The US can't win a land war in Asia? Perhaps, but the answer is they probably won't have to since they have the alliance-economic strength to "cold war" Russia-China-N Korea to death (btw is your real name Vivek Ramaswamy?)

1) Soviets may have won most of Europe theater in WW II (but with substantial US lend-lease support). US won most of WW II at large (when Pacific Theater included), but the real story was massive US production on relatively untouchable US soil, aid to Britain (& ungrateful Soviets).

2) If Ukraine-Russia is a "sneak preview" of future wars, they are mostly fought with missiles/drones and quickly end up stalemates (note how a "no man's land" with trenches/mines are in place which will starve both countries, plus their allies, economically). The only "win" for Russia is a total victory, otherwise they've essentially "lost".

3) Air and Sea battles (what may be shaping up between US and China) are interesting, as new missiles may threaten carriers/fighters, yet generally speaking, China begins to lose this (economy stalled by shipping lanes threatened, China-pushback alliances can provide easy embargo). Anti-missile systems (or space-based military equipment) may also create stalemates.

4) Sometimes I wonder if "boots are the ground" are becoming unnecessary. So many WW II lives lost in battles that didn't need to be fought (ie Iwo Jima, I guess we were in a hurry). Iraq and Vietnam wars were Pyrrhic air/sea victories, land troop failures, yet US economic/culture apparently "won" in spite of themselves (both countries now kinda/sorta allies).

5) Good news about all this, the world is generally safer now, as intertwinement/military stalemate is forcing us brothers/sisters to kiss and make up (ew!) Over time, each of us siblings simply "wins" by "not losing".