America would defeat God given the proper intelligence on location.
Hmmmmm…heard that before. Didn’t Hitler think that? Napoleon?
Yup…but this time it’s actually true. Russia has fallen on extremely hard times, especially wrt their military budget. When Hitler invaded Russia they had a LOT of poorly lead and trained troops…and a shit pot full of some of the finest armor in the world just laying about. And they had a lot of resources.
Today, Russia has a lot of resources still…and a lot of troops. Unfortunately they have a shit pot full of crappy and poorly maintained and services armor, a lot of air craft in really shitty shape, and a Navy that is basically rotting at the docks.
Also, the nature of war has changed…see the first Gulf War or the initial stages of our current fuckup in Iraq and Afghanistan (the assault phases, not the dragging occupation parts). I have no doubt that the Russian soldier can and would fight as bravely and be ready to take insane losses like they did during the Napoleonic invasion or the Great Patriotic War…the problem is that unless America REALLY fucked up and actually invaded there wouldn’t really be much for that Russian soldier to be brave in the face of except repeated air and Tomahawk strikes.
Not that I think any of this is likely (to say the least)…simply put the US and Russia will almost certainly never go to war. Russia will bluster and America will do the same…but there would be no point in the two powers ever going to war because Russia would lose and America would gain nothing by that loss…in fact, in political and economic terms we’d lose too.
Now…Russia and China…THAT is a possibility I suppose. Or a disintegrating Russia fighting an extended civil war. Yeah, I could see that. Or Russia and the EU going at it hammer an tongs…nah, wouldn’t happen. Be fun to speculate though on how well our Euro buddies would do against the Big Red Menace (except for the Big, Red and Menace parts these days of course)…
-XT
I am so stealing that for a sig.
Declan
The American Army invented Logisitics as a combat arm, before one army tank leaves the staging line, enough gas and ammo to fight clear to vladivostok will be available.
If the Russians and what ever allies they had were fighting the chinese hordes, I would expect no less of them than the seelow heights campaign, taking 15 to 1 casualties before giving up territory.
On the other hand , I expect that given 50 years of previous history it would be hard to motivate Russian troops to die in place , against an american formation. Seriously they would do their duty, but having qualms about surrendering, nope.
Declan
And didn’t they win through some variation of Operation Human Shield?
since this thread is discussing that which will never happen…
In this alternate Universe we’re discussing, we can assume full mobilisation of military age men. We weren’t ‘running out of men’ in Iraq. We were running out of men in a volunteer army. The cia world factbook lists under “manpower available for military service”- males age 16-49: 72,715,332
These discussions are always pointless until you define what the invading army’s objectives are. If in this scenario, there are no Nukes and we had a draft and massive public support, and our objective was nothing more than a blatant land grab a la the Nazis and we were willing to be utterly ruthless towards partisans, then yeah, we could probably do it.
Stalin had the same problem. He solved it by sending the families of surrendering soldiers to the gulags.
I wouldn’t put it past Putin to do something similar, given extreme enough circumstances.
Running out of men in a volunteer army and there was no other army to be had because America would most certainly not support military conscription. So, in fact, America did not have enough boots on the ground.
But yes, these questions are always silly. It is like asking if Bill gates is more powerful than Joe Blow who owns a small hardware store in Arkansas and that’s all he has besides a mortgage. Well, in abstract of course Bill gates is more powerful but you can always conceive a situation where Joe would come out on top. If Bill Gates wanted Joe’s hardware store Joe can always refuse to sell at no matter what price and he can successfully keep his store even if it means Spending all he has on lawyers. But this is not a realistic scenario. Why would Bill Gates want the hardware store?
The same happens with the question asked in the OP. Of course the USA is more powerful than Russia. Much more powerful. It is silly to even ask the question.
The rest is just making up impossible scenarios for no purpose. Yes, the USA could go to Russia cause a lot of death and destruction and then leave. But that makes no sense. Why would America do this? It would be in opposition to the rest of the world and even the American people would be against it thus making it impossible.
1745? 1688?
Complete side note…
This reminds me of a friend I used to wargame with…who when was losing and had trouble supplying/moving units would exclaim…“I’m being logist-dicked!”.
The Scots don’t count of course (to American’s)…and neither does ‘invasion’ by a new ruling dynasty. 
I suppose technically William of Orange DID bring along a few foreign henchmen with him…
-XT
He did, one was a relative of mine.
… another one invaded England under John Paul Jones. Does that count?
Not to mention the infamous “Not One Step Back” declaration. Positioning armed NKVD units behind the attacking units.
That might now be Mevedev but quite possibly Putin still runs the government. If one is on the losing side it is considered ‘extreme circumstances’.
About 15,000 foreign henchmen according to the records.
I think you guys are giving historical Russia a little too much credit. Napoleon’s Russian campaign was famously uninspired. He was an emotional wreck, and he kept chasing the high of the big victory far past the point of prudence. His generals begged him to camp for the winter, almost convincing him at Smolensk. All the Russians had to do was keep not fighting, and keep turning their country into an ashtray.
Stalin had the time , Putin and co may not have that luxury.
Declan
On one hand, the US seems much stronger than Russia by almost any reasonable standard.
On the other hand, if the question is “Which country has more success getting its way,” the answer is… mostly Russia.
Whether the President of the US is Barack Obama or George W. Bush, European nations will flip us the bird and tell us where we can go whenever they feel like it, knowing we can’t and won’t do much about it.
Russia, on the other hand, makes them very nervous. As a result, they will readily knuckle under when Putin makes noises about cutting back oil/gas sales or expanding his military capabilities.
The US has a lot more to offer to most countries (including Iran and China) than Russia does… and yet, Iran and China usually side with Russia in international conflicts.
Which means that, despite all our considerable assets, and all Russia’s obvious weaknesses, Russia MAY in fact be more powerful than we are. Other nations fear them FAR more than they fear the US, and are therefore more likely to yield to Russian demands than to American requests.
I think it’s mostly the bolded part, re: Europe currently. And the historical aspect of the USSR vis a vis Europe, historically.
I find this to be totally contrary to my perception. Can we have some examples of European nations siding with Russia against the US and some reasons why we should believe it is because Russia “makes them nervous”?
I find it extremely simplistic, in fact rather stupid, when some Americans can only explain Europe not immediately supporting America in everything by saying Europeans are cowards. They did not support America in Iraq because they fear the terrorists. Is it not possible that Europeans have a different view? More nuanced? That they do not think being a confrontational and aggressive asshole is the best approach? No. That cannot be it. It has to be that they are cowards, deadly afraid and ready to submit to terrorists, Russia or Mickey Mouse.
I see that kind of thinking fits neighborhood gangsters but I cannot see how it fits an intelligent people.
On the other hand, I think China and Russia and Iran tend to have a common view that it is in their interest to limit American expansion and imperialism in their part of the world. It is not that China and Iran blindly side with Russia for no good reason in spite that “the US has a lot more to offer” (which would need to be explained), it is that Russia, China and Iran have a common interest in curtailing American imperialism in their part of the world and so have a reason to act in the same way when it comes to dealing with America. It makes sense to me.