The EU thread

[Valmy]

Is Romania going to elect a Putinist president and go down the path of Hungary?

It really is like the 1930s.

[crazy canuck]

Jacob, to refresh your memory, this is the claim I was responding to which Shielbh made

Having said all of that assuming the gas pipelines stay switched off and having built this war economy once there is some form of peace with Ukraine - then your economy is built to re-arm and go again (it feels very "deep battle" take the big swing back). If that's the case (and I think it's at least a reasonable possibility) I don't think Europe alone right now would win - and that's even assuming there aren't political challenges (Hungary, Austria - maybe after upcoming elections Romania and France).

If that's not a claim that Europe right now can't win a war against Russia. I'm not sure what it is.

[Jacob]

CC to refresh your memory, this is the claim I responded to:

But the claim wasn't even about what might happen in the future. The claim was that right now Russia would defeat the Europeans and that's just nonsense.  How could the Russians possibly fight against the Europeans while they are bogged down in Ukraine?

I'll quote what I think is a key element of Sheilbh's post that you reproduced:

... assuming the gas pipelines stay switched off and having built this war economy once there is some form of peace with Ukraine - then ...

... and one of the key parts of my post:

... if Russia is no longer fighting in Ukraine...

In both cases we're talking about a potential conflict between Europe and Russia that takes place after the cessation of fighting (either due to a peace deal or due to a Russian victory) and a brief period of restitution. I explicitly referred to a time window of one to five years, and I understood Sheilbh to be thinking of a similar timeline.

It is in that context that I think there's a significant risk that Europe will be unable to respond effectively to a Russian attack to take and hold land from Europe, as outlined in my previous post.

If you know of any analysists who have considered post-war scenarios of a potential conflict between Russia and Europe without US backing and who are confident that Europe can prevail as it's currently constituted, I'd love to read it.

And if your main point is that Europe will be fine if Putin wakes up tomorrow and orders his troops to attack Poland or Estonia, expanding the war to Europe while his troops are still tied up in Ukraine, then I have no argument with you. That is not a scenario I'm particularly worried about.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Is Romania going to elect a Putinist president and go down the path of Hungary?

Potentially. There's a 2nd round

[Sheilbh]

In both cases we're talking about a potential conflict between Europe and Russia that takes place after the cessation of fighting (either due to a peace deal or due to a Russian victory) and a brief period of restitution. I explicitly referred to a time window of one to five years, and I understood Sheilbh to be thinking of a similar timeline.

It is in that context that I think there's a significant risk that Europe will be unable to respond effectively to a Russian attack to take and hold land from Europe, as outlined in my previous post.

If you know of any analysists who have considered post-war scenarios of a potential conflict between Russia and Europe without US backing and who are confident that Europe can prevail as it's currently constituted, I'd love to read it.

And if your main point is that Europe will be fine if Putin wakes up tomorrow and orders his troops to attack Poland or Estonia, expanding the war to Europe while his troops are still tied up in Ukraine, then I have no argument with you. That is not a scenario I'm particularly worried about.

Yeah - this is me being a bit messy on expressing myself.

But I was envisaging that there is a deal in Ukraine and then a period of re-arming and re-stocking for Russia. I'm not a military person so shouldn't use this type of comparison but that's partly what I meant by it being like "deep battle" is my understanding of that Russian approach is that they build and stock up then swing like a battering ram until exhausted, then build and stock up again.

But I get there's slightly confusing time stuff because with right now - I mean Europe's position right now. As I say I don't think any of this is inevitable, it is all contingent and in Europe's hands - but the position right now is that there are serious weaknesses which I also think need addressing starting right now (and I think Merz's position on this is really positive and possibly transformative).

The timelines I'm thinking of are the 2-5 years for a smaller conflict (the Baltics or Ukraine) and 5-10 years for a larger European conflict - which come from the public intelligence assessments by European intelligence agencies. The Danes are at the shortest end, the Norwegians at the longest - both are from the point of a Ukraine peace deal but neither are reassuringly far away.

