Only an idiot would wonder if the U.S. "empire" would shrink the way the British Empire has. The British Empire was built centuries ago on the idea of taking natural resources from countries and subjugating the people living in those countries. For some reason, this was not popular with the locals. The U.S. "empire" is built more on free trade with other countries, and providing security for other countries and keeping shipping lanes open. Even when we invade another country (like Iraq), we do not take their natural resources (or their children). If you want an example of an empire based on theft, look no further than Russia. And yes, Russia is about to start shrinking. Its population has already started to shrink. They will have trouble keeping some of their outer territories after they get defeated by Ukraine.
I am not sure about that. There don’t seem to be any decision makers on the front lines. Those are the people who would learn. A top down military is not quick on its feet.
Only a trope-a-minute would cling to a Russia in isolation instead of an emergent multi-polar world dwarfing the US-Europe axis.
Here is something that you might have missed: in February, China announced that international maps need to refer to eight Russian cities in far eastern Russia by their Chinese names. Some in China would like to reclaim "Outer Manchuria" from Russia. This includes an area of land about three times bigger than North and South Korea combined. It also includes Vladivostok, a major port city of over 600,000 people (and a Russian Navy base, I believe). This might be the first of Russia's regions to fall after Russia loses the Ukraine War and collapses. China eyes Russia’s Far East resources, ‘patriots’ want more – Asia Times Russia is now viewed as likely sinking into a vassal state of China at best. Russia will never recover from this devastating collapse Our Russia-holics are not going to like that at all. "China - FRIEND. Not hurt Russia. Not take advantage of Russia! Emergent multi-polar axis! Defeat U.S.!" Self-evisceration? That sounds bad for Russia. What will our basement troll think about that?
So I’ve known about this in a slightly more expanded way for approximately six months. Now that some of this is coming into the open, I’m more comfortable telling you that this is what I was suggesting when I would state we now know Russia’s IADS was more or less a phantom threat, especially to our stealth aircraft. From what I am hearing, the actions described in that article only touch on what kind of things we have done to tickle the dragon’s tail and see if it notices. Any present suggestion that Russia can detect, engage, and destroy our stealth aircraft in the air apart from random luck is self-delusion (protecting them while they are on the ground is a separate problem set). Prior to 2022, many Defense and intelligence professionals in our government believed that the Russians had some scary new method to do so, but this was mainly because Russia itself seemed convinced that this was the case. Whether this was a form of deliberate deception or, as I said, self-delusion is not clear. What is clear, today, is that an air campaign between the U.S. and Russia would be very short and decisive. Many of the same senior military leaders who privately expressed doubts on our conventional capabilities vis-à-vis Russia in early 2022 now only have reservations about whether Russia would go nuclear. If we are now publicly admitting some of these things, it must be because we want Russia to know that we know how vulnerable and subject to our forbearance they are. This second article you posted is far more significant and fascinating than one might understand at first glance. The Ukrainian ability to conduct close air support is going up, not down, not only in terms of sortie rate but also effectiveness. This runs contrary to what many of us believed was possible. It was one thing (surprising already) for Ukraine to contest Russian air superiority deep behind its lines with the combination of its Air Force and IADS, but it’s quite another for their attack aircraft to openly challenge the Russian Air Force and IADS in the close fight. I would have told you (and have) that this was a fool’s errand, and Ukraine should not risk its remaining aircraft in this way. My assumption was based on Ukraine not having stealth technology and, therefore, that over time they would lose more aircraft and pilots than would be worth it for the advantage the sorties would provide on the ground. But one thing is becoming clear: Ukraine is adapting to the close air fight without stealth. And they are doing this using methods that were standard in the 1960s through the 1980s, before modern stealth and electronic warfare. I’m referring to suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) using combined arms. An example of this is to identify enemy air defense or radar sites, then hit them with indirect fire in a coordinated manner just as CAS sorties strike their targets. If Ukraine really has begun to master this tactic, then my previous reluctance to provide Ukraine with F16s might have been based on faulty assumptions. Ukraine still won’t be able to put together an effect deep fight without stealth or EW, but if it can regularly get local air superiority in the close fight, then this will be a long, painful, ruinous war for Russia.
That sort of Chinese thinking is not surprising except for how quickly it is happening. I’ve often said that China might view Russia’s adventure in Ukraine as a strategic win-win: if Russia pulls it off, then it emasculates the Western powers and normalizes conquest for a future Chinese move on Taiwan; if Russia loses, then it weakens Russia for possibly Chinese moves to take back lands it views as stolen during the 1800s.
Since 92% of Vladivostok is Russian (and presumably Nazi-free), it raises the question: would the U.S. do anything to stop China from taking over "Outer Manchuria"?
Nah, I think I’d go ahead and let China’s “special military operation” play out. None of our business, China has nukes and a veto, Russia is corrupt, and all of that.
An insightful article on trench warfare in the last 110 years. The First World War tactic helping Ukraine fight a modern conflict
Which leads into an article about two infantry brigades (1200 people) returning to Ukraine from Germany (after training there) with a number of infantry fighting vehicles and other equipment. (The trench warfare article mentioned that you need tanks and motorized infantry to break the stalemate of trench warfare.) Two Ukrainian brigades equipped with Bradley IFVs, Stryker AFVs returning to Ukraine after training, Pentagon says
If our two biggest Geo political foes want to fight each other, have at it. But it’s not happening unless Russia collapses and it’s easy pickings.
I disagree completely. Hey you know I'm all in with Ukraine, NATO and the USA, but this is just wrong. No, the USA does not militarily conquer territories ANYMORE, (We used to do that ALOT) plant the Star Spangled Banner and annex - I give you that, we just support puppet Govts set up by the USA, pay them off, and set up American Capatalistic interests: IE - Panama Canal, (Roosevelt's big stick policy), Central America - Check out the terrible exploitation of fruit and rubber resources by hideous American Companies, Iran (The Eisenhower Administration setting up the Shaw) for the Petroleum Industry, and so forth. And most revealing, the USA has more military bases around the world than anyone else by huge numbers. Not all of which were aquired by popular invitation. Thus my disagree.
What drugs is this man using? If we deployed the British Army to the University of Alabama’s football stadium, there would still be 27,077 empty seats. Send the Brits to Ukraine and their army would be gone in two weeks. Hell, the current force pales in comparison to 300,000 British troops rescued from Dunkirk 83 years ago. The fact that a man like Kemp could rise to the rank of Colonel helps explain the current abysmal state of the British Army. There Is No Fixing Stupid When It Comes to Western Delusions About Russia - A Son of the New American Revolution
Why the war is necessarily a slog and also why the Pentagon has (thus far) had the sense to keep American boys and girls (officially) out of the conflict ...
44% of Americans work multiple jobs to make ends meet. 62% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. 18 million Americans mired in deep poverty. But let’s talk about Russia’s troubles ... "Blind Faith" - These Economic Numbers Are Staggering | ZeroHedge
While unlikely, the US is probably at least as likely to collapse as Russia. In fact, the proxy war may serve as a distraction from the decline of Pax Americana.
