This topic is locked from further discussion.
Total war? Russia. They wouldn't gain much from it, though, as they'd just leave EU as a nuclear wasteland.
iHarlequin
Well, the OP said nukes aside. But yeah, even with nukes it would be up in the air. France and Great Britain both have nuclear arsenals. They can't quite match Russia's but still, I would imagine in that case no one would win lol.
has a well-known history of winning impossible warsMakhaidos
I would beg to differ and say it has a history of impossible wars being waged against it rather than a history of winning impossible wars. If you have played any grand strategy game that has detailed terrian and weather pentalties such as the Hearts of Iron series you get an idea of just how big Russia is and how hard it is to invade and hold.
Comparing the capabilities of a country prior to its industrial revolution to those after it spending time as a world super power is pretty useless. Maybe prior isn't the best way to put it. Certainly before it hit its stride with its industrial revolution though. All things considered Russia was very much behind the times in WW1Technically speaking, Germany defeated Russia in World War I. Only reason why Russia got its land back later on was because the USA entered the Western front in 1917.
Amvis
[QUOTE="Amvis"]Comparing the capabilities of a country prior to its industrial revolution to those after it spending time as a world super power is pretty useless. Maybe prior isn't the best way to put it. Certainly before it hit its stride with its industrial revolution though. All things considered Russia was very much behind the times in WW1Technically speaking, Germany defeated Russia in World War I. Only reason why Russia got its land back later on was because the USA entered the Western front in 1917.
Ace6301
I'm not sure increased industrial output would have made much of a difference. Russians had pretty decent weaponry during World War I. They simply lost on the battlefield. I think your point would make sense if you were talking about the German-Austrian War during the late 19th Century. You also have to remember that not much of Eastern Europe was industrialized either. German supply lines were only so much railroad based going east. Most of them were by horse and carriage. But honestly, as much as Russia industrialized under the communists, the tsar put great efforts towards industrialization too. The Russian Empire wasn't simply all farmers land during World War I.
You have to remember too that Russia was a lot more industrialized during World War II, and still they almost lost to Germany. Russia finally decided to solve this defense issue by setting up puppet states as a buffer. And since the growth of NATO have felt increasingly threatened precisely because they are still to this day insecure with their ability to defend Moscow.
Comparing the capabilities of a country prior to its industrial revolution to those after it spending time as a world super power is pretty useless. Maybe prior isn't the best way to put it. Certainly before it hit its stride with its industrial revolution though. All things considered Russia was very much behind the times in WW1[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Amvis"]
Technically speaking, Germany defeated Russia in World War I. Only reason why Russia got its land back later on was because the USA entered the Western front in 1917.
Amvis
I'm not sure increased industrial output would have made much of a difference. Russians had pretty decent weaponry during World War I. They simply lost on the battlefield. I think your point would make sense if you were talking about the German-Austrian War during the late 19th Century. You also have to remember that not much of Eastern Europe was industrialized either. German supply lines were only so much railroad based going east. Most of them were by horse and carriage. But honestly, as much as Russia industrialized under the communists, the tsar put great efforts towards industrialization too. The Russian Empire wasn't simply all farmers land during World War I.
You have to remember too that Russia was a lot more industrialized during World War II, and still they almost lost to Germany. Russia finally decided to solve this defense issue by setting up puppet states as a buffer. And since the growth of NATO have felt increasingly threatened precisely because they are still to this day insecure with their ability to defend Moscow.
You're seriously trying to compare Russia's modern military to their military nearly 100 years ago? You're really doing this? Russia almost lost to Germany because they weren't expecting to go to war with Germany. That's a huge deal. When all of a sudden a nation that has been building up for war for over a decade comes knocking at your door and you're not at all ready and yet you still manage to take their capital in the end that isn't exactly what I'd call almost losing even after what happened in Stalingrad. I'd say that's a success story.Technically speaking, Germany defeated Russia in World War I. Only reason why Russia got its land back later on was because the USA entered the Western front in 1917.
