Truly juvenile thinking. Not sure why I engaged you. I thought you were serious. My comment was based on the actual array of forces the U.S. possesses, not Ukraine. We are arguing over supplying Ukraine F16s - the U.S. has F22 and F35, in addition to thousands of F15s, F16s, F18s and our bomber fleet. Ukraine has none of this. As I said, our ground forces might have a hard time of it head to head with the Russians over time (not initially). But given our air power and their air defenses, it's no contest. Perhaps you aren't aware that whenever an F22 or F35 took off in Syrian airspace, the Russians and everyone else flying anything simply landed. You may have heard that the S400 or S500 can defend against them, nope. We have doctrine to destroy all Russian SAM defenses. It will take some time and may costs some aircraft. But once you establish air superiority, ground force mean nothing as they can be slaughtered at will.
We can defeat S400 and S500 and already have. It's not to say that defeating them wouldn't be challenging, it might take 2-3 weeks to eliminate most Russian SAMs and other anti-aircraft defense. And they have mobile launchers that will always be a spot problem. But at the end of the day, we can establish air superiority over both without any doubt. If you are interested, here's a nice technical breakdown of how the U.S. defeats S400. https://youtu.be/McJAYZfhapo?si=c_06X3HOU1XwzTkm I think it will help debunk any argument of 'invincibility' of air defenses for you. All these systems have vulnerabilities and when up against the sophistication of U.S. doctrine, our technological prowess and platforms, there is literally nobody who can stop us for long wrt air power and establishing control over an airspace. And it's not all tech, it's also about our brilliant tactics and pilots who are trained to defeat these systems. No other air force on earth approaches our doctrine or pilots, fyi. That's not bragging, it's just true. Look at war games between air forces (nations do this kind of thing), it's embarrassing how much better our pilots are to most other nations.
And in todays combined arms warfare, that's decisive in almost any battle. It won't eliminate insurgents though, so invading and trying to hold territory is an entirely different question. But be clear, we could wipe Russia off the Ukrainian battlefield in short order were we to deploy the full force of U.S. air power. And contrary to the commenter upthread, we can sustain such distant expeditionary deployments at scale for long periods.
You may be correct concerning training, etc. but how do you get enough airpower close enough to make a difference? How many ships with various supplies, etc., get sunk on the way over? What is the readiness level of the various aircraft? What is the readiness level of the European armed forces? Is there enough to make a stand? Can we handle the logistics? It took more than 6 months to prepare for Desert Storm with Iraq not able to harm the build-up. Russia is much more capable to hitting large concentrations and the Patriot does not seem to be meeting expectations for effectiveness.
Europe already is ready to support a U.S. led air war. You seem to not understand what capabilities the Russians have vs. what we have. Let me put it in a way you might understand. When an F35 or F22 took to the air over Syria, every single Russian jet grounded itself, ya? Their Gen 5 stealth jet is a joke, we destroy them easily in a head to head air war. And consider that our Gen 4 jets have better capabilities and we have thousands of them, F15s, F16s and F18s. And once you control the air, the enemy cannot operate. Do you actually think the Russians have a chance against us in an air war? Be clear, they do not.
Taking and holding territory in an invasion of Russia would be different. That's not what I'm talking about. Perhaps Ukraine has confused you? If we wanted to, we could end the war in Ukraine in a month. All Russian ground forces would be exposed to our air power and be slaughtered if they don't retreat. But then we'd be at war with Russia, which would be so stupid for the U.S. Especially over Ukraine.
I do think we'd have real trouble invading Russia, perhaps that's what you thought I meant?
But you are basing your opinion on something other than facts. No Russian general thinks Russia could win an air war with the U.S. Russia spends under 100bn on defense, we spend about 1 trillion. You seem to have bought into the hazy, BS thinking many supposedly heterodox/Red Pill types have fallen into about geopolitics and the world. Don't get confused. We 'lost' Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq due to a lack of political will to actually fight in a way that could win. They were 'wars on the cheap' that American policy makers could engage in without large, obvious costs to the American people. Think of them as 'luxury' wars that we could win or lose without a bad consequence for the American people. You haven't seen the U.S. fight a 'total war' since WWII. And in that case, the results were clear. The Russians would not have had a chance without U.S. LendLease...20% of U.S. defense spending during WWII went to the USSR. This idea of Russian military invincibility is a joke. Fun fact. The Russians finally did honest accounting of their losses in WWII and the true number is 39 million lost. They hide that because it reveals who awfully Stalin fought and how outmatched the Soviets were on the ground.
