Donbass Conflict heating up????

[BeirutDude]

Still working, have the Black Sea (Plus some Caspian Flotilla) vessels done and 1/2 the Ukraine Navy.

[BeirutDude]

All the forces and Ukrainian Missions are set...

Russian mission will be to destroy as much of the Ukrainian Navy and Airforce as possible within a two day period (opening battles). The Ukraine is outmatched so it will be a turkey shoot, but can you earn enough points to "win" with put loosing too many aircraft to Ukrainian SAMs. This will be a scenario where your mission is to destroy as many units as possible to gain points. So if that's not nuanced enough for your tastes this won't be a scenario for you! Just saying...

[edsw]

this is impressive! Will NATO's intervention in the conflict be taken into account? Although this will probably be a very big scenario

[BeirutDude]

My PERSONAL estimation of the situation is...

1. NATO (or the EU) WILL NOT openly support the Ukraine militarily. Sorry open warfare with Russia, even if Russia doesn't go nuclear will result in the overrunning of the Baltics, and (at least) eastern Poland. NATO would be faced with the decision to use nukes in the Suwalki Gap and they won't risk that for The Ukraine.

2. The U.S. and (maybe) U.K. & France may support the Ukraine with limited resupply (ATGMs, MPSAMs, etc.) in the long run but not major equipment and nothing that will seriously strain relations with Russia. IMHO (and it is my opinion) the numbers of Neo-Nazis in the Donbass Militia Battalions (Azov Battalion) is a major public relations issue for Ukraine which just doesn't allow the West to do more. Russia is gaining a lot of traction in the propaganda battles and you can't deny they are there. Trying to not make this a political discussion but it is a major problem for the West supporting the Ukraine. The scenario assumes this.

What the scenario is predicated on is the Ukraine on it's own and Russia is taking the first two days to dismantle the Ukrainian Navy, Air Force and (most formable) the IADS before a ground offensive to the Dnieper (like Desert Storm).

Sorry but that is how I see it. You can say it is 1938/39 all over again, but it is 1938/39 with nukes, and that can never be forgotten.

[BeirutDude]

Scenario Play Test is here...

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5016861

[maverick3320]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

My PERSONAL estimation of the situation is...

1. NATO (or the EU) WILL NOT openly support the Ukraine militarily. Sorry open warfare with Russia, even if Russia doesn't go nuclear will result in the overrunning of the Baltics, and (at least) eastern Poland. NATO would be faced with the decision to use nukes in the Suwalki Gap and they won't risk that for The Ukraine.

2. The U.S. and (maybe) U.K. & France may support the Ukraine with limited resupply (ATGMs, MPSAMs, etc.) in the long run but not major equipment and nothing that will seriously strain relations with Russia. IMHO (and it is my opinion) the numbers of Neo-Nazis in the Donbass Militia Battalions (Azov Battalion) is a major public relations issue for Ukraine which just doesn't allow the West to do more. Russia is gaining a lot of traction in the propaganda battles and you can't deny they are there. Trying to not make this a political discussion but it is a major problem for the West supporting the Ukraine. The scenario assumes this.

What the scenario is predicated on is the Ukraine on it's own and Russia is taking the first two days to dismantle the Ukrainian Navy, Air Force and (most formable) the IADS before a ground offensive to the Dnieper (like Desert Storm).

Sorry but that is how I see it. You can say it is 1938/39 all over again, but it is 1938/39 with nukes, and that can never be forgotten.

If the consequences are that straightforward, I can't see Russia doing this either. Overrunning any part of Poland will likely involve the deaths of US troops. At that point, politically speaking, it won't matter if the entire Ukrainian military edifice is composed of neo-nazis - the US will be forced to respond. In nearly any scenario of open warfare Russia loses Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad has a lot of value to Russia as a thorn in NATO's side.

[DESRON420]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

My PERSONAL estimation of the situation is...

It's just Ukraine. There is no article. Ukraine.

[edsw]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

My PERSONAL estimation of the situation is...

1. NATO (or the EU) WILL NOT openly support the Ukraine militarily. Sorry open warfare with Russia, even if Russia doesn't go nuclear will result in the overrunning of the Baltics, and (at least) eastern Poland. NATO would be faced with the decision to use nukes in the Suwalki Gap and they won't risk that for The Ukraine.

2. The U.S. and (maybe) U.K. & France may support the Ukraine with limited resupply (ATGMs, MPSAMs, etc.) in the long run but not major equipment and nothing that will seriously strain relations with Russia. IMHO (and it is my opinion) the numbers of Neo-Nazis in the Donbass Militia Battalions (Azov Battalion) is a major public relations issue for Ukraine which just doesn't allow the West to do more. Russia is gaining a lot of traction in the propaganda battles and you can't deny they are there. Trying to not make this a political discussion but it is a major problem for the West supporting the Ukraine. The scenario assumes this.

What the scenario is predicated on is the Ukraine on it's own and Russia is taking the first two days to dismantle the Ukrainian Navy, Air Force and (most formable) the IADS before a ground offensive to the Dnieper (like Desert Storm).

