1998 Alternative history

[kahta]

I am looking for feedback and suggestions about what the militaries of NATO and Soviet/Soviet aligned states would look like under the following alternative history:

The high energy prices of the 1970s continued through the 1990s. Soviet military expansion and research and development continued. Much of NATO did the same.

Both sides engaged in significant START reductions, far more than historically happened and spending was redirected into conventional arms.

Geopolitically, during the 1980s much of Iran was split between Iraq and Soviet aligned client states. Turkey also lost territory and withdrew from NATO. Iraq is a key US ally.

Venezuela went communist early and is closely assigned with the Soviets.

Yugoslavia broke up and Serbia joined the Warsaw pact. Albania is close to joining.

Soviet strategy involves the classic Red Storm Rising/Northern Fury moves, invading the Middle East via Iraq, and blasting through Denmark.

Looking for feedback or suggestions on anything from doctrine to OOBs to modifications to older equipment that would have remained in service (which can be accomplished with a lua script or editor of course).

[TBLackey]

In your alternate timeline is the USSR still around? If so, then the Peace Dividend cuts of the nineties certainly didn't happen.

So the scenario is set in 1998? In what theatre of operations? What side does the player take? What is the players objective?

[kahta]

In your alternate timeline is the USSR still around?

Yes.

So the scenario is set in 1998? In what theatre of operations?

1998. Multiple theaters of operation (this will be several different scenarios; first I am building out the OOBs)

What side does the player take? What is the players objective?

NATO. The player will first defend against aggression in the early scenarios and then counterattack in the later ones.

[TBLackey]

Sounds like a massive task!

I suggest starting with one scenario and building it start to finish. That is plenty enough work without constructing 1998 OOBs for half the world.

[kahta]

Sounds like a massive task!

I suggest starting with one scenario and building it start to finish. That is plenty enough work without constructing 1998 OOBs for half the world.

I'm already well into that!

I've started to build a website outlining the alternative history, different regional borders, and more. In addition to that I've bought a small library worth of late cold war era books about geopolitics and military strategy that I'm reading in my free time. It's a bit of a challenge to get the time, but I'm spending 4-6 hours a week on the base scenario with the full OOB and it's slowly progressing.

[HalfLifeExpert]

So here's my critiques of your scenario from a Cold War History perspective:

I am looking for feedback and suggestions about what the militaries of NATO and Soviet/Soviet aligned states would look like under the following alternative history:

The high energy prices of the 1970s continued through the 1990s. Soviet military expansion and research and development continued. Much of NATO did the same.

High energy prices could very much benefit the Soviets, but wouldn't that hurt the NATO nations to the point of their electorates demanding funding away from defense? An important thing to answer is if Gorbachev still becomes Soviet Leader. High energy prices, and the resulting oil income MAY save the Soviets from the historical collapse, but there were still serious issues that Gorbachev was sincerely trying to reform, when they backfired and collapsed the system.

Both sides engaged in significant START reductions, far more than historically happened and spending was redirected into conventional arms.

Plausible, but only if SDI isn't a thing and Reagan isn't as hawkish I think.

Geopolitically, during the 1980s much of Iran was split between Iraq and Soviet aligned client states. Turkey also lost territory and withdrew from NATO. Iraq is a key US ally.

So the Iranian Revolution collapsed into anarchy/civil war? Was there still an Iran-Iraq War? Please elaborate.
How does Turkey lose territory without war (incl. NATO involvement)?
I don't see Iraq being a strong US ally without some internal changes like a coup against Saddam.

Venezuela went communist early and is closely assigned with the Soviets.

I don't have any issue here, though I admit my knowledge of Venezuelan history is minimal at best.

Yugoslavia broke up and Serbia joined the Warsaw pact. Albania is close to joining

Yeah Yugoslavia may be destined to fall apart after Tito's death, but Albania WAS a Warsaw Pact member until 1968, when it withdrew in protest over the Invasion of Czechoslovakia, and was more closely aligned with Communist China. What causes Albania to turn back to Moscow?

Soviet strategy involves the classic Red Storm Rising/Northern Fury moves, invading the Middle East via Iraq, and blasting through Denmark.

Several important questions need to be answered:

-Is Germany still divided? If so, then the main attack would still be across the Iron Curtain.

-Does NATO still intervene in the Post-Yugoslav Wars?

-Presumably the Gulf War of 1991 never happens, so Western deployments to the ME would be significantly smaller than in reality. Are the Gulf States still allies with the US? Also note that alot of the practical lessons and experience provided in the Gulf War don't happen, so that's going to impact how the perception of wars being fought are going to be.

Remember, in RSR, the Soviets never actually got to invade the Middle East, since they believed they needed to knock out NATO first. Under the Carter Doctrine, the US would enter the fight if the Soviets just went after the Persian Gulf.

[kahta]

High energy prices could very much benefit the Soviets, but wouldn't that hurt the NATO nations to the point of their electorates demanding funding away from defense? An important thing to answer is if Gorbachev still becomes Soviet Leader. High energy prices, and the resulting oil income MAY save the Soviets from the historical collapse, but there were still serious issues that Gorbachev was sincerely trying to reform, when they backfired and collapsed the system.

Plausible, but only if SDI isn't a thing and Reagan isn't as hawkish I think.

Good feedback. Thank you.

So the Iranian Revolution collapsed into anarchy/civil war? Was there still an Iran-Iraq War? Please elaborate.
How does Turkey lose territory without war (incl. NATO involvement)?
I don't see Iraq being a strong US ally without some internal changes like a coup against Saddam.

