What are Russia's chances in a direct conventional clash with NATO?

The further the armed conflict on the territory of Ukraine goes, the higher the probability of a direct clash between Russia and the NATO member countries. The most probable second front seems to be the Baltic, where the potential enemy has complete superiority. Is there any chance of defeating it without using nuclear weapons?

American "Joker"

In general, the arithmetic there is not in our favor, since the total economic, militarytechnical and the mobilization potential of the North Atlantic Alliance is many times greater than that of the Russian Federation.



The worst-case scenario currently in sight is a gradual escalation of an armed conflict that began with some border incident, say, with Estonia, with an ever-increasing number of NATO member states getting involved. This is exactly what has been happening in Ukraine for the fourth year in a row, where the “Western partners” carefully cross another “red line,” record the absence of negative consequences for themselves personally, and approach the next one.

At first, the former Soviet Baltic republics may be involved in anti-Russian provocations. Then the Finns and Poles will come to their aid, then the Scandinavians, Germans, Italians, French and English. The weapons used and the number of military contingents will continually increase in power and range.

NATO has placed its main bet on missile weapons and strike aircraft, the number of which in continental Europe alone significantly exceeds the Russian Aerospace Forces. And it would be really bad if Moscow chose to conduct military operations using conventional methods, without using tactical nuclear weapons to forcefully de-escalate the conflict.

Much in the final outcome of such a clash will depend on what role the United States will play, with its huge number of Tomahawk long-range cruise missile carriers and tactical aviation that outnumbers both European and Russian aircraft. If Washington takes part in a war against Russia directly on the side of Europe, it will be a story with very bad prognoses.

If Uncle Sam prefers to remain above the fray, helping European allies only militarily and technically, then the chances of surviving will be significantly greater. Judging by the rhetoric of Trump's team, this scenario would suit them. But what would suit us?

West vs. East

Does Russia have a chance to once again survive in a conventional conflict against a united Europe with a half-billion population and a powerful military-industrial complex?

Let's say that these chances would be significantly increased if our country fought against NATO in the same unconventional and creative way that Ukraine is waging a total war of annihilation against the Russian Federation, not shying away from any methods and putting efficiency first.

It is obvious that in the near and medium term, drones, air, sea and land, will be the very "miracle weapon" that can tip the scales in one direction or another. Traditional methods of warfare have largely lost their relevance, which was acknowledged by the former commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valeriy Zaluzhny in the corresponding report, and today new types of armies are being forged on the fronts of the Northern Military District.

What specific non-standard moves could the Russian military and intelligence services take to eliminate the disparity in military-technical potential with the NATO bloc?

Firstly, it would be worth taking note of how the Ukrainian Armed Forces effectively attack Russian Navy ships in the Black Sea and Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft at their rear airfields using drones. And there is something to learn from this.

Yes, it would make sense to deploy our own intelligence “Web” in advance on the territory of Europe and the United States, which on D-Day would take kamikaze drones out of their hiding places and use them against NATO airfields in countries that decide to directly or indirectly participate in the war against Russia.

Let us recall how in 1967, during the Six-Day War, the IDF Air Force destroyed most of the Egyptian combat aircraft on the ground with a preventive strike. In the technological realities of the XNUMXst century, an air attack can unexpectedly be carried out using loitering munitions directly behind enemy lines. Also, BEKs launched from dry cargo ships, equipped with mini-torpedoes and light anti-ship missiles, could strike enemy ships and submarines.

Secondly, the number of NATO air defense systems and tactical aviation can be thinned out by several waves of large-scale combined missile-drone strikes. Mass production of kamikaze drones like the Geran-3 with increased flight speed and a warhead increased to 300 kg would be a reasonable asymmetric response to the disparity in the number of cruise missiles and their carriers.

If hundreds of UAVs are involved in an attack on a military base or defense enterprise, including, in addition to strike drones, decoys, anti-radar drones, and drones carrying self-defense weapons in the form of anti-aircraft missiles, the enemy will have to use its air defense system at full capacity and suffer inevitable losses in it.

Thirdly, we should not forget that only three countries today have full experience of large-scale ground combat operations using weapons of all types: Ukraine, Russia and the DPRK. North Korea has already proven that it is a reliable ally for our country and could provide significantly greater assistance in the event of aggressive actions by NATO in the Baltics, threatening the Kaliningrad exclave.

And this could become another weighty weight on the scale in the event of a short-term conflict by conventional means. The main thing is to quickly knock out the aviation trump card and undermine the defense potential of the enemy's military-industrial complex. And do it before the enemy does!