And To Think It Might Have Happened: A Ukraine War Timeline

[Kung Fucious]

That's a good point. We might end up in some kind of de facto stalemate because both sides have run down their supplies and new ones aren't coming in fast enough.

Considering the rate at which ammunition is consumed, and the cost of manufacturing it, that's the most likely scenario. From what I understand, neither NATO nor Russia could maintain operations for more than a few weeks before they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Also, this is rapidly turning into a Russia wank. Russia manages to strike Alaska with impunity, and no one thinks to reinforce in until it's too late? The Marines invade Sakhalin but then the Joint Chiefs say "Eh, fuck it" and leave them hanging with little support? I mean, this is the US we're talking about. Even with a land war raging in Eastern Europe there's still plenty of air and naval assets to support a massive ground operation into Sakhalin, they wouldn't just throw the Marines onto the beach and say "good luck boys!".

If this happens, I'm un-subbing. This TL has been a very good read so far, with a few unlikely events occurring, but so far has stayed out of implausible territory and I hope that it stays that way.

This TL is very readable, but started at implausible and is rapidly encroaching on Modern Warfare 3 territory.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Also, this is rapidly turning into a Russia wank. Russia manages to strike Alaska with impunity, and no one thinks to reinforce in until it's too late? The Marines invade Sakhalin but then the Joint Chiefs say "Eh, fuck it" and leave them hanging with little support? I mean, this is the US we're talking about. Even with a land war raging in Eastern Europe there's still plenty of air and naval assets to support a massive ground operation into Sakhalin, they wouldn't just throw the Marines onto the beach and say "good luck boys!".

I thought the U.S. successfully took Sakhalin (well, half of it) and started pumping its oil and natural gas, but the people in the U.S. didn't care.

About Alaska, given how that would be an obvious target, maybe instead the Russians expend a huge percentage of their bombers and cruise missiles doing it? The same result to the U.S. oil supply, but at a vastly greater cost. A Pyrrhic victory, if you will.

 

[Kung Fucious]

I thought the U.S. successfully took Sakhalin (well, half of it) and started pumping its oil and natural gas, but the people in the U.S. didn't care.

About Alaska, given how that would be an obvious target, maybe instead the Russians expend a huge percentage of their bombers and cruise missiles doing it? The same result to the U.S. oil supply, but at a vastly greater cost. A Pyrrhic victory, if you will.

Maybe. Honestly it feels like every engagement has been Russia making some fairly obvious attack (pushing into the Baltics, attempting to strike at the Alaskan oilfields, etc) and constantly catching NATO with their pants down, while they only attempt token attacks (sending one B-2 to bomb Moscow, a half-hearted invasion of Sakhalin, etc), while contemplating bone-headed ideas like starting a trade war/currency default with China. I mean, I get that realistically you need to buff Russia in order to make them a serious opponent for NATO, but having them constantly crit while NATO doesn't even know which dice to use is pushing it.

 

[ThePest179]

A restoration of diplomatic relations, an end to sanctions, and a free hand re: Iraq and Syria might be in the offing. Then ISIS and al-Nusra (yay!) and the FSA (nooo!) are going to be in for a world of hurt.

ISIS won't. They'll quickly appeal to the Sunni community, and when that happens, then the sectarian war starts.

This TL is very readable, but started at implausible and is rapidly encroaching on Modern Warfare 3 territory.

The only way it could reach that level of plausibility is if Russia manages to land troops in NYC.

 

[lucaswillen05]

Which means either an expansion of the war into southern Europe with the purporse of closing off the Black Sea from NATO or a major thrust into Poland both of these would reduce the importance of the Far East operation for the US and force all remaining reserves to be deployed to Europe.One thing which hasn't been looked into is how are events in Europe affecting Irak or Syria,in 2014 the Islamic State expanded fast into both but lost its offensive spirit once the US started bombing forcing a stalemate towards the end of the year.Now the US would have little if any resources left for the Middle East,even with a quick expansion of the Islamic State generals in the Pentagon would say the Islamic State lacks nukes and can be handled.So even in the worst case scenario the US would still have an edge.But for the people on the ground it means both Iran and potentially Israel,Saudi Arabia(??) will have to deal with this on their own.

If the US-Russian war in Europe and the Far East lasts into the summer of 2014 then the US may not be able to intervene in the Middle East so strongly or at all. If IS expansion starts threatening the oil prducing areas, Israel or Turkey that might change.