[crazy canuck]

CC to refresh your memory, this is the claim I responded to:

But the claim wasn't even about what might happen in the future. The claim was that right now Russia would defeat the Europeans and that's just nonsense.  How could the Russians possibly fight against the Europeans while they are bogged down in Ukraine?

I'll quote what I think is a key element of Sheilbh's post that you reproduced:

... assuming the gas pipelines stay switched off and having built this war economy once there is some form of peace with Ukraine - then ...

... and one of the key parts of my post:

... if Russia is no longer fighting in Ukraine...

In both cases we're talking about a potential conflict between Europe and Russia that takes place after the cessation of fighting (either due to a peace deal or due to a Russian victory) and a brief period of restitution. I explicitly referred to a time window of one to five years, and I understood Sheilbh to be thinking of a similar timeline.

It is in that context that I think there's a significant risk that Europe will be unable to respond effectively to a Russian attack to take and hold land from Europe, as outlined in my previous post.

If you know of any analysists who have considered post-war scenarios of a potential conflict between Russia and Europe without US backing and who are confident that Europe can prevail as it's currently constituted, I'd love to read it.

And if your main point is that Europe will be fine if Putin wakes up tomorrow and orders his troops to attack Poland or Estonia, expanding the war to Europe while his troops are still tied up in Ukraine, then I have no argument with you. That is not a scenario I'm particularly worried about.

I have no idea why you're making this argument I'm responding to the claim another poster made. My reference to you was in relation to your claim that military experts also agreed. I asked you who those military experts were and I'm still waiting for an answer for that.

But at least now I understand how you are passing that other posters claim in a way that makes sense. He is proposing a reality which does not now exist and is only a hypothetical that nobody else thinks will happen and so I can understand now why both of you believe in that fantasy scenario.

You have missed is the modifier, "right now". There is no way that even if right now there was miraculously some peace between Ukraine and Russia that right now Russia would win a war with Europe.

It is also fanciful to imagine a world in which, if there was peace, miraculously between Ukraine and Russia, right now that Europe would not continue to increase its military expenditures to meet the threat.

The proposition is riddled with logical error

[Josquius]

That's the trouble with this question really. We are all looking at different permutations.

Europe is added to the Ukraine war right now - nukes are a wild card. But otherwise barring the US or China coming to their rescue Russia is fucked.

Ukraine is conquered and it's strength added to Russia - Europe is in huge trouble.
Assuming a fantasy Ukraine + Russia combined as they are now, then Europe is doomed. Not least because they put a lot of their materiel into Ukraine.
A more realistic one where Ukraine and Russia kill each other a bit more but Ukraine somehow folds - more of a fighting chance but still doom

Ukraine is made into a neutral who keeps out of the way - More of an even fight.
Fantasy version it happens now and Russia just shifts targets then Europe is screwed.
But more realistically with a longer time scale.. . Europe needs to arm up but this shouldn't take economy shattering levels to get to somewhere Russia can be held back.

The Ukraine - Russia war just ends as is but Ukraine remains Europe friendly - Russia can't win. They try something with Europe then Ukraine is there.


Every realistic scenario I can see has Ukraine as part of the European side.
No reason for Europe not to arm up. But I don't see Putin being in any position to roll into Lithuania unless Ukraine is absolutely destroyed or now unrealisitcally flipped .
The worry with Russia I have is more in the post Putin world and what vile warlords get hold of weapons.

Also to reiterate with Russia. They've a very small window of 5 years or so during which the Ukraine experience remains "live". They're also sitting on quite the demographic time bomb.


And another thing to remember... Pre 2022 NATO strategy with the baltics was basically that they were doomed. Russia would grab them and they'd have to be liberated later.
Russias performance in Ukraine changed the equation here to one of holding the line in the baltics.
Taking America out of the picture is shifting that front line again.... Questions to be asked whether the baltic borders is a viable place for Europe to keep it. The changing nature of warfare suggests yes to me.