Amvis
The Russian revolution was happening at the same time and significantly hampered not only their ability to wage war but the desire of the government in power at the time at wage war against foreign powers when there were such pressing internal concerns. This played a very large role in the short lived agreements you speak of.
[QUOTE="Amvis"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Comparing the capabilities of a country prior to its industrial revolution to those after it spending time as a world super power is pretty useless. Maybe prior isn't the best way to put it. Certainly before it hit its stride with its industrial revolution though. All things considered Russia was very much behind the times in WW1Ace6301
I'm not sure increased industrial output would have made much of a difference. Russians had pretty decent weaponry during World War I. They simply lost on the battlefield. I think your point would make sense if you were talking about the German-Austrian War during the late 19th Century. You also have to remember that not much of Eastern Europe was industrialized either. German supply lines were only so much railroad based going east. Most of them were by horse and carriage. But honestly, as much as Russia industrialized under the communists, the tsar put great efforts towards industrialization too. The Russian Empire wasn't simply all farmers land during World War I.
You have to remember too that Russia was a lot more industrialized during World War II, and still they almost lost to Germany. Russia finally decided to solve this defense issue by setting up puppet states as a buffer. And since the growth of NATO have felt increasingly threatened precisely because they are still to this day insecure with their ability to defend Moscow.
You're seriously trying to compare Russia's modern military to their military nearly 100 years ago? You're really doing this? Russia almost lost to Germany because they weren't expecting to go to war with Germany. That's a huge deal. When all of a sudden a nation that has been building up for war for over a decade comes knocking at your door and you're not at all ready and yet you still manage to take their capital in the end that isn't exactly what I'd call almost losing even after what happened in Stalingrad. I'd say that's a success story.Comparing to 100 years ago? No, I'm just pointing out the historical weaknesses of Russia. During the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II they had huge problems winning on the battlefield. In World War I, they ultimately lost. The other two they only won because of the weather. The Russians also only won World War II because Germany was at war with both Great Britain and USSR at the same time. If Hitler had focused on one at a time, he would have easily won. Russia had been building up for war too. They just conquered half of Poland. I'll give you the fact that Stalin wouldn't believe his generals and take defensive measures to defend against Germany. But I think my point largely still stands. Russia has a pretty big problem securing its western lands, and that's why they used all of Eastern Europe as a buffer against the West from 1945 to the end of the Cold War. Based on their strategy during the Cold War, I take it as an admittance on their part that defending their western lands is very much untenable due to no natural boundaries.
[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
Total war? Russia. They wouldn't gain much from it, though, as they'd just leave EU as a nuclear wasteland.
Amvis
Well, the OP said nukes aside. But yeah, even with nukes it would be up in the air. France and Great Britain both have nuclear arsenals. They can't quite match Russia's but still, I would imagine in that case no one would win lol.
Â
Well, there's also a matter of size. Europe is tiny. Seriously -- tiny. As a grounds of comparison I have my country, Brazil - which stands at double the size of the European Union. Russia is four times as large as the European Union. It's entirely impossible for the EU to occupy (in terms of population and equipment) anything Russian for extended periods of time that is on the other side of the Ural mountains (aka: most of it). As you said, the only considerable Armed Forces in the EU are from Great Britain and France - which combined have 600k military (counting reservists). Russia has 3.5m personnel (active and reserve). Without U.S. intervention, Russia would win - nuke or no nuke - simply because occupying/destroying the infrastructure of the minuscle strips of land that Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, France are (or even the entire EU), is much easier than occupying Russia.
[QUOTE="Amvis"]
Technically speaking, Germany defeated Russia in World War I. Only reason why Russia got its land back later on was because the USA entered the Western front in 1917.
Sir_Graham
The Russian revolution was happening at the same time and significantly hampered not only their ability to wage war but the desire of the government in power at the time at wage war against foreign powers when there were such pressing internal concerns. This played a very large role in the short lived agreements you speak of.
