72
Right now NATO could not win a war with Russia
(responsiblestatecraft.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
72 points (96.2% liked)
news
24780 readers
468 users here now
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, Russia couldn’t even defeat Ukraine who has zero F-35s in service. And the US alone has 700+ F-35 state-of-the-art stealth bombers with the radar cross section of a SMALL BIRD.
Ukraine looks pretty defeated to me. The difference is that Russia isn't indiscriminately destroying every living think in Ukraine, they could have certainly leveled Kyiv in the first week if they were using US tactics.
Their war doctrine is also fundamentally different. Their goal is to grind down the AFU into collapse. At that point there won't be a critical mass of people left in Ukraine who are willing to fight. And this necessarily takes time to do. US likes to do flashy shock and awe but then they have no plan for how to actually control the country after, hence why all their occupations end in utter disaster.
strategically the US benefits by creating chaos and disaster, particularly in the mid east. it allows easier control of petroresources through divide and conquer. america doesn't suffer from being next to an open geopolitical wound - other nations do. I don't think it's accurate to describe previous US occupations as disasters, at least not strategically.
russia is in a different position - they have invaded a country right next door to them. it is in their strategic interest not to make ukraine a failed state. they still might, but their strategic interests are different.
They aren't disasters in the short term, but long term every one of those has resulted in a huge wave of service members that come back heavily radicalized or very mentally ill or both, not to mention the anti Americanism that becomes mandatory in whatever political organism takes control after the US has to retreat.
Yeah but all that chaos is good for the GDP so they love that shit.
Luigi notwithstanding, what you're describing generally isn't a problem for the bourgeoisie. Or it is a little, but it's far outweighed by profits.
It's true the incentives for the US are different, and a lot of people line their pockets from the forever wars. They're disasters for US as a country, but not for the oligarchs responsible for creating these disasters.
And just like a small bird, they often suddenly stop flying
Small birds are much better at landing, though.
idk I saw a video of a near-perfect vtol landing the other day
7/10 but I want to see how they perform in the synchronized diving
Not only do you have to cut that number in half and then by 75% for what would actually be war ready at any given moment. The F-35 is not a bomber, it's a multi-role combat aircraft, and a stealth strike fighter, which means they're a one and done type of air to surface attack. JDAMs, JSTOWs, Paveways, and some laser guided Cluster Munitions that can fit on the F-35 can be intercepted with easier than the plane itself which is a choice. JDAMs and JSTOWs cannot aimed while in flight, they're pre-aimed. So if you have mobile air defense it's pointless. The laser guided stuff is very slow. In practice F-35s would be used to maintain air superiority to protect MQ-9 Reapers from air to air interception. Reapers are extremely vulnerable to SAM missiles, the Houthis have taken them down.
The reason that America is mad about Iskander is because mid-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles which Russia has spent more time developing are emerging as a way to breach air defenses in modern warfare as well as loitering drones. America doesn't have enough cheap swarm tech ready to go because we get milked by the MIC so we don't have anything to pad out missile barrages to attempt to get enemies to make unforced errors in targetting. That's precisely how Russia is getting past the magical Patriots impervious air defense shield in Ukraine.
America would have trouble maintaining NATO bases in Europe as a springboard because Russia would throw meat at every country it was at war with. Also Putin would 100% pull the trigger on launching ICBMs with MIRVs if an overwhelming conventional force was at his doorstep.
Beyond that the trick to defeating Americans is to take out their range extension which at "bombing Russia distances" is typically gigantic refueling planes. Russia or China out of all countries would be best equipped for this task.
Oh yeah the Ghost of Kievyviv personally killed every Russian pilot ever
Ukraine has no air force left, it's been reduced to begging for cast-off early gen 4 fighters from around the world just to maintain some semblance of an air force. It was clear from the outset how crippled their airforce was: when Russia outran their supply lines and ended up stuck in some huge hundred mile long convoy, there were exactly zero air attacks on it, even though a pair of Su-25s would have fucking mulched that line
What are you even talking about
and the ability to kamakazi into the ground
F-35’s only real advantage is the stealth. Other than that, with only a single engine they are completely outmatched by Su-35/57. If they are exposed by powerful ground-based radars, then they’re practically sitting ducks.
The Su-57M with the new Russian made Saturn AL-51F-1 engines (to be deployed in 2025) will have the capacity to super-cruise at Mach 2. The F-35 cannot super-cruise and can only exceed Mach 1 for a limited time with afterburner.
At twice the speed and twice the range of F-35s, once detected, the Su-57Ms will be able to close in on the F-35s at 700km/h! If it gets to this point, there is nothing the F-35s can do against the Russian planes - they have to stay invisible throughout.
Both planes are two different doctrines in action. F-35 is meant for penetrating airspace in low-intensity warzones against older-generation air defence networks, whilst Russia relies on standoff distance to avoid contemporary air defences using cruise missiles and glide bombs.
Those 700 cost more than 7 times the entire Apollo program, adjusted for inflation. They cost 7 times what it cost to go to the fucking moon, start to finish.
Their primary purpose is not to be good fighter jets, but to funnel tax payer money to the board members of Lockheed Martin.
They are living symbols of American corruption coming at the cost of capabilities. Another poster has detailed why they are poor weapons, so I won't bother, but that 700 number you were happy to post about is not a symbol of strength, but a symbol of waste, corruption, and weakness.