Discussion on the invasion of mother Russia (hypothetical)

[HunterICX]

I think History has told us plenty of times by now that invading Russia will result in no victory for the invaders.

HunterICX

[Oberon]

The EU couldn't even invade Liechtenstein

[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.

[Max2147]

I've done some reading on a potential Cold War era conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The consensus seemed to be that NATO *might* be able to thwart a Russian conventional attack without going nuclear, but it would be a very close run thing at best.

Since the defender has the advantage in warfare, there's absolutely no way that NATO, even with the US, could have attacked Russia with any hope of success without using nuclear weapons. They wouldn't have even gotten to Berlin, much less Russia itself.

Things are different today, but the general balance of power is still the same. NATO still has the technological upper hand over Russia, but Russia has a numerical advantage in terms of soldiers and equipment. If you include Ukraine as open territory, then the border between Russia and NATO is a lot broader than it was during the Cold War, but a broader front favors the side with the numerical advantage (the Russians).

So even on a purely military basis, Russia wouldn't have much trouble beating off the Europeans. If the EU had American help, it would be closer, but still not enough to pull off a successful Western attack.

But the real reason why an attack would fail is the political/economic factors. As Haplo said, the Europeans would be crippled by their own political infighting. Being attacked tends to wipe out dissent and infighting, but being the aggressor tends to magnify it. The Europeans would never have the united political will to even start an attack on Russia.

Then there's the resources issue. An attack on Russia would cause Russia to cut off its natural gas pipelines to Europe. It would rob the Russians of a big source of income, but it would be even worse for the Europeans, who would suddenly lose most of their natural gas. If the international community sided with the Russians (likely, since the Europeans would be the aggressors), then the Europeans would also lose much of their oil supply.

So in short, it would be a complete disaster for the Europeans, which is why they'll never even think about trying it.

[nikimcbee]

I say hard to say also, as NATO is run by a bunch of whimpy pacifist nations (currently). Obama is too busy with converting us to socailism to worry about Europe. On the flip side, Russia can bearly handle the chechens.

I say both side collapse on day one.

Wait, Russia would win. They would turn off the gas/oil spigot, europe cries uncle.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Invasion of mother Russia

Ok here is the scene NATO have declared war on the Russian federation for some disagreement over oil in the arctic, the USA have decreed they will not enter the war unless absolutely necessary so that major power is out.

What is "absolutely necessary". I can see the United States not want to get involved, seeing that their addition may well lead to nuclear war and that's not much of a win for anyone. Perhaps their hope is that Europe wins? Of course, this would likely mean NATO won't get up the spine, but let's keep to the scenario.

Please discuss in a civilised manner possible out comes for this hypothetical war.

First, this war is going to be the best thing that happened to the Russian Army since the Soviet Union. All those crummy instituniks who suggested than an army prioritize fighting "low intensity conflicts" over conventional war will be discredited, if not shot.

Second, assuming NATO actually puts together an attack, Russia is going to have NATO armies penetrating to operational depths. The problem is a sheer lack of quantity, which virtually eradicates any possibility of a real defense. Do you see FIVE combined-arms (motorized rifle or tank) brigades, even if they were brilliantly armed and equipped, guarding the whole huge Moscow Military District? The other military districts are all in similar shape (Leningrad has 3), and even piling every division and brigade onto the Western frontiers still leaves it very porous.

It is not like NATO got a huge number of divisions either, but they still got more than Russia. Just Poland got 4 divisions. Germany got another 4. The Brits got about 1 or 2. Italy got a whole bunch of brigades. The other countries can probably squeeze out a few brigades. This is a simplistic "rifle count" - but remember I'm not counting all the problems the Russians have either.

When the defense is that hollow in comparison to the ground it has to cover, the normal advantage of defense is invalidated and the offensive with its ability to pick its spots dominates. With so much potential ground to use, unless NATO decides to go only for the big roads it has a lot of space to maneuver. The end result would be a large number of meeting engagements (not even hasty defense versus hasty attack). While's NATO orientation is not offensive operational level manuever, it does have tactical level attack ability which will serve it well in those engagements.

The end result would be a farce. NATO does not have the troops to occupy even marginally such a large area of ground. Just the same, they can raid Western Russia to operational depth at will, simply due to the lack of defenses. However, they won't be able to raid to the strategic depth except by air or SF because they don't have to troops to safeguard supply lines. What will probably happen is that the Russians will eventually mobilize and make a comeback, and then the border gets "plugged". Peace comes at about this point - as Haplo said, NATO is probably starting to miss its oil by then.

The Russians will be wary of going onto the attack because then NATO will be forced to mobilize. And while it is not hard to see America missing out on a war invading Russia, if Russia starts going deep into Western Europe (perhaps because NATO expended all its regular formations in the attack on Russia and now the Russians are advancing into no man's land), the Americans might feel obliged to make some gesture.

Probably what would happen, if the going gets good for Russia, is that they'll take a chunk out of Poland and those frontier states to call it their win and buffer, then cement a peace. Nobody wins this war, unless you count the Russian military, which will likely get the funds it needs even if it means breaking their citizen's backs. That's why it won't be fought.

How about Europe and Russia attack the US?

[Letum]

If anyone felt seriously threatened it would go nuclear.
No one will have the logistic back-up for an invasion of anywhere after that
for quite some time.

Small tactical incursions mights be possible, but no one is going to try and
occupy the nuclear wasteland or the smaller cities that remain relatively
intact.

[SUBMAN1]

Airwar was mentioned above - NATO, outside the F-22 or B-2, has absolutely no penetration capability. Their fighters were built for defense. Only the B-2 and F-22 remain the only offensive types air platforms in existence.

Russia, with its new SAM's, will knock everything else out of the sky that even approaches. There is no getting away from them. You are dead by flying into enemy territory. Huge air losses would result with NATO's aircraft wiped out in the first week.

Why do you think America build the F-22 and B-2? Without it, there is no platform capable of any enemy penetration. Period.

-S

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

How about Europe and Russia attack the US?

Only thing that would happen probably is that russia would get alaska... which isnt mutch, some polarbears... maby alittle oil

Youall would have to ship troops over... we have them already here...

Unless youall nuked us... then we would fire all are nukes more that likely.
thats how it would go.

president would go into his bunker... say im sorry sukas to all of us... and press the big red button...

... thats my guess.

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Airwar was mentioned above - NATO, outside the F-22 or B-2, has absolutely no penetration capability. Their fighters were built for defense. Only the B-2 and F-22 remain the only offensive types air platforms in existence.

Russia, with its new SAM's, will knock everything else out of the sky that even approaches. There is no getting away from them. You are dead by flying into enemy territory. Huge air losses would result with NATO's aircraft wiped out in the first week.

Why do you think America build the F-22 and B-2? Without it, there is no platform capable of any enemy penetration. Period.

-S

we dont know what the us has made over at area 51... they may have something that can outrun a SAM...
If we could destroy the SAM sites... then there out of the pictures

[Biggles]

If NATO is stupid enough to start a war against Russia, then they deserve to lose...

[Task Force]

Yea, biggles would have to learn russian... cause your right near the border...

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Yea, biggles would have to learn russian... cause your right near the border...

Sweden ain't in NATO mate, but I can see your point

[Task Force]

Trust me... once russia gets the ball roaling... The wont stop till they own all of europe... Im sure they could have down it in ww2 if they would have declared war on the rest of europe.