LUCASWILLEN05

Yes. That would look bad on CNN. And as for what Russia Today would be saying I shudder to hink. Assuming it had not been taken off the air on the outbreak of war of course! :-) Orbital bombardment? Really? :-)

Surely missing the point. As in the Balkans there are long meomories regarding past conflicts and atocities/ These are one factor in the conflict now. As is Western and Russian mutual suspicion dating from the Cold War. WW2 and earlier (consider the Polish and Swedish invasions of Russia during the 17th Century and earl 18th Century, the Napoleonic invasion of 1812. Poland of corse will remember the Partitions of the mid 18th Century, the 1830 uprising. The Baltic States will recall being forcibly incorporated into the Siet Union in 939 and again in 1945. There s a lot of history all round which s why the historical factors are important both in regard to Ukraine itself and the wider potential conflict. Historical factors are however only a part of the factors behind the Ukraine conflict and a potential war in Eastern Europe. There are the strategic issues. ethnicities and border disputes and economic factors.

Arguably yes shooting wars do exist these days. We most often fight COIN conflicts at the moment, hence your commets regarding the complex military/civillian landscape. But from time to time we fight traditional conventional conflicts. The 1991 and he 2003 Iraq War better fit the definition of conventional conflics although of course the latter may be more accurately described as a hybrid war given the irregular nature of the Fedayeen fighters. And the current war with ISIS? Is this a conventionl war or is it COIN? And is the actual fighting in Ukraine a conventional war or is it an insurgency? Or is it both? Perhaps hybrid wars mixing regular and insurgent capabilities are likely and, given the blurred lines perhaps that better defines todays' conflicts Could we see a fully conventonal war like the one portrayed here, the 1991 Gulf War or the war e expected in Central Europe during the 1980s. Perhaps wars of this sort are rare but they stlll happen from time to time so we should not rule out the possibility of one happening in the near future given the right conditions.

What if it had been a hospital or a school? Or perhaps a church or a mosque? Does this make much difference in a high intensity conflict as opposed to COIN?

Yes they were although to be fair the Republican Guard did put up a halfway decent fight. I however am recallin all the horror stories in the press about how the Iraqis were "ten feet tall" and how the war was going to be a deadly armoured slugfest in the sand with heavy casualties, chemical warfare etc etc. When it actually happened of course the war did not turn out that wayand, ideedd, was a bit of a cake walk. But should we assume that all our future wars will e like that? It might be that the Russian army will turn out to be a paper tiger as it did in 1914. Or it might prove itself to be a tough and resourceful opponent as this army has so often proven itself to be in many past wars. I think it would bwe a serious mistake to under estimate a possible future enemy.

But what about Russia's Eurasian Econmic Union project? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26387353 And arguably this s also about he old Ruussian fear of being economically and militarily encircled by the West. However, back in the 18t Century under Peter he Great and Catherine th Great Russia was reaching out to the West and was Westernising in many ways as she recovered from the effects of the Mongol invasions (Golden Horde) Somewhere along the line it all went wrong. Perhaps it was thwe Swedish invasions, perhaps Napoleon, perhaps the "Great Game" rivalrywith Britain or the events of the two world wars.

Even when we do have hard facts they will often be disputed or interpreted differently by historians. I use the example of Waterloo because it is a famous battle i British and indeed European history. As well as nationalist bias there are also issues around the personl bias of the writyer? Does he admire Napoleon? How does he regard Wellington? There are Westerners who are a lot more pro Russian thinking, for example that the conflict is down to big business, oil and gas concerns etc. Most likely there are actually multiple factors causing the conflict. Oil and gas among them http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=up http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Ukraine2012_free.pdf (lengthy report - you will probably just want the Executive Summary) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26387353 Some very useful and easily digestable informtion including some very informative maps and charts Much of the industry and ntural resources seem to be located in the east of the country Russia's historical goal of obtaing warm water ports is also likely to be a significant factor. Russi secured (or annexed depending on how one looks at it) the Crimea last year. But had not secured a land route to the Crimean ports (apparently there are discussions about a bridge over theKerch Straits) The land route through to the Crimean ports goes through exactly the areas that are being fought over. ThisI susppect is likely to be at the heart of th conflict

Considering the cvarious issues we have beem discussing (eg air defence systems. APS) the two sides seem to vbe close to parity. But there are key differnces between the wo sides. The game seems to predict that the 2017 War would be a brutal armoured slugging match on the Dnieper. But that was the same outcome tht was predicted in 1990 prior to the Kuwait War. Yet tht war turned out to be very differen from what was expected In he early days of the next Great Power conflict, whether that starts in the Ukraine r somewhere else both sides are likely to mke many mistakesin the opening stages as happened in 1914. New and untried systems may or may not work as adverised. It coulld indeed becomea bloody slugging match. Or one side could snatch a quick and deciive victory as in the 1991 Gulf War. Most likely is that it will be somewhere between the two extremes. We won't know for sure util it actually happens As far as Ukraine 2017 is concerned how do we see the initial Russian invasion and the NATO response developing and how will this affect the openig battles on an operational level?

