Battlefront's job just got harder?

[aka_tom_w]

I think this was probably meant to read:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I also fully agree that Syria, or any nation for that matter, canNOT be completely sealed off. As long as money motivates people, and the money can be found to fuel that motivation, then things will move around regardless of efforts to stop it.

Steve

[J Ruddy]

wtf?

Can't we all just get along?

There's three ways to deal with the impending 'crisis' with Syria.

1) Diplomatic Solution - ya right, that would take intelligence, understanding and 'kid gloves'

2) Multilateral (UN) action - About as likely as G.W. Bush winning a Nobel prize.

3) Unilateral Action - Yippy!!! the U.S.A. goes in and kicks some butt, billionaires get richer on the spoils of war (rebuilding program) the US expands its influence in the region and gains the upper hand on Russia. And it only cost a few hundred ordinary lives. (Oh, plus a few thousand Syrian civilians, but they don't count)

You can understand why a government that is run by Billionaires and Lawyers would choose option 3.

Where's JFK when ya need him...

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, I have no doubt that the Russians would try to make a buck and score some points off of a conflict between Syria and the West. It is actually one of the biggest problems with dealing with Russia right now. We're supposedly friends, but they are developing and selling weapons that are specifically marketed as being able to destroy things that only the US and (in some cases) a few chosen allies have.

Isn't that what the Free market is all about, making a quick buck and looking after #1?

Sounds familiar... hmmm... :confused:

Oh, I'm grumpy and a trolling for a ban...

Oh, I'm grumpy and a trolling for a ban...

I think Steve's gonna say

Hey Ruddy go away

Oh, I'm grumpy and a trolling for a ban!

[Bigduke6]

Drusus,

You may be right. The guys in the Kremlin may be rational enough to prevent their really deep-seated anger at the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, and more generally the break-up of the Soviet Union, from influencing their decision-making.

But then again, these same goons involved themselves with Chechnya of all places. The Chechens are major league insurgents, they have fought the Russians for centuries, and they are doing it right now without a dime of western assistance. One of the Chechan leaders, Basayev, has said he doesn't want the West's money or support, he is getting plenty from the Moslem world, and a jihaddi does not accept alms from Christians, to fight other Christians.

The rational Russian approach the Chechnya was, and remains, to just wall off the territory and kill every one who comes across the line. They're Russians' they could do it. Fifty years ago they exiled the Chechens, of course, gotta be nicer in these modern times.

But the guys in the Kremlin, for reasons known to best to them, have decided fighting to retain control over Chechnya is vital to the sovereignty and international standing of Russia; lose Chechnya and the entire Russian Federation could come apart. As a result they have converted pretty much out of whole cloth a ethnic-based insurgency to a huge mess that is now spilling over into Dagestan, Ossetia, etc. etc.

The world is laughing at the Russian army for being unable to arrest a few Chechen bandits (the world, inaccurately, thinks that should be easy), and instead of a stable Russian frontier on the Caucauses - which you need to transport fuel to places like Turkey - you have a war zone. And this is the result of rational decision-making?

Well yes, if part of your reasoning assumes Russia must assert its power, and challenges to that power should not be ignored, if at all possible.

So if it were possible to stick an airborne brigade in Syria, and thereby forestall a U.S. invasion, I bet the Kremlin would consider it. Think how great they would look, if they could pull it off. You think that wouldn't put the popularity of the Russian government with the Russian masses in just about the triple digits? Don't they have an election coming up pretty soon? Hmmm.....

The Russian goverment has plenty of money and they always will find customers for their raw materials, the Americans among them. It is a big fat fallacy that Russia "needs" American friendship. Its loss is not something the guys in the Kremlin are losing sleep over, trust me on this.

As to could they do it - well Steve, there are about twenty An-124s and something like 200 x I-76s in perfectly good working order; they fly commercially all over the world. (Including to Afghanistan in support of the "war on terror", strangely enough. The NATO forces there need big airplanes sometimes.)

It's less than four hours from the Black Sea to Damascus (I've even flown the route, BTW). Shipping an airborne brigade from the Kuban to the Levant is pretty easy, compared to hunting down a guy like Basaev.

