[QUOTE="muscleserge"]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.DevilMightCryRussia couldn't even beat Chechnya, one of their own former republics. Russia can't handle urban warfare. How can Russia beat Russia? It was an uprising with in Russia it self. I wonder how the US would handle say Georgia seceding, and how they would go about fighting their own people. With the only exception that Georgia would be an Islamic country and fundamentally different from he rest. Threads like this always go the same way, some monetary figures are thrown around, some negative stereotypes and everybody agrees, but wouldn't you find it funny if the Russians would do the same for the US or the EU, saying exactly the same things. Most of the people posting here haven't even been to Russia and their facts are from either Call of Duty or Hollywood. Like it or not but reality is vastly different. The very fact that NATO is still around proves just how confident the western opinion of Russian inferiority is. Or how Washington goes ape-shiiiiiiiiii1t over some military exercises in the pacific, or how Hilary herself was sent to Russia to talk them into agreeing with western involvement in Syria. Don't you people see that whats being said and whats being done are very different things. I am not going into stats and links mode for a reason ( besides posting this crap over and over). Just use common sense people. Their was and still is a massive propaganda campaign against Russia to further stereotypes int he west and you people are eating it up. Americans lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (still ongoing for tese 2) and nobody mentions that, or says that Americans suck at urban warfare. Some posters ITT need to visit Russia, and look into some unbiased sources of news and information. The Russians quelled Georgia in what 5 days, and that wasn't even remotely close to the best Russia has to offer, the Caucasus divisions aren't very "upgraded" yet they had no problem taking care of the US backed Georgia. The west is afraid of Russia to this day for a reason. NATO is still trying to encircle them, giving even more reason for the Russians to up their game even further. What I am getting at is, don't be fooled by all the media BS. The EU will bend over backwards not to upset the Russians, and with the recent power shifts (global) some EU nations are starting to side with Russia.
Who would win in a hypothetical war between Russia and the EU?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[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"]
Â
The best space rocket is the Soyuz, and it was designed in 1960 - and still is used consistently.Â
Â
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.
The E.U. does not really need to occupy "Russia" to win. What is relevant from WW2 is that Germany alone stood a decent chance of reaching Moscow and defeating the U.S.S.R. with a crappy horse-drawn logistics train and very little access to fuel, and the E.U. is vastly more powerful with respect to Russia than Germany was to the U.S.S.R.. When a country's capital falls its ability and will to wage war can literally be crippled. How did taking Moscow fared in the previous wars. This concept plays into the Russian hand all the time, they even draw the enemy in. Lets get something straight. Russia going into full war mode means the EU stands no chance. All your leaders, both political and military know this, hence the current NATO policies and strategies. The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that. Russia is resource independant, whereas the EU isn't, they have the equipment and manpower to do the job as well. Remember a while back Russia moved some iskandar class missiles to Kaliningrad in response to the NATO threat and half of Europe went nuts. The EU is too dependant of foreigh energy to wage even a defensive war, that alone makes them the losing side. The Russian military doctrine has changed over the years, they would proly go with a bombing campaign, ie missiles, bombers and artillery (of which they have plenty of), then they would cut off supplies, and the EU falls. Being so dependant of the US has made the EU weak, like it or not.
