Top US Air Force General surprised how poorly Russian Air Force has performed

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

You're quite right that it could not. Gulf War was a wake up call for China and it is the most impressive display of networked air power.

In the Gulf war Iraqi air defense did quite well until they run out of missiles.

Coalition Fixed-Wing Attrition in Desert Storm

www.rjlee.org

 

[ARMalik]

It is Ukraine which is getting destroyed not the US.

For the US, Ukraine is just a disposable tool.

You are a Really simple minded Dude ! My advise, THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. Russia is fighting not only Ukrainians Troops inside Ukraine but it is also fighting NATO/US troops inside Ukraine !

 

[jhungary]

Sure. It's so weak and so hopeless not a single western countries dares to do anything about it except constant bitching and complaining.

If you want to bitch and complain, fix the situation. You are so much stronger than Russia right? Go stop their invasion.

That's the same when Chinese said Taiwan is so weak and helpless then why China don't try to retake Taiwan now??

If you know anything about war, not everything is about why not do this and why not do that.

And this entire Ukrainian war play out like this despite without NATO direct involvement. So the better question is, why would US or NATO want to get involve with it? Unless you watch the entire episode of "What's happening in Ukraine" and think the Russian is doing a great job.

View attachment 856014


Great post from the f-16 forum

The problem is how Russia uses their Air Force.

They still have in their mindset that Air Force is auxiliary to the ground force, they do not have dedicated SEAD/Stand off engagement capability. What the Russian uses their Air Force is to provide CAS only, which is how it work since Cold War. Which accounts for dismal sortie (the RuAF sortied just 320 for the first months, compare to 100,000+ on the first Iraq war, which the air component lasted only 21 days.)

On the other hand, how do you suppose Russia penetrate Ukrainian Airspace without using Fighting and Bomber going toe to tow in Ukraine. When they don't have special support aircraft (like Airborne C&C, Jammer, Electronic Attack and so on) You never go in to a battle with your peer and go pound on pound for it, you try to outsmart your enemy. Which is something the Russian either refused to do or don't know what to do.

 

[serenity]

USA did very well against Iraq both times. It did well against Afghanistan as well but cannot maintain their position and required a shift in strategic approach. However it really lost Vietnam war. All its major objectives were lost, Vietnam civil war fell to the North side and US enemy during the war took control of entire Vietnam. US lost Korean war as well because US side basically took over and controlled the entire Korean peninsula, all of it before China entered the war and pushed US back to half way line before both sides agreed on ceasefire and stop. That war has not even concluded and the only status is a ceasefire.

Gulf War 1 was US most impressive performance and showed the world the new era of networked, technology warfare with integrated airforce. Both were undeniable absolute victories for US. The other wars, not so much to total loss.

That's the same when Chinese said Taiwan is so weak and helpless then why China don't try to retake Taiwan now??

If you know anything about war, not everything is about why not do this and why not do that.

And this entire Ukrainian war play out like this despite without NATO direct involvement. So the better question is, why would US or NATO want to get involve with it? Unless you watch the entire episode of "What's happening in Ukraine" and think the Russian is doing a great job.


The problem is how Russia uses their Air Force.

They still have in their mindset that Air Force is auxiliary to the ground force, they do not have dedicated SEAD/Stand off engagement capability. What the Russian uses their Air Force is to provide CAS only, which is how it work since Cold War. Which accounts for dismal sortie (the RuAF sortied just 320 for the first months, compare to 100,000+ on the first Iraq war, which the air component lasted only 21 days.)

On the other hand, how do you suppose Russia penetrate Ukrainian Airspace without using Fighting and Bomber going toe to tow in Ukraine. When they don't have special support aircraft (like Airborne C&C, Jammer, Electronic Attack and so on) You never go in to a battle with your peer and go pound on pound for it, you try to outsmart your enemy. Which is something the Russian either refused to do or don't know what to do.

Because it's not easy to take Taiwan.

Just like it's not easy for NATO to take on Russia. All sides say stuff in their media and reality is not always like that.

We are talking about NATO countries talking about how weak Russia is. It isn't. It's about as ridiculous as North Korea saying USA is weak because they let Venezuela capture and kill US mercenaries performing a US government job or at least with plausible deniability. That's silly to conclude right? Just like it's silly for Chinese media (wherever it apparently does according to you) saying Taiwan is weak and easy to defeat.

