The UK France and Germany need the USA?

For years now, we have seen the media, all the media, tout that the Russian military is just a conscripted piece garbage, and that Ukraine was wiping the floor daily. But recently in the news, "President" Zelensky has been licking the feet of NATO, pleading for help. British PM Starmer stated that the UK was ready to put boots on the ground, BUT, US involvement would be 100% needed to ensure a successful campaign.

So, the UK, Germany, France, Australia and their commonwealths along with the mighty Ukrainians cannot defeat the wimpy Russian military, without the USA?

None of this makes sense.

I have said for years now on this forum, that our military and the militaries of the world, with exception to China, was far behind the operational readiness of Russia. Many here have called me a faggot, and a communist, and the like for this standpoint.

It seems like recent headlines, and statements from world leaders has, in fact, proved precisely what I have been saying.

I am glad that SecDef Pete Hegseth, has implemented steps to increase our lethality and readiness, but I fear that it is not enough.....yet.
 
US is spread too thin. We could still kick Russias ass if we focused on it. we just aren't able to fight a two front war anymore. Our naval readiness needs addressing first. As naval problems are being fixed we then need look at our air superiority and reassess where we are and what we need going forward.

I don't trust that the people in the pentagon have the right planes in the right numbers and at a cost-efficient price point.
 
For years now, we have seen the media, all the media, tout that the Russian military is just a conscripted piece garbage, and that Ukraine was wiping the floor daily. But recently in the news, "President" Zelensky has been licking the feet of NATO, pleading for help. British PM Starmer stated that the UK was ready to put boots on the ground, BUT, US involvement would be 100% needed to ensure a successful campaign.

So, the UK, Germany, France, Australia and their commonwealths along with the mighty Ukrainians cannot defeat the wimpy Russian military, without the USA?

None of this makes sense.

I have said for years now on this forum, that our military and the militaries of the world, with exception to China, was far behind the operational readiness of Russia. Many here have called me a faggot, and a communist, and the like for this standpoint.

It seems like recent headlines, and statements from world leaders has, in fact, proved precisely what I have been saying.

I am glad that SecDef Pete Hegseth, has implemented steps to increase our lethality and readiness, but I fear that it is not enough.....yet.
All those fags put together are 5ft6in

Europe has 500million
They gotta call America 340 million
To stop the Russians 180 million

Stay home boys their women need to teach their men how to fight
 
For years now, we have seen the media, all the media, tout that the Russian military is just a conscripted piece garbage, and that Ukraine was wiping the floor daily. But recently in the news, "President" Zelensky has been licking the feet of NATO, pleading for help. British PM Starmer stated that the UK was ready to put boots on the ground, BUT, US involvement would be 100% needed to ensure a successful campaign.

So, the UK, Germany, France, Australia and their commonwealths along with the mighty Ukrainians cannot defeat the wimpy Russian military, without the USA?

None of this makes sense.

I have said for years now on this forum, that our military and the militaries of the world, with exception to China, was far behind the operational readiness of Russia. Many here have called me a faggot, and a communist, and the like for this standpoint.

It seems like recent headlines, and statements from world leaders has, in fact, proved precisely what I have been saying.

I am glad that SecDef Pete Hegseth, has implemented steps to increase our lethality and readiness, but I fear that it is not enough.....yet.
Twerp
 
US is spread too thin. We could still kick Russias ass if we focused on it. we just aren't able to fight a two front war anymore. Our naval readiness needs addressing first. As naval problems are being fixed we then need look at our air superiority and reassess where we are and what we need going forward.

I don't trust that the people in the pentagon have the right planes in the right numbers and at a cost-efficient price point.
Dude we can and are able to destroy it all.
 
US is spread too thin. We could still kick Russias ass if we focused on it. we just aren't able to fight a two front war anymore. Our naval readiness needs addressing first. As naval problems are being fixed we then need look at our air superiority and reassess where we are and what we need going forward.

I don't trust that the people in the pentagon have the right planes in the right numbers and at a cost-efficient price point.
We are in agreement.

With the addition of the ethos at the ground level, that really really needs help.
 
I disagree. Today, Russian and China match our capabilities, and in some cases, are superior. Especially, to @hmt5000 , the Navy.........but that being said, with such things like hypersonic missles that really cannot be shot down, an aircraft carrier doesnt mean much.
No way on Russia. I think that became pretty evident in Ukraine.
CHINA is a bit of unknown. Is their hardware crap temp or is it functional?
 
