On the other hand, militarily, the USSR was more powerful. He had much more of everything. A more powerful army, navy, aviation? It is enough to compare what they produced. Tanks, planes, ships. And how much was i
The Soviets had numbers, but the Warsaw Pact had all the obvious problems of HATO... in a real war most of the Warsaw Pact likely would have turned on Russia and joined the other side, or just gone home and tried to claim to be neutral.
Equally even in Soviet times if you look at their forces and their structure they had a lot of armour and a lot of aircraft but they were not mobile like HATO was... they would be ideal for defending Soviet and WP space, but for moving into Europe they lacked transport and logistics to move and to occupy territory.
The real problem is that the west are ingrained liars... Kennedy got into office largely because he claimed the west was soft on the Soviets and the bomber gap and missile gap was a critical problem. Once in office he found there was a bomber gap and a missile gap but in favour of the west... the Soviets were bluffing... Kennedy got into office promising to build missiles and bombers and get parity with the Soviets for peace and stability but when he found out there was no huge fleets of Soviet bombers and no great missile fields of long range missiles he didn't just cancel those huge production drives to fill gaps that did not exist... he changed the doctrine from parity to first strike superiority... if the west made enough missiles and bombers they could attack the Soviets and take out enough of their strategic weapons to force them to surrender... in other words he wanted to win WWIII.
HATO analysts were equally dishonest and didn't say... well if the Soviets did want to invade Europe and occupy all of Europe the way that Hitler did during WWII then why are they building a fixed air defence network around the Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Union... why are they not making a mobile system that can move with their ground forces like HATO does.
Maybe they just want to be left alone and are not planning to attack us because their force structure really does not suit invasion and occupation, and is more oriented to defence that we care to admit.
Modern Russian forces have modern equipment and training and systems, and in terms of C4IR are in the best situation they have ever been because they have the electronics and technology to make practical effective systems that are also smart while remaining capable.
The advantage of NATO and the US is now overwhelming. It is enough to compare the size of the fleet, even the submarine fleet of Russia and the USA, the size of aviation. There is nothing to compare here. Russia now has just 3 or 4 submarine comparable to only the 688I. How many USA has 688I And how many Virgini.
The numbers are impressive but because of this do you think China would defeat the US and the west.
The US advantage in numbers is amusing because having 12 carrier battle groups is a lot of ships, but then 50,000 Soviet tanks during the cold war seemed impressive too, but for every impressive US carrier there are dozens or even hundreds of other smaller lighter ships that carrier needs to operate, and those aircraft on those carriers are just aircraft... how well will US Navy aircraft perform trying to defeat a Russian IADS on land or at sea?
If F-35s need to attack S-300s in Syria from stand off distances, then what are F-18s going to do about new Russian Corvettes equipped with S-350... a much more capable system.
Honestly I think the roles have reversed... HATOs advantage now is in numbers but even then that is scratchy because in an age of having battleships and aircraft carrier can destroy a much more powerful fleet because aircraft carriers are good at sinking battleships... well the current state of things is that hypersonic manouvering anti ship missiles are powerful weapons and Russia has enough of those to deal with any HATO force approaching Russia.
In the south Atlantic and south pacific a US carrier group should be OK, but again with Russias defensive policy why would they care about that?
The Soviets were never in a position to overwhelm and occupy the west simply because that was never the plan. The Soviets could defend themselves and the Russians are now in the same position.... but Russia is spending rather less than the Soviets spent on "defence" largely because Russia does not need to carry anyone.