US Stingers

[VladimirTarasov]

NATO can commit, But I doubt most NATO countries would even think of starting a committed war against Russia. The only country posing a threat would be the US, The other European countries can be destroyed just from tactical missile strikes onto bases, And most of those countries are heavily under maintenance. Kalibr and Iskandar prove their worth. (those just being 2 of a few other missiles that can be used to great advantage.)

Edited February 8, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

NATO can commit, But I doubt most NATO countries would even think of starting a committed war against Russia. The only country posing a threat would be the US, The other European countries can be destroyed just from tactical missile strikes onto bases, And most of those countries are heavily under maintenance. Kalibr and Iskandar prove their worth. 

I think you need some more education before you start posting on such things.  

[VladimirTarasov]

Maybe elementary  If you didn't realize I was doing a joke sorry 

Edited February 8, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Vanir Ausf B]

Briefly, RE: Northern Fleet. I would expect Russian SSNs to be primarily tasked with boomer protection. Assuming 50% deployable gives 6 or 7 SSNs plus 1 or 2 Oscar SSGNs. It's hard to see how they find the numbers to do anything significant in the Atlantic.

RE: Black Sea Fleet. The primary impediment to US naval control of the Black Sea would be Russian land-based assets. I question if sea-borne access to Ukraine is critical enough to make that fight worthwhile to the USN.

Russian interdiction efforts would be primarily via the various types of Iskander and Kalibr missiles. If Article 5 has not been invoked targets will be limited to inside Ukraine.

In my opinion

[Codename Duchess]

Briefly, RE: Northern Fleet. I would expect Russian SSNs to be primarily tasked with boomer protection. Assuming 50% deployable gives 6 or 7 SSNs plus 1 or 2 Oscar SSGNs. It's hard to see how they find the numbers to do anything significant in the Atlantic.

RE: Black Sea Fleet. The primary impediment to US naval control of the Black Sea would be Russian land-based assets. I question if sea-borne access to Ukraine is critical enough to make that fight worthwhile to the USN.

Russian interdiction efforts would be primarily via the various types of Iskander and Kalibr missiles. If Article 5 has not been invoked targets will be limited to inside Ukraine.

In my opinion

Sanity prevails!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I must admit i have thoroughly enjoyed following along with this debate, for one i have learned alot.  I have no intention to join the overall debate because there are numerous members here who have been debating the issue who are massively more qualified than me.  However i would like to point out one little tid bit.  

THIS.

 

In a shooting war, even one that is 'contained', if there ever has been one, veiled threats in regard to nuclear deterrents are not VEILED.  That would be akin to opening pandoras box. The limited objective of the Ukraine, may to Putin be worth the loss of the Black Sea fleet and his main submarine force but to start tossing around the word nuclear arms would be a massive military and political miss-step, one that would probably cost him his head and I get the feeling that it wouldn't be the west doing the cutting.

Putin would be playing on Western fears. Remember, as a Russian and ex KGB he thinks differently than we do. Just very vague hints about possible nuclear use without making an actual, obvious actual threat might well be something he would do and is, in fact something he has already done

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-to-use-nuclear-force-over-crimea-and-the-baltic-states-10150565.html

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Over the past thirteen years America learned to its cost that successfully starting a war does not mean that they'll be able to conclude it with any accrued benefit to themselves. What would the endgame be for a Nuevo-soviet assault on its bordering neighbors? Possession of financially depressed borderlands with tapped-out coal mines and falling-down steel mills? So the Nuevo-soviets might be able to catch NATO flat footed in the opening weeks of the war. The fertilizer bomb IED hasn't been un-invented. This is not a good era to be an occupying army in a hostile country. Plus there's nothing like a good old-fashioned external threat to bind-together factions that had been bickering in peacetime. In looking at future modern war titles BFC is in a bit of a bind. Its difficult to come up with a plausible war scenario between significant nation states that doesn't result in national suicide. Perhaps China invading Taiwan or Vietnam or - more implausibly - Saudi Arabia vs Iran.

We have to consider th factors likely to b motivating Putin. Issues like

1 The Eurasian Economic Union project

2 Putin as a Russian Nationalist. Is he trying to build a Greater Russia, rebuild he Soviet Union/Tsarist Russian Empire?

3 Domestic Russian issues

4 The perceived "Western Threat" Does he fear the Ukrainian Revolution will be repeated in Moscow? Does he fear some kind of "Barbarossa II" or being surrounded by Western influence?

