EU vs Russia war - who would win?

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Jan 23, 08, 15:05 #151

matthias wrote:

Its a hypothetical: pretend their is a war declared, pretend that both sides will use full force that they have at their disposal and pretend winner is declared by the one who inflicts the most damage. Now answer the question.

EU hands down!

Russia would be in Germany's shoes...erm boots (like in WWII).
They will surely hold out for awhile and the whole of Europe and Russia will be a wasteland afterwards but the unified forces of the whole of Europe could take on EVERYBODY!

(Just because tired limeys, frogs or krauts aren't longer interested anymore that doesn't mean that they have forgotten the game they excelled in for such a long time! Just a bit rusty....Every enemy would be in for a nasty surprise!)

matthiasThreads: 4 Posts: 1,577 Joined: Jan 9, 08 ♂	Edited by: matthias Jan 23, 08, 15:16 #152
Sure Bratwurst, Germany has how many nukes? How many does Russia have? In case you didn't notice but Russia"s military is not what it was in WW2. But thanks for your realistic analysis.

♀

Jan 23, 08, 15:23 #153

Well lets see...

U.S. A-Bomb spy becomes `Hero of Russia`
The only Soviet spy who managed to infiltrate secret U.S. nuclear facilities has been honoured posthumously with Russia's highest honorary title by President Vladimir Putin. The 'Hero of Russia' medal was donated to Moscow's Military Intelligence Museum.

Speaking at the award ceremony, Vladimir Putin stressed this man's work strengthened Russia's defence capabilities considerably.

During World War II, George Koval, also known as 'Delmar', collected secret information about the production of the first U.S. atomic bomb and sent it to Moscow.

Koval's work drastically reduced the amount of time it took for Russia to develop its nuclear weapons.

matthias wrote:

How many does Russia have?

http://russiatoday.ru/news/news/16388

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Jan 23, 08, 15:28 #154

matthias wrote:

Sure Bratwurst, Germany has how many nukes? How many does Russia have? In case you didn't notice but Russia"s military is not what it was in WW2. But thanks for your realistic analysis.

You must see the unified EU....between us we have more than enough nukes and other WMD's.
That makes the difference!

PS: Nobody's military is what it was in WWII...And Germany could be re-build to a number ONE military again inclusive nukes in several short months maximum!

matthiasThreads: 4 Posts: 1,577 Joined: Jan 9, 08 ♂	Edited by: matthias Jan 23, 08, 15:41 #155
Russia can also develop its military more. EU doesn't have enough wmds for Russia. But Russia has enough for EU. EU depends on Russia for a lot of its energy. Also you cant rely on half of the countries in the EU. Read post 70 if you need more.

Bratwurst BoyThreads: 11 Posts: 14,563 Joined: Apr 2, 07 ♂	Jan 23, 08, 15:45 #156
Don't underestimate the european countries...let the enemies do it, that's enough! :)

♂

Edited by: matthias Jan 23, 08, 15:56 #157

EU its great and they have done good in Europe. However to say they can defeat Russia one on one is not impossible but it is a stretch. More then likely Russia would be the victor. Also I think you overestimate the cohesion of the EU members. Russia unlike EU doesn't have to worry about being split during war. Who knows how countries will react. Some might fight, some remain neutral, some might give up, some might look out only for their own interest. the odds are against the EU

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Jan 23, 08, 16:08 #158

In a war for survival there wouldn't be a split....for what?

Russia would overtax itself....Europe from the Baltikum to Malta isn't to hold..that (IF they win) would be a phyrric win.
Germany ALONE could have marched into Moscow if Hitler's decisions would have been more reasonable, now combine that with (at that time) Germany's enemies....and the weapon system development of the west is still top notch.

Russia got brutally attacked in WWII, that was a key factor for the motivation of their soldiers...in your hypothetical scenario Russia would be the attacker...you can count on masses of russian soldiers who would rather fight for the west, etc., etc, etc.....

isthatuThreads: 4 Posts: 1,627 Joined: Jun 8, 07 ♂	Jan 23, 08, 16:16 #159
Dice wrote: EU are nothing but a bunch of pussies, name the last war America "won"? Oh,wait,youve had your butts kicked by a succession of peasant nations.......

