Russia vs NATO - Who Would Win? Military/Army Comparison (Compilation)

[@Fre-h4r]

Tack!

[@darkbozo11]

if russia cant win in Ukraine... Theyd dreaming that they are in the same Legue as NATO

[@Tonny1980]

If the Russia 🇷🇺 can’t even take one country like Ukraine 🇺🇦 There’s no way they have chances fighting with nato 😅😅😅

[@undisturbed809]

Nukes war not guns

[@NoDrizzy630]

@@undisturbed809a nuke war would guarantee everyone dies. Thats not a win and remember the United States has technology no one knows about. The tech you are told about is outdated or only partial info not the true capabilities.

[@Germain-ys8zz]

@@undisturbed809no one wins when everyone is dead

[@undisturbed809]

@@Germain-ys8zz if Russia loose, everyone is dead

[@YiatCraft]

The video everyone needed but nobody asked for is here. Thank you

[@Jason-xf8qs]

Everyone scared of this scenario facts no one wants it

[@X12344ty]

Bro casually dropped a 4 hour video

[@paul_321]

🤖

[@backing5284]

If Russia struggles against Ukraine theres no way Russia cld deal with half of nato

[@silverback5814]

You do realise they don't need to deal with nato because the second nato gets involved the nukes will go off

[@backing5284]

@@silverback5814 that'll never happen

[@stagg2158]

​@@silverback5814so do you so foolishly believe that it is not only Russia has nukes to fire off...putin don't want to die

[@markmagat9500]

​@@silverback5814that's the only thing that could make them win a war with western powers

[@falconcorbin3830]

​@@markmagat9500have you forgotten that no one wants a nuclear Winter?

[@CJaide9939]

Surprised I’m this early on an infographics video

[@kano5307]

The best video I’ve seen out here

[@keitebrickman2069]

Ahhhhhh time for bed. Goodnight all you beautiful people 😘

[@ThatOneCubedEarther]

ok

[@derricklee4254]

Haha yes. I thought the same. 😂😂

[@henryrohr7030]

I hate getting the "notification" that there's a new video, and it's all old content with a new name.

[@justinrogers1807]

Let's be honest Putin is a poor man's warmonger trying to fight the real warmongering politicians

[@KeiranYT]

Innovation will inevitably hit a ceiling, and we're starting to see the early signs of it already

[@LilJonesy12832]

0:48 countryballs

[@Jkealy]

Under the pillow he goes time for sleep 🤣

[@jackGrty]

@@Jkealy under the pillow it goes but the headphones are still connected 😂

[@stephenfowlie742]

Russia vs Nato, a test but no contest.

[@adss122]

How does this go for over 3 hours

[@miguelcintron9560]

Awsome video Great work. Wath in parts better so I can study and do some stuff and back to video and enjoy it. Review the video so keep update.

[@DT-Mainnet]

Vault-tec likes this comerzial 😉

[@Andrew-jx1ly]