5 Putin: Hitler or Bismarck?

Just a few examples of he issues and explanations for Putin's actions which I don't have time to go into further here but anyone is welcome to research these things further on their own in far greater depth However these points could provide some explanation for what Putin has been doing in Ukraine and what he might do in the future either there or elsewhere

[LUCASWILLEN05]

NATO can commit, But I doubt most NATO countries would even think of starting a committed war against Russia. The only country posing a threat would be the US, The other European countries can be destroyed just from tactical missile strikes onto bases, And most of those countries are heavily under maintenance. Kalibr and Iskandar prove their worth. (those just being 2 of a few other missiles that can be used to great advantage.)

The critical question is whether the US intervenes in a Russian invasion of Ukraine at all. For CMBS w assume that the decision to intervene is made. Then, at some point here is a serious ground or air clash. Or maybe something happens at sea in the Mediterranean. Whatever happens someone screwed up in a very tense military standoff and kicks off a war by mistake, for whatever reason 

As far as European support is concerned Eastern European countries like Poland and the Baltic States, feeling threatened themselves by Russia will probably support he Ukrainian intervention initially. Britain probably will unless Corbyn gets enough votes to veto intervention. Other EU states are probably going to be lukewarm at best Then it depends on whether Putin does anything in the Baltic States which could get Article 5 invoked. Just limited air and naval action in the Atlantic/Mediterranean probably won't be enough. A direct Russian invasion of Latvia or instance probably would get an Article 5.

[Baneman]

Speaking as a total layman ( there - my credentials  ), I would merely question one of your hypotheses ( Lucas ).

While admitting that it would not last long, you state that Russia would have to use up its fleet to interdict the Atlantic to buy time for the Russian ground forces. However, the time it would buy is likely to be negligible - 2 or 3 days at most - and at a cost of the whole fleet.

My question is - why then would they do it at all ?
If the best you can do is gain a few days and to do this you have to send an entire fleet ( whatever portion is seaworthy ) on a suicide mission, surely then the better option is to emphasise the speed of the ground war so that its (Limited) Objectives are achieved before the buildup you're trying to delay happens.
ie. you can't stop it, the delay is not going to be much, the cost is prohibitive - therefore it is far simpler to aim to be done before they (NATO/US/Etc.) can get their act together.

Also - EU/UK vacillation is likely to end immediately such a thing as an Atlantic Battle occurs - even if the action IS "limited", it wont matter to non-military people/media/etc.
Sure, there will be politicians wringing their hands and trying to position themselves as "for Peace" but they will be more than lukewarm.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Someone is apparently unaware the Article 5 can be invoked simply in the event of an attack on national assets vs sovereign soil.  If someone is shooting at NATO member ships (unless those ships of course, are strictly defending themselves from the NATO member's aggression) it's Article 5 time.  

This delusion of "limited action" is totally the kind of thing that starts major conflicts.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Speaking as a total layman ( there - my credentials  ), I would merely question one of your hypotheses ( Lucas ).

While admitting that it would not last long, you state that Russia would have to use up its fleet to interdict the Atlantic to buy time for the Russian ground forces. However, the time it would buy is likely to be negligible - 2 or 3 days at most - and at a cost of the whole fleet.

My question is - why then would they do it at all ?
If the best you can do is gain a few days and to do this you have to send an entire fleet ( whatever portion is seaworthy ) on a suicide mission, surely then the better option is to emphasise the speed of the ground war so that its (Limited) Objectives are achieved before the buildup you're trying to delay happens.
ie. you can't stop it, the delay is not going to be much, the cost is prohibitive - therefore it is far simpler to aim to be done before they (NATO/US/Etc.) can get their act together.

Also - EU/UK vacillation is likely to end immediately such a thing as an Atlantic Battle occurs - even if the action IS "limited", it wont matter to non-military people/media/etc.
Sure, there will be politicians wringing their hands and trying to position themselves as "for Peace" but they will be more than lukewarm.

Days for the surface fleet. Two or thee days sounds about right for that. Rather longer for submarines and minefields. As I pointed out there are at least two choke points in the Mediterranean that Russia could choose to mine, The Straits of Gibraltar and the Dardanelles.The Strait of Sicily (aka Pantallera Channel is another one but not so easy s the oter two options.

As regards Russian naval options these are to be undertaken in conjunction wiht a speedy ground war, ot instead of t. I always  indicated that Russian naval action was tied to supporting the achievement of their objectives in Ukraine.

As to why they would do it this way. I reiterate THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE is to allow the Russian navy to be bottled up in port just like the Kaiser's navy for most of WW1 doing precisely nothing. In a situation where the Russian navy is bottled up what happens is a situation where the US is able to pour men and material across the Atlantic with no impediment at all. Essentially he same kind of buildup he US was able to achieve in Saudi Arabia in 1990 during the buildup for Operation Desert Storm. Remember that? This for Putin is most certainly the quickest way to lose the war.

