[gocard14]

Russia couldn't fight NATO, particularly after (a) losing so much in Ukraine and (b) telegraphing how they fight. They would have 1,000:1 loss ratios. They'd have to resort to nukes or biological weapons.

Russia indeed couldn't fight NATO. But they could fight Latvia. You might say "Wait, that would be fighting NATO". However Putin may believe 1) He can take over Latvia before NATO can even get organized, let alone starts fighting, and/or 2) NATO isn't going to risk a general war over Latvia. It is unfortunately not at all unlikely that Putin is right about one or both of these opinions. Worse still, if he is wrong about either of them a NATO vs. Russia war will be in progress. Then the NCB warfare possibilities become "real", especially if Russia starts losing. Remember, Hitler believed Poland would be a re-run of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He didn't expect either Britain or France to actually fight. Substitute the other Baltic state names for Latvia as you think appropriate :-).

You are correct that we do not do well at small wars mostly because over time the number of body bags coming home reaches a critical political level.

True, and a NATO/US vs. Russia conflict could never remain a "small" war. The currently losing side will always attempt to change the calculus by striking what it believes is a "weak point" of the other, thus expanding the war rapidly.

It seems to me that if the West can continue to help Ukraine out where it really needs help, not including boots on the ground, they can continue to bleed the Russian forces and its economy.  They once gave up in Afghanistan mostly because the losses became too large. But the Russian electorate today is not the electorate of then.  It think that Putin has a grabbed a tiger by the tail that he had no intention of grabbing. Now if he lets go of the tiger's tail it may eat him or he may fall out of a window.  A big question is how long will the "Siloviki" continue their support?

I totally agree the West should continue to help Ukraine resist the Russian invasion, short of actually entering the war. Russia would regard planes in the air the same as boots on the ground. Given the current state of play there is really no other viable choice than to continue supplying military material to Ukraine.

The West too has a tiger by the tail, although the current administration attempts to ignore that fact. When the previous administration started massively assisting Ukraine in this war it in large measure tied the credibility and influence of the US and NATO to success in Ukraine. Unfortunately that administration appears to have had no plan to deliver that success. Right now, the Ukrainian government can realistically look forward to an endless war or a temporary peace that leaves their nation as a shadow of its former self with no viable path to security and economic growth. Optimistically they can hope that with Western help they can hang on until Russia has to / chooses to give up. When will that be? I don't think anybody has even a good guess.
 
Putin has his tiger. He isn't going to quit unless forced by economic collapse/political upheaval. Ukraine cannot force either of those outcomes. They can only hold on and hope. How long they can do that is also unknown. The US possibly could by tightening down the economic pressure even tighter. It appears we will not do that.

Regarding cost of our toys, we have probably way over paid for those toys.

Absolutely, although "it is much more complicated than that". This is such a massive subject it would be inappropriate to even attempt to discuss it in a Ukraine thread.

I can't see Russia attacking NATO while still bogged down in Ukraine, but if they do, I still think high volume use of cheap small drones can to a certain extent compensate for lack of manpower.  I also assume that a high volume drone attack could saturate air defense systems, but maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.

I think a drone swarm can saturate an Russian IADS system. Ukraine has demonstrated this. However, why would we bother with such an approach when our DEAD plan will render that system nonexistent?

I realize this type of warfare is not what we train for and not what we buy for, but it still exists.

Indeed it does. It is however a form of warfare we absolutely must train AGAINST, because we may well face opponents who adopt it. NATO and the US do not use a Russian style IADS, so our vulnerabilities are different. We have always used and intend to use AWACs type aircraft to manage the air battle, from the Willie Victors to the E-3s. There are very good reasons for that choice. Unfortunately the administration has canceled the E-7. It is unclear how we will proceed now, as the lack of a fully capable AWACS undermines our entire air war philosophy.

Most of all I think as a country, we need a Plan, something well thought out and considering all the myriad of possibilities in today's world.

This! 1000 Amens. Unfortunately to have such a plan that is any good we have to have the right people in the leadership positions at the Pentagon and in the myriad supporting positions that make such plans and subsequently execute them. We don't have that, and arguably haven't had that for a very long time. While Goldwater-Nichols may have solved some problems, it created many others, both directly and indirectly. This is a big part of the problem, but isn't close to the whole problem. Again, a massive issue.

You mention that NATO would have little time to organize, but that seems unlikely given modern satellite imaging. We know that Russia was building up forces on the border of Ukraine for months, just few actually believed they would pull the trigger on the invasions. We would undoubtedly see a similar buildup prior to invasions of a NATO country. 

Now I'm sure explanations would be given to cover the buildup (exercises, etc), but if NATO leadership is on point I suspect that forces could be organized or forward deployed, both to have reactive capability and as a deterrent.

Incidentally, This would be magnified 10x if China ever elected to invade Taiwan. The logistics prep of a massive amphibious invasion would be impossible to hide.

