>>513016589
>>513015617
But that post was the traditional NATO doctrine (mostly still relevant).
Since the mid 2010s there has been a revision.

The grift caught up with them and they realized that their equipment is very expensive.
In fact, everything NATO is expensive... except for infantry.
And in particular unpaid infantry.
So we see a push to return to conscription (in the even of war, it will be Ukraine style conscription).

So NATO has two tiers of forces.
Tier 1 are "professional" forces who are loyal to the system.
These will operate the complex systems that are too complex for normal conscripts and forcefully mobilized.
These soldiers, in the case they aren't fixed to specialist positions, will act as enforcers and "quick response force" to be deployed for breaches, surprise attacks or to plug holes and ofc to be deployed for gay occupation operations in "peace time".

Tier 2 are conscripts and civilians (huwite males).
These are just trench meat and bullet sponges.
By default they are not as loyal to the system, nor as interested in being soldiers.
So they go straight to the bottom of the picking order.
How low?
About as low as the mobilized in Ukraine, or the Afghan Security Forces (95% of casualties) or South Vietnamese (82% of casualties) etc.
So modern "total (conventional) war" NATO strategy is ~95% meat wave of currently non mobilized soldiers.
In other words, it is exactly what we see in Ukraine.

But with more air force that is moved to third a country.
>>513016687
>Well if nothing else at least the fact that they prepare that many carriers and planes means they at least try to fulfill the dream of NATO doctrine.
It's a good way to place themselves in the center of the pact right?

>>513016923
>and they "cheated" on those bets too
Yes.
Most "battles" were won by the CIA paying off the generals to lay down their weapons.
And they still bombed the shit out of the soldiers leaving.
Guess there is no honor in war or among thieves.