Written by Andrei
http://thesaker.is/revisiting-the-basics-about-the-current-balance-of-military-power/
———
Keywords:
Banderastan / ukies means UKraine
LDNR. means Donetsk & Lugansk republics (breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine)


Who is the strongest?
Who is the best?
Who holds the aces
The East Or the West?
This is the crap our children are learning!
Roger Waters (1987)


I noticed that my remarks about the silly PR stunt with a US CVN in the Med elicited some reactions in the comments section. And it is true, that both sides, Russia and the “collective West”, are declaring themselves as militarily stronger, so all I offer to do today is a quick recap of a few basic facts. Let’s take the full spectrum of possible wars and check out the correlation of forces on each level. We also need to revisit each time what “victory” or “defeat” could mean in each case.

LDNR vs Banderastan

Here we are assuming a “clean” Ukie vs LDNR conflict (no external actors) which, by itself, is completely artificial. The West backs the Ukies and Russia backs the LDNR. Still, we can say a few things about such a possible conflict. The Ukies have higher numbers and they would have the initiative, at least initially, since they would be the attacking side. Not only that, but the Ukies can play a very exhausting game against the LDNR: *almost* launch a full-scale attack and then pull back. Over and over again. This would place a huge strain on the LDNR defenders (for those interested in the topic of the advantages yielded by such a tactic should read Richard Bett’s excellent book Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning written in distant 1982 but still full of useful lessons). From the LDNR’s side, the best option here is to combine strong intelligence capabilities with an echeloned defense in-depth, possibly including three echelons all designed to “snap around” any penetrating force. Well-prepared defenses can also entice/channel an attacking force into a “fire cauldron”. But let’s be realistic here, the LDNR knows that Russia will never allow the Ukie force to break through the LDNR defenses, so “all” the LDNR forces need to do, is to hold their defenses long enough for the Russians to decide to strike. That means minutes, possibly hours, but not days, let alone weeks.

Considering the truly immense difference in morale and training, my personal guess is that the Ukies won’t be able to break through the LDNR defenses before being hammered by Russian standoff weapons. There is even a real possibility that the LDNR forces might repeal the Ukronazis without any real Russian intervention.

However, while to force the Russians to intervene would be a military defeat for the Ukies, but it would be a political triumph for the collective West which has created the entire Banderastan with the sole purpose of making it “Russia’s Afghanistan” or “Russia’s Vietnam” or whatever other silly metaphor the western “specialists” love to come up with. Which begs the question: what is the point of “winning” militarily when you lose politically? Is war not still the continuation of politics by other means?

In any case, the “pure” LDNR vs Banderastan scenario is really meaningless. We need to go one step up in the horror scale.

Banderastan vs LDNR+Russia

Here, again, the Ukies would have the advantage of surprise, at least in theory. My personal bet is that the Russian intelligence services would know about any such move even before the Ukie commanders. Other than that, the case of Banderastan vs LDNR+Russia is not all that different from the “pure” LDNR vs Banderastan scenario, with the crucial difference that if the Ukies force Russia to intervene the Russians will need a couple of days max (instead of hours) to not necessarily destroy all the Ukie units or forces, but to turn the Ukrainian military into a completely disorganized force incapable of actual military operations (I refer to this as “defanging”). To achieve this goal the Russians would not have to move a single soldier across the border, their standoff weapons and EW/A2/AD capabilities would be more than sufficient to achieve this result.

But here, again, we would see a Russian military triumph turn into a political triumph for the West. What would be the point for Russia?

There is also another danger here: Russian over-reach. I strongly believe that the Nazi-occupied Ukraine is the equivalent of a limb infected with gangrene: this limb presents a major threat to the rest of the body and needs to be cut off and the part of the body it used to be attached to needs to be thoroughly disinfected. As for the limb itself, it can die from its own toxins, who cares? Here I am not referring to the LDNR (although things are not all idyllic there either!), but to the parts of the Ukraine which both the LDNR and the Russians might be most tempted to liberate from the Nazis, including Mariupol and the rest of the Ukie coast, and also including most of the currently Nazi-occupied territory East of the Dniepr river. To liberate it would be a no-brainer, at least in military terms, but then Russia would “own” this territory and, therefore, be responsible not only for maintaining law and order but also for the reconstruction of this large and basically deindustrialized piece of land. This is a cost Russia has no moral obligation to shoulder (and no means to do so anyway).

