[GK3]

As time goes on in the war, all that has been proved is that neither side has any real ability to launch a serious mobile spearhead against the other side.  The lack of artillery, air support and advanced "softening" of the opposing side makes any kind of serious effort at mobile warfare difficult.

Strongly agree. I would add that Ukraine in particular lacks the ability to quickly reinforce success. A "breakthrough" is useless if you can't pour forces through it. Ukraine doesn't have them and Russia moves too slowly to do so effectively.

This comment does not take into account the ability to lay and remove mines in the face of an attack.

Good point. Russia is much better at that than Ukraine, at least partially because Ukraine signed the Ottawa Treaty. They have recently given notice of their withdrawal.

I do not think that the Ukrainian conflict counts as a peer vs peer conflict.  Ukraine is under gunned and under manned when compared to Russia but they are hanging in there. If Putin decided to strike through the Baltic States and Poland I think things would be much different. The impact of NATO airpower would be much different than the current situation.

Absolutely agree! Ukraine has done much better than anybody expected.

  Russia was helped in its fight with Germany in WWII by the fact that the tactics that Hitler dictated played into Russian strength. The outcomes of wars are often dictated by who does the dumbest things.   Germany lost a half million men at the battle of Stalingrad. No one knows how that campaign would have worked out if German forces were allowed to withdraw.

Very true. One also has to wonder what would have happened if Germany had elected to not fight in southern Russia at all. A very wide envelopment after taking Moscow had a lot to recommend it. Yes, getting the oil from the south would have taken longer, but the Russian leadership would have been beheaded and the lend-lease supplies through Murmansk cut off.

IMO the fact that Ukraine is still in this war is a great credit to its leadership and its people and the willingness of the West to come to its aide. I still fail to understand how Russia failed to take Kiev at the beginning of the war.

I think Ukrainian leadership, particularly in the person of Zelenskyy has been beyond outstanding. The people of Ukraine have indeed stepped up.

The great Russian Ogre has been around a long time.  They are the Big Bad Wolf if you figure they will use nuclear weapons, not so much if those weapons are not involved.
Russia's greatest military asset has always been its vast landmass. That landmass is only lightly populate.  No matter how you want to cut it up, that Landmass is Russia's only advantage.

Russia has an additional significant advantage. Both its Army and its people are willing to take horrific casualties and suffer economic disaster while still fighting on. NATO in general lacks that stoic willingness to die in massive numbers simply waiting for the other side to run out of troops. Fortunately for Ukraine, they have more than a bit of the "Russian" stoicism.. Otherwise Ukraine would have given up long ago.

NATO has vastly more men under arms, more planes and whatever else.  Now that we seem to paying less attention to Europe, they are responding by upping their defense budgets.

According to Google AI NATO nations have a total of 3.44 million active military personnel. Of these, 1.3 million are American. 0.48 million are Turks. These personnel are part of several different militaries that have diverse philosophies and skill sets. It is unclear how many (and even if) these various nations would contribute to defend Germany, let alone the Baltic states. Lots of these troops are also otherwise committed. Russia (according to the same Google AI) has 2.4 million men under arms. Obviously in both cases reserve formations are being counted. It also will matter how fast troops can be committed to the fight. In the Baltic States, Poland, etc Russia is a lot closer than Turkey and certainly the US. I am not nearly as sanguine as you are about our ability to match Russia's numbers. NATO needs to be "better", because we can't count on "bigger". Just like before. Except the Bundeswehr is not even a shadow of what it was and the 4 British divisions of the AOTR no longer exist. I hope NATO has months to prepare and a REFORGER can (and will) happen in that time. Otherwise, things could at best get very dicey.
 
IMO the increase in NATO budgets is almost entirely due to the war in Ukraine and the realization that it could happen to them. The US no longer being a reliable ally is a problem of a different nature and not that much of a driver toward increased expenditures. If Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine the NATO countries wouldn't be increasing their budgets. Finland and Sweden probably wouldn't be members. No need, period. A much more serious problem is that the populace of most NATO countries isn't interested in fighting a war. They are also reluctant to spend the money required to prepare for one. After German reunification it was assumed that would never again be required. UMT was abolished. Even with the "Russian threat", nobody is running to the recruiting offices to join up. It is entirely possible that if Ukraine is absorbed into Russia and Putin appears to stand down (at least for the moment) the NATO nations will go back to spending little on defense. 

