The one thing I would say off the bat is that declarative statements to geography and landscape determining MUST statements about how troops move are remarkably unconvincing. I don't know why these leaked plans insist on saying them. Surely the lesson of Ukraine is "everything, everywhere, all the time"?

I don't think troop movements en masse can ignore terrain but statements to outcome determined in advance by terrain invite what happened regarding static defences in France.

I would expect that infiltration across potential fronts simultaneously, irrespective of the difficulty backfilling at volume, and I would expect simultaneous attacks on the rear at great depth and dispersion to divert resources, and deprive the defender of power and communications infrastructure to impede movement of supplies.

I would expect any stockpile of any resource whatsoever, military or not, to be attacked. All of it. Food, oil, straw, water, sewage, domestic AM radio, ATC, rail traffic light controls, bridge and rail crossing management systems, all of it to be flooded with small incendiary and explosive drones. Tens of thousands of them, repeated over days.

The idea that NATO could rapidly move hundreds of thousands of troops to a single front in a few days needs to be challenged. There won't be a single front, and there won't be an uncontested controlled rear.

NATO should be planning to infiltrate and burn "shahed" supply chain factories to the ground worldwide. Because if they don't, they will be ignoring what is going to be done to them months before a war starts.

I also think more optimistically that Russia will need a lot more than 4 years to be ready to do this, and that age is not working in favour of the leadership. Keeping up the economic warfare is important.