I try to use multiple sources to try to get the best understanding possible of the different sides and views to make the best informed assessment I can reach given the information available. It is the way one is taughtto study when one studies history at degree level as I did. But it is often very difficlt to achieve

On the other hand we might look at why many, non Russian Ukranians mightnot want to be under Russian control. The Soviet Ukranian War 1917 - 1921,, the Famine of 1932 - 33, the forced Collectivisation under Stali, the experiences of WW2 and the aftermat including the suppression of the anti Soviet Partisans. Russins will of course differ in their views of the same events and of course the Western view will differ as well. Maybe their past experience with Russia was a strong motivation for Ukranians to move away from Russia towards the West, Just as the experiences of Russian Ukranians in the past encouraged their move towards Moscow.

Alexey I don't know if you are of Russian nationallity. I have no problem with that if you are. You are correct that media coverage alwayss has a degree of bias. So do histrians - and having a degrewe in History andPolitics this is something Ican understand very well. Take a history of the Battleof Waterloo for instance and we will see national bias for a start. Thegreat British cavalryy charge is seen by British histrians is seen as a glorious feat of arms by the British Cavalry. And they charged the French Grand Battery no less sabering many of the gunners.The death of Ponsonby at the hands of French lancers shortlyy after is considered,with, let us say, a very dim view. French historians would view the same events in a very differwent light. We couldconsider events in Ukraine in a similar way. Thereare many facors to consider. Past history for a sart.

Highly unlikely you would seee Tomahawk Cruise missiles beng used as a support weapon in a tactical fight. Yo would have more luck getting a MOAB air strike!

All true and fair enough. For a specific scenario a certainlevel of air superiority or contesed air space might be ssumed. To be fair the US army has not had this problem in a real war for decades and perhaps this has made them lax. A mistake that could prove costly in a real war. It is highly lkely that, after the first few weeks the USAF will indeed gain air dminance but, in the meantime, significant casualties and even some early defeats on the ground couldd be the consequences of e neglect of tactical air defece systems pre war. Many of the scenarios could take place during the early prt of the conflic before the air war is won. Event then of course the airforce has to contend with the Russan SAM capability which, of course is another problem. Looking at what happened to the IF in 1973 could be a useful object lesson in what can go wrong. Altough no doubt ways would be found to defeat this Russan capability later in the conflict.

You and I might see it that way. The guys in tha squad might view that building as a death trap and makke the completelyirraional decision to get out of there. They panicked and did something that turned out to be really stupid. That got them klled.

People often do irrational things when they panic. One of the reasons people die in fires or similar crises. In terms of wht a panicking soldier might do, takng your example. is run out of the building, finds there is a lot of lead flyind about and just hits the dirt. I might no be commn sense but very likely it is the survival instinct. Sometimes I have noticed panicking units do other things such as blazing away at any enemy. This will in all probability be highly ineffective fire. That unit is completelly beyond your cntrol. It might help them if you can get leader with a good leadersghip rating closeto the. But sometimes it might jusyt be best o wrie them off for the time being and hope thei squad leader gets control of hem. Even then they are likely to be highly jittery. Morale is a funny old thing

Maybe BF decided that Russian munitions are less accurate han US. I really don't know the answer to this one. But I would be interested in knowing more about Russian capabilities in this area as log as it is from open source material for obvious reasons. Of course, it could be that BF are just wrong as you suggest and this capability should be added/ But I don't work for BF so not my decision

It might take a while for the USAF to gain air dominance. It might be well into July 2017. In the meantime of course the ground pounders have a problem. . I could see some of those Ukanin Tunguskas being a rather useful attatchment to US units. As Lethaface says the Russians also have effecttive air defence systems which will also be a high threat From the fairly cursory online research there are developments in the pipeline for better US army air defence systems but they might not be in service in 2017. There used to be the M6 variant of the Bradley (Linebacker) armed with a quad stinger launcher but that is no longer in service. Maybe it would be rushed back into service in 2017. Not sure how easy this would be in practice however. But this kind of mobile air defence sysem would definately be a useful sysem to have filling a nast gap that could lead o significant losses in the early stages of the war. Maybe the 1973 Yom Kippur War suggests a useful lesson here?

Which is fine if the airforce controls the sky. Which has been the case in the last few wars the US has fought. But what happens when this is not he case? One thing I have learned over the last few days is hat the US army mightbe in for a nasty shock if the USAF does not gain immediate or early air dominance. My impression is that this is a clear weakness of the US side. Maybe a couple of Ukranian systems would help :-)

I am not sure that his is a capabity the Russians have. Perhaps the best you can do is a Point Target. But I could be wrong about this - I have not played Russians much yet.

Perhps we need a special Black Sea politics forum where we can debate political issues related to the conflict in Ukraine. Like you I find hese discussions interesting and informative and there does need to be a place available for this. However, political issues are not directly related to the game and there are a lot of intense views on the subject for obvious reasons.

Without sysems like Patriot (not really a front line system) or the Avenger missile system US AA capabilty seems dangerously weak comparedto Russian capabilitities. As long as the US have not won the air war this seems likely to prove a dangerous weakness. Is it really as bad as it looks?

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/

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.

Alexei That is very intelligent question The short answer is yes. Next time you play select a unit. At the bottom left/centre of your screenyou will see an inverted triangle At the start of the battle it will be gryd out. Hoever, as the battle progresses and this unit comes under fire he unit will gradually fill with colour as the unit comes underfire. The more this happens the more suppressed the uni in question becomes

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.