Well when comparing technology, man power, military budget, and economies, the EU has the advantage in every area. Â It would be stupid not to bet on the EU. Russia's military has degraded significantly over the last few decades, especiall their Navy. Â Large portions are inactivated and literally rusting in ports. Â Â
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]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.musclesergeRussia couldn't even beat Chechnya, one of their own former republics. Russia can't handle urban warfare. How can Russia beat Russia? It was an uprising with in Russia it self. I wonder how the US would handle say Georgia seceding, and how they would go about fighting their own people. With the only exception that Georgia would be an Islamic country and fundamentally different from he rest. Threads like this always go the same way, some monetary figures are thrown around, some negative stereotypes and everybody agrees, but wouldn't you find it funny if the Russians would do the same for the US or the EU, saying exactly the same things. Most of the people posting here haven't even been to Russia and their facts are from either Call of Duty or Hollywood. Like it or not but reality is vastly different. The very fact that NATO is still around proves just how confident the western opinion of Russian inferiority is. Or how Washington goes ape-shiiiiiiiiii1t over some military exercises in the pacific, or how Hilary herself was sent to Russia to talk them into agreeing with western involvement in Syria. Don't you people see that whats being said and whats being done are very different things. I am not going into stats and links mode for a reason ( besides posting this crap over and over). Just use common sense people. Their was and still is a massive propaganda campaign against Russia to further stereotypes int he west and you people are eating it up. Americans lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (still ongoing for tese 2) and nobody mentions that, or says that Americans suck at urban warfare. Some posters ITT need to visit Russia, and look into some unbiased sources of news and information. The Russians quelled Georgia in what 5 days, and that wasn't even remotely close to the best Russia has to offer, the Caucasus divisions aren't very "upgraded" yet they had no problem taking care of the US backed Georgia. The west is afraid of Russia to this day for a reason. NATO is still trying to encircle them, giving even more reason for the Russians to up their game even further. What I am getting at is, don't be fooled by all the media BS. The EU will bend over backwards not to upset the Russians, and with the recent power shifts (global) some EU nations are starting to side with Russia. They certainly wouldn't loose 200 tanks in one month and have about 5000 dead in a day. The Russian military is utterly incompetent, like it or not, the proof is in the pudding, any war Russia has waged in the past decades has not really wen't all too hot. Meanwhile anytime the US (of which the EU holds similar military quality) was in a similar situation - e.g. Afghanistan or Vietnam, it took pretty light casualties and militarily dominated the resistance. Sure, these wars you cant really win because if people want freedom they will get it, but we are talking about Russian military prowess, and it's not too hot.
And again, Russia would economically collapse without the EU buying up its oil and gas. 70% of their gas and oil is exported, Russia is worried shitless when it's production drops by 2%, if you take 70% away, Russia will collapse. Meanwhile the EU can still rely on the North Sea for oil and gas, along with US and Canadian exports. Don't you think that during the 40 years of the Cold War the European states had thought this situation through?
And everyone is worried of everyone, if the EU would move a few divisions, missles and nukes to it's borders it would make Russia worried as well. And it does, as has happened when NATO held military exercises. So yeah.
[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]The E.U. does not really need to occupy "Russia" to win. What is relevant from WW2 is that Germany alone stood a decent chance of reaching Moscow and defeating the U.S.S.R. with a crappy horse-drawn logistics train and very little access to fuel, and the E.U. is vastly more powerful with respect to Russia than Germany was to the U.S.S.R.. When a country's capital falls its ability and will to wage war can literally be crippled. How did taking Moscow fared in the previous wars. This concept plays into the Russian hand all the time, they even draw the enemy in. Lets get something straight. Russia going into full war mode means the EU stands no chance. All your leaders, both political and military know this, hence the current NATO policies and strategies. The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that. Russia is resource independant, whereas the EU isn't, they have the equipment and manpower to do the job as well. Remember a while back Russia moved some iskandar class missiles to Kaliningrad in response to the NATO threat and half of Europe went nuts. The EU is too dependant of foreigh energy to wage even a defensive war, that alone makes them the losing side. The Russian military doctrine has changed over the years, they would proly go with a bombing campaign, ie missiles, bombers and artillery (of which they have plenty of), then they would cut off supplies, and the EU falls. Being so dependant of the US has made the EU weak, like it or not. Do you have any sources for this or are you talking out of your ass again?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.
muscleserge
Voted Russia. But not in a sense that they would destroy or occupy EU, but more in sense of some kind of a political victory.
I don't think that any side of this hypothetical conflict would have resources or even willpower to wage a prolonged war against the other side, let alone occupy it. I think that after several initial encounters both sides would try to reopen negotiations and settle the conflict peacefully.
And in that stage I would give a slightly better chances to Russia simply because they look to me like they have less to lose in potential total war than EU (they have vast amounts of natural resources, many of their industries seem to be better fit for war economy than many industries in EU and even the population might be more prepared to find themselves in large scale conflict again,...). So I think that EU would probably be slightly more willing to accept more of Russian conditions than vice versa. Not to mention that Russia would be negotiating a signle opinion from a single position while the leadership of EU could run into some trouble while even forming their official position.Â
So, yeah. Maybe I am giving too small credit to EU countries' will to fight and sacrify their comfort, but for a short term conflict, which IMO is more plausible, that would be my prediction.
Germany and the UK would certainly be pretty stubborn, and those two countries alone would give Russia a massive run for their money. Poland has historically also proven to be a dogged fighter, and coupled with it's probable anti-Russian sentiments now that it finally regained it's liberty that was taken away by the Soviet Union. I'd say any progress Russia would make would be met with massive partisan resistance in any EU country.Voted Russia. But not in a sense that they would destroy or occupy EU, but more in sense of some kind of a political victory.
