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

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"] Do you have any sources for this or are you talking out of your ass again?deeliman

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.

without looking into super detail statistics and just going off the cuff.

Russia sweeps through eastern Europe. meets heavy resistance from Germany, France, Britain, and the Italian terrain (note not their armed forces). Also suffers from heavy guerrilla warfare from the former Yugoslavian states. 

the Russian navy does heavy damage against the EU navy but ultimately gets stopped and destroyed by the combined UK and French Navy's. 

I think ultimately the EU wins thanks in large part to the big three nations of Europe. 

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

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

NATO is also doing horribly right now in Afghanistan...

The difference is that the Soviets were slightly outnumbered by the Mujahideen, whereas this time it's NATO that's heavily outnumbering the Taliban:

Soviet-Aghan War:

170,000 (115,000 Soviets & 55,000 Afghan allies) vs. 200,000-250,000 Mujahideen

NATO-Afghan War:

480,916 (100,330 NATO & 380,586 Afghan allies) vs. 29,050-40,100 Mujahideen (25,000 Taliban, 50-100 Al-Qaeda, 4000-15,000 Haqqani)

The Soviets fought the Mujahideen when they were at their peak, when they were being supported by weapons & funding from the US & Pakistan. On the other hand, NATO is struggling against a much more weakened Taliban, which has no major backers.

The Soviet failure in Afghanistan is entirely justifiable, but there is no excuse for NATO to be doing so terribly in Afghanistan right now...

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="americanphile"] please russia army is overated can¨t even win over jihadist warriors.MW2ismygame

No, not really. Like I outlined above, NATO has a way bigger advantage in Afghanistan than the Soviets ever did, yet NATO is still failing in Afghanistan despite all the advantages.

The point is that, if you're going to criticize the Soviets for their failure in Afghanistan, then don't be a hypocrite about it, because NATO isn't doing any better in Afghanistan despite having much more favourable odds than what the Soviets had to deal with.

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"] 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.

muscleserge

As well as the overall quantity of weapons, and please don't buy into the stereotype that the Russians are still using PPSH's and Musin Rifles. Russia is using AK-74Ms and 101/103Ms, T-80s (modernized) and t-90s, they have stealth fighters, bombers, unrivaled air defense capabilities, as well as the best missile tech in the world.(they are the fathers of rocketry) I never said Russia uses 19th century equpment, but what high end technology can Russia still produce without foreign help? Otherwise what can Russia possibly produce that's not derived from soviet-era technology? IT- nope. Transportation- nope. Consumer electronics- nope. Tooling machinery- nope. Bulava missiles perhaps. Russia has almost zero civilian high-tech engineering capabilities, any innovative systems not wholly developed by the military will need to be imported or stolen via aggresive FSB activity. The West is surging ahead in UAV technology, which is the way of the future. The incursion into Georgia showed just how antiquated the Russian military has become - they had access to zero modern ISTAR capabilities. The Russian military can but dream of operating MQ-9 Reaper type drones allowing their C&C to sit in Moscow and watch real-time action on the ground thousands of miles away. RVT's are now common place amongst UK & US troops in A-STAN allowing for real-time viewing, this technology incorporates miniaturisation advances taken from the electronics industry.
As for the tanks, that's classic ww2 thinking.  Think about aviation & electronics. I think most Western armed forces nowadays would think of large numbers of poorly-equipped (as in short of sensors, protection systems, etc) tanks trundling west as a target-rich environment, not a serious threat. Russia doesn't have stealth fighetrs, they do have stealth bombers though. They have been revamping their military since NATO is still closing in and a new chinese threat is looming. They have satelites, drones as well as a very good intelligence network. Let me repeat this, Russia isn't stuck in the 40s or 50s as many believe, its a stereotype. I found it funny when I came to the west to find the media spewing so much BS about Russia, and yet when the Russian leadership stops NATO from invading say Syria, everyone goes ape-shiii1t. The reason that Russia was able to stop the west from intervening in Suria was because Russia used it's veto, and that doesn't really have to do much with a war between Russia and the EU. 

Don't forget that Russia is very secretive about their defense industry, its a habit they inherited from the Soviet days, look around online, the Russians are declassifying many documents from the Soviet era, and sometimes it puts me in awe that they had those kinds of things in like the 60s.

I am not saying that the EU equipment is bad, just that the Russians aren't behind, and are actually ahead in some areas (missiles) The Russians ARE behind in military equipment. Russia's defence industry is dying, selling AK's, heavy tanks and artillery is one thing, moving to net-centric warfare platforms suitable for the 21st Century is another. Russia's R&D base has suffered horrendously because of a lack of cash coupled with an increasing brain drain as key engineers and scientists leave for more lucrative offers outside the country in the private sector. The once famous universities that produced high-grade scientists are also starved of cash and many of Russians best and brightest are more interested in making money than serving the state.
Advantage: Russia, simply cause they got more weapons.

More weapons? Russia Fighters: 669 EU fighters: 2020

Russia transport/airlift aircraft: 396 EU transport/airlift aircraft: 512

Russia MBT's: 6500 EU MBT's: 6021

Russia AFV's: 6000 EU AFV's: 37137

Etc etc.


I am at work and can't really go too deep into this, but what I meant by Russia having resources to take the EU fast, I meant they have the natural resources as well as production capabilities all in one country unlike the EU. They don't need to go abroad to get building materials or energy, they can sustain themselves even if isolated, which the EU syply can't especially to the same degree.

I agree that the EU can't really survive isolated as russia can, but the EU isn't isolated in this scenario. And Russia can't even dream about the massive production capabillities of the EU, the Eu can get plenty of natural resources elsewhere very fast. 

I do sincerely like the fact that you claim that Russia has a huge edge because it is 1 country, but you dismiss the fact that the EU has a far better eqipted,trained and funded combined army and that the Industrial base and R&D is huge compared to Russia.

[QUOTE="Lankuus"][QUOTE="Jag85"] 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...

Jag85

NATO is also doing horribly right now in Afghanistan...

The difference is that the Soviets were slightly outnumbered by the Mujahideen, whereas this time it's NATO that's heavily outnumbering the Taliban:

Soviet-Aghan War:

170,000 (115,000 Soviets & 55,000 Afghan allies) vs. 200,000-250,000 Mujahideen

NATO-Afghan War:

480,916 (100,330 NATO & 380,586 Afghan allies) vs. 29,050-40,100 Mujahideen (25,000 Taliban, 50-100 Al-Qaeda, 4000-15,000 Haqqani)

The Soviets fought the Mujahideen when they were at their peak, when they were being supported by weapons & funding from the US & Pakistan. On the other hand, NATO is struggling against a much more weakened Taliban, which has no major backers.

