Image of a soldier with a military
badge wearing the flag of the European Union. Credit: M. Fuba.
"We
are not planning to go to war with Europe, I've said that a hundred times
already. But if Europe suddenly wants to go to war with us and starts it we are
ready right now. There can be no doubt about that. The only question is in what
way. If Europe suddenly starts a war with us I think it will be over very
quickly. This isn't Ukraine. With Ukraine we are acting in a surgical, careful
manner."
-Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation speaking on December 2nd, 2025.
Putting aside the scenario of the use of nuclear weapons by either side
in a Europe versus Russia or a Europe and America versus Russia confrontation,
the idea that Russia would be overwhelmed may sound logical because it would be
a collection of states against one state.
But it is not a sound one.
First of all not all European states of the EU and NATO would fight
Russia. This is why any form of intervention in the war in Ukraine has always
been couched in terms of the combined force of a “coalition of the willing.”
Then consider which army is more battle hardened in a war against a peer
army. Russia would be better prepared because since the end of World War Two,
the U.S. and countries such as Britain and France have only fought insurgent
armies but never against peer armies. France lost in Indochina and the U.S. in
Vietnam and Afghanistan. And the UK and U.S. beat sub-par, non-peer militaries
of Argentina and Iraq.
Russia, which as part of the Soviet Union was forced to exit Afghanistan,
is presently fighting Ukraine, a former part of the USSR which has been trained
and equipped by NATO. This has made it contest between two near peer armies.
Europe would lose against Russia for the following reasons:
1. European armies lack the strength and depth of personnel to confront
Russia. The British army could fit into a 100,000-seater football stadium and
leave spaces. The British army, French army and others would not be able to
replace the professional soldiers who would inevitably die in an attack. This
is why military officers in Poland, Britain and France have called for the
adoption of conscription.
2. Europe does not have air defence cover to protect most of its vital
military and civilian infrastructure. Russia on the other hand is reputed to have
the best air and integrated missile defence system in the world.
3. Europe lacks the industrial capacity to fight a long war against
Russia. Russia has been engaging in industrial warfare in its Special Military
Operation and produces items ranging from artillery shells to drones at a rate
which European analysts admit it would take many years to stand a chance of
catching up with. The financialised economies of Europe have little left of an
industrial base and spend too little on defence. Further, Europe has
voluntarily de-militarised itself by handing over a huge amount of weaponry to
Ukraine, including defensive and offensive missiles - most of which the Russians have repeatedly
searched for and destroyed.
All Europe can hope for is to send troops into Ukraine via Poland (French
President Emmanuel Macron has an obsession with sending French troops to the
Russian speaking port city of Odessa) where they know they would meet their
deaths in order to serve as so-called "tripwire" which would enable
them to invoke the doctrine of collective defence under Article 5 of the North
Atlantic Treaty.
If America declares war on Russia there is little that it would be able
to do to get thousands of required troops to Europe because Russian submarines
patrolling off the U.S. eastern seaboard and elsewhere in the Atlantic Ocean
will sink U.S. ships. The Russians will also destroy undersea cables to disrupt
communication in America and Europe.
Russian military doctrine has for decades been a defensive one. Joint
American and European air power may potentially have some success in breaching
Russia's air defence to deliver painful strikes against Russia, but the air
defence of Russia will likely destroy most aircraft.
In fact, it is open to question whether such air strikes would be able
to be mounted. As mentioned earlier, Europe has very little air defence cover
of its military and vital civil infrastructure. This would leave airfields,
power generating centres and military establishments open to being destroyed by
Russian hypersonic missiles and the fearsome Oreshnik intermediate range ballistic missile, both of which Britain, France,
Germany and others cannot defend against.
The military leaders of America and Europe know these facts.
But the hard facts to not receive airings on Western mainstream media because
military pundits such as retired General David Petraeus are handsomely remunerated
by media networks to maintain the longstanding anti-Russian agenda. The occasional
dose of reality gets through. Retired Royal Navy Commodore Steve Jermy has faulted
the false assumptions of NATO’s power and has pointed to Russia’s capabilities
and the advantages it would have in the outbreak of a conventional war. Another
retired British naval officer Rear Admiral Chris Parry recently delivered the
stark assessment that the Royal Navy is presently “unfit for purpose.”
Nonetheless, speculating on who would win in conventional conflict is a somewhat
futile exercise given that the moment one side begins to lose, the spectre of
an unwinnable nuclear war will come in to play.
©
Adeyinka Makinde (2025)
Adeyinka
Makinde is a writer based in London, England.
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)