♂

Edited by: matthias Jan 23, 08, 16:19 #160

First of all WW2 is irrelevant. Yes back in the day 1on1 Germany would have defeated Russia. But that's back in the day. Russia has amount of wmds that Germany can only dream of now. All Russia has to do is turn of the taps on EU. Second approach several EU countries and tell them we won't attack you if you remain neutral. Several countries would jump at the chance. they care more about their own as*ses then all of EU. Bratwurst your wrong, I like u but your just wrong. Russia has much greater chances of winning.

Isthatu Yes America lost the last several wars. They could have easily won. Using Nukes or other wmds. They just chose not to fight that way. Doesn't mean they could have not won. They could have easily been victorious

Also EU bunch of pussies. Most EU countries are pussies. UK definatly not, Poland and several others. But majority is.

Bratwurst BoyThreads: 11 Posts: 14,563 Joined: Apr 2, 07 ♂	Jan 23, 08, 16:24 #161
So then what do you advise instead?

isthatuThreads: 4 Posts: 1,627 Joined: Jun 8, 07 ♂	Jan 23, 08, 16:29 #162
im sorry mattie,but the basic premise of your shifting goal post argument is,IMHO,flawed.Not to come across tree hugger likebut,in the event of anyone using Nukes,plainly and simply ,no one "wins". Have you never heard of M.A.D?

♂

Edited by: matthias Jan 23, 08, 16:31 #163

Bratwurst I don't advise anything, Im just saying the chances of victory are much greater for Russia then EU. Russia has the energy reserves, Russia has more wmds, Russia doesn't have to worry about itself splitting, Russia is a much bigger area to destroy. As for EU no EU army harder for them to work together, no common language(makes it harder to communicate), EU tanks planes ships depend on Russian oil, plus many more

Thanks isthatu for playing games with the question. If you read my earlier post I already dealt with that argument. For example allies defeated germany. I could also say nobody one they both suffered. What a cop out don't play games with the question. read previous posts so you don't repeat other people mistakes. read the whole hypothetical

isthatuThreads: 4 Posts: 1,627 Joined: Jun 8, 07 ♂	Jan 23, 08, 16:36 #164
matthias wrote: for them to work together, no common language(makes it harder to communicate), funny,this was a western inteligence idea re the old USSR,no commen language,sure the regulars may speak russian but the vast "herds" of reservists came from all over USSR...

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Jan 23, 08, 16:38 #165

Europe will get their energy from somewhere else if needed....and Russias gas- or oil fields will be fighted over so it's not said Europe can't get resources out of Russia still.

And how many WMD's can you use in such a war when you still want the territory somewhat useable in the case of your victory?
It isn't said that either Russia or Europe will use the really heavy stuff at all...

In times of needs other rules will be applied...there WILL be a common EU army and she wil be motivated and have the best weapons available!

(The common language is english I think)

PS: The whole of Russia doesn't need to be destroyed! Neither must be all russian soldiers annihilated...delivering some punches to the warmongeres might be enough already!

matthiasThreads: 4 Posts: 1,577 Joined: Jan 9, 08 ♂	Edited by: matthias Jan 23, 08, 16:44 #166
common language is english(somewhat) its not like everybody speaks english in EU. But everybody speaks Russian in Russia. Yes you won't be able to use the land but victory is based on who can cause more damage. Where will EU get their oil. But the time it will take EU to secure supplies. War will be over.

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Jan 23, 08, 16:53 #167

No...victory is based on who get's the decision maker....who get's to remove the war mongerers!

As long as the war mongerers can give orders (and that are often only very few people) a huge army will obey....remove them, support the opposition and you don't have to destroy a whole country!

The way you propose (a war till destruction) would be actually very stupid as you would play after the rules your enemy calls...if an enemy is stronger in brawns you have to use your brain instead!

MatyjaszThreads: 2 Posts: 1,786 Joined: Jul 20, 06 ♂	Jan 23, 08, 17:01 #168
isthatu wrote: Qualify that remark. Those same Cowards faced down the USSR for 60 years while your country got into bed with the reds. If only you had been that brave in 1945, ehhh...

matthiasThreads: 4 Posts: 1,577 Joined: Jan 9, 08 ♂	Edited by: matthias Jan 23, 08, 17:04 #169
Bratwurst, this is a hypothetical. It is a war to complete destruction. Lets not change the meaning of the question to support our previous posts.

