>>5840
They may have had some belief in their "superior" technology like tanks that cost £35 mil each and blow up from a £60 drone - at first. But this latest development when they were shown that Ukrainians - and the war itself - will just treat anything you throw in there are any tank, any shell, they are just overpriced, meaning ineffective in the larger scale. When neither side has air superiority, it's back to WW1 style infantry battles. All the progress is gone. Tanks changed the battlefield at the end of WW1 and during WW2, then the air force became the deciding factor. Maybe this "blindness" is an American problem, they have never had to worry about being bombed because of their geographical location, so they always have "air superiority" because they are always the invader. If they lose control, they just end the war and ignore it as a loss of air superiority itself, there are no consequences for them at home.

Play with the idea of a ground invasion of USA from Mexico, Canada and Russia coming over the sea all at once. How long would they old up when their factories are bombed and their AA gets overpowered? They have no experience in ground defense, so the Ukraine war is a completely new thing for them, and anyone following NATO tactics.

The only thing they eventually can fall back on is the core essence of the NWO thinking: more slaves into the meat grinder. And no offense, but Russia has a lot more experience with this, same with China. Instead of the American "throw money at the problem", they have free labour so they throw manpower at the problem, and they don't actually (mentally to them themselves) reduce the people they send out as actual "slaves", because communism teaches that even the poorest is a valued worker of the revolution. They end up having a slightly higher value instinctively than anyone applying capitalism can "see." Russia is being called brutal, but they actually retreat as a tactic, which preserves lives.