The United States would never engage in direct combat with a nation that is well-armed, such as China or Russia. They lack the resolve and would ultimately back down. History shows that when the U.S. does go to war, it is typically against a much weaker, less-developed nation — for example, Iraq or Afghanistan. I doubt anyone in NATO truly believes they can rely on the U.S. to join a fight, except perhaps to supply weapons if Russia were to invade Europe. This administration might argue that it’s “not our backyard” (as JD Vance has said), while Trump would likely issue deadlines that come and go, all the while complaining about the costs of destroying an enemy of the United States.

So, does the American soldier need to be prepared for a major war? I don’t think so — not if the U.S. will never face a truly formidable opponent.

>And what about the soldiers who carry out deep strike operations, launching drones from 50 or 100 kilometers or more from the front, striking 500 kilometers or more deep against logistics and industry? Should they even bother wearing uniforms when they hop out of a van for a couple hours to launch their pre-programmed drones, just for a traitorous local to easily identify them and text their location to the enemy?

I mean, you get taught this early on in the army, no uniform when fighting a recognized nation is a war crime (unless youre a militia in which case you still need some "uniform").

>This whole drama unfolds both in front of officers in traditional Tactical Operations Centers, and increasingly, in front of splintered command teams and individuals watching from safehouses via livestream. At the end of the mission, the soldier will go home and pass on his kill footage to score “points” for his command to receive additional official funding.

Gameification is by far the worst innovation of the Ukrainian army so far. All it does is funnel even more funding/equipment into brigades that are already well equipped and typically stationed at easier parts of the front.