BTW I haven't seen Chinese media say Taiwan is weak and it would be easy for China to defeat Taiwan lol. Everyone knows it's very difficult and China CPC itself knows it's very difficult. But Taiwan also considers the possibility of mainland invasion to be serious enough to not declare independence. If Taiwan declares independence as a country, then we may find out.

As for this topic, we simply have USA and NATO countries non stop telling us how weak Russia is. lol. NATO itself hasn't been tested the way Russia is being right. So statements about how shit Russia is when it is the only one to sit the exam is a bit laughable. Maybe if NATO went to war with Russia, it would be Russia stomping the life out of NATO. Who knows. We can only speculate but to point and laugh while concluding just based on one single point of reference with no other data? Yeah I don't think it's appropriate to do this. Again for all we know, Russia might be able to destroy NATO. You and I may think and suspect otherwise but the details of such a conflict would be unknown until the events happen. Just like whether PRC China can invade ROC China successfully is unknown until it happens. For it to happen ROC needs to declare independence first or PRC needs to go crazy daring and risky and invade for no other reason than this is the time to do it since they believe they are strong enough to invade. Something US hasn't been able to do for Afghanistan (maintain control) and Vietnam and Korea.

As for how VKS considers war philosophy and how they use their airforce, I honestly think we have much less knowledge than a collection of their Generals. It's remarkably arrogant of you to think you know better. They know best about their stuff and how to use it. That's it. Laugh if you want but honestly it just makes you look a fool. They might suffer losses even if we can consider them to be suffering huge losses, it is still possible that if they acted in a way similar to NATO doctrine for their equipment, their losses would be even greater? Who knows. Let's not pretend we know best and our intelligence and knowledge is complete and infallible.

 

[ziaulislam]

Ukraine is slowly being destroyed, killed, divided into many countries, and yet dumb US Yanks keep winning on Twitter and Youtube !! And that is why according to Psychology-Today, Americans are just Stupid !!!

Are Americans Just Stupid?​

Are Americans Just Stupid?

American culture sometimes seems to exude ignorance, but we aren't a nation of dummies.

www.psychologytoday.com

You still have to accept that war that was suppose to last a week is going for months with no end in sight


It means a force with small weapons can be deadly

In past americans didnt had that problem..true nations had no good weapons but key difference was laser guided precision air power called upon a moment notice

russia didnt show that

 

[jhungary]

USA did very well against Iraq both times. It did well against Afghanistan as well but cannot maintain their position and required a shift in strategic approach. However it really lost Vietnam war. All its major objectives were lost, Vietnam civil war fell to the North side and US enemy during the war took control of entire Vietnam. US lost Korean war as well because US side basically took over and controlled the entire Korean peninsula, all of it before China entered the war and pushed US back to half way line before both sides agreed on ceasefire and stop. That war has not even concluded and the only status is a ceasefire.

Gulf War 1 was US most impressive performance and showed the world the new era of networked, technology warfare with integrated airforce. Both were undeniable absolute victories for US. The other wars, not so much to total loss.

It depends on what is the "Measurement" you use in Vietnam war.

The ultimate goal for US in Vietnam is to stop Communism from spreading to other South East Asia country, namely Philippine, Malaysia and Singapore. The US did that by eliminate enough of Vietnamese Communist power on the ground, while Tet is seen as a major turning point to the American war in Vietnam, but Tet also achieve one thing that is very important in term of Military Strategic, that is the US completely destroyed the North Vietnamese capability to wage a conventional war. Which something NVA regular does not get back really until 1974/1975, by then the US administration has become soft and basically not willing to do another Tet or even help the South Vietnamese. That's why Saigon felt.

However, that also mean Communist in Vietnam would not have enough power to push thru outside their geographical location, and hence stopping the spread to Philippine, Malaysia and Singapore.

Another thing American achieved during Vietnam war is that thru Vietnam, it successfully flip up between China and USSR. Bear in mind USSR back then is like China now, they were the real enemy, the ONLY enemy, and by flipping up China into their own camp that took a lot of power from USSR. And to a point it started proxy skirmish everywhere around USSR border ( Vietnam/Chinese Border Skirmish, Chinese/Russian Border skirmish and Chinese/Indian Border Skirmish)

Without all that achieved in Vietnam war, I can say it can be up to a point USSR will not fall in the late 80s and early 90s.