The Soviet failure in Afghanistan is entirely justifiable, but there is no excuse for NATO to be doing so terribly in Afghanistan right now...

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Lankuus"] The Russian invasion of Afghanistan went horribly wrong, how can you say they did better than NATO? O_odeeliman

NATO is also doing horribly right now in Afghanistan...

The difference is that the Soviets were slightly outnumbered by the Mujahideen, whereas this time it's NATO that's heavily outnumbering the Taliban:

Soviet-Aghan War:

170,000 (115,000 Soviets & 55,000 Afghan allies) vs. 200,000-250,000 Mujahideen

NATO-Afghan War:

480,916 (100,330 NATO & 380,586 Afghan allies) vs. 29,050-40,100 Mujahideen (25,000 Taliban, 50-100 Al-Qaeda, 4000-15,000 Haqqani)

The Soviets fought the Mujahideen when they were at their peak, when they were being supported by weapons & funding from the US & Pakistan. On the other hand, NATO is struggling against a much more weakened Taliban, which has no major backers.

The Soviet failure in Afghanistan is entirely justifiable, but there is no excuse for NATO to be doing so terribly in Afghanistan right now...

Yes, but the Soviets were also fighting a guerilla army in Afghanistan, except in their case that guerilla army also received arming & funding from the US and Pakistan. The Afghan guerilla army that NATO is fighting has no such backing.

But yes, the lack of support from the local people has a lot to do with both failures, but the NATO failure comes out looking a lot worse considering the much better odds they had compared to the Soviets.

The zombies!

Where are the zombies, man!?!?!??!

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"] Sigh, let analyze this, just for fun.

The EU is not a singular entity as many refer to it here, its made up of many sovereign nation with many sovereign governments vs Russia's one strong government.
-Advantage: Russia. Like it or not, its much easier to mobilize one country vs many, as well as having a tactical advantage of a unified leadership. In the scenario in the thread the EU also has unified leadership.
Russia is the most resource rich country in the world (due to size), and the EU is very dependant on Russian exports of not just energy but timber, metals, and many other invaluable resources.
Advantage: Russia. They don't need to import anything to build whatever they wish, they've got everything from oil and diamond to timber and animal furs. They EU might have the means, but they rely on Russian exports for a lot of crucial resources. Sure they can get it else where, but procuring new contracts and waiting for deliveries just gives the Russians more time for the invasion, since Russians already have equipment ready to deploy. And what do you think will happen to Russia's economy if you take away all those oil exports?Their economy will crumble, while I'm certain that there are enough countries willing to take over russia's oil and gas share.  And unless you can state why timber is a neccesary resource in wartime than that's irrelevent.
Russia is a military superpower like it or not, since the Soviet days. For nearly 50 years they were preparing for an all out war, depending just on themselves.
Advantage: Russia. Sure the EU was also waiting for a war, but they were and are relying on the US too much, their military doctrines are built around this, especially when it comes to Russia, and the SU before that. Oh please, are you telling me that you think the russian army as it is right now, is superior to the combined armies of the eu? The EU has more men, larger budget, better trained, better equipment.
All these $ figures mean squat when most of it is all inflated by the banking system, and please also consider that equivalent Russian arms are cheaper to produce. So, your just dismissing the fact that the EU has more ten ten times the amount of money to play with than russia? 

As well as the overall quantity of weapons, and please don't buy into the stereotype that the Russians are still using PPSH's and Musin Rifles. Russia is using AK-74Ms and 101/103Ms, T-80s (modernized) and t-90s, they have stealth fighters, bombers, unrivaled air defense capabilities, as well as the best missile tech in the world.(they are the fathers of rocketry) I never said Russia uses 19th century equpment, but what high end technology can Russia still produce without foreign help? Otherwise what can Russia possibly produce that's not derived from soviet-era technology? IT- nope. Transportation- nope. Consumer electronics- nope. Tooling machinery- nope. Bulava missiles perhaps. Russia has almost zero civilian high-tech engineering capabilities, any innovative systems not wholly developed by the military will need to be imported or stolen via aggresive FSB activity. The West is surging ahead in UAV technology, which is the way of the future. The incursion into Georgia showed just how antiquated the Russian military has become - they had access to zero modern ISTAR capabilities. The Russian military can but dream of operating MQ-9 Reaper type drones allowing their C&C to sit in Moscow and watch real-time action on the ground thousands of miles away. RVT's are now common place amongst UK & US troops in A-STAN allowing for real-time viewing, this technology incorporates miniaturisation advances taken from the electronics industry.
As for the tanks, that's classic ww2 thinking.  Think about aviation & electronics. I think most Western armed forces nowadays would think of large numbers of poorly-equipped (as in short of sensors, protection systems, etc) tanks trundling west as a target-rich environment, not a serious threat. Russia doesn't have stealth fighetrs, they do have stealth bombers though. They have been revamping their military since NATO is still closing in and a new chinese threat is looming. They have satelites, drones as well as a very good intelligence network. Let me repeat this, Russia isn't stuck in the 40s or 50s as many believe, its a stereotype. I found it funny when I came to the west to find the media spewing so much BS about Russia, and yet when the Russian leadership stops NATO from invading say Syria, everyone goes ape-shiii1t. The reason that Russia was able to stop the west from intervening in Suria was because Russia used it's veto, and that doesn't really have to do much with a war between Russia and the EU. 

Don't forget that Russia is very secretive about their defense industry, its a habit they inherited from the Soviet days, look around online, the Russians are declassifying many documents from the Soviet era, and sometimes it puts me in awe that they had those kinds of things in like the 60s.

I am not saying that the EU equipment is bad, just that the Russians aren't behind, and are actually ahead in some areas (missiles) The Russians ARE behind in military equipment. Russia's defence industry is dying, selling AK's, heavy tanks and artillery is one thing, moving to net-centric warfare platforms suitable for the 21st Century is another. Russia's R&D base has suffered horrendously because of a lack of cash coupled with an increasing brain drain as key engineers and scientists leave for more lucrative offers outside the country in the private sector. The once famous universities that produced high-grade scientists are also starved of cash and many of Russians best and brightest are more interested in making money than serving the state.
Advantage: Russia, simply cause they got more weapons.

More weapons? Russia Fighters: 669 EU fighters: 2020

Russia transport/airlift aircraft: 396 EU transport/airlift aircraft: 512

Russia MBT's: 6500 EU MBT's: 6021

Russia AFV's: 6000 EU AFV's: 37137

Etc etc.