Most German advantages during the war were accomplished before the communists took over, and by 1917 before the revolution were in the advantage. On top of that, the tsarists wanted to continue the war largely, which is why the Allies sought to overthrow the communists in order to reopen the Eastern Front.
[QUOTE="Amvis"]
[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
Total war? Russia. They wouldn't gain much from it, though, as they'd just leave EU as a nuclear wasteland.
iHarlequin
Well, the OP said nukes aside. But yeah, even with nukes it would be up in the air. France and Great Britain both have nuclear arsenals. They can't quite match Russia's but still, I would imagine in that case no one would win lol.
Well, there's also a matter of size. Europe is tiny. Seriously -- tiny. As a grounds of comparison I have my country, Brazil - which stands at double the size of the European Union. Russia is four times as large as the European Union. It's entirely impossible for the EU to occupy (in terms of population and equipment) anything Russian for extended periods of time that is on the other side of the Ural mountains (aka: most of it). As you said, the only considerable Armed Forces in the EU are from Great Britain and France - which combined have 600k military (counting reservists). Russia has 3.5m personnel (active and reserve). Without U.S. intervention, Russia would win - nuke or no nuke - simply because occupying/destroying the infrastructure of the minuscle strips of land that Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, France are (or even the entire EU), is much easier than occupying Russia.
Like I said in previous posts, European nations would abandon their welfare models and remilitarize. Size doesn't really matter. Most of Russia beyond the Urals is not so concrete. It's hollowness would be like the South's during the American Civil War. Once you break past the lines, nothing but vast open lands. It comes down to centers of gravity, as Clausewitz would say. If Moscow and St. Petersburg both fall and the government is pushed beyond the Urals then internal nationalist movements would almost certainly breakout and become violent. Russia would ultimately sue for peace or face dissolution.
If you think I'm wrong, I'd like to point out that very few of the USA's nuclear targets against the USSR were east of the Ural Mountains. The reason being because most industrial, capiltal, and population capabilities and resources were west of the Urals.
russia got beat by afghanistan
[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]
[QUOTE="Amvis"]
Technically speaking, Germany defeated Russia in World War I. Only reason why Russia got its land back later on was because the USA entered the Western front in 1917.
Amvis
The Russian revolution was happening at the same time and significantly hampered not only their ability to wage war but the desire of the government in power at the time at wage war against foreign powers when there were such pressing internal concerns. This played a very large role in the short lived agreements you speak of.
Most German advantages during the war were accomplished before the communists took over, and by 1917 before the revolution were in the advantage. On top of that, the tsarists wanted to continue the war largely, which is why the Allies sought to overthrow the communists in order to reopen the Eastern Front.
Yes but a lot of the civil unrest/conflict was before the communist took over and while they were in the process of taking over. The Russian revolution was certainly a factor in that conflict. Anyway regarding your other post you make some fair points but a lot of the good strategic resources and territory is beyond the Volga. That's why Hitler focused his forces there because war is as much about resources denial and access as it as about capturing cities. The problem with any invasion of Russia is that capturing the European region does not necessarily win you the war unless the leaders in power want to sue for peace. I remember reading about German soliders who had no idea what vast territory looked like until they entered the Russian steppes I often hear similar sentiment from Europeans who come to Australia. They literally have never seen anything so barren or vast.
[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
[QUOTE="Amvis"]
Well, the OP said nukes aside. But yeah, even with nukes it would be up in the air. France and Great Britain both have nuclear arsenals. They can't quite match Russia's but still, I would imagine in that case no one would win lol.