On the other hand, Korean is another issue. Nobody wanted to go pass the border except 2 guys, Macarthur and Syngman Rhee, the force UN designed for the operation is enough to operate within south Korea. You will need 4 times more the troop to uphold the supply line alone, that's why when China strike back at Yalu River, the UN force suffer the same fate the North Korean force did during their southern conquest. The War was not designed to have a clear winner, that much is all but certain from the beginning. On the other hand, it's because Chinese involvement in Korea, they did not have enough force to retake Taiwan, that is another strategic value of the move. If China did not involve with Korean war, they probably would have and should have taken Taiwan back sometime between Mid-1950 to Late 1950.

 

[serenity]

It depends on what is the "Measurement" you use in Vietnam war.

The ultimate goal for US in Vietnam is to stop Communism from spreading to other South East Asia country, namely Philippine, Malaysia and Singapore. The US did that by eliminate enough of Vietnamese Communist power on the ground, while Tet is seen as a major turning point to the American war in Vietnam, but Tet also achieve one thing that is very important in term of Military Strategic, that is the US completely destroyed the North Vietnamese capability to wage a conventional war. Which something NVA regular does not get back really until 1974/1975, by then the US administration has become soft and basically not willing to do another Tet or even help the South Vietnamese. That's why Saigon felt.

However, that also mean Communist in Vietnam would not have enough power to push thru outside their geographical location, and hence stopping the spread to Philippine, Malaysia and Singapore.

Another thing American achieved during Vietnam war is that thru Vietnam, it successfully flip up between China and USSR. Bear in mind USSR back then is like China now, they were the real enemy, the ONLY enemy, and by flipping up China into their own camp that took a lot of power from USSR. And to a point it started proxy skirmish everywhere around USSR border ( Vietnam/Chinese Border Skirmish, Chinese/Russian Border skirmish and Chinese/Indian Border Skirmish)

Without all that achieved in Vietnam war, I can say it can be up to a point USSR will not fall in the late 80s and early 90s.

On the other hand, Korean is another issue. Nobody wanted to go pass the border except 2 guys, Macarthur and Syngman Rhee, the force UN designed for the operation is enough to operate within south Korea. You will need 4 times more the troop to uphold the supply line alone, that's why when China strike back at Yalu River, the UN force suffer the same fate the North Korean force did during their southern conquest. The War was not designed to have a clear winner, that much is all but certain from the beginning. On the other hand, it's because Chinese involvement in Korea, they did not have enough force to retake Taiwan, that is another strategic value of the move. If China did not involve with Korean war, they probably would have and should have taken Taiwan back sometime between Mid-1950 to Late 1950.

Okay.

So basically in summary, US lost Vietnam and lost half of Korea but "won" strategically by basically distracting forces etc. Whatever. My point is that they weren't able to defeat and have absolute total victory over far inferior forces back then. War is not easy. Russia similarly cannot easily defeat Ukraine no matter what force they bring. It is a massive challenge.

Let's not say look Russia lost 10 fighters here therefore it's super weak. Well US lost over 3000 fixed wing aircraft in Vietnam, let that sink in. Don't twist and turn and explain around about strategy of this and that.

War is not easy. No one is absolutely only weak or only strong. Russia weakness and all that is honestly half just western propaganda being spread so much it's taking a life of its own and every spreader adds their "professional" take on it lol. Similarly it's done here too often.

Until we see China and Taiwan go to war, let's just leave the speculation? Until we see NATO go to war with Russia, let's also refrain from making conclusions and statements about who is stronger than who.

 

[jhungary]

Okay.

So basically in summary, US lost Vietnam and lost half of Korea but "won" strategically by basically distracting forces etc. Whatever. My point is that they weren't able to defeat and have absolute total victory over far inferior forces back then. War is not easy. Russia similarly cannot easily defeat Ukraine no matter what force they bring. It is a massive challenge.

Let's not say look Russia lost 10 fighters here therefore it's super weak. Well US lost over 3000 fixed wing aircraft in Vietnam, let that sink in. Don't twist and turn and explain around about strategy of this and that.