Fyi, I'm not a Russia hater. I do not want a thing to do with Ukraine - or Taiwan or Israel or any other nation not in our hemisphere. But I also see Russia for what it is, and Putin, who is a brilliant thug. I am saddened that the U.S. really blew the opportunity to build a constructive relationship with Russia in the '90s, instead of allowing the Russian people to be fed on by capitalist and criminal vultures for 10 years, which is why Putin comes to power. Americans do not understand that Russians antagonism towards the U.S. is earned by our arrogance and bullying on the world stage, nonstop. But many who cheerlead for Russia these days do not seem to understand how awful Russia is. Be clear - you have no privacy or irrevocable rights in Russia. Due process, press freedom and respect for basic human rights are not a given. Ed Snowden going their is proof he was a Russian agent or source, not that Russia is a great place...If you'd like, I can share some truthful info about Snowden, cuz most people believe total mythology about him.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, we were trying to take, clear and hold enough territory to control the nation but never put even half the forces on the ground required to actually do so. We engaged in half-baked nation-building, and then under Obama they, and other places we operate, were seen as opportunities to support Marxist/Socialist organizations and to bring 'Progress' and leftist forms of 'democracy' to those nations. Meaning feminism, gay rights, minority privileges and a very 'social' focus in general. We turned Kabul into our ideal of what Afghan could look like at a cost of billions. All wiped away in a week...
One should see Afghanistan and Iraq as the most ridiculously administered wars in the history of human civilization. In both cases, our immediate objectives were readily achieved. Letting Bin Laden escape into Pakistan was a political decision, not a military shortcoming. But neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are actually nations, lol - this is the first mistake Westerners make. Iraq was held together by Saddam's horrific terror campaign of political oppression and Afghanistan has never been 'held together' at all. Our attempts to 'nation-build' were non-starters. Comparing them to Japan or Germany is to show one knows nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan. Their own govts couldn't build functional, governable nations. Sigh...
Put it this way. If had put 500k troops and armor etc on the ground in Afghanistan we could have set up 'safe zones' and then proceeded to gain control of the 70% of the country we'd need to the entire country. The Afghans are not magical, the 'graveyard of empires stuff' is hype and nonsense. Look at the Brits and USSR experience, they were defeated due to their own mistakes. Brits never had enough force, neither did the USSR. The USSR made the additional mistake of mass slaughtering many, many Afghani innocents from heli gunships and armored vehicles etc. This unified otherwise competing war lords and tribes. Feeding an insurgency is never a smart idea. The U.S. has a viable counter insurgency doctrine that works when it's implemented, and worked in the areas it was tried in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we never had the territorial control required so the bad guys could just relocate to where ever we were not.
It's all so stupid. Talk to anyone deployed there, it was ridiculous. And cost us trillions. For what? To give Iraq to Iran and Afghanistan to the Taliban. Govts have been overthrown and leaders hung from lampposts for far less. The real problem with the U.S. is that the majority of people have already been subverted and don't realize it. They have no independent thoughts and don't even realize they are self-governing.
Rather, they just 'hate' the horrible, racist baddies and stupid conspiracy types and the icky woman haters and homo/transphobes etc. They have been convinced they are on the right side of history and do not question their dear leaders. We have not been a self-governing nation since WWI, and certainly not since WWII. In fact, I believe it's the mythology of WWII that convinced Americans it was okay for us to become an empire, as long as we don't call it an empire. As for WWII, who do you think 'won' it? Easy: The Soviets got Eastern Europe and parts of Japan and China, and Mao got China. The commies won WWII, but shhhhhhhh, you aren't supposed to notice this. Gen MacArthur has been slimed and unfairly destroyed reputationally by 'historians' cuz he had the gall to notice this...