Amvis
Â
Well, there's also a matter of size. Europe is tiny. Seriously -- tiny. As a grounds of comparison I have my country, Brazil - which stands at double the size of the European Union. Russia is four times as large as the European Union. It's entirely impossible for the EU to occupy (in terms of population and equipment) anything Russian for extended periods of time that is on the other side of the Ural mountains (aka: most of it). As you said, the only considerable Armed Forces in the EU are from Great Britain and France - which combined have 600k military (counting reservists). Russia has 3.5m personnel (active and reserve). Without U.S. intervention, Russia would win - nuke or no nuke - simply because occupying/destroying the infrastructure of the minuscle strips of land that Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, France are (or even the entire EU), is much easier than occupying Russia.
Like I said in previous posts, European nations would abandon their welfare models and remilitarize. Size doesn't really matter. Most of Russia beyond the Urals is not so concrete. It's hollowness would be like the South's during the American Civil War. Once you break past the lines, nothing but vast open lands. It comes down to centers of gravity, as Clausewitz would say. If Moscow and St. Petersburg both fall and the government is pushed beyond the Urals then internal nationalist movements would almost certainly breakout and become violent. Russia would ultimately sue for peace or face dissolution.
If you think I'm wrong, I'd like to point out that very few of the USA's nuclear targets against the USSR were east of the Ural Mountains. The reason being because most industrial, capiltal, and population capabilities and resources were west of the Urals.
Â
Yes, they're obviously not going to nuke the tundra in Siberia when they can target Moscow or St. Petersburg. I'm more inclined to believe the Russian population more ready to live without their infrastructure than the welfare states of Europe. It'd be similar to the failed invasions of Afghanistan -- you can take their cities, supply lines, but in the end your incapacity to hold it, and the loss from attrition and maintaining an army in foreign territory just wears you down to defeat. Then again, hypothetical history is folly, and we're both just wasting our time trying to discern what would happen in a scenario that there are a massive amount of variables we haven't even thought of. Strictly due to size, strictly due to firepower/armed forces size, strictly due to geography, I'd say Russia would win.
russia got beat by afghanistan
SrgtSaggy101
Â
So did the US. Do you think any country in the world can defeat the United States militarily because of that?
[QUOTE="SrgtSaggy101"]
russia got beat by afghanistan
iHarlequin
So did the US. Do you think any country in the world can defeat the United States militarily because of that?
One look at the mountainous terrain in Afghanistan should tell anyone that you are only going to embarrass yourself trying to take control and maintain control of that nation. The Russians and Americans were not the first and probably won't be the last to engage in such folly. People don't seem to learn from history that often.
You're seriously trying to compare Russia's modern military to their military nearly 100 years ago? You're really doing this? Russia almost lost to Germany because they weren't expecting to go to war with Germany. That's a huge deal. When all of a sudden a nation that has been building up for war for over a decade comes knocking at your door and you're not at all ready and yet you still manage to take their capital in the end that isn't exactly what I'd call almost losing even after what happened in Stalingrad. I'd say that's a success story.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Amvis"]
I'm not sure increased industrial output would have made much of a difference. Russians had pretty decent weaponry during World War I. They simply lost on the battlefield. I think your point would make sense if you were talking about the German-Austrian War during the late 19th Century. You also have to remember that not much of Eastern Europe was industrialized either. German supply lines were only so much railroad based going east. Most of them were by horse and carriage. But honestly, as much as Russia industrialized under the communists, the tsar put great efforts towards industrialization too. The Russian Empire wasn't simply all farmers land during World War I.
You have to remember too that Russia was a lot more industrialized during World War II, and still they almost lost to Germany. Russia finally decided to solve this defense issue by setting up puppet states as a buffer. And since the growth of NATO have felt increasingly threatened precisely because they are still to this day insecure with their ability to defend Moscow.
Amvis
Comparing to 100 years ago? No, I'm just pointing out the historical weaknesses of Russia. During the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II they had huge problems winning on the battlefield. In World War I, they ultimately lost. The other two they only won because of the weather. The Russians also only won World War II because Germany was at war with both Great Britain and USSR at the same time. If Hitler had focused on one at a time, he would have easily won. Russia had been building up for war too. They just conquered half of Poland. I'll give you the fact that Stalin wouldn't believe his generals and take defensive measures to defend against Germany. But I think my point largely still stands. Russia has a pretty big problem securing its western lands, and that's why they used all of Eastern Europe as a buffer against the West from 1945 to the end of the Cold War. Based on their strategy during the Cold War, I take it as an admittance on their part that defending their western lands is very much untenable due to no natural boundaries.
