That's true, although there is a possibility that Germany could get the Vega rocket, which is already flying. As Vega is developed and run by ESA (and Italian space agency), I find it quite possible.
That's true, although there is a possibility that Germany could get the Vega rocket, which is already flying. As Vega is developed and run by ESA (and Italian space agency), I find it quite possible.
Vega's problem is that it's too big and requires too many people to operate. It's a fine launch vehicle, but sized for putting smallish payloads into Low Earth Orbit.To turn Vega into an ICBM, you'd need to cut a stage or two. Against Russia, Germany would need IRMB and MRBMs for the most part, and it's way overkill for that.
The Epsilon rocket is an interesting program. It's so transparently an ICBM it's shocking. It's potentially road mobile. It's entirely solid fueled. It's payload to high atltitude is pretty much exactly what an ICBM's would be. If Japan wanted to, they could cut the size of the second stage and put it in a submarine and get a SRBM out of it.
Europe has good space rockets, but they're really "space-specific" like the US's NASA rockets, and not dual use. Also the industry to build them is spread around Europe.
With Russia cheating on the INF Treaty, I think the time is right for a European Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.
Why would Russia invade germany? Again with ur 19-20th century mind set, everything is a red alert rts game to you...
And lol poland, you mean the country that together with hungary is giving west/eu most headaches right now are the most like you? How so? I'd say the Czechs are more westernized..
Poland n germany are bs propaganda to justify nato
The primary goal of the current Russian regime is perpetuating the kleptocracy.
While they undoubtedly have the ability re-invade most of the old soviet sphere the gain is minute.
However, Currently the regime depends on patriotic nationalism -
Taking a step back, Putin has managed to effectively win every 'engagement' with the West in the last 15 years or so and yet is in a rapidly worsening position as time passes by, The only realistic scenario where it would actually use force would be if forced to do so to maintain power.
What we need is a controlled collapse.
America because it gets to extort war-torn Europe all over again!
Why did Russia invade Crimea?
Because it thought it could and would gain by doing so.
Why would Russia gain by invading Germany (or Europe in general)
Because in a Europe dominated by the EU, Russia is weak - Invading would probably end the EU (a successful one)
Of course, in reality this objective is best achieved by funding Anti-EU parties and other more 'direct' action.
Let me get this right. You asked why, I gave you an answer, and now you don't like the reason? I mean the answer given is the right answer. Poland is a trip wire and we have a lot of interests in Poland.
Agree or disagree thats why why. And more broadly speaking, a Russian presence in Poland would directly threaten Germany, and that couldn't be allowed. Even if an invasion is implausible (which i think it would be), it would be an untenable security threat.
I'm not sure how you do things wherever your from, but here in civilization, when your friends do something that you don't like, that doesnt' mean they're not your friends anymore.
Poland and Hungary are giving the West a headache. Big deal. America is giving the West a headache too. Go back 15 years Germany and France gave the US a headache. Go back 40 years it was half of NATO. When you live in the same house together, it's not always going to be wine and roses.
If Russia blinked out of existence tomorrow and was replaced with open water, NATO would still exist. Because the idea of Western Democracy, among the world's largest economies and most developed countries, all together under one roof for the purpose of collective security is a fundamentally good, even romantic idea. America, Germany, the UK, France and Italy, all together to protect each other? That's a beautiful thing. We have far more in common than what separates us. We have much to learn from each other.
Russia has never understood that. It used the Warsaw Pact countries as it always did... buffer states that were little more than puppet regimes of it's Soviet master. NATO was never that. NATO will never be that. It's an alliance based around ideals and a common history. NATO doesn't require an enemy, because it's fundamental rationale for being is an idea about its members.
U forgot the part of usa openly supporting overthrow of democratically elected president government n parliament, derailing the country n expecting the voters to accept that US should erase their voting power taking thus their incentive to want to remain in ukraine, a country where democracy died with us help...
Crimea is YOUR fault, it would be with ukraine today if u didn't decide to go full retard simply cuz russia offered better economic deal monies n u desired nato naval base in crimea...
As for skroe, u didn't answer why russia would invade germany. Rts game mentality...
No nato wouldn't exist today if russia went away, what for? Cost to stay off invasion from...uzbekistan?? U talk a lot of nonsense about values as if europe would cough up costs if there only small neighbors around..."lets spend billions on weapons FOR DEMOCRACY in case some tiny country is near us!!!"
Last edited by mmocced9c7d33d; 2017-09-01 at 11:46 PM.
No, I wasn't using the term interchangeably, at all. The EU is a geopolitical body, Europe is a geographic body.
Regardless, Europe is not a monolith. If Belgium is conquered by France, Belgians would like the US to help. This notion that Germany taking over Europe, meant nothing because the physical geographic borders of Europe were unchanged, is about the most silly argument I have ever heard. It's akin to calling for a ban on yoga pants.
- - - Updated - - -
Wars are not waged in a day, guy. By your own logic, how did the US get to Iraq or Afghanistan, if fighting far away is just impossible?
I fail to see fuel cost as a major economic factor in Russia's ability to wage war, given how much oil they produce annually.
- - - Updated - - -
I will generally defer to your military knowledge. But the fact remains, wars take a long time, and Russia can take ports, roads, and railways they need as they go along. I just don't think, of all the reasons Russia might have difficulty conquering Europe, that logistics the biggest issue.
Germany wasn't ever going to win WW1 even if the US had sat it out. The US didn't get involved in combat until May 28, 1918, less than 6 months before end of the war, and even then it was just 1 division out of the only 5 that the US had in Europe at the time. Plus they relied on the French to supply a lot of their heavy equipment (aircraft, artillery, tanks).
By that stage the German economy was pretty much crippled. They were out of raw materials to supply their war machine and they were out of food. Factory workers were starving to death as what food was available was going to the army.
The Germans last hope to end the war the Spring Offensive, had been halted before the US could really arrive in numbers, and the end result of it was that it had left the Germans severely depleted and exhausted, with almost 20% of their troops lost and no manpower reserves left to call on. And the losses had been heaviest among their best troops who had been leading the attacks.
By that stage too, the Allies had figured out how to best break the stalemate, by the use of combined arms tactics, which led to the 100 Days Offensive and the collapse of the German army. Ironically, the Germans were the ones to learn the lessons of this better than Allies and develop the blitzkrieg model based on it.
Logistics in Russia would most likely not be a major problem (although transportation of ressources from Siberia to the theatre of war would be one of Russia's weaknesses, one that several low-chance-big-gain covert ops could hypothetically exploit), but once Russia gets to conquering, it would that Europe is simply too large to take easily and would find itself overextended once it would get signficantly far enough. EU leadership would definitelly realise that leaving infrastracture intact in areas that were going to be lost would be just helping Russia along the way, thus Russia would be forced to repair and create infrastracture in place as it would push further, and it would slow its progress a LOT.
Depends, really. Nationalistic fervor could do a lot, so the question is how long the political machine in Russia could keep the soldiers going for basically just food and lodging. My personal guess is, however, that it wouldn't last longer than six months, quite likely a lot less. The loss of European markets would hurt Russian economy very badly, and it might be that if EU shut its markets long before the invasion of Poland (as mentioned in OP's scenario), Russia might not even have enough money to make it that far.
Of course, big question here would be how much willing would China be to replace the European markets for Russia. My personal guess is "not that much", since Russia doesn't have much more to offer than gas and oil, whereas EU has money and know-how - and China can get (and does) get supple amount of volatiles from elsewhere. That being said, even if China decided to somehow completely replace EU as a source of money for Russia, it wouldn't be enough. Russian ability to project force is nowhere near as massive as it may appear to be, and getting the whole Russian military moving would be incredibly prohibitively costly even in the best possibly circumstances (for Russia, anyway).
Mind you, I am not a politologist, therefore I might be quite wrong. But I think that the Chinese would preffer to play both sides instead of openly supporting one or the other.
Russia couldn't beat a few countries in Europe by themselves. I doubt they could take the UK or France and they could certainly not take Germany. Russia is only good at defensive wars and using landmass/weather to their advantage so unless Europe decides to march on Russia they are useless.