'Eroded' U.S. Military Could Lose War Against Russia Or China

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
30,600
16,880
SoCal
#31
Spending ain't everything. Spending so much, to me, just means that the US military is getting overcharged like crazy for everything by their MIC...

But, as far as winning or losing a war with Russia... I would say it depends what sort of war.

Again, Russia could never effectively fight an offensive campaign against NATO.

But a defensive one, on own land, that would be a very, very different story.

It's not about the technology or the money. It's about the people.

Let me give you an example, a little story.

Look at this girl







Looks like just a regular little girl, right?

What if I told you, that this is Bogdana Nesheret, considered the youngest ever person to have fought on the separatst side in the Donbass, having been involved in the struggle there since the beginmning in 2014, when she was barely 9 (nine!) years old

having followed her father into the ranks of a militia

I recall one of her early photos from the war, on her VKontakte (Russian Facebook). The caption was "I cannot shoot my AK yet, it is too big and heavy for me right now. But I do what I can, I bring ammo to the grown up fighters out there, and I have bandaged the wounded sometimes. I help any way I can. No [slur for pro-Kiev Ukrainians] scum will walk on our Donbass land and remain alive!"

A nine year old girl wrote this. No joke. She's become a popular folk hero over the years, pretty much.

That's her in more recent times, this year, what, 13 now, training to become an officer in the separatist forces when grows up



My point, is this... That, above, that is who the Russians are, as a people.

I recall a conversation with a naive person here, who thought that if NATO manages to invade Russia, there would be adoring crowds waiting for them, thanking them for getting rid of Putin and what not, throwing flowers at their feet and such.

Those who think that know NOTHING of who the Russians are... I recall my own grandma, she was a partizan resistance fighter against the Germans. She wasn't stupid, she knew Stalin was an evil bastard. Hell, plenty of her own relatives were in GULag camps! But, as he told us "He [Stalin] was OURS. This is OUR country. Who the hell are some fucking Germans to come in here and try to change our government for us?"

Many young Russians may hate Putin today, and shout against him at their protests in the streets


But, guess what? If Western troops invade Russia tomorrow? Those kids will take up arms against them, most of them, and fight them to the fucking death. Because that is who the Russians are. They will NOT stand for a foreign occupation on their land. Period...

And American or British troops on Russian soil, in turn, would be giving their lives for... what exactly?

You see what I mean?
It reminds me of when we took Bahgdad, and the people were good with it, until some soldiers raised a US flag there, and suddenly the people started becoming angry. No one likes an occupier.
 
Likes: The Man

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
42,203
28,385
Toronto
#32
The United States “might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia,” concluded a recent report commissioned by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

This dire warning about the U.S. “crisis of national security” came as part of a ninety-eight page study from the independent National Defense Strategy Commission. The report identifies a series of strategic and domestic trends that have weakened American global standing over the past decades, and predicts drastic repercussions for American security if immediate steps are not taken to reverse the trajectory of U.S. military decline.

The report maintains that the twin specter of a resurgent Russia and rising China present a geopolitical threat “on a far greater scale than has any adversary since the Cold War’s end.” Another Cold War contrast working against the United States are “aggressive regional challengers.” Regional powers like Kim Jong-un’s North Korea can unilaterally exercise destabilizing effects on American allies, but are especially threatening as strategic proxies of America’s great power competitors.

The authors caution that a formal military alliance between Beijing and Moscow is not a necessary precondition for a war on two or more fronts, where America would fare particularly poorly due to suboptimal military resource distribution. Rather, a war with either Russia or China will cripple America’s deterrent capacity and thus incentivize other hostile powers to exploit American weakness with hybrid if not conventional military action.

The United States retains a fleeting edge in raw military power, but the report notes that modern conflicts are increasingly being waged in the “gray zone” between war and peace where America is being out-innovated by Russia and China in “everything from cyber warfare, everything from strong-arm diplomacy and economic coercion, to media manipulation and cyberattacks, to use of paramilitaries and proxy forces.”

The report stresses that America’s military advantage will, in fact, prove alarmingly fleeting if current trends hold. Not only is the global proliferation of advanced military hardware from WMDs to cruise missiles easier now than at any other time since WWII, but America’s technological supremacy is itself under assault. The United States trails “China and perhaps Russia as well” in hypersonic delivery vehicles and nuclear weapons research, even as its aging AIM-120 AMRAAM Missile system struggles to keep pace with new competitors , including the Russian K-37M and Chinese PL-15.

These trends are enabled by what the report condemns as “disinvestment in defense,” as a result of “decisions made by both major parties.” But the authors go on to stress that what is needed isn’t just more spending, but more effective spending on key security concerns. In particular, the report suggests a long-term investment plan to modernize America’s aging nuclear arsenal to at least match if not exceed the rapid pace of Russian and Chinese innovation.

The report recommends that the Department of Defense recommit to a military that is sized and structured to effectively wage two simultaneous wars. This “two-war force sizing construct” is vital not so much to win a prospective two-front war, as to deter one with a secondary force capable of imposing unacceptable costs on hostile actors seeking to intervene in a major ongoing U.S. conflict with Russia or China.

Against the backdrop of seemingly long-term policy gridlock in Washington, the NDSC report concludes on a stark note of urgency: “The costs of failing to meet America’s crisis of national defense and national security will not be measured in abstract concepts like ‘international stability’ and ‘global order.’ They will be measured in American lives, American treasure, and American security and prosperity lost.”
Report: America Must Be Able to Wage and Win Two Wars at Once (Think Russia or China)
 

Similar Discussions