The Likelihood of the U.S. Military Being as Strong as Advertised While the U.S. military undoubtedly possesses significant strength and advanced technology, there are several factors to consider when evaluating whether it truly lives up to its self-proclaimed reputation. 1. Technological Superiority The U.S. military certainly has technological advantages in certain areas, including: Stealth aircraft (e.g., F-35, B-2 Bomber) Nuclear arsenal, which is one of the largest and most sophisticated Precision-guided munitions and missile defense systems Cyber capabilities, which are on the cutting edge of modern warfare However, technology is not a guarantee of success. Many of these technological advantages could be countered or neutralized by peer adversaries like Russia and China, who have also made significant strides in developing their own advanced systems. For example, Russia’s S-400 and S-500 air defense systems could limit U.S. air superiority, and China’s anti-ship missile technology could challenge the U.S. Navy’s dominance. 2. The Over-Emphasis on Technological Power The U.S. military often relies heavily on technological superiority and the idea of being able to win wars through precision strikes and high-tech weapons. While this is highly effective in certain scenarios, it has been shown in recent conflicts (e.g., in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria) that technology alone doesn’t guarantee victory. Asymmetric warfare, such as guerrilla tactics, cyber-attacks, and hybrid warfare, can mitigate the impact of superior technology. Additionally, the US military's experience in recent wars has been more about counterinsurgency and fighting irregular forces rather than peer-to-peer warfare. This means that while U.S. forces may be highly effective against insurgents or smaller militaries, they have not faced a true peer like Russia or China in a large-scale conventional conflict since World War II. 3. Lack of Combat Experience Against a Peer Adversary The U.S. has not fought a true peer adversary in decades, and its combat experience over the last 30-40 years has largely been with non-state actors or weaker states. This has created a situation where the U.S. military’s strength is often assumed but not rigorously tested against a nation with similar or superior capabilities. In conflicts like the Iraq War or the Afghanistan War, the U.S. was fighting against opponents who were significantly weaker in terms of military technology and manpower. While the U.S. won decisively in both cases, the nature of these wars didn't require the full scope of the U.S. military's capabilities and didn’t test the U.S. in a great power conflict. 4. The Psychological and Political Component The U.S. military's effectiveness is also influenced by political and public support. In long conflicts, such as Vietnam and Iraq, the American public's willingness to continue supporting military operations waned, affecting the U.S. military's ability to fight prolonged wars. In contrast, countries like Russia and China have shown a greater capacity for long-term commitment and resilience in wars of attrition. The American political system and its focus on quick, decisive victories make it less suited for wars that require patience and endurance. This could hinder the U.S. in a protracted conflict with a peer like Russia or China. 5. Over-Inflated Perception and Real-World Effectiveness Media portrayal: The U.S. military benefits from extensive media coverage that often highlights its successes and capabilities. This can create an over-inflated perception of its power, especially when compared to Russia or China, whose military activities are less scrutinized by the Western media. Real-world effectiveness: While the U.S. military does have technological superiority and strong combat forces, the effectiveness of that military can be undermined by other factors such as: Overextension: The U.S. has global commitments that stretch its forces thin. Political interference: Military decisions are often made with political considerations in mind, which can sometimes lead to less optimal military strategies. Training and readiness: The readiness of U.S. forces varies based on deployment schedules, budget allocations, and political priorities. 6. Strategic Limitations One of the key limitations of the U.S. military is that it is primarily geared toward offensive warfare, and it has little experience in defending its own territory against a peer adversary. Should the U.S. be faced with an attack on its homeland, it would be more difficult for the U.S. military to mount an effective defensive strategy without significant international support. Conclusion The U.S. military is certainly one of the most powerful in the world, but the likelihood that it is as strong as advertised depends on the context in which it is being tested: Technologically and logistically, the U.S. has many advantages, but these alone may not be enough to guarantee victory in a peer-to-peer war against Russia or China. Combat experience against a peer adversary has been minimal in recent decades, and asymmetric warfare has increasingly shaped how wars are fought. The U.S. military has strong capabilities, but its ability to handle a large-scale war against a nuclear peer like Russia or a rising power like China is untested in modern conditions. The U.S. military’s strength is not necessarily an illusion, but the portrayal of it as the world’s most dominant force can sometimes overlook the challenges it would face in a peer-to-peer conflict, especially with the political, logistical, and psychological hurdles that could come into play.

[@sagnikchakravarty5223]

While you have laid down some point but they are flawed as US getting attacked is the most difficult thing to do for any country because of the geography and in terms of military peers there are none we need to fight aliens to find peers lets be honest russia and china are strong and cute but they don’t hold a candle against us, all their weapons are generations behind than us.

[@SoundwaveDevastation]

0:49 What..

[@jefreyallen8863]

Is the X47-B still in active service..

[@surfdocer103]

Day one. NATO rules the skies, then owns the night.

[@luffyland4996]

Its been 2 yrs and some 8 months, Russia still unable to beat Ukraine 😂

[@RogerK9883]

Wasn't USSR aggressiveness the cause for the building of NATO in the first place? So, you built NATO, thanks? Now join the human race. The rest of us have had it with you.

