Who would win in a hypothetical war between Russia and the EU?

@DevilMightCry Trust me...I know that and I am aware of that. One of my cousins served in the Vietnam war and I know people always love to overestimate the NVA and Vietcong's as being some um believable force to be reckon with. My point is, is that they didn't complete their objective which was to secure the South. Lost or not a lost, they didn't complete that one objective. @whipassmt Never said the USA won the war in Afghanistan. I know its still going on. iHarlequin is the one who said the USA lost the war. And didn't the killing of Osama Bin Laden kinda hurt Al Qaeda?EYE-OF-HORUS999

That being said I think Al Qaeda and its allies have been significantly weakened in the Phillipines and Indonesia since the start of the War on Terror and hasn't really made any recovery there.

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.

deeliman

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="EYE-OF-HORUS999"]

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.

whipassmt

Read this: http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html [QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] 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. DevilMightCry

And perhaps that was for the better. Winning a war for the sake of winning it is foolish, specially considering how much of the US's budget is spent on the military.

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]Read this: http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html [QUOTE="whipassmt"] 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.

iHarlequin

And perhaps that was for the better. Winning a war for the sake of winning it is foolish, specially considering how much of the US's budget is spent on the military.

Russias main battle tank is based on a 1970s upgraded version of a 1950s tank. UK, France and Germany have some of the most advanced tanks on the planet. I think that'd be a pretty big deal. Also generally the Eurofighter is theoretically superior to the Flanker series. chaplainDMK

The best space rocket is the Soyuz, and it was designed in 1960 - and still is used consistently. 

Edit: just to clarify, the idea of this is to show that not always modern = better. The space shuttle was terrible, and now even the US use the Soyuz for their operations.

Russia's military essentially went bankrupt with the end of the Cold War.  They hardly have enough money to spend on jet fuel to train their pilots, and have resorted to letting rich foreigners take rides to pay for gas.  A pity, if you ask me.

While they have continued R&D in an effort to modernize, this is all mostly for saber-rattling purposes as the bulk of their military is outdated, warehoused, ill-maintained, and worse.  Worse, their personal are, from what I've read, general poorly trained, suffer from poor morale, are corrupt, and worse.

So my answer is the EU.  They often to joint-training exercises, have a standardizes arsenal (or whatever you want to call it, but they all use the same type of ammunition, magazine size, etc), treaties, and a pretty good history together (at least the West).

And, I know this was not asked, but the US does have the EU's back.  I think that is pretty much an unspoken guarentee.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]Russias main battle tank is based on a 1970s upgraded version of a 1950s tank. UK, France and Germany have some of the most advanced tanks on the planet. I think that'd be a pretty big deal. Also generally the Eurofighter is theoretically superior to the Flanker series. iHarlequin

The best space rocket is the Soyuz, and it was designed in 1960 - and still is used consistently. 

Edit: just to clarify, the idea of this is to show that not always modern = better. The space shuttle was terrible, and now even the US use the Soyuz for their operations.

Meanwhile, T-72's, on which the T-90 is based on, were destroyed without trouble at ranges up to 3 kilometers. Though the T-90 uses amazingly advanced reactive armor (Kontak-5), the actually steel hull of the vehicle is still based on the T-72, which means that once the reactive armor is gone, it's dead. Basically while the T-90, unlike Iraqi T-72s, can engage EU tanks at equal range thanks to it's superior electronics package, it's going to have a very hard time penetrating, while it's going to be very vulnerable. Also UK has pretty significant military experience in open tank warfare thanks to the Gulf Wars, and EU in general holds a much higher degree of training compared to the Russians.

So while sometimes older proven tech might be superior, in this case it isn't.

So much BS in this thread its not even funny. Russia would roll over europe pretty quickly. All the reasons given in this thread is just western propaganda. Experts estimate Russia to have the second highest military budget in the world, and the Russian military is exceptional at land warfare. Just the airborne corps alone would take europe over in under a year. The funny thing is that all the people in power know it, yet the stereotypes persist. They would just bomb the hell out of the EU for a while and then send in the tanks of which they have the most in the world. Or better yet, cut off the gas and oil and watch the EU plummet into economic chaos.muscleserge

1. UK alone has 2/3 the military budget of Russia, add in Germany, France, Italy and Spain and that claim is dead in the water.

2. Exceptional? Chechnya would disagree. In the First Chechen War Russia lost some 200 T-80 tanks in the first weeks. Also casualties were generally pretty hardcore, and that's fighting against ill-equipped resistance fighters.

3. 35.000 airborne troops? Yeah dream on.

4. Bomb them with what? Numbers don't matter if your quality is shite

5. I'd say Russia would plummet into economic chaos a lot faster since gas and oil exports represent a pretty big source of income, while EU can still rely on US oil and has it's own oil and gas reserves in the North Sea. Wouldn't be a good solution, but would still leave them off far better than Russia.

So much BS in this thread its not even funny. Russia would roll over europe pretty quickly. All the reasons given in this thread is just western propaganda. Experts estimate Russia to have the second highest military budget in the world, and the Russian military is exceptional at land warfare. Just the airborne corps alone would take europe over in under a year. The funny thing is that all the people in power know it, yet the stereotypes persist. They would just bomb the hell out of the EU for a while and then send in the tanks of which they have the most in the world. Or better yet, cut off the gas and oil and watch the EU plummet into economic chaos.muscleserge

[QUOTE="americanphile"][QUOTE="BossPerson"] please russia army is overated can¨t even win over jihadist warriors.kingoflife9

just like america cant win in iraq, cant win in afghanistan, couldnt win in vietnam?  LOL please, russia has so much weapons that they provide every other country with weapons to fight their wars.

russia pretty much single handedly won world war 2, america came in 5 years later and stormed 1 beach in france.  russia forced the nazis to surender and forced hitler to kill himself because he was so butt hurt.  if it wasnt for russia we would all be speaking german right now.

kingoflife9

russia pretty much single handedly won world war 2, america came in 5 years later and stormed 1 beach in france.  russia forced the nazis to surender and forced hitler to kill himself because he was so butt hurt.  if it wasnt for russia we would all be speaking german right now.

kingoflife9

Yeah because Japan totally surrendered without a fight.

So much BS in this thread its not even funny. Russia would roll over europe pretty quickly. All the reasons given in this thread is just western propaganda. Experts estimate Russia to have the second highest military budget in the world, and the Russian military is exceptional at land warfare. Just the airborne corps alone would take europe over in under a year. The funny thing is that all the people in power know it, yet the stereotypes persist. They would just bomb the hell out of the EU for a while and then send in the tanks of which they have the most in the world. Or better yet, cut off the gas and oil and watch the EU plummet into economic chaos.muscleserge

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] That's the reson why Democrats never went full out on the Iraq war and cut funding. Also, as a result of the Vietnam incident with the Democrat controlled congress, the President now has more authority over wars and military.DevilMightCry

And perhaps that was for the better. Winning a war for the sake of winning it is foolish, specially considering how much of the US's budget is spent on the military.

Enough that it has a bigger budget than the following twenty largest spenders put together. It has an expenditure of roughly USD700 billion, which is around 3-4% of its GDP (this not counting interest from war-incurred debts, veteran payments, etc.). Contrasted with that, you spend, on the federal sphere, USD400 billion on welfare policies; USD98 billion on education; USD882 billion on healthcare.

russia pretty much single handedly won world war 2, america came in 5 years later and stormed 1 beach in france.  russia forced the nazis to surender and forced hitler to kill himself because he was so butt hurt.  if it wasnt for russia we would all be speaking german right now.

kingoflife9

If nukes weren't used I guess the EU would win. If nukes were used noone wins, everyone dead. EU has a lot more people, Navy / Air strength, and bigger military power combined than Russia.

If nukes weren't used I guess the EU would win. If nukes were used noone wins, everyone dead. EU has a lot more people, Navy / Air strength, and bigger military power combined than Russia.

nooblet69

Maybe I should provide some numbers for people.

Russia army size: 1,400,000 active personnel

Russia military budget: 67,59 billion

Russia population: 143,400,000

Russia GDP: 2,52 trillion

EU combined army size: 1,695,122 active personnel

EU military budget: 200 billion

EU population: 507,890,191

EU GDP: 13,1 trillion

After reading these numbers, who do you think would win, EU or Russia?

[QUOTE="nooblet69"]

If nukes weren't used I guess the EU would win. If nukes were used noone wins, everyone dead. EU has a lot more people, Navy / Air strength, and bigger military power combined than Russia.

killzowned24

[QUOTE="nooblet69"]

If nukes weren't used I guess the EU would win. If nukes were used noone wins, everyone dead. EU has a lot more people, Navy / Air strength, and bigger military power combined than Russia.

killzowned24

So basically cowards right?

