EU vs Russia who would win in this scenario.?

[Bolverik]

Ok, I assuming that most Russian military programs for the next 15 years was successful or close to it. Also middle east being wasteland I am assuming Russian government have a lot more money to play with than it has now. I also assuming that Russian government in general and military in particular will be more efficient then it is now. Optimistic assumption, but not unreasonable one.

If we count only economic power then Russia has no chance. While Russian economy grows much faster than any country’s in EU not to mention EU in general, difference is too great to matter.

However, keeping in mind that I do not really know a lot about modern military, the situation, in my opinion is not as clear cut as most of you believe for several reasons.
1. While it is true that EU can outproduce Russia by great margin, a very small part of that capability is directed for military production. The situation can change but it takes time. In fact it takes years, so it will not be a factor at first.
2. EU does not have strategic aviation or any notion of how to fight one. At least that’s what I head. On the other hand Russia has. Which means that Russian industry is safe (it is a lot of it east of Moscow anyway), while European is susceptible to bombardment. Missiles are expensive, but a dozen of unguided missiles are less expensive than a factory and Europe is actually small enough for something like Tu-160 to reach any weakly defended target. Especially since one can launch missiles outside SAM range.
3. In my opinion EU’s air superiority in such conflict is greatly exaggerated. Yes, EU will have great force advantage where Air force is concerned, but not great enough for absolute air superiority, which means that European fighters will not operate at will and that RAF will also be a factor. I am not even talking about Russian SAMs which are very good and will also be a factor.
4. While Russian navy is hardly prepared for any sort of major conflict, it does not really matter very much. Since fate of such war will be solved on land.
5. Russia still has huge reserve of tanks, BMPs etc. Granted they are obsolete and in many cases exist only on paper. But it is still huge. You can upgrade tank much faster than you can build a new one.

I am thinking Russians plans will be following:

Mobilize before war starts. Concentrate most of their forces (with mobilization it can be several millions), all Air force and most of SAM regiments in Belorussia against Poland. Attack first. Take out all patrolling fighter as soon as possible, preferably with SAMs. Take out all major military bases and airfields in Poland with airstrikes. Hit all military forces that are near border with missile and artillery barrages. Attack with overwhelming force. In this situation even RAF advantage over European air force will be overwhelming.

In this situation you can write of all European forces within western Poland. Russian forces do not even have to destroy them, just pound enough for them to be ineffective and destroy supply bases. Move fast to German border.
You can say that Russian force will not achieve surprise, but they don’t have too. In fact from Russian perspective it would be better if EU will concentrate as much forces as possible on Belorussian border. I doubt Europe will have enough force to stop such attack without mobilization. Besides if European army will have “They have no chance in hell to win, so they will not even try” attitude (at least judging from this forum).

It is possible to do all that within one week. In fact you can do it in three-four days if you lucky. By that time Germany would not have time to mobilize, but standing army will be ready (at least part that was not in Poland at the beginning).

The course of war will be decided by how fast Russia will be able to occupy Germany (or if Russia can occupy it completely). If Russia manage to do it. It will be able to strike any industrial node in Western Europe almost at will, which means no way Europe will be victorious. Unless Russian goal include outright conquest of all Europe, it will probably means end of the war.

As for other fronts. The best way for Russia will be to find diplomatic solutions. For example does Finland really wants to fight Russia? Especially if initial offensive in Poland is successful. I mean whoever wins in the end, it will not do Finland any good at present. Ok if Russia is losing, then yes, Finland will probably can live with some territory acquisitions, but otherwise? What could possibly be gained by constant bombardments by Russian air forces and navy, possibly even short term occupation (short only if Europe wins in the end).
To less extent same goes for Sweden and Norway.
As for Balkans, I am not sure Greece would want anything to do with this war either way. I know Serbia would prefer Russia to win. Rest of Balkans would probably fight, but they would not add to Europe a lot of forces for the first couple of months. In their place I would wait and see what happens in Germany. If Germany loses there is not point for them to fight. It is not like Russia threatens their countries. I mean purpose of this war for Russia is to have its way with Ukraine, not occupy all Europe. Does Macedonia wants to fight for Ukraine, does Bulgaria?

