Largest nightmare for Putin? You're fucking joking aren't you? This group of equipment, whilst impressive in real terms to us as individuals, pales into insignificance when you start looking at things on the strategic level. The Russian Southern Military district which opposes this region consists of 13 full strength Divisions supplemented by a further 22 Regiments. We're talking 195,000 troops, 700 Main battle tanks, 1000 Infantry fighting vehicles, 1500 APCs, 1000 artillery pieces (mixed SPG, Rocket and towed), 376 Jets and 40 Attack helicopters. The region is also covered by various units from Russia's strategic missile force.
So the United States has sent 3500 troops with 80 Abrams, 140 Bradley and 15 Paladins supported by 400 odd tracked vehicles and a few hundred trucks and that's supposed to be the biggest nightmare for Putin and his pals in the Kremlin? Who the fuck are you kidding?
I'm reading a list of dumbfuck comments down below, so let me set the record straight for some of you keyboard warriors with zero military experience and limited knowledge on militaries at the strategic, operational or tactical levels (mainly the first two). The United States is currently the world's only surviving superpower (my country, Britain ceased being one in the 50s and the USSR collapsed in 1991) and it owes this to it's Navy and to a slightly lesser extent, it's Air Force. This is because it is these that allow it to project America's might across the globe and then importantly to sustain it. This is all well and dandy when either fighting small nations or larger nations operating away from their own borders i.e. if the US was to engage in conflict with Russia or China in battle somewhere like South Africa, the United States would have a clear advantage. However both of the aforementioned foes have large armed forces which if engaged near to their borders, are able themselves to be sustained and therefore to resist American military force.
When it comes to Eastern Europe, Russia has a marked advantage over the United States. The United States has a large armed forces but it is committed to different areas across the world, trying to establish and subsequently prop up American foreign policy, the Russians are not active globally and therefore a higher percentage of their forces (almost all of them) are focused at hotspots either within their nation or along its borders. It is able to bring huge numbers of men and equipment to bear in these areas and Eastern Europe is one of them. Eastern Europe (the parts where the areas of contention are) have limited access via sea and the waters close to it are where the Russians, rather sensibly, focus their own rather formidable Naval force (albeit a different kind of force i.e. one that doesn't focus on carriers and global power projection). Operating in this theatre, the Russians are able to watch NATO forces movements and would be able to head off an attack early on whilst operating under cover of strategic and nuclear missile forces inside the Russian borders. Their Aircraft would also be able to operate from within Russia and would have the protection across a large radius from the high concentration of Russian SAM complex which is funnily enough the largest in the world. This means that the USAF would struggle to get air supremacy and would certainly never achieve the kind of impunity that it did in Iraq or Afghanistan where it had no issues imposing a no fly zone. So that is one of America's key playing pieces reduced (though certainly not totally nullified) and this would change the situation on the ground where the ground forces would have to destroy more of Russia's assets themselves. This in itself is difficult as Russia has the numerical advantage in MBTs, IFVs, APCs, AAs, SAMs, Artillery, aircraft (don't forget that whilst the US has more aircraft, they are around the world and could not possibly all be deployed in the area) and whilst many of you are sitting back and calling the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation a "rust bucket" the reality is that, having suffered from stagnation post collapse of the USSR, the Russians have been building themselves back up, introducing new technologies and refurbishing that which is older, their defence budget has been increasing at unprecedented levels for the last 10 years and the damage they could easily inflict on US forces with their conventional forces is absolutely massive.
To summarize, a direct conflict between the US and Russia (as opposed to a proxy conflict) is an absolute non starter. It would crash world markets damaging both economies, it would wreak untold damage on the structure of both armed forces as well as the infrastructure of Russia and Eastern Europe and would quite possibly result in nuclear weapons being deployed. Many people on here and more worryingly in government seem to think that Russia will roll over if we apply economic and military pressure upon them. The reality is that it will galvanize them and as we've seen in the past 10 years they will lash out albeit not directly at our own forces but those of our allies as well as our other interests situated within their sphere.
Perhaps rather than being petulant and inflammatory, the United States and her allies should try and be more progressive and inclusive, some of you will likely say that I'm a "libtard" or a "snow flake" but the reality is that I am neither. I am a conservative and a member of the Armed Forces, it is my life and the lives of my brothers and sisters that would be gambled if the tension was to be ratcheted up and whilst we would go as we were told and do as we were told, the reality is that within the various militaries of NATO we understand and respect the capabilities of the Russian Federation and the implications of engaging in a conflict with them right on their own doostepp.....