Furthermore, it would be wrong to think that the entire population of these territories would welcome the Russians with flowers (like they welcomed the Nazis in WWII in the western Ukraine), there are a lot of real Ukronazis living there too. Furthermore, there are plenty of folks in the eastern Ukraine who would want a Russian pension in Rubles but who don’t give a damn about Russia and her civilizational values. I think of them as “civilizational parasites”.

But if Putin gives the order to stop more or less at the current line of contact, all the “armchair generals” would immediately blame him for not liberating the rest of the Ukraine!

Remember that the current narrative of western PSYOPs is not that Putin is too patriotic, it is that he is not patriotic enough (that is the same crowd who blames Putin for “allowing Israel to bomb Syria” by the way). So, let’s say that the Ukies attack, the LDNR defenses hold, Russia de-fangs the Ukie military with standoff weapons, and the LDNR forces, backed by Russia, push the line of contact somewhat to the West, but not too much, certainly far short of liberating a big chunk of the Ukraine. Here is what the US PSYOPs will do in that case: they will push all of the following narratives in parallel:

The limited Russian intervention proves that Russia is dangerous and aggressive, so the entire freedom-loving continent should unite against Russia lest Putin pushes his tanks to Portugal or even invade Mexico! Only the show unity and force of the US and its NATO “allies” stopped the Russian bear from going any further!
Putin is a weak leader, a puppet of the Bilderbergers and the CFR, he is all bluff and all that Russian propaganda about Russia holding all the military cards is an empty bluff too. Proof? Well, if the Russian military was that strong, it would not have stopped so far in the East. QED.
The Ukie military, thanks to NATO kit and training, was sufficient to stop the Russians. Just like the Georgian military “stopped the Russians” (13km from Tbilissi!) in 08.08.08. The Russian military is a paper tiger, we are the best, we won, HURRAY!!! We can “woke away” in peace.
This kind of nonsense has been posted all over the Internet for years already, and if the Russians do not at least reach the Dniepr river, this will be the “proof” to those folks that they were right all along.

[Sidebar: By the way, this is EXACTLY what Israel is doing in Syria. Bombing poorly defended and irrelevant locations on a regular basis thereby “proving” that:
Israel remains “invincible”
Proving that Russian air defenses suck against superior Israeli technology
Alternatively, proving that Putin is a tool or, at least, ally of the Israelis
The fact that all these Israeli strikes have made exactly ZERO military difference on the ground where both Russia and Iran are holding all the cards is conveniently obfuscated by that kind of nonsense. What is really happening is this: Russian (owned and manned) air defenses in Syria only have as a mission to protect Russian forces in/near Khmeimim and Tartus (no, Russia NEVER had the objective of protecting all of Syria from IDF attacks – why should Russia fight somebody else’s war?). Other than that, the Russians did sell a number of air defenses to the Syrians (who now own and man them) and they are quite effective at protecting militarily important objectives in Syria, that is precisely why the Israelis are only bombing clothing storage containers, border posts and empty buildings. Such easy to strike objectives need not be important, as long as there is a loud BOOM followed by a big fire and the Israelis get to declare victory. The questions which, apparently, nobody asks are these:
if the Israeli strikes are so effective, why does nothing change militarily in Syria?
if the Syrians decided to retaliate and fire their (few) ballistic missiles into Israel, what would Israel do and could the Syrian air defenses deal with a truly fullscale Israeli bomb and missile attack (the correct answer is: no).
what would the Russians gain if they began shooting down Israeli aircraft in or even outside Syrian airspace?
The truth is that for the Israelis looking victorious is much much more important than defeating the Syrians. Again, the APPEARANCE of victory matters much more to the (terminally narcissistic) Israelis than actually defeating the Syrians or anybody else (including Iran or Hezbollah) for that matter. The exact same goes for the entire West]
Let’s keep in this mind when we look at the next level:

NATO vs Russia

While this option is discussed ad nauseam these days, it is a fiction. The truth of the matter is simple: NATO does not have the means to attack Russia and neither does Russia have the means to attack NATO. Yes, both sides have standoff weapons that they could use against each other, but standoff weapons alone do not win wars. And the truth is that NATO is not anywhere near the kind of force levels needed to project these forces into the Ukrainian theater of military operations. It would take NATO many months, if not years, to achieve such a capability (remember how long “Desert Shield” took?).