Even for western Europe it is not war to the end. English or French will probably be more than happy to bomb Moscow into submission so Ukrainian government can “restore order”. But have to fight at its own soil? Possibly even lose? If Germany surrenders they will probably sue for peace.

Keep in mind that I made a lot of assumptions in this scenario. And I am not really military expert, so I might be wrong. I don’t think it is completely unrealistic though. And that is exactly what I read most people think on this forum. For that matter Germany in 1930s had much less chance to win than Russia within constraints of this scenario and it almost did.

 

[Waylander]

Why do I have to think of Tom Clancy when I read this scenario?

Complete surprise and rolling over Poland and Germany because of an initial artillery, missile and air strike barrage?
After a fast russian mobilisation without problems while the EU just stands by and has a look at the events?
Some airstrikes at airbases in Poland as well as SAM-attacks at a hand full of CAP fighters and the european air forces are rendered nearly ineffective?
Tu-160 striking with impunity at some targets in europe?
After the initial walk in the park occupation of Poland Russian forces go on and occupy Germany in record time?

One could go on and on...

Many members here contributed to this thread with hard facts regarding the current Russian and EU military capabilities as well as the economic and structural capabilities of both entities.

But what some others here write is just wishfull thinking and nothing else.

 

[kato]

If US enters war - then Mass Nuclear Usage and then ... nobody really knows =)

The US? No need for that. The same hour EU CAP forces in the Baltics are shot down, Article V (WEU, not NATO) would come into effect, and Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy would request the arming codes for their B61s from the US while France and the UK ready the SLBM on strategic patrol and France mounts the first ASMP to their Mirage 2000N.

One hour later the whole thing would be resolved peacefully. Even if the US denies the NNS states the arming codes for the tactical stuff (in which case they could pack their bags and move out of Europe within weeks), there would be enough strategic warheads kept ready under European national commands to glass all important military targets in Russia in a single strike wave, and Russia is well aware of that.

 

[Grim901]

2. EU does not have strategic aviation or any notion of how to fight one. At least that’s what I head.

You heard wrong. Europe has been dealing with and training to fight Russian Strategic aircraft for over 40 years. There are plenty of occasions where European QRA's have had to launch and intercept, mainly those nations in Northern Europe. The Russian's like to fly just outside of British and Norwegian airspace, forcing us to send interceptors.

It is important to note that for over 40 years all of western europe was training and planning to fight the Russians when they started rolling through Germany, that training and planning won't have disappeared completely. The only difference now is that the Russians have to go through another country or 2 first.

I'd also like to know how the Russians are supposed to strike targets anywhere in Europe with impunity after taking Poland. The bombers may have the range but the vast majority of europes military power is situated in the West. No matter how quickly Poland can be dealt with, Germany will put up resistnce and every second gives the British, French and the other nations time to either nuke Moscow and the advancing tank hordes (as per NATO planning for when the Soviet armour rolled into Germany) or to mobilise their troops on a massive scale.

Total surprise could never be achieved anymore either. Conventional build ups, especially a large Russian one where troops have to be moved across and around the largest country in the world, would be noticed by the EU.

 

[SkolZkiy]

The US? No need for that. The same hour EU CAP forces in the Baltics are shot down, Article V (WEU, not NATO) would come into effect, and Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy would request the arming codes for their B61s from the US while France and the UK ready the SLBM on strategic patrol and France mounts the first ASMP to their Mirage 2000N.

One hour later the whole thing would be resolved peacefully. Even if the US denies the NNS states the arming codes for the tactical stuff (in which case they could pack their bags and move out of Europe within weeks), there would be enough strategic warheads kept ready under European national commands to glass all important military targets in Russia in a single strike wave, and Russia is well aware of that.

