In recent years, the global military situation has changed quite quickly, especially the relationship between NATO and Russia and China has become more and more tense.Many people think that NATO is headed by the United States and must be the strongest military alliance in the world, but I didn't think that a US military expert William Schleifer cast a bold view: if NATO really fought with China and Russia, NATO could completely lose its military capabilities in 10 years.

After all, the United States has always ranked first in military strength. How can it not hold on so quickly?

On August 27, 2024, Russia's Sputnik News Agency reported a post on his saying that if a conventional war broke out with Russia and China, NATO would be demilitarized within 10 years.

He predicted that within one month of the war, NATO's missile inventory would be exhausted, losing dozens of large warships and hundreds of advanced fighters.

The U.S. Navy is at the heart of NATO, with 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, along with various destroyers and submarines, which look powerful.

But Schleifer pointed out that this winds up in peacetime, in high-intensity conflicts.The Russian Navy is not superficially strong, but submarines with top technology, such as the "Asen" class nuclear submarines, can quietly and silently approach the target underwater.

Russia still has a large reserve of nuclear weapons. Even if it cannot win, it can still drag its opponents to perish together. The Chinese navy is developing faster. The 2023 Ministry of National Defense report shows that the number of Chinese ships has surpassed that of the United States. There are three aircraft carriers and the Type 076 amphibious assault ship. The latter is specially designed for drones. The West calls it a "drone carrier".

Schleifer emphasized that the number of aircraft carriers is not the key, the industrial production capacity decides to win. During the Second World War, the United States relied on industrial crushing, now China is the world's factory, and shipbuilding is far faster than the United States. In 2024, the U.S. Navy report admitted that China's shipbuilding capacity is more than 200 times that of the United States, which means that the conflict lasts longer, and NATO's fleet supplies can't keep up.

The main forces of NATO are the F-22 and F-35, these five generations advanced, but limited numbers. The United States has less than 200 F-22, F-35 production problems, and maintenance costs are high. Russia has the Su-57, China has the J-20 and J-35, all five generations, can be independently manufactured. China also demonstrated the six-generation concept, two models that will be presented at the 2024 air show, leaving the U.S. Pentagon in tension.

Shriver said in the post that in air confrontation, the loss rate of NATO fighter planes will be very high, because Sino-Russian air defense systems such as S-400 and Hongqi-9 can effectively intercept them. Coupled with the strong electronic warfare capabilities of China and Russia, NATO's air superiority will not last long. In terms of army, Russian and Chinese troops are large in scale and equipped with modern equipment.

Russian tanks and artillery proved durable in the Ukraine conflict, and China's army has advanced rockets and missiles. NATO's European members are uneven in military strength, many countries have limited budgets, and their equipment is still at Cold War levels. Shriver analyzed that NATO's overall coordination is difficult, its member states have different interests, and loopholes are prone to occur.

China's Eastern Wind series missiles have a long range and high precision, can cover Asia-Pacific and European targets. Russia has "Iskander" and "Kinghead" high-speed hypersonic missiles, and the United States has not produced similar weapons so far. Schleifer predicts that NATO's missile inventories will end in a month, because the annual US production of cruise missiles is less than 500 units, and China's production is several times faster.

A Pentagon report in 2024 revealed that U.S. ammunition reserves had been exposed in Ukraine for just a few weeks, and the Russian satellite news agency quoted Schleifer as saying that NATO would quickly fall into passivity and could not rebuild its military power within a decade because the economic and industrial bases could not keep up.

This prediction is not isolated. Schleifer has discussed similar topics several times in Substack articles, such as "Welcome to the Last World War" on January 1, 2025, where he talks about NATO's consumption in Ukraine that has led to Europe's NATO's de-militarization and a serious loss of U.S. stocks. During the conflict in Ukraine, NATO sent a large number of weapons, such as "pistols" missiles, HIMARS rockets and "Patriot" air defense systems, which were all one-line equipment, but were gradually destroyed by Russia.

This indirectly supports Schleifer¡¯s view that NATO is struggling to fight a war of agency, and it¡¯s even harder to face China-Russia joining forces.In the August 16, 2025 article, ¡°The subtle withdrawal,¡± he said that NATO¡¯s only way out is to return to the 1997 borders, or else it will continue to be consumed and the alliance will collapse.

Of course, not everyone agrees with Schleifer. Some Western experts think he exaggerates the Chinese-Russian power, and the U.S. technological advantage is still. For example, the F-35 has strong hidden capabilities, and NATO has a global intelligence network. But Schleifer rejects that these are not so gods in real warfare. Ukraine has used "storm shadow" missiles and ATACMS, and Russian interception rates are high.

In 2024, the U.S. Chikurand report also acknowledged that the expansion of the Chinese navy threatens the Pacific balance, Russian submarines are the heart of NATO. Schleifer's analysis is grounded, he not only looks at paper data, but also considers logistics and economy. For example, the U.S. military spending is high, but corruption is severe, and procurement efficiency is low. China's industrial chain is complete, Russia's resources are rich, and can be supported for the long term.

There will be more and more joint military exercises between China and Russia in 2024, covering the navy and air force. The NATO summit acknowledged that this is a challenge to the alliance.

On July 19, 2025, he posted a post criticizing the United States for not being able to fight a war against Russia or China within ten years because of backward logistics and production. Russia opens new shipping routes in the Arctic, and the United States is at least a decade behind. This all points to the same problem: NATO is ill-prepared, and high-intensity warfare will quickly exhaust resources.

The 2023 U.S. Defense Industry Report showed that ammunition production was severely bottled and European national arms inventories were low, with German tanks fewer than 300, and British naval ships aging.

In comparison, China will launch multiple destroyers in 2024, and Russia's missile production will double. Shriver emphasized that war is not about who is more expensive than who can supply equipment, but who can continue to supply it. NATO has many members, but decision-making is slow and there are large internal differences. For example, Turkey and Greece have conflicts that affect unity.

If NATO does not adjust its strategy, it will really conflict, and it will not be impossible to militarize in 10 years.

Of course, this depends on many factors, such as diplomacy and economics.But from the current trend, Schleifer¡¯s words are worth noting.In general, this topic is quite realistic, and you can look more at the public report and judge for yourself.