I am at work and can't really go too deep into this, but what I meant by Russia having resources to take the EU fast, I meant they have the natural resources as well as production capabilities all in one country unlike the EU. They don't need to go abroad to get building materials or energy, they can sustain themselves even if isolated, which the EU syply can't especially to the same degree.deeliman

I agree that the EU can't really survive isolated as russia can, but the EU isn't isolated in this scenario. And Russia can't even dream about the massive production capabillities of the EU, the Eu can get plenty of natural resources elsewhere very fast. 

I do sincerely like the fact that you claim that Russia has a huge edge because it is 1 country, but you dismiss the fact that the EU has a far better eqipted,trained and funded combined army and that the Industrial base and R&D is huge compared to Russia.

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]

I agree that the EU can't really survive isolated as russia can, but the EU isn't isolated in this scenario. And Russia can't even dream about the massive production capabillities of the EU, the Eu can get plenty of natural resources elsewhere very fast. 

I do sincerely like the fact that you claim that Russia has a huge edge because it is 1 country, but you dismiss the fact that the EU has a far better eqipted,trained and funded combined army and that the Industrial base and R&D is huge compared to Russia.

muscleserge

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]

I agree that the EU can't really survive isolated as russia can, but the EU isn't isolated in this scenario. And Russia can't even dream about the massive production capabillities of the EU, the Eu can get plenty of natural resources elsewhere very fast. 

I do sincerely like the fact that you claim that Russia has a huge edge because it is 1 country, but you dismiss the fact that the EU has a far better eqipted,trained and funded combined army and that the Industrial base and R&D is huge compared to Russia.

muscleserge

[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

NATO is also doing horribly right now in Afghanistan...

The difference is that the Soviets were slightly outnumbered by the Mujahideen, whereas this time it's NATO that's heavily outnumbering the Taliban:

Soviet-Aghan War:

170,000 (115,000 Soviets & 55,000 Afghan allies) vs. 200,000-250,000 Mujahideen

NATO-Afghan War:

480,916 (100,330 NATO & 380,586 Afghan allies) vs. 29,050-40,100 Mujahideen (25,000 Taliban, 50-100 Al-Qaeda, 4000-15,000 Haqqani)

The Soviets fought the Mujahideen when they were at their peak, when they were being supported by weapons & funding from the US & Pakistan. On the other hand, NATO is struggling against a much more weakened Taliban, which has no major backers.

The Soviet failure in Afghanistan is entirely justifiable, but there is no excuse for NATO to be doing so terribly in Afghanistan right now...

Jag85

Yes, but the Soviets were also fighting a guerilla army in Afghanistan, except in their case that guerilla army also received arming & funding from the US and Pakistan. The Afghan guerilla army that NATO is fighting has no such backing.

But yes, the lack of support from the local people has a lot to do with both failures, but the NATO failure comes out looking a lot worse considering the much better odds they had compared to the Soviets.

Russia's arms industry is in steep decline simply because its biggest customers are either turning west or developing their own indigenous capabilities.deeliman

  2001:        2002:      2003:       2004:      2005:      2006:      2007:       2008:      2009:       2010:       2011:        2012:
$3.7 bn    $4.8 bn   $5.6 bn   $5.8 bn   $6.1 bn   $6.5 bn   $7.4 bn   $8.3 bn   $8.8 bn   $10.0 bn   $13.2 bn   $15.2 bn

As for Russian military expenditures, according to for example this article from Telegraph, they are also growing and in fact, it's the western coiuntries, who are decreasing their military budgets.

Now, I don't want to jump to preliminary conclusions and I am not very familiar with the situation, but if Russian military exports are doing fine and Russian military budget is growing, shouldn't their military industry be also doing fine? Or maybe you meant it relatively in comparison to some other country / ies (i.e. they are not growing / improving as fast as some other countries) ?  

[QUOTE="Barbariser"][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.muscleserge

You were the one who brought up "previous attempts at taking Moscow" when the main problems have basically disappeared due to modern logistics, why don't you listen to your own advice? Yes, the Russian Empire had a revolution, and you understand that part of the reason why they had a revolution was that their army was getting its ass beat by just of half the German army right? British dependence on the U.S. is irrelevant, the fact is that the U.S.S.R was only able to produce so many military goods and win the war because the U.S. gave them so much material.

Russia importing food because of free trade hardly makes it better. You understand that this shows Russia's agricultural sector to be uncompetitive with the global market right? Having a tonne of arable land means nothing if you lack the technology and efficiency to get decent yields out of it, a problem that describes agriculture in the entire former U.S.S.R. I also want to see proof that Europe was dependent on Russian food after 1992. Even if they manage to stay food secure their food prices will rise significantly and the average Russian has a far lower income than the average E.U. citizen.

And rofl at the idea of blowing up E.U. tankers with submarines when the E.U.'s brown water navy is the largest in the world.If the Russian fleet actually tried this kind of tactic they would end up at the bottom of the ocean in no time. And no, aircraft carriers are not "sitting ducks", they are so good at sinking other fleets and moving forces around that no country in the world bothers with other types of capital ship any more. As deeliman shows, Europe's tank and airforce is so huge that if Russia tried the "roll over and bomb" strategy you're advocating, they'd lose all their planes and armour in short order.

You are hilarious. You are the one arguing that Russia can beat a group of countries with several times their population, military spending, industrial capacity and existing military power and you dare call other people biased? Pointing out that Russia is going to get crushed in such a situation is not "underestimating them" at all, because that's exactly what would happen if this scenario came about. The main difference between you and me is that I actually understand what determines victory in a large scale land war. You on the other hand seem to have no idea about the sheer amount of force and power that the E.U. can bring to bear if mobilized.

[QUOTE="deeliman"]Russia's arms industry is in steep decline simply because its biggest customers are either turning west or developing their own indigenous capabilities.SciFiRPGfan

  2001:        2002:      2003:       2004:      2005:      2006:      2007:       2008:      2009:       2010:       2011:        2012:
$3.7 bn    $4.8 bn   $5.6 bn   $5.8 bn   $6.1 bn   $6.5 bn   $7.4 bn   $8.3 bn   $8.8 bn   $10.0 bn   $13.2 bn   $15.2 bn

As for Russian military expenditures, according to for example this article from Telegraph, they are also growing and in fact, it's the western coiuntries, who are decreasing their military budgets.

Now, I don't want to jump to preliminary conclusions and I am not very familiar with the situation, but if Russian military exports are doing fine and Russian military budget is growing, shouldn't their military industry be also doing fine? Or maybe you meant it relatively in comparison to some other country / ies (i.e. they are not growing / improving as fast as some other countries) ?  

wow. SO many posts.

I dont have any evidence to back me up, but a string of nations seems to have more money and people than one country.

So I voted EU.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"]chaplainDMK

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="deeliman"] The reason NATO is failing is Afghanistan is that they aren't fighting a conventional army, but a guerrilla army, and fighting for people who don't want to be "freed". Lankuus

Yes, but the Soviets were also fighting a guerilla army in Afghanistan, except in their case that guerilla army also received arming & funding from the US and Pakistan. The Afghan guerilla army that NATO is fighting has no such backing.

But yes, the lack of support from the local people has a lot to do with both failures, but the NATO failure comes out looking a lot worse considering the much better odds they had compared to the Soviets.

See, I don't see the mission as a failure. NATOs main objective once they went in was to over throw the Taliban/al Qaeda government in Kabul - success.
Then the next job was to rebuild afghanistans army by providing training, equipment etc - sluggish progress, but progress nevertheless.
Then was to assist the ANA/ANP in creating a stable and safe state - Afghanistan seems to be better than it was but still along way to go

Back to retraining an armed forces, once basic is training is done they will need to test themselves and show the people they are fighting for, they can protect them. What better way to prove to the locals than having somebody to fight? I know it sounds awful to say it but its true. They will get experience and will bond with each other.

Again I know it sounded bad but I believe NATO wanted to weaken Al Qaeda and let the ANA/ANP get rid off the rest.

...Except NATO failed to overthrow the Taliban, since they're still in power across large parts of Afghanistan. In addition, the Taliban's power went on to expand across the border into North-West Pakistan. NATO's mission to overthrow the Taliban has been a failure, so much so that they're now even trying to negotiate with the Taliban...

The Taliban that NATO is facing is nowhere near as tough as the Mujahideen (with US and Pakistan backing) that the Soviets were facing, so it seems clear to me that the Soviets were the better force compared to NATO.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"]muscleserge

 What abou the PAK-FA, the T-90, the s300 and s400 systems, the ak 101/103s, also check out their field hospitals, best in the world, the KA-52s gunship, the sunburn missiles, Peter the great missile cruiser, the tu-160, the su-37, the mig-35, topol-M, the iskandhars, and so on. Russia is producing high tech military equipment that is only rivaled by the US. Also keep in mind the Russian rhetoric when it comes to mil. equipment, it is supposed to be reliable and as simple in design as possible. They prioritize reliability over everything. Is it wrong? no, its just a different approach.Only rivaled by the US?

• A400M 
• ASCOD IFV e
• Meteor
• ASRAAM and IRIS-T 
• Eurofighter Typhoon 
• Eurocopter Tiger 
• EH101 & NH90
• PzH 2000
• F-100 Class Frigates
• S-80 class submarine 
• ATF Dingo
• Fennek
• Patria AMV
• GTK Boxer
• Horizon class frigate and FREMM multipurpose frigat
• Rotterdam and Galicia class LPD,
• Type 212 submarine
• 7 Provinceën class frigate
• Horizon Class Destroyers

Name any military hardware, and the EU has multiple state of the art weapons for it.

Russian jets, missiles, and rifles constantly outperform their western counterparts during war games, when operated by Russian staff, and not some ill-trained 3rd world personnel, who don't even maintain their equipment properly. I remember a while back a Russian official had to go on TV to rant about this as well as CEOs of major defense firms. China is infringing on Russian patents all the time. They would buy a batch of say jets and then just copy them, badly, but still. Russia doesn't maintain their equipment very well either. They maintain only about half of their MBT's, the rest are in bunkers just rusting away. Same story for pretty much everything in the Russian arsenal. Nukes too for example. That 5 figure number people are always throwing around only exists on paper. The majority of their nuclear arsenal is just scrap on a shelf in some bunker.

Having other sources of energy is great, but don't forget this is still a globalized economy and Russia withdrawing energy from the EU would raise prices, and switching supplyers of such an asset isn't as easy as you think, even in wartime. Northern oil fields would be a bad idea since Russia basically controls the north. So the EU would heavily depend on Americans and Canadians. South America would Side with Russia, some OPEC countries too, since they are dependant of Russian exports and aid. Point is, having everything at home is a huuuuuuge advantage. I wasn't aware that Russia controled the north sea? :roll: 

You have still failed to answer the question of what you think would happen to the Russian economy when a large portion of their income vanishes in thin air.

Edit:

Also a note on defense spending. You can't just add up individual country's spending, it doesn't take into account variables and inefficiencies of separate budgets and doctrines. Russia spends close to $100 billion of defend and will spend closer to $120 billion after 2014, also take into account that Russia equivalent equipment costs half as much, would bring Russia quite a good bit on par with the EU, and thats not even war mode Russia, where as many EU nations are NATO and have to have budgets like that to meet standards(Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa). But still there is a downward trend in the EU in relations to defense spending, where as the Russian budget increases every year. The EU spends about 267,66 billion dollars on defense, are you really suggesting that those small inefficiencies are enough to close that gap? And what do you think Russia will be able to spend on their military during wartime, aside from the fact that both russian and EU's GDP would decrease.  The US used about 50% of their GDP for the military during ww2, so I'll go by that. That would leave Russia with about 1,690 trillion dollars and the EU with about 8,283 trillion dollars. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Edit 2:

Russian civilian tech is lacking simply due to capitalism, and an economic concept of comparable advantage (look it up). I'm going to assume you mean comparative advantage. A capitalist economy shifts all the time especially with globalized trade, and because of this they are shifting resources towards more lucrative ventures such as energy and other "heavy" resources, while importing the civilian crap because its cheaper to do so. Its economics. It's not just easier to do. It is infact impossible for Russia to do the same, they just lack the experience and industrial base. But Putin is heavily shifting away from this and is developing the Russian civilian tech sector quite aggressively, especially now after the Snowden leaks, since trust in foreing tech fell and for national security reasons they are switching to domestic tech, even if its more expensive. It will stiil take decades to catch up to th elikes of the EU, US and Japan.  So expect the Russian tech industry to get a very big leap n the coming years. Wishful thinking at best. Russia doesn't have the means to catch up to the EU and that won't change for a while.

On a side note, the recent "anti gay" law is a product of democracy, the Russian populace is largely conservative when it comes to "family" values", something like 70%, so their representative government had to pass the legislation, and Putin had to sign it. Thats democracy for you. They didn't "have to". People in a democracy (the one commen in the world now, not the ancient greek version) only get to choose people who will represent them and make the decisions for them, they don't get too choose which law passes and which doesn't.

[QUOTE="Lankuus"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

Yes, but the Soviets were also fighting a guerilla army in Afghanistan, except in their case that guerilla army also received arming & funding from the US and Pakistan. The Afghan guerilla army that NATO is fighting has no such backing.

