EU vs Russia war - who would win?

The British would win. With our vastly superior fighting forces and our powerful navy with nuclear weapons. Maybe a small island but we have a hell of a punch. Never underestimate the British.

ha.what navy?

what,the less than 100 thousand soldiers,bulked up with mercinries from former colonies and TA guys....yeah,right.Not on our own matey,not a chance.

bubbawoo are you slow, please explain the contadiction. I said I think russia will defeat eu and then I was asking a separate topic which country is strongest in EU. learn to read english, I should not be telling you that since your british but unfortunately I have to. lol

matti youre a twat, if i explained your contradiction in words of one sylabubble you still wouldnt get it

that's because your an idiot and ur wrong. plain and simple

name calling aside matti, go back and re-read your posts for the last couple of days. i dont know if youre a crack adict or something but they are litered with inconsistancies and contradictions, not to mention feeble arguements

lol obviously your trouble answering that question says it all. thank you for being so smart. lol unfortunately your sensitive and hate being proved wrong so you play childrens games. at least we can have a good laugh thank u

what question would that be pani matti?

lol

Your hilarious, thank you

if you werent quite so silly it would be hilarious but as it stands its a little bit worrying... youre an accountant... people actually trust you with their money... now that really is hilarious... er... worrying...

anyway, i didnt have nearly the trouble answering the question that you did - its quite obvious there would be no winner. nukes aside, eu would win without doubt, as you have been told by most in the thread... as you say yourself, factors favour the eu

yes child when talking about convetional war, but when talking about nuclear war then factors favor russia. please read all posts carefully not just mine so you can see in what context the post was made. also don't get so emotional.

matti you fuking clown if it was a nuclear war there would be no winner - what part of that are you having problems understanding

lol first EU doesn't have enough nukes to destroy all russian cities. but russia has enough to destroy all of EU.

your playing games with the question. for ex. ww2 you can say their were no winners because all sides paid a price. but allies did win. don't change meaning of what winning means to fix you being proved wrong also in this posts, if you read all posts this was already explained.

calm down think logically don't let your emotions control you

no matti, im playing games with you

well your playing with yourself because im just having a laugh at your expense

In fact, most people agree on one thing - the war won't happen, mainly because UK, Germany and France are ruling the Union, and they don't want to mess with gas supplies. Everyone seem to be quite happy with how the things are run ATM, at least noone has got a good reason to start a war lol.

Not everyone.

I think the question is silly from the outset. Russia would not want war with the West. if England invaded Russia then the Russians would win as there is more of them. The Russians can be quite a tough people and can hold their own when the getting gets tough. Nucler bombs changes the equilibrium rather a lot though.

As I said, Germany, UK and France are. They dont give a hell about others ;)

i can't belive you serbs belive in these *********. they are lies to make your people too nationalist as to hate other nations, and cause war in balcans. to make you kill many bosnians, kosovo albanians and turks so selling you guns and earn money. you are stupid, sooo stupid.

Okay then, let's spare Irkutsk.

matthias wrote:EU doesn't have enough nukes to destroy all russian cities. but russia has enough to destroy all of EU.

Also one should consider te miltary installations such as bases, missle silos etc. which are spread out all over Russia.

Aaargh.
This all sounds like arguing about who would win at football between teams that only play baseball, but here goes:
The ones with the simplest plan, executed the fastest, would likely win, but if the victory would last depends much I think on whether the populace of the conquered country(ies) have been allowed to go on with their lives with some dignity; and the rapidity of the same. As stated above, WWI did cause WWII; a sentiment I agree with btw-had Germany not been slammed so hard at end of WWI perhaps a cuckoo like Hitler would never have risen to power.
Nuclear weapons play a factor but not so big as people believe. Way too much mythology has been attributed to nuclear weapons by media hysteria....not too much is true. Unlike other weapons nuclear weapons are not technically controlled by armies but by civilian politicians keeping this ultimate political tool for themselves. Nuclear war would not be the end for us all unless it was total war and EU and RU used all at once, and big strategic stuff, not tactical weapons. World has already has nuclear war. Japan is ok now.
To further twist the thread, as we are discussing unlikelihoods, if you were the political and or military leader of Russia or EU-how would you wage this war to win, should the shooting start?.
(sorry in advance for the hijack, even if related-I just think it would be more interesting than calling each other stuff)

John P.

You meant the 1610? In this case you should remember the unhappy epilogue of this compain for polish intervents.... First, they eated their horses, then each other in the Kremlin

No I was referring to 1920. Is it that difficult to understand Russia lost, Poland won.

Lost what? Poland? Heh, we don't need your territory, we have no revolutionary fever at present. It is you who are trying to spread your influence over Belorussia and Ukrain. But I can asure you, that you never will gain a control over these ancient Russian dominions. Be sure!

You are not even aware what lands have your country lost at that time...

Russia wont be an empire, because you have no common sense.

Commies did not care about the land they had to give as long as the treaty would be signed.They even offered Minsk to Poland but Poland refused!
In Brest Litovsk treaty Bolsheviks gave to Germans everything they wanted,the Baltics,half of Ukraine etc.They cared only to stop the german advance and get time to crash their enemies in civil war.
The same was with Poland.Bolsheviks' tactique was to give land as long as they could influence masses through propaganda.They knew they would be soon back.

I'm just pointing out Constantine's lack of knowledge on this issue.
Beside of that one doesn't exclude the second. You can tactically give up something to take even more in the future.


Actually in Poland they never managed to influence the masses. Stalin said once that imposing communism on Poland is like trying to put a saddle on a cow.

Yeah? Really? And which lands did we lose at that time? Suppose that Cerzon Line is not appropriate for Russia, its lands should be laid quite far western. All in all present polish territory is more perfect than after 1918.



Do you think so? Well, but we existed in this form from 1721 till 1917!
And what is "common sense" mean in your interpretation?