No. of Recommendations: 3
Hmm. If only there had been a previous conflict that pitted Soviet/Russian war doctrine, training and front line combat equipment against the United State's lineup. That might have given us *some* clues. Or maybe we could have seen other examples of Russian hardware quality out there.
There were 2 such occasions. Gulf Wars I and II.
In both instances we saw Russian hardware, doctrine and tactics (Iraq was a Soviet/Russian client state) against the United States and NATO.
I don't think so. You can't really compare the old soviet armament in unskilled hands to our modern armament in highly trained hands. Same with the planes. I'm glad you read about it, but do I think you can extrapolate from an unskilled army with old armament to the Soviet Military?
I think skill level and good tactics can make quite a difference. In GW 1&2 we had a vastly superior force in every way and our forces are highly trained.
Assessments didn't start to disparage the Russian military until ~2017, but that was because of direct encounters with the Russian military. But even then it was hard to believe that they acted as if they had little training. Training makes a huge difference, and it's difficult to imagine the Russians not training their army. And most analysis thought the armament was better than it is too.
I think you made your opinion after the war started and we saw the dismal state of training and tactics.
BTW, the state is free to define what an excise tax is for STATE purposes, the point everyone made was a state can't redefine or reinterpret the FEDERAL Tax Code. Big difference.
Now - Reagan would fund Ukraine in a heartbeat - why are you abandoning your values? I know you don't care about Russian bodies, you just like the sound byte.
