/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>51154828
>on the nukes
Russia would use nukes only if they lost a conventional war, but their response would limited - it would likely be a strike on Ukrainian territory to limit NATO's involvement. Because it sets an awful precident for countries to engage in nuclear blackmail as a get out of jail free card, the response from NATO would likely be tit-for-tat strike to punish Russia - I'd say we'd likely see a large number of cruise missiles or a tactical nuclear weapon level a military target in Russia, likely a military base that's remote from Moscow / St. Peterburgh and we'd see Kaliningrad being effectively deleted with cruise missiles. If Russia escalated into a nuclear strike on NATO territory or fired an out and out salvo, it would have to do so not if it lost a war outside its borders, but as a response to an existential threat. If it did decide to go on with this, not only would Mosco and St. Petersburg be totally destroyed (which contain 15% of the Russian population alone and most of its logistical base) it's not entirely guaranteed that Russia's nuclear arsenal is still functional, given the widespread corruption and expensive mantainence that's degraded a huge amount of Russia's military equipment which would need to saturate multiple bases and urban centres around Europe and America. Furthermore, Russian AA still can't shoot down a basic HIMAR missile - so Russia would have no capacity to stop Western nuclear missiles, whereas NATO's ability remains untested. It's apocalyptic, but in every scenario, Russia stands to lose more from a nuclear strike than it gain.

>Ukraine has a shit tier army
See pic related, it's military spending was a fraction of Russia's and other European powers - so no, it wasn't the best on paper army in Europe. Also, European armies had extensive experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Desert Storm was against a peer to peer force, Iraq had the 3rd biggest army at the time.