SciFiRPGfan
I don't think that any side of this hypothetical conflict would have resources or even willpower to wage a prolonged war against the other side, let alone occupy it. I think that after several initial encounters both sides would try to reopen negotiations and settle the conflict peacefully.
And in that stage I would give a slightly better chances to Russia simply because they look to me like they have less to lose in potential total war than EU (they have vast amounts of natural resources, many of their industries seem to be better fit for war economy than many industries in EU and even the population might be more prepared to find themselves in large scale conflict again,...). So I think that EU would probably be slightly more willing to accept more of Russian conditions than vice versa. Not to mention that Russia would be negotiating a signle opinion from a single position while the leadership of EU could run into some trouble while even forming their official position.Â
So, yeah. Maybe I am giving too small credit to EU countries' will to fight and sacrify their comfort, but for a short term conflict, which IMO is more plausible, that would be my prediction.
How can Russia beat Russia? It was an uprising with in Russia it self. I wonder how the US would handle say Georgia seceding, and how they would go about fighting their own people. With the only exception that Georgia would be an Islamic country and fundamentally different from he rest. Threads like this always go the same way, some monetary figures are thrown around, some negative stereotypes and everybody agrees, but wouldn't you find it funny if the Russians would do the same for the US or the EU, saying exactly the same things. Most of the people posting here haven't even been to Russia and their facts are from either Call of Duty or Hollywood. Like it or not but reality is vastly different. The very fact that NATO is still around proves just how confident the western opinion of Russian inferiority is. Or how Washington goes ape-shiiiiiiiiii1t over some military exercises in the pacific, or how Hilary herself was sent to Russia to talk them into agreeing with western involvement in Syria. Don't you people see that whats being said and whats being done are very different things. I am not going into stats and links mode for a reason ( besides posting this crap over and over). Just use common sense people. Their was and still is a massive propaganda campaign against Russia to further stereotypes int he west and you people are eating it up. Americans lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (still ongoing for tese 2) and nobody mentions that, or says that Americans suck at urban warfare. Some posters ITT need to visit Russia, and look into some unbiased sources of news and information. The Russians quelled Georgia in what 5 days, and that wasn't even remotely close to the best Russia has to offer, the Caucasus divisions aren't very "upgraded" yet they had no problem taking care of the US backed Georgia. The west is afraid of Russia to this day for a reason. NATO is still trying to encircle them, giving even more reason for the Russians to up their game even further. What I am getting at is, don't be fooled by all the media BS. The EU will bend over backwards not to upset the Russians, and with the recent power shifts (global) some EU nations are starting to side with Russia. They certainly wouldn't loose 200 tanks in one month and have about 5000 dead in a day. The Russian military is utterly incompetent, like it or not, the proof is in the pudding, any war Russia has waged in the past decades has not really wen't all too hot. Meanwhile anytime the US (of which the EU holds similar military quality) was in a similar situation - e.g. Afghanistan or Vietnam, it took pretty light casualties and militarily dominated the resistance. Sure, these wars you cant really win because if people want freedom they will get it, but we are talking about Russian military prowess, and it's not too hot.[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Russia couldn't even beat Chechnya, one of their own former republics. Russia can't handle urban warfare. chaplainDMK
And again, Russia would economically collapse without the EU buying up its oil and gas. 70% of their gas and oil is exported, Russia is worried shitless when it's production drops by 2%, if you take 70% away, Russia will collapse. Meanwhile the EU can still rely on the North Sea for oil and gas, along with US and Canadian exports. Don't you think that during the 40 years of the Cold War the European states had thought this situation through?
And everyone is worried of everyone, if the EU would move a few divisions, missles and nukes to it's borders it would make Russia worried as well. And it does, as has happened when NATO held military exercises. So yeah.