I am not sure Russia is even able to go on a war footing economically versus NATO.

I am sure they can, but it will be slow. NATO wants to (probably needs to) win before it matters.

Many, many years ago when I arrived in Germany as 2nd Lt, my CO explained to me that if the Russians came through Fulda Gap, we could expect Russian paratroops coming out of the night sky, fortunately that never happened.

Fortunate indeed. Part of the reason it didn't happen was because you and others like you were there. It also helped that the Bundeswehr was deadly serious.

Yes, back in the day the Bundeswehr was a seriously capable military force.  Now not so much, but they seem to possibly be recognizing this deficiency and are "apparently" willing to invest a lot of DM's into fixing it, time will tell. My comments regarding what would happen today in a NATO vs Russia conflict is predicated on the a couple of very possibly erroneous beliefs. Russia has not shown any ability to really dominate the airspace over Ukraine. I believe that NATO countries have invested far more money in Airpower than any other force doctrine. I do not see how Russia could invade NATO and also control the airspace above the front lines. 
As you say, Russia entire ethos has a long history based on a willingness to suffer and to tolerate and overcome great suffering. Whether that is a sufficient asset to allow them to defeat NATO is doubtful.  I think that Poland and the Baltic States figure that if Russia comes West then the rest of NATO will fight a delaying action while they call up reserves and put together a combined force.  In the meantime, Poland and the Baltic States are sort of on their own.  I do not think any of them will go quietly into the good night. 

On another subject, your comments on WWII and the "what if" regarding the German Operations in Russia is very well taken.  If Germany had done as you suggest, D Day may never have happened. England might have been taken by Germany.  Lots of interesting "what ifs".  

While I am not in favor of our reduced support for Ukraine, it has had the positive effect of forcing NATO countries to become far more proactive in building up their forces.  Better late than never I think.

[GK3]

As time goes on in the war, all that has been proved is that neither side has any real ability to launch a serious mobile spearhead against the other side.  The lack of artillery, air support and advanced "softening" of the opposing side makes any kind of serious effort at mobile warfare difficult.

Strongly agree. I would add that Ukraine in particular lacks the ability to quickly reinforce success. A "breakthrough" is useless if you can't pour forces through it. Ukraine doesn't have them and Russia moves too slowly to do so effectively.

This comment does not take into account the ability to lay and remove mines in the face of an attack.

Good point. Russia is much better at that than Ukraine, at least partially because Ukraine signed the Ottawa Treaty. They have recently given notice of their withdrawal.

I do not think that the Ukrainian conflict counts as a peer vs peer conflict.  Ukraine is under gunned and under manned when compared to Russia but they are hanging in there. If Putin decided to strike through the Baltic States and Poland I think things would be much different. The impact of NATO airpower would be much different than the current situation.

Absolutely agree! Ukraine has done much better than anybody expected.

  Russia was helped in its fight with Germany in WWII by the fact that the tactics that Hitler dictated played into Russian strength. The outcomes of wars are often dictated by who does the dumbest things.   Germany lost a half million men at the battle of Stalingrad. No one knows how that campaign would have worked out if German forces were allowed to withdraw.

Very true. One also has to wonder what would have happened if Germany had elected to not fight in southern Russia at all. A very wide envelopment after taking Moscow had a lot to recommend it. Yes, getting the oil from the south would have taken longer, but the Russian leadership would have been beheaded and the lend-lease supplies through Murmansk cut off.

IMO the fact that Ukraine is still in this war is a great credit to its leadership and its people and the willingness of the West to come to its aide. I still fail to understand how Russia failed to take Kiev at the beginning of the war.

I think Ukrainian leadership, particularly in the person of Zelenskyy has been beyond outstanding. The people of Ukraine have indeed stepped up.