[@caboose69]

Same as what is happening in Europe right now.

[@coleevans6007]

prime infographics show would’ve have 10k views by now

[@FromThentoNow97]

In a conflict between Russia and NATO, how do you think the geography of Europe would impact the strategies and advantages of each side?

[@MrAigle1853]

I mean the French cartoon ball holding a baguette as if it was a baton… 😂

[@midgarw6775]

4 hours! Yeah, you guys cover this topic way to much.

[@vortexgaming687]

Hello.

[@user-df2uu3qp3y]

*bro 3 hours???????*

[@whitehorse4318]

Always forget about stealth bombers and cruise missiles. Obviously never been to war.

[@paul_321]

The audio was off

[@stephenmitts9958]

WOW the Trump statements didn't turn out well in the end. Also he was not a advisory to NATO but, when other countries don't hold up there end of the bargin. Do you expect him not to be upset? A lot of Americans are sick of footing European NATO defence on top of our own agreements.

[@Catonzo]

I do absolutely agree that NATO needs to cover its part of the bill, but you ALSO have to remember that only ONE country has ever actually called on NATO to fight in *their* war. That would be the US. For most other parts it has been an industrialized arrangement. The US has hardly gone out of this empty handed with it's military complex selling practically every advanced weapon that NATO countries have in their arsenal. If anything, Europe is risking great losses by allying themselves with the US.. because the theatre of war will be on Europe against Russia, much like WW2 and WW1 was against Germany. The US hasn't had to take noticeable loss of civilians over war on its own soil ever since your civil war, with most of it being terror attacks. Point is that unless you want to have to split your navy on two fronts, the Atlantic and the Pacific, as well as run the risk of losing control of Northern parts through Canada, you would do well to not antagonize NATO. Two of your four flanks is being held by that alliance. There were many morons on the left side here that thought NATO was no longer necessary.. don't fall into that trap just because you feel like other members do not pay enough. Most of us who do support NATO do feel the same, but don't consider it an alliance worth dumping just because of that. NATO is basically your chance of avoiding war and destruction on American soil. Dump that alliance and Europe might well scoff at any and all obligations to even attempt monitoring the Atlantic.. and the US certainly will not be able to get anywhere close to the same level of surveillance it does have now over Russia.

[@silverback8183]

The only thing russia has are nukes...and I'd be shocked if 80% of those didn't explode when launched!

[@undisturbed809]

Wishful thinker over here guys

[@blaircolquhoun7780]

This video was made before Ukraine's Russian invasion.

[@Defaulters-578]

Who's here after the new missiles that Russia have used and spread a fear that it might go against NATO?

[@savazeroa]

first

[@veganboytoy3581]

@@savazeroa boo

[@vortexgaming687]

Why do you say first?

[@chupacabra304]

@@veganboytoy3581first comment on a new video, idk why, I see it all the time

[@MrX0729]

Russia vs NATO would be over in 3 days

[@colewolfe6475]

Why does he sound so different than he used to

[@DL-America1st]

trump 2024

[@waynewhite1295]

Don't forget to take into account how many russians would switch sides to get rid of their dictator. The one wete all opponents are eliminated.

[@floydlawsen]

Charles De Gualle not DeGool

[@stephen6452]

First: would YOU trust Putin to adhere to any truce or agreement? Second: you said "No". Third: what do you suggest otherwise?

[@aracoixo3288]

👋

[@erikhuisken]

Just look at europian Air Forces,without a look to US with all combat aircraft and force multipliers and Japan is not NATO but western and still officially in war with ruzzia.Australia and New Zealand would help

[@mikeemanuel66]

Charles de Ghoul 👻

[@CriminalOverPoweringSocietyCOP]

FREEDOM FRIES

[@waichui2988]

Both will lose.

[@rdavidwebb]

Who would win? Is that a joke? NATO would make russia unrecognizable

[@JoshuaOresanya-dj5lg]

Well said bruh

[@ゆみす魔王]

Lol no. Nato is a paper tiger.

