My point does not change, NATO could build more things faster has more manpower to use.
Russia alone simply could not win. I am not saying that to bash russia also it's just how it is.
If russia should on constant defense it would get widdled down to nothing in due time, it's only means to survive would be to grab land, take factories and hopefully have people in the countries it takes fight for them.
WW2 left a nasty mark on Russia population wise one they still have not healed from.
You are complete right with the point that NATO is superior to Russia in terms of Manpower and industrial capacity. In a "fast conflict" let's say 1 - 6 months the NATO would dominate.
But in a long time conflict, over a year, Russia would win! Sounds paradox? It's not!!!
Industrial output in NATO countries is high, but in western and middle europe there are no backups for factories! Don't forget monopolistic producers (many more than decades ago), but vital for whole branches of economy and production. If conventional russian cruise missiles or strategic bombers would hit these factories the output would go to near 0%. Factories today are not the same like in WW2, they are high tech and extreme vulnerable to "complications". Another factor is the supply chain! In Germany many factories rely at "rolling warehouses", so they have nearly no stuff stored, all come just in time in to produce. So a problem in logistic and output goes to 0%. In cold war era in Germany we had for the worst case (WW3) some "backup fabrication" deep inside bunker, able to survive a nuclear hit...after cold war nothing like this anymore and no food or medic storage (only very low for medic!) for crisis time. Western countries live for today, no thoughts spent about tomorrow. In western society everything relies on just in time production, depending soo extreme on logistics, that a small hit to infrastructure will result in complete economic collapse!
Positive for Russia is, that many industrial sites are out of range for NATO cruise missiles! If Russia is able to withstand the first onrush and maintain the production of military goods, than it's bad for NATO europe. Another factor is production in USA...Russia must be able to cut the logistic lines through the Atlantic Ocean.
Another factor is manpower...
Yes, in western media is a massive hype and hysteria about Russia. This is a factor bringing the population to war, making them hot for blood. But if blood flows in masses the mood will turn drastic. After the first thousands of dead NO ONE in western europe will fight Russia anymore. Russia is not Serbia or Iraq, where the losses were very low. Another factor is that population in europe is very friendly towards Russia (elite is hostile), so I doubt the loyality would be very high. I'm reservist in german army, but I would never shoot a single shot if NATO is the aggressor!
But for smaller conflicts without involving Europe and Russias Heartland yo are complete right! A conflict only in Syria or Middle East would Russia not win, if the West goes all in.
I personal don't believe in a conflict between european countries and Russia! But some parts in the USA, the so called "deep state" try to provoke a small and controlable war with Russia, to bind the european vasalls and reunite the divided american society. It's funny that Russia as "foe of democracy" rised up after NSA spionage in Europe was revealed and many european countries were really really pissed off
I hope Trump Administration is able to dry the swamp in Washington or sooner or later we will have conflicts wide-ranging from cold war status to controlled hot war in some parts of the world (maybe US-soldiers fighting in Ukraine against Russia).