WW1 they left the war (which, granted, they were doing very poorly in) because of a massive communist uprising. Not to mention nobody was having great success on the battlefield in WW1. If you're going to blame the weather and say Russia sucks on the battlefield then why not say the EU can't equip their troops properly ultimately costing them wars? Why not stereotype the EU as being incapable of focusing on one target at a time? Stalingrad was much more than just weather winning it for the Russians. Easily some of the most brutal fighting of the war went on there and ultimately the Russians won, not only did they win but they pushed out and effectively steam rolled their way into Germany. Stalingrad took place before D-Day. You can't blame a western front for lack of troops there as ground troops were never deployed in the UK. Now obviously there is a lot of monetary support from the other Allies to the USSR during this time and it's quite possible without it they wouldn't have been able to do the push out quite as effectively and may have ultimately lost due in attrition. But once the USSR was rolling out it had pretty much won already. It would have taken many more years and chances are west of Berlin would have been USSR owned as well but eventually they would have won. You can say Russia sucks on the battlefield but they're still the largest nation on earth and the biggest loses in land they've ever suffered were from politics, not war.
The UK's military might is impressive by itself. If you throw in France and Germany, not to mention the other 20+ countries Russia would be outmatched. I doubt they would be able to even remotely win a war against the EU. ferrari2001The UK isn't exactly geared for a large scale land war in Europe though. None of the European nations really are because they have no expectation of fighting a large scale land war without the US who is the best equipped for fighting that war. They are all geared for a supporting role with the US providing the meat. I posted this link before but I will post it again because I feel if you go through the numbers you will see what I'm getting at and the further I look at it all in greater detail than provided in this link the more I believe that without the US the EU might have difficulty in this hypothetical war. If there were time to gear for the war and a central leader like Hitler or Napoleon who could give the European people determination and desire to defeat the Untermensch or whatever propaganda is used to build that desire I feel Russia might lose this time, otherwise probably not. http://www.globalfirepower.com
EU. If the EU got the US on their side (as they would) then it would just be a complete slaughter. So, yeah, EU.
No question but that wasn't the hypothetical question asked by the OP. The US could probably defeat Russia, the EU and China all by itself in the initial kinetic conflict. Though occupation of the defeated territories might prove difficult.EU. If the EU got the US on their side (as they would) then it would just be a complete slaughter. So, yeah, EU.
EagleEyedOne
[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"]No question but that wasn't the hypothetical question asked by the OP. The US could probably defeat Russia, the EU and China all by itself in the initial kinetic conflict. Though occupation of the defeated territories might prove difficult. I'd still say EU as the UK has a tremendous naval force by itself. Add in France and you got a lot of boots on the ground. Not sure if it would really count for much but the shear tact of the Germans is a force to be reckoned with. Add all that together and you got a formidable force.EU. If the EU got the US on their side (as they would) then it would just be a complete slaughter. So, yeah, EU.
AllanLane
[QUOTE="AllanLane"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"]No question but that wasn't the hypothetical question asked by the OP. The US could probably defeat Russia, the EU and China all by itself in the initial kinetic conflict. Though occupation of the defeated territories might prove difficult. I'd still say EU as the UK has a tremendous naval force by itself. Add in France and you got a lot of boots on the ground. Not sure if it would really count for much but the shear tact of the Germans is a force to be reckoned with. Add all that together and you got a formidable force. I do agree Europe has the capability to build itself into a force that could defeat and certainly defend against Russia if they don't already have that capability. To actually conquer Russia though and hold it, I don't like anyone's chance of that. It's hard enough for a domestic government to maintain control over such a vast region much less a foreign one.EU. If the EU got the US on their side (as they would) then it would just be a complete slaughter. So, yeah, EU.