[@outsideconfidence12]

Well not rly, it would be a draw no matter how strong nato is, nukes would fly and both sides lose

[@rdavidwebb]

@outsideconfidence12 if russias nukes even work. We're replacing all ours and I don't russia's even looked at theirs since they put them in. I doubt the russian soldiers would even launch them. The entire military knows putin is insane.

[@arya3193]

The only one who'll loose are the common people.

[@BrainNotFound-404]

Nah, I'd win.

[@Jimmy41556]

This stuff is so interesting but it's conjecture 😊

[@Fre-h4r]

Det är som att historien och det beträffar krig och konflikter kommer tillbaka för att komma tillbaka när det var som bästså glöm inte historien för det är framtid man kan återspegla i historia 07

[@grangling]

sleep time

[@phoenixreact-max]

Pls do a russian scenario

[@dawnherdman1942]

And that why putin would use nukes

[@bullshifard7057]

Russia fired mark 10 hypersonic missiles into Ukraine yesterday,and it took 32 patriots to stop 1 single mark10 missile,Russia called it a test that was successful . It was the first time they ever used them

[@peterbaker8443]

No they didnt the fired one and it didnt do much, its not even accurate.

[@TimmyPruitt166]

u do know the patriot is the US old air defense don't u? The US has way more newer stuff that's way more accurate and faster!

[@Fre-h4r]

Om man tittar på historien så ser man ju varför NATO kom till och varför länder vill vara med i NATO egentligen är det inte svårare än så 07

[@TimmyPruitt166]

The other countries needs to start paying their share of NATO, the US pays for 75% of NATO.

[@robertely686]

From the very first sentence, this 'history' is very poor. You've ignored the American led coup in Ukraine and the Minsk agreement, not to mention the continual encroachment of Nato around Russia.

[@steakinbacon8593]

Cool lies botskie

[@NoDrizzy630]

Cool story comrade but no ones buying it. And nations joining NATO is not encroachment, they just want security because russia cant be trusted.

[@StefanStoykov]

@robertely686 please tell me about the Minsk agreement. And be factual please :)

[@TimmyPruitt166]

wrong, that's why Ukraine will never be apart of NATO though!

[@DavidBoag-zy8ym]

the graphic at front of this video forgot that USA are nato members, russia wouldn’t dare.

[@JoeyRay-fz1qe]

It what a win means. Both sides don't have the power to take over each other but if you are talking about just shear destruction then Russia wins!

[@henryrohr7030]

It'd be Russian "win" because thU.S. and NATO play by the "rules." Russia will destroy everything and mark it up to collateral damages. U.S. and NATO will follow the Geneva Convention. If the enemy doesn't play by these rules, why should anyone else? This could've been over way sooner,but "rules and regulations " have to be followed.

[@jasonfreedomofspeech]

Why was my comment removed. All i said is there should be a ceasefire and the war would be over.

[@stagg2158]

The war could end if Russia takes their troops home

[@jasonfreedomofspeech]

@@stagg2158 your allowed to say that soon as you say it the other way round, your comment gets removed.

[@TheBestDog]

Your U toob username sounds made up, a name a bot would use

[@SOCCER_BUNNY]

@@TheBestDogbecause 98.4% of all interactions on yt are bots

[@stagg2158]

@@jasonfreedomofspeech did you read your statement before posting it...because it makes no sense at all....how could it be the other way around when the Russians are the invaders....make it make sense...this is an adult conversation...

[@irenegrimaldo963]

No solder use Nathan but bon

[@cedryk5376]

Moldova is with EU. Lazy documentary

[@grim6587]

Russia couldn’t handle USA let alone all of nato..crazy topic

[@kurlykrenins]

LOL Russia is struggling vs Ukraine alone. They would get rocked by NATO.

[@dlmcc0202]

this didn’t age well

[@michaelgordon7554]

just came because ik this video will be very very laughably wrong and i could use a good laugh.... before i even start, if you say they will hold their own against even 1 nato member im laughing, they cant even deal with ukraine, how will they deal with a group of nations who have fought side by side for decades.......