So, if the Syrians said "please send advisors" and the Turks said "well, we won't get involved in a dispute between the Americans and the Russians", then a Russian tripwire force in Syria could be a real topic of discussion, for the guys making the decisions in the Kremlin.

Of course, this assumes the Syrians could choke on their pride and ask for Russian help, in the first place. Of course, they don't have much to lose from making the Americans mad, either. Hmm...

Which opens up a whole 'nuther line of thinking. Screw the Russians, what if the Syrians invite in Saudis and, say, Kuwaitis? (Not the Egyptians, natch.) You're in the White House, are you going to send your Stryker Division at that kind of tripwire?

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

Obviously you have good points. I do not think that the Kremlin is insane. They do things in a way that might not seem to make sense to the West, but then again what's news about that? I think history will strongly suggest that invasion of Iraq was ill conceived, counter productive, dishonest, and in the end foolish. So I do not rule out the Russians doing something similar. I just don't think it is likely.

The Russians can, of course, deploy a small force if they want to. They are one of the few nations in the world with that sort of lift capability. So technically they can of course do it if they want to. So it is the will that is important.

What would they have to gain from such a risky move? Popular support. That's all I can see. Short term, yup, they'd get it. Long term? Well, it depends on how badly it goes. The Russian leadership might underestimate what a return to the Cold War standing would mean for them. Clearly They would be starting out in a weak position compared to post WWII.

And remember, the CM:SF setting is not about some trivial, even false, reason for going to war against Syria. The White House can't go to war against Syria unless there was a VERY good reason (like with Afghanistan) to do so. They've blown the US' political capital and much of its positive influence on the war in Iraq. So no Russian force needed... the White House can't go to war against Syria over Hariri or anything even remotely similar to it. Only something big. And if it were big, I doubt very much the Russians would block a popular mandate to clean up Syria.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

All I can say is you guys must have one heck of a back story going there. Something to line up the entire world behind a U.S. invasion of Syrian AND[b/] at the same time put the Syrian army actively in the field against the Americans - wow, that's one doozy of a causus belli!

Well if any one can do it BFI can. I'll be happy to wait around for the module with modern Russians in desert kit.

[Lee]

"By the ever-sliding standards of the Russian Duma, Semyonov is a polished gentleman. For example, the leader of his party, Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, got into a fistfight on the chamber floor in 1995 and punched Yevgeniya Tishkovskaya (one of 45 women in the Duma) in the face. Later, he explained with a leer that he was fending off her sexual advances."

Good grief, what kind of lunatics do they have running Russia?! lol!

[Battlefront.com]

Bigduke,

Actually, it isn't all that hard to come up with. The best way is to start from the end and work your way backwards. The game needs a conventional/unconventional battlefield setting involving the US, other Western allies, and of course the full spectrum of Syrian and Syrian based forces. In order to do that there needs to be some reason to go into Syria and, of course, for Syria to resist. On top of that, the reason needs to be so clear cut that outside interference and outright opposition from other nations would be minimal.

One does not need to look very hard for a situation that is similar. All one has to do is look at 9/11 and Afghanistan. Even the PLO said they supported the US, for f's sake So... I don't think it will be that hard to come up with something similar for the CM:SF setting. Especially because Syria plays host to lots and lots of terrorists. No need for fiction there!

Lee, Zhirinovsky was a comic genious in his day. Way ahead of his time (or way behind it!). Of course I didn't have to live with that guy in my government, though we have plenty of nutters kicking around in the US Congress.

Steve

[panzermartin]

I think Steve, in simple words, puts the 'Historian' in front of the 'gamer' so I guess we will never see something so insane but yet so game exciting, as russians in Syria

On a second thought, how about Russia joining the multinational force at first against Syria and then switching sides due to some coup or some lunatic or whatever? I'd like to see an upgrade of the red side not another western force in the following add-ons. Who wants to play Italy anyway?(except our dear neighbours that is )

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The game needs a conventional/unconventional battlefield setting involving the US, other Western allies, and of course the full spectrum of Syrian and Syrian based forces.

Steve

Will any forces besides US Army be in the original CMSF? Like British, Italian, Lithuanian

troops, etc? Id rather see different branches of the US military, especially USMC. I can not imagine the game without them, even though I am die-hard Army fan

[savagegoose]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

[QB] wtf?

Can't we all just get along?

There's three ways to deal with the impending 'crisis' with Syria.

1)

wtf i thought this was just a game?

[NippyCO]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

I think Steve, in simple words, puts the 'Historian' in front of the 'gamer' so I guess we will never see something so insane but yet so game exciting, as russians in Syria

It could be done realisticaly. And why not? Russian pilots flew against US pilots in Korea, Spetz-Naz was lurking about in Vietnam testing out the SVD rifle in combat conditions, in 1991 Russian military advisors narrowly missed getting mixed up in operation Desert Storm.

And then there are the case of US and EU "advisors" mucking about in Vietnam, The Balkins, South America, and Afganistan.

Like how CM divided up sides by nations and then force types (Infantry, Armor, Mech, ect.) A "Russian Advisor" Nationality tab would not be out of place on the Syrian side. The force mix would be mostly infantry armed with High tech Russian toys and local 4X4 vehicles. Kind of hard to smuggle a T-90 in diplomatic bags.

Heck, for the purists, just add on a "Allow Foreign Advisors" switch for quick battles.

[Battlefront.com]

Nippy,

Yes, we are anticipating Russian and Chinese (far more important than Russia to Syria IMHO) support being felt by the US player. But nothing overt that would have any bearing on the backstory or military ops. So expect some surprises, but not in the form of Russian airborne forces

Steve

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Nippy,

Yes, we are anticipating Russian and Chinese (far more important than Russia to Syria IMHO) support being felt by the US player. But nothing overt that would have any bearing on the backstory or military ops. So expect some surprises, but not in the form of Russian airborne forces

Steve

Great news

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The world is laughing at the Russian army for being unable to arrest a few Chechen bandits (the world, inaccurately, thinks that should be easy), and instead of a stable Russian frontier on the Caucauses - which you need to transport fuel to places like Turkey - you have a war zone. And this is the result of rational decision-making?

Well yes, if part of your reasoning assumes Russia must assert its power, and challenges to that power should not be ignored, if at all possible.

Even a rational decision maker can do things that seem irrational afterwards. This happens if you calculate wrong or don't know all the facts.

Ofcourse the decision making is based on some values. It seems that keeping Chechenya is highly valued. But what can the Russians gain from sending troops to Syria? Popularity. What can they lose? Well, a lot. For example what happens if their forces are completely overrun by the US? Bye bye popularity...

Sending equipment is much more likely, though I don't think that they would do even that in a large scale. There is the risk of losing all relations to all of the west and ending up in a new cold war type period. Not good for Russia. Sending some equipment? Could be likely, for example some AT & AA missiles, maybe some modern artillery ammunition. Things they want to test against western equipment. But not big amounts of airplanes, tanks or something like that.

So if it were possible to stick an airborne brigade in Syria, and thereby forestall a U.S. invasion, I bet the Kremlin would consider it. Think how great they would look, if they could pull it off. You think that wouldn't put the popularity of the Russian government with the Russian masses in just about the triple digits? Don't they have an election coming up pretty soon? Hmmm.....

I don't think Putin is losing his sleep because of the elections.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Drusus:

I don't think Putin is losing his sleep because of the elections.

Did you mean 'erections'?

[MikeyD]

"We're supposedly friends"

Hah! Remember when Bush first me Putin? In a press conference Bush proclaimed that he saw into the man's soul and, one supposes, found a kindred spirit. Unfortunately, that turned out to be all too accurate.

Russian involvement in Syria would rather depend on how long the war took. If an emergency suddenly occurred and we went in hastily before anyone could prepare, perhaps we'd immediately achieve our aim by sheer surprise and the Russian wouldn't have time to react. If instead we made bellicose threats and rattled our sabers for six months preceeding the invasion then the Russians would be able to put their finger into the pie. A couple cargo planes could carry quite a number of Kornet missile launchers. Just a couple combat lasers blinding a B1 bomber pilot would put the 'fear of God' into the air arm. And there's no telling what they might have for communications jammers! They wouldn't need troops on the ground to make a mess of things.

[aka_tom_w]

Notes on Weapons grade lasers

laser web page

The concept of using lasers to blind pilots or enemy troops is not new. Great Britain used lasers for that purpose in 1982 in the Falklands War. At about the same time, according to U.S. documents, Iran and Iraq used the weapons with devastating effect during the Iran-Iraq War.

In March 2003, sensors on two U.S. helicopters flying over the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea reported being hit by a blinding laser weapon similar to one manufactured in China.

According to testimony in a congressional hearing, a North Korean defector recently said his country had an underground laser-weapon factory below a building that, ostensibly, is a jewelry manufacturer.

According to U.S. State Department documents, North Korea has a thriving arms-sale business with customers that include Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iran and other Middle Eastern states.

Lasers are a threat the Federal Bureau of Investigation takes seriously.

In a memo prepared Nov. 22, the FBI warned that overseas terrorist groups had "expressed an interest in using these devices against human sight.

[76mm]

Not sure what the back story is for this game, but rightly or wrongly I have assumed that at least the insurgents fighting the US in CMSF will be pretty much Islamic fundamentalists.

If so, I think that the Russians would think twice about doing much to strengthen or encourage them, as this would only increase the Russians' own problems in Chechnya and other places along Russia's southern rim. I am pretty sure that Russia would not want to do anything to increase the chances of a fundamentalist Islamic uprising in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, for instance.

[Battlefront.com]

76, that's a good point. While Russia might have close ties to the Syrian government, they do NOT have any incentive nor desire to further the cause of Islamic Fundamentalism. In fact, they are actively trying to stamp it out for similar reasons to the US and the West. It is threat to foreign and domestic tranquility, power, and economics. While I have no doubt many in Russia are quite happy to see the US having a lot of problems in Iraq, I don't think the smart ones want to see the US fail and a Taliban type regime take hold in even part of Iraq. That would not be in their best interests.

Steve

[mazex]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I couldn't resist...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> All you French lovers enjoy!!!

...

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"

Jacques Chirac, President of France

</font>

[gibsonm]

Actually it was only those Americans who could be bothered to tear themselves away from the TV to go out and vote who elected these people.

You have got to love “the world’s largest democracy” where what 30% of eligible voters actually vote.

[MikeyD]

All this talk of 'back story', i wonder how hard BFC really should work to come up with the perfect story behind this theater of operations. The more detailed the story gets the more people are likely to quibble. Should they do a backstory involving palace coups, governments in exile, UN resolutions, etc. etc.? Or should they cut to the chase and simply say "They have and army. We have an army. Let's wargame out some likely scenarios to see what would happen if they clashed." No muss, no fuss. No politics to be politically correct or incorrect over. no nationl pride hurt. After all, in a game of chess nobody first makse up a backstory about why the black king feels the need to attack the white king!

[mun13f]

I have to agree with Mazex on the unreflective, knee-jerk French-hating. The only thing it illustrates is the self-satisfaction and myopia of a particular breed of dumb Americans.

I've made my French jokes in the past, but I'm through with them, for the reason that I don't want to make any common cause with the attitudes of the America-uber-alles crowd. Other sovereign nations have no business subverting their foreign policies to any other nation based on the past. If we want to make common cause with France or any other nation, then we should make an effort to convince them of a mutually shared interest; France should not go along with any of our policies because of WWII than we should go along with theirs because of their instrumental help in our revolution.

But then again, "You're either with us or against us" is so much simpler for the simple to understand.

BTW -- I've read extensively from these forums and they're really outstanding and varied. Admittedly, I find a lot less of what historians refer to as "button counting" in these forums than I expected (but enough to make the buff in me happy)

[Tarquelne]

[QB] I have to agree with Mazex on the unreflective, knee-jerk French-hating. The only thing it illustrates is the self-satisfaction and myopia of a particular breed of dumb Americans.

I've come to agree. The Dumb American Shows are really being dominated by French Baiters. Sure, a French Baiter only won Best In Show twice in the last five years, but something like more than 2/3rds of the actual entries were French Baiters since 2001!

Looking at the serious DA breeder magazines you can see that the prices of all Baiters are through the roof, and it's just absurd. The breeds have their place, but they just aren't _that_ interesting. And classics like the Redneck, the Surfer Dude, the Yuppy, and even the Ugly American are all loosing kennels left and right.

For the good of the sport, these French jokes have got to stop.

I've made my French jokes in the past, but I'm through with them, for the reason that I don't want to make any common cause with the attitudes of the America-uber-alles crowd.

(Seriously now: I agree.)