No way on Russia. I think that became pretty evident in Ukraine.
CHINA is a bit of unknown. Is their hardware crap temp or is it functional?
Russia took precisely what they wanted long ago, within about 3 weeks. The rest has been on the defense basically.

China has excellent equipment, tough people, and a bunch of numbers.

Success in any conventional campaign would be terrian related, in other words......... where? Where would be the most powerful factor.
 
Russia took precisely what they wanted long ago, within about 3 weeks. The rest has been on the defense basically.

China has excellent equipment, tough people, and a bunch of numbers.

Success in any conventional campaign would be terrian related, in other words......... where? Where would be the most powerful factor.
Well no one is moving a billion screaming chinamen wo anyone noticing.
 
I disagree. Today, Russian and China match our capabilities, and in some cases, are superior. Especially, to @hmt5000 , the Navy.........but that being said, with such things like hypersonic missles that really cannot be shot down, an aircraft carrier doesnt mean much.
What about in terms of global force projection though?
Russia has numerical superiority over neighboring Ukraine and yet they're stuck in a sort of modern equivalent of an early 20th century trench warfare stalemate.
Any further abroad and Russian force projection would evaporate.

And Chinese global force projection isn't much better since they've primarily focused on regional military power and are effectively surrounded anyway.
I think they're also still relying on a handful of Cold War era heavy transport aircraft too. China's numerical superiority wouldn't be worth a damn since they'd be annihilated as soon as/possibly even before their transports ever left Chinese territory wouldn't they.

According to online info, US still absolutely dominates in most respects compared to any other.
How long would it take for an effective US force to project anywhere on Earth? 24 hours? Less? More?
Even the US civilian population alone is comparable to a military power, I dare Russia or China or both to try project force to the continental US....😂 y'all rednecks would massacre the commie bastards.

And we all know the US has a shitload of retardedly advanced tech stashed away.

Problem is the US-centric paranoia. Ya'z always talk about military shit as though it's USA against the world. Us vs them type thinking. When really it's USA + ~60% of the worlds military forces vs whoever tf USA sez.
 
See new posts


Grok who wins in a war w China and a separate war with Russia


1 post

15 web pages

Predicting the outcome of hypothetical wars is a complex task that depends on numerous variables, including military capabilities, alliances, economic factors, geography, political will, and unforeseen events. I’ll provide a high-level analysis based on general knowledge of the current global situation as of March 17, 2025, without inventing specifics or relying on unverifiable predictions. Since you’ve asked about separate wars—one with China and one with Russia—I’ll assume you mean conflicts involving the United States (as the implied opponent, given the context of most geopolitical discussions) and address each scenario independently.
War with China
A war with China would likely center on the Asia-Pacific region, with potential flashpoints like Taiwan, the South China Sea, or broader regional dominance. China has the world’s largest standing army (over 2 million active personnel), a rapidly modernizing navy (including aircraft carriers and submarines), and significant investments in advanced technologies like hypersonic missiles, cyber warfare, and artificial intelligence. Its economic power—being the second-largest economy globally—gives it resilience and the ability to sustain a prolonged conflict, though it relies heavily on imported energy and resources, which could be disrupted in wartime.
The U.S., with its unmatched global military reach, advanced technology (e.g., stealth fighters, nuclear submarines), and a network of allies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Australia), would have advantages in power projection and naval dominance. However, fighting near China’s homeland would stretch U.S. logistics, and China’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategies (e.g., missile systems targeting ships and bases) could neutralize some of those strengths. A key factor would be whether allies like NATO or India join the U.S., and if China’s regional partners (e.g., North Korea) get involved.
Outcomes could range from a U.S.-led coalition prevailing through superior technology and economic pressure (e.g., blockades cutting China’s trade routes) to China forcing a stalemate or localized victory by leveraging its home-field advantage and sheer numbers. A prolonged war might end in a negotiated settlement, as both sides have nuclear capabilities, making total victory unlikely without catastrophic escalation.
War with Russia
A war with Russia would likely focus on Eastern Europe, possibly triggered by further aggression in Ukraine or a NATO border state. Russia has a large, battle-hardened military (around 1 million active personnel, bolstered by reserves), a vast nuclear arsenal, and strengths in artillery, electronic warfare, and cold-weather operations. Its economy, however, is smaller and heavily sanctioned, relying on energy exports, which could be a vulnerability. The ongoing Ukraine conflict has exposed weaknesses in logistics, morale, and equipment maintenance, though Russia has adapted with support from partners like China and Iran.
The U.S., backed by NATO, would bring overwhelming airpower, technological superiority, and a coalition of 31 nations (plus partners like Ukraine). NATO’s combined forces outnumber Russia’s in manpower and resources, and its defensive posture in Europe is robust. Russia’s strategy would likely emphasize attrition and asymmetric tactics (e.g., cyberattacks, hybrid warfare), but it would struggle against NATO’s coordinated response, especially if the U.S. fully commits its resources.
Possible outcomes include a NATO victory through sustained pressure and economic isolation, forcing Russia to retreat or collapse internally, or a frozen conflict if Russia holds ground using nuclear threats to deter escalation. A decisive Russian win seems less plausible unless NATO cohesion falters significantly

