Options for Black Sea conflict sparked by attack on offshore facilities?

[Mgellis]

I just posted a beta of what may be the first in a series of scenarios. The basic assumption is that, in 2017, Russia decides to punish Ukraine for some reason by blowing up a couple of its offshore facilities. NATO moves a surface group into the Black Sea. Shots are fired.

So...what happens next?

If the facilities are destroyed or at least damaged, Russia gets what it wants. It does not have to do anything else. The next moves would be from Ukraine and/or NATO.

Ukraine might certainly retaliate, at least against Russian assets in the Black Sea. (I'm not sure they would actually launch air strikes into Russia proper, even if they did lose a couple of expensive offshore rigs.)

Under what circumstances would NATO feel it had to retaliate too? I'm guessing if one of the vessels in the surface group was sunk. What would they do? Go after Russian vessels in the Black Sea, a tit-for-tat kind of thing? Again, a NATO offensive against Russia itself seems unlikely...too risky, too likely to trigger a major war.

On the other hand, if Russia fails to destroy the offshore facilities, perhaps because of NATO interference (which it may not have been expecting), it can either slink away, humiliated, or do something to "get even"/"show NATO it can't get away with this sort of thing"/etc. But what? Submarine attacks/air strikes against NATO ships in the Black Sea?

In other words, assuming the first act of this play is the attack on the offshore facilities, what do you think would make a good second act? I'm looking for something that make sense, is reasonably plausible, etc.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

[Coiler12]

-Ukraine itself totally lacks the resources to do anything of significance, and the political consequences are far, far too great. An overt Ukrainian response would be the Kremlin's dream come true, and the Ukrainians know this.
-Similarly, NATO has no will to risk a nuclear war over a pair of oil platforms, so any direct retaliation seems out of the question.
-Honestly, what I'm thinking is a freeze after the initial clash, and a lot of public posturing but secret diplomacy. Interesting, but not the stuff you could model in Command [:'(] .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

However, as this is a wargame scenario...

-I'd make power plants the second act. I think it's both something you can model in Command (not ground actions), and works as an "escalatory".
-The reason why is that Crimea still gets most of its electricity from Ukraine, the substitutions wouldn't be ready in time by the scenario's start, and there've been real recent incidents.
-So, an overland air/counter-missile scenario is what I'd use for the next act. Still technically implausible, but works as a change of pace, with you defending power stations.

[SeaQueen]

Under what circumstances would NATO feel it had to retaliate too?

Heh, that's sort of the million dollar question. Under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, an attack against any one NATO nation is considered to be an attack against all of them. Personally, I doubt that tit-for-tat sorts of conflicts are really preferable. If Russian forces were attacking NATO forces, and NATO chose to retaliate, the goal of any such operation would probably be to stop the attacks. How widespread the war became depends on a lot of things.

[FTBSS]

Ukraine is not part of NATO, that being said we did sign a defense agreement a few years ago that guaranteed that the USA would defend Ukraine from aggressor nations in exchange for the Ukraine dismantling its nuclear forces Funny story but Russia signed the agreement as well. One of the major real reasons Russia is so involved in Eastern Ukraine is to pressure the Ukranian government to not join NATO as that was the direction they were moving.

With current leadership in US and Western Europe I think anything short of a full scale invasion and annexing of Ukraine would just get Putin another slap on the wrist.

[Dysta]

Rather than focus what NATO should do in Europe and Mediterranean Sea, why not take a US and Canada's perspective at Bering Sea? That is a very good spot to remind the bear what will comes from behind if Ukraine get pushed to war.

[Zaslon]

I agree with Coiler12.

One plausible scenario is move the scenario to 2018-209 and left Ukraine to defend his territory with the help of non combatants US units (Tankers, AEW, ELINT...) and a strong reinforcements with US weapons (Perrys, F-16...).

