Ukraine 2014

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Alrosa (B-871) Kilo-class out of the Black Sea

Baltic sea fleet:
123rd Submarine Brigade
1 Lada-class submarine
B-585 Sankt Peterburg
2 Kilo-class submarines

Northern Fleet:
7th Division, Vidyaevo
SIERRA I-class SSN Kostroma
SIERRA II-class SSN Nizhniy Novgorod[11]
SIERRA II-class SSN Pskov (K-336)
VICTOR-III-class SSN Daniil Moskovskiy (K-414)


24th Submarine Division (Yagelnaya Bay, Sayda Inlet)
Akula-class submarine I-class SSN Pantera (K-317)
Akula I-class SSN Volk (K-461)
Akula I-class SSN Leopard (K-328)
Akula I-class SSN Tigr (K-154) [11]
Akula II-class SSN Vepr (K-157)
Akula II-class SSN Gepard (K-335)



I think right off the bat we can ignore the baltic fleet as transiting a non nuclear sub would be annoying. One LST from the baltic fleet is operating in the Black Sea.

My uneducated guess would be 1-2 SSNs; in theater possibly due to the Syrian crisis last year, operating out of a Syrian submarine base.

[guanotwozero]

I reckon Putin has no intention of getting into a shooting war with NATO, but he knows NATO won't intervene militarily unless he actually attacks a member state. He knows he can grab Ukraine militarily and justify it domestically by using a fraudulent (to everyone else) referendum, though there will be a cost.

The EU, US and many other countries will impose sanctions, but they'll want to have a scaled response so as to deter any further invasion, e.g. of the east or the whole country. Thus the "cost of Crimea" will be less than the cost of a full invasion. I think Putin's prepared to have Russia bear that cost, at least for what he reckons it will be.

It's risky, in that part of the response may be for NATO to guarantee the safety of rest of Ukraine. If that gets assured (or even if not), sanctions could increase in severity and steadily Putin finds himself with an economy going downhill, NATO buildups on his borders, and major opposition at home that he can't fully suppress. That's when dangerous men tend to become even more dangerous.

Edit ===

Another factor - at present, Europe gets much of its natural gas from Russia. Embargoing that will hurt Europe in the short term, forcing it to buy from elsewhere and pushing costs up. However it will hurt Russia more. As supplies readjust, the new suppliers (e.g. US, Saudi, maybe Iran) will increase output, pushing down the price again. What's more, Europe will probably stay with the new suppliers even after the crisis, so Russia loses its main customers and is subsequently hit with falling prices for its main export products, while trying to maintain military strength. Like a rerun of the 1980s, which virtually bankrupted the USSR.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Canada and the US have alot of energy; and we are good friends with Europe! Please buy from us!

[NakedWeasel]

So far I have the Russian Med OOB as: Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov, (099) Pyotr Veliky, RFS Admiral Levchenko (Udaloy I), RFS Neustrashimy (Project 1154 Yastreb), BDK-91 Olenegorsky Gornyak (Ropucha), RFS Sergey Osipov (Boris Chilikin), RAL65 Kama (Boris Chilikin???), (RFS?) Nikolai Chiker (ocean-going rescue togboat)

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan

Canada and the US have alot of energy; and we are good friends with Europe! Please buy from us!

Sure!

Most of the supplies from Russia, though, come by pipeline, which is normally cheaper than shipping. However, the economy of scale of production can dwarf that, so prices would return to a stable level after the initial hike as new infrastructure (terminals, bulk tankers) gets built and settles into place. What's more, newer technologies such as fracking could make Western Europe more self-sufficient, e.g. the UK is about to start tapping what may be large reserves.

It's been the case that Russia has used Europe's dependence on its petrochemicals as a major bargaining chip for years, frequently unfairly so (according to many) including the terms of the lease on the Sevastopol base. Europe would love to rid itself of that, so transatlantic sourcing may be a major part of the answer. Assuming transatlantic bargaining chips don't replace Russian ones... [;)]

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan

Canada and the US have alot of energy; and we are good friends with Europe! Please buy from us!

Here here. Here in the great state of Texas, we're sitting on on the world's fifth largest supplies of oil and natural gas, with more being discovered daily. You might as well buy from your friends. And you don't have to worry about being annexed by us. You might get invaded by McDonalds and Burger King, but the rest of the world has learned to survive that mess as well. [:D]

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
Here here. Here in the great state of Texas, we're sitting on on the world's fifth largest supplies of oil and natural gas, with more being discovered daily. You might as well buy from your friends. And you don't have to worry about being annexed by us. You might get invaded by McDonalds and Burger King, but the rest of the world has learned to survive that mess as well. [:D]

"Our people are buying your blue jeans and listening to your pop music...", as Civ V would have it.

