Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

There are plausible reasons and motivations for NATO to conduct strictly limited conventional operations near the Ukrainian border

Anyway this is a war game and we can assume, for scenario purposes that the nuclear decision has either not been taken yet or that the war leaders are all too scared of the consequences and the war remains a conventional conflict. 

But not for the Russian elite. They are quite pushy about 'protecting' the Russian core territory, as they are well aware that their grip on power is utterly contingent on their perceived ability to 'protect'. If that perception fails then they can,  easily, face hanging from lampposts or a bullet in the head in some newly renamed state prison. 

Put that tenuous hold in danger and they will have little incentive NOT to use Nukes. 

The Russian Government has always maintained that an actual military attack on Russian soil,  or a credible positioning of large forces will justify a nuclear strike (preemptive or otherwise). They have enough space to strike locally without realistically reducing their nationaldefensive capacity.

In contrast,  Britain launching against a beach invasion on the north sea coast would cause huge problems across the island. Russia has the geographic depth to strike and strike again,  just within its own borders. It can fire,multiple times,  retreat and wait out the fallout. 

Also,  chemical/biological attack is still awkward and not nearly as effective or as quick as a nuke. 

So the RUS gov has little reason NOT to strike, if a  Nuclear strike (1) maintains it's hold on power, (2) will instantly remove several hostile divisions from its territory/border (directly or dealing with the aftermath),  (3) will not disrupt it's national cohesiveness and defensive capacity (see geographic depth,  above). 

Tthe costs would be a counter strike,  but even then,  Russia,  as a sovereign nation (no matter what actions might have convinced people that invading was a good idea) still has the legal right to defensively nuke within/near its own territory. As does every nuclear armed nation. 

Finally,  several polls through the decades have shown strong Russian support for defensive nuclear strikes. They have no desire to repeat the GPW back and forth across Eurasian Russia against zee Germans. Arguably,  the greatest Russian benefit from. WW2 wasn't defeating the Germans or conquering half of Europe, but getting the Bomb from the allies. For all the horrific cost of the GPW Russia finally gained true national security not from its gigantic armies but thanks to the Allies R&D efforts. Winning the war against the Germans didn't guarantee Russia's survival for ever,  the bomb did. As the fall of the Wall showed, no politio/military status quo is forever -  but nuclear weapons are. These weapons alone guarantee that Russia will never be invaded,  conquered or broken up. 

 I for one have zero doubt they'll fire. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by kinophile

[General Melchid]

What if it's not really Russian territory its over but over a part they stole at the end of ww2, surely that's just the same as them reclaiming Crimea.

Putin like to make threat's but the more he threatens the nuclear option, the less effective it is; he becomes "the boy who cried wolf" and people bore of it and don't believe.

Also after taking parts of eastern Europe by force over the last few decades and threatening to Nuke all the time ; it then seems illogical to wonder why people would want to join a defence alliance against those sort of actions...

Edited June 20, 2016 by General Melchid

[VladimirTarasov]

Well either way annexed or not, If NATO will invade Russian borders our nuclear doctrine is defensive, nothing you or I can do about it. Nukes will fly, how ever these nukes will probably be tactical to destroy an offensive into Russian borders. And depending on NATO it will either end the war to avoid a strategic nuclear war or it will escalate to a full on nuclear war.

[General Melchid]

So that doctrine allows you to annex anywhere, the Baltics for example , and then threaten Nuclear retaliation for attempted retrieval of that stolen?

I don't believe that such threats should be taken seriously or what's to stop Russia marching across Europe and annexing the lot?

[VladimirTarasov]

Russia has no population support in eastern Europe, Russian people in Estonia or Latvia are generally together with the government(although it may change). So Russia will not be annexing any territories there, most of the Baltics are already anti-Russia due to governments who are basically blasting anything Russian as "That is evil." I have enough Latvian and Estonian friends who tell me so. Kaliningrad was taken from Germany, say its wrong but Germany took away close to 30 million of our people. The Russian nuclear threat is very real, and I know our doctrines quite better than most. If NATO launches an air campaign into Kaliningrad it will be tried to dealt with by air defenses in country. How ever if NATO brigades start rolling up through Poland into Kaliningrad then you can expect tactical nuclear missiles to hit positions. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

But not for the Russian elite. They are quite pushy about 'protecting' the Russian core territory, as they are well aware that their grip on power is utterly contingent on their perceived ability to 'protect'. If that perception fails then they can,  easily, face hanging from lampposts or a bullet in the head in some newly renamed state prison.

Put that tenuous hold in danger and they will have little incentive NOT to use Nukes.

The Russian Government has always maintained that an actual military attack on Russian soil,  or a credible positioning of large forces will justify a nuclear strike (preemptive or otherwise). They have enough space to strike locally without realistically reducing their nationaldefensive capacity.

In contrast,  Britain launching against a beach invasion on the north sea coast would cause huge problems across the island. Russia has the geographic depth to strike and strike again,  just within its own borders. It can fire,multiple times,  retreat and wait out the fallout.

Also,  chemical/biological attack is still awkward and not nearly as effective or as quick as a nuke.

So the RUS gov has little reason NOT to strike, if a  Nuclear strike (1) maintains it's hold on power, (2) will instantly remove several hostile divisions from its territory/border (directly or dealing with the aftermath),  (3) will not disrupt it's national cohesiveness and defensive capacity (see geographic depth,  above).

Tthe costs would be a counter strike,  but even then,  Russia,  as a sovereign nation (no matter what actions might have convinced people that invading was a good idea) still has the legal right to defensively nuke within/near its own territory. As does every nuclear armed nation.

Finally,  several polls through the decades have shown strong Russian support for defensive nuclear strikes. They have no desire to repeat the GPW back and forth across Eurasian Russia against zee Germans. Arguably,  the greatest Russian benefit from. WW2 wasn't defeating the Germans or conquering half of Europe, but getting the Bomb from the allies. For all the horrific cost of the GPW Russia finally gained true national security not from its gigantic armies but thanks to the Allies R&D efforts. Winning the war against the Germans didn't guarantee Russia's survival for ever,  the bomb did. As the fall of the Wall showed, no politio/military status quo is forever -  but nuclear weapons are. These weapons alone guarantee that Russia will never be invaded,  conquered or broken up.

 I for one have zero doubt they'll fire.

The Russian elite won't want to be ruling over an irradiated wasteland with much of the population dead or dying. Doctrine might be for the nukes to fly but in reality they will only lunch if he survival of the regime is directly at stake. In other words is Moscw and St Petersburh are about to fall to a NATO "March on Moscow" which we all agree is highly unlikely Dooming the Rodina to become a nuclear wasteland wont happen over small scale and limited cross border incursions or even occupying a couple of cities like Kursk.

Bear in mind that in the CMBS scenario t was Russia, not NATO that started the war. NATO will be looking for a favourable political solution to th conflict and that may require limited operations into the Rusian border areas to gain some political avantages in post war talks. Putin is not crazy - he won't go nuclear over that. Zhirinovsky maybe but not Putin.

Regarding chemical weapons I doubt the Russians would use them unless in a desperate situation in the conventional battle. However it would be more likely they would use the Novichok chemical arsenal instead of a nuclear strike

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Well either way annexed or not, If NATO will invade Russian borders our nuclear doctrine is defensive, nothing you or I can do about it. Nukes will fly, how ever these nukes will probably be tactical to destroy an offensive into Russian borders. And depending on NATO it will either end the war to avoid a strategic nuclear war or it will escalate to a full on nuclear war.

There has never been a nuclear exchange so we don't knowhow his might play out. There may be a small scale exchange f a handfu of nukes.If Russia employed,let's say half a dozen small tactical nukes NATO would probably respond proportionatly against similar targets. If Russia made a "demonstration" attack on a Western city a similar Russian city might be nuked. If Russia launched a full scale nuclear strike the west would respod in kind.

Taking hypothetical NATO ground operations as the assumed scenario the Russian government would be informed through back channels that the operations are limited and would not come within a certain distnce of Moscow (let's say 80 miles. NATO might well announce, again for the purposes of discussion, that NATO would encrcle St Petersburg burt not enter the city (more likely however it would be treted much the same as Moscow. It would be made clear that regime change was not being sought and that NATO would be agreeable to a ceasefire. Any NATO or Ukranian territory would be exchanged for any NATO occupied Russian territory including Kaliningrad assuming NATO had captured this place instead of blockading it

[Codename Duchess]

What possible reason does NATO have to invade Russia in any situation short of regime change? Limited excursions won't be seen as such and will not be easy. Tomahawk strikes on SAM sites is one thing, but you're not going to see tanks or troops across the border. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

Its incredible that people think NATO would invade Russia, what the hell would be the point in that?

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Codename Duchess]

2 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Its incredible that people think NATO would invade Russia, what the hell would be the point in that?

 

Lucas' opinions on strategy tend to come from late Cold War thrillers (I'm aware Arc Light is set in '94) rather than any sort of actual awareness of the last 20 years of foreign relations.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[AttorneyAtWar]

Also SIX RUSSIAN TACTICAL NUKES wouldn't cause nuclear retaliation from NATO or the US

WHAT?

Please for the love of god do not run for office or find yourself in charge of EUCOM.

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Sublime]

Yeah this is insane. NATO never would try to outright invade Russia. Even in a full blown war scenario NATO has no use nor is one unified nation state to occupy Russia; nor does it have the manpower or ability to fight a Russian insurgency. The whole thing is ridiculously silly.

The idea that NATO would be basically be calling Russia up like " hey dont worry you got a safe zone around Mpscow and St Petersburg is laughable as well if NATO did do a cross border incursion however that just wouldnt happen. NATO is not stupid and even a regular war would almost certainly go nuclear IMO before the issue of crossing the Russian border or not became a real issue.

Just like six tactical nukes wouldnt lead to NATO going 1 for 1 with Russia. Use  common sense - how many nukes does Russia have vs NATO? Noones going to penny ante this up once it goes nuclear the next step is trying to decapitate enemy leadership or nuclear ability.

And the idea of a demo nuke attack on a Western city is laughable Im sorry. Either side would go big or go home. If NATO nuked Russia first theyd know damned well nuking a Russian city would start a death struggle and the Russians know it to. Look at the 2 most publicized recent attacks on US soil - 9 11 and Pearl Harbor. Those were tiddlywinks to what the US public - NATO  be damned we.d go it alone and march through Europe to do it and probably happily nuke our way through anyone who was in the way - would be saying if Boston NYC SFC LA or even Stoolbend Virginia was turned into a pile of ash. Just like for Russia even if it was say Chelyabinsk or Vladivostok. Doesnt matter the outrage would be palpable from the other side of  the globe - it.d start raining sunshine.. literally in a sense.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Sublime

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

It would be made clear that regime change was not being sought and that NATO would be agreeable to a ceasefire. 

This is ludicrous. What's the point of any invasion of any country other than regime change? 

Furthermore, Russia is not Saddam's Iraq. Because 1) Nukes and 2) Geographic space. 

I think also you're incorrect with the assertion of  "we don't know how it will look". 

Nukes ae very specific weapons systems, with very specific operational mechanisms. The use if them is also highly specific,  with the boundaries of that use very,  very clearly delineated.

Russia has made it 100% clear that any hostile force crossing it's borders will quickly get nuked. As I understand it,  Russian Cold War  nuclear strategy if invaded was to use rear guards to delay and concentrate hostile forces,  then nuke em.

Crossing the border = all gloves off.

Russia will NEVER let another GPW  happen on its territory ever again. It'll happily nuke a few hundred acres of its own land to decimate an invasion force. 

Thinking the above quote is realistic is itself completely delusional, and lacks a proper understanding of just how bad a scar WW2 left on Russia. 

This idea reads like Red Storm Rising mixed with The March Up*. 

 

*Fine book itself,though. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by kinophile

[womble]

NATO wouldn't invade Russia because its military leaders are not frellin' idiots who haven't read any history. The sheer impracticality of ever actually achieving anything meaningful in the vast open spaces and massive, combative, patriotic population says "stay out" better than any limited nuclear scenario does. Even trying for Kursk is pretty much pointless: what would taking it achieve? "Yay, we took Kursk and the darned Russkies didn't dare nuke us!" "Yes, sir, but now we have to just drive right back over the border because we can't, and don't even want to, hold the ground we've taken." The Russians wouldn't care that all "we" wanted to do was show them that Putin's not the hard man he portrays himself as: invasion is invasion, and sons would be lining up to die for the Rodina all over again.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Look, just ignore everything Lucas says about war between NATO and Russia and you'll be all right.  In another thread he indicated "limited" strikes on American and Western European cities wouldn't illicit too much of a response, which frankly was enough for my nose to start bleeding.

For your sanity, just look away.  

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, kinophile said:

This is ludicrous. What's the point of any invasion of any country other than regime change? 

Furthermore, Russia is not Saddam's Iraq. Because 1) Nukes and 2) Geographic space. 

I think also you're incorrect with the assertion of  "we don't know how it will look". 

Nukes ae very specific weapons systems, with very specific operational mechanisms. The use if them is also highly specific,  with the boundaries of that use very,  very clearly delineated.

Russia has made it 100% clear that any hostile force crossing it's borders will quickly get nuked. As I understand it,  Russian Cold War  nuclear strategy if invaded was to use rear guards to delay and concentrate hostile forces,  then nuke em.

Crossing the border = all gloves off.

Russia will NEVER let another GPW  happen on its territory ever again. It'll happily nuke a few hundred acres of its own land to decimate an invasion force. 

Thinking the above quote is realistic is itself completely delusional, and lacks a proper understanding of just how bad a scar WW2 left on Russia. 

This idea reads like Red Storm Rising mixed with The March Up*. 

 

*Fine book itself,though. 

Have you considered the concept of limited war? In operation Desert Storm (1992) Coalition forces as you recall invaded Iraq as part of the operation to liberate Kuwait. During the Yom Kippur War (1973) Israeli forces invaded both Syria and Egypt later in he conflict. There was never any plan to change the regime by either the Israelis in 1973 or the Coalition in 1991.

In regard to nuclear weapons there has never yet been a conflict between nuclear armed powers. We do not and cannot know how such a conflict would play out. unless or until it happened. However, in WW2 we do know that both sides had access to weapons such as anthrax and to chemical weapons. These weapons were never used by anyone during he conflict. Apparently, in Pentagon Wargames it is very difficult to get anyone to go nuclear without the scenario forcing the issue. Morally, even for a Russian President it is very likely to be he same. Despite Russian doctrine Putin is not insane and he won;To go nuclear over a few border crossings alone particularly if he has been told through back channel sources that these are limited and Russian territorial integrity will be respected (any land occupied will be returned after a ceasefire and peace talks.If anything, in the situation  am talking about the use of chemical weapons might be a possibility. These would degrade the conventional capabilities of NATO forces. However, such a scenario might still escalate to nukes. 

In terms of he CMBS scenario, by the time NATO is in position to consider crossing the Russian border the war is likely to be in its' closing stages. NATO objectives at this point will be to gain political negotiating chips (like Kursk) and to destroy Russian offensive capabilities so they cannot continue the war in an offensive manner (ie re- invade Ukraine Talks about a ceasefire may be imminent or indeed already have begun but fighting will continue, including NATO counter offnsiv operations. At thispoint the Russians would not be given any rest or time to regroup

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, womble said:

NATO wouldn't invade Russia because its military leaders are not frellin' idiots who haven't read any history. The sheer impracticality of ever actually achieving anything meaningful in the vast open spaces and massive, combative, patriotic population says "stay out" better than any limited nuclear scenario does. Even trying for Kursk is pretty much pointless: what would taking it achieve? "Yay, we took Kursk and the darned Russkies didn't dare nuke us!" "Yes, sir, but now we have to just drive right back over the border because we can't, and don't even want to, hold the ground we've taken." The Russians wouldn't care that all "we" wanted to do was show them that Putin's not the hard man he portrays himself as: invasion is invasion, and sons would be lining up to die for the Rodina all over again.

You fail to consider the political issues here. We are not talking about a full scale "Operation Barbarossa 2" . We are talking about very limited cross border operations with the primary aim of destroying Russian offensive capabilities and maybe securing a few border cities like Kursk as political negotiating chips that can be exchanged for any territory the Russians occupied or for other Russian concessions. Very like the Israel crossing of the Suez Canal during the closing stages of the Yom Kippur War.

Let's say for example that during the conflict Russian forces occupied part of the /Baltic States and/or still holds some territory on the Ukrainian side of the border. maybe there are some significant Russian forces that have pulled back over the border in the Kursk area. The NATO commander will have to think about this in political and military terms. A limited cross border operation might be ended to deal with this Air and artillery bombardment is probably not gong to be enough to eliminate or reduce any remaining offensive capability. Kursk can be traded back to the Russians after the war just as the part of Egypt occupied by the IDF at the end of the Yom Kippur War was traded for the part of the then Israeli Sinai held bty Egyptian 3rd Army.

An alternative plan might be to destroy the Russian military forces around Kursk and then, as you say, retire bck over the Ukraine border. much like the US incursions into Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War it would be a limited military operation in terms of size, scope and duration, it could be anything from a few hours to a few days depending on the circumstances and involve perhaps just a division or two - by the final stage of the war US forces n Europe will be strongly re-inforced by both European NATO members and by forces from the US itself, NATO will have control of the air to a significant even if not full air dominance

War is the extension of politics by other means and NATO, in this case would,like the Israelis in 1973 be seeking to gain political advantages in post war peace talks.

If the Russians were to use any kind of WMD at this point they would be most likely to employ chemical weapons, not nukes. Chemical weapons will at least force NATO units into NBC suits thus degrading their ability to operate to best effect.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Look, just ignore everything Lucas says about war between NATO and Russia and you'll be all right.  In another thread he indicated "limited" strikes on American and Western European cities wouldn't illicit too much of a response, which frankly was enough for my nose to start bleeding.

For your sanity, just look away.  

Tell you what.. Shall we just fight the war and find out. We are all speculating. I might be right. You might be right, As he Arab proverb says "He who predicts the future lies even when he tells the truth" All we can do is speculate.

Sure, we might have a situation where NATO pushes Russian forces out of Ukraine but does not destroy enough Russian offensive capability. Then what happens? We either get a Korea like situation with major fighting having ceased but periodic skirmishing and artillery exchanges.NATO forces will be there for years or decades in case Russia ever tries another pus. Or there is a ceasefire and a Cold War again requiring a deployment of large NATO forces for decades. A new Cold War will follow and Ukraine becomes NATO member. Again no decisive finish and a renewed war in a few years is still a real possibility

That would be the inevitable result of simply stopping at the Russian border without eliminating a reasonable proportion of offensive Russian conventional military capability before a ceasefire. The political and geopolitical considerations would have to be carefully analysed by NATO leaders and by the US President incumbent at the time in the light of the military situation and the advice of SACEUR and the Joint Chiefs. It would be a political decision in the final analysis

[Sublime]

its ludicrous to compare Israel and Egypt over 40 yrs ago to Russia and NATO in the present.  

That whole argument belies your knowledge of the weapons, pride, and strength of both sides and the fact that both sides have more WMDs of any type than anyone else.

The same with your US cross border Vietnam raids. First of all Laos was pretty much US helo support and a secret war of LRRPs and air strikes. The open attack was an disaster.

Cambodia was a PR nightmare, the US never found the mythical COSVN and the limited scale of the incursion and *statements to how limited the incursion would be* meant we got tossed some pretty big bones in terms of weapons caches that probably were completely replaced very shortly and allowed the enemy to melt away.

In fact the whole idea of 'limited war' has been utterly trashed and debunked.

Why dont you read up on Op Rolling Thunder or hell the entire US Vietnam experience to understand why limited war doesnt work and that was a counter insurgency and civil war not outright warfare with near peer forces. The US knew in Vietnam that when the enemy stood and fought we won. It may be ugly but we knew we.d be walking on their graves at the end of the day.  Thats a lot different than trying to conduct a limited war where you dont have mastery of the air and everything else right from jump.  

Just not plausible at all and given the size and capabilities of Russia with more open country, developed infrastructure, loads of motorized vehicles bla bla vs the VC NVA Ho  Chi Minh Trail through triple canopy jungle using men and bicycles.  The Russians if told that Kursk would be a limited incursion could just... booby trap it a la Kiev in WW2 but waaaay nastier pull everything back of the limited zone and just shellack the hell out of it? Oh wait they wouldnt because itd have gone nuclear anyway.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

3 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Tell you what.. Shall we just fight the war and find out. We are all speculating. I might be right. You might be right, As he Arab proverb says "He who predicts the future lies even when he tells the truth" All we can do is speculate.

Sure, we might have a situation where NATO pushes Russian forces out of Ukraine but does not destroy enough Russian offensive capability. Then what happens? We either get a Korea like situation with major fighting having ceased but periodic skirmishing and artillery exchanges.NATO forces will be there for years or decades in case Russia ever tries another pus. Or there is a ceasefire and a Cold War again requiring a deployment of large NATO forces for decades. A new Cold War will follow and Ukraine becomes NATO member. Again no decisive finish and a renewed war in a few years is still a real possibility

That would be the inevitable result of simply stopping at the Russian border without eliminating a reasonable proportion of offensive Russian conventional military capability before a ceasefire. The political and geopolitical considerations would have to be carefully analysed by NATO leaders and by the US President incumbent at the time in the light of the military situation and the advice of SACEUR and the Joint Chiefs. It would be a political decision in the final analysis

You know what would destroy a reasonable portion of Russia's offensive capability?

Killing the hell out of their offensive into Eastern Europe.

This isn't 1981.  There's no inexhaustible waves of Armatas and T-90AMs waiting to emerge from sekret bunkers below the steppes.  If Russia did mount an offensive operation, and lost hard enough to allow NATO to be in position to cross the border in force, I've got news for you, Russia is out of the Army business for a few decades at its current economic levels.  

The fact you can bring up Korea and not understand WHY Korea panned out like it did is interesting.  We wound up with a Korea because our ability to contain the threat matched up well with a general lack of political will, and the promise of a wider war.  Which is pretty much the same logic we have facing Russia only with nuclear bombs tossed in, so honestly I've moved beyond trying to understand "why" you think the way you do, and more wandered into a sort of fascination of the cognitive dissonance involved in the process.  

[Kinophile]

Russia is NOT Iraq. Or Israel. Or any other country. It is a regional power with Superpower status primarily due to its Nuclear forces. 

There you go again with the "we cannot know how it will turn out"  line,  yet you immediately describe scenarios where Russia has explicitly said it WILL nuke. 

Those wargames where it was supposedly difficult to go nuclear? Bull****. NATO ran plenty of wargames where it was disturbingly easy to escalate to Nuclear, primarily due to the gigantic Soviet numerical superiority.

NATO was very aware that if the Russians broke through the only feasible way to prevent a massed drive to the Bay of Biscay was multiple nuclear strikes. They simple didn't have the ground force numbers. The Soviets could fight a conventional war to the point of forcing NATO to nuke first simply in order to survive - not win, just not cease to exist. Then Russia could limited nuke from a supposed moral high ground, call a ceasefire and consolidate it's gains (Namely Germany/Austria/Benelux) 

This probable nuclear dilemma (NATO will supposedly not nuke first, as policy, but actually does so under military necessity) was an additional political driver to develop precision weapons, deep strike capabilities and advanced sensors. NATO wanted to hit the Soviets hard and fast and precisely to avoid approaching a Nuclear threshold that it knew, it KNEW it could all to easily cross. 

The USSR ran plenty of wargames where nuclear weapons were far more available to theatre commanders that NATO ones.  For heaven's sake,  Russia ran a modern day exercise where nuking Warsaw was considered a viable strategy and, I believe (can anyone confirm?), assumed NATO would NOT nuke in retaliation. 

As for limited incursions not warranting nuclear strikes -  again,  bull****.  The more you repeat that fallacy the more it reveals your ignorance of basic Russia geopolitical priorities. Your ridiculous example of a punitive strike at kursk, then retreat behind the border like it's some forcefield is hilarious. As if the Russians won't pursue with nukes because,  "oh noes! There's a border! Whatever shall us poor Ruskies do now? We simply can't attack,  there's a BORDER in the way, goys! Dagnabbit! Sooooooo close!" 

Re Vietnam,  etc -  on now you're just trolling. To suggest that there's a situational similarity between some regonal peasant Asian country in the 70s and modern,  nuclear armed Russia is breathtakingly uninformed. 1)Vietnam, as Sublime says,  was a civil war/counter insurgency. 2)Cambodia/Laos had howitzers as their biggest weapons. No nukes,  nope.  So not applicable. 

No,  they'll nuke the **** out of the hostile army,  probably working their way back towards the hostile capital. 

I could say more re Uraine,  Borders,  Donbass,  but that's a whole different kettle of turds.  

Ironically,  Russia is now in the same military situation as  cold war NATO - not enough troops to mount a sufficient defense,  so the nuclear threshold is far lower. 

So,  they'll nuke. 

I sure as hell would. You invade me,  I'll nuke. By God I'll nuke. If I don't nuke,  what's the point? If I don't nuke no one will believe it as a deterrent so I MUST use it. As a Westerner I'd probably only nuke the local forces. I have very little faith that a Russian president wouldn't also nuke a western city or two,  full of women and children JUST TO PROVE THE POINT NOW BACK OFF FROM OUR BORDER.  

Re invasions,  those were regional,  local wars to maintain a delicate balance of power. And actually,  Egypt did undergo a regime change afterwards. Syria did not,  but it's military policy changed so drastically that the effect was the same. And Israel was quite capable of taking/destroying Damascus ie regime change. Only the US /RUS stopped that. Israel was mad as hell and fully intended to keep beating the **** out of Syria. Israel was also attacking towards Cairo and while stretched, was still hugely in the ascendant. 

 Attacking Russia is a totally different ballgame. As far as Russians are concerned,  crossing their border = existential threat. Considering WW1 & 2, I sure as hell don't blame them. The UN ceases to be relevant as Russia will not, not for a second, allow any attack on its soil to not unpunished to the full, and that includes Nuclear. And it's official state and military policy. They WILL nuke. You must be the first person I've ever met who harbours doubt that they will. Of all the nuclear armed countries in the world,  Russia is NOT the one to push towards the little red button. 

You cannot realistically, sensibly or intelligently talk about invading Russia to any degree and NOT assume Russian nukes will launch.

And,  please,  read some real literature about Russia, what they went through in the GPW and how it inforned/informs their strategic thinking ever since. Something other than Wikipedia. Something that isn't on some neocon masturbatory wish list of how they want the world to act.

Edited June 21, 2016 by kinophile

[General Melchid]

I agree with the premise that Russia will use nuclear option for a invasion of its own lands but I still see a possible gray area to this.

For example if Russia decides to pinch a 10km stretch of some Eastern NATO member , immediately declares it Russian territory; do you suggest they would go nuclear if that 'Russian'  territory was then invaded to reclaim it for owner?

[VladimirTarasov]

I'll just add on hopefully no one bashes my brains in for it  

Nuking Warsaw drill: I'm sure every country has plans for nuking countries in scenarios. I'm sure that the US has run simulations on nuking Moscow, it's not a big deal nor would nuking another country's city with a strategic nuke be justified in Russia unless said country is in Russia destroying cities. 

Definitely tactical nukes will be used by Russia in the event NATO breaches Russian borders and is not able to be stopped by conventional means. Then missile systems like short range ballistic missiles like Iskandar-Ms or cruise missiles with nuclear warhead versions of the missiles will attempt to hit near by NATO logistics, bases, and groupings threatening the Russian lands, in an attempt to force NATO away from entering Russia. I don't know if NATO will respond to that with nuclear weapons but assuming a nuclear war is not wanted, I don't think NATO would escalate further unless political leaders really want global destruction.

This is how ever assuming NATO is able to is able effectively launch a offensive that is able to break through Russian defenses, into Russia's borders, and effectively be able to threaten Russia further. This has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin being a "crony" or "dictator" according to some. This is common sense, and obviously Russia will defend itself to the fullest in an event any country enters our borders.

[General Melchid]

Illuminating response, so theoretically there could be a few days of conventional push and shove on a border before the nuclear option was deemed necessary?( after conventional forces collapse)

I highlight this is all just wind-bagging and I don't expect you to be official Kremlin spokesman

[Kinophile]

Do you have details on that exercise? What was the premise? What was the situation that lead to nuclear escalation? 

To be clear,  I wasn't saying Russia shoukd not run such exercises, from a moral standpoint or something. It absolutely should run such exercises,  in the military and political training sense. I'm certain the US/UK/FRA do. 

It was more that nuclear weapons are still, and always will be, an integral part of Russia's defense. It completely has the right to defend itself, with nukes if necessary  -  such as if a hostile force crosses it's borders. 

Re adjusting borders,  yeah,  that's a grey area. It depends,  I guess,  on the strategic importance of the borders -  Crimea is more important than some marsh between Estonia and Russia. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by kinophile