I don't understand why some people are trying to revive the Cold War. The Cold War ended 25 years ago. Now we have new and exciting challenges. The expansion of the Chinese Dragon, North Korea, fighting IS, Gulf states supporting islamic terrorism....And in the Russian side they need to fill the gap of leadership in the former Soviet space.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

I don't understand why some people are trying to revive the Cold War. The Cold War ended 25 years ago. Now we have new and exciting challenges. The expansion of the Chinese Dragon, North Korea, fighting IS, Gulf states supporting islamic terrorism....And in the Russian side they need to fill the gap of leadership in the former Soviet space.

Zaslon is right about one thing, I might learn quite a few about histories, but nearly general things about post-WWII and ideological conflicts during the second half of 20th century. I was born in 90s, so I don't witness any sort of incidents from 1946 to 1991.

As China told the world to stop the "Cold War Mindset", while US pivoting China for stopping the "arising power and expansionism". These are the best military focuses I've heard in my entire life, than any other potential conflicts.

Put it simply, all countries are pointing guns at each other, while still shaking hands with other arms. Some demands more war, while other really suffered enough and wish the world comes together. But reality is, if humanity's power and supremacy can only be proven by military strength, then the US have all the reason never stop their own 'mindset', and keep forging alliances with more weapons.

That's why we are keep painting each other as threats, as if mistrust and egocentric interests are already bad enough than bloodthirsty of slaughters.

Sorry for OT.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Sorry for OT.

Not at all. It's a good question. I actually have a professional interest in it. One of my research areas is something called ethical criticism--short version: stories can shape us, our psyches and attitudes and so on, so it worth looking at what our stories may be teaching us. Games like Command contain a narrative element (briefings, messages, etc.) and are, in effect, open-ended stories, waiting to be completed by the player.

(I've actually got a couple of ideas for scholarly articles that will draw on intersections of Command and literary/rhetorical/composition theory...now I just have to find editors willing to publish them.)

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

I don't understand why some people are trying to revive the Cold War. The Cold War ended 25 years ago. Now we have new and exciting challenges. The expansion of the Chinese Dragon, North Korea, fighting IS, Gulf states supporting islamic terrorism....And in the Russian side they need to fill the gap of leadership in the former Soviet space.

Also a good question. In my own case, it's simply that there is good storytelling material here. Some world leaders are more [fill in whatever terms fits best...aggressive, egotistical, proud, committed to protecting the interests of their country, greedy, crazy, etc.] than others. Putin looks like he is one of them. In fairness, he may truly, genuinely believe that Russia has been swindled out of some of its rightful territory and that the world has not treated Russia with the respect that she deserves. So he is going to do something about it! But that means there are about a dozen places around the world where he is likely to run smack into someone else who is going to say, "Excuse me, but what the hell do you think you are doing?" and/or "Excuse me, but this piece of the planet belongs to me now."

There are two ways to handle this in terms of scenario design. One is a major war. This could happen. Putin might do something like invade Latvia, thinking he can get away with it, that NATO won't have the stomach for a real war...let's hope that never happens. The other is that we get a long string of little incidents, one side pushing a bit, getting pushed back, pushing again, etc. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if the next time Russia has a chance to do it, a Turkish plane gets shot down. And back and forth and back and forth. So, in this case, Russia tries to blow up a couple of Ukrainian facilities. Outrageous! But not worth a major war. But NATO has to do something or they look weak and ineffectual. (I'm assuming that by 2017 there is real concern in NATO that Russia is chipping away at the trust between member nations so that they can eventually do something like invade Latvia and get away with it.) So...what can NATO do?

I like the idea of a little polar incursion. That makes a lot of sense. But I'm also curious what might happen in the Black Sea region, especially considering that both Turkish and Romanian aircraft might be shot down during the initial scenario (the "First Act" one I've posted a beta for). Once the blood of NATO allies has been spilled, even if no actual invasion has taken place...what happens? Can NATO afford to not do anything without looking weak, eroding trust between member nations, etc.?

[Zaslon]

The problem is that you are thinking in a NATO vs Russia scenario....IMO is the error. Why? These scenarios can escalate to a Nuclear confrontation very quickly. You should check peripheral wars in the Cold War. We never had a frontal war between the blocks (If I am not mistaken) excepting Korea when Nuclear doctrines aren't established at the time.