 

[lucaswillen05]

Which means either an expansion of the war into southern Europe with the purporse of closing off the Black Sea from NATO or a major thrust into Poland both of these would reduce the importance of the Far East operation for the US and force all remaining reserves to be deployed to Europe..

A Russian offensive into Poland would make the most sense as the forces/munitions to do tha are already in place. Romania is possible but would require a longer buildup. Putin's generals will most lkely favour the Polish option as it would

1 Cut off NATO forces in the Baltic States
2 Potentially take Warsaw which would be a signficant propoganda victory
3 Possibly knock Poland out of the war

 

[lucaswillen05]

Considering the rate at which ammunition is consumed, and the cost of manufacturing it, that's the most likely scenario. From what I understand, neither NATO nor Russia could maintain operations for more than a few weeks before they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Also, this is rapidly turning into a Russia wank. Russia manages to strike Alaska with impunity, and no one thinks to reinforce in until it's too late? The Marines invade Sakhalin but then the Joint Chiefs say "Eh, fuck it" and leave them hanging with little support? I mean, this is the US we're talking about. Even with a land war raging in Eastern Europe there's still plenty of air and naval assets to support a massive ground operation into Sakhalin, they wouldn't just throw the Marines onto the beach and say "good luck boys!".

This TL is very readable, but started at implausible and is rapidly encroaching on Modern Warfare 3 territory.

The war can probably continue at the current high tempo until June/July at which point munitions stocks will be low.

Limited Far East operations (Sakhalin and maybe Vladivostok) will gain NATO some Russian territory to negotiate back in return for losses in Europe in the event NATO cannot turn the situation around in the next few weeks. However, in Europe NATO commanders should look at options for a counter offensive in some form.

 

[EternalCynic]

The US invading the Russian Far East will be slightly less boneheaded than provoking a war with China in order to renege on its debts.

Japan and South Korea have already explicitly refused to provide their territory as bases. After all, this war has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Japan in particular desperately wishes to stay out at any cost, knowing that otherwise China will become hegemon of Eurasia without shedding any blood.

No allies will join the US. Not the European ones. Not Canada, which is also busy in Europe. Maybe Australia will provide token presence, but that's it.

The last time US troops marched towards the Chinese border it didn't end well for them.

 

[omrk]

Two world wars and one Napoleonic invasion didn't turn the Russian front into a trench warfare or a bloody stalemate so why would this one be any different? the front goes from the Black sea to the Baltic, much longer then the western front in 1914, also the Russian won't use nuclear weapons unless NATO threatens by land on Moscow or Saint Petersburg.
The Russian locomotive will run out of steam soon enough, Russia imports large amounts of Wheat and other grains that even the Chinese can't supply.
I think that NATO's best option is to strike Russia's oil and gas pipelines and installations, the number one export of Russia.

 

[EternalCynic]

Russia is now a major grain *exporter*, along with Ukraine, which it occupies. So it can't be starved into defeat.

NATO strikes deep into the middle of Russia are a non-starter. Russian anti-air defenses are too advanced to risk it. Attacking the oil pipelines risks turning China from armed neutrality to more openly backing Russia. And besides, what are the risks Putin will view the incoming bombers as carrying something special?

 

[ivfl]

There is one problem with striking on russian soil,it might make the russians decide to escalate.Escalation in this case could lead to a spiral into nuclear war.No one knows exactly what russian contingecy plans say we can assume but not be sure.For the US its a difficult decision conventional strikes on russian soil that might make the russians escalate the war could be a pretty stupid idea.Obama may not be the best guy in the White House but i assume he doesn't want the next president to be inaugurated in some faraway radiation proof bunker.At the very least what's left of America will be looking for scapegoats,and it wont be just with a resignation and apology.Obama might not want to risk his future on highly questionable raids.One amusing tidbit will they formally move the Doomsday Clock in this timeline?While the Clock is more symbolic than an actual indicator of the world with a major war going on anti-war and anti-nuclear groups would try to at least raise the real prospect of a nuclear war.

 

[lucaswillen05]

The US invading the Russian Far East will be slightly less boneheaded than provoking a war with China in order to renege on its debts.

