Let's start from an imaginary scenario that would probably not happen like this in case of a war against one of these 3 countries.
First, that this war will not be nuclear, and second, that this war will not involve other nations.
In this scenario without nuclear weapons, and with no other participants than Russia and one of its three countries, who would win the war? And what could be the geopolitical consequences?
If Russia decided to declare war on one of its 3 countries, either the United Kingdom, Germany, or France, would one of its 3 countries have achance?
Well, to start, the question is problematic. Under the NATO treaty, of which the USA, the UK and France are all members, an attack (or declaration of war) against one of them would be an attack upon all of them. This prompting a joint response that would negate the premise of the question at the outset. Russia not then at war with one of the states listed, but all three of them - plus their other NATO allies to boot. This at a moment when Russia has no comparable alliance on its' own side, the Warsaw Pact having been disbanded at the end of the Cold War.
Leaving that not inconsiderable point aside, if the question is meant to test the potential capabilities of one state against another, even then certain caveats apply. Specifically, that the circumstances of the war postulated in the question would have a considerable impact on the nature of that war.
Thus, for example, was the war in question an all out conflict or simply a limited regional or local action? What was the cause of the war? These and similar questions would determine the nature and duration of the postulated war and that would have an impact on its outcome.
As a matter of potential, it first must not be discounted that all the powers listed - Russia, the USA, the United Kingdom, France - are nuclear powers with large and technologically advanced thermonuclear weapons arsenals. Suffice to say, that if one side were to see itself close to defeat in an all out war - a more limited war might be different - it might then resort to nuclear weapons as each has the delivery systems necessary to deploy them. Thus, in that event, the likely answer is that there would be no winners. Just nuclear ash heaps where there once was a world.
Leaving also that question aside, in terms of their conventional capabilities, the armed forces of the USA, the United Kingdom and France are highly trained, technologically sophisticated, strategically and tactically highly flexible forces, Their principle weakness being a lack of numbers. Grant that mobilization of reserves (and conscription, in extremis) would improve that somewhat, the fact remains that overall there is a limit on how much manpower the USA, the UK and France can deploy without doing considerable damage to their own economies and ultimately their own armed forces that depend on that economy to give them the sophisticated weaponry that is so essential to their style of warfare.
Russia, by contrast, has huge numbers - numbers that can be expanded, though comparatively slowly, by the activation of reserves (and conscription) - but they are comparatively poorly trained and equipped. This tending to make the Russian armed forces slow and ponderous in action and not terribly adaptable to changing circumstances and expectations. (See also the current Russo-Ukraine War.)
So in that context then, as a general rule - and again, this is a generalization as specific circumstances may alter the answer - the USA, the UK and France would have a distinct advantage in short or limited wars that would allow them to bring to bear their assets at the point of conflict. Russia would tend to have the advantage where it could drag out the conflict sufficiently to allow it time to bring its comparatively huge numbers to bear and gradually drain away the advantages of its' opponent (s).
However, even here there is a caveat. Once upon a time, Russia - or the USSR as it then was - had the second largest economy in the world. That gave it a capacity to pay for and sustain a concerted military effort over a longer period of time. Today, Russia has only the 11th largest economy in the world. This compared to the USA at number 1, the UK at number 5 and France at number 6. Thus giving the latter three a greater endurance in terms of absorbing the costs of a prolonged conflict.
Thus, in the purely military context, Russia has to thread a needle. It needs a more prolonged war to bring its assets to bear, but the war cannot be so long that it allows the USA, the UK and France to mobilize their far larger economic resources. Thus, in the most abstract terms, the slightest of advantages goes to the USA, the UK and France.
However, as noted, the question is far too vague, the circumstances and specifics far too undefined, to make any meaningful answer possible. Not to mention how the element of chance impacts any war. (For example, had the Americans not actually discovered the Japanese carrier group at the Battle of Midway Island as their squadrons were refueling, World War II in the Pacific might have been very different.) Suffice to say the Western powers have on paper an advantage, but it would be better - not least because of the danger of nuclear escalation - not test that proposition.