In the Black sea there are some interesting opportunities. Romania vs Moldavia (Russia-supported country), Ukraine vs Moldavia. Russia vs Turkey. But if a major player is directly involved in the conflict, the other sould operate with a proxy force (like China and USSR in Vietnam for example) in order to avoid the possibity of nuclear war.

Russia is very interesting. If you can speak with a Russians and other former soviet people about this topic, they think that the dissolution of the USSR was a completely disaster and the Yeltsin years were a nightmare (Some think that Yeltsin was a Traitor). Not in the Ideology field...In the economical, labour and social fields. Also in the Geopolitical contexts, they think that Russia (the Legal heir of the USSR) was humilliated so for this reason Putin is popular in Russia. He is restoring the Russian pride as a heir of the Soviet Union. NATO is pushing Russia when we are entering in the former Soviet space. First of all we accepted all of the Warsaw Pact members in NATO, Well It's OK. Later we go for the peripheral Soviet Republics (Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania)...So They saw these actions as an act of agression. And it's completely normal (remember when Soviet Union Installed IRBMs in Cuba). There are some lines that can be marked as a red lines. We are crossing these red lines, We are entering in the Bear's cage and we'll expect that the Bear is sleeping like in the nineties! hehehe

Old US Generals and the industrial-military complex want a remake of the cold War because is a thing that they know, is inside theirs comfort zone. Ok for me, because with the Cold War we live in a welfare state. But the problem is that our enemies never sleep. Meanwhile we are focused in Russian, the Red Dragon and Rogue States (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrein and Kuwait) are free to make his movements. They have the iniciative and this is very dangerous for us.

Thinking about your Odeske Gas field. The development of oil&Gas field is very expensive and very risky. Frr this reason, the risk is shared between two or more companies. There are always a company acting as Operator and the others are partners. You can suppose for gameplay that the ukrainian gas field was developed with CNOOC ( really they are partners I think) as a partner, so the destruction of the installations will trigger a casus-belli between China and Russia. Then China deploys aerial assets to Ukraine to defend his investment. They have more reasons than NATO to be deployed in Ukraine (a non Nato country).

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Zaslon


Thinking about your Odeske Gas field. The development of oil&Gas field is very expensive and very risky. Frr this reason, the risk is shared between two or more companies. There are always a company acting as Operator and the others are partners. You can suppose for gameplay that the ukrainian gas field was developed with CNOOC ( really they are partners I think) as a partner, so the destruction of the installations will trigger a casus-belli between China and Russia. Then China deploys aerial assets to Ukraine to defend his investment. They have more reasons than NATO to be deployed in Ukraine (a non Nato country).

You make some really good points. Thanks.

I may withdraw the scenario and rewrite it, using different players.

Would it make sense, rather than NATO helping Ukraine directly, if NATO quickly transferred some aircraft, etc. to Ukraine, provided some "military advisors" (e.g., fighter pilots), etc. and let the whole thing function as a proxy war? (This would also let NATO save face because it would still be doing something to slow down Russian aggression, effectively saying, "We won't go to war with you over Ukraine, but we can support Ukraine...and we have very deep pockets.")

You said something else that was very interesting. If an oil company is based in country A, but has offshore operations in the EEZ of country B, and country C attacks those assets...obviously country B is going to try to do something about it, but would country A send its own military? Considering how expensive offshore facilities are, I suppose it is possible. Certainly, they might have a token force like a single frigate in the area as a "show of force." I simply had not thought of that. It raises all kinds of interesting ideas. (Among other things, since CNOOC is one of the partners in the Odeske operations, Russia probably would not want to annoy them, even if it would hurt Ukraine, too...they would probably pick an entirely different target. On the other hand...if, say, Turkey was upset with Ukraine over something and attacked the Odeske operations, it might find itself facing not only Ukrainian forces but maybe a Chinese destroyer, too.)

