Ukraine 2014

[Gunner98]

Nice. I suspect that the Turks are focused on Syria and the Bosporus for the most part. I would be surprised if the Truxtun didn't have a Turkish escort.My 'guess' at the Turkish navy would be one of its four upgraded Perry's the Gabya class, I suspect that they are used as flagships, with maybe one or two of the older FFs and maybe a flotilla of no more than three corvettes.

Any Chance of a second CSG moving in from the IO or Atlantic?

I think you would see more F-16s before A-10s, which are heavily involved in Afghanistan at the moment. The AH would probably only be deployed if US ground forces are involved, but if there are US ground forces they will be in place.

I'll go start digging a big hole in my backyard to get ready for the last scenario [:D]

B

[NakedWeasel]

I do have a couple squadrons of USAF F-16C, flying SEAD and ASuW out of Romania's big NATO base on the south coast. Combined with the Poles, and the Danes, and Czechs and Romanians, that is a brutal butt-kickin that the Moskva get's awoken to. To be fair, she takes the first shot at the Ukrainian Navy, and is the first to shoot at the NATO response to her aggression- but the Falcons, Gripens and Rafales totally have the last word.

[NakedWeasel]

Hey, I just realized, I don't have any Cannuck involvement... say whut? I bet RAF Akrotiri or Souda Bay has a little tarmac space for a squadron of CF-18s. What would be their specialty, AAW, SEAD, ASuW, or ground strike?

[Gunner98]

The normal deployment would be a '6-Pack' of CF-18's, an Aurora or two (P-3), and an Airbus tanker, not much but a potent 'wave the flag' force. There would undoubtable be a City Class FF in the Med, they often work with the CSGs (or at least used to), excellent ASW. Specialities for the 18's would be AAW and ground strike. Experience from Libya shows that the tanker was one of only a very few checked out for multinational refueling (at least early on), the rest including US had to stick to refueling national elements only. Also the new upgrades to the Aurora's make them very good ISTAR platforms. Although Akrotiri has a great beach you may want to put them a little closer to the action because of the short legs on the 18's, they would usually all work out of the same base to maximize support etc. Perhaps Eskiºehir near Istanbul or Larissa in Greece.

Anything you need me to dig into on this one?

B

[NakedWeasel]

I have the UK Typhoons tanking from Airbus tankers already. I have an established support patrol zone stretching the length of north central Turkey. Plenty of gas for all takers ingressing and egressing from the Crimea AO. I'm going to add a couple Auroras to the P-8/MPAs as well as a squadron of CF-18s for AAW at Souda. The -18's will be greatly needed as a MIGCAP over southern Turkey and Crete. I think I'll add a multinational ASW SAG in the Aegean, including a Canadian FF or DD.

I'll have you play test it soon, if you don't mind. Always happy to hear a variety of opinions from a multinational group of players.

[Rudd]

Not sure if this has been posted yet

According to eye witness reports and local media in Crimea, Russia deployed Bastion mobile coastal missile system to Sevastopol in night of 8 to 9 March. Several witnesses recorded the movement of Bastion anti-ship launcher complex on the streets Crimea.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=1618

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: Rudd

Not sure if this has been posted yet

According to eye witness reports and local media in Crimea, Russia deployed Bastion mobile coastal missile system to Sevastopol in night of 8 to 9 March. Several witnesses recorded the movement of Bastion anti-ship launcher complex on the streets Crimea.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=1618

Ah, yeah I've added that to the v7 version of the scenario on the wiki. I think its the 11th Independent Coastal Missile-Artillery Brigade.

[beserko]

Budapest Memorandum

For Ukraine:
(Signed) Leonid D. KUCHMA
For the Russian Federation:
(Signed) Boris N. YELTSIN
For the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland:
(Signed) John MAJOR
For the United States of America:
(Signed) William J. CLINTON
And ratified by the Senate and house?

Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Secretary Andriy Parubiy

Parubiy used the press conference to remind the United States and the United Kingdom of their obligations as guarantors of Ukraine’s security, according to the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum under which Ukraine forfeited its nuclear arsenal in return for security assurances.

Technically guys I think we are legally bound to defend the Ukraine!

I think that the United Kingdom and the United States of America are at war with The Russian Federation (LEGALLY) ....................

[RoryAndersonCDT]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian and Ukrainian languages.

Doesn't say we have to DOW anyone who invades Ukraine, but rather that the UNSC has to assist Ukraine. The UNSC did have a meeting, requested by the Russians, recently.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan
Doesn't say we have to DOW anyone who invades Ukraine, but rather that the UNSC has to assist Ukraine. The UNSC did have a meeting, requested by the Russians, recently.

The UN can't really do anything here, as Russia has a veto. That's the down-side of the UNSC system. The response will be from the EU, G7, NATO and many other multilateral groupings, as well as individual countries.

Russia is already clearly in breach of the memorandum, but there's nothing in it about any action to be taken in event of breach. It's simply a promise that's been broken.

Part of the consequence, though, is that Russia can now be regarded as not liable to honour *any* of her promises, and so will be treated accordingly. So while Russia may gain in the short term via annexation, it's likely that the long-term response will not be in her favour.

[Gunner98]

No problem on the play-test - well, except for time [:D]. I have some down time in the coming week or so, but it gets crazy near the end of the month, first week of Apr is fine but then I am gone for a month.