But yes, the lack of support from the local people has a lot to do with both failures, but the NATO failure comes out looking a lot worse considering the much better odds they had compared to the Soviets.

Jag85

See, I don't see the mission as a failure. NATOs main objective once they went in was to over throw the Taliban/al Qaeda government in Kabul - success.
Then the next job was to rebuild afghanistans army by providing training, equipment etc - sluggish progress, but progress nevertheless.
Then was to assist the ANA/ANP in creating a stable and safe state - Afghanistan seems to be better than it was but still along way to go

Back to retraining an armed forces, once basic is training is done they will need to test themselves and show the people they are fighting for, they can protect them. What better way to prove to the locals than having somebody to fight? I know it sounds awful to say it but its true. They will get experience and will bond with each other.

Again I know it sounded bad but I believe NATO wanted to weaken Al Qaeda and let the ANA/ANP get rid off the rest.

...Except NATO failed to overthrow the Taliban, since they're still in power across large parts of Afghanistan. In addition, the Taliban's power went on to expand across the border into North-West Pakistan. NATO's mission to overthrow the Taliban has been a failure, so much so that they're now even trying to negotiate with the Taliban...

The Taliban that NATO is facing is nowhere near as tough as the Mujahideen (with US and Pakistan backing) that the Soviets were facing, so it seems clear to me that the Soviets were the better force compared to NATO.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"]deeliman

 What abou the PAK-FA, the T-90, the s300 and s400 systems, the ak 101/103s, also check out their field hospitals, best in the world, the KA-52s gunship, the sunburn missiles, Peter the great missile cruiser, the tu-160, the su-37, the mig-35, topol-M, the iskandhars, and so on. Russia is producing high tech military equipment that is only rivaled by the US. Also keep in mind the Russian rhetoric when it comes to mil. equipment, it is supposed to be reliable and as simple in design as possible. They prioritize reliability over everything. Is it wrong? no, its just a different approach.Only rivaled by the US?

• A400M 
• ASCOD IFV e
• Meteor
• ASRAAM and IRIS-T 
• Eurofighter Typhoon 
• Eurocopter Tiger 
• EH101 & NH90
• PzH 2000
• F-100 Class Frigates
• S-80 class submarine 
• ATF Dingo
• Fennek
• Patria AMV
• GTK Boxer
• Horizon class frigate and FREMM multipurpose frigat
• Rotterdam and Galicia class LPD,
• Type 212 submarine
• 7 Provinceën class frigate
• Horizon Class Destroyers

Name any military hardware, and the EU has multiple state of the art weapons for it.

Russian jets, missiles, and rifles constantly outperform their western counterparts during war games, when operated by Russian staff, and not some ill-trained 3rd world personnel, who don't even maintain their equipment properly. I remember a while back a Russian official had to go on TV to rant about this as well as CEOs of major defense firms. China is infringing on Russian patents all the time. They would buy a batch of say jets and then just copy them, badly, but still. Russia doesn't maintain their equipment very well either. They maintain only about half of their MBT's, the rest are in bunkers just rusting away. Same story for pretty much everything in the Russian arsenal. Nukes too for example. That 5 figure number people are always throwing around only exists on paper. The majority of their nuclear arsenal is just scrap on a shelf in some bunker.

Having other sources of energy is great, but don't forget this is still a globalized economy and Russia withdrawing energy from the EU would raise prices, and switching supplyers of such an asset isn't as easy as you think, even in wartime. Northern oil fields would be a bad idea since Russia basically controls the north. So the EU would heavily depend on Americans and Canadians. South America would Side with Russia, some OPEC countries too, since they are dependant of Russian exports and aid. Point is, having everything at home is a huuuuuuge advantage. I wasn't aware that Russia controled the north sea? :roll: 

You have still failed to answer the question of what you think would happen to the Russian economy when a large portion of their income vanishes in thin air.

Edit:

Also a note on defense spending. You can't just add up individual country's spending, it doesn't take into account variables and inefficiencies of separate budgets and doctrines. Russia spends close to $100 billion of defend and will spend closer to $120 billion after 2014, also take into account that Russia equivalent equipment costs half as much, would bring Russia quite a good bit on par with the EU, and thats not even war mode Russia, where as many EU nations are NATO and have to have budgets like that to meet standards(Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa). But still there is a downward trend in the EU in relations to defense spending, where as the Russian budget increases every year. The EU spends about 267,66 billion dollars on defense, are you really suggesting that those small inefficiencies are enough to close that gap? And what do you think Russia will be able to spend on their military during wartime, aside from the fact that both russian and EU's GDP would decrease.  The US used about 50% of their GDP for the military during ww2, so I'll go by that. That would leave Russia with about 1,690 trillion dollars and the EU with about 8,283 trillion dollars. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Edit 2:

Russian civilian tech is lacking simply due to capitalism, and an economic concept of comparable advantage (look it up). I'm going to assume you mean comparative advantage. A capitalist economy shifts all the time especially with globalized trade, and because of this they are shifting resources towards more lucrative ventures such as energy and other "heavy" resources, while importing the civilian crap because its cheaper to do so. Its economics. It's not just easier to do. It is infact impossible for Russia to do the same, they just lack the experience and industrial base. But Putin is heavily shifting away from this and is developing the Russian civilian tech sector quite aggressively, especially now after the Snowden leaks, since trust in foreing tech fell and for national security reasons they are switching to domestic tech, even if its more expensive. It will stiil take decades to catch up to th elikes of the EU, US and Japan.  So expect the Russian tech industry to get a very big leap n the coming years. Wishful thinking at best. Russia doesn't have the means to catch up to the EU and that won't change for a while.

On a side note, the recent "anti gay" law is a product of democracy, the Russian populace is largely conservative when it comes to "family" values", something like 70%, so their representative government had to pass the legislation, and Putin had to sign it. Thats democracy for you. They didn't "have to". People in a democracy (the one commen in the world now, not the ancient greek version) only get to choose people who will represent them and make the decisions for them, they don't get too choose which law passes and which doesn't.