Thanks again for some really useful comments.

[Zaslon]

Thank you Mark for be a prolific scenery designer.

[Aivlis]

Allow me to wax poetic for a while. (Disclaimer: I'm a Russian emigrant, sitting pretty in West Europe since my early years)

The one thing that I notice in a lot of the "Cold War 2.0" scenarios is a disregard for a believable strategy or goals on the Russian side, which is also invariably the antagonist.

As Zaslon said, people like to stay in their comfort zone and that sometimes means creating nice cozy scenarios in which the "Soviet Union Mk. 2" goes in guns blazing into an ultimately unwinnable conflict. Not wanting to dis the scenario designers, whose work I greatly appreciate, but I've seen enough farcical 1v1 head-on engagements between F-35s and Su-27s to wonder if people really believe this would happen in a real conflict. Do they assume the Russian VVS commanders don't know the much advertised capabilities of that fighter? Why would they fight on it's terms? And most importantly, what kind of mad gamble would have lead them into such a situation?
Wars aren't started and fought in a vacuum or on an infinite frictionless plane. They are tools to an end, sidetracking notwithstanding. So the best way, in my opinion, to make a scenario believable, is to set up clear win conditions for the Red side, and then think: if you were given such a mission, what are the chances you'd resign on the spot?

Regarding Ukraine, scenarios and contemporary politics: Russia has already achieved most of it's goals there. Namely, preventing a neighboring country from joining a hostile military alliance, and securing the Crimean peninsula with it's military infrastructure. It's nothing personal, just business (read: national interest). Trying to spin an ideological angle or paint Putin as Hitler might serve to sway the opinion of the uneducated masses, but is just a smokescreen in any serious discussion.
Now, an invasion of Latvia? What for? Please don't say prestige, Putin has all the approval ratings he needs.
A ground war with Turkey? Laughable.
A poke into Belarus? There's literally nothing of value there.

If you really want Russia as the antagonist, consider what can it realistically accomplish with it's current armed forces that it couldn't get via diplomacy, and you'll have a starting point. Arctic skirmishes and deniable operations in ex-Warsaw Pact countries come to mind. As do expeditionary forces sent to shore up potential allies in the near abroad.



Propaganda and popular culture color our perception of events to an astounding degree, even when we don't realize it. I know people on both sides of the "Iron Curtain", as well as many in between (Diplomatic Corps, Think Tank contributors...) and listening the the same events being relayed from different camps is always fascinating.

My personal, very biased, opinion, is that Western society has lulled itself into a feeling of moral superiority on certain topics, encouraged by mass media and the oddity that was the highly unipolar world of the 90s and 00s. This situation is coming to a close, as more regional powers begin to assert themselves in their spheres of influence. We live in interesting times; don't be afraid to come up with new Bad Guys(tm)

[Dysta]

You cannot expect the world comes together in unity and peace after two world wars, endless gun pointings, and experiments of atomic fissions. Someone, something, or nearly everything, demand victims for these causes, and accuse their mistakes each other.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: Aivlis

Allow me to wax poetic for a while. (Disclaimer: I'm a Russian emigrant, sitting pretty in West Europe since my early years)

The one thing that I notice in a lot of the "Cold War 2.0" scenarios is a disregard for a believable strategy or goals on the Russian side, which is also invariably the antagonist.

As Zaslon said, people like to stay in their comfort zone and that sometimes means creating nice cozy scenarios in which the "Soviet Union Mk. 2" goes in guns blazing into an ultimately unwinnable conflict. Not wanting to dis the scenario designers, whose work I greatly appreciate, but I've seen enough farcical 1v1 head-on engagements between F-35s and Su-27s to wonder if people really believe this would happen in a real conflict. Do they assume the Russian VVS commanders don't know the much advertised capabilities of that fighter? Why would they fight on it's terms? And most importantly, what kind of mad gamble would have lead them into such a situation?
Wars aren't started and fought in a vacuum or on an infinite frictionless plane. They are tools to an end, sidetracking notwithstanding. So the best way, in my opinion, to make a scenario believable, is to set up clear win conditions for the Red side, and then think: if you were given such a mission, what are the chances you'd resign on the spot?