EagleEyedOne
Nobody would win a "hypothetical war". A "hypothetical war" is a war that doesn't exist, and therefore can't be won. Just say "who would win a war?". The fact that you're asking, and that such a war isn't going on right now, implies that it's hypothetical.
[QUOTE="SrgtSaggy101"]
russia got beat by afghanistan
iHarlequin
Â
So did the US. Do you think any country in the world can defeat the United States militarily because of that?
Â
When did the USA lose in Afganistan? It would have been better if you brought up Vietnam.
EU easily...If nukes are allowed then Russia.
Â
Tsar Bomba>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All.
EYE-OF-HORUS999
But they already used their one and only Tsar Bomba up during testing, and it could onlt be carried on speical bombers. The Tsar Bomba while large was just a propaganda bomb, and useless in real war. And also there is a little thing about the UK and France having nukes of their own.
In a large scale war of this sort the primary factors of victory are manpower, efficiency and production capacity. EU has 3.5x the population, 3x the military spending, 1.5x the active military, and 6x the GDP. Russia gets completely fvcked.
Also, rofl at the idea that the EU being a coalition is such a huge crippling factor as to completely nullify their vast advantages in pretty much all the other aspects of warfare.
[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
[QUOTE="SrgtSaggy101"]
russia got beat by afghanistan
EYE-OF-HORUS999
Â
So did the US. Do you think any country in the world can defeat the United States militarily because of that?
Â
When did the USA lose in Afganistan? It would have been better if you brought up Vietnam.
US didn't lose Vietnam. It was a political self inflicted wound that caused the US to withdraw. If anything non commie Vietnam was the loser from it.While the EU has countries with really good armies (Doesn't France has the 5th or 6th biggest military budget?), I don't think they could win against Russia...Russia (the land itself) is pretty much a natural fortress, like the US, it's virtually unconquerable.lightleggyNobody here would care about the eastern 80% of Russia, as once Moscow is taken the war is over. The only reason why European Russia would be harder to attack than the E.U. is because Russia has sh!ttier transportation infrastructure, which also disadvantages Russia is other, more important ways.
Russia. The EU lacks cohesion and would be too busy arguing among themselves to offer any kind organized resistance. No nation would want to send it's army to the front line to get pumbled while the other nations get to sit back. By the time they got their act together Russia would have steam rolled across a large part of Europe (whether or not they have to resorces to actually take and hold the entire continent is beyond me).
redstorm72
do you honestly believe there was no international planning and formulation of schematics as to how to immediately react to an invasian from the eastern front, during the cold war?
the politicians do not have their shit together, but envisioning a world where the U.S did not and do not influence the E.U to have a cohesive battleplan, seems unrealistic to me. E.U needs to be a functioning buffer for the U.S, there is no way that the various intelligence offices of the U.S would be blind to this fact for 60 years, or lack the international influence to see such a plan through
[QUOTE="EYE-OF-HORUS999"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
Â
So did the US. Do you think any country in the world can defeat the United States militarily because of that?
DevilMightCry
Â
When did the USA lose in Afganistan? It would have been better if you brought up Vietnam.
US didn't lose Vietnam. It was a political self inflicted wound that caused the US to withdraw. If anything non commie Vietnam was the loser from it.Â
That's a nice, less-shameful way of saying the US lost the war. :lol: Capitalism did win, eventually, and I won't deny Vietnam's the better for it (for now, at least), but the U.S. did lose -- their army has immense difficulty in winning any war where depriving their foe of infrastructure (supply lines, energy, etc.) doesn't ensure victory.
Â
@Eye: when did it lose the war? When it spent over a decade in a foreign country, at massive costs, in a mission with the primary objective of dismantling the Al-Qaeda (at least that is their claim, how valid you believe it is up to your judgement) (and not of killing Osama Bin Laden, as some would believe) - and all they've accomplished in nearly 13 years of turmoil is to push Al-Qaeda to and fro, as if it were a drop of water.