And Russian SLBM and tactical nukes would be kept in storage yes??
If US give codes for nukes then it is automatically WW3 with massive missile nuclear attack of US territory. US know that so they will try to attack Russian strategic forces before they could launch BM - but there is a big problem. In such a period all Russian strategic forces will maximally ready for strike - so after getting order max 10 minutes and most of Russian BM would be launched.

and you want to say that all this shit will happen to save Ukraine from Russia?? I doubt

And don't think that in 2030 ABM system would be ready - may be Russian could not make LCD or Blue-Ray but Russia could built good weapons.
US fighters found out this in Vietnam

 

[BuSOF]

EU fighter force, 2023:

Finland: 60 F-18
Sweden: 100 Gripen
Denmark: 48 F-35
Holland: 85 F-35
Germany: 180 Typhoon, 85 Tornados
Poland: 98 F-16
Czech republic: 14 Gripen
Hungarian air force: 14 gripen
Romanian air force: 24 fighters (F16 or Gripen?)
Bulgarian air force: 24 fighters (F16 or Gripen?)
Austrian air force: 15 Typhoons
Belgium: 24 F-35 (?)
French air force: 290 Rafale, 60 Mirage
Portugese air force: 24 F-35 (?)
Spanish air force: 130 Typhoon, 85 F18, 24 F-35 (??)
Italian air force: 120 Typhoon, 130 F-35
Hellenic air force: 290 a/c, most likely mix of F16, F-35 and Rafale or Typhoon.

A total of approx. 1900 fighter aircraft, most of them sophisticated 4. and 5. gen. Many of my estimates are probably wrong but hopefully the should be about right. I did some googling, and used either current figures, or what's on order for each country with some guessing.

IF as the scenario depicts, Russia would dramatically increase her military forces, then my estimates may be conservative...

EU will obtain air dominance rather quickly. Russian army should not be underestimated, but it will need equipment. Unlike previous wars, air dominance should mean good capability to destroy factories producing military equipment.

Russia will simply not stand a chance -- even going nuclear may not give a Russian victory. By 2023 the missile defence shield should be up and running. Some missiles will go through and cause huge astrocities but Europe is a big place and will still have remaining capacity, this will guarantee in EU hitting back with nukes. And unlike the Russian nukes than for for the most part will never reach their intended targets, the few nukes France got will reach their targets.

And realistically if Russia attacks with nukes then the UK and probably also US will get involved. Game over for Russia.

Of course I agree with those that say this scenario is extremely unrealistic for various reasons already given. So I consider it purely a Gedankenexperiment

vivendi

This thread is reaching the point where it turns to a science fiction.

Firstly the combined forces of the United States and Europe have the edge over the Russian Federation. That isn't something that european politicians and societies like . The rift that is opening between the two sides of the Atlantic is EXACTLY because europeans are not happy about their dependence on defense issues. In order to make that "help" unnecessary they warm up the relations with Moscow. So the split-up between Washington and Brussels is happening so the threat of a military conflict is to be avoided.

Secondly the european industry is high-tech but it runs on resource imports.
The Russian Federation doesn't have such high-tech productions but are flowing on natural resources of every kind. Most of the politicians' and industrialists' dream (both in the EU and the RF) is a cooperation on such basis. It is not a coincidence that one of the possibilities to rescue GMs european divisions was a euro-russian coopertion, it is not a coincidence that Gazprom is stepping firmly on the european market etc. etc. etc.
I make the booking for one of the major rent-a-car enterprises worldwide and you have no idea how many european businessmen book cars for business trips in Russia and how many russian businessmen do the same in Europe.

Thirdly the European Union is not a unitary body. And even so the economical cooperation is many times greater than the military one. Everyone realises that it is much easier to establish a cohesion in the economical field and prefers to concentrate there. That is a basis of mutual interest for the europeans. military-political topics aren't.
There is no mutual european conciense of the magnitude the politicians in Brussels tend to proclaim.
Of all the countries in the EU most will despearately try to stand aside from such a conflict. Starting from north to south Finland will 100% perceive such a position. The country is trying to avoid friction with Moscow for the last 100 years. It is a stance the finns are pretty firm about.
Poland and the Baltic states are not that friendly to Russia but even they wouldn't be willing to confront the russians without strong outside support. Recent development about the missile shield sites in Poland and The Czech Republic shows public oppinion on that matter. Slovakia is cooperating well with Russia on defense hardware and energy issues and wouldn't want to change that. Hungary is much more interested in regional Central european politics. Russo-romanian relations have never been easy, but Romania fights with Russia only when russian influence in Serbia and Bulgaria is neutralized. And I don't see that happening in the decades to come. Russian sympathies in Bulgaria are as strong as ever. Greece itself is pretending to play some king of a bridge between Brussels and Moscow - a role only Athens believes in, or at least is trying to impress on the others. Same goes for Cyprus. Actually the other EU members prefer to make business instead of war so. . . The figures for the fighter fleets are wrong for that and for other reasons, namely

