Backstory events sliding toward Nonfiction

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Seems alot was agreed last night.

 

Lets hope it stays that way till the end of march at least.

 

Let's hope it sticks and does not turn out to be a "Yugoslav" ceasefire

Edited February 12, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[BlackAlpha]

This wouldn't be the first ceasefire. So, I'm skeptical.

[Philipp]

I am sceptical too. None of the crucial points have been resolved, most importantly, Russia is still free to send troops, weapons and supplies over the border. And the state of the Debalzewe pocket is not resolved, so I guess both sides will just fight it out until Sunday?

Looks a lot like Putin is stalling, maybe he wants to see if he needs to get out or can push it a bit more. And he averted US weapons, at least for a now.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I am sceptical too. None of the crucial points have been resolved, most importantly, Russia is still free to send troops, weapons and supplies over the border. And the state of the Debalzewe pocket is not resolved, so I guess both sides will just fight it out until Sunday?

Looks a lot like Putin is stalling, maybe he wants to see if he needs to get out or can push it a bit more. And he averted US weapons, at least for a now.

 

Agreed. I doubt any of the issues have been resolved. he Russian seperatists may very well take a bit motre territory if they can before the ceasefire and will use it as a lull to resupply and regroup. I suspect none of us will b surprised if the war is remewd in a few months in the spring after thhe rasutitsa season

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa

 

So most likely fighting will be renewed in April or May

[Battlefront.com]

Here is a question about the scenario in June 2017. Once war breaks out between Russia and Ukraine

1 Why did the US and NATO send forces into Ukraine?

Because a more aggressive US President would have. The backstory is that the NATO forces were parked on the west side of the Dniepr as a "red line". This is obviously a little bit of a stretch, but not too much. It was talked about very early on in the crisis.

But something went wrong and fighting, perhaps initiated by the Russians either deliberately or more likely by mistake and the situation escalated out f control before anyone knew what was happening.

Yes, that is the story's primary principle. It is also what NATO leaders have been very concerned about since Crimea. There is a lot of things that NATO could do that are both morally and legally correct to help Ukraine. As we can clearly see, those sorts of lines of argument are not respected by Russia and therefore considered hostile actions from their point of view.

Would you agree these assumptions best fit the circumstances of the scenario? If you do then the North Atlantic Treaty very likely ca be invoked under Articles 4, 5 and 6. Even more likely if the original move into Ukraine was under NATO auspices and command - which would make a lo of sense gven the region and the circumstancesof the crisis.

Yes. The idea was the original move was done as a result of Article 4. Article 5 and 6 (which is kinda automatic) came about due to a military miscalculation by one or both sides.

Steve

[dan/california]

Tell me the price of oil in May, and I will tell you how frisky Putin is feeling.  If the Saudi's leave the taps wide open his internal problems may be much more apparent by then.  If we are back at $75 or better its going to be long hot summer in Ukraine.  Of course If I had any inside info on the thinking of the House of Saud I would be typing this from a very nice villa in Aruba.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Because a more aggressive US President would have. The backstory is that the NATO forces were parked on the west side of the Dniepr as a "red line". This is obviously a little bit of a stretch, but not too much. It was talked about very early on in the crisis.

 

The Russians would obviously soon know NATO forces were manouvering into Ukraine once the order was given but they would still be tring to occupy as much Ukranian territory as the could. I suspect at this point the Ukranian army would, of course be pretty badly mangled to say the least (this would be a week to ten daysinto the crisis and the Ukranian army likely will have tried o defend the Easten border and the Eastern half of the country

 

As the Russian army approaches the Dnieper the situation will likely be confused with Ukranian remnants withdrawing and trying to set up a defence of Kiev, US/NATO units moving forward t draw the "line in the sand" Most likely, as US units move up a battle breaks out between Russian and Ukranian forces. A junior Russian commander spots a US unit but mistakes them for Ukranians and opens fire. The US unit returrns fire and things escalate ut of control from this point.

 

War by mistake. And  at this point it is too late to stop events from taking their course. In some ways June 2017 is very similar to August 1914.

 

It might be more sensible for NATO forces not to be positioned in Ukraine at the start of hostilities except for advisors. NATO forces actually deployed in strength i Ukraine along the River Dnieperwould most likely deter ussia from any military action at all. It would make sense to have some heavy NATO forces deployed in Poland just in case. An aggressive (or perhaps ill dvised) US President orders the deployment into Ukraine within a day or two.

