Winning a conventional war with Russia would be easy.
Sorry, I disagree. Would you say that defeating Russia would be easier than defeating Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan? How did those conflicts work out?
"Easy" wars in the past have relied on people with rifles fighting people with spears. These days air superiority is relied on. As soon as the UK came up against a similarly equipped Germany in WW1 all bets of the conflict being over in a fortnight evaporated.
The other issue is that if by some chance it did look like Russia would be defeated they would use the nuclear option. We would be foolish to think otherwise. So, the choices are either that we let Russia win, whatever that means, or we engage in a nuclear war.
Russia has engaged in many series of talks over Ukraine and The West has cheated on every one of them. Either someone is not thinking straight or they want a war.
The DS/Cabal wants a war with Russia. They would want a long drawn out ground war. Rest assured that won’t happen. But having a plan is smart. NK, Vietnam and Afghanistan were all wars where the coach intentionally threw the game. Just like Obama was trying to throw the game with ISIS, etc. Ad that to the historical narratives that they want you to believe. Trump blew that up with ISIS and to a significant extent with Afghanistan.
Just imagine that the Russians had no air defense capability and no ground vehicles west of a given line in Russia. Weeks.
I might imagine that but they do have air defence and they already have ground vehicles west of Russia altogether in Ukraine?
If you had an Abrams tank and you took it across country from the east or west border to the middle of Russia that would take about a week if the crews needed to sleep even if they met no opposition.
The ground forces never have to leave NATO confines. We have some really cool weapons that are not classified but never really discussed. They are part of my concept of “Accelerated Warfare”. One way to think about it: we have gone from multiple aircraft for one target to one aircraft for one target to one aircraft for multiple targets and expanded the number of targets per aircraft.
You might have a shiny new plane on the runway but that does not always make it a success. It may work with good runways, clean fuel, expert pilots, maintenance crews with access to the factory but out in the conflict area you really want something to: a) never go wrong and b) when it does, you need to be able to fix it easily.
Russia has ironed out many difficulties in Ukraine. The US has not even started that process yet.
Thinking back to WW2, Germany had the Junkers 87 "Stuka" dive bomber. It was devastating in Spain prior to WW2. The UK was still using biplanes at the time but by 1939 the RAF had Hawker Hurricanes and suddenly the Stukas became easy prey.
Then again, we just had the 80th commemoration of D-Day. it took the combined allied a year to get from France to Germany which is just next door. If you start in Crimea you can fly for 5,000 miles in a straight line and still be over Russia.
Russia is hard to defend because of its shear size and length of border. However, that also means it is hard to defeat.
The DS’s three main tactics: cut our spare parts, promote generals that don’t know how to fight a war properly and political leadership that will throw the game. Those are all potentially quick fixes.
If they leave Mar-A-Lago alone, that would work.
Wrong coast putin! California is on the other side!
Oh I don't know - Washington DC, or something.
Nah, They need to be aiming for DC.
I wouldn't blink if they took out NYC as well. Libtard shitholes
Exactly! I'll even give him my home address so the missile can land on my front lawn. Solve all my problems!
I don't know how the 51 number appeared. It was a fluke.
What are these "critical minerals" he speaks of?
And does Graham think for one second he's going to win a war with Russia?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/10/ukraine-russia-energy-mineral-wealth/
It's probably the lithium they want the most so they can make more batteries.
Winning a conventional war with Russia would be easy. But nukes and if they would use them is the question.
Sorry, I disagree. Would you say that defeating Russia would be easier than defeating Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan? How did those conflicts work out?
"Easy" wars in the past have relied on people with rifles fighting people with spears. These days air superiority is relied on. As soon as the UK came up against a similarly equipped Germany in WW1 all bets of the conflict being over in a fortnight evaporated.
The other issue is that if by some chance it did look like Russia would be defeated they would use the nuclear option. We would be foolish to think otherwise. So, the choices are either that we let Russia win, whatever that means, or we engage in a nuclear war.
Russia has engaged in many series of talks over Ukraine and The West has cheated on every one of them. Either someone is not thinking straight or they want a war.
The DS/Cabal wants a war with Russia. They would want a long drawn out ground war. Rest assured that won’t happen. But having a plan is smart. NK, Vietnam and Afghanistan were all wars where the coach intentionally threw the game. Just like Obama was trying to throw the game with ISIS, etc. Ad that to the historical narratives that they want you to believe. Trump blew that up with ISIS and to a significant extent with Afghanistan.
Just imagine that the Russians had no air defense capability and no ground vehicles west of a given line in Russia. Weeks.
I might imagine that but they do have air defence and they already have ground vehicles west of Russia altogether in Ukraine?
If you had an Abrams tank and you took it across country from the east or west border to the middle of Russia that would take about a week if the crews needed to sleep even if they met no opposition.
The ground forces never have to leave NATO confines. We have some really cool weapons that are not classified but never really discussed. They are part of my concept of “Accelerated Warfare”. One way to think about it: we have gone from multiple aircraft for one target to one aircraft for one target to one aircraft for multiple targets and expanded the number of targets per aircraft.
Apart from Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan there was the time that the British RAF nuked the USA twice.
You might have a shiny new plane on the runway but that does not always make it a success. It may work with good runways, clean fuel, expert pilots, maintenance crews with access to the factory but out in the conflict area you really want something to: a) never go wrong and b) when it does, you need to be able to fix it easily.
Russia has ironed out many difficulties in Ukraine. The US has not even started that process yet.
Thinking back to WW2, Germany had the Junkers 87 "Stuka" dive bomber. It was devastating in Spain prior to WW2. The UK was still using biplanes at the time but by 1939 the RAF had Hawker Hurricanes and suddenly the Stukas became easy prey.
Then again, we just had the 80th commemoration of D-Day. it took the combined allied a year to get from France to Germany which is just next door. If you start in Crimea you can fly for 5,000 miles in a straight line and still be over Russia.
Russia is hard to defend because of its shear size and length of border. However, that also means it is hard to defeat.
Conventional Defeat is not hard, but conquer would be extremely hard and not worth it.
I think winning a conventional war with Russia was attainable at one time, but not anymore. The cabal has ruined our military.
The DS’s three main tactics: cut our spare parts, promote generals that don’t know how to fight a war properly and political leadership that will throw the game. Those are all potentially quick fixes.