Truly juvenile thinking. Not sure why I engaged you. I thought you were serious. My comment was based on the actual array of forces the U.S. possesses, not Ukraine. We are arguing over supplying Ukraine F16s - the U.S. has F22 and F35, in addition to thousands of F15s, F16s, F18s and our bomber fleet. Ukraine has none of this. As I said, our ground forces might have a hard time of it head to head with the Russians over time (not initially). But given our air power and their air defenses, it's no contest. Perhaps you aren't aware that whenever an F22 or F35 took off in Syrian airspace, the Russians and everyone else flying anything simply landed. You may have heard that the S400 or S500 can defend against them, nope. We have doctrine to destroy all Russian SAM defenses. It will take some time and may costs some aircraft. But once you establish air superiority, ground force mean nothing as they can be slaughtered at will.
We can defeat S400 and S500 and already have. It's not to say that defeating them wouldn't be challenging, it might take 2-3 weeks to eliminate most Russian SAMs and other anti-aircraft defense. And they have mobile launchers that will always be a spot problem. But at the end of the day, we can establish air superiority over both without any doubt. If you are interested, here's a nice technical breakdown of how the U.S. defeats S400. https://youtu.be/McJAYZfhapo?si=c_06X3HOU1XwzTkm I think it will help debunk any argument of 'invincibility' of air defenses for you. All these systems have vulnerabilities and when up against the sophistication of U.S. doctrine, our technological prowess and platforms, there is literally nobody who can stop us for long wrt air power and establishing control over an airspace. And it's not all tech, it's also about our brilliant tactics and pilots who are trained to defeat these systems. No other air force on earth approaches our doctrine or pilots, fyi. That's not bragging, it's just true. Look at war games between air forces (nations do this kind of thing), it's embarrassing how much better our pilots are to most other nations.
And in todays combined arms warfare, that's decisive in almost any battle. It won't eliminate insurgents though, so invading and trying to hold territory is an entirely different question. But be clear, we could wipe Russia off the Ukrainian battlefield in short order were we to deploy the full force of U.S. air power. And contrary to the commenter upthread, we can sustain such distant expeditionary deployments at scale for long periods.
You may be correct concerning training, etc. but how do you get enough airpower close enough to make a difference? How many ships with various supplies, etc., get sunk on the way over? What is the readiness level of the various aircraft? What is the readiness level of the European armed forces? Is there enough to make a stand? Can we handle the logistics? It took more than 6 months to prepare for Desert Storm with Iraq not able to harm the build-up. Russia is much more capable to hitting large concentrations and the Patriot does not seem to be meeting expectations for effectiveness.
Europe already is ready to support a U.S. led air war. You seem to not understand what capabilities the Russians have vs. what we have. Let me put it in a way you might understand. When an F35 or F22 took to the air over Syria, every single Russian jet grounded itself, ya? Their Gen 5 stealth jet is a joke, we destroy them easily in a head to head air war. And consider that our Gen 4 jets have better capabilities and we have thousands of them, F15s, F16s and F18s. And once you control the air, the enemy cannot operate. Do you actually think the Russians have a chance against us in an air war? Be clear, they do not.
Taking and holding territory in an invasion of Russia would be different. That's not what I'm talking about. Perhaps Ukraine has confused you? If we wanted to, we could end the war in Ukraine in a month. All Russian ground forces would be exposed to our air power and be slaughtered if they don't retreat. But then we'd be at war with Russia, which would be so stupid for the U.S. Especially over Ukraine.
I do think we'd have real trouble invading Russia, perhaps that's what you thought I meant?
It is what I would expect as a logical consequence. Perhaps not invading Russia but a war where the US is a target just about everywhere.
What do you expect 'as a logical consequence' of what? Russia isn't universally loved around the world either...
If we raise the ante, I feel that Russia also can. Was nore a reply to your earlier question.
But you are basing your opinion on something other than facts. No Russian general thinks Russia could win an air war with the U.S. Russia spends under 100bn on defense, we spend about 1 trillion. You seem to have bought into the hazy, BS thinking many supposedly heterodox/Red Pill types have fallen into about geopolitics and the world. Don't get confused. We 'lost' Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq due to a lack of political will to actually fight in a way that could win. They were 'wars on the cheap' that American policy makers could engage in without large, obvious costs to the American people. Think of them as 'luxury' wars that we could win or lose without a bad consequence for the American people. You haven't seen the U.S. fight a 'total war' since WWII. And in that case, the results were clear. The Russians would not have had a chance without U.S. LendLease...20% of U.S. defense spending during WWII went to the USSR. This idea of Russian military invincibility is a joke. Fun fact. The Russians finally did honest accounting of their losses in WWII and the true number is 39 million lost. They hide that because it reveals who awfully Stalin fought and how outmatched the Soviets were on the ground.