As for the Russians, yes, they do have a powerful armored “fist” near (100km-400km) the Ukrainian border, but its size clearly indicates its real function: to prevent a Ukie breakthrough and occupation of the LDNR, not to prepare for an invasion of the entire Ukraine or, even less so, of the EU. Most of the Russian forces are located further away from the Ukrainian border simply because they are not needed there. Duh!

Some idiots have recently suggested that the US+NATO could deploy landing ships in the Black Sea and attempt a landing to open a second “jarhead front” against Russia. Other not less stupid people have suggested that the US+NATO could move its “mobile forces” to assist the Ukies. What they never ask is a) what is the actual size of US+NATO “mobile forces” (whatever that means) b) what is the firepower of such a force and 3) what is the tactical mobility of such forces, especially when faced with a combined arms army. As for the Black Sea, it is in military terms, a Russian lake as Russia has the means to sink any ship anywhere on the Black Sea in minutes. And the bigger the target, the easier its destruction.

Finally, NATO and the EU are much more preoccupied with having either women and/or trannies running their forces than thinking about actual, real, warfare.

The EU/NATO are nothing but a quite ridiculously dysfunctional freak circus, not a military threat.

So let’s go one level up:

US vs Russia (conventional)

Do I really need to say it? The folks who lost every single war they fought since WWII and who cannot even defeat vastly inferior forces in a massive operation lasting for DECADES with total air supremacy will take on Russia?

Seriously

Okay, the US military has one major advantage over the Russians: numbers. While Russian military hardware is often much more modern and capable than the old stuff used by the US, the US can produce its old stuff in much higher numbers, while also modernizing them, which can be quite cost-effective. A modern F-15 is very different from the original F-15s, and the same goes for many US weapons systems. True! But consider this: did the most up-to-date F-15s (or any other modernized US weapons system) make ANY difference at all in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq? None of course. Why? Because only boots on the ground can truly win a war.

Furthermore, the Russians are on a truly crazy building spree, they produce increasing numbers of advanced warfare systems which, over time, will negate the current numerical US advantage, especially considering that the US is also busy threatening war against both Iran and even China! If, as the Chinese have now officially declared, Russia and China are “more than allies”, then even in raw numbers the US is already hopelessly outgunned.

For the time being, if the US-Russian war remains conventional, Russia has the qualitative advantage over the US in most, if not all, crucial weapons systems. She also has “boots on the ground” which can fight hard won battles (something neither the USA, not Israel nor the KSA have, hence all their defeats by technologically much inferior enemies).

What about all the US “allies” then? They are useful politically, to present unilateral US imperialism as something endorsed by most of the planet (by that they mean most governments, not most people!). But in military terms, they are at best irrelevant and mostly a nuisance, a factor weakening the USA (I explained it all here and here, and won’t repost it all now).

What about the “lethal weapons” delivered by the West to the Nazi forces? They would be formidable if the idea was to refight WWII but on a small scale. For modern warfare, they are, at best, a small sideshow, even the overhyped Turkish Bayraktars which are actually rather mediocre drones by modern standards. That is also all PR.

So what about going nuclear?

USA vs Russia (nuclear)

First, “nuclear war” can mean anything, from a single nuclear mine or artillery shell to an ICBM. In terms of tactical nukes, Russia has more of them and is much better prepared to fight a battle involving tactical nukes. Also, the US heavily depends on the USN to have the numbers of cruise missiles needed for a major war, but at least the entire USN surface fleet has now been rendered obsolete by Russian hypersonic missiles (see below). So what Uncle Shmuel is left with are SSNs with high subsonic cruise missiles, not much of a challenge for Russian air defenses (again, see below). It will take years to retrofit current US SSNs with hypersonic weapons (once the latter reaches IOC, to begin with).

But the real point is this: the USA has no useful air defenses (especially with the USN “out”), never mind anti-ballistic missile defenses. Why? Because they never needed them in the first place! That is the big advantage of attacking weak or even defenseless countries, they can’t do anything to either stop you or punish you. In sharp contrast, Russia has the most heavily fortified airspace on the planet, and it is only getting better and better prepared (even to deal with space and hypersonic weapons, see below).

