[Lagmeister]

Soviets have a couple divisions of well organized troops but beyond that they are untrained and lack quality operational equipment. Sure, they could take land, but could they hold it. We proved in Iraq that we have the best quality armament and fighting force. And sadly, we are always at war somewhere.

We actually took Afghanistan quite quickly, whereas the Russians could never get a grip. If we decided to defend Europe, we could defend Europe even if it means taking it back.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Jimmy Carter unilaterally gave up the neutron bomb. It was a defensive weapon designed to counter the Russian advantage in tanks. Russians gave nothing in return.

[kearnyirish2]

They’re holding half of Ukraine, and certainly didn’t end the invasion of Georgia because of any response by the West.

The USSR’s “invasion” of Afghanistan was similar to our war in Vietnam; the Afghan government requested their assistance, and survived for a few years after they left. They were never there to add Afghanistan to their territory.

[Rebelbase]

“If we decided to defend Europe, we could defend Europe even if it means taking it back. “

The two generations that have succeeded those who fought in WWII and stayed home to support the war are too soft to fight a war with mass casualties. We can’t do it. Unless we let nukes fly, Europe is lost if the Bear decides to rampage.