G Martin 87 said:
Get Off My Lawn said:
And on the "going after Moscow" topic - projecting power is far harder than defending your home. Americans are terrible with our doctrine, but one piece gets drilled in: before assaulting you want a minimum advantage of 3:1. And as we see in Ukraine - advanced anti-armor weapons has exacerbated the asymmetrical capabilities of a defense in depth.
TLDR: Europe marching to Moscow is a fever dream.
Europe marching to Moscow has happened twice before, so that's not really a fever dream from the Russian POV. Europe successfully marching on Moscow, yeah, that's the fever dream.
Both times previously the start was in Poland. Moscow is actually pretty far west in Russia Proper, especially if you are going through a friendly or participating Ukraine. This is all hypothetical though, because while NATO, for example, has a large collective numeric and qualitative advantage in front line units, any such an effort would be telegraphed by the necessary logistical preparations and if any attack can't be sustained to keep defenses off balance and unable to coordinate, the defenses will eventually dig in somewhere in depth at critical points preventing maneuver warfare and inflict serious losses. Just as has happened in Ukraine.
There is only so much "reach" for a breakthrough and exploitation, even with a very modern army, before it must pull up and reorganize and resupply. Critical parts of Russia may just be too deep to consider that. Russia is running into these exact problems in their own attack in Ukraine. They could only push so far before they had to halt to reorganize and resupply and that wasn't nearly as far into Ukraine fast enough to prevent a solid defense from forming in key strategic locations.
And all that is not to mention that if Russia perceived a real threat to an internal attack that might defeat it, they would almost certainly employ tactical nukes on battlefield formations in desperation.
