“Did you read the article?”
The casualty rates in the article (3,600 per day) were not from some model of a war with Russia - they were generic planning factors for a high intensity conflict, out of Field Manual (FM) 4-0, Sustainment Operations (footnote 12 in the article).
The reality is that Russian forces arrayed against NATO have been cut by 4/5ths, to feed into the Ukrainian meatgrinder. NATO has gone on a military spending spree, and the addition of Finland and Sweden are far from trivial. Finland fields the largest Artillery force in Europe, and Sweden will bring effective control over the Baltic Sea.
Russia has burned through the better half of its gear, while for the first year The West was basically providing old Warsaw Pact leftovers to Ukraine. The Western platforms that been provided are mostly old Vietnam or Gulf War era stuff, that was no longer on operational status.
NATOs Operational forces have grown since the start of the war in Ukraine, and are more forward deployed. All our modern stuff is fully on hand, except for 155mm Artillery ammo and shoulder fired ATGMs and SHORAD (which have largely already done their work attritting Russian platforms ahead of time.
The initial shock and awe opening salvos of a full conflict with NATO would blast Russian conventional forces into pieces, before they could inflict mass casualties on the ground - So fast it would make their heads spin.
Somehow I do not think you attended the War College.
Or any military planning training.
Please correct me if wrong.
Sorry I couldnt get past the first para of your…thinking