B

[JSF]

I would love to test the latest version of your scenario, if possible. I downloaded the one dated 2014-02-27, but there is one or more updated version? This would add Germany to your multinational test group. [8D]

[RoryAndersonCDT]

The most up to date version is located here: http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index. ... raine_2014

I'm planning to move some russian units to Crimea when I get a free moment. I've moved the 11th Independent Coastal Missile-Artillery Brigade over and moved the Taylor out of the BS.

[JSF]

Ok, downloaded it. Will test on weekend. Though I´m really horrified how real it is.

[gregb41352]

Baloogan,

Great work here, but I downloaded V7 and I get a CTD upon scenario start.
Is there anything else I need to do?

Thanks for doing this.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: gobadgers

Baloogan,

Great work here, but I downloaded V7 and I get a CTD upon scenario start.
Is there anything else I need to do?

Thanks for doing this.

Ah, please update the the most recent version of Command. http://baloogancampaign.com/command-doc ... n/patches/

[Tomcat84]

Can we get some Dutch vipers in there somewhere? 6-8 sounds reasonable

[gregb41352]

Ah, the old update to the latest version malfunction. Fixed,
working and great work. Lets hope these events do not come
to pass.

[sjgold]

So, something I was thinking about today after reading a bit about the ultimatum for Monday, is that how this could play out in relationship to an Iran/Israel situation.

Thoughts here are..
1) Iran is moving forward with the nuclear program
2) It seems that somehow the US is keeping Israel on a short leash.
3) Russia has been asked by "The West" to assist in containing Iran
4) It would not be entirely unlikely that in retaliation for the Ukraine meddling that some sort of middle east meddling covert or overt could be done.
5) Proxy wars are back in fashion...

While there is no way in hell we would see direct Russian on Israel confrontation over the skies of Iran, my thoughts are deployment of air defense assets "Sold" to the Iranians, or possibly even some updated fighters being sold (although the training time for this might just make this effort completely ineffective in a situation that where to develop quickly after the sale).

Thoughts??

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: sjgold
...
Thoughts??

Iran:
The Iran nuclear situation is likely to have an acceptable outcome for most parties (though maybe not with Netanyahu), as the current administration seems much more amenable to some sort of deal. They are under a lot of domestic pressure as the economy squeaked badly under sanctions, and the hard-liners want to return to power. Thus they really have to make some sort of deal to avoid a return to either/both. I can't see how Russia can really interfere in that process, and Netanyaho will have to accede to any deal that the US agrees to.


Israel/Palestine:
US is indeed trying to keep Israel from taking unilateral actions as there is renewed hope of some sort of Israel/Palestine deal too, and that chance should not be thrown away by some action that will give the hot-heads the upper hand again. Russia doesn't have much clout with either party, as the Palestinians now get most of their support from moderate Arab nations and the EU. Even the Islamsists have no truck with Russia because of their South Caucusus policies, so there's little scope for interference there.


Syria:
At the moment the Assad government is gaining the upper hand as the secular rebels and Islamists fight as much with each other as the regime. However, as Russia is already heavily supporting the regime it's hard to see how they can add more fuel to that fire. Maybe if the civil war ends in the regime's favour it can turn it's attention outside, e.g. a new occupation of Lebanon. That, though, would likely spark a significant international response that a war-weary regime could do without.


Global:
Russia doesn't have too many friends around the globe - apart from Syria, really just Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and maybe North Korea at a pinch. Not exactly major players on the world's stage. The Cold War proxy wars were mostly on the back of post-colonial turbulence, and that era has largely ended so there's far less scope for local conflicts that can be stoked by Russia. North Korea is rather unstable and unpredictable, but that's not exactly a new problem. Even China is likely to distance itself from Russia's actions, as it's bad for business.


Near Abroad:
The ex-Soviet states make up the one area in which Russia could seriously interfere - but that's exactly what they've been doing for some time. The Georgia separatist wars are one example, and the effective division of Moldova another. The current Ukraine crisis is just the latest example of this trend. The USSR bequeathed a complex set of problems of minorities and autocratic states, which remains a tinder box in many places. There is scope for more trouble to break out, as Russia tries to absorb any state which contains an ethnic Russian minority. Some states are small and of little international importance, but the large and resource-rich Kazakhstan must be a little worried just now. It does look a little like Putin is trying to rebuild the old Russian Empire, though more in the style of Catherine the Great than Lenin. There's not much NATO or other international bodies can really do about that, other than supply any resistance movements that result.


International Community:
The next steps will be diplomatic and economic rather than military, as Russia becomes a pariah nation and is met with increasing trade boycotts. UN sanctions can't happen as Russia has a security council veto, but most of the richer nations will likely fall into line with such boycotts. EU, NATO, G7, maybe even G20. These will start small but increase over time, especially as Europe has to wean itself off Russian petrochemicals and that can't happen overnight. These boycotts may even extend to denial of transport through participants' territories, such as the Bosphorus and Baltic, thus making Russia's remaining trade routes more tenuous. China will likely take up some of that trade slack, but nowhere near what is lost.

Military actions will primarily be NATO safeguarding its member states, and maybe later helping to police sanctions amongst participating nations. However, I see no real prospect of a NATO vs Russia war as neither side would be keen on starting one. Russia won't invade NATO territory and NATO won't attack Russia. The only danger is of a local spark where some twitchy local commander starts something which escalates.

Notably as there WON'T be any UN sanctions, Russia will have no blockade of international waters to deal with, thus no casus belli. She will just lack customers and so have an ever-failing economy, and that can't be changed by war. Enough of that, and the leadership is likely to change.