>Do you not realize that the US is the only reason Russia doesn't steamroll all of Europe?
Do you not realise the US is the only reason Europe doesn't enjoy friendly relations with Russia and access to that colossal market for European goods and, in return, access to equally colossal supplies of cheap energy.
Wake up and smell the bloody coffee! The US is the direct or indirect cause of most of the conflict in the world today. You're like Oceania. Your entire economy and political system is based on there always having to be 'An Enemy". Today it's Russia, yesterday it was ISIS, the day before that it was North Korea, the day before that The Taliban, The day before that Iran... the day before that... and so on, ad nauseam. Who will it be tomorrow?
The US has been at 'war' with <someone> continually since the end of WWII --yet somehow you never seem to consider the merest possibility that the fact you're continually getting into fights with other people might j-u-s-t p-o-s-s-i-b-l-y be because it's actually you who are the 'Baddies'... and not [at one time or another] everyone else on the fucking planet!
No, the fundamental reason Europe doesn't enjoy friendly relations with Russia is because Europe is liberal and Russia is not. I'm not an American either. The US has enough of its own internal problems and their military actions aren't ones where millions of Americans settle on the territories they fought on so I don't buy the argument that their political or economic system is based on having an external enemy. It certainly wasn't that way before WW2 nor afterwards, especially given how big their domestic market is. The reason they have been consistently involved in international conflicts is primarily because they were violently against Communism spreading around the world. Most things stem from that. Take your examples, North Korea is a direct hold over from the Cold War. Taliban/ISIS is religious extremism that came about from Cold War conflicts. Iran is because they are a threat to America's ally in the Middle East, Israel, which was only created post WW2 and heavily involved in several Cold War conflicts.
>No, the fundamental reason Europe doesn't enjoy friendly relations with Russia is because Europe is liberal and Russia is not...
Are you for real? Europe [and its puppet-master the USA] enjoys cordial relations with some of the most odious regimes in the world because they're 'on our side'. It's kindergarten stuff and self-delusional to pretend western nations form their relations with other countries based on moral principles.
>I don't buy the argument that their political or economic system is based on having an external enemy. It certainly wasn't that way before WW2 nor afterwards..
Maybe you should do a bit of independent reading and thinking, before making such nonsensical statements:
> Do you not realise the US is the only reason Europe doesn't enjoy friendly relations with Russia
Is because Russia does not have friends. If you think buying his hydrocarbons and shutting up about him being fascist would make you Putin's friend - you've got some bad news coming. Putin doesn't want friends. He wants power. If he can use some useful idiots from the West (like certain German politicians) to gain more power - he will use them. The rest of the Germans are paying for it now.
> might j-u-s-t p-o-s-s-i-b-l-y be because it's actually you who are the 'Baddies'
We considered the possibility, and it's not true. Putin attacked Georgia in 2008, Putin attacked Ukraine in 2014, Putin is attacking Ukraine right now. It's that simple. There are evil people around, and sometimes evil people capture power in some countries. It happened in Germany. It happened in (half of) Korea. It happened in Iran. Now it happened in Russia.
> not [at one time or another] everyone else on the fucking planet!
Everyone else on the fucking planet did not invade Ukraine. Putin did.
2021 is the last year that idea had any leg. A "steamrolling" into Poland, even with a fully withdrawn US army, would be an harder feat than one into Ukraine...
Russian tactics would be completely different for that scenario. There would be a much more massive bombing campaign using the full might of their air force (which is clearly not what is happening in Ukraine) for one. I wouldn't rule out usage of tactical nuclear weapons either if they faced any difficulties.
> There would be a much more massive bombing campaign using the full might of their air force (which is clearly not what is happening in Ukraine)
Why? They've shelled indiscriminately civilian city centres, train stations with civilian evacuations, buildings where civilians have taken shelter. It's obvious they couldn't care less about civilian lives, what is stopping them from using their aviation?
Considering what we saw on the rare occasions they did use their aviation (phones with buttons used to coordinate and communicate, using physical landscapes and maps for orientation, pilots in not the best shape) their air force is probably as good as their army. That is, utterly shit, with terrible maintenance, no morale, missing equipment, etc etc etc.
Shelling city centers randomly once a day is completely different to a widespread bombing campaign similar to Dresden in WW2. You can see the obvious differences looking at the casualty rates on Wikipedia (~30,000 in 6 months vs ~25,000 in 3 days). They also have to maintain their aviation in case of an escalation with NATO.
How they are currently going now in the war which was clearly not planned well at all doesn't necessary mean their performance would carry over to a war with the rest of Europe which I doubt would be this poorly planned. Plenty of military commentators have noted such a point (Michael Kofman as an example).
> Shelling city centers randomly once a day is completely different to a widespread bombing campaign similar to Dresden in WW2
Of course they're different, nobody is arguing the opposite.
> How they are currently going now in the war which was clearly not planned well at all doesn't necessary mean their performance would carry over to a war with the rest of Europe which I doubt would be this poorly planned. Plenty of military commentators have noted such a point (Michael Kofman as an example).