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="nooblet69"]

If nukes weren't used I guess the EU would win. If nukes were used noone wins, everyone dead. EU has a lot more people, Navy / Air strength, and bigger military power combined than Russia.

deeliman

You're talking to the wrong person guy.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="nooblet69"]

If nukes weren't used I guess the EU would win. If nukes were used noone wins, everyone dead. EU has a lot more people, Navy / Air strength, and bigger military power combined than Russia.

chaplainDMK

So basically cowards right?

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] yeah,because you need to team up like cowards.killzowned24

So basically cowards right?

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] UNITED States of America. Russian FEDERATION.

So basically cowards right?

deeliman

Russia's military is pretty close to antiquated. They really couldn't "win." What happened in WW2 WRT military capacities is about as pertinent as the Roman Empire on Italy's modern military capacities. Realistically, the EU would probably have logistical problems occupying Russia even should it succeed in demolishing the Russian mlitary, which it would.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]Russias main battle tank is based on a 1970s upgraded version of a 1950s tank. UK, France and Germany have some of the most advanced tanks on the planet. I think that'd be a pretty big deal. Also generally the Eurofighter is theoretically superior to the Flanker series. iHarlequin

The best space rocket is the Soyuz, and it was designed in 1960 - and still is used consistently. 

Edit: just to clarify, the idea of this is to show that not always modern = better. The space shuttle was terrible, and now even the US use the Soyuz for their operations.

Part of that has to do that jack sh!t has been done to space technology since going to the moon, unlike military technology, so the comparison is pretty laughable.

Maybe I should provide some numbers for people.

 

 

Russia army size: 1,400,000 active personnel

Russia military budget: 67,59 billion

Russia population: 143,400,000

Russia GDP: 2,52 trillion

 

EU combined army size: 1,695,122 active personnel

EU military budget: 200 billion

EU population: 507,890,191

EU GDP: 13,1 trillion

After reading these numbers, who do you think would win, EU or Russia?

deeliman

I guess Russia has nukes if they want the EU to lose, too, but that's all they have.

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

Maybe I should provide some numbers for people.

 

 

Russia army size: 1,400,000 active personnel

Russia military budget: 67,59 billion

Russia population: 143,400,000

Russia GDP: 2,52 trillion

 

EU combined army size: 1,695,122 active personnel

EU military budget: 200 billion

EU population: 507,890,191

EU GDP: 13,1 trillion

After reading these numbers, who do you think would win, EU or Russia?

coolbeans90

I guess Russia has nukes if they want the EU to lose, too, but that's all they have.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

Maybe I should provide some numbers for people.

 

 

Russia army size: 1,400,000 active personnel

Russia military budget: 67,59 billion

Russia population: 143,400,000

Russia GDP: 2,52 trillion

 

EU combined army size: 1,695,122 active personnel

EU military budget: 200 billion

EU population: 507,890,191

EU GDP: 13,1 trillion

After reading these numbers, who do you think would win, EU or Russia?

deeliman

I guess Russia has nukes if they want the EU to lose, too, but that's all they have.

Yes, which is what I said earlier ITT.

Misery loves company or some sh!t.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] They all speak the same language at least. You guys need help from people you can't even understand, a bit different to me.killzowned24

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] Shoo, go away troll!chaplainDMK

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] must be butthurt knowing your puny country can't stand alone by itself :lol: killzowned24

EU combined army size: 1,695,122 active personnel>>>>>>>>Russia army size: 1,400,000 active personnel

EU military budget: 200 billion>>>>>>>>Russia military budget: 67,59 billion

EU population: 507,890,191>>>>>>>Russia population: 143,400,000

EU GDP: 13,1 trillion>>>>>>>Russia GDP: 2,52 trillion

But sure, keep believing Russia is more powerful.

EDIT: Finally lvl 10!

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

 

And perhaps that was for the better. Winning a war for the sake of winning it is foolish, specially considering how much of the US's budget is spent on the military.

iHarlequin

Enough that it has a bigger budget than the following twenty largest spenders put together. It has an expenditure of roughly USD700 billion, which is around 3-4% of its GDP (this not counting interest from war-incurred debts, veteran payments, etc.). Contrasted with that, you spend, on the federal sphere, USD400 billion on welfare policies; USD98 billion on education; USD882 billion on healthcare.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] Must be butthurt knowing that the EU is one of the most powerful entities on the planet while Russia is a second rate mafia state and must come up with BS excuses to even the odds. 

deeliman

EU combined army size: 1,695,122 active personnel>>>>>>>>Russia army size: 1,400,000 active personnel

EU military budget: 200 billion>>>>>>>>Russia military budget: 67,59 billion

EU population: 507,890,191>>>>>>>Russia population: 143,400,000

EU GDP: 13,1 trillion>>>>>>>Russia GDP: 2,52 trillion

But sure, keep believing Russia is more powerful.