Of course, cultural resistance exists too [:D]

[NakedWeasel]

Oh yes, let's not forget Walmart. Are those blue Walmart vests? Anyway, well played, sir. Well played indeed.

[sjgold]

Moving a CVCG into the black sea would be a game of brinkmanship that Obama could not possibly play, he is too weak and has 0 respect internationally.

[Rudd]

KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... r/6250815/

Not sure about the pact or the quote, just know the whole thing is getting bad

[sjgold]

Honestly I could not see a scenario here that would cause a NATO escalation that went hot.

About all that will happen is US/EU will throw around the condemn thing and say there are costs...
I don't even think serious sanctions will happen. EU needs the gas...

US can't do the logistics to ship the amount of gas needed to cover things if Putin tightens the thumb screws on the EU.

Remember this is the man that said one of the worst events of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union.
There is 0 chance Putin would just give up Crimea that being said there are diplomatic solutions to the situation, but in my opinion due to POTUS being so weak there is little reason for Putin to feel he is limited in response.
The man has 0 respect for Obama his recent actions have shown that. I think some of his response has been just to thumb his nose at the west.

That all being said Baloogan did a great job with the scenario, I watched the YouTube replay of the stream. It really shows how the game engine and editor features can really be a rapid tool for scenerao design.

[NakedWeasel]

@sjgold

Moving a CVCG into the black sea would be a game of brinkmanship that Obama could not possibly play, he is too weak and has 0 respect internationally.

We've already discussed that.
1. I agree with you- not a fan.
2. We already have a full carrier strike group and attached destroyer group in the area.
3. There are limits imposed upon shipping transiting the Bosporus. The limit for warships is 45000 tons, if I'm not mistaken. which is about half the displacement of a fully loaded Nimitz-class carrier. So, we can't get her in there even if we wanted to.
4. There is no need to move a CSG into the Black Sea, as her Hornets and their weapons have the range to do massive damage to Russian forces in Crimea from the southern coast of Turkey. I know, I'm running that very same operation right now. [;)]

[Rudd]

Agreed (especially the POTUS remarks) , we the US, don't look very good at all.

[NakedWeasel]

BTW, for those that are interested, I've added the Kuznetsov CSG into the scenario the Baloogan and I have been working on.

Baloogan, I can send you my V.03, if you want it.

[guanotwozero]

I'll partly agree and disagree with some of the above opinions.

Obama is pretty well respected in Europe, though it's mostly for reasons other than military leadership. The low point of the USA's relationship was during GWB's leadership and the Iraq invasion, which was widely seen as heavy-handed and a bad move. Obama generally increased the USA's reputation since then though he hasn't yet been tested on a military response, and this crisis is likely the one that will make/break his reputation on that front. Arguably this is a much bigger test than anything since the Cold War as it's on NATO's doorstep.

Europe is partly beholden to Russia because of petrochemicals and other trades, so to cut that off would mean a major hit initially. Timing is bad because many countries are only now emerging from the recession and an energy price hike would jeopardise that. For this reason European leaders (mostly western) have been pushing a more gentle, diplomatic, persuasive effort to get Putin to reverse his actions, as they're keen to avoid that hit. Eastern Europe is more concerned for obvious reasons.

The US, on the other hand, is much more immune to any trade sanctions, and has noticeably been the one leading the threats of consequences as it has little to lose by imposing trade embargoes. Admittedly Kerry has been more visible doing that than Obama himself, but the perceived tone is definitely a tough one.

In one way, this is exactly how coalition diplomacy should work. Europe is being the good cop, USA the bad cop. Or put another way, Europe is speaking softly while the US is gently tapping its big stick. It leaves way for a face-saving climb down with a promise of business as usual, but also emphasises that there will be a significant cost if annexation (or worse) happens.

If it does happen, the initial sanctions will probably be relatively gentle. Targetted visas, banking assets, that sort of thing. Part of the reason will be so that Europe has time to re-orient its energy markets and become less dependent on Russia, allowing deeper sanctions later. The carrot/stick approach should always allow a way out but increases pain if it's not taken, so meaningful sanctions would be staged progressively anyway. Not a quick fix but effective - sanctions are one of the main reasons Iran has become more cooperative recently. Remember, Putin will not always be in control and a future leader may be much more cooperative with the international community, though at present it's hard to foresee him not in a position to at least pull the strings. A door must be left open regardless.