[Philipp]

The backstory and the US campaign make it sound like Russia invaded when there were essentially no US troop in Ukraine except for advisors and such. Only after Russia crossed the Dnepr did US forces enter the country in force to save Kiev from falling.

The red line makes sense, "You cross the river, we strike back!" In this kind of scenario I don't think it would be fair to blame a junior Russian office for causing the war by accident. Sounds more like a US president drawing a line he was sure the Russian would not cross. But then they did and to keep his credibility he had to order the troops in, at least for some time. Miscalculations on the political level.

I doubt that all NATO parters woul join in on a war that some might say was caused by recklessness. But who knows.

The problem NATO is in is obvious: Taking an aggressive stance could ignite the conflict even more, and I don't think the EU or the US actually want Ukraine as their partner/puppet/whatever all that much. Not enough to start a war.

Letting Russia get away with what they do on the other hand is equally dangerous. Who knows what they might go for next time if they think the West ist too weak to stop them anyway.

Glad I am not a politician...

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The backstory and the US campaign make it sound like Russia invaded when there were essentially no US troop in Ukraine except for advisors and such. Only after Russia crossed the Dnepr did US forces enter the country in force to save Kiev from falling.

The red line makes sense, "You cross the river, we strike back!" In this kind of scenario I don't think it would be fair to blame a junior Russian office for causing the war by accident. Sounds more like a US president drawing a line he was sure the Russian would not cross. But then they did and to keep his credibility he had to order the troops in, at least for some time. Miscalculations on the political level.

I doubt that all NATO parters woul join in on a war that some might say was caused by recklessness. But who knows.

The problem NATO is in is obvious: Taking an aggressive stance could ignite the conflict even more, and I don't think the EU or the US actually want Ukraine as their partner/puppet/whatever all that much. Not enough to start a war.

Letting Russia get away with what they do on the other hand is equally dangerous. Who knows what they might go for next time if they think the West ist too weak to stop them anyway.

Glad I am not a politician...

 

To some extent I agee with what you say here Phillip.

 

US Foreign Ploicy decisions/those of the NATO leaders who went along with it would indeed be regarded as unwise, possibly foolhardy in retrospect. Whtever the poutcome certain NATO leaders are going to be in serious trouble politically. At he very least the will be pilloried in the press. Some might later be forced to resign. There may even be moves to impeach the US President for the decisions he took that led to the outbreak of the war.

 

As regards the incident between NATO (probably US) forces and Russia this is essentially a "Sarajevo Moment" Something like this very nearly happened at the end of the Kossovo War. In June 1999 Russian units occupied Pristina Internatioal Airport. They had actually been sent in for peace keeping duties. The US commander Geeral Wesley Clark wanted to send French and British paratroopers to be flwn in and seize the airport by force. It was thought the Russians were about to deply further units of paratroops to Pristina. Hstorically British commanders vetoed plans to use NATO Troops to try to occupy the airport

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Pristina_airport

 

Had Clark's plans gone ahead it might very well have resulted in a military clash that would very likely have ignited a major war/

 

Something much like this but much nastier and far more violant is likely to be what gnites the2017 war. At distance troops and armoured vehicles can be misidentified. The Russians have been fighting Ukanian forces for the last week or so and therefore the Russias see what they expect to see - Ukranian troops. particularly as this.is what they expect to see You are aware of the speed and violance of modern warfare.He who fires first often wins.

 

Now look at this from the perspective of the local US commander. Your rders are to occupy a lne but for political reasons your orders are not to fir first, but you may fre in self defence. You have just come under fire from Russian forces - in other words you have just been attacked. Following your ROE you return fire. A full scale battle begns. Maybe there are one or two more situations like his/ More senior commanders interpet this as a surprise Russian attack  on US/NATO forces. They respond accordingly. Senior Russian commanders looking at this fom the other side of the lines see a NATO attack. NATO has just taken sides with he Ukranians. This is the "Barbarrossa II" we always feared from NATO. We must respond in kind - we are now at war!

 

Withi hours there is heavy fighting right along the line.

 

The US claims that Russia made an unprovoked attack which is what the above wouldlook like and calls a meeting of the NATO Council invoking the Nrth Atlantic Treay. How other NATO nations react will depend on a lot of things? Did these governments support the original intervention or not? Some won't want to get involved. Others. probably including countries such as he UK and the Eastern European coutries who have a history with Russia are likely to be more supportive.