Â
The last war they won was against Iraq, but it disgusts me to think of how they invaded a country that was sure-set on development and secularization out of selfish motives - motives not even the dictator-ruled people of Iraq agreed with. Those that were convinced at first by the USA's "helping hand" now regret it, as they see their country changed from one of the most developed and safest in the middle east to... what it is now. All the conflict did was aggravate the humanitarian crisis and plunged the country in an economical catastrophe where nearly 60% of its population lacks employment.
[QUOTE="EYE-OF-HORUS999"]
EU easily...If nukes are allowed then Russia.
Â
Tsar Bomba>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All.
Chaos_HL21
But they already used their one and only Tsar Bomba up during testing, and it could onlt be carried on speical bombers. The Tsar Bomba while large was just a propaganda bomb, and useless in real war. And also there is a little thing about the UK and France having nukes of their own.
Â
How is the Tsar Bomba useless in war? In annihilate almost all of the UK. I know the UK and France also have nukes. But Russia has the most nukes out of everyone. Enough to destroy the planet. Plus Russia is much bigger than both the UK and France. Russia could wipe out all of France and the UK before the two can to Russia.
[QUOTE="EYE-OF-HORUS999"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
Â
So did the US. Do you think any country in the world can defeat the United States militarily because of that?
DevilMightCry
Â
When did the USA lose in Afganistan? It would have been better if you brought up Vietnam.
US didn't lose Vietnam. It was a political self inflicted wound that caused the US to withdraw. If anything non commie Vietnam was the loser from it.Â
But they still didn't complete their objective which was to stop the North from taking over the south. Just like Russia didn't accomplish their objective to control Afghanistan.
US didn't lose Vietnam. It was a political self inflicted wound that caused the US to withdraw. If anything non commie Vietnam was the loser from it.[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="EYE-OF-HORUS999"]
Â
When did the USA lose in Afganistan? It would have been better if you brought up Vietnam.
iHarlequin
Â
That's a nice, less-shameful way of saying the US lost the war. :lol: Capitalism did win, eventually, and I won't deny Vietnam's the better for it (for now, at least), but the U.S. did lose -- their army has immense difficulty in winning any war where depriving their foe of infrastructure (supply lines, energy, etc.) doesn't ensure victory.
Â
@Eye: when did it lose the war? When it spent over a decade in a foreign country, at massive costs, in a mission with the primary objective of dismantling the Al-Qaeda (at least that is their claim, how valid you believe it is up to your judgement) (and not of killing Osama Bin Laden, as some would believe) - and all they've accomplished in nearly 13 years of turmoil is to push Al-Qaeda to and fro, as if it were a drop of water.
Â
The last war they won was against Iraq, but it disgusts me to think of how they invaded a country that was sure-set on development and secularization out of selfish motives - motives not even the dictator-ruled people of Iraq agreed with. Those that were convinced at first by the USA's "helping hand" now regret it, as they see their country changed from one of the most developed and safest in the middle east to... what it is now. All the conflict did was aggravate the humanitarian crisis and plunged the country in an economical catastrophe where nearly 60% of its population lacks employment.
Â
But the USA never lost the war in Afghanistan. Actually they never really cared. Unlike Russia who wanted to control Afghanistan. The USA and the west just wanted to rid the terror groups(Taliban and Al Qaeda). Did they not kill Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden?  Yes they are having difficulties getting rid of the Taliban and making Afghanistan stable, but I don't understand how they lost the war. Also they're trying to train the Afghan locals to take on the Taliban themselves
Â
I agree on the Iraq part.
US didn't lose Vietnam. It was a political self inflicted wound that caused the US to withdraw. If anything non commie Vietnam was the loser from it.[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="EYE-OF-HORUS999"]
Â
When did the USA lose in Afganistan? It would have been better if you brought up Vietnam.
