[CaptainHaplo]

Nato without the US would lose - badly. *Edit - even conventionally - with the US - Nato would lose*

This is NOT because the other Nato countries lack effective military equipment or good soldiers.

It is however because without the US, the remaining parties would never agree on a general strategy or leadership. Each would end up bickering over the forces it dedicated, and how they were used. Alliances work when everyone is on the same page - and the US has been able - from a position of strength - to keep Nato on close to the same page. Without that agreed focus, you end up with exactly what was stated before - the "EU" trying to run a war. Given the fact that the EU can't agree on much of anything - overall leadership in a Euro/Russian conflict would be nonexistent, resulting in each country doing its own thing. In other words, chaos.

Now, lets assume for a moment that this was somehow overcome. A unified, well led EU force invading Russia. How would it go? I still have to say badly. Look at how each side has prepared for the feared "ww3" - the Russians being offensive, and Europe being defensive. To that end, the forces have trained to those tasks. EU fighter pilots train for defensive missions, over their own territory, inside their own radar coverage. The ground troops rarely practice offensive (counterattack) scenarios compared to defensives missions, and when they do - the counterattack is not run in extended ranges.

While the Russians are on the flip side of the coin, its alot easier to defend than attack. By definition, defense means the other guy has to win - where as a defender - you simply have to "not lose". I know it sounds like the same thing - but in combat - its not.

Next, look at the balance of forces. I am going to assume we are talking Russia proper and the still associated satellite states, versus a reunited greater Soviet "Republic". They may not have the largest army, but the Russians have VAST stocks of wargear wharehoused away. Remember their idea was quantity over quality. In war, the russians would conscript HUGE numbers of personell to put to use that equipment.

Attrition - compounded by the defensive posture of Russia, would greatly go against the EU forces. Add to that the ungodly supply situation (as European Nato forces STILL have not standardized a supply system), and I can see the battle being almost WW1 like, a stalemate where the only true "progress" is possible in the air war.

The air facet is the only one where the EU may hold some advantage, but it would be insufficient to break a ground stalemate. The advantage comes from not only the technology side, but also the vast frontal area the Russians would have to defend. However, within 1 month, that advantage would be gone, via redeployment of forces as well as attrition.

Two more factors must be raised in this. The political, and the economic.
Economically, Russia does need hard currency, though not as badly as it did. It gains ALOT of this currency through the sale of energy to western europe. At the flick of a switch upon commencement of hostilities, that needed energy would no longer be available. Thus, the economic ability of the EU to carry out a war would be seriously compromised.

This then impacts upon the political. How secure are those various governments going to be when their own people are in the dark, going hungry and cold? Especially since they will be the "aggressors" in many of their own citizens eyes. Those governments are going to be facing a lot of civil strife should they attempt to pursue such a policy.

As for the war going nuclear - such a thing is highly unlikely. Given the guidelines you put forth regarding this hypothetical situation, there is simply no line of thinking that can make a good arguement for a nuclear facet. Remember - only 3 NATO members have nuclear weapons in their arsenal. With America out, that leaves France and Great Britain. Neither would risk the backlash - worldwide and multifaceted (political, militarily, economically) - to conduct an offensive nuclear strike. The cost - even without a retaliatory strike by russia - would be too high. Yet the Russians WOULD strike back. No leader will sign off on such a order, because it would be signing the death warrant for his own country. Whatever survived the retaliation would be a world pariah.

With that said - there is ONE possibility of it going nuclear - but that would be in a very contained way, in which no counterstrikes would occur. This would occur if for whatever reason the russians found themselves unable to defend their motherland. Then - I would expect to see the Russian military and political leadership sacrifice their own in DEFENSIVE nuclear strikes - over their own territory - or what would have been theirs but may have been taken during the conflict by EU forces. In doing so, no EU civilian targets would have been hit - instead it would have been former russian targets - thus removing any ability of the EU to have an excuse to "retaliate". This would stop any EU advance cold as well.

Given the scenario as postulated - I have to say there really is no way for Western Europe - even on one page - to win such a conflict. Not in today's political and economic climate. A couple of decades from now, who knows. But in today's world the Bear would win.