The Soviets controlled 95% of Afghanistan , don't know about you but if thats not dominating the resistance than I don't know what is. The second point about Afghanistan is that the Soviets were invited to intervene by the then president of Afghanistan to help out against the invading taliban. The Soviets built schools, hospitals and theaters, they were trying to improve the country, they weren't just bombing shiiit and going back to their base to hide out til the next run. If the americans are dominating the resistance so much along with its EU partners, how would you explain the spike in heroin production. Read up on this a bit more before comparing the two campaigns don't you. Russia has monetary reserves, and can sell oil and gas else where(there is always demand for energy, its the supply thats always the problem) China's demand grows day by day, the 70% of those exports are contractual, if Russia stops supplying energy to the EU, sure they'll get it else where but at what cost, currently energy supplies are delivered through pipelines(cheap) in the hypothetical scenario above tankers would need to be used(more expensive). The EU wouldn't survive an another hike currently. So yeah.[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="muscleserge"] How did taking Moscow fared in the previous wars. This concept plays into the Russian hand all the time, they even draw the enemy in. Lets get something straight. Russia going into full war mode means the EU stands no chance. All your leaders, both political and military know this, hence the current NATO policies and strategies. The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that. Russia is resource independant, whereas the EU isn't, they have the equipment and manpower to do the job as well. Remember a while back Russia moved some iskandar class missiles to Kaliningrad in response to the NATO threat and half of Europe went nuts. The EU is too dependant of foreigh energy to wage even a defensive war, that alone makes them the losing side. The Russian military doctrine has changed over the years, they would proly go with a bombing campaign, ie missiles, bombers and artillery (of which they have plenty of), then they would cut off supplies, and the EU falls. Being so dependant of the US has made the EU weak, like it or not.musclesergeDo you have any sources for this or are you talking out of your ass again? I never knew that this day and age I would have to provide sources for the Napoleonic wars and current political situations around the world thats all over the news. American education system for you, run by idiots, produces more idiots. Sigh, source for what exactly(can't believe I am actually asking this)? EU energy dependence? Russians luring in Napolian towards Moscow? Iskandhar Missles in Kaliningrad? Changes in the doctrine? The stupendeous amounts of weaponry in the Russian arsenal? PS. Next time you try being a smartass, try harder, and I hope you aren't as uninformed and ignorant as you are coming off. LOL I'm not american. Sources for your claim that "The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that." But answer this for me: When the EU has more then 10 times the economy, and as of now more than 2 times the military budget, how can you think that russia even stands a chance? Can you even imagine what a full war mode EU looks like? If, say, 40% of their GDP is used for the military, thats more than 5 trillion Euros! The EU also have the industrial capability to arm themselves very well, very quickly, and Russia does not. Just the fact that the EU can devote massive amounts of resources gives them a huge edge, not to mention that their combined armies are already better than the current Russian army as it stands now.
Given Europe should choose to prepare for a war with Russia, there is so much money that can be diverted, the industrial base is such a massive one, as are the R&D and human ressources, the EU would outproduce Russia in terms of quantity and quality in a massive scale.
[QUOTE="deeliman"][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.killzowned24Shoo, go away troll! must be butthurt knowing your puny country can't stand alone by itself :lol: The Battle of Britain disagrees. World War 2 was won thanks to a combined effort from every Allied nation. Go and be retarded and disrespectful elsewhere. Silly American children.
muscleserge seems to suffer from a serious mental deficiency, so be gentle with him.
must be butthurt knowing your puny country can't stand alone by itself :lol: The Battle of Britain disagrees. World War 2 was won thanks to a combined effort from every Allied nation. Go and be retarded and disrespectful elsewhere. Silly American children.[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="deeliman"] Shoo, go away troll!Doom_HellKnight
This, so much this. People that are suggesting that either Russia or America won it all by their lonesome is ridiculous.
Britain and France are two of the world's military powers so could at least stand up to russia and put a dent in them. Since russia's military is aging and their power comes down to nukes I think the battle would be difficult for them. Their best shot would be using their size and numbers to simply exhaust european forces.EJ902The EU has a lot larger population than Russia, so using numbers isn't going to work here.
must be butthurt knowing your puny country can't stand alone by itself :lol: The Battle of Britain disagrees. World War 2 was won thanks to a combined effort from every Allied nation. Go and be retarded and disrespectful elsewhere. Silly American children. Notice how you said battle :lol: The brits would have never won the war alone.[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="deeliman"] Shoo, go away troll!Doom_HellKnight
Say thank you to America, we saved your butts :P
''The Lend-Lease program was stunningly successful in getting much-needed supplies to the Allies and keeping them in the war. In 1941 alone, more than 1,000,000 tons of food were shipped overseas. Great Britain received almost $700,000,000 worth of goods including munitions, raw materials, tools, fire-fighting equipment, food, vitamins for children, medical supplies, and tractors in just the first three months of 1943. From 1942 to September 1945, the Soviet Union received 9,000 tanks or self-propelled guns, 362,000 trucks, 47,000 jeeps, 131,633 submachine guns, 3,000 rocket launchers, 14,000,000 boots, 532,000 tons of U.S. sugar, 485,000 tons of canned meat (i.e., Spam) and hundreds of other items. Twenty percent of the Lend-Lease supplies the Soviets received were military, while the rest were food, metals, chemicals, petroleum products, and factory machinery. In all, from March 1941 to July 1946, the program cost the United States almost $51 billion, with the majority going to the British Empire ($31 billion), the Soviet Union ($11 billion), Free France and its possessions ($3.2 billion), China ($1.5 billion), and Brazil ($322 million).''