I am thinking something along the lines of:

>US never escalated in Vietnam (part of bigger backstory)
> Without the memory of Vietnam, the US escalates in Iran to try to keep the Shah in power with US forces deployed to Iran following the 1978 Tabriz protests. This accelerates the Iranian revolution timeline
> Soviets see an opportunity to destabilize and stoke the flames of ethnic separatism in Iran and Turkey
> Turkey already facing a low grade conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... 80%931980) faces a full blown insurgency as Soviet efforts to inflame tensions with the Kurds works
> Quagmire in Iran quickly results, with US control limited to Tehran and the coast near Bandar Abbas
> After Reagan is elected, US foreign policy shifts from supporting the Shah to retaining access to Iranian oil
> The answer is found in Iraq and with the consent of the US, Iraq moves into the southwest of Iran to take the oil fields (Not dissimilar to the historical Iran-Iraq war) as American soldiers finish their withdrawal
> Turkish government attempts to invoke Article V against the Soviet Union for support of Kurdish separatists
> NATO declines to get involved and Turkey (Kurdistan isn't worth World War III) and withdraws from NATO in protest
> Insurgency in Kurdistan SSR spills over into Iraq and Turkey and threatens regional stability
> 1980 military coup in Turkey fails and civil war begins
> Soviets make a counter move and seek to gain territory in the Northwest of Iran, expansion of Azerbaijan SSR borders into Iran and creates a Kurdish SSR within Iranian borders
>Greece invades Cyrpus, seeking to remove Turks in the midst of the Turkish civil war
> With two civil conflicts in the region (Turkey and Lebanon), the Cyprus issue, and unclear borders across Iran and Iraq, US and Soviet Union convene for a new Sykes-Picot agreement, redrawing regional borders and establishing framework for the future of the region.
> With Iraq effectively serving as a US satellite, Syria aligns with USSR
> New agreement results in: Cyrpus as a NATO aligned state, Kuwait absorbed into Iraq in exchange for transfer of Kurdish territory to Kurdistan SSR, Iraq retains SW Iran, Syria absorbs Lebanon, and general support from NATO and USSR for Arab nationalist movement but no clear path forward.
> New agreement alienates other Gulf states and Turkey from USSR and NATO. 80s oil glut never happens.

Ethnic map of the Middle East for reference

Venezuela went communist early and is closely assigned with the Soviets.

I don't have any issue here, though I admit my knowledge of Venezuelan history is minimal at best.

Still working this one over for plausibility.

Yeah Yugoslavia may be destined to fall apart after Tito's death, but Albania WAS a Warsaw Pact member until 1968, when it withdrew in protest over the Invasion of Czechoslovakia, and was more closely aligned with Communist China. What causes Albania to turn back to Moscow?

Initial thoughts are that Albania would seen as a second gateway to Soviet access to the Med (after Syria) and they'd use economic aid as a means to achieve this. Still pondering this over.

-Is Germany still divided? If so, then the main attack would still be across the Iron Curtain.

Yes

-Does NATO still intervene in the Post-Yugoslav Wars?

No

-Presumably the Gulf War of 1991 never happens, so Western deployments to the ME would be significantly smaller than in reality. Are the Gulf States still allies with the US? Also note that alot of the practical lessons and experience provided in the Gulf War don't happen, so that's going to impact how the perception of wars being fought are going to be.

Iraq is essentially the US proxy in the region. I am undecided on whether Iraq makes expansionist moves aligned with Arab nationalism in the late 80s/early 90s.

Remember, in RSR, the Soviets never actually got to invade the Middle East, since they believed they needed to knock out NATO first. Under the Carter Doctrine, the US would enter the fight if the Soviets just went after the Persian Gulf.

I think this is addressed in the middle east history above.

[Gunner98]

Late to this thread, sorry.

Looking at your latest post quickly, I think Cyprus is a bit of a red herring unless it is key to your story. Neither party was happy with the separation but both would probably fight tooth and nail to prevent a unification by force. You also had the UN trip-wire force (mostly NATO) in place which makes any invasion by land very risky and awkward, there are few traditional 'beaches' in the north and that is literally in the Turkish back yard. Nor would inciting insurrection work as both populations had largely been segregated. By 1998 the two sides had become amicable and an open border crossing was being seriously discussed, this happened in 2003 largely to allow northern Cyprus to survive economically. I might leave this bit out and perhaps use it as a wedge issue to negotiate with Turkey.

What timeline would NATO infrastructure in Turkey be abandoned (Incirlik, naval facilities and lots of electronic listening stuff). I imagine that some of the smaller sites might be destroyed in any conflict. I do have a hard time believing that the US and the rest of NATO wouldn't have pulled out every tool the inventory to prevent these events happening. Turkey is a lot more important to Europe than Iraq and the US focusing its efforts on Iraq at the expense of Turkey seems a bit of a stretch. I assume that this is a critical part of your backstory so it probably deserves some more depth to be plausible.

Kuwait absorbed into Iraq is another difficult bit to believe. It is in direct conflict with everyone's real memory of what happened there, and that is tricky to make believable in an alt-history.

I think the more you can leave the same, or only slightly altered from real history the better. Everything you change invites question and even criticism. So cherry picking the bits to make your story work while leaving the rest to actual history makes your job easier.

Just my $0.02 CAD