Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kinophile

Hypotheticals of the CMBS game narrative

Recommended Posts

https://tnsr.org/2018/08/restraining-an-ally-israel-the-united-states-and-irans-nuclear-program-2011-2012/

Now, bear with me... 

In the CMBS narrative, at its most basic, UKR modernizes its forces with NATO/US/Western INFLUENCE. Russia perceives this as a threat, states its opposition to NATO membership by UKR, a very clear red line. 

UKR pushes ahead and applies for membership. 

I *think* it is accepted, so then Russia invades. 

Personally, I think Russia would have invaded upon even just UKR's application. 

Either way, it's a very unusual geopolitical situation, and to me only possible/plausibile if there is already an extremely antagonistic, borderline violent state of affairs between Russia and the West. 

It suggests some possible situations - NATO/US sees UKR as existential threat of Russia assumes defacto control. They counter RUS influence and pull UKR steadily West. 

OR

UKR itself sees Russia as a threat, pivots hard to NATO at just the right time (eg Russia is distracted internally) and managers to maneuver US Ito allowing it to even apply. 

This suggests a Russia with some form of serious internal issue (eg an extended, messy succession crisis) that the UKR application to NATO actually helps clear up, providing an external, unifying issue. 

A question here, circling back to the article above, is how much control would UKR have over the whole NATO-fication process? How much pull could it have with the US? Could a unified, determinedly West oriented UKR actually manage to pull this off - without tearing itself apart from the inside?

This would suggest the expected CMBS module could be predicated on internal uprisings within UKR and RUS held territory, on the one hand driven by RUS infiltrators and inherent local support (a la Donbass) and on the other as a guerilla/insurgent war against RUS  rear forces. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the current unpleasantness in that part of the world was associated with the Ukraine looking at a close association with the European Union (an economic not military club) which triggered military action (albeit not full scale conflict) by Russia I'm not quite sure why you think that this is an 'unusual geopolitical situation'.

Of course the CMBS scenario is not related to what is going on there at present but actual events have given pretty good indicators of what the lines in the sand/steppe are.

With your 'OR' argument - the US certainly underpins the alliance but the talk of the Ukraine influencing the US regarding joining the alliance implies that the US decides who becomes members to the exclusion of the remainder which is not the case.

And I've corrected the schoolboy error in all of this …

'In the CMBS narrative, at its most basic, UKR modernizes its forces with NATO/US/Western INFLUENCE. Russia perceives this as a threat, states its opposition to NATO membership by UKR, a very clear red line. 

UKR pushes ahead and applies for membership

I *think* it is accepted, so then the Ukraine reduces its defence budget Russia invades.' ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What this country needs is a short victorious war to stem the tide of revolution."

Considering the real life political instability of all three parties I can think of any number of reasons why someone would want to escalate the situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Combatintman said:

 an 'unusual geopolitical situation'.

In terms of US v RUS actually going H2H right on Russia's doorstep, I mean. 

And yes, technically, US is nto the sole arbiter of NATO..but if they dont like the cut of someone's jib then that sailor ain't docking.

In a sense, NATO accepting UKR is provocative. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kinophile said:

In terms of US v RUS actually going H2H right on Russia's doorstep, I mean. 

And yes, technically, US is nto the sole arbiter of NATO..but if they dont like the cut of someone's jib then that sailor ain't docking.

In a sense, NATO accepting UKR is provocative. 

 

Absolutely because Russia is going to perceive it as provocative.  In this case NATO saying it is a defensive organization doesn't really matter, perception by any individual party drives the whole discussion in a different direction intended or not.

However it is important to keep in mind that CMBS is (despite being close to a real hot point) still a fictional narrative.  BF is not likely to adjust anything in it to conform to the current conflict.  If they were then maybe we'd never see a Marine module which would be hugely disappointing.  In fact if they stuck to the current situation they would add some uncons and delete the whole US order of battle and consider it done.  I don't think anyone wants that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I'm having great fun throwing the full might of the Russian Army against that lonely UKR battalion. Heading into serious MOUT now and Wouldn't be half as dramatic if I had to scale down to RL force levels!

The original link was interesting to me as a discussion of weaker allies punching well above their weight, to the danger of both parties. I wonder how that might affect US commitmentsin the narrative - eg initial reluctance, growing rapidly into Oh Crap They Might Win This. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 10:05 AM, sburke said:

Absolutely because Russia is going to perceive it as provocative.  In this case NATO saying it is a defensive organization doesn't really matter, perception by any individual party drives the whole discussion in a different direction intended or not.

However it is important to keep in mind that CMBS is (despite being close to a real hot point) still a fictional narrative.  BF is not likely to adjust anything in it to conform to the current conflict.  If they were then maybe we'd never see a Marine module which would be hugely disappointing.  In fact if they stuck to the current situation they would add some uncons and delete the whole US order of battle and consider it done.  I don't think anyone wants that.  

Why do you say that about not seeing a USMC module? I'm not saying your wrong. I myself don't see an amphibious landing fitting in any where, but sea-lifting a Marine division to, say Odessa, might be quicker than sea-lifting an US Army Heavy division, but then I know next to nothing about current Navy sea-lift capacity. The  Navy however might prefer to lift their own boys and lobby to do so. Educate me in my ignorance though please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Black Sea would be a giant no-mans land to send convoys into. You'd need insane tactical AMD to achieve it. Cetainly not impossible but I dont see any dedicated USN tactical AMD vessels (I think?).

Id assume they'd be delivered to WE then trained to UKR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sequoia said:

Why do you say that about not seeing a USMC module? I'm not saying your wrong. I myself don't see an amphibious landing fitting in any where, but sea-lifting a Marine division to, say Odessa, might be quicker than sea-lifting an US Army Heavy division, but then I know next to nothing about current Navy sea-lift capacity. The  Navy however might prefer to lift their own boys and lobby to do so. Educate me in my ignorance though please.

LOL no I absolutely am looking forward to a Marine module.  My comment was on how folks want weapons status to conform to the reality of what is in place now, but don't have the same view as to what forces should be present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, okay. I thought you were saying if a war broke out in some way relative to the CMBS scenario, USMC participation would in reality be unlikely. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not an easy thing to go to war. 'Counterfactual history' Russia would not have invaded Ukraine on the basis of application to NATO membership because they would have needed months of prep time to institute an invasion. Everything from ammo stockpiles to uniforms to toilet paper would need to be accounted for. First comes the decision to go to war, then comes the preparation, then comes the manufactured pretext to be used as an excuse for starting the war that had in fact already been months in planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unless you do the build up in peace time, in case a decision to go to war would be made in the future, and regularly train for such a contingency.

Something that the Russia did over the past years with the newly formed divisions and rebased/newly formed brigades and other units.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, a nation cannot be on a war footing indefinitely.  It takes time to ramp up, get regulars and reservists back from leave, prep and gas up equipment...   

The US maintains one or two light Brigades ready to go with a few hours notice.  But that is not an aggressive force, just a speed bump to delay an enemy until the heavy stuff can be prepped and shipped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there not an equivalent (offensive) RUS version? 2 - 3 MRBs staged close to UKR border, ready to assault at 24 hrs notice? Even such a small advance guard, properly supported by cross-border fires, could achieve a lot. 

They've proved dangerous in RL with such a format. 

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×