It seems we have transdimensional traveller here. Seems from very far dimension because in this one Javelin isn’t even anti air missile lmao.

The Russian air superiorty that still exists and is causing the US to greenlight German trainers to train Ukrainian pilots on US fighters so that maybe in a few months there might be some counter to it? That Russian air superiorty?

All of the mighty US Wanderwuffe were destroyed or didn’t cause much in terms of advancing, and as all of you liberals like to say, Russia was using shitty goatherder Soviet weapons. Furthermore if you actually read the article you would see that the US is highly deindustrialised and cannot sustain a prolonged war and that’s not going to change because those are the effects of neoliberalism.

In describing the outcome of the Congressional wargames, Rep. Mike Gallagher said that the U.S. used up almost all of its precision-guided missiles in a week. I assure you, China would not run out of missiles in a week.

Guess what happens after a week? Besides if the US would invade China there would be no reason for Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and plenty of other countries to provide support, I’d like to see how much your wunderwaffe will do there.

>implying ruzzian air superiority was crippled

Well, no. Ukrainian forces themselves stated that they need real anti-air capabilities because those javelins are useless. Please stop getting your news from NAFO bots.

Sounds like mission accomplished

You’re not entirely wrong, but you have to understand that there a couple levels to US foreign policy. One the material base you mentioned, where the US wants to take out possible competitors all over the globe. The other is that of the “idealists,” the neoconservatives who are the US foreign policy establishment. In what sense they are “conservative” has always been a little unclear, because their understanding of geopolitics is in a lot of ways ultra-left: the US is an armed base for freedom and liberalism, and if the country does not continually export, via war and color revolutions, its own version of “democracy,” that same democracy at home will wither away and die. During the Bush years, I thought it was just rhetoric, but the sheer suicidal stupidity of their actions in Ukraine has since convinced me they actually believe all of this. They tend to be opposed by the Brzenzkyites, who favor a much more hard-headed approach to foreign policy – the divide-and-conquer game essentially, such as Nixon played with China and the USSR. The Brzenzkyites were once the foreign policy establishment, but since the 90s their place has been mostly taken by the neoconservatives.

The neoconservatives have been enabled by US corporations and mega-conglomerates who, for the sake of immediate profits, want global competitors taken out; without this base, the neocons would never have risen to power. But because they are idealists, the neocons regularly go above and beyond all rational neccesity, promoting sanctions when diplomacy would have worked, wars when sanctions would have been sufficient, etc, all with a goal toward toppling “undemocratic” regimes and ushering in “democracy” – the latter never happens, but here we have the madman’s dilemma, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This cycle of escalation creates mass death abroad and social and economic problems back at home, which latter do end up hurting the US ruling classin some degree. The long range goals of US corporations would probably be better served by the slow, methodical approach of Brzenzkyite foreign policy, but capital is by nature short-sighted and geared toward immediate profit. Thus, the US ruling class has created a monster it cannot well control, leading to a sort of prisoner’s dilemma. When neocon wars fail, as they always do, to achieve the objectives set out by their ideologues, capital profits; but that same failure makes the US populace disillusioned with the neocons, and creates political pressures that put the US ruling class in danger of losing their attack dog in Washington. That is why a big portion of the US elite were freaked out about Trump. His policies were not much different from those of his predecessors, but his election articulated a kind of right-wing populist distrust in the mechanisms of global American power, which many members of the US ruling class took as a sign of things to come.

It’s great at engaging in large scale battles where there are clear targets though.

When was the last time the U.S. was in a war like that? WWII?

Edit: hit post mid sentence.

US failed in their push to the Yalu River against 1950s China. That was China at its weakest point when it was poor and unindustrialized. It was literally less developed than Sub Saharan Africa back then.

Now that China is the host to the world’s largest industrial sector. The Chinese make the best hypersonics, the best drones, and the best surface combatant ships. All produced in numbers impossible for US industry to match. What makes you think that the US will fare any better?

The Iran was the one the that dealt the mortal blow to Iraq. The Iran-Iraq War, the First Gulf War, and the sanctions left Iraq as a powder keg of religious and ethnic tensions. 12 years of sanctions on Iraq contributed to the defeat of their regular army more than anything the US military itself did.

The US never fought in the large scale operations that the Soviet Army did in WW2. No US operation rivaled the size of Operation Bagration or the Manchurian Strategic Offensive.

When did this happen?

Like?

None of those articles contain any actual evidence to support your claims, just assertions by US government institutions and US government-funded institutions like the CSIS and the USNI. If there’s no evidence, you can only judge the sources by their reputation, which is very close to rock bottom for all three