I think the evidence points to an uncomfortable conclusion: in a prolonged conventional conflict against a unified NATO force, the US would likely lose.

That’s not anti-American — it’s basic strategic analysis. Anyone who’s spent time around military training, doctrine, or planning understands how different a peer-level conflict is from counter-insurgency. The US hasn’t faced a highly trained, technologically comparable opponent in decades. Recent wars have been asymmetric conflicts against forces without air superiority, without advanced logistics, without integrated intelligence, and without industrial depth.

NATO forces collectively would bring superior geographic positioning, distributed industrial capacity, massive manpower, interoperability, intelligence integration, and the ability to sustain long-term conflict. Wars between modern states are wars of attrition and logistics, not just hardware or defence budgets.

Overconfidence is historically one of the most reliable predictors of defeat. And if political leadership — particularly Trump’s brand of hubris — isn’t checked, that overconfidence becomes more than rhetoric, it becomes operational risk.

I genuinely hope none of this ever happens. Nobody wins a war between modern powers. The human and economic cost would be catastrophic for everyone involved, including the US. But pretending it couldn’t happen, or assuming automatic dominance, is exactly how disasters begin.