Sorry but that is how I see it. You can say it is 1938/39 all over again, but it is 1938/39 with nukes, and that can never be forgotten.

I agree with your opinion. In my opinion, the current situation is due to the fact that Ukraine has announced that it will move to NATO. Putin, once upon a time (2007, if I'm not mistaken) said that Ukraine is a red line.

[BeirutDude]

If the consequences are that straightforward, I can't see Russia doing this either. Overrunning any part of Poland will likely involve the deaths of US troops. At that point, politically speaking, it won't matter if the entire Ukrainian military edifice is composed of neo-nazis - the US will be forced to respond. In nearly any scenario of open warfare Russia loses Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad has a lot of value to Russia as a thorn in NATO's side.

Let's hope nobody does it!!!!!!

[BeirutDude]

I agree with your opinion. In my opinion, the current situation is due to the fact that Ukraine has announced that it will move to NATO. Putin, once upon a time (2007, if I'm not mistaken) said that Ukraine is a red line.

That's a part of it.

I honestly can't see NATO allowing the Ukraine, or Georgia in, but then there are a few recent additions that baffle me!!!!! I'm not sure NATO is as relevant these days as we think. The recent paradrop in Estonia was cool to watch on Twitter, but realistically they are just a road bump and NATO has pretty much shot it's bolt after dropping them in a real crisis. NATO has lots of recon and EW assets, but is short on ground forces/CAS.

Then again Russia has it's problems in those areas as well...

[BeirutDude]

ORIGINAL: DESRON420

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

My PERSONAL estimation of the situation is...

It's just Ukraine. There is no article. Ukraine.

Yup, and that's why they were granted full membership. Georgia as well...

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

ORIGINAL: DESRON420

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

My PERSONAL estimation of the situation is...

It's just Ukraine. There is no article. Ukraine.

Yup, and that's why they were granted full membership. Georgia as well...

This is an interesting miscommunication, DESRON420 is objecting to the use of "the Ukraine" rather than "Ukraine". The article he is referring to is the word "the".
However you are interpreting it as referring to the articles in the North Atlantic treaty, eg Article 5.

I only mention this because I thought this was a neat example of miscommunication, because interpreting DESRON420's post as referring to Article 5 actually is quite a valid interpretation.

[Scorpion86]

Yeah, Ukrainians get annoyed when their country is referred to "the Ukraine".
"Ukraine" means "borderlands". The land was so named because it was the border between Russia and the rest of Europe. So, in Russian, when you say you're in a place that has a name (a city, a country, for instance), you say "v Sankt Petersburgye", "v Parisye", "v Londonye". But when you are in open spaces, you use the article "na". When Russians speak about Ukraine, they say they are "na Ukrayinye", in the borderlands, implying it is not a country, just a space. That use was translated into english as "the Ukraine" from the russian. Ukrainians prefer people to use just "Ukraine" instead.
That's what I gathered from talking to Ukrainian friends and from my 1 year of trying to learn Russian.
Also, Kyiv, not Kiev, is the proper name.
*flies away*

[BeirutDude]

ORIGINAL: Scorpion86

Yeah, Ukrainians get annoyed when their country is referred to "the Ukraine".
"Ukraine" means "borderlands". The land was so named because it was the border between Russia and the rest of Europe. So, in Russian, when you say you're in a place that has a name (a city, a country, for instance), you say "v Sankt Petersburgye", "v Parisye", "v Londonye". But when you are in open spaces, you use the article "na". When Russians speak about Ukraine, they say they are "na Ukrayinye", in the borderlands, implying it is not a country, just a space. That use was translated into english as "the Ukraine" from the russian. Ukrainians prefer people to use just "Ukraine" instead.
That's what I gathered from talking to Ukrainian friends and from my 1 year of trying to learn Russian.
Also, Kyiv, not Kiev, is the proper name.
*flies away*

Interesting. So when I was in Lebanon I was corrected by Lebanese (multiple times) to call it "The Lebanon." Different cultures...

[maverick3320]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

ORIGINAL: Scorpion86

Yeah, Ukrainians get annoyed when their country is referred to "the Ukraine".
"Ukraine" means "borderlands". The land was so named because it was the border between Russia and the rest of Europe. So, in Russian, when you say you're in a place that has a name (a city, a country, for instance), you say "v Sankt Petersburgye", "v Parisye", "v Londonye". But when you are in open spaces, you use the article "na". When Russians speak about Ukraine, they say they are "na Ukrayinye", in the borderlands, implying it is not a country, just a space. That use was translated into english as "the Ukraine" from the russian. Ukrainians prefer people to use just "Ukraine" instead.
That's what I gathered from talking to Ukrainian friends and from my 1 year of trying to learn Russian.
Also, Kyiv, not Kiev, is the proper name.
*flies away*

Interesting. So when I was in Lebanon I was corrected by Lebanese (multiple times) to call it "The Lebanon." Different cultures...

And closer to home, people in Ohio demand that the state's flagship university be referred to as "THE Ohio State University"...

[BeirutDude]

And closer to home, people in Ohio demand that the state's flagship university be referred to as "THE Ohio State University"...

Well I did graduate from "THE Florida State University" myself. [:D] [8D] [;)]