>>14729551>conventional warfare.And nuclear, for what that's worth.
How long is this war going to be? In any short-term engagement America is all but unbeatable, but if it turns out long enough, the combined resources of Russia + the EU will eventually triumph. This would also raise the question of what the motivation behind the war is; if it's just for dominance, neither side is likely to want to turn it into a brutal, years-long slog.
The physical isolation of the two respective sides make any kind of actual conflict rather awkward; only the U.S.A. has any kind of long-range bomber with a chance of succeeding at anything and neither side has any kind of good place to invade. Conflict across the Bering Strait is possible, but WW2 showed that such an invasion would be immensely trying for both sides.
The U.S.'s sea power is grossly dominant, doubly so when it comes to surface forces, but this doesn't actually yield much in the way of ability to project force onto land theatres, as a modern naval fleet can't realistically get within ASM range of a defended coastline. We only managed it in Iraq because their naval forces consisted primarily of a guy with a slingshot giving everyone the stink-eye if they came too close- anything more competent than that would take a devastating toll on the fleet.