 

This political process will probably take a few days. But, s previusly indicated theRussians are nt going o hang about. They have he initiative at he moment and they are going to use it to pre-empt possible NATO military actions. As in 1914 War Plans will be opened and military frces will begin to implement them. In 1914 the Germans had the Schlieffen Plan. Very liklely the Russians will have a simiiar plan to be used in the event of war with Ukraine. Vladimir Putin picks up the phone to 6th Army ~HQ in St Petersbur.

 

"General Smirnov implement Operation Zhukov" General Smirnov opens his safe, pulls out the file for Oppertion Zhukov, sees is the plan for the Russian invasion of the Baltic States and hisstaff begin to issue the neccessary orders. Much as the German generals would have done in July 1914 with much the same results. Europe is now in the midst of a full scale war. Nobody knows and propably few will gre tha the whole thing is a horrible mistake and, even if anyopne wants to stop his it is too late to do so.

[Battlefront.com]

As the Russian army approaches the Dnieper the situation will likely be confused with Ukranian remnants withdrawing and trying to set up a defence of Kiev, US/NATO units moving forward t draw the "line in the sand" Most likely, as US units move up a battle breaks out between Russian and Ukranian forces. A junior Russian commander spots a US unit but mistakes them for Ukranians and opens fire. The US unit returrns fire and things escalate ut of control from this point.

I think you should refresh your memory about what the back story says

According to our story Russia pushed in "peacekeepers" unilaterally into Donbass after "separatists" caused a ruckus and Russia claimed it had to restore order. The Russian units tasked with this duty were not designed to take territory, but rather occupy it. It's pretty obvious this was, in fact, what was supposed to have happened back in Spring 2014 in real life, but Russia decided it was too risky and did not go that route. This is not the time or place to discuss what really happened, so I only mention this to show the similarity between what we predicted and what almost came to pass.

IN REACTION to this event NATO slips a force into Ukraine to serve as a "red line". NATO could do this within 1-2 days even today, not to mention in the hyped up scenario we have in our backstory. This is inside Russia's decision making cycle and, therefore, they could do absolutely nothing to stop it from happening. Russia is already gearing up for a larger conflict if need be, and after a clash with Ukrainian forces that is what happens.

 

War by mistake. And  at this point it is too late to stop events from taking their course. In some ways June 2017 is very similar to August 1914.

Yes, but it would still be confined to Ukraine as I've outlined before. If Russia tried to expand the war, it would cease to exist as a nation state very soon there after. NATO, on its part, has no desire to widen the war either since it has nothing to gain by doing so. Therefore, the unintentional war is fought exclusively in Ukraine according to our backstory.

 

It might be more sensible for NATO forces not to be positioned in Ukraine at the start of hostilities except for advisors. NATO forces actually deployed in strength i Ukraine along the River Dnieperwould most likely deter ussia from any military action at all. It would make sense to have some heavy NATO forces deployed in Poland just in case. An aggressive (or perhaps ill dvised) US President orders the deployment into Ukraine within a day or two.

That is of course another possible backstory, as is the one we chose for Black Sea. It is sensible to stick with the story we created because we're not changing it

Steve

[Agiel]

I've found this excerpt to be shockingly relevant these days:

 

[sburke]

That's an interesting argument. Could you post a link to that article?

 

My country is indeed in a strange postition in this crisis. During the Schröder government, there was a drive to closer ties with Russia, as a kind of counter-balance to the transatlantic relationship, which was highly strained by the 2003 Iraq invasion. This also played well in the German population, where there's quite a bit of latent Anti-Americanism. It also scared the eastern NATO countries quite a bit, for obvious historical reasons.

 

Now, the Merkel government needs to roll back some of this closer relationship with Russia (even if it means damaging the German economy and troubling her coalition partner, the social democrats). However, I find it highly unlikely that Germany will find itself in a postion of actively opposing Russia with anything besides economic sanctions. This would not work with the current coalition government, and it would also be at odds with the majority of the German population.

 

The only way this might change, in my opinion, would be in case of an active military threat against Poland or the Baltic states.

Sorry took me a while to find it, not one of my usual reads. I won't vouch for the article, but it is an interesting thought anyway.

http://theweek.com/articles/538617/putins-greatest-fear--nothing-american-weapons

[vyrago]

A very interesting article.  Experts have said recently "poker, not chess is Putin's game".  He's proven to be very good at this 'new' game, but the German angle does add some thought.  To stay on topic, I look forward to seeing more NATO units, along with new OPFOR units in CMBS.  

