NATO this time conceded defeat wholeheartedly. The Russian military learned warfare during the war, using motorcycles + tires + simple radios + rifles to achieve what NATO couldn't with a cost of $10,000.

Trump has already admitted defeat, repeatedly emphasizing that Ukraine cannot win. Previously tough-talking NATO countries like the UK, France, and Germany have softened their tone, recognizing that it's no longer realistic to help Ukraine win. Russia has just won a decisive victory in the Battle of Kursk, and Putin personally thanked the Korean soldiers for their significant contributions. Thousands of NATO mercenaries perished in Kursk, and this time they lost very badly. Judging from the current situation, this time NATO conceded defeat wholeheartedly.

The fundamental reason why NATO lost so badly is their insufficient ability to learn warfare based on battlefield situations. One example illustrates the problem. For instance, Russian assault teams now flexibly use motorcycles as transportation, old tires as bulletproof shields, assault rifles for killing, and simple handheld radios for communication based on battlefield conditions.

This model is simple; the entire system costs less than $10,000, but the assault effect of motorcycles + tire armor + assault rifles + communication equipment is better than the $1 million M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. In terms of budget, the Russian military is far less than NATO, but they always find the best solution based on battlefield conditions, learning warfare during the war, and finding ways to solve problems when there seems to be none, ultimately achieving unexpected results.

In contrast, NATO's tactics are relatively rigid. For example, without air support, assault teams dare not advance, and can only watch opportunities slip away. It can be said that NATO was strong in bullying smaller countries but exposed its weaknesses when facing real opponents.

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1830726250219532/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views.