Financial? Perhaps. Demographically, however, I believe Russia and Europe have entered a terminal demographic decline, only accelerated in Russia’s case by the war. America, on the other hand, has not lost any soldiers or any significant resources and has increased the industrial capacity of the military-industrial complex. Strategically, from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, that counts as a win for my superiors, in the long term. Financial ups and downs are temporary and manageable. Demographic collapses are not.
Financial? Perhaps. Demographically, however, I believe Russia and Europe have entered a terminal demographic decline, only accelerated in Russia’s case by the war.
Due to immense migration, demographic change is a thing of the past now. France, Germany and other western European countries no longer face this problem. On the other side it comes with new problems, as failed integration has become a huge problem.
And considering Russia, the country has one big ass infantry. And in the Ukraine war, Russia has yet to call for total mobilisation.
And the west, even with the help of the US did not yet manage to deliver enough ammunition and weaponry to push back the Russian forces.
For me that’s an indicator that Russia is more capable of actual war than the West.
Especially the US had many military missions in the past decades and most of them failed. Afghanistan is just one of the many failed attempts of military control.
The US military has shown not to be capable to win wars, but only maintain them.
America, on the other hand, has not lost any soldiers or any significant resources and has increased the industrial capacity of the military-industrial complex.
Well and so did the Russians. The west has more specialised and modern weapons, it these have now proven to be too complicate to be produced in sufficient masses.
Russia using old tech with easier produced weaponry has shown to be much more resilient than expected.
Making use of the oldschool Propeller for bombs instead of high tech laser measured ignition timers, has proven to be just as effective.
The US military has been scammed in many ways by weapon manufacturers into buying over complicated tech for simple applications.
Strategically, from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, that counts as a win for my superiors, in the long term.
If your superiors were involved in the last decades military operations of the US, then their word shouldn’t be taken too serious.
Afghanistan is just the latest failure of along series of failures. And currently it seems, like the US will fail in Ukraine as well, even before sending troops.
Financial ups and downs are temporary and manageable.
Financial ups and downs can cripple a country’s economy so immensely, that they change a country’s direction for years later.
There is no military without tax payers. And in a broken economy, there are not many willing tax payers.
Demographic collapses are not.
It can be corrected with migration, even though migration poses its own new problems.
In Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we crippled ourselves trying to protect civilians and establish a local government while fighting an “insurgency”. With Russia, per instruction, we will emphatically not be doing so. A war with Russia will be a concerted effort to fundamentally destroy and erase the current power structure and completely demilitarize the country, as we did in WWII. With thermonuclear weapons, if necessary. The unclassified nuclear doctrine is available for your perusal online.
In Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we crippled ourselves trying to protect civilians and establish a local government while fighting an “insurgency”.
What the hell are you talking about? Protecting civilians? Is this some joke? The US never much cared for protecting civilians. 
Let’s think about Vietnam and the massacring of thousands.
Or let’s remember some “accidental” strikes against “terrorists” that turned out to be civilians.
With Russia, per instruction, we will emphatically not be doing so. A war with Russia will be a concerted effort to fundamentally destroy and erase the current power structure and completely demilitarize the country, as we did in WWII. With thermonuclear weapons, if necessary. The unclassified nuclear doctrine is available for your perusal online.
Yea. Extremely plausible that the US manages to destroy the Russian power structures. Structures that have rivalled the US structures and military for decades in many foreign conflicts.
You cannot rly act in a stalemate situation. And that is rly what that is.
Just look how Russia can play war in Ukraine and the US and other western countries are only willing the send weapons.
This just screams of powerlessness.
And it indeed makes sense with the past failures of the US Military.
And all that restraint, when Russia is conquering the Worlds Granary. If they succeed, then all of Africa will be under their control. Especially with climate change and less African soil being fertile.
Africa is so gaddamn important, that the Chinese already attempt in multiple African states to take control.
If China and Russia take control over Africa, than they take control over Resources that the US depends on.
And even the idea to demilitarise Russia is ponderous. Maybe if worked with Germany after WW2, because many Germans understand English and German is rather similar to English.
So taking influence on the Germans was not too hard.
Russian on the other hand is a goddamn nightmare for Roman languages.