You still don't get it, do you. Not every war need a "Complete" victory

Take Korean war for example. If US really fought like they fight WW2, and win the Korean war for South Korea, do you think they would have the same relationship with South Korea now? Imagine a unified Korea. facing off an occupied Japan. Which no longer have North Korea as a threat. But will also (still do) see Japan as enemy, do you think a Unified Korea would have any US foothold in it?

How many Aircraft US lost in WW2? Or Korean War? You are talking about a War that happened 60 years ago, to a war happening today, name me a single operation that US lost more than 30 fix wing aircraft since Vietnam? How many aircraft we lost during first Iraq war? By the way Russia lost more than 10 aircraft, they lost 14 Su-25, 4 Su-30, 8 Su-34 and 1 Su-35. And that is before damage, now tell me if US have any similar lost in recent time?

Dude, you think Equipment lost means all that, equipment loss only mean something if you cannot replace it. It mean nothing if those airframe can be replace and those pilot can be rescue and replaced. That is why we lost 10,000 aircraft in WW2 and we can still lose 3000 aircraft in Vietnam and now still the world premier air force.

On the other hand, if you talk about war without talking about their strategic goal, then what are there left to talk about? Because taking Strategic Goal out, all you can talk about is killing.

War is not easy. No one is absolutely only weak or only strong. Russia weakness and all that is honestly half just western propaganda being spread so much it's taking a life of its own and every spreader adds their "professional" take on it lol. Similarly it's done here too often.

Until we see China and Taiwan go to war, let's just leave the speculation? Until we see NATO go to war with Russia, let's also refrain from making conclusions and statements about who is stronger than who.

Again, if you look at this "What happened in Ukraine" and think this is a good example for you and Russia is doing well. Russia has been losing captured territories constantly since the beginning of the war, and that is before US and NATO offer any meaningful support to Ukraine. Look at this time line

The war started when Russia invade and occupied part of Kyiv Oblast, almost entire Kherson Oblast, part of Mykolaiv Oblast almost entire Chernihiv Oblast, half of Zaporizhia Oblast, half of Donbas (not going to count them separately) and almost the entire Sumy and Kharkiv Oblast.

Now, they only hold part of Zaporizhia Oblast, a little over half of Donbas, less than half of Kherson Oblast, and completely vacated Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv and Mykolaiv, and partially withdrew from Kharkiv.

And all these are play out without NATO direct intervention. And Russia have materiel, manpower and equipment advantage over Ukraine, and even so they cannot advance (in fact, as I just show you, they have advanced backward) in a fight without NATO, unless you are talking about NATO is a "Negative" multiplier, which mean NATO Is shittier than Ukrainian force, any add of combat power, WITH OR WITHOUT NATO intervention would mean it will going to tilted more toward the Ukrainian, and that is a only a logical thing to say.

Now, does that translate to NATO is stronger and Russia is weaker? No, and I have never said that, all I am saying, from the beginning to the end, is why NATO would want to get involved in this war. When you have someone motivated and doing a pretty good job so far is doing it for you. I mean, do you think I want to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? If ANA or Iraqi Army are up to scratch, I would much rather sitting in an Air Conditioning room and tell them what to do then in the field sweating my *** off. Nobody want to fight a war if they don't have to. And in this case, NATO don't have to fight in Ukraine and Ukraine is doing a good job, then why NATO want to get involved?

 

[serenity]

You still don't get it, do you. Not every war need a "Complete" victory

Take Korean war for example. If US really fought like they fight WW2, and win the Korean war for South Korea, do you think they would have the same relationship with South Korea now? Imagine a unified Korea. facing off an occupied Japan. Which no longer have North Korea as a threat. But will also (still do) see Japan as enemy, do you think a Unified Korea would have any US foothold in it?

How many Aircraft US lost in WW2? Or Korean War? You are talking about a War that happened 60 years ago, to a war happening today, name me a single operation that US lost more than 30 fix wing aircraft since Vietnam? How many aircraft we lost during first Iraq war? By the way Russia lost more than 10 aircraft, they lost 14 Su-25, 4 Su-30, 8 Su-34 and 1 Su-35. And that is before damage, now tell me if US have any similar lost in recent time?