The Battle of Britain disagrees. World War 2 was won thanks to a combined effort from every Allied nation. Go and be retarded and disrespectful elsewhere. Silly American children. Notice how you said battle :lol: The brits would have never won the war alone.[QUOTE="Doom_HellKnight"]
[QUOTE="killzowned24"] must be butthurt knowing your puny country can't stand alone by itself :lol: killzowned24
Say thank you to America, we saved your butts :P
''The Lend-Lease program was stunningly successful in getting much-needed supplies to the Allies and keeping them in the war. In 1941 alone, more than 1,000,000 tons of food were shipped overseas. Great Britain received almost $700,000,000 worth of goods including munitions, raw materials, tools, fire-fighting equipment, food, vitamins for children, medical supplies, and tractors in just the first three months of 1943. From 1942 to September 1945, the Soviet Union received 9,000 tanks or self-propelled guns, 362,000 trucks, 47,000 jeeps, 131,633 submachine guns, 3,000 rocket launchers, 14,000,000 boots, 532,000 tons of U.S. sugar, 485,000 tons of canned meat (i.e., Spam) and hundreds of other items. Twenty percent of the Lend-Lease supplies the Soviets received were military, while the rest were food, metals, chemicals, petroleum products, and factory machinery. In all, from March 1941 to July 1946, the program cost the United States almost $51 billion, with the majority going to the British Empire ($31 billion), the Soviet Union ($11 billion), Free France and its possessions ($3.2 billion), China ($1.5 billion), and Brazil ($322 million).''
After you say thank you to France/Holland/Spain for saving your butts during the revolutionary war :P[QUOTE="killzowned24"]Notice how you said battle :lol: The brits would have never won the war alone.[QUOTE="Doom_HellKnight"] The Battle of Britain disagrees. World War 2 was won thanks to a combined effort from every Allied nation. Go and be retarded and disrespectful elsewhere. Silly American children.
deeliman
Say thank you to America, we saved your butts :P
''The Lend-Lease program was stunningly successful in getting much-needed supplies to the Allies and keeping them in the war. In 1941 alone, more than 1,000,000 tons of food were shipped overseas. Great Britain received almost $700,000,000 worth of goods including munitions, raw materials, tools, fire-fighting equipment, food, vitamins for children, medical supplies, and tractors in just the first three months of 1943. From 1942 to September 1945, the Soviet Union received 9,000 tanks or self-propelled guns, 362,000 trucks, 47,000 jeeps, 131,633 submachine guns, 3,000 rocket launchers, 14,000,000 boots, 532,000 tons of U.S. sugar, 485,000 tons of canned meat (i.e., Spam) and hundreds of other items. Twenty percent of the Lend-Lease supplies the Soviets received were military, while the rest were food, metals, chemicals, petroleum products, and factory machinery. In all, from March 1941 to July 1946, the program cost the United States almost $51 billion, with the majority going to the British Empire ($31 billion), the Soviet Union ($11 billion), Free France and its possessions ($3.2 billion), China ($1.5 billion), and Brazil ($322 million).''