There are two ways of deterring an enemy: denial and punishment. The first means preventing the other side from successfully striking you while the second means inflicting such retaliation upon the other side that even a successful attack would come at an unacceptable cost.

Right now, if both sides launched all their nuclear forces, they can destroy each other and neither side can prevent that outcome. Both sides understand that. So punishment is hardly an attractive option.

However, ever since Ronald Reagan, the USA wanted to have some kind of “shield” which would protect the USA (and NATO?) from a Russian counter-nuclear strike (while giving the US a chance to strike first and disarm and decapitate the Soviets). And, typically, while the AngloZionists made a lot of very cool and nonsensical PR (“it is to defend the EU from Iran!!!”) while bringing in immense contracts to produce nothing useful while filling the pockets of the most corrupt MIC on the planet, the Russians actually deployed such a type of system.

First around Moscow only, but gradually in other locations. Please read this to figure out what the Russians are doing now (especially since the US has reneged on almost all disarmament treaties out there). Here is the bottom line: once enough S-400s are deployed along the Russian periphery and once they are fully integrated into a unified air defense space ranging from MANPADs to the newest S-500/S-550 Russia will have an effective ABM shield.

Right now, the Russians simply don’t have the numbers of missiles to stop a full-scale US ICBM+SLBM+ALCM+SLCM attack, but they already have what it would take a more limited one (keep in mind that a fully successful US ICBM+SLBM+ALCM+SLCM, even if it would decapitate the entire Russian leadership, would only result in the USA disappearing from the surface of our planet (please read this and this if you require clarifications). Hardly the definition of “victory”, even for narcissistic AngloZionists :-)

As for Russia, why would she ever even consider using nukes against the USA?

The Empire is already dead, and so is the USA. Russia does not need to risk collective suicide to strike at a dead corpse, no matter how big its residual inertia can be.

Addendum: What about all the hypersonic weapons being deployed right now?

What about them? Russia has deployed a family of fully operational hypersonic weapons, from short/medium-range tactical ballistic missiles to long-range ASuW missiles to intercontinental missiles with maneuverable glide vehicles.

Compare that with the US which can’t even achieve IOC for an intermediate-range hypersonic missile, never mind an intercontinental one (the difference in speed is massive)!

Russia also now has several air/space defense systems, including mobile ones, which already have both limited anti-satellite and anti-hypersonic missile capabilities. Not just one, several. And these are already deployed. And they are being improved by the day (see the recent Russian ASAT test).

The EU has nothing worth even discussing, so let’s look at China instead.

The Chinese are even further behind hypersonic weapons research than the USA: they do have a glide vehicle in testing, but these just don’t have anywhere near the maneuverability/accuracy needed to be effective (yet!). But when you look at the immense progress China has made over the years, I would not discount them, especially in their capability to deploy an effective intermediate-range hypersonic missile system.

Finally, keep in mind that Russia cannot allow the US to defeat China under any circumstances, as if China is defeated, the aggregate power of the USA+EU+US colonies in Asia would dwarf the Russian weapons systems (or good and services) production capabilities.

The Chinese have now contacted the Russians to help them build their own ABM system. That clearly shows that China has no illusions about the USA and that they are also preparing for war. Last, but certainly not least, the Chinese MIC is not nearly as corrupt as the US one, and that is why they don’t deploy such crap as the F-35 or the Zumwalt. It will take the Chinese to catch up, but my bet is that they will do that much sooner than expected.

Conclusion:

First, for all the PR manufactured by paid and unpaid western propagandists, Russia does hold all the military cards.

The Russian problems are not military, they are political: how to defang the US+NATO without having to openly intervene in the Ukraine? How to regime-change the Nazis in Kiev without an open intervention? How to counter the truly formidable AngloZionist propaganda machine which has, at least so far, very effectively concealed from its consumers the very real military danger the collective West and its delusions are running into at full speed? How to counter the (very dangerous) propaganda of those supposed “patriots” who dream about a Russian liberation of (most of) the Ukraine?

There are those who want to keep it all simple, stupid. Alas, the reality is much more complex and the kind of idiocy uninformed civilians take seriously has no relation at all to the real world military decision-makers have to live in every day.