And the country is so damn big, that influence and control is a matter of unfeasibility.
You’ll never have the clearance to do so, but if you ever happen to on the off chance, look up Global Campaign Plan, and on your free time, you can review the unclassified National Security Strategy. Specifically, the updated revisions.
On the unclassified side, take a look at the analysis of Peter Zeihan sometime on global demographic and resource trends.
Financial? Perhaps. Demographically, however, I believe Russia and Europe have entered a terminal demographic decline, only accelerated in Russia’s case by the war. America, on the other hand, has not lost any soldiers or any significant resources and has increased the industrial capacity of the military-industrial complex. Strategically, from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, that counts as a win for my superiors, in the long term. Financial ups and downs are temporary and manageable. Demographic collapses are not.
Due to immense migration, demographic change is a thing of the past now. France, Germany and other western European countries no longer face this problem. On the other side it comes with new problems, as failed integration has become a huge problem.
And considering Russia, the country has one big ass infantry. And in the Ukraine war, Russia has yet to call for total mobilisation. And the west, even with the help of the US did not yet manage to deliver enough ammunition and weaponry to push back the Russian forces. For me that’s an indicator that Russia is more capable of actual war than the West.
Especially the US had many military missions in the past decades and most of them failed. Afghanistan is just one of the many failed attempts of military control. The US military has shown not to be capable to win wars, but only maintain them.
Well and so did the Russians. The west has more specialised and modern weapons, it these have now proven to be too complicate to be produced in sufficient masses. Russia using old tech with easier produced weaponry has shown to be much more resilient than expected. Making use of the oldschool Propeller for bombs instead of high tech laser measured ignition timers, has proven to be just as effective. The US military has been scammed in many ways by weapon manufacturers into buying over complicated tech for simple applications.
If your superiors were involved in the last decades military operations of the US, then their word shouldn’t be taken too serious. Afghanistan is just the latest failure of along series of failures. And currently it seems, like the US will fail in Ukraine as well, even before sending troops.
Financial ups and downs can cripple a country’s economy so immensely, that they change a country’s direction for years later.
There is no military without tax payers. And in a broken economy, there are not many willing tax payers.
It can be corrected with migration, even though migration poses its own new problems.
In Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we crippled ourselves trying to protect civilians and establish a local government while fighting an “insurgency”. With Russia, per instruction, we will emphatically not be doing so. A war with Russia will be a concerted effort to fundamentally destroy and erase the current power structure and completely demilitarize the country, as we did in WWII. With thermonuclear weapons, if necessary. The unclassified nuclear doctrine is available for your perusal online.
What the hell are you talking about? Protecting civilians? Is this some joke? The US never much cared for protecting civilians.  Let’s think about Vietnam and the massacring of thousands. Or let’s remember some “accidental” strikes against “terrorists” that turned out to be civilians.
Yea. Extremely plausible that the US manages to destroy the Russian power structures. Structures that have rivalled the US structures and military for decades in many foreign conflicts. You cannot rly act in a stalemate situation. And that is rly what that is. Just look how Russia can play war in Ukraine and the US and other western countries are only willing the send weapons. This just screams of powerlessness. And it indeed makes sense with the past failures of the US Military. And all that restraint, when Russia is conquering the Worlds Granary. If they succeed, then all of Africa will be under their control. Especially with climate change and less African soil being fertile.
Africa is so gaddamn important, that the Chinese already attempt in multiple African states to take control.
If China and Russia take control over Africa, than they take control over Resources that the US depends on.
And even the idea to demilitarise Russia is ponderous. Maybe if worked with Germany after WW2, because many Germans understand English and German is rather similar to English. So taking influence on the Germans was not too hard. Russian on the other hand is a goddamn nightmare for Roman languages. And the country is so damn big, that influence and control is a matter of unfeasibility.
You’ll never have the clearance to do so, but if you ever happen to on the off chance, look up Global Campaign Plan, and on your free time, you can review the unclassified National Security Strategy. Specifically, the updated revisions.
On the unclassified side, take a look at the analysis of Peter Zeihan sometime on global demographic and resource trends.
The US strategy has always been the same and it always failed in history.
What makes you believe that anything would change and that current analysis would be any more correct than the ones of the past?