Conversely, we all agree that Russia is going to have to win fast. Sacrificing he navy to delay and reduce he flow of reinforcements and war material over the Atlantic has to be a key component of that strategy. Yes, Russia will have to sacrifice most of the Atlantic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet to do it. But these are old ships in need of replacement anyway. And you can hold some of the experienced men back to train the new modern navy you were going to be building anyway. Tough on the sailor and airmen you are sacrificing in he North Atlantic and Mediterranean. If the succeed in their mission they are "Heroes of the Rodina) and you can hand out lots of posthumous medals at the victory parade after the war If you lose the war you are out of power and probably lined up in front of a firing squad following the generals' coup that ousts you from power.Either way, the sacrifice of an elderly navy to gain even a few days of valuable time in the land war is a sacrifice that, while callous to our eyes, would be worth it for Putin once he has got himself nto tthis war

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Someone is apparently unaware the Article 5 can be invoked simply in the event of an attack on national assets vs sovereign soil.  If someone is shooting at NATO member ships (unless those ships of course, are strictly defending themselves from the NATO member's aggression) it's Article 5 time.  

This delusion of "limited action" is totally the kind of thing that starts major conflicts.

Stop trying to misrepresent me. Article 5 is more likely to be invoked successfully in th event of a ground invasion of a NATO state.  In other situations you are more likely going for an Article 4 as Turkey did in this example

 http://www.rferl.org/content/explainer-nato-articles-4-and-5/24626653.html

In the Ukraine case we can assume the US, probably with he UK has made a political decision to commit ground troops to Ukraine. Russia, going with my assumptions mounts limited actions at sea and mounts some air attacks against Briish pors, air ports and NATO airbases in the UK being used t support deployment in Ukraine. Poland which has also supported yhe move in our scenario is also targeted by air attack. Most of the other West European NATO members are against the Ukraine intervention.

Kaliningrad is blockaded but Russia has taken no actual military action there or against he Baltic States as yet.

he UK and Poland are very unlikely to get the votes for an Article 5 in this situation even thought they are the targets of limited Russian air strikes. they will probably go for an Article 4 at this stage.

This does not mean tat there will not be an escalation later on. However the Ukrainian War would already be a magor conflict. At this point both sides' actions are pretty limited in nature and scope. Things would escalate in scenarios such as Russia invading the Baltic States to relieve Kaliningrad or Polish forces, assisted by US Marines ad UK Royal Marines were used to reduce KalinINgrad. Or if Russia were to employ chemical weapons. These sorts of actions would be very serious escalations

NB I AM NOT SAYING THESE THINGS WOULD HAPPEN, JUST THAT IF THEY DID THAT WOULD SERIOUSLY ESCALATE THE CONFLICT

[Wicky]

Lucas  How many air strikes / cruise missile strikes against UK ports / airports would be required to have any significant effect?   

Are you saying Heathrow, Stanstead and other civialian airports would be targeted? as well as Brize Norton and other RAF airbases capable of handling C-17s.

Harwich and Felixstowe are worthy places of rapid urban redevelopment but all come with residential areas quite close to working areas so that would make it messy and very escalatory, plus ruin some quaint ye olde real ale pubs.

While they are at it would Russia also attempt to take out Hook of Holland/ Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg to add more disarray to the conflict?

Harwich was certainly on the nuclear hit list in the heady days of Reforger but could conventional explosives do enough to shut things down sufficiently. I will be keeping close tabs on the Estonian/Russian barmaid and her partner in Colchester (home to 16 Air Assault Brigade) in case they are part of a Spetsnaz sleeper cell.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Wicky

[Currahee150]

port just like the Kaiser's navy for most of WW1 doing precisely nothing

You mention Kaiser's navy in WWI. Well, like the Russian navy, it never ventured very far (Jutland being the exception) because it would get manhandled by the superior RN for little to no gain. Which is germane to this discussion because like the course of action the Russian Navy most of us agree it would take, the Kaiser's navy was never (except toward the end of the war) ordered to sortie and commit mass suicide in the hope of breaking the blockade and sinking some British merchant ships for some vague, undefined effect on the war. It is also interesting to note that when it was ordered to sortie and die for the glory of the fatherland the crews said "nope" and started a rebellion that if I recall correctly caused the downfall of the Kaiser.

he UK and Poland are very unlikely to get the votes for an Article 5 in this situation even thought they are the targets of limited Russian air strikes. they will probably go for an Article 4 at this stage.

Oh, so NATO is really just a cool club and being a member entail no responsibility or weight? because that's what you are saying. I'm pretty sure article 5 means "direct on attack on one of means direct attack on all of us." No if and or buts.

plus ruin some quaint ye olde real ale pubs

If you deprive the British of their pubs...Well, God have mercy on your soul, because the British sure won't.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Currahee150

[AttorneyAtWar]

The thought that Russia would risk its entire navy and basically the fate of the world on the Baltic states/Ukraine is absurd.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

 

Potentially the big air ports, if they are being used for troop transport could be considered as legitimate military targets by the Russians. In fact I would be surprised if they were not used for military purposes in this scenario. The sane as in the old REFORGER 1980 scenario. As could other similar installation./. And yes any Spetznaz sleeper cells would be watchng I suspect and doing what hey are being paid for

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Potentially the big air ports, if they are being used for troop transport could be considered as legitimate military targets by the Russians. In fact I would be surprised if they were not used for military purposes in this scenario. The sane as in the old REFORGER 1980 scenario. As could other similar installation./. And yes any Spetznaz sleeper cells would be watchng I suspect and doing what hey are being paid for

The only way to win a regional conflict is to provoke a global conflict!  

I'm really seeing the genesis for a remake of Dr Strangelove here.

RE: Article 4

Article 4 makes sense if the Russian fleet sorties, as clearly something is up short of an attack, and consultations are a good choice to figure out what we should respond with. However Article 5 only stipulates an attack on a NATO member state.  An attack on a NATO flagged vessel (military or merchant) is abjectly and indisputably an attack on that NATO member state, let alone crazyland cruise missiles swooping over London.  I cannot explain it simpler than that.  NATO was designed to be a giant tripwire in the event of Russian military action to provide a unified defensive response to that aggression.  It's done some other stuff since, but the core root of it is responding to any aggression against NATO states with all out full alliance response.

I really have no idea how you've gotten this strictly passive perspective of the west, that's simply going to take hundreds if not thousands of losses, and sanguinely go back to reality TV show because it's only an unprovoked Russian assault across Eastern Europe, with associated airstrikes against targets in Western Europe and unrestricted warfare, chip chip I hear the Queen's corgi is sick!/the Kardashians are showing their butts again!  

[Codename Duchess]

I thought we had thoroughly debunked all this nonsense by now. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

 

Everyone else is still assuming that Putin and the Russian navy are going to be totally passive, just sit back in a bastion stratefgy, make essentially the same MORONIC decision that SADDAM HUSSEIN  made in 1990

Which as I have reiterated 

AGAIN

and

AGAIN

and 

AGAIN

UNTIL I AM BLUE IN THE FACE

IS THE BEST AND QUICKEST WAY FOR PUTIN TO LOSE T

HE FREAKIN WAR!!!!!

Edited February 8, 2016 by LUCASWILLEN05

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I thought we had thoroughly debunked all this nonsense by now. 

Yeah but there's a sort of trainwreck element to it, and it's led to some really interesting posts on naval warfare and stuff.  It's entertaining at least.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yeah but there's a sort of trainwreck element to it, and it's led to some really interesting posts on naval warfare and stuff.  It's entertaining at least.

Look re-read accounts of OPERATION DESERT STORM  and tell me for Pete's sake if you think VLADIMIR PUTIN is an even bigger strategic fool than bloody SADDAM HUSSEIN!!!!!!

You seem to believe that he is WHICH IS A VERY DANGEROUS UNDERESTIMATION OF THE MAN.

 

Perhaps from now on I will have to refer to you as PUBLIUS QUINTUS VARUS since you appear to be suffering from the same ARROGANT HUBRIS that led Varus to the famous disaster at the Teutoburger Wald.

3 Roman Legions wasn't it??????

 

Panzersauerkrautwerfer GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS!!!! YOU KNOW THE ONES YOU LOST IN THE MODERN DAY VERSION OF TEUTOBURGER WALD FOUGHT IN THE WOODS AND FIELDS OF UKRAINE

Edited February 8, 2016 by LUCASWILLEN05

[AttorneyAtWar]

...

Does that mean we won?

[Currahee150]

I'm going to go with "yes."

[sburke]

Well it is certainly more interesting than Cam Newton's post game interview. 

[A Canadian Cat]

...

Does that mean we won?

LOL no we all lost.

Well it is certainly more interesting than Cam Newton's post game interview. 

Oh man I don't even listen to pre / during / post game interviews with athletes any more...