[Skinfaxi]

A number of leaders of such groups were killed or captured. And please, don't anybody try to challenge me on this as there is ample photographic evidence and the separatists themselves have stated, very clearly, that they were attacked by Russian special forces.

 

You asked me if I had a 1/10 of a brain. May I ask you back, if you really believe, if Kiev would have captured Russian soldiers, that they would not show the whole world this evidence?

But I guess questioning your statements is against the rules.

 

The largely unsuccessful separatist offensive has also neutralized many others thanks to Ukrainian artillery.

Whatever your sources are, they are not good:

 

[Rokko]

Can't comment on your brain capacities, but clearly your memory sucks

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11056312/Russian-paratroopers-captured-in-Ukraine-accidentally-crossed-border.html

[Battlefront.com]

You asked me if I had a 1/10 of a brain. May I ask you back, if you really believe, if Kiev would have captured Russian soldiers, that they would not show the whole world this evidence?

 

They did, they do, and they will continue to do so. But those who do not want to believe what they see continue to dismiss the evidence. Just like some say there is no evidence of The Holocaust. And you are going of topic again.

 

 

But I guess questioning your statements is against the rules.

You don't understand how to stay on topic, as you just demonstrated yet again. Which means I will most likely have to ban you for good. Well, to the extent possible. I have suspicions that you have already been banned before. Many times, in fact. But that's not something I can prove definitively so I am stretching my patience to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Whatever your sources are, they are not good:

I'm more than comfortable with my sources. They have repeatedly been proven true and they make sense.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Can't comment on your brain capacities, but clearly your memory sucks

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11056312/Russian-paratroopers-captured-in-Ukraine-accidentally-crossed-border.html

He'll just dismiss this as he will everything else. So I'm going to ask everybody to kindly "Do Not Feed The Trolls".

Steve

[Skinfaxi]

Can't comment on your brain capacities, but clearly your memory sucks

But this article does NOT claim these soldiers were fighting. Not even the Ukrainians nor the Western media claimed they were fighting. Why do you claim what not even western media claimed?

Battlefront claims Russian troops were FIGHTING in Ukraine and that there were numerous evidences. I want to see these evidences. You not?

[Skinfaxi]

They did, they do, and they will continue to do so. But those who do not want to believe what they see continue to dismiss the evidence. Just like some say there is no evidence of The Holocaust. And you are going of topic again.

Did you really just equalize denying the Holocaust with questioning the claims of one side in the Ukrainian conflict?

 

You don't understand how to stay on topic, as you just demonstrated yet again. Which means I will most likely have to ban you for good.

 

You claimed the separatist's offensive failed. Why is questioning this statement going off topic?

Why are you acting so aggressively? All I ask for, is that you support your claims like I do.

 

Here is a screenshot from a news program in the German TV ZDF from yesterday evening - this means it was broadcasted BEFORE the agreement in Minsk was reached. Additionally one cannot say the German state TV was not a pro-Western propaganda outlet. That's what it showed:

 

Frontline in September:

 

Current frontline:

 

Despite the fact that they explicitly said that the rebels made progress against the Ukrainian army, does that look like a failed separatist offensive?

And this image, although shown many hours before the agreement, fits with the agreed demarcation line of today nicely.

 

Well, to the extent possible. I have suspicions that you have already been banned before. Many times, in fact. But that's not something I can prove definitively so I am stretching my patience to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You banned me for four days with very shady claims. But your new accustions or conspiracy theories cannot paint over the fact, that you make claims, but when I ask you for evidences, you become aggressive and threaten a customer to be banned.

In my opinion this would be already bad behaviour from a moderator, but for a company it is totally unacceptable.

I am wondering why you are acting that way? Do you think this is good for your business, if you attack customers or everyone who is not blowing the propaganda trumpet of NATO?

Do you believe it is good for your company - for ANY company - if it raises severe accustions against a country (Russia) and it's president? Why are you doing this at all? If you would be paid by the Pentagon, I could understand this.

 

Could it be that you are funded by the Pentagon or the US government?

 

I am asking because such a behaviour from a small independent game developer does not make sense business wise. Or are you really that unprofessional, that you use Battelfront for your political agenda?

 

You repeatedly claimed Crimea was "annexed".

Don't you know that the right of self determination is one of the main principles of international law? Why is a small software company making such severe accustions?

 

You are making a fine simulation, why are you playing NATO-politican? Why are you posting your political judgement about foreign countries and their governments, instead to give customers a short feedback, when they have discovered a bug which would take only a fraction of the time?