EDIT: Finally lvl 10!

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] And yet Russia is rated as the second most powerful only behind the U.S.killzowned24

EU combined army size: 1,695,122 active personnel>>>>>>>>Russia army size: 1,400,000 active personnel

EU military budget: 200 billion>>>>>>>>Russia military budget: 67,59 billion

EU population: 507,890,191>>>>>>>Russia population: 143,400,000

EU GDP: 13,1 trillion>>>>>>>Russia GDP: 2,52 trillion

But sure, keep believing Russia is more powerful.

EDIT: Finally lvl 10!

Must be butthurt knowing that the EU is one of the most powerful entities on the planet while Russia is a second rate mafia state and must come up with BS excuses to even the odds.chaplainDMK

But Europe is not exactly what it has been in the past either will all the Muslims trying to take over Europe. Europe is much more Muslim now than what it's been when I was a kid.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]Must be butthurt knowing that the EU is one of the most powerful entities on the planet while Russia is a second rate mafia state and must come up with BS excuses to even the odds.pariah3

But Europe is not exactly what it has been in the past either will all the Muslims trying to take over Europe. Europe is much more Muslim now than what it's been when I was a kid.

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.

deeliman

So much BS in this thread its not even funny. Russia would roll over europe pretty quickly. All the reasons given in this thread is just western propaganda. Experts estimate Russia to have the second highest military budget in the world, and the Russian military is exceptional at land warfare. Just the airborne corps alone would take europe over in under a year. The funny thing is that all the people in power know it, yet the stereotypes persist. They would just bomb the hell out of the EU for a while and then send in the tanks of which they have the most in the world. Or better yet, cut off the gas and oil and watch the EU plummet into economic chaos.muscleserge

Russia's military is pretty close to antiquated. They really couldn't "win." What happened in WW2 WRT military capacities is about as pertinent as the Roman Empire on Italy's modern military capacities. Realistically, the EU would probably have logistical problems occupying Russia even should it succeed in demolishing the Russian mlitary, which it would.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]Russias main battle tank is based on a 1970s upgraded version of a 1950s tank. UK, France and Germany have some of the most advanced tanks on the planet. I think that'd be a pretty big deal. Also generally the Eurofighter is theoretically superior to the Flanker series. coolbeans90

The best space rocket is the Soyuz, and it was designed in 1960 - and still is used consistently. 

Edit: just to clarify, the idea of this is to show that not always modern = better. The space shuttle was terrible, and now even the US use the Soyuz for their operations.

Part of that has to do that jack sh!t has been done to space technology since going to the moon, unlike military technology, so the comparison is pretty laughable.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Russia's military is pretty close to antiquated. They really couldn't "win." What happened in WW2 WRT military capacities is about as pertinent as the Roman Empire on Italy's modern military capacities. Realistically, the EU would probably have logistical problems occupying Russia even should it succeed in demolishing the Russian mlitary, which it would.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

 

The best space rocket is the Soyuz, and it was designed in 1960 - and still is used consistently. 

 

Edit: just to clarify, the idea of this is to show that not always modern = better. The space shuttle was terrible, and now even the US use the Soyuz for their operations.

Barbariser

Part of that has to do that jack sh!t has been done to space technology since going to the moon, unlike military technology, so the comparison is pretty laughable.

I didn't say that they did need to occupy to "win," and I think you are pretty much rephrasing what I said when I said that ancient history isnt applicable - the change logistics capacities make invading Russia considerably easier to the point where winters are not a make-or-break factor.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Part of that has to do that jack sh!t has been done to space technology since going to the moon, unlike military technology, so the comparison is pretty laughable.

coolbeans90

I didn't say that they did need to occupy to "win," and I think you are pretty much rephrasing what I said when I said that ancient history isnt applicable - the change logistics capacities make invading Russia considerably easier to the point where winters are not a make-or-break factor.

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

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.

Barbariser

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] And yet Russia is rated as the second most powerful only behind the U.S.killzowned24

EU combined army size: 1,695,122 active personnel>>>>>>>>Russia army size: 1,400,000 active personnel

EU military budget: 200 billion>>>>>>>>Russia military budget: 67,59 billion

EU population: 507,890,191>>>>>>>Russia population: 143,400,000

EU GDP: 13,1 trillion>>>>>>>Russia GDP: 2,52 trillion

But sure, keep believing Russia is more powerful.

EDIT: Finally lvl 10!