Dude, you think Equipment lost means all that, equipment loss only mean something if you cannot replace it. It mean nothing if those airframe can be replace and those pilot can be rescue and replaced. That is why we lost 10,000 aircraft in WW2 and we can still lose 3000 aircraft in Vietnam and now still the world premier air force.

On the other hand, if you talk about war without talking about their strategic goal, then what are there left to talk about? Because taking Strategic Goal out, all you can talk about is killing.



Again, if you look at this "What happened in Ukraine" and think this is a good example for you and Russia is doing well. Russia has been losing captured territories constantly since the beginning of the war, and that is before US and NATO offer any meaningful support to Ukraine. Look at this time line

The war started when Russia invade and occupied part of Kyiv Oblast, almost entire Kherson Oblast, part of Mykolaiv Oblast almost entire Chernihiv Oblast, half of Zaporizhia Oblast, half of Donbas (not going to count them separately) and almost the entire Sumy and Kharkiv Oblast.

Now, they only hold part of Zaporizhia Oblast, a little over half of Donbas, less than half of Kherson Oblast, and completely vacated Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, and partially withdrew from Kharkiv.

And all these are play out without NATO direct intervention. And Russia have materiel, manpower and equipment advantage over Ukraine, and even so they cannot advance (in fact, as I just show you, they have advanced backward) in a fight without NATO, unless you are talking about NATO is a "Negative" multiplier, which mean NATO Is shittier than Ukrainian force, and add of combat power, WITH OR WITHOUT NATO intervention would mean it will going to tilted toward the Ukrainian, and that is a only a logical thing to say.

No it is you who cannot understand perspective and the fact that different ones exist about the same events and situations.

Let's just say NATO without directly going in to this theater to stop Russia means Russia eventually takes over much of the eastern parts they are after.

NATO has not proven it can actually war with Russia and defeat it, not even hold its own. Nothing is shown or proven despite mountains of noise and propaganda. After all Russia says they can beat NATO easily. Are you right or are they right? Neither until proven... the rest is just noise and what you would like to believe. Spin history and events and Russia's "performance" however you'd like.

This stuff from western trolls and CIA accounts would be just like Soviets saying during the Vietnam war that USSR can easily defeat USA since USA cannot even take over Vietnam, just farmers basically, much lower than Ukraine's tech base in this war. And imagine if the Soviets then said non stop about how USA is losing THOUSANDS of aircraft, THOUSANDS of helicopters, TENS OF THOUSANDS of soldiers, HUNDREDS of THOUNSANDS captured and wounded by Vietcong forces. That's the same. USSR would say USA could not go against 1% of mighty USSR and all sorts of stupid nonsense which the west is saying about Russia in this war. When in reality, USA would absolutely be able to hold its own at least against USSR in conventional war back then.

 

[jhungary]

No it is you who cannot understand perspective and the fact that different ones exist about the same events and situations.

Let's just say NATO without directly going in to this theater to stop Russia means Russia eventually takes over much of the eastern parts they are after.

NATO has not proven it can actually war with Russia and defeat it, not even hold its own. Nothing is shown or proven despite mountains of noise and propaganda. After all Russia says they can beat NATO easily. Are you right or are they right? Neither until proven... the rest is just noise and what you would like to believe. Spin history and events and Russia's "performance" however you'd like.

Well, you are talking about Russia is going up against a force Trained by NATO, armed with NATO second hand equipment, have all the organisation level copy from NATO structure. The only different is the person who behind the gun, the weapon and the tank. And you are telling me NATO is "Not" fighting Russia? LOL

Ukraine for all intent and purposes is an image of NATO, the only thing that Ukraine does not have is NATO membership. But everything else is already in NATO standard, that's the same standard and equipment the UK uses, that's the same standard and equipment the US uses, you simply replace the name "American" (or any NATO nationality) to "Ukrainian", unless you are trying to say Ukraine is Slavic and worth 10 NATO soldier BS. For all intent and purpose, Russia IS FIGHTING NATO in a miniature scale. You have to be really delusional to see Russia is just fighting Ukraine, they are fighting NATO in some sense, in terms of NATO equipment, NATO training and NATO structure.