[gocard14]

Russia couldn't fight NATO, particularly after (a) losing so much in Ukraine and (b) telegraphing how they fight. They would have 1,000:1 loss ratios. They'd have to resort to nukes or biological weapons.

Russia indeed couldn't fight NATO. But they could fight Latvia. You might say "Wait, that would be fighting NATO". However Putin may believe 1) He can take over Latvia before NATO can even get organized, let alone starts fighting, and/or 2) NATO isn't going to risk a general war over Latvia. It is unfortunately not at all unlikely that Putin is right about one or both of these opinions. Worse still, if he is wrong about either of them a NATO vs. Russia war will be in progress. Then the NCB warfare possibilities become "real", especially if Russia starts losing. Remember, Hitler believed Poland would be a re-run of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He didn't expect either Britain or France to actually fight. Substitute the other Baltic state names for Latvia as you think appropriate :-).

You are correct that we do not do well at small wars mostly because over time the number of body bags coming home reaches a critical political level.

True, and a NATO/US vs. Russia conflict could never remain a "small" war. The currently losing side will always attempt to change the calculus by striking what it believes is a "weak point" of the other, thus expanding the war rapidly.

It seems to me that if the West can continue to help Ukraine out where it really needs help, not including boots on the ground, they can continue to bleed the Russian forces and its economy.  They once gave up in Afghanistan mostly because the losses became too large. But the Russian electorate today is not the electorate of then.  It think that Putin has a grabbed a tiger by the tail that he had no intention of grabbing. Now if he lets go of the tiger's tail it may eat him or he may fall out of a window.  A big question is how long will the "Siloviki" continue their support?

I totally agree the West should continue to help Ukraine resist the Russian invasion, short of actually entering the war. Russia would regard planes in the air the same as boots on the ground. Given the current state of play there is really no other viable choice than to continue supplying military material to Ukraine.

The West too has a tiger by the tail, although the current administration attempts to ignore that fact. When the previous administration started massively assisting Ukraine in this war it in large measure tied the credibility and influence of the US and NATO to success in Ukraine. Unfortunately that administration appears to have had no plan to deliver that success. Right now, the Ukrainian government can realistically look forward to an endless war or a temporary peace that leaves their nation as a shadow of its former self with no viable path to security and economic growth. Optimistically they can hope that with Western help they can hang on until Russia has to / chooses to give up. When will that be? I don't think anybody has even a good guess.
 
Putin has his tiger. He isn't going to quit unless forced by economic collapse/political upheaval. Ukraine cannot force either of those outcomes. They can only hold on and hope. How long they can do that is also unknown. The US possibly could by tightening down the economic pressure even tighter. It appears we will not do that.

Regarding cost of our toys, we have probably way over paid for those toys.

Absolutely, although "it is much more complicated than that". This is such a massive subject it would be inappropriate to even attempt to discuss it in a Ukraine thread.

I can't see Russia attacking NATO while still bogged down in Ukraine, but if they do, I still think high volume use of cheap small drones can to a certain extent compensate for lack of manpower.  I also assume that a high volume drone attack could saturate air defense systems, but maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.

I think a drone swarm can saturate an Russian IADS system. Ukraine has demonstrated this. However, why would we bother with such an approach when our DEAD plan will render that system nonexistent?

I realize this type of warfare is not what we train for and not what we buy for, but it still exists.

Indeed it does. It is however a form of warfare we absolutely must train AGAINST, because we may well face opponents who adopt it. NATO and the US do not use a Russian style IADS, so our vulnerabilities are different. We have always used and intend to use AWACs type aircraft to manage the air battle, from the Willie Victors to the E-3s. There are very good reasons for that choice. Unfortunately the administration has canceled the E-7. It is unclear how we will proceed now, as the lack of a fully capable AWACS undermines our entire air war philosophy.

Most of all I think as a country, we need a Plan, something well thought out and considering all the myriad of possibilities in today's world.

This! 1000 Amens. Unfortunately to have such a plan that is any good we have to have the right people in the leadership positions at the Pentagon and in the myriad supporting positions that make such plans and subsequently execute them. We don't have that, and arguably haven't had that for a very long time. While Goldwater-Nichols may have solved some problems, it created many others, both directly and indirectly. This is a big part of the problem, but isn't close to the whole problem. Again, a massive issue.

You mention that NATO would have little time to organize, but that seems unlikely given modern satellite imaging. We know that Russia was building up forces on the border of Ukraine for months, just few actually believed they would pull the trigger on the invasions. We would undoubtedly see a similar buildup prior to invasions of a NATO country. 

Now I'm sure explanations would be given to cover the buildup (exercises, etc), but if NATO leadership is on point I suspect that forces could be organized or forward deployed, both to have reactive capability and as a deterrent.

Incidentally, This would be magnified 10x if China ever elected to invade Taiwan. The logistics prep of a massive amphibious invasion would be impossible to hide.