Europe versus Russia, who wins?

[Tijuana]

Are you suggesting that Europe isn't to a certain degree 'occupied' by the US?
They are nice overlords to be sure, but they are overlords.
And you don't get to go around saying 'Europe' would have been fucked absent US aid - Feel free to say that European countries would have had problems, but again, It's still occupied by US forces.

You deleted the parts of my post that refute your rebuttal. Can you get more straw man than that? If you can't be honest, then you are not worth having a discussion with.

[Pengekaer]

I know through our prior interactions that reading is a challenge for you. But that's okay, I came prepared. I drew you a picture with some magic markers. A picture is said to be worth a thousand words. For you, it'll be ten thousand.

Wauw... <3 Your posts are a blessing upon this forum.

[Tijuana]

I know through our prior interactions that reading is a challenge for you. But that's okay, I came prepared. I drew you a picture with some magic markers. A picture is said to be worth a thousand words. For you, it'll be ten thousand.

They can use these magical machines to fly wherever they want to go, with no need for roads.

[Deleted]

Back in 82 had it not been for Ark Royal and Invincible the invasion to retake the islands wouldnt have had any air cover for the landings and the harrier proved deadly in air to air combat up against the Argentinian mirage fighter jet. Thats pretty much sums up British thinking when it comes to aircraft carriers.

You know that those were light aircraft carriers ?
And you built, i think four of them?
And to tie into Skroe's point, You deployed the Vulcan bombers in said war.

[Skroe]

Then you need more than two with a 50% ready rate.
Its a pointless vanity project because it would have been much better to have 4 smaller carriers - The carriers are over-sized.
besides are Skroe pointed out, since you will be reliant on VTOL anyway, you could just have gone down the non-traditional carrier route.

Yep. For the cost of 2 Queen Elisabeths, they could have bought 4 America class Amphibious assault ships. While the Queen Elisabeths are designed to carry up to 50 F-35Bs, the real number will probably be around 25-30. An America-class in a pure "Sea Control Ship" configuration, could carry somewhat more than 20. And both fly the F-35B.

The Queen Elisabeth made sense... if they were going to have a catapult and F-35C.

[Deleted]

If Germany gets enough time to mobilze i don't see Russia having a chance, as they would work as the buffert between the frontlines and with UK/France, northern europe combined joining in the fray Russia would not be able to win. This time around the numbers dosen't favour Russia and combined Europe (western europe) would be able to (evetually) field more men and resourses than Russia.

[Deleted]

You deleted the parts of my post that refute your rebuttal. Can you get more straw man than that? If you can't be honest, then you are not worth having a discussion with.

"The notion that no good was done, by defeating Germany, because Europe would still be Europe, is a geographic argument, not a geopolitical argument."
Yes it's a Geopolitical argument.
There is no right or wrong in geopolitics.
The Nazi regime was horrible and the US did the world a favour when it helped end it.
But Europe would have been fine under a German order.

[zealo]

I'm not sure if you understood my statement. I'm saying without the US, Europe would have been fucked twice. The notion that my position, that the EU needs the US, is not validated by history, is laughable, imho.

In the event of a WW1 german victory, France would've been fucked turned into a German economic vassal crippled of natural resources necessary to make war, and an inability to rearm with crippling debts, and the UK would've had it's empire dissolved sooner with independence sentiments in India etc brewing. France rather than Germany would be the hotbed of fascism and revanchism. It's quite likely they'd been able to intervene in the early years of the bolsheviks too after 1917.

Europe, though? Not quite, Europe is a continent bigger than just west of the Rhine, and the german empire wasn't nazi germany even if not any saints. At any rate WW2 is unlikely to have started the way it did, even if it still might.

[Skroe]

They can use these magical machines to fly wherever they want to go, with no need for roads.

Uh huh. And how many armored vehicles can a single cargo aircraft have? And how many tactical airlift aircraft do they have?

