Not neccesarily. You have to take into account the situation on the ground.
WOI: Germany fought a two front war and actually won! The only reasons Germany surrendered was because of domestic commie uprising.
WOII: this was a very close call.
a. Stalingrad were Marshall Paulus surrendered a million man army with all the equipment etc, was a major drag. However, if he had held on, like he was ordered to do, a second front was a problematic proposition.
b. Kursk battle: this was a win for the soviets by the skin of their teeth.
c. Between 44 and 45, after an incessant bombing campaign Germany was having trouble to marshall enough resources to effectively fight, but strong enough to break the allies in the West twice, once at Arnhem, and the second time at the Ardennes.
The fighting effectiveness of the German army in the west was about 1:10. On the eastern front, let' s just stop at 1:50. It would become embarrassing.
So no .... a two front war can be fought, depending on many circumstances.
The US has this as a doctrine, to be able to fight a two front war.
Let' s consider what you mean with: Biden invasion into Ukraine.
This is quite a difficult proposition. First Ukraine should be a NATO ally, This would immediately put US nose to nose with Russia due to the Crimea drinkwater situation. Lukhansk en Donbass are chips that can be bargained for. But more importantly, the gas reserves in Crimea, and the power projection that gives into th blacksea vis a vis Turkey.
They had hoped that of the couple of 100 thousand troops and extra equipment surrounding Ukraine a lot would have been moved to Kazakhstan. It did not happen.
Another gambit is playing too. Sweden and Finland to become NATO members too.
At this late date, where events are unfolding rapidly, NATO should not be considered an ally of the USA. Recent lessons learned: things in this world are definitely not what they have been advertised to be. New World Order controls both UN and NATO, which are not, and maybe never were, aligned with any effort toward humanity, it is a sophisticated power structure for a globalized world intent on taking our sovereignty and rights away, to say nothing of their World Health Organization's intent on introducing a depopulation effort and AI through vaccination into the human Genome. Spiked proteins and electromagnetic control are just not the way to go, ... do you understand the ramifications?
True! Winning is a difficult matter in any war scenario. The first victim always is the plan. A billion things can go wrong, and may turn the victory to the other party.
Achieving superiority is the name of the game.
If you can disrupt command, you disrupt communications, you disrupt logistics, you disrupt deployment, you win.
Not neccesarily. You have to take into account the situation on the ground.
WOI: Germany fought a two front war and actually won! The only reasons Germany surrendered was because of domestic commie uprising.
WOII: this was a very close call. a. Stalingrad were Marshall Paulus surrendered a million man army with all the equipment etc, was a major drag. However, if he had held on, like he was ordered to do, a second front was a problematic proposition. b. Kursk battle: this was a win for the soviets by the skin of their teeth. c. Between 44 and 45, after an incessant bombing campaign Germany was having trouble to marshall enough resources to effectively fight, but strong enough to break the allies in the West twice, once at Arnhem, and the second time at the Ardennes.
The fighting effectiveness of the German army in the west was about 1:10. On the eastern front, let' s just stop at 1:50. It would become embarrassing.
So no .... a two front war can be fought, depending on many circumstances.
The US has this as a doctrine, to be able to fight a two front war.
Let' s consider what you mean with: Biden invasion into Ukraine.
This is quite a difficult proposition. First Ukraine should be a NATO ally, This would immediately put US nose to nose with Russia due to the Crimea drinkwater situation. Lukhansk en Donbass are chips that can be bargained for. But more importantly, the gas reserves in Crimea, and the power projection that gives into th blacksea vis a vis Turkey.
They had hoped that of the couple of 100 thousand troops and extra equipment surrounding Ukraine a lot would have been moved to Kazakhstan. It did not happen.
Another gambit is playing too. Sweden and Finland to become NATO members too.
At this late date, where events are unfolding rapidly, NATO should not be considered an ally of the USA. Recent lessons learned: things in this world are definitely not what they have been advertised to be. New World Order controls both UN and NATO, which are not, and maybe never were, aligned with any effort toward humanity, it is a sophisticated power structure for a globalized world intent on taking our sovereignty and rights away, to say nothing of their World Health Organization's intent on introducing a depopulation effort and AI through vaccination into the human Genome. Spiked proteins and electromagnetic control are just not the way to go, ... do you understand the ramifications?
Thanks. I understand that it can be fought, and even planned for, but winning is an entirely different matter.
True! Winning is a difficult matter in any war scenario. The first victim always is the plan. A billion things can go wrong, and may turn the victory to the other party.
Achieving superiority is the name of the game. If you can disrupt command, you disrupt communications, you disrupt logistics, you disrupt deployment, you win.
War is logistics. Always.
USA has done it
Israel won a 3 front war in the 6 day war
Two words: Germany, Japan.
Joke's on him, as he is focused on Ukraine, China will attack Taiwan.