So the bottom line is this: Uncle Shmuel needs a face-saving “out” which his own ideology and propaganda deny him. The Europeans are too brainwashed to understand even the basic elements of what is at stake, while Russia is desperate not to use military force, but she might well be given no other choice: the Russians have now literally retreated behind their own national border. If somebody, anybody, or any combination of anybodies, crosses the “red line” known as the “Russian border”, it will be war. Then, of course, it will all become very clear very quickly, but by then it will be too late: war will be upon us.

Our Creator is a merciful God, and maybe there are still enough sober-minded specialists in the USA who will do what it takes to prevent that outcome? I sure hope so and maybe, just maybe, a miracle will happen in January. But what keeps me awake at night is the horrible realization that for millions of terminally brainwashed ignoramuses, there seem to be only very few sober-minded people left in the US ruling elites. Judging by the output of the AngloZionist propaganda the big corporate money in the USA is fully behind the Woke agenda and cares very little about war in Europe. And, after all, why would a civilization which is already actively committing cultural, psychological, sociological, biological, and even civilizational suicide care about a possible nuclear suicide?

The West claims it is ready to fight, but has nothing left to fight for.

Conversely,

How do you deter a death cult (which is all what the real “modern western values” are in reality)?

Will Putin and Xi, aided by Khamenei and others, pull off such a miraculous feat?

Could they, even theoretically?

I honestly don’t know.

So all I am left with is the hope for God’s mercy and a miracle. Miracles do happen. I have seen several in my own life. But they don’t happen that often. And this also begs the question of whether we, as a species, even deserve such a miracle? We know that the world will end, the Antichrist will come, and he will be defeated by Christ’s 2nd Coming. Christianity believes that while this outcome is not in doubt, it is inevitable, it can be delayed by our prayers and actions. In other words, while Armageddon is inevitable, we can, and must, try to do everything in our power to delay it.

I think that many have tried.

Will that be enough this time around?

Will there be enough righteous souls counted by God to save our planet?

Again, I don’t know.

I will end this with the troparion of the great prophet and saint who once pleaded for God’s mercy on His sinful creatures, our righteous forefather Abraham:

In the night of universal ignorance towards God, and in the starless, profound gloom bereft of heavenly light, thou, O Abraham, wast kindled in the firmament, burning with bright far-shining faith in the Everlasting Light, Who shone forth to us from thy seed. Do thou entreat Him with fervour, that He enlighten us and save our souls.

Andrei

Lol... A long epistle from the self-claimed "woke people" to explain nothing.

I like how you all always downplay the capability of the US. It makes for a good read.

The hail mary phrase of "Lost all the wars since WWII" is always the first blow. Follow by touting weapon systems that aren't battle tested (in contested environment) and claiming superiority to ones that have been tested and proven themselves.

Well it's a new year. I hope you lots do a lot more reading this year before displaying ignorance on a public forum

owagbeba:
The EU has nothing worth even discussing, so let’s look at China instead.

The Chinese are even further behind hypersonic weapons research than the USA: they do have a glide vehicle in testing, but these just don’t have anywhere near the maneuverability/accuracy needed to be effective (yet!). But when you look at the immense progress China has made over the years, I would not discount them, especially in their capability to deploy an effective intermediate-range hypersonic missile system.

Finally, keep in mind that Russia cannot allow the US to defeat China under any circumstances, as if China is defeated, the aggregate power of the USA+EU+US colonies in Asia would dwarf the Russian weapons systems (or good and services) production capabilities.

The Chinese have now contacted the Russians to help them build their own ABM system. That clearly shows that China has no illusions about the USA and that they are also preparing for war. Last, but certainly not least, the Chinese MIC is not nearly as corrupt as the US one, and that is why they don’t deploy such crap as the F-35 or the Zumwalt. It will take the Chinese to catch up, but my bet is that they will do that much sooner than expected.

I think most US weapons are more advanced than Russian weapons on paper. Especially, fighter jets & warships. The US also has the capacity to buy them in large numbers compare to Russia.

But Russian military is big & strong enough to discourage the US or NATO from fighting her. A war with Russia is a world war & it can lead to a nuclear war, which will be a disaster for the globe.

If NATO is such a joke why is Russia crying its heart out that Ukraine wants to join? Is Ukraine so powerful that Russia think it will unmake NATO a joke?

olugabbie:



I think most US weapons are more advanced than Russian weapons on paper. Especially, fighter jets & warships. The US also has the capacity to buy them in large numbers compare to Russia.

