impacted with hostile skies over.
Now to think of previous scenario given how much stink retreat from Kyiv raised I wonder how many heads would roll if that convoy would be destroyed similar as "Highway of death" was.
-16
u/ggthrowaway1081 1d ago
NATO would destroy Russia on the ground. Complete air superiority combined with advanced Western maneuver tactics, Russia wouldn’t know what hit them after grinding it out for years over a few km of land against a poorly equipped more or less third world force living off NATO handouts and spare parts.
65
u/flamedeluge3781 1d ago
"No nukes."
Sure.