After you say thank you to France/Holland/Spain for saving your butts during the revolutionary war :P Who cares about hundreds of years ago,I'm talking now.[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] Notice how you said battle :lol: The brits would have never won the war alone.After you say thank you to France/Holland/Spain for saving your butts during the revolutionary war :P Who cares about hundreds of years ago,I'm talking now. WW2 is hardly now.Say thank you to America, we saved your butts :P
''The Lend-Lease program was stunningly successful in getting much-needed supplies to the Allies and keeping them in the war. In 1941 alone, more than 1,000,000 tons of food were shipped overseas. Great Britain received almost $700,000,000 worth of goods including munitions, raw materials, tools, fire-fighting equipment, food, vitamins for children, medical supplies, and tractors in just the first three months of 1943. From 1942 to September 1945, the Soviet Union received 9,000 tanks or self-propelled guns, 362,000 trucks, 47,000 jeeps, 131,633 submachine guns, 3,000 rocket launchers, 14,000,000 boots, 532,000 tons of U.S. sugar, 485,000 tons of canned meat (i.e., Spam) and hundreds of other items. Twenty percent of the Lend-Lease supplies the Soviets received were military, while the rest were food, metals, chemicals, petroleum products, and factory machinery. In all, from March 1941 to July 1946, the program cost the United States almost $51 billion, with the majority going to the British Empire ($31 billion), the Soviet Union ($11 billion), Free France and its possessions ($3.2 billion), China ($1.5 billion), and Brazil ($322 million).''
killzowned24
[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="deeliman"] Your puny russian cities need to team up because would be slaughter otherwise. Your puny US states need to team up because would be slaughter otherwise. See how you can apply this to basically every country/political entity?deelimanAll I see is butthurt. The Russians have more available manpower than the total British population :lol: Please stick to the topic of this thread or leave. I have been on topic,you're just butthurt that you need help from multiple countries to even stand a chance against one :lol:
Even now you are being protected by the Americans.Your whole ballistic defense system against the Russians is American warships.
Germany and the UK would certainly be pretty stubborn, and those two countries alone would give Russia a massive run for their money. Poland has historically also proven to be a dogged fighter, and coupled with it's probable anti-Russian sentiments now that it finally regained it's liberty that was taken away by the Soviet Union. I'd say any progress Russia would make would be met with massive partisan resistance in any EU country. chaplainDMK
Yeah Poland looks pretty solid to me as well. They have a history of not being afraid to go against more powerful enemies and even nowadays they seem to be the most ambitious country in terms of willingness to arm and participate in NATO operations among the Central European countries other than Germany.
But, I would question the ability and willingness to fight of the countries like Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania or even Baltic states. Some of those have a history of being fairly collaborative with whatever powerful state / organization that has shown ambition to be dominant in their region. Not to mention that nowadays, given their small military budgets, many of those states seem to devote a lot of their resources to forming specialized units for specific types of tasks within NATO operations (chemical units, engineering units,...) rather than to maintain strong "universal" armies fitting for everything.
I could definitely see these countries strongly pleading for peaceful reslution or even downright giving up once the conflict would get serious (and Russia would cut off their supplies on which most of these countries are heavily dependant - e.g. Russia - Ukraine winter gas dispute). That alone could get EU into somewhat disadvantageous position during potential negotiations (give up on the weak states vs give up on the interests of the strong ones in favour of saving the weak ones)...
I mean, I am not affraid that big and / or rich EU countries would not eventually form armies that could go toe to toe with the Russian one or even overpower it, but throughout the whole conflict I see a lot more room for smaller political victories (defeat smaller state hear, bully smaller state there) for Russia and should the conflict stop after any of those, I guess the conflict would count as Russian victory. Â Â Â
Of course, Scotland is the most crucial part of the EU, it would falter without them![QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="-Unreal-"]
Depends if you include Scotland as part of the EU. If you do, then I vote EU.
-Unreal-
what did you say about the Scots?
You have just made an enemy for life!
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="deeliman"] NATO=/= EUamericanphileHonestly, Im not sure if the EU could pull it off without America please russia army is overated can¨t even win over jihadist warriors. Just like how NATO (including both the US and the EU) can't even win over Jihadist warriors? At least Russia did a better job on its own than both the US & EU combined...