The answer is 39 AN-72s that can carry 0 armored vehicles, 9 AN-124s that can carry two armored vehciles, 119 Il-76s that can carry zero, and thats it.

So you're correct. Russia does indeed need a magical flying machine. To... you know... exist. Because right now, they got nine, that can move a whopping 18 armored vehicles.

[Pengekaer]

But Europe would have been fine under a German order.

Western Europe would be "OK". I doubt the Slavs would be OK though.

- - - Updated - - -

They can use these magical machines to fly wherever they want to go, with no need for roads.

Ships are the most efficient way of transporting heavy gear and combat forces around. And Russia didn't get their Mistrals. Perhaps they're cooking up a 100000 tonnage super-duper secret hovercraft ship with lasers and S400s aboard? :O

Transporting an army and tank/munitions by aircraft like that, is the best way to get broke. Surest way of getting adding hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in cost to each shell.

Airlifting is expensive as fuck and Russia doesn't have any cash.

[Deleted]

In the event of a WW1 german victory, France would've been fucked turned into a German economic vassal crippled of natural resources necessary to make war, and an inability to rearm with crippling debts, and the UK would've had it's empire dissolved sooner with independence sentiments in India etc brewing. France rather than Germany would be the hotbed of fascism and revanchism. It's quite likely they'd been able to intervene in the early years of the bolsheviks too after 1917.

Europe, though? Not quite, Europe is a continent bigger than just west of the Rhine, and the german empire wasn't nazi germany even if not any saints. At any rate WW2 is unlikely to have started the way it did, even if it still might.

I would read that book.

[Skroe]

Where'd my friend Tijuana go?

[Deleted]

Western Europe would be "OK". I doubt the Slavs would be OK though.

Again, Right and Wrong is not a relevant question -

Ships are the most efficient way of transporting heavy gear and combat forces around. And Russia didn't get their Mistrals. Perhaps they're cooking up a 100000 tonnage super-duper secret hovercraft ship with lasers and S400s aboard? :O

Transporting an army and tank/munitions by aircraft like that, is the best way to get broke. Surest way of getting the price of a shell to pass the 5000 dollar mark.

Secret Russian plans:

[druenos]

I think the British and French army could give them a run for their money if it's a high tech short war but if its boots on the ground Russia wins through shear numbers.

[Serenais]

Nobody wins. The problem for Russia is that EU is a MASSIVE economic partner, therefore, Russia would find itself out of money in a nonnegligable amount of time. Europe, whether it would defend itself in a united way or in a very fractured way, is a BIG amount of territory to cover. That simply wouldn't be taken over in days. Even if Europe wouldn't strike back on Russian territory, Russia would soon enough find itself in a solid problem trying to finance its industry AND army.
One can't conquer when their soldiers are unpaid.
Another problem would be, while Russia is modernising, still, a lot of its army is simply OLD, and in large percentage, effectively mothballed. Reactivation of that would make it addtionally tough. On top of all that, while on the ground and to some degree in the air Russia would be superior, Russian navy is spread too far and thus too thin, not to mention that it has only one OLD (and nonnuclear) aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetzov. Russian navy would find itself in trouble, should European navies cooperate.
Europe, on the other hand, however, would find a massive problem in trying to unite itself for defense. The moment US drops out of NATO the mutual defense becomes speech only. One would see many nationalistic movements that would advocate dropping out of NATO because "this is not our war and Russia is not going for us", or something similar. I mean - can you imagine, in the world where Brexit is a thing, that France and UK send LARGE forces to Romania to defend it from Russian invasion? I currently find it hard to believe. European defense would be fractured, which would allow for Russia to make significant progress into Europe, before its economy would grind to a halt.
There is a hypothetical way for Europe to make a way into Russian territory, but it would have to unite and cooperate on a VERY significant level. Even then, European forces wouldn't make it far - even if by some miracle the Russian military would find itself unable to defend (and everyone who has even a whiff of history knowledge knows that simply is beyond even the realm of fantasy - one does NOT invade Russia), european armies are simply not built for conquest and occupation. Logistics would be a massive nightmare and there simply wouldn't be enough manpower to hold even a tiny amount of conquered ground.

Also. Russia, due to no longer being the USSR machine, would have to chose a direction. It no longer would have the manpower and resources to go around the whole eastern half of Europe, like it did in WW2, plus the population would not be as cooperative as it was then. Therefore, Russia would have to choose whether to push towards the Balkans and the Mediterranean, which wouldn't be as tough, but there would be less to gain, or to push onto Germany, which would be a lot harder, but getting all the way to Germany would force EU forces into negotiations. Which would have to happen quick, otherwise, again, as stated above, Russia would find itself unable to finance any further attempts at conquest.

All in all. The war would end with Russia bankrupt, with disfunctional army spread around eastern portion of Europe, which would in turn destabilise it internaly - the insurgencies in the Caucasus and possibly elsewhere would use the state of Russia after the war as an oportunity. Europe itself would find its eastern part severely damaged.

That is, of course, under the expectation that neither side would resort to nuclear weapons. Should Russia use its nuclear arsenal, Europe would be toast, but the UK's and France's nuclear response would leave western Russia in flames. Nobody would win, and both sides would be effectively dead.

I did discount hypothetical scenarios, like Poland or Germany developing nuclear weapons in the face of Russian threat; EU has a LOT of scientific knowhow and developing additional nuclear arsenal would be only a matter of not so long a time, something which Russia would have to weigh in. Also, there is a massive potential that Russia would find itself in massive trouble trying to sell its ressources, which, while they would skyrocket in price, would be nearly impossible to find a buyer for; OPEC nations would use the oportunity to push an embargo on volatiles sold from Russia, thus both getting some PR points with the west (which would DESPERATELLY need the ressources), and cashing in MASSIVELY on the market they would force Russia out of. And finally, there is a far fetched possibility of China taking advantage of the situation and invading Siberia. As China lacks any substational sources of oil and gas in its territory, the nearly undefended Siberia would be VERY tempting. And EU would definitelly welcome opening of a second front on the other side of Russia.

[Deleted]

The scenario is that the US has gone isolationist once again. It won't intervene unless nukes are launched which means that this will be a non-nuclear war.

Russia starts taking over former Soviet Union nations, Ukraine, Georgia, etc.

Finally Russia turns its eye on Poland. Europe says enough is enough and it's time for war.

Who wins?

What the fuck is wrong with americans n ur poland-invasion fetish? Paranoid stupid crap that is

[Deleted]

Found the Pole.

[Skroe]

Nobody wins. The problem for Russia is that EU is a MASSIVE economic partner, therefore, Russia would find itself out of money in a nonnegligable amount of time. Europe, whether it would defend itself in a united way or in a very fractured way, is a BIG amount of territory to cover. That simply wouldn't be taken over in days. Even if Europe wouldn't strike back on Russian territory, Russia would soon enough find itself in a solid problem trying to finance its industry AND army.
One can't conquer when their soldiers are unpaid.
Another problem would be, while Russia is modernising, still, a lot of its army is simply OLD, and in large percentage, effectively mothballed. Reactivation of that would make it addtionally tough. On top of all that, while on the ground and to some degree in the air, Russian navy is spread too far and thus too thin, not to mention that it has only one OLD (and nonnuclear) aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetzov. Russian navy would find itself in trouble, should European navies cooperate.
Europe, on the other hand, however, would find a massive problem in trying to unite itself for defense. The moment US drops out of NATO the mutual defense becomes speech only. One would see many nationalistic movements that would advocate dropping out of NATO because "this is not our war and Russia is not going for us", or something similar. I mean - can you imagine, in the world where Brexit is a thing, that France and UK send LARGE forces to Romania to defend it from Russian invasion? I currently find it hard to believe. European defense would be fractured, which would allow for Russia to make significant progress into Europe, before its economy would grind to a halt.
There is a hypothetical way for Europe to make a way into Russian territory, but it would have to unite and cooperate on a VERY significant level. Even then, European forces wouldn't make it far - even if by some miracle the Russian military would find itself unable to defend (and everyone who has even a whiff of history knowledge knows that simply is beyond even the realm of fantasy - one does NOT invade Russia), european armies are simply not built for conquest and occupation. Logistics would be a massive nightmare and there simply wouldn't be enough manpower to hold even a tiny amount of conquered ground.

Also. Russia, due to no longer being the USSR machine, would have to chose a direction. It no longer would have the manpower and resources to go around the whole eastern half of Europe, like it did in WW2, plus the population would not be as cooperative as it was then. Therefore, Russia would have to choose whether to push towards the Balkans and the Mediterranean, which wouldn't be as tough, but there would be less to gain, or to push onto Germany, which would be a lot harder, but getting all the way to Germany would force EU forces into negotiations. Which would have to happen quick, otherwise, again, as stated above, Russia would find itself unable to finance any further attempts at conquest.

All in all. The war would end with Russia bankrupt, with disfunctional army spread around eastern portion of Europe, which would in turn destabilise it internaly - the insurgencies in the Caucasus and possibly elsewhere would use the state of Russia after the war as an oportunity. Europe itself would find its eastern part severely damaged.

That is, of course, under the expectation that neither side would resort to nuclear weapons. Should Russia use its nuclear arsenal, Europe would be toast, but the UK's and France's nuclear response would leave western Russia in flames. Nobody would win, and both sides would be effectively dead.

I did discount hypothetical scenarios, like Poland or Germany developing nuclear weapons in the face of Russian threat; EU has a LOT of scientific knowhow and developing additional nuclear arsenal would be only a matter of not so long a time, something which Russia would have to weigh in. Also, there is a massive potential that Russia would find itself in massive trouble trying to sell its ressources, which, while they would skyrocket in price, would be nearly impossible to find a buyer for; OPEC nations would use the oportunity to push an embargo on volatiles sold from Russia, thus both getting some PR points with the west (which would DESPERATELLY need the ressources), and cashing in MASSIVELY on the market they would force Russia out of. And finally, there is a far fetched possibility of China taking advantage of the situation and invading Siberia. As China lacks any substational sources of oil and gas in its territory, the nearly undefended Siberia would be VERY tempting. And EU would definitelly welcome opening of a second front on the other side of Russia.

Russia could only hit Europe with it's tactical arsenal and it's submarine based arsenal. Europe is proxmally too "close" for ICBMs to hit it with any kind of accuracy.

The significance of this is that in a nuclear exchange, nuclear explosions in Europe would be largely more distributed and smaller than say, a nuclear strike on the US would be.

Germany could develop a nuclear warhead in no time, but unlike Japan with their Epsilon Rocket, Germany doesn't have an ballistic missile-in-waiting.

[Ettan]

You cant invade. Because even a minute state like Lichenstein with a single biological weaponds facility will be able to trump every nation, with all military personell and all recources in the entire world.
Biological mad->Simply clearly state your intent; that an invasion will be meet the eradication of the human race.
And you will never be attacked by any singlular or group of nations, ever.
The rewards of attack will never make that risk worth it.

It renders any recourcefull modern nation unattackable by any and all nations on the earth.

[Skroe]

What the fuck is wrong with americans n ur poland-invasion fetish? Paranoid stupid crap that is

(1) There are a lot of Polish Americans.
(2) Poland is a close ally of the US and the most "Westernized" of the ex-Warsaw Pact states (it's been an intentional multi-decade effort on the US's part).
(3) To get to Germany, which is in effective "home base" (with Italy) for US operations on continental Europe, you'd have to get through Poland.
(4) Poland is part of NATO and we'd defend it rather than wait for Russia to make it to Germany.

That's why.