Fyi, I'm not a Russia hater. I do not want a thing to do with Ukraine - or Taiwan or Israel or any other nation not in our hemisphere. But I also see Russia for what it is, and Putin, who is a brilliant thug. I am saddened that the U.S. really blew the opportunity to build a constructive relationship with Russia in the '90s, instead of allowing the Russian people to be fed on by capitalist and criminal vultures for 10 years, which is why Putin comes to power. Americans do not understand that Russians antagonism towards the U.S. is earned by our arrogance and bullying on the world stage, nonstop. But many who cheerlead for Russia these days do not seem to understand how awful Russia is. Be clear - you have no privacy or irrevocable rights in Russia. Due process, press freedom and respect for basic human rights are not a given. Ed Snowden going their is proof he was a Russian agent or source, not that Russia is a great place...If you'd like, I can share some truthful info about Snowden, cuz most people believe total mythology about him.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, we were trying to take, clear and hold enough territory to control the nation but never put even half the forces on the ground required to actually do so. We engaged in half-baked nation-building, and then under Obama they, and other places we operate, were seen as opportunities to support Marxist/Socialist organizations and to bring 'Progress' and leftist forms of 'democracy' to those nations. Meaning feminism, gay rights, minority privileges and a very 'social' focus in general. We turned Kabul into our ideal of what Afghan could look like at a cost of billions. All wiped away in a week...
One should see Afghanistan and Iraq as the most ridiculously administered wars in the history of human civilization. In both cases, our immediate objectives were readily achieved. Letting Bin Laden escape into Pakistan was a political decision, not a military shortcoming. But neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are actually nations, lol - this is the first mistake Westerners make. Iraq was held together by Saddam's horrific terror campaign of political oppression and Afghanistan has never been 'held together' at all. Our attempts to 'nation-build' were non-starters. Comparing them to Japan or Germany is to show one knows nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan. Their own govts couldn't build functional, governable nations. Sigh...
Put it this way. If had put 500k troops and armor etc on the ground in Afghanistan we could have set up 'safe zones' and then proceeded to gain control of the 70% of the country we'd need to the entire country. The Afghans are not magical, the 'graveyard of empires stuff' is hype and nonsense. Look at the Brits and USSR experience, they were defeated due to their own mistakes. Brits never had enough force, neither did the USSR. The USSR made the additional mistake of mass slaughtering many, many Afghani innocents from heli gunships and armored vehicles etc. This unified otherwise competing war lords and tribes. Feeding an insurgency is never a smart idea. The U.S. has a viable counter insurgency doctrine that works when it's implemented, and worked in the areas it was tried in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we never had the territorial control required so the bad guys could just relocate to where ever we were not.
It's all so stupid. Talk to anyone deployed there, it was ridiculous. And cost us trillions. For what? To give Iraq to Iran and Afghanistan to the Taliban. Govts have been overthrown and leaders hung from lampposts for far less. The real problem with the U.S. is that the majority of people have already been subverted and don't realize it. They have no independent thoughts and don't even realize they are self-governing.
Rather, they just 'hate' the horrible, racist baddies and stupid conspiracy types and the icky woman haters and homo/transphobes etc. They have been convinced they are on the right side of history and do not question their dear leaders. We have not been a self-governing nation since WWI, and certainly not since WWII. In fact, I believe it's the mythology of WWII that convinced Americans it was okay for us to become an empire, as long as we don't call it an empire. As for WWII, who do you think 'won' it? Easy: The Soviets got Eastern Europe and parts of Japan and China, and Mao got China. The commies won WWII, but shhhhhhhh, you aren't supposed to notice this. Gen MacArthur has been slimed and unfairly destroyed reputationally by 'historians' cuz he had the gall to notice this...
Enough from me. Have a nice day.