But Russian military is big & strong enough to discourage the US or NATO from fighting her. A war with Russia is a world war & it can lead to a nuclear war, which will be a disaster for the globe.

That truth is US can print as much paper dollar as she wants and can afford to build any war machine imagined but that doesn’t make these machines formidable.

Imagine having a floating airport( aircraft carriers) but can not dear bring it to theater of war when faced with a formidable adversary. That shows you these machines expensive as they are, are just for show.

When Houthis struct aramco facility in Saudi Arabia, I was astonished that the hyped patriot failed to protect this Oil facility.

No doubt the US have some mean machines that have proved their worth in second tier level of warfare, but when faced with a formidable adversary like Russia, China, will these machines deliver?

vedaxcool:
If NATO is such a joke why is Russia crying its heart out that Ukraine wants to join? Is Ukraine so powerful that Russia think it will unmake NATO a joke?

Russia is crying out because such a move may ignite WW3. The scenario envisages a war that Russia might not avoid.

Ukraine would try to reclaim the eastern regions dominated by ethnic Russians. Russia will, at first , assist them indirectly by fire support. But with overwhelming NATO support and Russia boots on ground to assist LDNR, events may spiral out of country : direct Russia and NATO combat. Now we are in full scale war... and quick to go Nuclear

OP; first of all stop copy and pasting nonsense here. 2ndly, you get time o! All these wotowoto 20 pages of ejo wewe who get time to read now …

Now it looks like you’re downplaying the US military might abi ? Jokes on you bro

emae009:
Lol... A long epistle from the self-claimed "woke people" to explain nothing.

I like how you all always downplay the capability of the US. It makes for a good read.

The hail mary phrase of "Lost all the wars since WWII" is always the first blow. Follow by touting weapon systems that aren't battle tested (in contested environment) and claiming superiority to ones that have been tested and proven themselves.

Well it's a new year. I hope you lots do a lot more reading this year before displaying ignorance on a public forum

The part “lost all wars since ww2” got me thinking:

How many wars have the US won since WW2?
Korea?
Vietnam?
Somalia?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Yemen?
Cuba ( bay of pigs) ?
Syria?
Libya?
Bosnia?

I really can’t think of any of these wars that US successfully fought to a completion and a win.

Andrei ( the original writer) may be right on this one.

sunboy:
OP; first of all stop copy and pasting nonsense here. 2ndly, you get time o! All these wotowoto 20 pages of ejo wewe who get time to read now …

Now it looks like you’re downplaying the US military might abi ? Jokes on you bro

If you didn’t read the whole “epistle” how do then discuss it’s content?

May be the joke is on you, bro

owagbeba:


The part “lost all wars since ww2” got me thinking:

How many wars have the US won since WW2?
Korea?
Vietnam?
Somalia?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Yemen?
Cuba ( bay of pigs) ?
Syria?
Libya?
Bosnia?

I really can’t think of any of these wars that US successfully fought to a completion and a win.

Andrei ( the original writer) may be right on this one.

please define what winning would be to you in all those wars?
Committing genocides and importing Americans to come live there? Change of flag or Anthem?
what exactly is this winning you guys keep wailing about.

owagbeba:


Russia is crying out because such a move may ignite WW3. The scenario envisages a war that Russia might not avoid.

Ukraine would try to reclaim the eastern regions dominated by ethnic Russians. Russia will, at first , assist them indirectly by fire support. But with overwhelming NATO support and Russia boots on ground to assist LDNR, events may spiral out of country : direct Russia and NATO combat. Now we are in full scale war... and quick to go Nuclear

this jokes don't write themselves. So suddenly NATO is not a joke but a threat? Very hollow analysis don't you think?

emae009:


please define what winning would be to you in all those wars?
Committing genocides and importing Americans to come live there? Change of flag or Anthem?
what exactly is this winning you guys keep wailing about.

I think you meant to ask what was America’s stated goal in these wars?

[quote author=owagbeba post=108992500]

That truth is US can print as much paper dollar as she wants and can afford to build any war machine imagined but that doesn’t make these machines formidable.

Imagine having a floating airport( aircraft carriers) but can not dear bring it to theater of war when faced with a formidable adversary. That shows you these machines expensive as they are, are just for show.

When Houthis struct aramco facility in Saudi Arabia, I was astonished that the hyped patriot failed to protect this Oil facility.

