Russia has a million man standing army that's now thoroughly blooded and well versed in modern warfare, and an industrial base that's retooled to supply such an army (i.e., drones and missiles). The only problem for them is that they're facing the only other large, experienced army in the world.
Imagine if tomorrow, Russia went on the defensive and froze its lines in Ukraine, setting up Surovikin lines everywhere, then withdrew half the forces it has currently committed. Now imagine that a half million Russian soldiers show up on the border of Estonia, Finland, Kazhakstan, or Georgia.
Yes, Russia is exhausted and doing deep structural damage to its economy. It still has one of the best land forces in the world at the moment. The way Ukraine always smokes NATO forces in exercises is a strong indicator of what would happen if Russia decided to "liberate" the Baltics.
> Imagine if tomorrow, Russia went on the defensive and froze its lines in Ukraine, setting up Surovikin lines everywhere,then withdrew half the forces it has currently committed.
They'd have to give up a big chunk of the occupied land to do that, since creating that line within 50 km of the front line would now be much harder than it was 3 years ago. Who knows, maybe that's what's stopping them from attacking another country as you described.
Ukraine is the biggest country on European continent. It has the most capable military in Europe right now. And it's backed by Europe economically. Saying that Russia can't defeat them is not the insult you think it is. If Russia mobilized 1M people and went full on war in a month, they'd easily take over the Baltics, took half of Poland and bombed the F out of Germany and France. They'd lose eventually if Europe woke up from its delusions, but they definitely can take over most of Eastern Europe.
NATO has virtually no experience in modern warfare, which is substantially different than how they're organized now. NATO is well equipped for an armor-centric battle of maneuver, but Ukraine showed that's not at all how it has to be fought.
Russia wouldn't use armor or logistics to take over the Baltics. They've already got their human waves and infantry infiltration tactics worked out, under a cloud of drones and cruise missiles that NATO has no counter for (and the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth).
> Ukraine showed that's not at all how it has to be fought.
You're taking a regional conflict between militaries using cold war gear and drones and saying "this is what warfare is now".
> They've already got their human waves and infantry infiltration tactics worked out
A million casualties and three-year stalemate in Ukraine is "worked out"? Good for them. I see those swarms are especially effective at defending energy infrastructure, something that's of particular concern when you're fighting an alliance with stealth aircraft.
> under a cloud of drones and cruise missiles that NATO has no counter for
This is the Russian drone infantry currently occupying Kyiv?
> the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth
I'm taking a regional conflict where the total manpower of both sides outnumbers all the rest of the armies of NATO without the US. Where one side, Ukraine, sends OPFORs to NATO exercises and wins handily with drones because NATO doesn't know how to fight drones, or how to operate in a front line that's 20km deep and the enemy knows everything going in it and it's impossible to mass forces because tube artillery is still cheap.
And yes, this is what warfare is now. When Russia invaded in 2022, it was using its new armored battalion tactical groups, and they failed to reach Kyiv at all, or to conquer Kharkiv or Sumy--they just surrounded them and stretched out along the highways, where infantry teams with Javelins destroyed them in detail.
The battlefield transparency that drones bring is a sea change in warfare, and a big part of that change that Ukrainians and Russians have learned is total force dispersion. You can't assemble an armored fist because it's bombed to oblivion before it ever sees the enemy, or encounters an artillery deployed minefield that didn't exist the night before.
NATO will take years to ingest the obvious lessons from Ukraine and adjust its doctrine to handle them. Until that time, they face an adversary who knows them in its bones.
> A million casualties and three-year stalemate in Ukraine is "worked out"? Good for them.
Could NATO take a million+ casualties and still be fighting with another million in uniform and the nation not yet undergoing general mobilization?
> This is the Russian drone infantry currently occupying Kyiv?
If that Russian drone infantry suddenly showed up on Estonia's borders, what chance would you give the Estonians?
>> the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth
> Please explain what you think this means.
It means the most expedient way for the US to learn to apply the lessons of the war in Ukraine was just discontinued. The Pentagon does not see drone warfare as a top priority.
> NATO doesn't know how to fight drones, or how to operate in a front line that's 20km deep and the enemy knows everything going in it
Source: youtube I imagine. Speculation is fine but here you are making assertions without evidence.
> The battlefield transparency that drones bring is a sea change in warfare
And it began 20 years ago.
> Could NATO take a million+ casualties
This is a weird argument for the effectivness of your Russian drone infantry.
> If that Russian drone infantry suddenly showed up on Estonia's borders
They teleport now too? This is getting serious. I imagine within a week Putin would be meeting Gaddafi's fate. Attacking NATO is nothing like bullying a smaller country with no defense pacts. China and India would stop being patron states. You'd see a half dozen Prigozhins as the oligarchs would realize it's not survivable.
> The Pentagon does not see drone warfare as a top priority.
Anduril, GA, Boeing, and Lockmart absolutely inconsolable right now.
> I hope NATO leadership isn't as blythe as you about the changing face of war.
I am fairly confident they are not. And I'm not blythe about it, I just don't see Russia as being some sort of dominant drone army and believe the location that 20 km-wide no man's land is pretty strong evidence. And that there are many aspects of armed conflict we are not seeing in Ukraine.
If it were only the Ukraine the war would have long been over. The West block has supplied more than $500 billion in aid to the Ukraine, that's more than twice the US lend/lease to the Soviet Union in 2026 dollars. Plus intelligence information and probably other things I'm forgetting. The more dollars are sent to Kiev, the more blood and lives the Ukrainians are expected to invest. That's the deal.