Ah, you have added the USA in your analysis. I didn't include them because the US superiority is so overwhelming in the military field that in a conventional war without atomic weapons, the US would beat any country in the world one on one.
The US has not only massive equipment but also the best technology available.
I believe you got an 11th aircraft carrier a few days ago, is that right?
Do you realize that 11 aircraft carriers is such an incredible amount of power that it is almost humiliating for other nations. 😅
Actually, I included the USA because I had a bit of a memory blip. When I pulled up the question, I knew which one it was and so did not read it again. Unfortunately, I replaced Germany with the USA. It was a bit of a weird memory error on my part.
Sorry about that.
As far as Germany goes, she has the world's 4th largest economy but her armed forces are not especially impressive. (Mostly a legacy from the memories of losing two world wars, the Germans have not emphasized their armed forces since 1945 except as an adjunct to the other major NATO powers.)
Germany has a qualitative edge in terms of equipment and technology, but the professionalism of her troops has not really been tested since WWII. So while Germany might have at least a short term edge against Russia not unlike that of the UK and France, it would not be as impressive and a contest between Germany and Russia would likely be more razor's edge.
As to the USA and our aircraft carriers, we are a maritime power after all. That said, given that the US Navy's carriers would most likely be deployed against China over Taiwan, those carriers afford less of an edge than the numbers suggest.
The Chinese could operate from unsinkable land bases, while the US Navy would be dependent upon carriers. In other words, the USA would be in roughly the same tactical position with China over Taiwan that Japan was with the USA over Midway Island. Not a very comforting thought.
It does not matter. Of course, the USA is a maritime power and the first in the world but its land power is equivalent.
I understand what you say about Taiwan but the US has a global military presence, while China does not, but especially the US with its alliance networks could face China.
In any case, at the moment I don't see China winning a war against the US.
Besides, if China invades Taiwan, could the US consider hitting only the Taiwanese microprocessor company?
It seems to me that there is a double stake with Taiwan : an economic/technological one with the microprocessor and a national security interest, because if China seized Taiwan, it would break the first chain of islands
Well, as to your last point, that seems unlikely and potentially self-defeating. The USA is committed to maintaining, however, ambiguously, an autonomous Taiwan. Not to mention that smashing the microprocessor industry would be the equivalent of the USA shooting itself in the economic foot.
The USA advocated free trade and - as Adam Smith said - "The merchant has no country." Therefore the USA is now writing computer programs and leaving the grungy business of manufacturing microprocessors to economies lower on down the scale.
The good news is that it means that the USA is engaged in the most profitable side of the tech sector, but has made itself dependent - or as Adam Smith would see it - interdependent on other economies lower on down the chain.
As to the first point, recall that winning a war requires mustering assets at the point of conflict. China would have the luxury of concentrating at the point of attack - in this scenario, Taiwan - and then relying on the element of surprise and unsinkable land bases.
In the long run - and again this leaving out the nuclear element - the USA has the advantage. The only question is how long it would take for the USA to build to that point and if other powers would not exploit the USA as it concentrated against China.
Bottom line, there are a lot of moving parts and unknowable factors to consider that make this a less open and shut case than you suggest. Indeed, the irony is that in NOT having a global military presence the Chinese may actually have a short-term advantage over the USA.
Anyhow, gotta run. I hear the pitter patter of little feet coming down the hall.
I think the French would have the best shot. I think they're a tougher breed than the others. I see how they protest and riot everytime their government gets cute. I don't really see this type of defiance in other western countries. In my country the French are also very united, meaning they wanna stick to their own. This annoys the hell out of anglos but it's a kind of solidarity that is rare, much like Japan wants to stay Japanese and not a mix of everything else. I don't know if France is like this, but I suspect the French aren't all that different the world over. Solidarity amongst the people is important during war. Call or tribalism or jingoism, call it what you want, but a people united under a flag, united by a kinship and a culture and way of life, are gonna be tough to beat in war because they're gonna fight to preserve that. I think the French are more united in this way than than either the British or the Germans.
I know the mythology is that the French are weak and gutless, but if you know something of their military history, that's quite far from the truth. Napolean anyone? World War 1? And there's more but it would take too long to write here. The Americans like to make fun of them, but god oh mighty the Americans couldn't even beat the Taliban, a bunch of fucking goat-rustlers with a few AK-47's, in twenty years of trying. They gave up and left. In Vietnam they gave up and left too. Same with Iraq. And they have the gall to make fun of the French? Hilarious.
France is also ranked about sixth in the world as far as military power goes. That's a serious opponent. But Russia isn't a country. It's a fucking continent. It's 12 or 13 time zones. Conventional warfare means you're gonna have to go there and capture it to win unless you can do enough damage to their forces to make them quit. But historically the Russians don't quit until they're nearly destroyed. They'll take incredible losses because they fear their masters and dictators more than their enemies. And Putin is an old KJB legbreaker with an old school societ mentality. He is greatly feared. I don't think France could win, but I don't think Russia could either. I think you'd be looking at a stalemate or a ceasefire.
Glorious Russia can take control over poorest country in Europe, despite having material advantage and air superiority. Imagine what happens when Russian conscripts who have already zero motivation to fight for oligarchs, have to fight against modern equipped professional units that will have air superiority in case of a conflict.
All of them would flatten Russia in days because the red, white, and blue giant would join in and destroy every Russia plane and vehicle with their planes.
Considering how Russia can't even beat Ukraine, I think any one of those three countries would actually beat them, even though United Kingdom, Germany, and France are all kind of soy (weak) themselves. Ukraine is kicking ass because they actually come from hardship and most of them live tough lives.
Though the United Kingdom, Germany, and France are all countries with woke pussies for their general population of men nowadays (like most of Europe, actually), I still think they at least have REAL men in their armies. Well, at least Germany probably does. The UK probably "canceled" the few masculine men they had left, and frankly, France's most bad-ass men in their entire history were a midget and Joan of Arc. (And yes, I know Napoleon wasn't all that short in real life; but that'd ruin the point I was making.)
So assuming they still have guys who aren't soy beta males in those countries, yes, they'd wipe the floor with Russia, since Russia can't even beat a third world crapsack like Ukraine (no offense to Ukraine, but come on... It's pretty poor.)
@A_Bell Napoleon was 5'6"/167 cm at the time. The modern equivalent for a Frenchman would be 5'9". So both in his era, and by modern times, he'd STILL be short! Just not THAT short! An inch below "average" (not that "average" isn't sh*t tier and awful in every single way, itself).
You're six feet tall and you married a dude who's like 6'5". So don't act like you disagree with me! 😂
I can't even begin to imagine why you think that would happen.
Russia is done, the US through its puppet / proxy Ukraine will defeat Russia before long and a puppet will be installed there.
Then China will find itself with missile bases and such like on or near its northern borders.
Only China can prevent this from happening and if they do it will presumably trigger WWIII.
Well, I say only China can prevent this, really what is required is for us in the Western world to remove the mafia who control us from the shadows but that would require people to actually be engaged politically and most people are just numb and turned off to everything, resigned to their fate.
But assuming we dont do anything then we will either find ourselves in a world like Elysium or life on Earth will come to an end.
Because I dont think China can win, the reason being because the Americans will burn the world before they lose their position of priviledge.
Even if China could win that is unlikely to be good for any of us in the West.
China and Russia are brutal dictatorships. Western democracies may well be corrupt and highly unequal, and hypocritical, but believing that Russia justifiably feels threatened by America and is some kind of victim of an evil cabal of megalomaniacs is utterly fucking ridiculous and is ironic the result of exactly the kind of naïvety conspiracy theorists like yourself always accuse others of.
Perhaps I should point out to you that that is typical of brain dead fucking morons like you who get all their information from their fucking televisions.
This war is not opportune for Biden or any other Western leader. The increase in energy prices will likely cost them their jobs. This war was launched (arrogantly) by Putin, and Putin alone. Even his sycophantic deputies were sceptical, and he publicly humiliated them for it.
@Pot8o Also regarding the energy crisis, the US doesn't have an energy crisis, Europe does.
This is intentional and not the work of Russia.
We decided that we were going to impose 'sanctions' on Russia which what a surprise means we can't buy the gas that we depend on.
Then, America AND IT WAS AMERCIA because you even said you were going to do it, blew up the fucking pipeline, so that there was no chance of it being part of any negotiated peace.
America or rather the mafia which controls it does not want peace, this war which like it or not has been provoked over decades is in the interests only of the mafia.
Russia having been provoked doesn't mean its ok, it doesn't mean Putin is a great guy and it doesn't mean I like wars but to ignore the provocation and repeated warnings from Russia and pretend it doesn't exist is childish? Simplistic? Retarded? Take your pick.
You dont think that America is controlled by a cabal of evil megalomaniacs? Why not? That is literally what all of the evidence tells us must be happening.
Ironic that you're repeating exactly the same BS every gullibe fool manipulated by Russian and Republican propaganda spouts but also telling me to lay off the Kool-Aid.
As you can see from the timeline relations were improving until the US starts acting in bad faith and Russia starts calling the US out on its bullshit.
So there you have it, US is the aggressor, Im sorry that reality disagrees with your world view.
First, I must say that wondering who would win without the use of nuclear weapons is a little like asking who would win a war without guided missiles, or drone warfare etc. Nuclear weapons are the status quo.
You also make the assumption that Russia would invade these countries—actually put troops and tanks into them and planes. The biggest obstacle to any military campaign is logistics. Supplying men and material to the front. The further from Russia the front is, the further their supplies lines would be, the longer it would take to reach the troops where it is needed.
Also, how would Russia attack France without going through Germany? How would they reach Great Britain? They would have to go through their territory and airspace. Would this be permitted? Of course not.
What about the fact that all these nations are members of NATO. An attack against one is an attack against all. In your question you ask about an attack on ONE nation. Are we also presuming that there is no NATO in addition to no nuclear weapons?
I don’t say these things to be contrary, because you are my favorite GaGer, but I study military history, international relations, and geopolitics. It’s a simplified question you’ve posed about one of the most complicated endeavors in human history—waging war.
Britain is more a naval and airpower these days with a Corp of well trained and equipped infantry. The British military minus the naval element is roughly the size of the US Marine Corp in men and equipment so the Russians would really have trouble achieving any kind of victory against Britain in a conventional war. Germany is militarily weak. They have one of the best arms industries in the world with good tanks like the leopard 2, the eurofighter, tornado and produce some of the best small arms in the world like the G36, IAR27, HK 416. Basically anytime the US military has a tender out for military equipment the Germans compete for the contract and often win. They have a lot of ex Russian military equipment but the German military has been allowed to rot. France is probably the the 3rd or 2nd most powerful military on the planet. In a straight out conventional fight the French would defeat the Russians.
I agree with what you said about the UK and Germany. But for the French army you overestimate it largely. We are probably the 7th or 8th largest army in the world. We have very high tech equipment but we don't have much of it, the French generals estimate that in case of a high intensity war, in the current state after one week we would run out of ammunition etc.
Everything the French has is as good or comparable with every other NATO country. French Generals and military chiefs do what we do in the US which is too downplay their military capability. Russia on the other hand does the opposite and we've seen the truth in Ukraine. What gives the French military the edge is that not only is it the 7th or 8th larges in the world but also that its up to NATO standard technologically, is well trained, well equipped and has a lot of experience in the last 20 years.
@Julie4, I will post a response - probably tomorrow given that I have three little people in the house who have soccer games today - but I want to give @uslegionary a real thumbs up. He nailed it!!
Frankly, to hear you say that he overestimates the French army? I am pretty sure that if I look outside right this moment I will see the Four Horsemen riding across the sky. It must be the end times!!!