Fourthly. I believe that in coming decades fighters numbers would be:

Finland: 40 - 50 fighters
Sweden: 60 - 80 fighters
Denmark: 24 - 40 fighters
The Netherlands: 40 - 70 fighters
Germany: 160 - 200 fighters
Poland: 70 - 100 fighters
Czech republic: 20-40 fighters
Hungarian air force: 20 - 40 fighters
Romanian air force: up to 50 fighters
Bulgarian air force: 20 - 40 fighters
Austrian air force: 0 - 20 fighters
Belgium: 20 - 40 fighters
French air force: 200 - 300 fighters
Portugese air force: 20 - 40 fighters
Spanish air force: 120 - 160 fighters
Italian air force: 140 - 200 fighters
Hellenic air force: 200 - 350 fighters

 

[Falstaff]

Sorry guys but you are wrong. EU without US cannot withstand Russia
and if US would stay away from this EU would be destroyed.

No, SkolZkiy, you are wrong. In numbers, Russia vs. the EU is roughly equal to Greece vs. France or the UK. It's just a no-brainer really. In quality I think it's a safe bet that any NATO member has an edge over the Russian military, that concerns training as well as equipment. Just look at the numbers GD provided.
Russia is a small entity compared to the EU that happens to have natural ressources and a lot of nukes.
As far as nukes are concerned, as I understand it, the scenario is strictly non-nuclear.
I'd like to hear from you why you think that Russia would have any chance in an conventional war, as you just stated your believes.
In brief: the EU has a serious technological edge, bigger and better trained armed forces, a significantly bigger industrial base, produces more of almost any kind of weapon system, so what's your point?

If we count only economic power then Russia has no chance. While Russian economy grows much faster than any country’s in EU not to mention EU in general, difference is too great to matter.

Well observed. Plus it is a very interesting thing to see which sectors of the Russian economy are growing... A little hint here: It's not the high tech industry across the board.

While it is true that EU can outproduce Russia by great margin, a very small part of that capability is directed for military production. The situation can change but it takes time. In fact it takes years, so it will not be a factor at first.

This is wrong. See, I'm a production engineer and I can tell you that in the EU (as in Japan and the US etc etc) the industry is very much capable of ramping up production very, very fast, esp. concerning relatively low tech products like tanks. Although it's WW2 thinking (as Waylander mentioned) I'll stick to tanks: It would be a matter of a few months max to ramp up MBT production to several thousand per year in each of the major industrial powers in the EU. Esp as Germany, the UK, France and Italy already produce or recently have produced state of the art MBTs that's just a problem of setting priorities.
The same applies to all traditional industry sectors, e.g shipbuilding or metal processing. E.g.g the EU today is already producing significantly more military ships and submarines than Russia. That too could be ramped quite fast.
European industry copes with efficiency (do things right) and effectivity (do the right things) as well as with collaboration issues along the whole value chain. Russia simply cannot match this, and won't for several decades.
And, as today electronics are more and more part of a weapon systems the significantly bigger electronics industry in the EU comes in handy, don't you think?
BTW, even if only a small portion of the EU economy is directed at military production, this small portion is still bigger than Russia's military industry. Just check the numbers. You seem to think that it's the other way round.
Other points of your post have been dealt with by the others.

 

[Falstaff]

Firstly the combined forces of the United States and Europe have the edge over the Russian Federation. That isn't something that european politicians and societies like . The rift that is opening between the two sides of the Atlantic is EXACTLY because europeans are not happy about their dependence on defense issues. In order to make that "help" unnecessary they warm up the relations with Moscow. So the split-up between Washington and Brussels is happening so the threat of a military conflict is to be avoided.

Might be that from your end of Europe it looks like that. May I remind you that Western Europe most of all and longer than a economic unit is a cultural entity with millenia of mutual history. This is what many people don't understand. Besides all of the quarrels we've fought and the peanuts we're struggling about today we're brothers and sisters. We are quarreling all the time, but in the end we're standing together. It's a shame that the East European people got torn out after WW2.
WRT the strategic positioning please read the article about the German question that I provided earlier in this thread.