The great Russian Ogre has been around a long time.  They are the Big Bad Wolf if you figure they will use nuclear weapons, not so much if those weapons are not involved.
Russia's greatest military asset has always been its vast landmass. That landmass is only lightly populate.  No matter how you want to cut it up, that Landmass is Russia's only advantage.

Russia has an additional significant advantage. Both its Army and its people are willing to take horrific casualties and suffer economic disaster while still fighting on. NATO in general lacks that stoic willingness to die in massive numbers simply waiting for the other side to run out of troops. Fortunately for Ukraine, they have more than a bit of the "Russian" stoicism.. Otherwise Ukraine would have given up long ago.

NATO has vastly more men under arms, more planes and whatever else.  Now that we seem to paying less attention to Europe, they are responding by upping their defense budgets.

According to Google AI NATO nations have a total of 3.44 million active military personnel. Of these, 1.3 million are American. 0.48 million are Turks. These personnel are part of several different militaries that have diverse philosophies and skill sets. It is unclear how many (and even if) these various nations would contribute to defend Germany, let alone the Baltic states. Lots of these troops are also otherwise committed. Russia (according to the same Google AI) has 2.4 million men under arms. Obviously in both cases reserve formations are being counted. It also will matter how fast troops can be committed to the fight. In the Baltic States, Poland, etc Russia is a lot closer than Turkey and certainly the US. I am not nearly as sanguine as you are about our ability to match Russia's numbers. NATO needs to be "better", because we can't count on "bigger". Just like before. Except the Bundeswehr is not even a shadow of what it was and the 4 British divisions of the AOTR no longer exist. I hope NATO has months to prepare and a REFORGER can (and will) happen in that time. Otherwise, things could at best get very dicey.
 
IMO the increase in NATO budgets is almost entirely due to the war in Ukraine and the realization that it could happen to them. The US no longer being a reliable ally is a problem of a different nature and not that much of a driver toward increased expenditures. If Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine the NATO countries wouldn't be increasing their budgets. Finland and Sweden probably wouldn't be members. No need, period. A much more serious problem is that the populace of most NATO countries isn't interested in fighting a war. They are also reluctant to spend the money required to prepare for one. After German reunification it was assumed that would never again be required. UMT was abolished. Even with the "Russian threat", nobody is running to the recruiting offices to join up. It is entirely possible that if Ukraine is absorbed into Russia and Putin appears to stand down (at least for the moment) the NATO nations will go back to spending little on defense. 

I am not sure Russia is even able to go on a war footing economically versus NATO.

I am sure they can, but it will be slow. NATO wants to (probably needs to) win before it matters.

Many, many years ago when I arrived in Germany as 2nd Lt, my CO explained to me that if the Russians came through Fulda Gap, we could expect Russian paratroops coming out of the night sky, fortunately that never happened.

Fortunate indeed. Part of the reason it didn't happen was because you and others like you were there. It also helped that the Bundeswehr was deadly serious.

Yes, back in the day the Bundeswehr was a seriously capable military force.  Now not so much, but they seem to possibly be recognizing this deficiency and are "apparently" willing to invest a lot of DM's into fixing it, time will tell. My comments regarding what would happen today in a NATO vs Russia conflict is predicated on the a couple of very possibly erroneous beliefs. Russia has not shown any ability to really dominate the airspace over Ukraine. I believe that NATO countries have invested far more money in Airpower than any other force doctrine. I do not see how Russia could invade NATO and also control the airspace above the front lines. 
As you say, Russia entire ethos has a long history based on a willingness to suffer and to tolerate and overcome great suffering. Whether that is a sufficient asset to allow them to defeat NATO is doubtful.  I think that Poland and the Baltic States figure that if Russia comes West then the rest of NATO will fight a delaying action while they call up reserves and put together a combined force.  In the meantime, Poland and the Baltic States are sort of on their own.  I do not think any of them will go quietly into the good night. 

On another subject, your comments on WWII and the "what if" regarding the German Operations in Russia is very well taken.  If Germany had done as you suggest, D Day may never have happened. England might have been taken by Germany.  Lots of interesting "what ifs".  

While I am not in favor of our reduced support for Ukraine, it has had the positive effect of forcing NATO countries to become far more proactive in building up their forces.  Better late than never I think.