Now, does that translate to NATO is stronger and Russia is weaker? No, because I have never said that, all I am saying, from the beginning to the end, is why NATO would want to get involved in this war. When you have someone motivated and doing a pretty good job so far is doing it for you. I mean, do you think I want to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? If ANA or Iraqi Army are up to scratch, I would much rather sitting in an Air Conditioning room and tell them what to do then in the field sweating my *** off. Nobody want to fight a war if they don't have to. And in this case, NATO don't have to fight in Ukraine and Ukraine is doing a good job, then why NATO want to get involved? Now, does that mean NATO is weak??

 

[Sayfullah]

Taliban is China's vassal state. They are dependent on China for everything. On the other hand, the US does not recognize Taliban.

“China’s vassal”
Meanwhile:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1324711683344904195

https://twitter.com/x/status/1203337144862941185

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537416580442820608

Taliban has many factions and is loosely united. Uyghur fighters have been present in Afghanistan since Soviet jihad times. Sure the central leadership might side with you but the real power is held by the on ground commanders who overwhelmingly support Uyghur’s.
Taliban is far from China’s vassal. Even their leaders are divided when it comes to China and how to deal with China.

 

[serenity]

Tai Chen is a troll and also an idiot too. Ignore him is best.

Well, you are talking about Russia is going up against a force Trained by NATO, armed with NATO second hand equipment, have all the organisation level copy from NATO structure. The only different is the person who behind the gun, the weapon and the tank. And you are telling me NATO is "Not" fighting Russia? LOL

Ukraine for all intent and purposes is an image of NATO, the only thing that Ukraine does not have is NATO membership. But everything else is already in NATO standard, that's the same standard and equipment the UK uses, that's the same standard and equipment the US uses, you simply replace the name "American" (or any NATO nationality) to "Ukrainian", unless you are trying to say Ukraine is Slavic and worth 10 NATO soldier BS. For all intent and purpose, Russia IS FIGHTING NATO in a miniature scale. You have to be really delusional to see Russia is not just fighting Ukraine, they are fighting NATO in some sense, in terms of NATO equipment, NATO training and NATO structure.

Now, does that translate to NATO is stronger and Russia is weaker? No, because I have never said that, all I am saying, from the beginning to the end, is why NATO would want to get involved in this war. When you have someone motivated and doing a pretty good job so far is doing it for you. I mean, do you think I want to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? If ANA or Iraqi Army are up to scratch, I would much rather sitting in an Air Conditioning room and tell them what to do then in the field sweating my *** off. Nobody want to fight a war if they don't have to. And in this case, NATO don't have to fight in Ukraine and Ukraine is doing a good job, then why NATO want to get involved? Now, does that mean NATO is weak??

Yeah and the USSR supplied weapons to Vietnam. So this whole premise of saying Russia is weak because look at these specific selected examples? come on. Yes of course there are examples of Russian military command and choices that seem bizarre to us. But we don't ever have the full picture or an udnerstanding of their doctrine or tactics and equipment.

Anyway NATO is not fighting Russia. There is a big difference between supplying weapons and not being a target yourself and actually fighting. Because the difference is that if NATO fights, Russia can hit back. Neither NATO or Russia want to directly fight each other. For Russia it would be pointless since there's nothing they can gain anyway. For NATO at best, they prevent Russia from controlling some parts of Ukraine, also not worth it for NATO's point of view, when the risk they run by fighting is getting hit by Russia.

From this, one should not conclude that Russia is weaker than NATO lol. What a silly thing to believe due to articles claiming this. While it may be true and actuality, there really is no concrete evidence for this.

Imagine this situation as an exam. There are many students, Ukraine, Russia, NATO etc and so far only Russia and Ukraine have sat the exam, Ukraine taught by NATO. Russia scored 50% and Ukraine scored 10%. Conclusion is USA and NATO will score higher than 50%? Maybe they could but that really is an unknown.

 

[jhungary]

Tai Chen is a troll and also an idiot too. Ignore him is best.



Yeah and the USSR supplied weapons to Vietnam. So this whole premise of saying Russia is weak because look at these specific selected examples? come on. Yes of course there are examples of Russian military command and choices that seem bizarre to us. But we don't ever have the full picture or an udnerstanding of their doctrine or tactics and equipment.

