A Russian slave army is exactly what Hegseth wants.

The dynamic is completely different though. Russian has a culture and acceptance of sacrifice, sometimes in huge number. America is far more transactional and has increasingly treated sacrifice as unacceptable or even contemptable. There is an element of machismo in the way that the politicians talk and behave, but more in terms of executing on a transaction. But in general both sets of leadership are very protected from consequences of war (very unlikely to suffer violence to themselves or their family) so it must all be a bit abstract.

Not that Trump would have an ounce of good intentions but those wars are quite different in important ways:

- The greatest enemy of Iranian regime are the Iranian people. They want to get rid of that government. Unlike the Ukrainians. Thousands of Iranian protesters were gunned down by their own government in December/January.

- Iran is not "winning" by holding the line in conventional warfare (like Ukraine). They would not stand a chance. They're winning because they're pain tolerance for collateral damage is higher than the US tolerance for high oil prices.

- Ukraine was attacked completely unprovoked, while Iran is a terror state and the single biggest reason for instability in the middle east.

This may add fuel to the theory (?) that Trump is a russian asset.

It is a good start, but in the last 50 years, Russia has started maybe 1 or 2 wars at most, arguably. Can you even count the U.S. wars? I mean, I really wish U.S did start to imitate Russia more.

Military Ops, Armed Conflict, Defensive strikes, Global war on terror, counter terrorism ops to name a few. These are the labels given to recent conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam wars.