Secondly the european industry is high-tech but it runs on resource imports.
The Russian Federation doesn't have such high-tech productions but are flowing on natural resources of every kind. Most of the politicians' and industrialists' dream (both in the EU and the RF) is a cooperation on such basis. It is not a coincidence that one of the possibilities to rescue GMs european divisions was a euro-russian coopertion, it is not a coincidence that Gazprom is stepping firmly on the european market etc. etc. etc.
I make the booking for one of the major rent-a-car enterprises worldwide and you have no idea how many european businessmen book cars for business trips in Russia and how many russian businessmen do the same in Europe.

And this is relevant in exactly what respect for this scenario?

Thirdly the European Union is not a unitary body. And even so the economical cooperation is many times greater than the military one. Everyone realises that it is much easier to establish a cohesion in the economical field and prefers to concentrate there. That is a basis of mutual interest for the europeans. military-political topics aren't.
There is no mutual european conciense of the magnitude the politicians in Brussels tend to proclaim.

See above. A misjudgement originating in not understanding what the EU really is about. The new EU members will have to understand that the EU was founded in a very special set of circumstances and had a very special reason to exist.
It is perfectly understandable to me that you consider the EU as not much more than something you can squeeze money out of. But the fact that we can afford to spend so much money to rebuild countries that were ruined by your good Russian friends has much to do with the fact that the EU works that well.

 

[Falstaff]

Sorry for triple-posting, but I'd like to add some meat to the scenario with this and this. Enjoy and think about it Perfectly fits here.

 

[Grand Danois]

Fourthly. I believe that in coming decades fighters numbers would be:

Finland: 40 - 50 fighters
Sweden: 60 - 80 fighters
Denmark: 24 - 40 fighters
The Netherlands: 40 - 70 fighters
Germany: 160 - 200 fighters
Poland: 70 - 100 fighters
Czech republic: 20-40 fighters
Hungarian air force: 20 - 40 fighters
Romanian air force: up to 50 fighters
Bulgarian air force: 20 - 40 fighters
Austrian air force: 0 - 20 fighters
Belgium: 20 - 40 fighters
French air force: 200 - 300 fighters
Portugese air force: 20 - 40 fighters
Spanish air force: 120 - 160 fighters
Italian air force: 140 - 200 fighters
Hellenic air force: 200 - 350 fighters

Denmark 30-48 (30 minimum)
Norway 56
Sweden 100
etc...

Anyhow, the premise that is challenged is that Russia has the ability to rearm to Soviet era levels - that capability is gone, and all the Soviet era warstock will have rusted away or will be severely obsolescent by 2023.

What Russia lacks, and this is why civilian sector industry matters, is the production technology that is dual use - this substrata has fallen apart more than anything else - not to speak of the skills management issues of the Russian defence industry itself.

"War potential" of Russia will be in the same category as that of France by 2023.

Also, if Russia was to rearm in this way, EU unity wouldn't be a problem.

 

[SkolZkiy]

So we'll see =)

 

[Falstaff]

That's all? Come on!

 

[outsider]

I would expect that at least some of the major western european countries like UK, France, Germany would be fielding US manufactured Network enabled remotely operated Non-Line-of-Sight anti-tank missiles like "Netfires" by 2023. These will probably reduce the dominance of tanks on the battelfield.

FutureWeapons - NLOSLS (Non-Line-of-Sight-Laucher-System)

YouTube - FutureWeapons - NLOSLS (Non-Line-of-Sight-Laucher-System)

Starts at about 1 min. 30 seconds into the video.

 

[Kolobug]

nfloorl:
You forgot about european atomic power station. Which factories will work without energy?
That the fighter could takeoff the airdrome is necessary too
Cruise missiles also are available in enough

Your FCS is dead, and never reborn.
I am admired of your hopes on antimissile missile

Close this stupid thread, please.
Modelling of flight of a spherical horse in vacuum...

wbw

 

[SkolZkiy]

That's all? Come on!

What do you want to hear? that doubt in war against WHOLE and UNITED EU?? I doubt I even think that Germany, France and Italy won't fight. Even if we attack UK and USA.
Look at our deals with France - Lantirn for fighters, termovisual systems for tanks are sold TOTALLY with LICENSE.
Mi-34 Sapsan with French engine.
Germany - speed-trains by Siemens - Opel probably, NorthStream.