Regarding Ukraine, scenarios and contemporary politics: Russia has already achieved most of it's goals there. Namely, preventing a neighboring country from joining a hostile military alliance, and securing the Crimean peninsula with it's military infrastructure. It's nothing personal, just business (read: national interest). Trying to spin an ideological angle or paint Putin as Hitler might serve to sway the opinion of the uneducated masses, but is just a smokescreen in any serious discussion.
Now, an invasion of Latvia? What for? Please don't say prestige, Putin has all the approval ratings he needs.
A ground war with Turkey? Laughable.
A poke into Belarus? There's literally nothing of value there.

If you really want Russia as the antagonist, consider what can it realistically accomplish with it's current armed forces that it couldn't get via diplomacy, and you'll have a starting point. Arctic skirmishes and deniable operations in ex-Warsaw Pact countries come to mind. As do expeditionary forces sent to shore up potential allies in the near abroad.



Propaganda and popular culture color our perception of events to an astounding degree, even when we don't realize it. I know people on both sides of the "Iron Curtain", as well as many in between (Diplomatic Corps, Think Tank contributors...) and listening the the same events being relayed from different camps is always fascinating.

My personal, very biased, opinion, is that Western society has lulled itself into a feeling of moral superiority on certain topics, encouraged by mass media and the oddity that was the highly unipolar world of the 90s and 00s. This situation is coming to a close, as more regional powers begin to assert themselves in their spheres of influence. We live in interesting times; don't be afraid to come up with new Bad Guys(tm)

Hi Aivlis, great couple of posts! Makes a great point and is funny to boot. Would you give me permission to post them on baloogancampaign.com with an attribution?

[Dysta]

+1 to Baloogan

A very refreshing read, it made me said "demanding victims" statement with a firmer foothold.

[Aivlis]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan

Hi Aivlis, great couple of posts! Makes a great point and is funny to boot. Would you give me permission to post them on baloogancampaign.com with an attribution?

Glad you enjoyed my rant. Feel free to repost it if it suits you.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Thanks! http://baloogancampaign.com/2016/01/05/ ... -bad-guys/

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

..., and experiments of atomic fissions.

Goddamnit! Why I said this??!

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/5-1-magnitude ... html?nhp=1

[mx1]

Now, an invasion of Latvia? What for? Please don't say prestige, Putin has all the approval ratings he needs.

While I agree with most points you've made about lack of realism for most of the potential scenarios, the invasion and occupation of Baltic States is quite different. The reasons why Russia would do it are multiple:
a) to reestablish its presence in Baltic and restore territories it held since the end of XVIII century. The 'history politics' has a strong tradition not only in Russia.
b) 'to protect' ethnic Russians in these states - there is around million Russians living in the area - probably the number similar to the number of Russians living in the separatist republics in eastern Ukraine.
c) to reestablish land connection to its Kaliningrad exclave
d) the most important reason is that it is 'low hanging fruit'. While Baltic States are part of NATO, there is no way for NATO to prevent actual invasion, so in order to fullfil its obligations NATO would actually need to attack Russian forces to liberate these countries. So the attacker cost is low, while the defender cost is high. The hybrid war, like the one we see in Ukraine, combined with post-invasion referendum in which 99,8% of Baltic citizens would 'vote' for Russia, is unlikely to trigger fully blown military response from NATO. There will be no formal act of war, no official Russian involvement (Russia would just back up 'governments' created with the aid of 'green men') and referendum will soon prove that majority of citizens accept the new status quo. Would anyone risk the attack on the Russian owned republics to restore its rightful government?

There is really much to gain, with low costs involved. The most important strategic outcome would be the end of NATO as we know it, which in turn would be a great win for Russia. Even if the occupation would be temporary (couple of years) it would still show that diplomatic alliances are worthless against imperialism.