EYE-OF-HORUS999
Â
But they still didn't complete their objective which was to stop the North from taking over the south. Just like Russia didn't accomplish their objective to control Afghanistan.
You don't understand. The USA was much superior to Vietnam forces. They were winning. It's because of congress and their distain for the war that caused the military funds not being sent and tons of lives being lost in the process due to inability to send equipment, medical supplies and such.I looked up a map of the EU countries yesterday. A lot of Eastern European countries are either in the EU or considering joining. Who would Russia have as an ally in this war? Possibly Belarus, but would Belarus be able to make much of a difference?
Or maybe in the TC's scenario Russia isn't allowed to have an ally, it must fight by itself.
[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] US didn't lose Vietnam. It was a political self inflicted wound that caused the US to withdraw. If anything non commie Vietnam was the loser from it. EYE-OF-HORUS999
That's a nice, less-shameful way of saying the US lost the war. :lol: Capitalism did win, eventually, and I won't deny Vietnam's the better for it (for now, at least), but the U.S. did lose -- their army has immense difficulty in winning any war where depriving their foe of infrastructure (supply lines, energy, etc.) doesn't ensure victory.
@Eye: when did it lose the war? When it spent over a decade in a foreign country, at massive costs, in a mission with the primary objective of dismantling the Al-Qaeda (at least that is their claim, how valid you believe it is up to your judgement) (and not of killing Osama Bin Laden, as some would believe) - and all they've accomplished in nearly 13 years of turmoil is to push Al-Qaeda to and fro, as if it were a drop of water.
The last war they won was against Iraq, but it disgusts me to think of how they invaded a country that was sure-set on development and secularization out of selfish motives - motives not even the dictator-ruled people of Iraq agreed with. Those that were convinced at first by the USA's "helping hand" now regret it, as they see their country changed from one of the most developed and safest in the middle east to... what it is now. All the conflict did was aggravate the humanitarian crisis and plunged the country in an economical catastrophe where nearly 60% of its population lacks employment.
But the USA never lost the war in Afghanistan. Actually they never really cared. Unlike Russia who wanted to control Afghanistan. The USA and the west just wanted to rid the terror groups(Taliban and Al Qaeda). Did they not kill Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden? Yes they are having difficulties getting rid of the Taliban and making Afghanistan stable, but I don't understand how they lost the war. Also they're trying to train the Afghan locals to take on the Taliban themselves
I agree on the Iraq part.
The War in Afghanistan is still going on, so we can't declare victory or defeat. As for al Qaeda they are not defeated and still very much a threat.[QUOTE="EYE-OF-HORUS999"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] US didn't lose Vietnam. It was a political self inflicted wound that caused the US to withdraw. If anything non commie Vietnam was the loser from it. DevilMightCry
But they still didn't complete their objective which was to stop the North from taking over the south. Just like Russia didn't accomplish their objective to control Afghanistan.
You don't understand. The USA was much superior to Vietnam forces. They were winning. It's because of congress and their distain for the war that caused the military funds not being sent and tons of lives being lost in the process due to inability to send equipment, medical supplies and such. really? If so that's horrible. If Congress opposes a war they can try to force a withdrawal, but cutting funding and causing troops to have less equipment and supplies is reckless and ridiculous. There is a reason the Democrats in 2007 never cut funding to the Iraq War.Also both Russia and the EU have quite low birth rates, below replacement level so a big war like this would be quite difficult for them to recover from, unless they increase their birth rates post-war.
The U.S. on the other hand doesn't have as much of a problem with this, the U.S. birth rate is somewhat low, but I think it is still around replacement level and we have a lot of immigration so the U.S. population is still growing.
Why do people assume the EU must hold the Russian terretory after they would have defeated them? Why can't they just make the Russian goverment sign a peace treaty in which they aren't allowed to have a military, they have to give up some terretory and the have to pay reperations? Pretty much the same what happened to Germany after they lost ww1.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment