America or Russia may dominate Europe in a PO collapse

energycity · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 22, 2008 Posts: 124

Idealists imagine that in the event of a sudden Peak Oil collapse national borders will be respected and countries well endowed with resources will be left alone to organise decentralised rural idylls. But is this very likely based on the experience of human history?

A country with nuclear weapons has tremendous power merely by threatening to do the worst. When world resources are very short the incentive to use this power might become much greater. Especially if democratic governments have fallen and states are led by extremists.

Scenario 1
America is either not in a position or has no interest in protecting Europe (perhaps too busy fighting in the Middle East or tied up in subduing the Americas). As a result Russia has freedom to threaten Europe with some of its 2000+ nuclear weapons. No conventional war is necessary. Russia’s elite will occupy Europe’s palaces and finest houses. Europe is forced to provide tribute to Russia in the form of food, energy, cheap labour and troops for foreign wars.

Scenario 2
America is willing and able to offer protection to Europe against Russia and China. In return Europe supplies troops and equipment to fight Russia and China in a succession of resource wars around the world. In any important matter America commands and Europe does what she is told or has her protection withdrawn (or worse).

Scenario 3
Europe is allowed to organise its own affairs (not necessarily inconsistent with either scenario 1 or scenario 2 if the “Master” is agreeable). Within Europe the over populated well-armed nations decide to migrate millions of their own population to an annexed nation/s blessed with a low population and healthy resources. The aggression is tolerated by other European nations as they themselves are left alone (and perhaps sweeteners are offered in the form of a share out of spoils). Pacts and treaties between the most powerful nations are drawn up in a carve up of spheres of influence.

Or is this all unrealistic?

dissident · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 417

Why in hell does Russia need Europe? It isn't a source of resources but would be an infinite sink for resources dedicated to keeping control. The west should learn to distinguish between its phobia driven fantasies and reality.

IanC

Take home lesson from the 20th Century :

DON'T PISS OFF THE GERMANS

I don't think the Europeans will accept being dominated by anyone.

-Ian

Fredrik

Twilight · Expert Joined: Mar 02, 2007 Posts: 2971 Location: UK

mkwin · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jun 01, 2007 Posts: 596

The only advantage Russia has is its massive tank reserves.

The EU has double the military personal, the same amount of airpower, 8 carrier battlegroups, 6x the military budget and a dominate navy and 500 nuclear weapons. Russia is not going to be invading Europe anytime soon. Even if the US deserted NATO.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

GASMON

dorlomin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 05, 2007 Posts: 1061

The Russian tanks are largly poorly maintained and of an absolecent age, T-80s, T-64's and T-55's. The 3rd shock army may have put the fear of God into the British fromation in Germany the BAOR in the 80s but 20 year of technological advance in terms of AFV and anti tank weaponary means it will be Leopard IIs and Challanger IIs that the Russians would face not Chieftans and Leopard Is.

Also Europe no longer stops 2/3rds of the way through but Poland to Bulgaria and even Turkey is a close ally that peak oil may bring closer. Also when discussing Russia always always always always look East. With the PRC on its Eastern flank it can hardly go about invading the Ukraine and Poland now can it?

In a rapid decline scenario, Saudi and Russia perhaps shedding 6% pa Europes much better infrasturcture and much stronger renewables industry will mean it will be in the pole position to take the lead in economic power down management.

If one includes Turkey then Europe also retains a contiguous border with much of the worlds gas producing regions, Russia, the FSU, Iran and the ME. In the event of a crisis one can simply dismiss the Erdogan factor and point that the Attaturkian generals will be back in charge and keen to do a deal. The old Ottoman Prussian axis would be revived as the core strategic alliance upon which the world would swing.

And please never EVER account to the fighting qualities of a nation by there easy civilian lifestyles. Id have thought that Bataan, Bastogne and Guadal Canal would have taught the Americans that. Hitler planned much of WWII as did the Japanese based on near racist assumptions about the fighting qualities of the Brits and Yanks.

MustaphaMond · Coal Joined: Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 8

Scenario 1 not likely Russia has got bigger problems on the Amur river
Scenario 2 Not likely America is broke cannot afford to offer protection

Scenario 3 is in my opinion likely but there is a dynamic which I don't believe you address.

The US is going to make one of its foreign policy objectives of the 21st century the annexation of Canada, and the Europeans collectively or individually will not allow it. (Think Yugoslavia circa 1900.) Their own survival in form of food and other resources is dependent on Canadian independence.

Historically US annexes its neighbours territories in three ways.
1. Buys them (Louisiana, Alaska, Florida, etc.)
- Not likely they are broke
2. Goes to war with them (Mexico, war of 1812, War against the Spanish)
- Not likely China, Japan & Europe would go nuclear on them.
3. Overruns them (Texas, California, Oregon)
- Likely, expect large numbers of English/French speaking soldiers on the ground turning back American Homesteaders, If Canadians want to remain independent.
I don't expect the Canadians to do this themselves, Turning back heavily armed families will certainly reduce your life expectancy and only desperate people soon to be found in Europe will volunteer.

energycity · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 22, 2008 Posts: 124

MustaphaMond · Coal Joined: Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 8

I was thinking more along the line of Canadian Foreign Legion, Mercenaries have an unerring ability to knife you in the back.

Agreed with Australia, Americans might come to their aid in return for big slice of the resource pie, but Indians & Indonesians might prey on the Australians as well.

New Zealand is such a long way away, I think places like Phuket are closer to London than Wellington. Plus if Australia was invaded and sea levels rise expect large numbers of Aussis and South sea islanders to turn up.

dorlomin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 05, 2007 Posts: 1061

Australia could be a nuclear power in a matter of about 2 years from the word go. It is also about the harderst country in the world to invade. It is HUGE empty and dry. The amount of supplies you need to keep an army going out there would boggle the mind. To keep a troop marching you are going to need about half a liter of water an hour, and you only have a very small number of usable roads. The other option is to come down the side of a huge continant and try to force a landing somewhere near Brisbane. Without a fleet of forrestal + sized carriers you are not going to force a landing in the face of the RAAF. I cannot see anyone having the military option on the table against the Commonwealth of Australia other than the US.

Post peak oil Indonesia is going to be lucky to hold together. It is not a genuine nation state but a collection of nations bound together under the yoke of an unpopular state. Its economy is more geared for cheap oil than many other third world states as it used to be an oil exporter quite recently.

China is not by instinct an expiditionary millitary force. Nor are they remotely kitted out to be one.

India has one problem that sits over its head like the sword of Damoclese. Water. Water and yet more water. It is horribly dependent on oil (diesel) pumps to keep aquifer water running for its farmer. That plus Pakistan on its NW flank should ensure that Indias ambitions are very local indeed.

btu2012

btu2012

In my opinion all scenarios are quite unrealistic. First of all Europe has more leeway than some think in its military options. Also it is unlikely that NATO will disintegrate unless some major crisis takes place.

Second, European security vis a vis Russia and China depends crucially on the Black Sea region, and in particular on NATO's ability to attract Ukraine and Georgia -- something which is afoot as we speak.

Another factor is the position of Belarus, which might change if they get rid of the current pro-Russian Stalinists who are in power there.

Russia seems to be heading pretty fast towards a form of crypto-fascism, so indeed there is a mounting security concern regarding their intentions.

The US is extremely unlikely to invade Canada, a form of federalization is as far as they would consider going.

The position of Germany is crucial for European security, as has been correctly pointed out.

Regarding the EU's Eastern borders, the military situation of the new border states is also of central importance. Their armies need to be modernized as fast as possible.

Regarding nuclear weapons, Europe has a sufficient deterrent which it could increase very fast if necessary -- even without US help. Russia's nuclear weapons are only useful as a defensive option (as are Europe's).
_________________
only the paranoid survive

BigTex

If Russia ever seriously threatened Europe, Europe could just bring in some Afghanis to defend them.

Aren't elaborate foreign military campaigns a symptom of an empire in decline?

Russia has plenty to keep it busy within its borders.
_________________
Smile