Anyhow, @uslegionary is bang on. Numbers by themselves don't matter quite so much as you (@julie4) seem to think. The French armed forces, besides having the Force de frappe, are of exceptional quality and sophistication. Not only in terms of the technological sophistication of their equipment, but the quality of their training and manpower and their tactical and strategic dexterity and flexibility.
By contrast, the Russian, Chinese and Indian armed forces, although they have huge numbers, are ponderous, inflexible and not quite cutting edge in the technological sophistication of their equipment - though in the Chinese case this is improving. Of course, much depends on the nature of the conflict - how such a scenario as you lay out could happen escapes me - but in a theoretical straight on one on one, @uslegionary is right.
All of them have a great chance, I am retired military and the Russians screwed up their attack on Ukraine so bad, and they can even hang on to what they got. Seriously it was a shit show and their equipment can not with stand American armament. The Ukrainians are tearing them apart with should fired Javelins and American Artillery pieces. The Germans, French and British already have all the same weapons as the USA and some of the stuff they have it even better. Russia would have zero chance against any of them.
The second part to this is that the Russian people have zero will to fight, the Russian Government has to force them to fight. Let them invade a Western Power all those people will come out of the wood work like Ukrainians to defend their country.
If Russia did attack any of those Countries the USA would be there in a minute and then the Russians would be seriously fucked.
So all of them have a 100% good chance of breaking Russia's ass off.
Any of those would provoke World War III. Given Russia's inability to make significant gains in Ukraine, I don't think they'd win the war. I just dread the fact that there would be so many nuclear powers involved. I want to believe that Mutually Assured Destruction is still the deterrent it once was, but Putin seems a bit unhinged and if he's backed into a corner, figuratively speaking, I'm afraid he might actually go that route.
Germany would be the easiest to attack via proximity. They also have never rebuilt a huge military since WW2.
I am guessing the UK would the toughest to conquer for several reasons. Nazi Germany decided to invade Russia instead of England given the UKs powerful naval defense. It would be very tough for Russia to mount an effective invasion
France has a capable close quarters team which I imagine would make short work of tracking down and picking off key individuals. Germany would blow their equipment off the face of the earth and Gunn them down and the EU would call the US to deal with them and then we would fry them with a space Lazer or something
What do you mean "win"? Nobody "wins" in a war between nuclear powers. You think either nation will just give up without firing nuclear warheads in a last ditch effort? And just speaking about pure land mass: it takes way less nukes to fuck up any of the individual European countries, cause Russia is huge and not densely populated. So that's something to be considered.
Seems like people are only selectively reading what OP said. No nukes, no allies. One nation vs one nation.
We see how Russia’s ground forces are holding up against Ukraine, who themselves aren’t even most advanced military. UK is damn near on par with the US. Great Britain would absolutely wipe the floor with Russia in a boots only war.
Russia has and always will bluffed about its strength. The Russians don’t want this war. They probably don’t want Putin either but they have no choice. The country is so corrupt it’s probably going to revert to how bad it was after the Berlin wall fell.
A while back I heard a statement it take russia 3 days to over run the UK based on the difference in military size. But given their performance in Ukraine I'm not convinced they'd do well against any Western power.
Individually if all militarily bulked up all 3 would definitely have a chance, but would be under pressure without outside support.
However collectively those 3 definitely rival Russia.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
1 y
That's hard to answer. Because Russia military is mostly defensive strength (armor and such). France ironically would fair best against Russia. But there's so many factors to consider here. Is France invading Russia or is Russia invading France? Is it a proxy war elsewhere? But at any rate it doesn't really matter. Because an attack on one member of Nato is an attack on all.
The UK would defeat Russia on their own, and so would Germany (though very costly), but France wouldn't. The UK has a lot of the same technology and training that the USA does.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > If Russia decided to declare war on one of its 3 countries, either the United Kingdom, Germany, or France, would one of its 3 countries have achance?
