[hnthrow90348765]

It's going to be difficult to get more of a smoking gun than a plan to drop sanctions and ceasing offensive cyber operations against Russia, as well as the US's lopsided Ukrainian peace deal and pulling financial support for Ukraine.

Russia has no military advantage against ours, so there is no reason to placate them due to a threat of war (nukes excluded here, unless Russia has rapidly outpaced us). The only thing that's left is the relationship between the leaders themselves.

If Trump were truly interested in isolationism, he'd instead have simply pulled support for Ukraine and not offered to be a part of negotiations, but many more things were offered for no obvious gain to us.

[gloosx]

>Russia has no military advantage against ours

Recent battle experience is kind of an advantage.

Russia is running a full-scale war against US and NATO weaponry in Ukraine for three years, studying it and refining its tactics.

What was the last battle for USA? Houthis in Yemen? Few airstrikes and limited engagements.

It is very naive to believe Putin doesn’t want to cripple the US economy or that war is not a real threat. The US is critically dependent on semiconductors, and TSMC is much closer to Russia than to America. Think it through.

[kasey_junk]

The US has perhaps the most battle hardened military in the history of the world. It’s had real combat deployments continually for going on 25 years.

At best you can suggest it would be too allocated to counter insurgency but combined arms battles is the heart of American doctrine and its shown its value in Ukraine not its weakness.

I think there are real questions about US military composition, particularly its navy, but battle experience is not a problem.

[ryandrake]

The US military might be battle-hardened and ready for war, but the US public is not. The public is soft and fragile and totally unready for the sacrifices and losses that come from a serious war where we're not an overwhelming force against a tiny Middle Eastern country. The public will not work together collectively to get through a war. We're not going to put up with rationing programs, collecting scrap metal, Victory Gardens, buying war bonds, and take a detour from our careers to work in factories producing ammunition. Hell, half the public couldn't even deal with stay-at-home during COVID and went out protesting when they couldn't eat at the Olive Garden and buy their khakis for a few weeks. Ain't no way we have the intestinal fortitude to put up with a sustained hot war.

[philistine]

There is no military in the world without nuclear weapons that can put enough of a fight to require the US public to collect scrap metal. If the US goes to war with a nation with nuclear weapons, what's left of the whole planet's gonna be collecting scrap metal for the next 200 years.

[relaxing]

We acted quickly post-9/11, buying duct tape and trash bags and taking off our belts at the airport.

You may be surprised how the public can be united against a human enemy. The success of the Right during COVID was turning the outrage away from the invisible virus and onto the humans forcing them to wear a mask.

[ryandrake]

I'll believe it when I see it, hopefuly we never have to. 9/11 was almost 25 years ago--an entire generation. A lot has changed since then. Today, the public is softer, fatter, less healthy, less sane, lonelier, more individualistic and isolated from each other, more addicted to drugs, more addicted to phones, chronically online, narcissistic, and self-obsessed than they were in 2001. And when it comes to playing well with other people they are less tolerant, angrier, more belligerent, less capable of cooperating, defiant against even minor sacrifices that might help others... We have this "in it for ourselves" religion that wasn't as strong in 2001. I don't think even a land invasion by a foreign aggressor could unify us anymore.

[gloosx]

You assume that continuous combat deployments automatically translate to full-scale war readiness, but there's a big difference between counterinsurgency operations and peer-to-peer warfare.

The US military has been engaged in conflicts for decades, but most of them involved fighting non-state actors or weaker conventional forces, not a high-intensity war against an advanced military.

[no_wizard]

Advanced is doing some heavy lifting.

The US military is far a cut above everything else, in terms of tactical readiness, sheer firepower and especially effective size.

We outspend any other nation - China included of which we spend an estimated 2.5 times more than - and we have been in that lead position for decades, not just years.

While yes, US forces haven’t squared off against conventional militaries of any note in some time, the US military has at least been engaged in real conflict. To my recollection the Chinese military have undertaken no significant military campaigns in the last 20+ years and lack the air & sea power to functionally match anything the US military can throw at it by comparison.

Which leaves ground forces, which is both vulnerable to air power and is effectively the numbers game the Chinese can win outright in a protracted war that escalated to that level, and cyber warfare, which the Chinese have proven to be quite adept at but the US military has been aware and developing counter measures against that for a long time as well

This talking conventionally of course.

