People who push this kind of thinking still think warfare is carried out and progresses like it did in the Napoleonic era: two orderly opposed fronts clashing head-to-head in theaters with well-defined boundaries - where the adversary with more guns/people/resources win. Because more guns/people directly equates to military power, right?

These folks would do well to spend even the slightest amount of time learning about fourth generational, guerilla war. The fact that bullets ping off of tank armor does not disprove guerilla war.

Let’s take this meme back a couple hundred years and cast you as a counter revolutonary American at the onset of the revolutonary war.

/*Wants to have muskets to fend off british empire

/*british empire:

Starts to seem silly when you realize even our founding fathers were doing guerilla warfare not long ago.

The democrats had a choice between genocide and curbing fascism. Your savior party chose to starve kids over halt fascism. Why are “tankies” obligated to respect your bizarre utility calculation, but Kamala and the democrats are not?

What is your red line? Assuming in 30 years, when the choice is between a candidate who wants 9 genocides and a candidate who wants 10, will you still be militantly democrat? Is there no point at which you would start to call into question your genocidal, fascist, enslaving government?

So are the Russians weak or strong?