♂

Edited by: Crow Jan 23, 08, 18:02 #170

Bratwurst Boy wrote:

no war EU - Russia...never!

well, imagine how Serbs advance to return on Kosovo and with them Cossacks arriving, while German government pushing Kosovo independence (in order to create Greater Albania) and giving orders in that dirrection to German troops which are on terrain.

I think, everything is possible. Impossible is only that Germans win down there on Kosovo of our ancestors.

P.S. Don`t count on NATO. NATO won`t help you. For sure, other Slavs won`t ride with you against Serbs. In fact, in a moment, could be quite opposite- same as in WWI when complete Czech, Slovak and Polish regiments turned to Serbian side before and during Cer battle. Austrian Commander- Potyorek committed suicide due to humiliation seeing how Austo-Hungaria was fragile when faced with Serbs.

aj, zdravo nemac

♂

Edited by: Sadek Jan 23, 08, 18:06 #171

isthatu wrote:

isthatu

he is ignorant and he doesn't know history ... so lets leave his arguments until he will show that he knows the whole issue ... anybody will defend his argumentation ? anybody form our region ?

as to Russian army ... have you seen their military force in small cheuchenia Russian army is their nuclear wepons ... in convencionaly conflict alone France would smash them.

but I see mith of Russia is very strong ...

♂

Edited by: Crow Jan 23, 08, 19:41 #172

Sadek wrote:

in convencionaly conflict alone France would smash them

well, history remembered that France had chance. But, fortunately failed in 1812

French invasion of Russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon's_invasion_of_Russia

It was really good chance during Napoleon and plus Russia was concentrated all her efforts on Balkan fighting Turks, to liberate Balkan Slavs, to provide her access to warm seas.

Turks almost were beaten, due to tremendous pressure of Russians and Serbs who rebelled against Turkish occupation and then Bulgarians, Greeks. [BDW, only Albanians were loyal to Turks back in that time.]

But then, France suddenly attacked Russia, Russians were forced to retreat from Balkan leaving us alone with Turks. You can`t imagine how many Serbs was slaughtered in those days by Turks, many were sold to slavery in Arabic countries.

Western parts of Europe profited a lot of from Serbian/Slavic disaster and wanted to preserve status quo of Turkish presents in Europe, to continue deals with Turks. I clearly see. I see deeper. Napoleon and Hitler, both were on the same job after all.

See what famous Serbian-American (of Serbian origin) scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla (internationally considered to be one of the greatest minds of human kind ever) said in his book My Inventions, 1919:

``Hardly is there a nation which has met with a sadder fate than the Serbians. From the height of its splendour, when the empire embraced almost the entire northern part of the Balkan peninsula, and a large portion of what is now Austria, the Serbian nation was plunged into abject slavery, after the fateful battle of 1389 at the Kosovo Polje, against the overwhelming Asian hordes. Europe can never repay the great debt it owes to the Serbians for checking, by the sacrifice of their liberty, that barbarous influx.``

http://www.serbnatlfed.org/Archives/Tesla/tesla-theeuropeanyears.htm

From greedy western Europeans Serbs got only treachery and hate. Its not they who are Western. We are but, they managed to have more money then we have. For money they bought title `Western`. We shall see what would future bring

♂

Edited by: matthias Jan 23, 08, 20:20 #173

France is the weakest out of all the military powers in conventional warfare. In conventional warfare France would have a hard time with Poland let alone defeat Russia.

Sadek by your logic America must be weak because their having trouble in Iraq. No if America wanted to win Iraq they can bomb the hell out of the country but at what cost(millions of innocent lives lost and trillion dollars worth of ammunition) leaving them open to attack from other countries. Same thing with Russia in Checnyia

♂

Jan 24, 08, 02:08 #174

Crow wrote:

Germany is deeply involved in actions against Serbs on the Balkan. Lusatian situation, i won`t even comment. German pressure on Slavic West and South is traditional, from time to time they even manage to endanger Slavic East.

How can Serbs rely on Russia if Russia collaborate with Germany? Germany should be blocked to interfere in Slavic interests, stop to germanize Slavs.

