Yes, there isn't a viable plan to occupy Russia. I am refering to just a straight up fight. The ability of the Russian state to wage war would be crushed fairly quickly. Hopefully if it were to come to that, that would be enough to force Putin (or whomever replaced him after the putsch that would quite possibly occur) to the table to negotiate a peace.

Yes, the US Military is the backbone of NATO force. But to discount the UK's contribution of air power and naval ability is probably a mistake. Again, you yourself are acknowledging that logistical ability of the US in your statement about NATO needing US military to move. But upon re-reading, it also seems you acknowledge that the NATO forces would trounce the Russian military, so I'm not sure why we're still discussing that. :)

flags- The US isn't about to put boots on the ground in Ukraine. This isn't Vietnam, thank god. But what we will likely end up doing is providing modern equipment, training, and logistical support that will function as a force multiplier. The only reason the so-called "DPR" is still around is that Russian arms and "volunteers" keep being pumped in. This is shaping up to be a pretty textbook "Proxy War".

Fatman- While fully acknowledging that China can muster a HUGE army, and is rapidly modernizing their equipment and doctrine, they are currently hampered by the fact that they don't have the logistics to feed and supply a 100 million solider army. Hell, I don't think anyone does. :) Plus, while China is a communist state politically, it is very clearly a modified capitalist state economically, and that means there are powerful folks making a LOT of money behind the scenes that don't want a war to mess up that lovely money making. Modern countries fight with economics, as Russia is learning right now.

"[W]hat we will likely end up doing is providing modern equipment, training, and logistical support that will function as a force multiplier."

Oh right, that's brilliant, I forgot how well this plan worked in Iraq. c|;-)

For those of you who don't remember, the US has provided modern equipment (or funds) and some training to the Iraqi army, but they still failed to protect Northern Iraq from the IS(IS). Most of the soldiers stationed in Northern Iraq (which is mostly Sunni) had been Shiite guys from Southern Iraq, loathed by the local population. As soon as they were threatened by a seemingly serious force (IS), they fled south, leaving their arms behind (soon to be found and seized by the jihadists).

The US soon had to realize that they needed to provide at least direct aerial support and rely on the better trained and motivated Kurdish Peshmerga troops instead of the useless Iraqi army.

You cannot compare the military of Ukraine and Iraq.

And in Iraq, as you may or may not recall, we also had a couple hundred thousand boots on the ground, doing combat operations with the IA in support, in theory learning how to be a military, as their military had to be rebuilt from teh ground up after the collapse of the state.

Ukraine has a modern (albeit out dated equipment-wise) military, with merit based promotions, and a dedicated officers cadre.

They are very different forces, with different traditions and histories that make for very very different situations.

The UA has shown they are willing and able to fight, but they are fighting an enemy that is beginning to outgun them due to Russian interference. If the playing field were level, the DPR would have been scrubbed away months ago.

Yeah, I'm well aware that the Ukrainian army is not the same as the Iraqi army. On the other hand, the Russian army is not the same as the IS either, and they have only used a fraction of their real capabilities so far. If the US raises the stakes and starts providing arms to Ukraine and their situation becomes dire, as a response, Mr Putin and his military can also become more involved.

"[D]edicated officers cadre". Yeah right, like that Rear Admiral who defected to Russia just hours after being appointed head of the Ukrainian navy? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26410431

In fact, the average quality of the Ukrainian army is just being decreased, since they need to recruit fresh conscripts to pump up their numbers (and make up for the casualties) as the conflict escalates.

Just like the in Iraq, the ethno-political situation is quite complex as the leaders of the Ukrainian army dare not recruit from the local, Russian-speaking Eastern Ukrainian population (for fears that they might defect to Russia), and the Western Ukrainians sent their instead are both less motivated (esp. the Rusyn etc. minorities from the westernmost provinces) and disliked by the locals.

You gotta be drinking some damn fine Kool-aid to believe that the US didn't lose a battle in Vietnam.

CD, trust me, for china BRICS is far more important than US, US are damn important trading partner but BRICS is whole new level of project, more important than any trading agreement atm. BRICS is project in what in like 15 to 30 years they overgrow EU and US by trade, economy and military. About modernizing military technology for china, i told already bout their mass production. Just one example what fall on my mind, one of my shoes are original NIKE with declaration 'made in china' that is simplified, they also have high tech factories. Point is that they can produce something a lot faster and cheaper than US and EU combined. They have a lot more factories, some of them even builded by western companies cause of cheap workforce. And second cause they have like 3 times more people that can produce and they will work for 'plate of rice'. If russia must pick ally atm it wont be US for sure. If they give their technology to china (russia and US have aproximatley same rank of technology, maybe russia max 10% lower in general) china can produce 2 times more of those than EU and US combined. And US and EU bring that up on themself by developing china cause of cheap work force. so basicly as i told, 3 self sufficient countries combined. BRICS is just economical alliance for now, if they become military one also they will be first who wold be able to say 'fuck off US, fuck off NATO' this is what i told when i told in like 5 to 15 years... http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/515878.html
when this gasline russia-china' will be over in like 5 years russia will be able to say 'fo EU' and sell their gas to china. Like 3 years ago when we had crisis with gas from russia for just like 4 months 3 big companiesin my country what work with fertilizers so they need a lot of gas fall apart and 2000 people lost their jobs... what you think what will happen in long term when they stop delivering gas to EU and they bring like 40% of all gas needs to EU. LNG gas from US are far more expensive cause of costs of delivery. That is why EU is against full sanctions with russia and why some countries are against that cause they 'tax' russian gas for passing trough their lands. Just one example of EU member state...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2015/02/18/south_stream_pipeline_hungary_backs_putin_s_plans_to_shift_gas_flows_through.html
EU is dividing and partialy falling apart cause of this shit. So basicly, if 2019 china and russia finish their gas pipelines Russia would be able to blackmail EU with gas cause they wil have second option - china. That is only one reason why in long term russia is more important for china than US. Just read what Orban says, EU functioning without Russia is just fairee tails. US can spread shit and 'sanctions' toward russia cause their trade afairs with them are minimal, but what with EU... how long will they sustain...

Ok das name one battle the US lost. I don't mean skirmish.

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them

smoke, for example, do you count as win war where you fight for example 5 years, lose 20.000 people and then fall back without lost battle and give land back to enemy???

Smoke, I have to agree. By most conventional methods of counting, we won Vietnam. The North Vietnamese army was incapable of wining a set battle against us. Relatively quickly they lost the ability to even try

And the Cong lost dozens for every US GI killed. We destroyed an entire generation of men. The kill ratio was rediculously lopsided.

But in the end, we pulled out and North Vietnam absorbed South. North Vietnam "won", as they achieved their goals, and we didn't.

Clauswitz defines warfare as the continuation of politics through physical means (not an exact quote), and he is absolutely correct. Because of this, we "lost" the war while winning just about ever battle.

Same thing happened in Iraq... we defeated the Insurgent forces, stabilized it enough to pull out, and the leadership in Iraq immediately undid a lot of the progress we had done to integrate the country, creating the devide that allowed ISIS to conquer the northern part of the country.

The US is terrible at Asymetrical warfare, and will continue to be because we are not ruthless enough to combat it properly. This is a good thing, imo, as that level of brutality rapidly turns one into the badguys.