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]Sure some of the equipment is from the 70s but there is nothing wrong with it, remember the abrams are from the early 80s, the F-16s are from the 60s, the b-52s even before that, the m-16s are also from the 60s. There is nothing wrong with using proven equipment and replacing it with something marginally better isn't efficient or smart. Are you daft? All modern western armies are replacing those old things. Dou you think 5th generation fighters are only marginally better? The F-35 which will replace the F-16 in a lot of countries is a huge improvement, and will absolutely obliterate any 4th gen fighter. The EU doesn't use Abrahams, they use Challenger 2's and Leopard 2A6M's and AMX-56 Leclerc's, which are all better than the T-72's or T-90's ( which are only a small improvement over the T-72)

 What abou the PAK-FA, the T-90, the s300 and s400 systems, the ak 101/103s, also check out their field hospitals, best in the world, the KA-52s gunship, the sunburn missiles, Peter the great missile cruiser, the tu-160, the su-37, the mig-35, topol-M, the iskandhars, and so on. Russia is producing high tech military equipment that is only rivaled by the US. Also keep in mind the Russian rhetoric when it comes to mil. equipment, it is supposed to be reliable and as simple in design as possible. They prioritize reliability over everything. Is it wrong? no, its just a different approach.Only rivaled by the US?

• A400M 
• ASCOD IFV e
• Meteor
• ASRAAM and IRIS-T 
• Eurofighter Typhoon 
• Eurocopter Tiger 
• EH101 & NH90
• PzH 2000
• F-100 Class Frigates
• S-80 class submarine 
• ATF Dingo
• Fennek
• Patria AMV
• GTK Boxer
• Horizon class frigate and FREMM multipurpose frigat
• Rotterdam and Galicia class LPD,
• Type 212 submarine
• 7 Provinceën class frigate
• Horizon Class Destroyers

Name any military hardware, and the EU has multiple state of the art weapons for it.

 

Russian jets, missiles, and rifles constantly outperform their western counterparts during war games, when operated by Russian staff, and not some ill-trained 3rd world personnel, who don't even maintain their equipment properly. I remember a while back a Russian official had to go on TV to rant about this as well as CEOs of major defense firms. China is infringing on Russian patents all the time. They would buy a batch of say jets and then just copy them, badly, but still. Russia doesn't maintain their equipment very well either. They maintain only about half of their MBT's, the rest are in bunkers just rusting away. Same story for pretty much everything in the Russian arsenal. Nukes too for example. That 5 figure number people are always throwing around only exists on paper. The majority of their nuclear arsenal is just scrap on a shelf in some bunker.

Having other sources of energy is great, but don't forget this is still a globalized economy and Russia withdrawing energy from the EU would raise prices, and switching supplyers of such an asset isn't as easy as you think, even in wartime. Northern oil fields would be a bad idea since Russia basically controls the north. So the EU would heavily depend on Americans and Canadians. South America would Side with Russia, some OPEC countries too, since they are dependant of Russian exports and aid. Point is, having everything at home is a huuuuuuge advantage. I wasn't aware that Russia controled the north sea? :roll: 

You have still failed to answer the question of what you think would happen to the Russian economy when a large portion of their income vanishes in thin air.

Edit:

Also a note on defense spending. You can't just add up individual country's spending, it doesn't take into account variables and inefficiencies of separate budgets and doctrines. Russia spends close to $100 billion of defend and will spend closer to $120 billion after 2014, also take into account that Russia equivalent equipment costs half as much, would bring Russia quite a good bit on par with the EU, and thats not even war mode Russia, where as many EU nations are NATO and have to have budgets like that to meet standards(Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa). But still there is a downward trend in the EU in relations to defense spending, where as the Russian budget increases every year. The EU spends about 267,66 billion dollars on defense, are you really suggesting that those small inefficiencies are enough to close that gap? And what do you think Russia will be able to spend on their military during wartime, aside from the fact that both russian and EU's GDP would decrease.  The US used about 50% of their GDP for the military during ww2, so I'll go by that. That would leave Russia with about 1,690 trillion dollars and the EU with about 8,283 trillion dollars. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Edit 2:

Russian civilian tech is lacking simply due to capitalism, and an economic concept of comparable advantage (look it up). I'm going to assume you mean comparative advantage. A capitalist economy shifts all the time especially with globalized trade, and because of this they are shifting resources towards more lucrative ventures such as energy and other "heavy" resources, while importing the civilian crap because its cheaper to do so. Its economics. It's not just easier to do. It is infact impossible for Russia to do the same, they just lack the experience and industrial base. But Putin is heavily shifting away from this and is developing the Russian civilian tech sector quite aggressively, especially now after the Snowden leaks, since trust in foreing tech fell and for national security reasons they are switching to domestic tech, even if its more expensive. It will stiil take decades to catch up to th elikes of the EU, US and Japan.  So expect the Russian tech industry to get a very big leap n the coming years. Wishful thinking at best. Russia doesn't have the means to catch up to the EU and that won't change for a while.

On a side note, the recent "anti gay" law is a product of democracy, the Russian populace is largely conservative when it comes to "family" values", something like 70%, so their representative government had to pass the legislation, and Putin had to sign it. Thats democracy for you. They didn't "have to". People in a democracy (the one commen in the world now, not the ancient greek version) only get to choose people who will represent them and make the decisions for them, they don't get too choose which law passes and which doesn't.

muscleserge

Elected officials have to represent the people they elected, so if a member of the State Duma was elected by a region that is mostly made up of homosexuals, then he will represent their opinion, thats how its supposed to be, and thats how it is. Whats the point of electing officials if they'll just do whatever they want. Tell that to every politician ever And I never said that people elect to pass laws, the people's opinion is represented by their elected officials. Let me ask you this, if the same law were to be drafted in teh US, how would you expect say Kentucky, of Georgia representatives to vote? I'm assuming these are redneck/conservative states? Then yes, I would expect them to vote the same way. But answer me this. Is it justified to take away the rights of a group in a society because a majority wants that to happen? Please stop buying into these stereotypes. Russia isn't some 3rd world shiiii11thole many are led to believe. I never said Russia was a third world country

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/russian-surveillance-technologies/

a quick google search for simple terms yeilded this link, and thats just what the west uses. Sources and stereotypes aside, thinking logically, how can anyone claim that Russia can't produce high tech equipment if it builds some of the best weapons in the world, Russia doesn't produce the best weapons in the world have the best track record when it comes to space, When was the last Russian space mission? and if you search around for all the tech innovations that came out of Russia, you'll see that it by no means lack in that department. Compare the tech innovations that came out of russia and out of the EU in the last 10 years and tell me which list  is way longer and more impressive. Only in civilian applications and even that isn't for very long. If a couple of decades isn't long to you. If you really want to learn more about Russia, just find some Russian news outlets, many of then translate their stuff into english. Don't just base your opinion on what you see in the west, as I said before, western media never portrays Russia in a good or positive way. And Russian media is all unbiased, yes? Hence the public opinion that can be very well seen ITT.

