Squadron7 said:
(I realize that the sweeping gains seen in the two Gulf War ops are not the same and that these two sides are much more evenly matched.)
I think what most people are starting to realize is evenly matched armies really isn't a thing.
Even today, Ukraine isn't evenly matched with Russia on paper. Nor should they be. However, the results seem to indicate they are a slightly better military force than what was assumed to be the #2 military power in the world.
Ukraine is proving that a smaller more nimble, well trained and equipped force can punch well above their weight against much bigger, lesser trained and equipped force that can't adapt. It just needs to hold it's own until the country can gear up and NATO / allies come to the rescue. Then go on the offensive after bleeding the over extended foe dry.
Going to the comment up above of NATO powers being woefully unprepared previously and spending more and being better equipped today because of the invasion is true. They let defense spending and capability slowly degrade because there wasn't a need or threat over the last 3 or 4 decades. I understand why they did. It was purely risk versus reward in an era where cost cutting was the norm. France is burning because there isn't enough money to go around to keep everyone happy.
Big, bad USA loved to throw our weight around and stroke our ego as the world super power. So they could rely on the aggregate of NATO with the understanding they were a backup plan (or in the case of European war a stop gap until Britton and the USA showed up). Just like in WWI and WW2.
This isn't meant to be political, but that was one thing the Trump administration had right. If you are in a military alliance / treaty, all should be pulling their weight fairly on spending / capability because the enemy is going to strike the weak point. And European countries are thankfully starting to correct as it take time for a country across the globe to gear up and come to the rescue.