[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]The E.U. does not really need to occupy "Russia" to win. What is relevant from WW2 is that Germany alone stood a decent chance of reaching Moscow and defeating the U.S.S.R. with a crappy horse-drawn logistics train and very little access to fuel, and the E.U. is vastly more powerful with respect to Russia than Germany was to the U.S.S.R.. When a country's capital falls its ability and will to wage war can literally be crippled. How did taking Moscow fared in the previous wars. This concept plays into the Russian hand all the time, they even draw the enemy in. Lets get something straight. Russia going into full war mode means the EU stands no chance. All your leaders, both political and military know this, hence the current NATO policies and strategies. The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that. Russia is resource independant, whereas the EU isn't, they have the equipment and manpower to do the job as well. Remember a while back Russia moved some iskandar class missiles to Kaliningrad in response to the NATO threat and half of Europe went nuts. The EU is too dependant of foreigh energy to wage even a defensive war, that alone makes them the losing side. The Russian military doctrine has changed over the years, they would proly go with a bombing campaign, ie missiles, bombers and artillery (of which they have plenty of), then they would cut off supplies, and the EU falls. Being so dependant of the US has made the EU weak, like it or not. In previous wars? Napoleon seized Moscow with early 19th century tech. His campaign failed because Moscow was not the capital of Russia at the time. Crimean War? Russians conceded defeat and nobody had to take the capital. In WW1 Germany thrashed the entire Russian Empire (considerably larger than modern Russia in the Western portion) without having to reach the capital, in WW2 Germany nearly beat the entire USSR (also larger and more populated than modern Russia in the West) and lost due to getting stalled in Stalingrad. Notice that France and Germany managed these feats while being at war with half the rest of the world? It's hilarious that you rag on the E.U. for being "dependent on the U.S." when in every major conflict that Russia has historically won with Western European powers, they did so as a member of an alliance. Guess which power the U.S.S.R. was dependent on for supplies and products in World War II? Oh, that's right, the United States of America. What history shows you is that Russia's few military victories were mainly achieved with significant allied aid and a vast numerical advantage. Too bad Russia is outnumbered horribly by the E.U. in this scenario and no country except tiny insignificant Belarus is going to be stupid enough to ally with them against the E.U. Nothing you said in your post proves anything. Of course NATO was planned as a team effort, it was created in an era where the entire eastern half of Europe. was in the Warsaw Pact (and remember, the U.S.S.R. was considerably larger than Russia). Of course the E.U. would grumble if Russia placed a strategic weapon there. You understand that countries don't like fighting wars or being bombed in the process even if they would probably win right? Practically all modern military powers today use "bombers, artillery and missiles", do you think the E.U. relies on knights and crossbowmen? :roll: The resource concerns are far less relevant when the entire E.U. has a large oil producer in the form of the U.K., numerous oil-rich allies like Canada, the United States and Norway, and a giant pile of Middle Eastern countries down south that they could just buy it from. In contrast, Russia will enter a ginormous recession when the E.U. stops buying their stuff and they lose 10%-15% of their G.D.P. instantly. I might also like to mention that Russia is a net importer of food, again mostly from the E.U. One of the sides in this war is going to go hungry alright, and it isn't going to be the rich coalition containing several major food exporters as members. The only way for Russia to actually starve Europe of necessary resources is via blockade and are you going to claim that the Russians would be able to blockade a coalition with the largest brown water navy in the world and several aircraft carriers? Or that the U.S. and their world's largest blue water navy would allow the Russians to blockade their largest trade partner?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.
muscleserge
[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]Germany and the UK would certainly be pretty stubborn, and those two countries alone would give Russia a massive run for their money. Poland has historically also proven to be a dogged fighter, and coupled with it's probable anti-Russian sentiments now that it finally regained it's liberty that was taken away by the Soviet Union. I'd say any progress Russia would make would be met with massive partisan resistance in any EU country. SciFiRPGfan
Yeah Poland looks pretty solid to me as well. They have a history of not being afraid to go against more powerful enemies and even nowadays they seem to be the most ambitious country in terms of willingness to arm and participate in NATO operations among the Central European countries other than Germany.
But, I would question the ability and willingness to fight of the countries like Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania or even Baltic states. Some of those have a history of being fairly collaborative with whatever powerful state / organization that has shown ambition to be dominant in their region. Not to mention that nowadays, given their small military budgets, many of those states seem to devote a lot of their resources to forming specialized units for specific types of tasks within NATO operations (chemical units, engineering units,...) rather than to maintain strong "universal" armies fitting for everything.
I could definitely see these countries strongly pleading for peaceful reslution or even downright giving up once the conflict would get serious (and Russia would cut off their supplies on which most of these countries are heavily dependant - e.g. Russia - Ukraine winter gas dispute). That alone could get EU into somewhat disadvantageous position during potential negotiations (give up on the weak states vs give up on the interests of the strong ones in favour of saving the weak ones)...
I mean, I am not affraid that big and / or rich EU countries would not eventually form armies that could go toe to toe with the Russian one or even overpower it, but throughout the whole conflict I see a lot more room for smaller political victories (defeat smaller state hear, bully smaller state there) for Russia and should the conflict stop after any of those, I guess the conflict would count as Russian victory. Â Â Â I'm just gonna point out that Slovenia had a very prominent resistance movement during World War 2 (independent Partisans from Tito's until about 1944). Also Yugoslavia used conscription to give every citizen basic combat training, the actual Yugoslav Army was only designed to hold out long enough for resistance groups to form and then join them. So Slovenia would probably resist just as much as any country.
