Who will win the standoff between Russia and China Vs. NATO?

It is the most formidable army coalition in history of mankind, pitting itself against... well, Russia and China. Who will triumph in a final fight between western liberal democracies and eastern despotic societies? To discover out, read today's amazing new narrative! 🔥🔔🏴‍☠️🔥

It is the strongest military coalition in human history. Russia and China, I suppose. Who would prevail if there was a final battle between the liberal democracies of the west and the autocratic societies of the east? As Russia becomes more and more marginalized on the international stage and as its situation in Ukraine becomes more and more challenging, Russia has become more and more dependent on China. The 20th and 21st centuries have seen a tense relationship between the two countries, which are more of a distant foe than a close ally. Despite this, China and Russia are both finding themselves compelled to form an alliance of convenience as the world turns away from both authoritarian powers and embraces the liberal values of democracy. It is unnecessary to introduce NATO.

The Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union immediately tested the Warsaw Pact's resolve, which had been established in the wake of World War II to ensure that such a conflict would never occur again. However, NATO ultimately prevailed as the Soviet Union crumbled under its own weight and pressure from its many client states and republics to adopt western values. The strongest military force on the planet today, by far, is NATO, which is uncontested and unrivaled. First, we need to talk about experience, because having all of the fancy equipment is pointless if you've never had to use it while someone was attempting to kill you. Russia is a seasoned force that has participated in a number of smaller modern wars.

Nearly immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union, a separatist movement in Chechnya put the new Russian federation to the test; sparking two brutal wars that saw Russian firepower decimate the majority of the republic. Additionally, it invaded Georgia to annex a portion of the country for its own use. The Assad regime would later receive support from Russia in the modern era, helping to keep US-backed and pro-democracy rebels from toppling it. But it would be wise to look more closely at Russia's track record. Russia may have prevented the republic from seceding from the Russian Union in Chechnya, but it would be very difficult to say that it truly achieved its goals there. The small republic was extremely difficult to subjugate for Russia, a vastly superior power by far.

Russian tanks and armored vehicles were decimated in large numbers by rebel forces equipped with RPGs and anti-tank missiles, illuminating the complete lack of experience in urban warfare. Russia inevitably reverted to doing what it does best—leveling everything in its path. Russia won the battle by destroying everything in its path with an incredible amount of artillery, killing a great number of civilians in the process. Its forces would fare better in Georgia, where they battled a more organized and less asymmetrical enemy—albeit one that was very poorly equipped and easily overpowered by Russian and allied forces. As it was forced to use indiscriminate violence to further its goals in Syria, Russia's shortcomings were once again on display.

During a notorious month-long campaign, Russian artillery and aircraft bombarded Aleppo, focusing on both residential and medical structures. A distinguishing feature of the Russian war fighting playbook is this doctrine of terror. When faced with a resolute and well-defended enemy in an urban setting, Russia is forced to resort to indiscriminate bombing and shelling with no regard for civilian casualties due to its inability to conduct effective urban operations. In fact, the goal of Russian doctrine is to kill as many civilians as possible in order to weaken the defenders' resolve and spirit of resistance. At the outset of the conflict in Ukraine, Russia attempted modern, combined-arms warfare and an American-style campaign of shock and awe.

However, Russia greatly overestimated its own capabilities, and its attempt to take the capital of Ukraine in three days with a lightning assault failed horribly, leading to one of the most humiliating withdrawals in Russian history. In an effort to weaken the Ukrainian people's resolve to resist, Russia is now waging a slow, attritional war in Ukraine that includes targeted attacks on civilians and their infrastructure. Despite an estimated 100,000 casualties in Ukraine, Russia can still field a sizable army, albeit one that is increasingly made up of insufficiently skilled and motivated conscripts. If Russia were to escalate the conflict in Ukraine into a full-fledged conflict with NATO, even with China's support as an ally, this would be a serious issue.

With an artillery corps that is still incredibly large despite its losses in the Ukraine, Russia is well-suited to attritional warfare. Prior to the conflict, Russia fielded about 6,500 self-propelled guns, 7,500 towed guns, and 3,391 multiple launch rocket systems. There is no artillery force on earth with more pure firepower. The will of Russia's people to endure exorbitant costs and carry on fighting is its second-greatest strength. Russians continue to support the disastrous war in Ukraine in large part despite becoming a pariah nation—or perhaps even because of it—and suffering far greater losses than anticipated. This would be crucial because a conflict with NATO would compel Russia to launch a genuine national mobilization effort, enlisting as many as 46 million men and women over the course of a protracted conflict lasting several years.

Though it is still highly speculative whether it will be possible to feed and outfit all of those soldiers, Aside from anti-piracy operations, China has no significant modern military experience. Its final conflict was in the 1970s with a Vietnam that had already suffered from years of conflict with South Vietnamese forces led by the US. Although they failed to accomplish any of their operational goals, the Vietnamese were still able to fight China to a standstill and then drive them back. Prior to that, Chinese planes and American fighters engaged in combat together during the Korean War. Chinese fighters were utterly destroyed by American and UN forces, despite the assistance of Russian pilots flying covertly for the Chinese.

However, the American-led UN force was forced to retreat on the ground due to the massive influx of Chinese infantry, even though the Chinese themselves suffered a terrible loss. The Chinese military of today is a cutting-edge force capable of projecting power locally, but it lacks the capability to engage in a protracted war outside of its borders. In fact, a lot of people doubt China's ability to successfully invade and occupy Taiwan, a tiny island nation that is only 90 miles from its own shores and that it views as a rebel republic. China's logistics and lack of expertise in contemporary combined-arms warfare are the country's biggest weaknesses. Despite Chinese authors advocating for all-domain war, China has never engaged in a significant military campaign, even in the context of an exercise lasting longer than a few days, against a strong and determined opponent.

Any foe fighting China, on the other hand, should expect severe defeat and anything other than a straightforward victory. NATO has far more experience than either of its potential adversaries. Although many of the member states took part in the amazingly successful US-led war against Iraq in 1991, the alliance faced its first military intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995. Here, NATO had to contend with a sizable and well-equipped military, as well as a highly effective air force and a dense air defense system based on Soviet designs. In spite of this, the coalition easily destroyed Iraq's defenses in a matter of weeks at little cost to itself, forcing both Moscow and Beijing to immediately begin reevaluating their own military strategies.

The Middle East would descend into chaos as a result of its disastrous adventurism in Iraq, and its attempt to overthrow the Taliban government in Afghanistan would also fail. These military failures, however, were not the result of bad strategy but rather bad politics and a lack of unity among the populace, which had historically been divided into tribalist camps in both nations. Despite its strategic failures, NATO demonstrated that it was a flexible force capable of responding to conflicts on a global scale and, most importantly, keeping them well-supplied even over the course of a lengthy, multi-year war. Due to NATO's 30-member list, both sides are fairly equal in terms of hardware. Although the number of available personnel will increase with Sweden and Finland's inclusion, NATO can currently field an estimated 3.