China being a nuclear power means it would be unlikely to escalate past a certain point if anyone is acting rationally. There’s no reason you want to give another nuclear power a reason to use those weapons, and certainly the US nuclear arsenal is not one anyone wants to see fired either.

So in all likelihood this continues as a Cold War

[ffsm8]

I agree with the spirit of your statement, I truly believe that the US military is the by far most advanced and well equipped force on earth.

Nonetheless, I feel the need to point out that it's budget is a terrible indicator for that.

I'm not even american and have heard just how massively overcharged everything is that's sold to the US military.

It's entirely possible that i.e. China, that can produce their military equipment could actually be way better equipped then it's budget implies. I don't think that Chinas military has caught up to the US yet, but the military spending feels like a bad comparison considering how differently they're financed.

[no_wizard]

As the comment from phillistine notes this doesn’t square with known data and I have no evidence to the contrary.

To which I want to add, that even though the DoD modes have its own (and worth addressing) budget process issues they’re at least largely getting what they are paying for in most circumstances as well as continuing to fund R&D at a fairly robust clip.

In the area of defense R&D in particular that large gap in budgetary spending will matter a lot more than building any “well known” military equipment as the next generation will come online faster than other nations can keep up without ramping their own spending

[philistine]

Doesn't square with any sort of real data we have. The West have better, and more, of everything. For crissakes, the Germans have artillery that fires while driving full speed with the same precision as any other nation's artillery.

[gloosx]

>China being a nuclear power means it would be unlikely to escalate past a certain point if anyone is acting rationally.

Well, Russia is a nuclear power, and not everyone is acting rationally. Russia got part of it's own territory occupied now, and some important oil and gas facilities are literally being bombed, not talking about regular cities and homes.

Russian nuclear doctrine is: Russia could launch nuclear weapons in response to an attack on its territory by a non-nuclear-armed state.

Their warheads are still at bay, why is that? I don't believe they will ever fly, because no-one is stupid enough to make the first move, and the war can go on neglecting them.

[kasey_junk]

Russia has proven it’s not a peer is the issue.

Prior to invading Ukraine one might have thought so, but the experience there shows the challenge in thinking that.

Meanwhile the last time the US military deployed to a traditional battlefield the opponent army lasted a matter of months.

Lord willing we’ll never know about these hypotheticals.

[3D30497420]

It would probably depend a lot on the type of conflict. The US would almost certainly have air-superiority, which would have a significant difference. Of course, air-superiority didn't "win" the US wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, but those were more guerilla-style wars with a somewhat (at least) hostile larger population. A US-Russia conflict would probably look pretty different. Or it would just go nuclear, in which case... well, so much for tactics.

[VBprogrammer]

I think you have to be careful about assuming the US would have air superiority. It doesn't take a lot for what, on paper, looks like a superior air force to turn out to be not fit for purpose.

The famous example is the F4 Phantom getting beat in dogfights against the Mig 21 in Vietnam. It was mostly solved by changing the tactics and to improvements to later model aircraft.

Obviously dogfights aren't realistic in the modern age but that is just one of many variables which might lead to an unexpected deficit. Robustness, reliability, repairability, availablity of parts, ability to operate out of unimproved airfields, using poor qualify fuels etc.

[gloosx]

I think future US-Russia conflict will revolve around semiconductors, and you know where it will take place. It would not be possible to just use nukes or airstrike it to the ground, because factories need to stay. Also, a nasty marriage of convenience between China and Russia would work perfectly for the case, what then?

[no_wizard]

And the Russians had to get re-enforcement from North Korea to bolster the bodies they’re losing to a significantly smaller force.

Western military tactics are still working well against Russian commanders, but they being simply larger population wise, can if they’re willing, win a war of attrition simply because the Ukraine doesn’t have the bodies or internal resources to fight forever. It’s the same strategy general Grant used to decisively win the US civil war

Putin really waited out the US election. For reasons I can’t seem to grok Trump wants to ally with the world’s dictators. He’s proven himself a reliable ally to Putin at this point.

Had Trump lost the election I imagine we would see Russia seriously considering or even starting its withdrawal from the conflict.

Back to the military bit again: there is no way the war in the Ukraine is showing anything other than how vulnerable and poorly aged the equipment of the Russian military is and how their tactics have not improved much if any since the 1980s