In the meantime, an increase of NATO military assets near Russia's borders will add to the psychological pressure, and (hopefully) help deter further action. The US still has the big arsenal to do that, despite budget cuts, and it will make Russia's western neighbours feel quite a bit safer. This will help many nations take part in some form of embargo, whether trade or otherwise.

So Obama's real test may be just beginning. That's what we'll judge him on. It's not simply about being tough, otherwise we'd be praising Putin right now.

[cwemyss]

How many tugs did you model to get wind over the deck for aircraft launch?

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

BTW, for those that are interested, I've added the Kuznetsov CSG into the scenario the Baloogan and I have been working on.

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: sjgold

Moving a CVCG into the black sea would be a game of brinkmanship that Obama could not possibly play, he is too weak and has 0 respect internationally.

a) From a military point of view Im pretty sure that sending a CVBG into a small, enclosed, body of water well inside the range on an enemy's land based air would be a REALLY bad idea.

B) Politically everybody knows that the West (US included) has ZERO interest in going to war with Russia over the Ukraine - so what is gained through chest beating bravado that makes threats which we have no intention of carrying out?

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

How many tugs did you model to get wind over the deck for aircraft launch?

It is indeed a pretty humorous situation, both in real life, and in the game. I never thought I'd research so hard, for so long, on Russian "ocean-going rescue tugs", just to scrape together a credible force for the OPFOR. And it's really that "ghetto"- like they bring along a tug on every deployment just to ensure that rust bucket doesn't sink whilst tied up in a harbor.

From what I've read, they can't even supply pot-water to most of the boat, so they only have about 25 working heads, for 2500 crew. God, I can only imagine the smell from those latrines. Living conditions on board must be fairly deplorable for most of the ship's company.

[Gunner98]

Just catching up and watching the Y-tube vid, very nice. Are there any thoughts of including Turkish and/or other NATO forces such as Brits on Cyprus, French Greek or Italians? Might make the Truxtun's life a little nicer in the first few hours.

BG

[NakedWeasel]

Currently, I have the Brits (2 squadrons of Typhoons), and some recon elements at RAF Akrotiri already. I will be adding a small NATO/Greek element at Souda Bay, Greece, focusing on Maritime Surveillance and ASW. I have two squadrons of Italian EF2000s at Romania's southern coastal base. There are also two squadrons of French Rafales, and an equal number of Mirage 2000 in Romania as well. I have been looking at the Turkish Navy OOB, and have had a difficult time determining what they have on the northern coastline, aside from a handful of SSKs and a small harbor for patrol boats. Most of Turkey's surface fleet appears to be based just outside the Bosporus.

In version 04, I will also be adding two RFS nuke subs to round out Russia's Med Fleet. Currently, they don't really have any way of detecting the Bush CSG, aside from just blundering westward into her patrol zone. Doesn't matter, that whole thing goes south for them very quickly.

Version 5 will include a number of the Ukraine land forces along the north of the Dnieper River, to "hold the line", until the NATO/UN air support is able to help out. They will probably be speedbumps at best, but they'll allow NATO some ability to find and fix the Russian assault forces, so that the air strikes can finish the Ruskies off. I'm still deciding whether or not to include attack helo's or A-10's to NATO right now. I'll also be adding a convoy of arms supply trucks at the Romanian border, because the freedom fighters have got to get their Stingers, and Javelins, and Spike missiles from somewhere...

Lastly, version six will be the endgame (of Part One, The Conventional War [:'(] ) which will end with the Russian's being completely eliminated from the Crimea, or the destruction of a NATO base (other than Incirlik). I'm still trying to decide if and/or when the conflict goes to a limited nuclear conflict ( which will be the beginning of Part Two; Nuclear Counterforce ). I think the destruction of Engels for Russia will be the kicker for a counterforce strike against Incirlik, and vice versa for the NATO side. Both sides possess the assets needed to bring about the destruction of the other's main garrisons. The tricky part will be how and when to "turn it off". I want to give either side the ability to "win" a limited exchange, and/or force the other side to quit.

And finally, if things get REALLY, TOTALLY, HORRIDLY out of control, I'll add Part Three; Countervalue. Naturally, this will be a full nuclear exchange between Russia, and the United States, with a possible cameo role by China, and guest appearances by India, Pakistan, France, and Israel.

Bring your party hats and lead-based SPF-5000000 sunblock. It's gonna get a little crazy.