More then this EU has 2000 AC (doubtfully but ok) - and we have most advanced land-based ADS. Which highly integrated into united system with three circles
1- S-300/400
2- Buk, Tor-M
3- Shilka, Tunguska, soon Pantsir
with maximum range 400 km
we have at least 200 MiG-31 and 200 Su-27 in service and don't say they are old - look at those 2000 that EU has right now and tell me that they all are NEW??
More then this - you always remember those story with MiG-29 but you don't want to see that everything is already explored and right now those MiG-29 are been repairing. And of course you don't remember about some problems with F-15 and F-18.
What air superity could be achieved under this circumstances? All its history SU was building it ADS to provide victory even with total air-superity of NATO aviation.

But all these things are un-science fiction. Because Russia would never in near 50 years attack EU. And EU will not give military support to anyone except him own. Because they don't need any causalities. Russia always took back what west or east have taken from her before. Look at history.
1905 - Russia lost to Japan - 1945 Japan totally lost and SU got even more then Russian Empire had had.

And there is one more thing I want to say. There were two accidents last year with MiG-29 and F-18. F-18 pilot lost control and used catapult - plane crashed on a house, several citizens died. MiG-29 lost control but fought with jet to the end - the plane crashed in 500m near the village, the pilot died.

 

[Bolverik]

You heard wrong. Europe has been dealing with and training to fight Russian Strategic aircraft for over 40 years.

Ok I am wrong.

It is important to note that for over 40 years all of western europe was training and planning to fight the Russians when they started rolling through Germany, that training and planning won't have disappeared completely.

All those training and planning included US forces. I am not saying Europe could not developed a new doctrine without US help. But it will take time.

I'd also like to know how the Russians are supposed to strike targets anywhere in Europe with impunity after taking Poland.

Tu-160 flies from airfield in Belorussia after Polish air force was neutralized (1st day of war). Flies over Poland and 200km from German border launches its full complement of missiles (according to wiki it is 12 Kh-55 with range 2500-3000km). Then turns around and runs. All this happens within Russian SAMs defensive umbrella. Maximum speed of F-35 is M1.67. Maximum speed of Tu-160 is M2.02 and upgrated version is probably faster. Interception is possible, but not easy in my unprofessional opinion. I do not think those missiles can do a lot of damage to well defended target. At least not without nuclear warheads. But you can’t put SAMs around every factory, power plant, bridge, port, airport and etc.

nuke Moscow and the advancing tank hordes (as per NATO planning for when the Soviet armour rolled into Germany)

No nukes in this scenario. If nukes were allowed Russian plans would be the following
Day 1: Nuke all European silos, supply nodes, major military bases, major warships, major air bases, major military ports.
Day 2: Demand surrender
Day 3: Think what to do after radiation will spread.

Total surprise could never be achieved anymore either. Conventional build ups, especially a large Russian one where troops have to be moved across and around the largest country in the world, would be noticed by the EU.

Build up does not have to conventional. It could be major training exercise. Say Russian military checks its ability to mobilize forces and their ability to cooperate with Belorussian army. It is logical action considering civil war in Ukraine and uncertain international situation. It will raise alarm in Europe and probably cause to move at least some force to Belorussian border, but will not cause mobilization. As I said before, from Russian perspective it is a good thing. Unless Whole Europe is preparing for war, and for that to happen leaders of all major European countries have to be convinced that war is inevitable, more troops in Poland means more troops destroyed in the first day of war.
For example let’s assume that by 2023 Europe will have something like 1400 fighters, mostly 5th gen, Russia will have something like 200 fighters of comparable strength plus around 200 older fighters, around 200 frontline bombers and around 100 strategic and long range bombers. Let’s assume Europe was able to concentrate all its fighters in Poland or eastern Germany (can’t see how this could happen). Even if Europe seriously expects attack they can’t all fly 24/7. Out of 1400 no more than 300 will fly at any given moment. Which means that despite huge advantage on European side, RAF will actually have air superiority on the first day of war. And all those airfields with grounded fighters will be primary targets.
The same goes for ground forces only more so.
There are four ways to avoid this kind of disaster that I can see:
1. Knowing that attack is coming and knowing exact date and time of attack.
2. Have enough force advantage to absorb this kind of attack.
3. Have enough territory so it will take time for the attacker to occupy it and stretch his line of supply
4. Attack first
Europe would not have enough force advantage in this situation and Poland is just too small. I do not see EU attacking first, so unless it knows exact date of attack (or for that matter that attack is inevitable)

Once again I am not saying that all this is bound to happen, if such situation. I am just saying assuming that just because EU has better economy or more fighters it is bound to win in any such conflict.

