No... they'd get annihilated if they had to face a modern army.. they've faced no modern aircraft, no modern long range missiles no modern well trained army, what they have faced is hastily trained men with equipment that the west decided was enough to weaken Russia to stop them attempting a similar stunt again. 1 fully equipped US carrier group would have ended this war long ago.
That seems a little strong to me. I think you're underselling the preparations the Ukrainians made since Crimea, and overselling what a carrier group could do to turn the tide. Russia has a lot of people to toss into a meat grinder, due to the way the country is run. If you add the carrier group to the equation, I would agree with the assessment that the Ukrainians would have reclaimed more territory and be in a much better position to barter a little territory for peace if they wished, but they would most definitely not wish.
I also think you're overselling the degree of rationality various legislatures possess about how much to invest in Ukraine. I would tell you that those decisions are made on the basis of short-term political considerations, rather than long-term strategic ones. Legislatures do a much better job of listening to expert strategic assessments when it's their own territory or military at risk, because the political implications of the loss of personnel and territory are catastrophic.
If you don't believe me on the last, look at the discrepancy between what the US buys when it's at war versus what it buys when it isn't, and tell me I'm wrong. A good example of this is the rubbish armor and body armor we were buying prior to getting involved in two Asian land wars. The military told Congress what they needed, but Congress bought other stuff on political implications, and the result was a lot of unnecessary casualties until Congress got their stuff together.
www.grandoldteam.com