If you involve the EU in a full scale non-nuclear war with Russia that means by default the US will be involved and that so would china. The US for obvious reasons (obligations and shit) China would take advantage of the war to invade those disputed islands with japan which means war with the US and an alliance with russia and then there is the wildcard that is North Korea. I would say that a coalition of the US/EU as well as Japan Australia, South America, Canada would beat the antiquated tech the russians have, the chinese would be more of a problem but that can be sorted.Â
please russia army is overated can¨t even win over jihadist warriors. Just like how NATO (including both the US and the EU) can't even win over Jihadist warriors? At least Russia did a better job on its own than both the US & EU combined... The Russian invasion of Afghanistan went horribly wrong, how can you say they did better than NATO? O_o[QUOTE="americanphile"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]Honestly, Im not sure if the EU could pull it off without AmericaJag85
please russia army is overated can¨t even win over jihadist warriors. Just like how NATO (including both the US and the EU) can't even win over Jihadist warriors? At least Russia did a better job on its own than both the US & EU combined...Yeah but then again were not bringing the full weight of our armies to kill them due to the fact that they hide with civilians and are not a standing/marked army, its a job for a scalpel not a sledge hammer. so yeah..... kinda dumb analogy.[QUOTE="americanphile"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]Honestly, Im not sure if the EU could pull it off without AmericaJag85
With all this talk about oil, let me just remind everyone that the EU doesn't actually buy their oil from Russia. They do buy 1/3 of their gas from them, painful to lose, but it can be bought from other countries too.deeliman
Where did you get that info from? :shock:
Just quick Google search shows that EU imports about 1/3Â of their crude oil from Russia as well.Â
And from the same site (Eurostat ):
"Russia is an important trade partner for the EU, and vice versa. The main EU imports from Russia are energy products, the value of which fluctuate with world energy prices." or "The EU-27 trade balance has been in deficit with Russia during the last decade; in 2008 it amounted to EUR 73 billion."
That sounds to me like EU definitely has to pay for those imports so even if you somehow meant that they don't have to pay for it (buy it), it would be most likely wrong.
As of right now the vast majority of the Russian conventional military is decommissioned and sitting in warehouses. Russia also used to rely heavily on PACT nations for conventional forces. Also before 1991 the Soviet union included much more area and people than it does today.Â
Russia is a shell of its former self. That's what happens when a nation bankrupts itself on military spending. It was even worse that they had a very inflexible economy. This is, of course, a really broad statement. It was much more complicated than that. Please don't bite my head off.
Wasdie
What's a PACT nation? Why is pact in CAPS?
Western Europe is now mostly populated with liberal sissies.
Â
Oh they're real brave when it comes to wearing hoods over their heads, and throwing bricks through shop windows -but these pencil armed, pampered little punks would pee their pants and run, in a war where the people they were fighting actually fought back.
Â
Eastern Europe - the people are a lot tougher.
Â
Â
Â
[QUOTE="deeliman"]With all this talk about oil, let me just remind everyone that the EU doesn't actually buy their oil from Russia. They do buy 1/3 of their gas from them, painful to lose, but it can be bought from other countries too.SciFiRPGfan
Where did you get that info from? :shock:
Just quick Google search shows that EU imports about 1/3Â of their crude oil from Russia as well.Â
And from the same site (Eurostat ):
"Russia is an important trade partner for the EU, and vice versa. The main EU imports from Russia are energy products, the value of which fluctuate with world energy prices." or "The EU-27 trade balance has been in deficit with Russia during the last decade; in 2008 it amounted to EUR 73 billion."
That sounds to me like EU definitely has to pay for those imports so even if you somehow meant that they don't have to pay for it (buy it), it would be most likely wrong. Oh, Guess I was wrong. My bad.
Western Europe is now mostly populated with liberal sissies.
Â
Oh they're real brave when it comes to wearing hoods over their heads, and throwing bricks through shop windows -but these pencil armed, pampered little punks would pee their pants and run, in a war where the people they were fighting actually fought back.
Â
Eastern Europe - the people are a lot tougher.
Â
Â
Â
Born_Lucky
Let me guess, you live in eastern Europe? :roll:
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment