Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eu Vs. Russia

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eu Vs. Russia

    Hows this for a war, the Eurpean Union vs. Russia.....lets just say that the russian economic situation got better and they got a new leader. Thus Russia could afford and fund their military. Not a Nuclear War. United States is not involved.

  • #2
    "got a new leader". who says Putin can't fight?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Franco Lolan
      "got a new leader". who says Putin can't fight?
      i am with him on that Putin was KGB i would not put any thing past him what would be needed is a major influx of cash not a change in power

      Originally posted by EclipsetheRuin
      Hows this for a war, the European Union vs. Russia.....lets just say that the russian economic situation got better and they got a new leader. Thus Russia could afford and fund their military. Not a Nuclear War. United States is not involved.
      An intriguing Premiss how ever the problem is with the what if game once you start it becomes had to stop there are just to many what if's
      Last edited by Terran empire; 05 Oct 04,, 10:51.

      Comment


      • #4
        to the best i know EU is an economic cooperation but not a military cooperation(is it ?) clearly if Theres a war between an european country and russia will the other members of EU come to its AID??? Clearly Russia still can defeat any EU contry provided it fights with only one and not all of them .. With all of them clearly EU is very strong and with the current economic and military condition of russia russains are not in a position to win but again though EU will win the war there cant be any kind of capturing of Russian territory as that would lead to a nuclear conflict...

        Frakly one point on which most of the EU countries ( the non nuclear powers ) will not involve in a war against russia unless attacked is because Russians are nuclear force and theres no guarantee that hte nuclear powers in Eu will retaliate with nuclear attack in case russians nuke a non nuclear power. Why would britain /france ( ieven in a war against Russia ) like to nuke russians even if russia nuked italy bec nuking russia would call for destruction of its own self.So clearly at the current cooperation level it seems infeasible that Eu will fight all together in case russia attacks one of them

        Comment


        • #5
          The question of a nuclear release would depend on the nature of the conflict. If the war started because of one side wanting invade and annex territory which had something valuable (Say if Russia tried to take the Dardnelles), then it would make no sense for them to fire their nukes because that would probably destroy everything they were trying to take over. Likewise, the other side would probably not fir their nukes unless it was a matter of national survival. For example, if Russia attacked the balkans and the caucasus with the goal of taking over the Dardenelles, then it would be unlikely that their European allies (As I think that most Europeans would want to help) would fire their nukes at Russia, knowing that massive retaliation would follow, unless they too were going to be completely overrun.
          If, however, they only stood to lose some of their territory and economic resources, I doubt they'd be prepared to face nuclear annihilation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
            The question of a nuclear release would depend on the nature of the conflict. If the war started because of one side wanting invade and annex territory which had something valuable (Say if Russia tried to take the Dardnelles), then it would make no sense for them to fire their nukes because that would probably destroy everything they were trying to take over. Likewise, the other side would probably not fir their nukes unless it was a matter of national survival. For example, if Russia attacked the balkans and the caucasus with the goal of taking over the Dardenelles, then it would be unlikely that their European allies (As I think that most Europeans would want to help) would fire their nukes at Russia, knowing that massive retaliation would follow, unless they too were going to be completely overrun.
            If, however, they only stood to lose some of their territory and economic resources, I doubt they'd be prepared to face nuclear annihilation.
            Well the point is if russia is attacked or if russia attacks and its attack is retaliated badly then this might lead to a nuclear attack on one of the small states (non nuclear ones) and obvously the major nuclear states wont retaliatewith a nuclear attack since russians have an excellent second attack capability this will lead to an eventual withdrawal of EU forces . Frankly unless of course EU nuclear members commit the security of non nuclear members with nuclear umbrella EU wont be able to stand united against russian agression.

            Comment


            • #7
              the world has not seen any war between two nuclear states( a full scale war) and it should better not see one since the looser has every chance of retaliating with nukes.

              Comment


              • #8
                Like I said it depends on what they have to lose. If they only stood to lose a portion of thier territory or be forced to make political concessions, it wouldn't make sense for them to trigger nuclear annihilation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I thought Russia, France, and Germany are friends now? Plus how would anyone be able to set a succesful attack on Russia? The path to the major cities in russia are too well guarded, and if the armies are planning to go around they have to face the natural barriers. In history everyone was slaughtered trying to go around the natural barriers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    the issue is rather more likely to be around border areas. none of the borders in eastern europe is where it was 70 years ago - poland 'moved' westward into parts of germany while belarus and ukraine 'moved' westward into poland and romania. for many in eastern europe the village you were born in might well be in a different country now. border disputes are therefore a possible flashpoint.

                    more importantly is russias' self-proclaimed 'near abroad', countries which are legally independant of russia (baltic states, belarus, ukraine, georgia, moldova and kazakhstan) but which russia believes - and acts as if - they are part of a buffer between russia and europe which russia can exercise some control over - deciding elections, running foriegn policy and controling the military. added to this heady mix is a small area of russian territory sandwiched between lithuania and poland that has no land corridor connection to russia proper.

                    western russia has nothing that europe needs (ukraine is bigger than france, very fertile and has coal coming out of its backside), but northern and eastern russia supply's both natural gas and oil to europe in very large quantities which europe is very dependant on (especially given the instability of the middle east). europe has nothing that russia needs - space, natural resources - though a warm water port might be nice, so a 'war of conquest' is unlikely on either side.

                    the EU doesn't have a proper military structure in itself, but it provides an atmosphere in which the members are used to working very closely with each other of a vast range of political and economic issues, while the militaries of the member countries are used to working together within NATO, the Western European Union (a kind of european branch of NATO) and the EU military deployments in macedonia, bosnia and congo. for practical purposes this would allow a german infantry company commander to ask for air support from a french strike aircraft and artillery support from a british battery with no problems of doctrine or actual communication difficulties - in addition english is the language of NATO and EU military operations.

                    'war' is only likely to happen in a limited way after a political problem - lets say russian interference in a border dispute between belarus (very pro-russian) and ukraine (sort of pro-european) and russia sends troops to back up belarus's claim while the EU members sends troops to ukraine to defend ukrainian sovereignty.

                    the outcome is more likely to depend on the degree of political will in europe to jointly resist russia than on any particular hardware.

                    russia would be unlikely to risk a nuclear confrontation with the EU because neither the UK or France have made any statements on the scope of their nuclear umbrella, as that is an unknown it makes any use - or threat of use - of nukes a big gamble. however, were there to be a full invasion of eastern europe (ukraine, moldova, baltic states, georgia etc..) then i would imagine that both france and the UK would anounce that their nuclear umbrella covered those countries and any others defending them.

                    a full nuclear attack on europe would be a disaster for russia, almost all of france's and all of the UK's nukes are second strike capability.

                    russia has other problems to deal with (chinese border, chechnya) that take up significant military resources, any attack on europe would be hamstrung by its other commitments while european military commitments (iraq, afganistan, balkans) are more of choice than neccesity and could be withdrawn from.

                    russia would do well initially, but russian conventional military power in western russia does not equate to european conventional military power and would be repelled in the end. in addition it is unlikely that russias' other problems would not take the opportunity to make such gains as they could and therefore russia would be unable to devote its full power to a european adventure.
                    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is going to happen. It is called End of Real 'Middle Age'

                      There is going to be a nuke war, and it will end of this age as we now it, which I believe is the middle age. I say the middle because you have the accient age where there modern people know mostly nothing of. The future age will be the last for human kind.
                      We are in the age, before the utopia on earth as much it is possible age happens.
                      Where this is what will happen, eventually, the Russia play nice with EU, then Russia will backstab EU and then China which was an Ally of Russia, will backstab Russia.
                      You may ask how is this going to bring about the utopia age, well I would not tell you because if you live by this time, it may be either too late for you or the beginning of paradise. These I’ll tell you, to give a hope. This will happen because, around this age, controlling humanity will be the government of the world. It is likely they will think putting all the people on a grid like placing a chip on a dog to find and know where it is, will be the way to go. Some may fight and some will submit to this final indignity to humanity.
                      This will bring a fight to every person, to bring about the true utopia, the choice will be there, to be part of the grid or not. The grid is not the new age; the grid is end of the middle age. Remember do not be on the grid. If this sounds insane, if by chance you live to the coming age, I am sure these words will come to you and you know what to do.
                      Last edited by don0111; 17 Jan 08,, 11:25. Reason: To add more

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        To continue the end of World Scenerio

                        I meant to say for the title: "To continue the end of this Age"
                        To continue, before all the back stabing by the countries, happens. There will be much blood spilled with nukes and without.
                        As for the U.S, beside E.U, it will not go unscalde, I don't how much damage the U.S will take. I say this because, it seems it is inevitable the, you have people there who want lower guard, the dropping of the U.S dollar, terrorist desire to destroy the U.S. Eventually, all these and other factors, will not allow the U.S to be as it is. Eventually, for economic reasons and safety reasons it will join to create region spear like the E.U, it will be with Canada and Mexico. With this combination it more easily control its boarders and add greater economic territory. Currently these 3 countries do have lighter pack with NAFTA or something, but in the future this will be much strong packed.
                        Last edited by don0111; 17 Jan 08,, 11:14. Reason: To correct the title.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I thought reviving vs. threads were not allowed any longer.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Quite the prophet you are, don0.
                            HD Ready?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ucar View Post
                              I thought reviving vs. threads were not allowed any longer.
                              It isn't.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X