Key Considerations
China vs. Russia: China’s larger population (1.4 billion vs. Russia’s 144 million) and economy give it greater staying power than Russia, which leans on raw military might and energy leverage. China’s war would be more naval and tech-driven; Russia’s more ground-based and territorial.

U.S. Role: The U.S. would be the common factor, but fighting two separate wars would strain its resources differently—China’s distance poses logistical challenges, while Russia’s proximity to NATO allies simplifies some aspects of engagement.

Nuclear Risk: Both nations’ nuclear arsenals make all-out war a global gamble, likely pushing outcomes toward limited conflicts or deterrence-based stalemates.

Conclusion
In a war with China, the U.S. and its allies might "win" by containing China’s ambitions and forcing a diplomatic resolution, but a clear military victory is uncertain due to China’s resilience and proximity advantages. In a war with Russia, the U.S. and NATO have a stronger chance of prevailing outright, given Russia’s current strains and NATO’s collective power, though it’d be costly and protracted. Neither scenario guarantees a simple "winner" without massive variables shifting—alliances, technology, or political will could tip the scales either way. What’s certain is that both would reshape the world, likely not in anyone’s favor after the dust settles.
 
Russia took precisely what they wanted long ago, within about 3 weeks. The rest has been on the defense basically.
Probably right about that.
Would their defensive strategy include allowing Ukraine to invade & hold Russian territory for some unknown reason?

Whatever the case wouldn't it make more sense to employ an offensive defense and reduce Ukrainian forces to ash instead of allowing them to remain as an effective force capable of attacking their defenses?
Why not simply bomb the fuck out of Ukrainian forces. Wouldn't it be more effective to defend against a crippled military force?

China has excellent equipment, tough people, and a bunch of numbers.
The Chink tourists and immigrant invaders down here are some of the absolute worst excuses of human beings I've ever encountered. Generally the self assumed superiority, entitlement and outright arrogance from the Chinese dwarfs even the Americans and Israelis. They have a habit of looking down at everyone, seeming to take great pleasure in mocking non-chinks in Mandarin or wherever tf language they use.

If the Chinese military is afflicted with that shit. Then just like cowardly bullies, they ain't gonna be near as tough as they outwardly project.

Success in any conventional campaign would be terrian related, in other words......... where? Where would be the most powerful factor.
Orbital.
 