 

If the Minsk agreement will hold, it is not too far fetched that the US claim, that Crimea was annexed will be dropped like a hot potatoe. Don't you remember what the USA argued when in Yugoslavia several regions declared their independence?

Russia knows it. The EU knows it. The world knows it. But Battelfront not? So why are you exposing your company without any need?

 

The claim, this was an annexation of Crimea was made for obvious political reasons, but doesn't hold the facts: It was the free will of the Crimean population. Any repeat of the vote would deliver the same result. The correction of the mistake of Chrustchev was long overdue. The Crimeans claimed their right of self determination. But your company calls that annexation?

I think it is not good if companies are used for personal political agendas or if they are exposed that way.

 

I'm more than comfortable with my sources. They have repeatedly been proven true and they make sense.

Like the failure of the separatists offensive and the advance of the Ukrainian army.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Skinfaxi

[sburke]

IBTB!!

[Battlefront.com]

Not surprisingly, I just banned Skinfaxi. Here is the reasons for it, not that I think he will understand or care.

1. He is going wildly off topic. This is NOT a discussion about politics of current events. This is certainly not the place to get into a discussion of what happened in Crimea.

2. After being off topic once, and being warned about not doing so again, I was obligated to ban him for continuing his behavior.

3. He was warned that if he continued he would be banned for good. He decided to not heed this advice and is now banned.

4. Attacking me is just stupid I take a lot of heat, but I have my limits. Especially from someone who was already banned.

5. I'm highly suspicious the poster is Steiner14, who has been repeatedly banned for exactly this sort of behavior on exactly the same sorts of topics. I can't prove it, so I could be wrong.

Posting here is a privilege, not a God given right. When a moderator says "this is the way it is", that is the way it is. If the individual is unhappy about this sort of thing, then he is free to go someplace else to behave as he wishes. If the community is unhappy with the moderation, the too can choose to go somewhere else.

After 16 years and 1.5+ million posts I'm pretty sure we have a pretty good handle on how to keep a community together as well as protecting it from those who are deliberately here to cause trouble.

Steve

[Sublime]

I cud see steiner. Personally i thought it was our red.army.paratroopers are on.your roof now baron jacquinot

[Battlefront.com]

I've found this excerpt to be shockingly relevant these days:

Heh. Man, you're really making me want to repurchase the whole DVD set again. I had it, watched a bunch, sent them to a friend who was recovering from surgery, and it was lost in the mail. As the clip you showed reminds me, it was a brilliant show.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Not surprisingly, I just banned Skinfaxi. Here is the reasons for it, not that I think he will understand or care.

1. He is going wildly off topic. This is NOT a discussion about politics of current events. This is certainly not the place to get into a discussion of what happened in Crimea.

2. After being off topic once, and being warned about not doing so again, I was obligated to ban him for continuing his behavior.

3. He was warned that if he continued he would be banned for good. He decided to not heed this advice and is now banned.

4. Attacking me is just stupid I take a lot of heat, but I have my limits. Especially from someone who was already banned.

5. I'm highly suspicious the poster is Steiner14, who has been repeatedly banned for exactly this sort of behavior on exactly the same sorts of topics. I can't prove it, so I could be wrong.

Posting here is a privilege, not a God given right. When a moderator says "this is the way it is", that is the way it is. If the individual is unhappy about this sort of thing, then he is free to go someplace else to behave as he wishes. If the community is unhappy with the moderation, the too can choose to go somewhere else.

After 16 years and 1.5+ million posts I'm pretty sure we have a pretty good handle on how to keep a community together as well as protecting it from those who are deliberately here to cause trouble.

Steve

 

Sadly Skinfaxi does not seem to understand or care about the facts or about reasoned debate. The Kremin claims that there is no Russian support for the seperatists in Eastern Uktraine. Nor does he seem capable of reasoned debate. I tried to help the man see that and others tried to do so as well. Sadly ge did not understand that or accept the advice/help offered. Steve was quite correct to take he action he took given the circumstances.

 

We can all disagree as much as we like in a debate but respecting another perspon#s views even though we don't agree .

 

I would like to propose that this particular thread is now locked as it is clearly causing too much trouble/

[Der Zeitgeist]

I would like to propose that this particular thread is now locked as it is clearly causing too much trouble/

 

 

I disagree. This thread has been highly interesting, and banning any troublemakers would be better than punishing everyone else who has actually contributed to the discussion.