The strategic situation in Ukraine is becoming increasingly unfavorable and the course of the war is unable to ** in the face of the ongoing offensive of the Russian army. While many of the strategic points that the Ukrainian army is trying to defend are in dire straits, Western aid has also been reduced, making Ukraine even more difficult. The possibility of Ukraine's defeat is gradually becoming a reality, and NATO has begun to think about how to deal with the future with RussiaMilitaryThreat.
Behind Ukraine's defeat is a complex interweaving of factors. On the battlefield, the Ukrainian army is facing strong pressure from the Russian army, and their defensive and confrontation capabilities are gradually limited. And off the battlefield, Ukraine is also receiving dwindling international support, making it more difficult for them to respond to a Russian offensive. In particular, the reduction in aid from Western countries has left Ukraine lacking enoughMilitaryresources to counter Russia. Ukraine has to face the reality of losing troops and weakening its combat strength. All this laid the groundwork for the defeat of Ukraine.
Faced with the defeat of Ukraine, NATO began to prepare for Russia's attackMilitaryThreat. According to an assessment by the German Foreign Policy Institute (DGAP), NATO estimates that it will take another 6 to 10 years to prepare for war with Russia. This may sound outrageous, after all, when the war in Ukraine will end is still an unknown, and it may be a bit premature to advance the next war. However, NATO is aware of what the war in Ukraine bringsMilitaryExperiences and lessons have upended their old perceptions, and they feel a clear crisis.
Before the war in Ukraine, it was widely believed that Russia, as the successor of the Soviet Union, was inMilitaryThey are the second best in the world, and their quick victory over Ukraine was not a surprise. On the other hand, NATO countries, led by the United States, are in the economy,Militaryand in terms of science and technology, it is far superior to Russia, and as long as NATO intervenes decisively, for example, by providing massive aid and imposing sanctions on Russia, Russia will soon collapse. However, what was the outcome of the war?Russia does not have the ability to quickly resolve the Ukrainian problem, and NATO's intervention does not have an immediate and noticeable effect, and the two sides are locked in a protracted confrontation. All this makes people realize that NATO's economic superiority does not work in an actual war. NATO's GDP is more than $40 trillion, while Russia's GDP is just over $2 trillion, and the two sides are clearly not on the same order of magnitude. However, Ukraine has almost exhausted the ammunition stocks of NATO countries, and it is difficult to replenish ammunition. In the case of 155-mm artillery shells, for example, the United States may not be able to reach the level of 100,000 rounds per month until 2026, and the current monthly production is only more than 30,000 rounds. This is especially true in European countries, which have so far supplied just over 300,000 rounds of artillery shells, while Russia produces more than 1 million rounds of 152-mm artillery shells of the same class per month. Such a supply gap makes NATO particularly vulnerable in the event of a war.
From the point of view of combat qualities, Russia has shown strong real combat capabilities in the war in Ukraine, and the Ukrainian army has resisted their offensive for a long time, almost becoming their insoluble dilemma. In fact, this also proves the view that "peers foil strength". On the contrary, Israel, as a country with many years of experience in preparing for war, has shown extremely high combat qualities in its war with Hamas, which is a warning to Russia, which has been unable to attack for a long time. Considering that some members of the NATO countries are long past the age of preparing for war, their performance on the battlefield can be imagined. Plus the United States as the leader of NATO, rightTalibanTheir vulnerability has also been exposed by the 20-year payment of protection money. These questions have caused humanity to fall into contemplation and panic.
In contrast, despite the fact that Russia has also suffered losses in the war in Ukraine, theirMilitaryThe strength has been significantly improved in the brutal actual combat. Russia's national economy,MilitaryThe production and the population of society gradually adapted to the state of war, and they themselves had abundant strategic resources that allowed them to fight continuously. Coupled with the support of the eastern powers, once Russia defeats Ukraine, when Finland and Sweden join NATO, there will be no strategic buffer space between NATO and Russia. The two sides have lost political and security mutual trust because of the war in Ukraine. In the face of an experienced and complete Russia (integrating the high-quality resources of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus), coupled with external support, NATO has few better countermeasures than careful preparations. In the past, NATO's eastward expansion only looked out for its own interests, which eventually led to its own insecurity.
In general, the defeat of Ukraine became possible as the war in Ukraine developed. NATO is beginning to think about how to respond to Russia'sMilitaryThreat. However, this process can take a long time, while also taking into account the end of the war in Ukraine, as well as other complex factors. The war in Ukraine has made NATO realize that the reality of the war may be different from what they had expected in the pastMilitaryThe gap in strength and combat quality is an issue that needs to be paid attention to. NATO needs to review its security strategy and preparedness, and seek more effective countermeasures to confront RussiaMilitaryChallenge. At the same time, the international community also needs to work through diplomatic and political means to bring Ukraine to a peaceful solution to the current crisis and avoid further problemsMilitaryConflicts and wars are expanding.