I don't follow. Why do you think that:
a) they have some hidden reserves they're keeping for a potential escalation. It'd be mighty stupid to not use them, or at least some parts of them, for the ongoing war which is going very poorly for them. Their advance is stopped and they're even losing ground on some fronts. What could they be possibly waiting for? It seems unlikely that they've taken Tochkas, T-62s and Mosin-Nagant rifles out of the museums to equip the Donetsk and Luhansk "volunteers" and other cannon fodder, or they'd be buying North Korean artillery shells and pieces, if they really had any reserves left. It's a myth that their best units were kept in reserve.
b) that a war they started, on their terms, and for which they've had at least since 2014 to prepare for, is going to be vastly different than any other conflict. If they can't prepare to invade Ukraine, which is literally a part of the same railway system (which is crucial for Russian logistics), with which they have hundreds of kms of borders to invade through, and which is almost entirely surrounded by Russian and allied land... how could they possibly prepare for anything? Russia doesn't stand a chance against Poland and Ukraine, let alone the whole of NATO.
What? It's Thales who produce Russia's R77M1 guidance systems and some of its avionics, and they are worst than MICAs (let's not even talk about Meteors). Russian pilots get on average less than 80 hours/year of real flights, standard in France in 140, including regular wargames against US raptors and superhornets at both Fox3 and Fox2 distance (some old videos are available on the internet of rafale f2 vs F22 raptor, it is fun to watch)(also, i write engagement distance in full letter because french standard for their rafale is confusing).
And not talking about the difference in Fox3 missiles (because Russia cannot compete), even Fox2 it's not that close, with a time to lock for MICA IM at least twice as short as Russia equivalent on the same plane (and MICAs avionics are better, so harder to evade).
But enough talk about missiles and air to air engagement. What about electronic warfare capabilities? Oh yeah, dependant on Thales designs. Also, do you expect a lot from country whose plane passive IFF isn't working? Yeah, that happened on a Su34 (so, not that old of a plane).
The S400 would prevent too much entries in Russian airspace (although we learned last year than EM disruption was enough to counter it, you still have to find it. I think S400 are better than what a lot of people now expect from Russian modern weaponry). I doubt however they would have anything other than Su57 left after two days of war against EU. And since they already lost two (or is it three?) in six months in ukraine, they only have thirteen left (including prototypes).
Also i'm not convinced of Russian nightime optics, i know they didn't hire Thales for those, but i think they should have considering it took two weeks to spot nighttime Mariupol approvisionment raids.
Why would it matter who produces them? They would be bought where it's cheapest to buy them, that doesn't necessary mean they lack the ability to produce them domestically if needed. Russia's military expenditure adjusted for purchasing power is far more than any individual country in the EU indeed it's more than all the great powers of the EU combined. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/roiw.12536
Russia's air force pilots would be getting more combat experience compared to French pilots whose only would are less active in doing strikes in Africa and the Middle East. This applies to their armed forces in general in comparison to EU armies. I would agree their electronic warfare has been lackluster so far in Ukraine and that sanctions will continue to cause problems but in the long term I am not so sure their effect would be so great if Russia was planning years ahead. Also I would mention there's lots of Russian sympathizers in the EU and the increased amount of espionage that would occur beforehand, it would likely be a lot more brazen than it currently is. I can't find the source right now but recently I read some military commentators talking about how Russia has a much higher industrial capacity than the US currently has too. I would assume this applies to the EU. Even if they lack lots of high tech stuff they can still mass produce more lower tech fighters and so on.
I would be very cautious underestimating Russia's military ability just because of the fuck up in Ukraine. At the start people were calling it the end of the tank in the modern military too but now more wiser heads are prevailing.
Do you not realise that the EU (yes, not Europe, sorry Moldova and Ukraine) has a mutual defense component and includes a nuclear power with a 24/7 nuclear submarine patrol? Nobody is steamrolling the EU.
Not to mention that the state of the Russian army is so poor it could barely steamroll Moldova.
Okay, I will retract my statement to say steamroll up to France (because I believe France would use nukes to defend France). I don't believe they would use nukes to defend other European countries unless they had American backing, you can see even now how weak Europe is regarding punishing Russia, and that's with America pushing them to do so. I will defer to my sibling comment on the state of the Russian army. One thing I actually forgot to mention is that Russia openly does subcritical nuclear weapons testing which as far as I know is not done by any Western nuclear weapons nation which relies almost solely on computer simulations. The US is also (at least publicly) playing catch up on various hypersonic cruise missile technology with Russia and China so I would definitely not risk underplaying their air force capabilities.
Emmanuel Macron, French president for the next 5 years, has already said that he's ready to share the responsibility and power of French nuclear power with the EU. He's been harping for stronger European integration and dedicated EU-wide defence collaboration and forces. French nuclear weapons are definitely on the table in any conflict involving the EU.
Wake up and smell the bloody coffee! The US is the direct or indirect cause of most of the conflict in the world today. You're like Oceania. Your entire economy and political system is based on there always having to be 'An Enemy". Today it's Russia, yesterday it was ISIS, the day before that it was North Korea, the day before that The Taliban, The day before that Iran... the day before that... and so on, ad nauseam. Who will it be tomorrow?
The US has been at 'war' with <someone> continually since the end of WWII --yet somehow you never seem to consider the merest possibility that the fact you're continually getting into fights with other people might j-u-s-t p-o-s-s-i-b-l-y be because it's actually you who are the 'Baddies'... and not [at one time or another] everyone else on the fucking planet!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU