Eastern World (Russia and Allies) vs. Western World (US and Allies)

In this debate, we will be arguing about the military of the US and Russia. My opponent may decide whether he wants to argue only Russia vs. US, or Russia/China vs. NATO. I will arguing for Russia's/China's victory, while my opponent will be arguing for USA's/NATO's victory. In this scenario, the USA/NATO will attack, although if my opponent wants to change this and gives good reasons, then we'll change it to where Russia/China is attacking. After identifying which one (NATO vs. Russia/China or Russia vs. USA) my opponent would like to argue, he may begin.

Either way, America is going to win, because they can call on allies such as Britain and France in aid. Additionally, the U.S. has some millions of soldiers at their command with many nuclear weapons and has more advanced technology than used in the 80s (cold war.) Additionally, the U.S. can start the war by coming to Ukraine's aid against the Russians and possibly the Chinese

This is not the first time that I have debated this, and not the first time that my opponent has given a blunt, oversimplified answer.

"Either way, America is going to win, because they can call on allies such as Britain and France in aid."
My opponent never fulfilled my request to specify what exactly we'll be arguing, but from the above statement I conclude that we will be arguing US and Russia WITH allies. Now, my opponent says that the US can call on allies such as Britain and France. That is great, but Britain and France will be obliterated. They will play almost no role. Let me compare the forces of UK and France against China alone.

Tanks-
China: 9,150
France: 423
UK: 407

SPGs-
China: 1,710
France: 149
UK: 89

Fighters/Interceptors-
China: 1,170
France: 287
UK: 84

Destroyers (Naval)-
China: 24
France: 0
UK: 6

I can keep going, but you get the idea. As I mentioned, that's China alone. China's military by itself would be able to take on all of the USA's allies.

"Additionally, the U.S. has some millions of soldiers at their command with many nuclear weapons and has more advanced technology than used in the 80s (cold war.)"
Russia and (especially) China also have millions of soldiers at their command, many millions more than the US. Combined, Russia and China have about 665 million men fit for service while the US only has about 120 million. This may surprise you (unfortunately), but Russia and China also have nuclear weapons and technology past the Cold War era. I personally would not like to argue this scenario with nukes because then everyone dies, but if my opponent insists on nuclear warfare as well, I will argue that too.

"Additionally, the U.S. can start the war by coming to Ukraine's aid against the Russians and possibly the Chinese"
From what I understand, my opponent's tactic of starting the war is by coming to the aid of the Ukrainian government in the fight against the Ukrainian rebels. My opponent's plan has multiple flaws which I will not fail to use. First of all, the US has to fly in hundreds of thousands of troops. That is a difficult task to do solely by airforce. Plus, Russia will realize what's going on and begin to take out planes with troops and cargo as they come into to drop off whatever they're carrying. The US Airforce will take heavy losses just trying to get troops and machines into position to actually start performing military functions. Russia's tank force is the largest in the world (about 15,000) and is twice the size of the US's tank force. Russia will have virtually all tanks at its disposal while the US would have to ship them in across land and sea. Wherever the US decides to drop their forces, that area would soon be overrun by the Russian tank force and be bombarded day and night by Russia's artillery (also largest in the world).
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

My opponent now has to:
1. Specify whether or not he would like to argue nuclear warfare as well.
2. Develop his battle plan and explain to me why his (USA's) forces would stand a chance when trying to land and get setup in Ukraine.

America's people are strong and can prepare themselves for a war at almost any time. Also, the reason why China has so many troops, tanks, ships, e.t.c is because they are preparing themselves for a war. But if America prepares for a war then the U.S. will have a very strong military. This is because the U.S. has a very strong war industry such as Boeing and many other minor and major companies. Finally, the U.S. has better weaponry.
Example: The AK47 is the standard Russian assault rifle and is highly manufactured in Russia
The M16 is the standard American assault rifle and is also highly manufactured in America.
The American M16 is better because it has more ammo capacity, three different modes, lighter, and is possibly easier to construct.

"America's people are strong and can prepare themselves for a war at almost any time."
This is not even an argument and I could say the exact same about the Russian people. In fact, the US has not ever had a serious enemy step on its land, so you have no idea how the people would react. On the other hand Russia's people showed unbelievable willpower and strength during the 4 years of WW2 that went down on Russia's land. Let's end it there, the "strength of the people" is not something that can be predicted/measured and therefore there is no point in arguing over it.

"Also, the reason why China has so many troops, tanks, ships, e.t.c is because they are preparing themselves for a war."
Then the US has so many ships, planes etc. because they are preparing for war, and then Russia has so many tanks, SPGs etc. because they are preparing for a war. Your statement does not support your argument and is irrelevant.

"But if America prepares for a war then the U.S. will have a very strong military."
The same can be said about any country. This is a baseless and opinionated claim.

"This is because the U.S. has a very strong war industry such as Boeing and many other minor and major companies."
Could my opponent provide more info? Why are they strong? What other minor and major companies? This is another very general and baseless claim. I could say the exact same about Russia.

"Finally, the U.S. has better weaponry."
Such as? You bring the AK-47 vs. M16 to the table.
1. Russia no longer uses the AK
2. USA no longer uses the M16
3. I can argue that the AK-47 is superior, but that is not the subject of debate and would be a waste of my time.

My opponent seems to still be in the Cold War era. Russia and US have advanced their weaponry far past that.

My opponent has failed to specify whether we are considering nuclear weaponry. We will not use nuclear weaponry.

My opponent has also failed to expand or even support his "invading Russia through Ukraine" battle plan.

So far, he has not presented any valid arguments.

My opponent has provided no argument, so I have nothing to refute.

Unfortunately, it seems as if my opponent has failed to provide any argument.

Thank you for the debate.