Russia will find customers for their energy exports faster than the EU will find suppliers. Energy is a highly demanded commodity, period. So the EU will have a longer time of stagnation in that regard, plain and simple. To who are they going to sell 2.971.485 barrels of oil a day to? And to who are they going to sell 132.068.400.000 cubic metres of gas to? The EU is a huge market, they're not going to find anyone willing/able to buy that huge amount of oil and gas.deeliman

On the other hand, Russia will effortlessly find vast amounts of new demand in the form of their neighbors - impoverished and under-industrialized but similarly oil rich Central Asian states! Everyone knows that poor countries love to buy expensive commodities that they are naturally well endowed with. They can also just build more 10, 000 km long fuel pipes to China and Vladivostok quick and easy and somehow this massive engineering project will not in any way damage their manufacturing capacity (roughly 1/5 the power of the E.U.'s!) for military goods. :roll:

[QUOTE="deeliman"]Russia will find customers for their energy exports faster than the EU will find suppliers. Energy is a highly demanded commodity, period. So the EU will have a longer time of stagnation in that regard, plain and simple. To who are they going to sell 2.971.485 barrels of oil a day to? And to who are they going to sell 132.068.400.000 cubic metres of gas to? The EU is a huge market, they're not going to find anyone willing/able to buy that huge amount of oil and gas.Barbariser

On the other hand, Russia will effortlessly find vast amounts of new demand in the form of their neighbors - impoverished and under-industrialized but similarly oil rich Central Asian states! Everyone knows that poor countries love to buy expensive commodities that they are naturally well endowed with. They can also just build more 10, 000 km long fuel pipes to China and Vladivostok quick and easy and somehow this massive engineering project will not in any way damage their manufacturing capacity (roughly 1/5 the power of the E.U.'s!) for military goods. :roll:

[QUOTE="deeliman"]Russia will find customers for their energy exports faster than the EU will find suppliers. Energy is a highly demanded commodity, period. So the EU will have a longer time of stagnation in that regard, plain and simple. To who are they going to sell 2.971.485 barrels of oil a day to? And to who are they going to sell 132.068.400.000 cubic metres of gas to? The EU is a huge market, they're not going to find anyone willing/able to buy that huge amount of oil and gas.Barbariser

On the other hand, Russia will effortlessly find vast amounts of new demand in the form of their neighbors - impoverished and under-industrialized but similarly oil rich Central Asian states! Everyone knows that poor countries love to buy expensive commodities that they are naturally well endowed with. They can also just build more 10, 000 km long fuel pipes to China and Vladivostok quick and easy and somehow this massive engineering project will not in any way damage their manufacturing capacity (roughly 1/5 the power of the E.U.'s!) for military goods. :roll:

Russia the Union's largest energy resources importer (2009)

• 36% of the EUs total gas imports originate from Russia
• 31% of the EU's total crude oil imports originate from Russia
• 30% of the EU's coal imports originate from Russia

The EU Russia's largest trade partner for energy goods

• 80% of all Russian oil exports go to the EU
• 70% of all Russian gas exports go to the EU
• 50% of all Russian coal exports go to the EU

Estonia 100%
Finland 100%
Latvia 100%
Lithuania 100%
Slovakia 98%
Bulgaria 92%
Czech Republic 77.6%
Greece 76%
Hungary 60%
Slovenia 52%
Austria 49%
Poland 48.15%

Russia the Union's largest energy resources importer (2009)

• 36% of the EUs total gas imports originate from Russia
• 31% of the EU's total crude oil imports originate from Russia
• 30% of the EU's coal imports originate from Russia

The EU Russia's largest trade partner for energy goods

• 80% of all Russian oil exports go to the EU
• 70% of all Russian gas exports go to the EU
• 50% of all Russian coal exports go to the EU

SciFiRPGfan

From ec.europa.eu.

Hmm. I guess the pro EU guys might be right on this one. I mean losing more than 1/3 of supplies must be brutal but losing up to 80% of your market might be even more brutal. Although, I am not sure how the economies work during war time.

That said, I don't know how the fact that EU is not a single state but a whole group of states with different positions would play out. That 1/3 means that EU states are 30 + % dependant on Russia on average but there are states which are far more dependant. E.g. Russian gas deliveries to some of the EU states:

Estonia 100%
Finland 100%
Latvia 100%
Lithuania 100%
Slovakia 98%
Bulgaria 92%
Czech Republic 77.6%
Greece 76%
Hungary 60%
Slovenia 52%
Austria 49%
Poland 48.15%

OTOH, that means that some other states and more importantly the stronger ones (GB, France, Italy) should be even more fine. But how would that all play out... would EU give up on the problematic states or could Russia use them somehow as bargaining chips?

All EU countries have reserves for times like that, most of them have enough to keep soeciety running for about 100 days, plenty of time to look for new ways to acquire oil/gas.deeliman

[QUOTE="deeliman"]All EU countries have reserves for times like that, most of them have enough to keep soeciety running for about 100 days, plenty of time to look for new ways to acquire oil/gas.SciFiRPGfan

The UK, France and Germany are the main industrial powers, which are a long way from Russia. Poland, Spain, Italy, Austria and the Scandinavian countries would make up the second most powerful group, and most certainly the majority of fighting would take place in Poland and Finalnd.

Two less probable axis' of attack are through Romania and Bulgaria towards Greece and through Hungary and via Austria towards Germany or Italy. Greece would be the hardest for the EU to defend because of it's position - supplies would mostly have to be delivered via ships into a peninsula that would be more or less cut off from the rest of the Union via land. Though I still would say the main thrust would come through Poland since Russias military priority would almost certainly be to knock out Germany as fast as possible. Attacking through Hungary and via Austria into Germany would be hindered by geography (rather mountainous terrain) and would also leave Poland to push either into the bulge or counterattack into Russian territory. All this is basically speculating that Russia somehow allies with/takes over Belarus and Ukraine, politically or militarily.

If Belarus and Ukraine oppose Russia I see very little chance of them even denting the EU.

But war would mean that everything is uncertain and a massive toll would befall on the bordering states in any case, weather EU totally dominates Russia or not.

Aging weapons, poor maintenance and 'rank-and-file officers who don't want to do anything' mean the Russian military was on the verge of a 'catastrophic crisis' and if forced into action would most probably have to rely on the use of strategic nuclear weapons, which seem to be the only ones still fully operational. Such a somber assessment came recently not from a junior coop-seeking reporter, but from the top itself, none other that Russian Chief of the General Staff and First Deputy Defense Minister Army-General Nikolai Makarov. The General warned, among others, that the Russian air force is not procuring sufficient numbers of new modern aircraft and has fewer serviceable aircraft, manned by insufficiently combat-trained pilots, which are incapable of conducting modern era combat operations.Defense Update

First of all , some E.U countries would back Russia. Especially former soviet states. Second, Russian Hardware is far from obsolete. Russia probably has a larger force than most of europe combined.( Not that its huge, but european militaries are  small) Not to mention the horrible economic state of the E.U.

