Which would be of a greater strategic advantage to Russia for an inevitable direct confrontation with the US- taking on the US directly or taking on the US via a lesser trained proxy (Ukraine troops) first and then the US directly after the US has sent almost all its ammo to Ukraine?
Russia stands a greater chance of winning vs the US if the US’s ammo is shot by lesser trained troops. All the guns and launchers the US still has are worthless if there’s nothing to load them with because it was used elsewhere by someone else. The longer this goes, the weaker the US becomes because they aren’t ramping up replenishing the ammo like was done during WW2 and other major conflicts.
Which would be of a greater strategic advantage to Russia for an inevitable direct confrontation with the US- taking on the US directly or taking on the US via a lesser trained proxy (Ukraine troops) first and then the US directly after the US has sent almost all its ammo to Ukraine?
Russia stands a greater chance of winning vs the US if the US’s ammo is shot by lesser trained troops. All the guns and launchers the US still has are worthless if there’s nothing to load them with because it was used elsewhere by someone else. The longer this goes, the weaker the US becomes because they aren’t ramping up replenishing the ammo like was done during WW2 and other major conflicts.