"Every war game scenario on Europe run by DOD shows that the US and NATO cannot win in a head to head fight with Russia". lol Someone better tell that to Ukrainian army.
LOL, those war game scenarios were run by a bunch of computer generated horsecrap that put capabilities for Russia far beyond what it looks like is reality. For starters, bet the tanks had real ERA in those scenarios, not glorified saddle bags, and their Air Force might have had a wee bit of guided smart weaponry, not the joke it has in reality. The revised war game would have one US armored Brigade giving the "Iraqi" treatment to 3 Russian Brigades, a total reversal of the traditional "need 3 to 1 ratio" which was shown in 2003 to be BS as well. Russia is a paper tiger, and Stephen needs to address the real elephant in the room, when does China decides it's in its best interest to simply take back all of Primorsky Krai and the Amur Oblast, and probably alot more, and tell Russia if you push it at best you can exchange nukes, at worst you won't be able to get a single barrel of oil out to anyone else, which basically shuts them down as a nation. Ukraine may not be able to win, but let's not prop up the Russians or this ends up like another delusional Colonel Macgregor article, guy I totally liked but a guy that has gone off the deep end.
I don't think the simulations were "horse crap." Simulations are always worst case on purpose, the idea being that lessons can be learned and mistakes avoided. I think in fact we are in quite a weak position in Europe thanks in part to the fact that a lot of our equipment is worn down and the supply chain is a mess and to the equally important failure of our allies to build anything like a robust defense capability. I don't follow your argument about China. Why would they? Far fetched. My analysis is firmly based on what is happening in the field from credible reports. I don't rely on MacGregor although he knows his land-warfare stuff. It is fine to agree or disagree factually, but there is nothing "delusional" in my reporting (and I assume you threw that in because you were implying that I was like MacGregor.)
Something else to think about: at what point do corrupt Ukrainian officials get nervous, raid the treasury and flee. A non-functioning government might be worse than a corrupt one. Picture a team who's out of the playoffs and just going through the motions.
Consolidating the breakaway provinces effectively meets their goal of enforcing the Minsk agreement but doesn't end the war. The civilian population is still vulnerable to stand-off artillery attacks. The terrain to the west is desirable only so far as it creates a buffer zone from such attacks.
The US combined arms capability probably peaked about 2004-5; and then we lost much of that finely tuned edge in poorly directed efforts further in Iraq and Afghanistan. The dismal performance of the US "strategy thinkers" - as opposed to the troops - during the surrender in Afghanistan is the single biggest reason to think that US + NATO could not defeat Russia in Europe. A fully motivated NATO effort would fairly readily destroy Russian conventional forces, but that may not be the majority of a war fought. Before the nuclear option is used, the ability of both sides to destroy infrastructure and affect civilian populations is a huge uncertainty and that leads to unpredictable political decisions. Unlike our planning in the '70s and '80s, this time the battles would be fought on Russian (and Belarus) soil. I am more fearful of the institutional ineptitude in the Pentagon than I am of Russian conventional forces.
"Every war game scenario on Europe run by DOD shows that the US and NATO cannot win in a head to head fight with Russia". lol Someone better tell that to Ukrainian army.
Do you think they would act differently? They see NATO as their savior. See for example https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/russia-vs-nato-who-would-win-war-baltics-166756
LOL, those war game scenarios were run by a bunch of computer generated horsecrap that put capabilities for Russia far beyond what it looks like is reality. For starters, bet the tanks had real ERA in those scenarios, not glorified saddle bags, and their Air Force might have had a wee bit of guided smart weaponry, not the joke it has in reality. The revised war game would have one US armored Brigade giving the "Iraqi" treatment to 3 Russian Brigades, a total reversal of the traditional "need 3 to 1 ratio" which was shown in 2003 to be BS as well. Russia is a paper tiger, and Stephen needs to address the real elephant in the room, when does China decides it's in its best interest to simply take back all of Primorsky Krai and the Amur Oblast, and probably alot more, and tell Russia if you push it at best you can exchange nukes, at worst you won't be able to get a single barrel of oil out to anyone else, which basically shuts them down as a nation. Ukraine may not be able to win, but let's not prop up the Russians or this ends up like another delusional Colonel Macgregor article, guy I totally liked but a guy that has gone off the deep end.
I don't think the simulations were "horse crap." Simulations are always worst case on purpose, the idea being that lessons can be learned and mistakes avoided. I think in fact we are in quite a weak position in Europe thanks in part to the fact that a lot of our equipment is worn down and the supply chain is a mess and to the equally important failure of our allies to build anything like a robust defense capability. I don't follow your argument about China. Why would they? Far fetched. My analysis is firmly based on what is happening in the field from credible reports. I don't rely on MacGregor although he knows his land-warfare stuff. It is fine to agree or disagree factually, but there is nothing "delusional" in my reporting (and I assume you threw that in because you were implying that I was like MacGregor.)
Something else to think about: at what point do corrupt Ukrainian officials get nervous, raid the treasury and flee. A non-functioning government might be worse than a corrupt one. Picture a team who's out of the playoffs and just going through the motions.
Consolidating the breakaway provinces effectively meets their goal of enforcing the Minsk agreement but doesn't end the war. The civilian population is still vulnerable to stand-off artillery attacks. The terrain to the west is desirable only so far as it creates a buffer zone from such attacks.
The US combined arms capability probably peaked about 2004-5; and then we lost much of that finely tuned edge in poorly directed efforts further in Iraq and Afghanistan. The dismal performance of the US "strategy thinkers" - as opposed to the troops - during the surrender in Afghanistan is the single biggest reason to think that US + NATO could not defeat Russia in Europe. A fully motivated NATO effort would fairly readily destroy Russian conventional forces, but that may not be the majority of a war fought. Before the nuclear option is used, the ability of both sides to destroy infrastructure and affect civilian populations is a huge uncertainty and that leads to unpredictable political decisions. Unlike our planning in the '70s and '80s, this time the battles would be fought on Russian (and Belarus) soil. I am more fearful of the institutional ineptitude in the Pentagon than I am of Russian conventional forces.