[@undisturbed809]

Nukes, not guns

[@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я]

Ukraine is much stronger than all NATO armies. NATO does not have so many soldiers and combat experience (absent). Ukraine has been using US and NATO weapons for 2 years now. it's useless. The Russians haven't started anything yet. do not confuse the war against our cities in Ukraine and against NATO.

[@kolaowoseni]

Wishful thinking 😂😅😂

[@A_ne_vajno]

Жители США..вы обратили внимание надеюсь..на такую мелочь.. Позавчера сенатом был одобрен очередной кредит(ГРАБЁЖ!) одной известной стране.. А вчера у вас сгорела Калифорния.. (сама заметьте!!) Вот куда надо деньги тратить, а не на поддержку ваших, провальных планов!

[@marianodidio3170]

no side can win cause nuclear weapons but putting that aside rusia cant even handle ukraine so kinda didnt need a 4 hour long video for this one

[@kevincoyne2785]

I basically enjoy your content, but, your blatant liberal bias, demonstrated enough to be noticed, [yes, I have examples], I could do without.

[@mitchellgraber9448]

@kevincoyne2785 What are the examples?

[@AntonioFlordeliza]

nucs,nucs,nucs...this world need a scinister mind like putin....that is a nature ..devil,en angel,good en bad...but if putin sees that the alliance is solid he will definetly think twice...!!

[@karashevf]

457

[@jeffsenecal4168]

DEE GHOUL LOL

[@karashevf]

773

[@SeriousVybe]

Its a military operation not a war that not half of Russians forces and not even half of the weapons Russia has their using old tanks and old jets to attack Ukraine id say its a way to make the military get more experience and not getting rusty

[@ChadwicktheChadd]

Lol, russia doesn't even have a military anymore. 😂

[@muhammadnorakmal3385]

Rusia nuklear ❤❤❤😂😂

[@auro1986]

there is no nato when you are micromanaging there

[@BG-pd1nk]

Everyone is talking about how bad Russia is doing but my 16 year old son said something startling..."dad, hes like our cat...you ever notice he plays with his food before he kills it? And why would Putin use all his good stuff on Ukraine, shouldn't he save the good stuff just in case he has to go up against NATO? Could NATO actually win against Russia and China?...and if Ukraine is so strong lole everybody os saying, why are we supplying them with anything? That's like giving someone a gun that's already winning a fist fight"......i sat there speechless and grabbed my Vodka🤦🏾‍♂️

[@StefanStoykov]

True story bro....

[@TimmyPruitt166]

Your cat hasn't lost 700k brothers to the mouse though! Use common sense!

[@TimmyPruitt166]

@@StefanStoykov DUMB story bro!

[@elricmagar9307]

And listen to independent journalists to know the truth about Russia like UN weapon inspector Scott Ritter

[@JosephAguinaldo-f4h]

You all wrong about Trump you are on the left side sad you should get your facts right !

[@craig3949]

Poland beats Russia by itself

[@АндрейКондратюк-к2ъ]

Poland doesn't exist if Russia attack it.

[@FromThentoNow97]

n a hypothetical conflict, it’s hard to say who would win between Russia and NATO. NATO has the advantage of collective military strength, advanced technology, and larger economic resources. However, Russia has significant nuclear capabilities, a large army, and home-ground advantage. Such a conflict would likely lead to severe global consequences. In your opinion, would a conventional war even be possible without it escalating to a nuclear scenario?

[@theyearoftherat]

Another worthless video. Nobody would win.

[@Noble_OverDramaticShoeBOO1]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[@top-lul7540]

Both are losers

[@tonysutcliffe5032]

Russia has never looked like losing?

[@aspenburton8356]

China russia north korea and Russia would win sad to say .

[@GT5.0365]

lol Russia has no chance 😂

[@Seraphim-h3q]

Darn

[@MostHigh777]

Is that a real question you're actually asking?