 

[Grand Danois]

All those training and planning included US forces. I am not saying Europe could not developed a new doctrine without US help. But it will take time.

No they didn't. US forces weren't really expected to arrive in numbers that mattered before it was all over. Planning, doctrine and command and control all worked without the US.

E.g. The Danish Jydske Div was supposed to move down into Schleswig-Holstein and form up a corps with a German mechanized Div and meet the East German assault there... and the RAF could move up to 280 fighters to Denmark inside 2 weeks to cover the flank (that's what the infrastructure was geared for).

See - no US involvement at all.

 

[Grand Danois]

Look at our deals with France - Lantirn for fighters, termovisual systems for tanks are sold TOTALLY with LICENSE.
Mi-34 Sapsan with French engine.
Germany - speed-trains by Siemens - Opel probably, NorthStream.

There you see - no production technology - except when transferred.

Thermal imaging from France for T-90, strike fighters and bombers.

Multi-axis milling machines from Japan for the critical parts of the nuclear sub propulsion systems.

Various precision manufacturing equipment for the PAK-FA from Western Europe (that's right, it couldn't be made without WE production technology).

You catch the drift, yes?

 

[Grand Danois]

Day 1: Nuke all European silos, supply nodes, major military bases, major warships, major air bases, major military ports.

What silos?

Btw, you are aware that Russia only has 500-800 deliverable nukes? The five-digit number tossed around are paper-nukes which are at least to overhaul-cycles out-of-date.

 

[Knjaz]

Ok, a few cents from me on this scenario. I'd like to just point out some things that u actually missed or didn't know, from Russian side.

Russia will not move further then Poland (Edit: I mean with land forces here). There're no idiots in Genshtab or Kremlin who will be seriously planning this. Not because it is impossible.

After occupation of Ukraine it will be a defensive war for Russia. Whats the strategic target for Russia in this situation? To prevent or end the war asap and stay in Ukraine. Possibly, take over Baltics too (why not, when its soo easy.EDIT: Or not to take over them. all in all, they would have zero strategic importance in war due to tactical nukes and due to other reasons), and hold till war is over.
Why ? Because Russia can not allow to drag it into a bloody loong WW2 year style conflict.
If its impossible to prevent all-out war break out (like we have in this scenario), then i tell u what happens next.

Russia is asking EU for negotiations. EU, as i understand, refuses till Russia leaves Ukraine, which is unacceptable for Russia. And is starting to move its forces east.

Russia declares mobilization.
(Then, we have a crotch.
If EU is going to fight over and bomb Russian forces in Ukraine and other occupied territories (here i mean Baltics. more then sure, that Finland stays neutral in all of this), then we can pretty much end in conventional war, which may force Russia to withdraw.

But as i understand, there's almost 90% probability EU is gonna bomb Russian soil.)

Russia states that if there will be any intrusion/bombing etc on Russian territory it will fight back with full power, including usage of tactical nukes.
Then, after first bombs fall on Russian soil, it becomes clear for Russian military command where this all is going.
Russia starts immediate evacuation of all major cities. All military unit formations are moving on reserve bases. As a last warning, Russia detonates a few nukes at high altitude over Poland/Germany, or on Poland/Ukraine border.(like 1-2), and saying that next ones will go on EU military formations, if it wont stop. (City evacuation and army re-deployment is "just in case" EU wont step back and it will end as all-out nuclear war)
I think from here u yourself can imagine what possibles outcomes there may be.

I especially skipped many moves on EU side because U would know em better then me.

All this talks about "its a non nuclear scenario" is just dreaming. Its as real, as if I'd say "its a no-aviation scenario", or "no tanks scenario".


EDIT: But I'm myself very, very skeptical about Wester Europe going all-out war against Russia over Ukraine. ^^