As Russian President Vladimir Putin makes his first visit to North Korea in more than two decades this week, his focus is widely seen to be on securing ongoing support from the hermit nation for his grinding war in Ukraine.
Overextension of the US army isn't really happening now. The US military's greatest weakness is the inability to hold objectives and fight counterinsurgency and that's more of what we're seeing, not supply or logistics failures.
The US Navy is currently extremely overextended. They are currently losing what Navy officers have described as the largest naval battle the US has been in since WW2 against a nation whose navy consists of speedboats.
On the subject of supply or logistics, the US military basically lacks any of the transport/airlift capacity they had 25 years ago. That, to my mind, qualifies as a supply or logistics failure, given that such a capacity would be a basic necessity for any actual Army engagement in a conflict.
It doesn't make it less dangerous. My argument is that the US military is still a very large danger, and being unable to hold ground but able to kill a lot of people is still very dangerous.
And yet they are currently already overextended.
Overextension of the US army isn't really happening now. The US military's greatest weakness is the inability to hold objectives and fight counterinsurgency and that's more of what we're seeing, not supply or logistics failures.
The US Navy is currently extremely overextended. They are currently losing what Navy officers have described as the largest naval battle the US has been in since WW2 against a nation whose navy consists of speedboats.
On the subject of supply or logistics, the US military basically lacks any of the transport/airlift capacity they had 25 years ago. That, to my mind, qualifies as a supply or logistics failure, given that such a capacity would be a basic necessity for any actual Army engagement in a conflict.
Just gonna add here that yes, the US military does have trouble with the basic requirements of a military. This does not help your argument.
It doesn't make it less dangerous. My argument is that the US military is still a very large danger, and being unable to hold ground but able to kill a lot of people is still very dangerous.
There's no question about that. The US military can do massacres, but it can't achieve military goals unless they're just "air based massacres".