Anyway NATO is not fighting Russia. There is a big difference between supplying weapons and not being a target yourself and actually fighting. Because the difference is that if NATO fights, Russia can hit back. Neither NATO or Russia want to directly fight each other. For Russia it would be pointless since there's nothing they can gain anyway. For NATO at best, they prevent Russia from controlling some parts of Ukraine, also not worth it for NATO's point of view, when the risk they run by fighting is getting hit by Russia.

From this, one should not conclude that Russia is weaker than NATO lol. What a silly thing to believe due to articles claiming this. While it may be true and actuality, there really is no concrete evidence for this.

Imagine this situation as an exam. There are many students, Ukraine, Russia, NATO etc and so far only Russia and Ukraine have sat the exam, Ukraine taught by NATO. Russia scored 50% and Ukraine scored 10%. Conclusion is USA and NATO will score higher than 50%? Maybe they could but that really is an unknown.

What is NATO then if you taking out NATO Standard, NATO equipment, and NATO organisation and Structure? What left is a bunch of country.

Problem, is, unless you are talking about a Nuclear War, if NATO involved and Russia hit back, you are talking about NATO, which have 5 times the population (700 millions vs 155 millions), 1.5 times the army (1.5 millions active soldier vs 900,000 active soldier), 10 times the air force (US Air Force alone have 8000 fighter plane), and 20 times the Navy. And if we go by the logic Russia cannot even make any progress in Ukraine, which is numerous time smaller than Russia, let alone NATO, and if Russia is struggle to win in a mini-NATO scenario, what will happen when they meet actual NATO? You are looking at the same training standard, same equipment but better and same organisational structure but with a lot more in sheer number. The only way Russia can come out ahead is really Nuclear Option, again, this is not about propaganda, this is what people will predict comparing how Russian fought the Ukrainian and NATO Themselves.

Again, I am not saying NATO is stronger, and Russia is weaker, I am Saying Russia cannot complete this operation with Ukraine, and Ukraine is a miniature NATO, why would NATO want to get involved? That's because being "Strong" is useless in war, that's an abstract concept. I will say by all account, Russia is "Stronger" than Ukraine, it would be naïve or foolish to think otherwise, yet why Russia failed to perform their objective and have to move goal post to suit their narrative. Again, it is a FACT that now at this point on June 23, Russia is occupying the least amount of Ukraine since the war.

This is not an exam, because you have a set score of exam. War is open ended. And it does not ends with one side score X amount of percentage and the other side score Y and that would be your final tally, in a war, it doesn't matter if you score 50% or 90% in US case in Afghanistan, you can still lose in the end. So the better question, again, for you is, if Russia is facing off Ukraine and it ended up like this, why would NATO want to get involve?

 

[Madni Bappa]

Brown was asked if the Air Force is doing any “lessons learned” analysis of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine, and he said that effort is ongoing.

“How we would do it,” Brown said, is to attack air defenses and establish air superiority over a broad area of operations where U.S. ground forces were operating.

“That’s not the way the Russians have operated,” though, he said. Russian forces have kept their air forces “more closely [to] where they had ground superiority. So, based on their doctrine, they’ve stuck … where their ground forces are, and don’t venture very far from them.”

The Ukrainians have been successful in denying air superiority to Russia in part by not keeping their air defenses “static,” Brown said.

“They stay fairly dynamic, which made it more difficult” for Russia to find and destroy Ukrainian air defense systems.

“If you can’t do dynamic targeting very well, you’re going to have a hard time,” he said. This is “something we do, I think, … really well. And something we’ll continue to work on.”

He also expressed surprise that Russia is having such a hard time countering Ukrainian air defenses, noting that they are Russian-made systems.

“They’re going against their own” system, he said. “They should know how to defeat them.”

This is the Best Time to Take Risks, Brown Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine

CSAF Gen. Brown: The Air Force wants to balance readiness and future capabilities, and the current situation offers favorable conditions.

www.airforcemag.com

I bet same USAF general is elated at the performance of the Ghost of Kiev

 

[Shakuni Mama]

Oh my. Oh look how tough the US air force was. Got its butt kicked by rag tag Taliban. Ooh.

What Taliban did to USAF ? He is right in saying that Russians are not able to identify their system, if he was lying then Russians would have air superiority by now. Putin and his generals were bragging to capture Kiev in four days and now are hiding in their rat hole.