First of all , some E.U countries would back Russia. Especially former soviet states. Second, Russian Hardware is far from obsolete. Russia probably has a larger force than most of europe combined.( Not that its huge, but european militaries are  small) Not to mention the horrible economic state of the E.U.

consoletroll

[QUOTE="SciFiRPGfan"]

[QUOTE="deeliman"]All EU countries have reserves for times like that, most of them have enough to keep soeciety running for about 100 days, plenty of time to look for new ways to acquire oil/gas.chaplainDMK

The UK, France and Germany are the main industrial powers, which are a long way from Russia. Poland, Spain, Italy, Austria and the Scandinavian countries would make up the second most powerful group, and most certainly the majority of fighting would take place in Poland and Finalnd.

Two less probable axis' of attack are through Romania and Bulgaria towards Greece and through Hungary and via Austria towards Germany or Italy. Greece would be the hardest for the EU to defend because of it's position - supplies would mostly have to be delivered via ships into a peninsula that would be more or less cut off from the rest of the Union via land. Though I still would say the main thrust would come through Poland since Russias military priority would almost certainly be to knock out Germany as fast as possible. Attacking through Hungary and via Austria into Germany would be hindered by geography (rather mountainous terrain) and would also leave Poland to push either into the bulge or counterattack into Russian territory. All this is basically speculating that Russia somehow allies with/takes over Belarus and Ukraine, politically or militarily.

If Belarus and Ukraine oppose Russia I see very little chance of them even denting the EU.

But war would mean that everything is uncertain and a massive toll would befall on the bordering states in any case, weather EU totally dominates Russia or not.

Barbariser, Notice I said SOME?I was generally speaking about the russian speaking states. If the choice was to be at war with russia, or along side it , which one would they choose? No doubt their governments want independence, however many feel life was better under the soviets ( true is some cases). Belarus is like China's North Korea in the sense that they are used for dirty work. It seems to me you underestimate Russian Influence.

I seriously doubt turkey would ever make it into the E.U.

Heck the chances of the E.U ending seem pretty high. 

Barbariser, Notice I said SOME?I was generally speaking about the russian speaking states. If the choice was to be at war with russia, or along side it , which one would they choose? No doubt their governments want independence, however many feel life was better under the soviets ( true is some cases). Belarus is like China's North Korea in the sense that they are used for dirty work. It seems to me you underestimate Russian Influence.

I seriously doubt turkey would ever make it into the E.U.

Heck the chances of the E.U ending seem pretty high. 

consoletroll

The EU would defeat Russia but I would feel that it would be a long drawn out war.ZomBViperKing

First of all , some E.U countries would back Russia. Especially former soviet states. Second, Russian Hardware is far from obsolete. Russia probably has a larger force than most of europe combined.( Not that its huge, but european militaries are  small) Not to mention the horrible economic state of the E.U.

consoletroll

Also, just gonna throw this in for everyone to chew on: [QUOTE="Defense Update"]Aging weapons, poor maintenance and 'rank-and-file officers who don't want to do anything' mean the Russian military was on the verge of a 'catastrophic crisis' and if forced into action would most probably have to rely on the use of strategic nuclear weapons, which seem to be the only ones still fully operational. Such a somber assessment came recently not from a junior coop-seeking reporter, but from the top itself, none other that Russian Chief of the General Staff and First Deputy Defense Minister Army-General Nikolai Makarov. The General warned, among others, that the Russian air force is not procuring sufficient numbers of new modern aircraft and has fewer serviceable aircraft, manned by insufficiently combat-trained pilots, which are incapable of conducting modern era combat operations.chaplainDMK

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]Also, just gonna throw this in for everyone to chew on: [QUOTE="Defense Update"]Aging weapons, poor maintenance and 'rank-and-file officers who don't want to do anything' mean the Russian military was on the verge of a 'catastrophic crisis' and if forced into action would most probably have to rely on the use of strategic nuclear weapons, which seem to be the only ones still fully operational. Such a somber assessment came recently not from a junior coop-seeking reporter, but from the top itself, none other that Russian Chief of the General Staff and First Deputy Defense Minister Army-General Nikolai Makarov. The General warned, among others, that the Russian air force is not procuring sufficient numbers of new modern aircraft and has fewer serviceable aircraft, manned by insufficiently combat-trained pilots, which are incapable of conducting modern era combat operations.muscleserge

[QUOTE="consoletroll"]

First of all , some E.U countries would back Russia. Especially former soviet states. Second, Russian Hardware is far from obsolete. Russia probably has a larger force than most of europe combined.( Not that its huge, but european militaries are  small) Not to mention the horrible economic state of the E.U.

deeliman

[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="consoletroll"]

First of all , some E.U countries would back Russia. Especially former soviet states. Second, Russian Hardware is far from obsolete. Russia probably has a larger force than most of europe combined.( Not that its huge, but european militaries are  small) Not to mention the horrible economic state of the E.U.

consoletroll

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]deeliman

Also consider the fact that Europe and its countries have a long history together, and any European knows not to fvk with Russia.muscleserge

The EU isn't a military force some people make it out to be, many countries have 0 military experiance, and Europe was a stomping ground for a conflict between the Americans and the SU for a long time and even the Americans knew/know now that Europe won't stand a chance in a Russian Invasion, in fact NATO is still trying to encircle Russia, if the EU could stand up to the Russians on their own, they wouldn't be kissing American ass for about 70 years now.muscleserge

[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="consoletroll"]

First of all , some E.U countries would back Russia. Especially former soviet states. Second, Russian Hardware is far from obsolete. Russia probably has a larger force than most of europe combined.( Not that its huge, but european militaries are  small) Not to mention the horrible economic state of the E.U.

consoletroll

there already is a growing movement to get out of the E.U. and drop the Euro. All it takes is a few more greece's . Believe whatever you want.

Let's assume that there will be no nuclear weapons involved in this conflict for reasons I am to lazy to come up with. Tensions between the two entities have caused both of them to declare war upon eachother. The US has decided to sit back and watch what happens (and maybe if the EU is close to victory join the fight at the last moment and claim they won all by themselves(jk)). China doesn't get involved in the war either, but does still trade with both of them. The EU has formed a counsel of high ranking military personnel from all the EU countries to make the decisions, and Putin and the russian generals will make the decisions for Russia.

Who would win in this war?

deeliman