Japan and South Korea have already explicitly refused to provide their territory as bases. After all, this war has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Japan in particular desperately wishes to stay out at any cost, knowing that otherwise China will become hegemon of Eurasia without shedding any blood.

No allies will join the US. Not the European ones. Not Canada, which is also busy in Europe. Maybe Australia will provide token presence, but that's it.

The last time US troops marched towards the Chinese border it didn't end well for them.

A limited operation in the Russian Far East taking Sakhalin, maybe the Russian naval bases such as Vladivostok is a reasonable strategy (you have heard of the Lehman Doctrine) These territories can be negotiated back to Russia for their withdrawl from he Baltic States. If the war does end in stalemate thwe US/NATO will need some negotiating chips which can most esily be found in the Russian Far East. As Clauswitz said "War is the extension of politics by other means"

 

[lucaswillen05]

Two world wars and one Napoleonic invasion didn't turn the Russian front into a trench warfare or a bloody stalemate so why would this one be any different? the front goes from the Black sea to the Baltic, much longer then the western front in 1914, also the Russian won't use nuclear weapons unless NATO threatens by land on Moscow or Saint Petersburg.
The Russian locomotive will run out of steam soon enough, Russia imports large amounts of Wheat and other grains that even the Chinese can't supply.
I think that NATO's best option is to strike Russia's oil and gas pipelines and installations, the number one export of Russia.

You are forgetting that both sides will be using high tech weapons in a high tempo combat situation with peacetime production lines. It is ubnlikely that supply will meet demand plus the troops on both sides will be being bled white and generally will soon need a period to rest. At that point there will be a temporary stalemate assuming nobody has won a big enough military victory at that stage.

At that point there will either have to be a negotiated settlement or, failing that a period of several months for a new military buildup. Which takes the war into the winter of 2014 - 15.

Striking Russia's oil and gas pipelines and refinaries would be understandable given that Russia has already done this in Alaska. It would also affect the Russian mlitary and civillian population.

As previously indicated a NATO counter offensive, even if a limited one, could be presented as a much needed battlefield victory.

 

[lucaswillen05]

Russia is now a major grain *exporter*, along with Ukraine, which it occupies. So it can't be starved into defeat.

NATO strikes deep into the middle of Russia are a non-starter. Russian anti-air defenses are too advanced to risk it. Attacking the oil pipelines risks turning China from armed neutrality to more openly backing Russia. And besides, what are the risks Putin will view the incoming bombers as carrying something special?

The strikes don't have to be undertaken with manned aircraft. Cruise missiles could be used to hit refinaries and pumping stations. Also the Russian electricity grid could be hit.

Cyberwarfare would be another way to hit such targets and with even less risk.

In termss of food supply Russia cannot be starved into submission. But, if you cannot deliver the food because you don't have the petrol and you cannot store the food because you don'thavethe electricity to freeze it (NB you still need fuel to run emergency generartors) you can achieve much the same effect.

 

[Forcon]

I have to ask, is there any chance at all that the US might re-commission the old Iowa-class battleships? They might come in handy for dealing with the Russian Kirov's...

 

[ivfl]

The USS Missouri was decommissioned in 1992,she was the last of the Iowa class to be retired.To reintroduce them into active duty would take quite a while especially considering their age around 70.Plus the systems are so different from what they have today on board US Navy ships.They would also lack experienced personell for such ships,a few who served in the 80's could still be on active duty and maybe some who are retired would accept to return to active duty but the Navy would consider this a waste of time for obsolete ships.

 

[Forcon]

One more question, what about NATO PoW's? Are the Geneva Conventions being upheld by both sides?

 

[GeorgyZhukov]

Giving this thread a bump...it's really good and don't want to see it die .

 

[Zek Sora]

Giving this thread a bump...it's really good and don't want to see it die .

Star Eater please please please give us more!

 

[hx87]

I have to ask, is there any chance at all that the US might re-commission the old Iowa-class battleships? They might come in handy for dealing with the Russian Kirov's...

Kirovs are missile carriers whose guns max out at 130mm, so you'd want to deal with it using submarines, aircraft, or your own missile carriers. Not to mention that most examples of the class are decrepit rust buckets that need tug boats following them everywhere. 406mm guns these days are good for shore bombardment, heavy fire support, and maybe last ditch anti-missile work, and not much else. Besides, how many seamen know how to operate naval steam turbines these days?