Is it as bad as it looks?
They have a lower GDP than Italy, how are they a problem for NATO?
>muh nukes
Explain how Russia is going to dear to make any move if USA, UK, France, and co. take right now Crimea and declare the party officially over?
Redpill me in Russia's army hardware
Jaxon Butler
Other urls found in this thread:
Jaxson Robinson
We've been over this, a state owned arms industry can run on 1/100th the cash compared to the grift our defense contractors are running.
Nathan Smith
Also if you're right, which you probably aren't, there's no reason at all for NATO to exist because Russia isn't a threat. So which is it?
Jordan Johnson
Russia has:
- cruise missiles
- anti-ship missiles
- electronic warfare equipment that includes:
---- jamming GPS signal
---- jamming communications
---- hijacking drones
---- killing electronics on enemy ships and planes
- fully integrated short+medium+long range air defenses
- independently from the west has its very own global satellite navigation system
- builds its own planes, including light, medium, and heavy attack drones
- has a lot of military experience from actual war hotspots, with actual military victories
- has superiority in numbers in terms of equipment
bonus material:
youtube.com
Jackson Russell
USA and Europe do have a huge military industry. Also, our ships and planes don't look like they were built in the '60s
Gabriel Reed
Except that they were, kek.
Tyler James
Yeah, so like what all what USA has but divided by 100
Michael Green
I believe that if the great Russia needs Vietnamese special forces, they can break the necks of two Ukrainians and Poles. They are too weak compared to us.
Dominic Jones
>ramp
>runs on coal?
kek
Daniel Russell
The reason for NATO is military supremacy. We all know my country has no voice in NATO. We are there to get Military stability (we couldn't face by our own any military superpower) in exchange for obedience to whatever USA says.
Jaxon Rogers
I agree. My homage, the Vietnamese are legendary empire-beating fighters
Joseph Kelly
That's just the thing though, you proved my point. NATO and the US and associated powers is all about turning tax money into new weapons systems. Some of those systems, like the F-35, blow ass but still cost a fortune. Whereas Russia just develops something and refines it until it works and sticks with it. It allows them to go much further on their defense spending. Because they are able to spend decades on an individual program without trying to replace it because grifting, they have an edge in certain areas to this day, like in the areas of submarines, missiles, and helicopters.
Jaxson Lewis
This thing is currently going to dry dock soon to replace the engines, flight deck and ramp, and electronics.
William Baker
>runs
Nope
Gabriel Young
Soviet Union no longer exists, but I am glad Russia is rattling the cage. Maybe it will cause Europe to actually spend some money on defense and aim for better stability and economy in civil life instead of importing all of Africa and the Middle East.
Jeremiah Johnson
just goes to show how much PUSSIES NATO fags are holy shit
Jack Gonzalez
shit tech, same with soviet tech. all made by german sciencists. all the others were purged during the 30s to 50s
Liam Stewart
>They have a lower GDP than Italy, how are they a problem for NATO?
How much does gdp actually matter if you have all the resources available in your own land? hmmm
Wouldn't big gdp mean that you're getting rid of all of your goods for fictional shekels? hmmm
I wonder.
Camden Nguyen
>Yeah, so like what all what USA has but divided by 100
Not exactly.
Military equipment isn't built willy-nilly just to compare dick sizes. Military equipment is a tool designed to solve a problem. And the military problems Russia faces in its prospective battlefields is are different from the problems the US faces in its own battlefields.
When designing equipment you take into consideration the potential geography where it will be used, potential reasons as to why it will be used, and potential goals which that equipment may need to achieve, all things considered.
Russia will remain a power that is focused on winning wars close to its borders, while USA will remain a power focused on winning wars far away from its borders.
or TLDR; russia has the ability to sink every single US/NATO aircraft carrier in existence.
Jacob Hernandez
Most based Carrier every commisioned, laughs at the idea of global warming and aircraft carriers as a relevant force in the current year.
Austin Nguyen
The real opening strokes of WWIII will be carriers being sunk. They're sitting ducks.
Hunter Johnson
Only country to stand against the JewSA has my full support.
Camden Rogers
hypersonic missiles > aegis shield
it's why they're working on lasers for ship borne defense
Jacob Allen
its the best in the world, simple as
if they decide they can rule whole of Asia and 90% of Europe in less than 74 hours
they are just so based that they decide not to, its not like they have no power
also did you know that Russia is so big that they got tigers?
Luke White
That's the only aircraft carrier they have if I'm not wrong.
Aiden Jackson
NATO is ZOG
Caleb Nguyen
double kek