In Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we crippled ourselves trying to protect civilians and establish a local government while fighting an “insurgency”.
What the hell are you talking about? Protecting civilians? Is this some joke? The US never much cared for protecting civilians. 
Let’s think about Vietnam and the massacring of thousands.
Or let’s remember some “accidental” strikes against “terrorists” that turned out to be civilians.
With Russia, per instruction, we will emphatically not be doing so. A war with Russia will be a concerted effort to fundamentally destroy and erase the current power structure and completely demilitarize the country, as we did in WWII. With thermonuclear weapons, if necessary. The unclassified nuclear doctrine is available for your perusal online.
Yea. Extremely plausible that the US manages to destroy the Russian power structures. Structures that have rivalled the US structures and military for decades in many foreign conflicts.
You cannot rly act in a stalemate situation. And that is rly what that is.
Just look how Russia can play war in Ukraine and the US and other western countries are only willing the send weapons.
This just screams of powerlessness.
And it indeed makes sense with the past failures of the US Military.
And all that restraint, when Russia is conquering the Worlds Granary. If they succeed, then all of Africa will be under their control. Especially with climate change and less African soil being fertile.
Africa is so gaddamn important, that the Chinese already attempt in multiple African states to take control.
If China and Russia take control over Africa, than they take control over Resources that the US depends on.
And even the idea to demilitarise Russia is ponderous. Maybe if worked with Germany after WW2, because many Germans understand English and German is rather similar to English.
So taking influence on the Germans was not too hard.
Russian on the other hand is a goddamn nightmare for Roman languages.
And the country is so damn big, that influence and control is a matter of unfeasibility.
You’ll never have the clearance to do so, but if you ever happen to on the off chance, look up Global Campaign Plan, and on your free time, you can review the unclassified National Security Strategy. Specifically, the updated revisions.
On the unclassified side, take a look at the analysis of Peter Zeihan sometime on global demographic and resource trends.
What the hell are you talking about? Protecting civilians? Is this some joke? The US never much cared for protecting civilians.  Let’s think about Vietnam and the massacring of thousands. Or let’s remember some “accidental” strikes against “terrorists” that turned out to be civilians.
Yea. Extremely plausible that the US manages to destroy the Russian power structures. Structures that have rivalled the US structures and military for decades in many foreign conflicts. You cannot rly act in a stalemate situation. And that is rly what that is. Just look how Russia can play war in Ukraine and the US and other western countries are only willing the send weapons. This just screams of powerlessness. And it indeed makes sense with the past failures of the US Military. And all that restraint, when Russia is conquering the Worlds Granary. If they succeed, then all of Africa will be under their control. Especially with climate change and less African soil being fertile.
Africa is so gaddamn important, that the Chinese already attempt in multiple African states to take control.
If China and Russia take control over Africa, than they take control over Resources that the US depends on.
And even the idea to demilitarise Russia is ponderous. Maybe if worked with Germany after WW2, because many Germans understand English and German is rather similar to English. So taking influence on the Germans was not too hard. Russian on the other hand is a goddamn nightmare for Roman languages. And the country is so damn big, that influence and control is a matter of unfeasibility.
You’ll never have the clearance to do so, but if you ever happen to on the off chance, look up Global Campaign Plan, and on your free time, you can review the unclassified National Security Strategy. Specifically, the updated revisions.
On the unclassified side, take a look at the analysis of Peter Zeihan sometime on global demographic and resource trends.
The US strategy has always been the same and it always failed in history.
What makes you believe that anything would change and that current analysis would be any more correct than the ones of the past?