I`m afraid that Russian-German collaboration on the long run can harm Russian-Serbian relations. BDW, its not pleasant to Serbs when we see destine of Poles between Germany and Russia. To underline- while i understand German intentions, i am deeply confused with Russian deals with them against Poland. Following that logic- Serbia can come on `menu`, same as Poland.

Sure, we perfectly know that germans thanks to their deep selfadmiration hate Russians as all around them. But thy also deeply involved in our relations based on our negotiations. Also we know that their contempt toward russians is deeply mixed with admiration and fear.

♂

Jan 24, 08, 02:56 #175

matthias wrote:

nukes?

When are you going to get it into your extremley narrow mind that when it comes to nukes, it doesnt matter how many.

isthatu wrote:

Not to come across tree hugger likebut

Unfortunitly isthatu when you don't take the yank gun-ho stance with this guy, you just a dirty tree hugger!

Bratwurst Boy wrote:

(The common language is english I think)

Now let's see. We've got Poles, Russians, Serbs, French, Vietnamese on this English language Polish forum! Yep. Your right!

matthias wrote:

France is the weakest out of all the military powers in conventional warfare

Again your talking out of your a$$.

♂

Jan 24, 08, 04:10 #176

isthatu wrote:

matthias wrote:
for them to work together, no common language(makes it harder to communicate),

funny,this was a western inteligence idea re the old USSR,no commen language,sure the regulars may speak russian but the vast "herds" of reservists came from all over USSR...

Heh, do you really think that in our army soldiers speak on the Russian? I'll disapoint you we use here rather different or may be specific russian dialect, which include only foul.

♂

Edited by: Sadek Jan 24, 08, 05:20 #177

Russian army is (still) weak, whole power are nuclear wepons rest of army is weak. Their ships sink, morale is low. Last time they spend some money but they have to spend hundrets of bilions $ more to make it 50% of strenght form cold war ...

matthias wrote:

Sadek by your logic America must be weak because their having trouble in Iraq. No if America wanted to win Iraq they can bomb the hell out of the country but at what cost(millions of innocent lives lost and trillion dollars worth of ammunition) leaving them open to attack from other countries. Same thing with Russia in Checnyia

5 years ago Russian officers were seling wepons for Cheuchenians (their enemies) ... maybe something has changed but still ...

united EU would smash Russia.

lesserThreads: 7 Posts: 2,014 Joined: Oct 19, 07 ♂	Jan 24, 08, 05:33 #178
Sadek wrote: united EU would smash Russia. The EU will never be really united. This is utopia.

♂

Edited by: ConstantineK Jan 24, 08, 05:49 #179

Sadek wrote:

Russian army is (still) weak, whole power are nuclear wepons rest of army is weak. Their ships sink, morale is low. Last time they spend some money but they have to spend hundrets of bilions $ more to make it 50% of strenght form cold war ...

;-))) I suppose, no I am sure that all who invaded in Russia had thought that Russian army too weak. What the resalt was? Please, do not say me that polish troops seized Moscow Kremlin. I am stressing it, the result was in al cases the same, they were not only evicted but elso had loosed their own pride and territory.

♂

Edited by: Sadek Jan 24, 08, 05:58 #180

ConstantineK wrote:

;-))) I suppose, no I am sure that all who invaded in Russia had thought that Russian army too weak. What the resalt was? Please, do not say me that polish troops seized Moscow Kremlin. I am stressing it, the result was in al cases the same, they were not only evicted but elso had loosed their own pride and territory.

Russian birth rate is one of the lowest form all over the world, all we have to do is wait ;-))) If I were Russian I would look on China not on EU or USA as potential enemy ;)

that is why you must sell mineral resources for EU not for China

all in all f Mongolians conquered Russia for longer time ;-) (if you want history lesson)

special map in Russian ;) for you

POLAND . The Unofficial Guide.	Unanswered \| Archives
POLAND . The Unofficial Guide.	Poland for Expats and Tourists	Witamy, Guest \| PF Members \| Gold Members

Home \| Unanswered \| Archives \| Random \| Statistics	Time in Poland: 03:52 / Feb 9
About Us \| Contact Us \| Rules, Privacy \| Poland Advertising	© 2005-12 PolishForums.com