Who would win in a war of Russia v. The World?

[King]

The World = United States, European powers, small allies like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, and South Korea, and anti-Russian freedom fighters within reconquered territories of the restored Soviet Union.

Russia = well, Russia along with crap allies like China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and all those tool dictaor-led countries who do very little (i.e. the 1940s Italy) but watch as Russia does all the work

[dead0man]

Obviously the world.  The US alone could take out Russia and the allies you've mentioned.  Russia's military, while currently improving, is WAY behind what it was 1992.  They don't have enough nukes to "wipe us off the map" and we wouldn't need to use all that many to put the screws to the bad guys.  Air superiority would be enough.  I'm not saying it would be easy or good for the world (although it would be in the long run I'm sure...or at least it should be), but there is just no way for Russia and company to win.  Only Russia and to a much lesser extent China have any ability at all to project power and there supply lines could easily be removed.  The US on the other has built it's entire military behind the idea that any battle we get into will involve us projecting power.  It's amazing how much power the US can drop on any obscure corner of the planet in a very short amount of time.  And variable, well aimed power to boot.

You want to make it a challenge?  Put the EU and all of Latin America on the Ruskies side.  The US/Canada/Japan would still win, but it would be a lot closer and more painfull for everybody involved.

[Colin]

The World but this would be incredibly bloody and hopefully never occurs. Also you forgot India? Whose side are they on? They have the third or fourth largest military so they could be a major contributor to either side.

[dead0man]

The World but this would be incredibly bloody and hopefully never occurs. Also you forgot India? Whose side are they on? They have the third or fourth largest military so they could be a major contributor to either side.

..and Brazil for that matter.  Both nations have some ability to project power.  (although Italy spends more than both on defense)

[Colin]

The World but this would be incredibly bloody and hopefully never occurs. Also you forgot India? Whose side are they on? They have the third or fourth largest military so they could be a major contributor to either side.

..and Brazil for that matter.  Both nations have some ability to project power.  (although Italy spends more than both on defense)

Ah yes Brazil, who's side they fall under will probably be the deciding factor in Latin America in this hypothetical scenario without the use of nuclear weapons.

[Eraserhead]

China is "crap"? I wouldn't want to face that many people.

[dead0man]

They could have 5 times as many people as they do now and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.  1 billion Chinamen can't stop an F22.

[Boris]

depends who strikes first and where they do. Does Russia just invade Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania while North Korea/China cross the DMZ?

[dead0man]

depends who strikes first and where they do. Does Russia just invade Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania while North Korea/China cross the DMZ?

It doesn't matter how or who starts it, the Russians and company can't beat the West.  If you can imagine a way, please explain.

[Boris]

depends who strikes first and where they do. Does Russia just invade Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania while North Korea/China cross the DMZ?

It doesn't matter how or who starts it, the Russians and company can't beat the West.  If you can imagine a way, please explain.

Well, the definition of "winning" would depend upon the objectives of the aggressor. Neither side would have the ability to completely conquer the other side. Although I wonder whether "Russia" as described in this scenario would have the ability to resupply its units given the extremely rapid rate of munition expenditures such a a conflict would entail.

[dead0man]

It would be challenging to occupy Russia, that's true.  But the west could easily bring Russia to her knee's and force a surrender.  In less than a week if we're using nukes.  Less than a month if we're limited to conventional arms.  There is no conceivable way for Russia and her allies to be able to do the same to us.  It's just not possible in 2008.  Maybe you could give a good argument for 1988 or 2028, but not 2008.

[opebo]

During the Cold War we were told that either the US or USSR had enough nuclear weaponry to wipe out human life.

[dead0man]

That was (most likely) hyperbole.

[opebo]

That was (most likely) hyperbole.

Probably, and yet the actual damage would still make a claim that one side 'won' a bit dubious, don't you think?

[dead0man]

Well that was during the Cold War, most of Russia's missile's are mothballed or flat out decomissioned today.  Most of ours are just mothballed.  The world couldn't be destroyed this afternoon even if everybody wanted it to be.  It's very expensive to maintain a large ICBM arsenal at ready to launch levels.  If we went to war with Russia today it would certainly suck for a dozen or so random US cities/military bases, but we'd survive.  Russia's strike capabilities will be annihilated along with a good chunk of Moscow and all quasi important military bases.

It would be a sh**tty week for America, but it would be devestating to Russia.

[Јas]

I don't know who would 'win', but there would be an awful lot of losers.

The scenario also greatly depends on who moves first.

Russia can pretty much bring Europe to a standstill just by turning off the oil supply. Russia has the potential to destroy many major Western cities. Assuming the Russian general population is firmly against 'The World', occupation would be near impossible. The US has encountered great difficulty 'winning' in Iraq - which should be, compared to Russia, a day at the beach.

[JohnFKennedy]

It would be a sh**tty week for America, but it would be devestating to Russia.

Week? That's more than an understatement. The USA may still be left in existence but it would be economically crippled as would Europe and the rest of the 'West'.

[dead0man]

I've never argued this would be good for the West.  Especially not the first few years afterwords. 

But that's not what this thread is about.  It's about who woud win and the good guys would win.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

And I, who, from a few years sometimes told me:

"Argh, you must be crazy with your scenario of WWIII opposing West+Brazil+India and other friends aginst Russia+China+Iran+Venezuela and other friends"

Well, if I'm sometimes crazy thinking about it, it seems I'm not alone...

[CARLHAYDEN]

The central tenant of this thread is seriously defective.

Mainland China is no ally of Russia (neither is North Korea).  If any country is likely to invade Russia it would be China.  If Russia continues spending resources trying to reconstitute their lost empire, they will be in much the same shape as the Byzantine empire was when it sought to recover the western lands, and were eventually conquered by the Turks.

Oh, and while Chavez is a certified nut case, I suspect the people of Venezuela will be taking him out in the next few years.

[Person Man]

This will probably never happen, and if it did, I am guess about a billion people would die and that Russia would be totally dismembered in the surrender. Also, China would be forced to cede Tibet, Xinjaing and Manchuria. Korea would be reunited as well. Perhaps the EU would expand to Moscow's ruins and become a united country.

[Хahar 🤔]

RUSSIA

[dead0man]

RUSSIA

Explain.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't know who would 'win', but there would be an awful lot of losers.

We'd all lose.

[Хahar 🤔]

RUSSIA

Explain.

NO