No doubt the US have some mean machines that have proved their worth in second tier level of warfare, but when faced with a formidable adversary like Russia, China, will these machines deliver?

I totally understood your point n that was why i said US machines are better on paper. A war with a formidable adversary will give them the opportunity to truly test their weapon.

vedaxcool:


this jokes don't write themselves. So suddenly NATO is not a joke but a threat? Very hollow analysis don't you think?

I really don’t think Andrei analysis of the current and possible scenario to be hollow.

In his analysis, he examined a Russian fight with NATO ( Europeans) and a fight with US solely.

It’s obvious without the US military might in NATO... sad to say, NATO is a joke.

emae009:


please define what winning would be to you in all those wars?
Committing genocides and importing Americans to come live there? Change of flag or Anthem?
what exactly is this winning you guys keep wailing about.

Winning a war means achieving your goals. If fail to achieve your goal, then you automatically loose the war.

owagbeba:


I think you meant to ask what was America’s stated goal in these wars?

you said and implied America lost those wars (haven't won any since WWII). So you must have known their stated goals for those wars for you to say that. so the ball is in your court to tell me what those goals were and how the lost?

olugabbie:



Winning a war means achieving your goals. If fail to achieve your goal, then you automatically loose the war.

so what was the goals of those wars and how did they fail to achieve them?

owagbeba:


I really don’t think Andrei analysis of the current and possible scenario to be hollow.

In his analysis, he examined a Russian fight with NATO ( Europeans) and a fight with US solely.

It’s obvious without the US military might in NATO... sad to say, NATO is a joke.

UK is not a feather weight, nor France (both are Nuclear power), or Turkey... However the US is part of NATO, any analysis that ignores what makes NATO NATO is the collective is the actual joke.

owagbeba:


If you didn’t read the whole “epistle” how do then discuss it’s content?

May be the joke is on you, bro

Because there’s something called skim reading …

Baba, no need to write 50 pages to downplay American military might.

That’s the real joke on you… continue to downgrade American weapons and might.

[quote author=olugabbie post=108993530][/quote]

The Patriot is the most battle proven SAM system in the world. Goes to show you don't really know what you talking about.
The oil facility incident was carried out using cheap drones that the version of the SAM installed at the time wasn't configured to deal with.
Those Patriots were eventually replaced with the PAC-3 version.

If you have any clue about drone warfare, you would know it's a major problem for all players involved in the defense industry. That's why so many new technologies are being tested and fielded to counter those cheap suicide flying ammunitions

vedaxcool:


UK is not a feather weight, nor France (both are Nuclear power), or Turkey... However the US is part of NATO, any analysis that ignores what makes NATO NATO is the collective is the actual joke.

sorry to say these countries you mentioned in strength parity do not compare to Russia. Well that’s a discussion for another day.

emae009:


The Patriot is the most battle proven SAM system in the world. Goes to show you don't really know what you talking about.
The oil facility incident was carried out using cheap drones that the version of the SAM installed at the time wasn't configured to deal with.
Those Patriots were eventually replaced with the PAC-3 version.

If you have any clue about drone warfare, you would know it's a major problem for all players involved in the defense industry. That's why so many new technologies are being tested and fielded to counter those cheap suicide flying ammunitions

I think patriot systems have not really lived up the hype. I remember Operation Suleman by the Iranians In January 2020 when 12 missiles were fired into American bases in Iraq by the Iranians. Patriot did not intercept them.

owagbeba:



I think patriot systems have not really lived up the hype. I remember Operation Suleman by the Iranians In January 2020 when 12 missiles were fired into American bases in Iraq by the Iranians. Patriot did not intercept them.

there was no Patriot system in that base... where do you guys read up your events??

emae009:


so what was the goals of those wars and how did they fail to achieve them?

You can find out

sunboy:


Because there’s something called skim reading …

Baba, no need to write 50 pages to downplay American military might.

That’s the real joke on you… continue to downgrade American weapons and might.

I think it’s a bit shallow to only see America in this “epistle”. What was written in this “epistle” are possible scenarios including Ukraine, LDNR, NATO and the US -Russia.

A full read might give a better understand of the content. Don’t you think so ?

olugabbie:


You can find out

that's funny, you're on the side that claims US hasn't won any war since WWII yet I'm the one to find out their stated objectives for those wars?

it's 2022, make it make sense