A million dead on each side? LOL Good Lord. How can you even be reading JHK and post such a thing?

Weaker? Yes, for three reasons: The ability to manufacture at scale (US and NATO have very little manufacturing capability), proximity to conflict (soldiers) and hypersonic weapons that can easily eliminate any US/NATO transport at any time if it attempts to ship or transport heavy equipment quickly. Having a few whizz-bang systems but no stockpile of them is meaningless. Also, if the US had any system that could turn the tide of a war without using tanks - the Abrams was decimated on the battlefield btw - don't you think Blinken and Sullivan and Mrs. Milley would have used them? And if you think they didn't use them because they need to train soldiers or ship soldiers in who can actually operate them then start reading this paragraph over again with that in mind.

Lastly, if you believe that the US government has been incompetent and corrupt at massive scale for a long time but somehow has stayed at the top of its game militarily - especially as they embraced deviant sexual and mental illness as the fast track to leadership (hmm why? maybe to tear down the US military?) then you should probably step back and figure out how to resolve those two contradictory conditions.

The public has to stop believing the US military propaganda. That propaganda is there as much to make people such as yourself charge headlong into wars where it actually cannot win as it is to frighten their enemies. The US has never won a war past the war of 1812 - it only nobly assisted in one win, WW2, where the Russians kicked Germany's ass in the end. Those defeated Germans have been trying to kick start a rematch for 80 years, unsatisfied with the obvious defeat they already imposed peacefully (more or less) through economic dominance. Typical Germans, opening wars on multiple fronts and getting their butts kicked.