See new posts


Grok who wins in a war w China and a separate war with Russia


1 post

15 web pages

Predicting the outcome of hypothetical wars is a complex task that depends on numerous variables, including military capabilities, alliances, economic factors, geography, political will, and unforeseen events. I’ll provide a high-level analysis based on general knowledge of the current global situation as of March 17, 2025, without inventing specifics or relying on unverifiable predictions. Since you’ve asked about separate wars—one with China and one with Russia—I’ll assume you mean conflicts involving the United States (as the implied opponent, given the context of most geopolitical discussions) and address each scenario independently.
War with China
A war with China would likely center on the Asia-Pacific region, with potential flashpoints like Taiwan, the South China Sea, or broader regional dominance. China has the world’s largest standing army (over 2 million active personnel), a rapidly modernizing navy (including aircraft carriers and submarines), and significant investments in advanced technologies like hypersonic missiles, cyber warfare, and artificial intelligence. Its economic power—being the second-largest economy globally—gives it resilience and the ability to sustain a prolonged conflict, though it relies heavily on imported energy and resources, which could be disrupted in wartime.
The U.S., with its unmatched global military reach, advanced technology (e.g., stealth fighters, nuclear submarines), and a network of allies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Australia), would have advantages in power projection and naval dominance. However, fighting near China’s homeland would stretch U.S. logistics, and China’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategies (e.g., missile systems targeting ships and bases) could neutralize some of those strengths. A key factor would be whether allies like NATO or India join the U.S., and if China’s regional partners (e.g., North Korea) get involved.
Outcomes could range from a U.S.-led coalition prevailing through superior technology and economic pressure (e.g., blockades cutting China’s trade routes) to China forcing a stalemate or localized victory by leveraging its home-field advantage and sheer numbers. A prolonged war might end in a negotiated settlement, as both sides have nuclear capabilities, making total victory unlikely without catastrophic escalation.
War with Russia
A war with Russia would likely focus on Eastern Europe, possibly triggered by further aggression in Ukraine or a NATO border state. Russia has a large, battle-hardened military (around 1 million active personnel, bolstered by reserves), a vast nuclear arsenal, and strengths in artillery, electronic warfare, and cold-weather operations. Its economy, however, is smaller and heavily sanctioned, relying on energy exports, which could be a vulnerability. The ongoing Ukraine conflict has exposed weaknesses in logistics, morale, and equipment maintenance, though Russia has adapted with support from partners like China and Iran.
The U.S., backed by NATO, would bring overwhelming airpower, technological superiority, and a coalition of 31 nations (plus partners like Ukraine). NATO’s combined forces outnumber Russia’s in manpower and resources, and its defensive posture in Europe is robust. Russia’s strategy would likely emphasize attrition and asymmetric tactics (e.g., cyberattacks, hybrid warfare), but it would struggle against NATO’s coordinated response, especially if the U.S. fully commits its resources.
Possible outcomes include a NATO victory through sustained pressure and economic isolation, forcing Russia to retreat or collapse internally, or a frozen conflict if Russia holds ground using nuclear threats to deter escalation. A decisive Russian win seems less plausible unless NATO cohesion falters significantly

Key Considerations
China vs. Russia: China’s larger population (1.4 billion vs. Russia’s 144 million) and economy give it greater staying power than Russia, which leans on raw military might and energy leverage. China’s war would be more naval and tech-driven; Russia’s more ground-based and territorial.

U.S. Role: The U.S. would be the common factor, but fighting two separate wars would strain its resources differently—China’s distance poses logistical challenges, while Russia’s proximity to NATO allies simplifies some aspects of engagement.

Nuclear Risk: Both nations’ nuclear arsenals make all-out war a global gamble, likely pushing outcomes toward limited conflicts or deterrence-based stalemates.

Conclusion
In a war with China, the U.S. and its allies might "win" by containing China’s ambitions and forcing a diplomatic resolution, but a clear military victory is uncertain due to China’s resilience and proximity advantages. In a war with Russia, the U.S. and NATO have a stronger chance of prevailing outright, given Russia’s current strains and NATO’s collective power, though it’d be costly and protracted. Neither scenario guarantees a simple "winner" without massive variables shifting—alliances, technology, or political will could tip the scales either way. What’s certain is that both would reshape the world, likely not in anyone’s favor after the dust settles.
Guessing Grokbot don't know US has the capability to generate earthquakes anywhere on the planet.

China wouldn't have the justification to bust out nukes if USA simply levels the place via a series of "natural disasters" aye.
 
Guessing Grokbot don't know US has the capability to generate earthquakes anywhere on the planet.

China wouldn't have the justification to bust out nukes if USA simply levels the place via a series of "natural disasters" aye.
Grok only know web pages is the gist. If you dig on Grok it will finally come up with stuff like rods of god. The creators are Israelites. I read a log of a guy who dove hard on the jew conspiracy. Grok was evasive but ended up telling what we all kbow as the truth. But it was systematic drilling and not letting Grok of the hook.
It is pretty fascinating what the AI is capable of even for a simpleton like me. The crazy part is you really just have the conversation. Give it a go. You'll be surprised by its ability. It has some "reasoning" capabilites that are impressive
 
Grok only know web pages is the gist. If you dig on Grok it will finally come up with stuff like rods of god. The creators are Israelites. I read a log of a guy who dove hard on the jew conspiracy. Grok was evasive but ended up telling what we all kbow as the truth. But it was systematic drilling and not letting Grok of the hook.
It is pretty fascinating what the AI is capable of even for a simpleton like me. The crazy part is you really just have the conversation. Give it a go. You'll be surprised by its ability. It has some "reasoning" capabilites that are impressive
Yeah alright, sounds interesting. I'll take a look then.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom