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

Gian

Banned
This is interesting.

About the endgame, I think Putin would want to take all of Novorossiya and Crimea, and leave the rest as a pro-Moscow puppet.
 
Even the USA have shot dowbn a civillian airliner. Ever heard of the Vincennes incident

This British airbus was shot down, apparently in error. A Russian Mig misidentified it as something else in a combat zone. Having said that the airbus should not have been there and having a government minister on an aircraft taking a flight path through a war zone after secveral days of combat was a seriously bad decision by someone.
 
March 28, 2014

The European Union and United States announced a ban on Russian businesses gaining loans from European banks. Anti-war demonstrations took place in London but, following the loss of Flight 12, they were in the minority. Outrage only increased as news came through of the bodies of the dead being interfered with, amid allegations of Russian troops destroying the black boxes which were aboard the plane. Faced with the choice of either backing down, and potentially encouraging Putin to push even further, or pushing harder himself and potentially starting a war, Prime Minister David Cameron chose the latter. The United Kingdom became the first NATO country to place its military on high alert. In a speech announcing this action, Cameron stated that “Russia has proven time and time again that it cannot be reasoned with. It recognises only force, and respects only force. The only way to make President Putin realise he is playing with fire is to show him the consequences.” The Foreign Office advised him to make the call, with Foreign Secretary William Hague confident that it was the only way to force Russia to see sense. "Perhaps cooler heads will prevail," he told the Prime Minister. According to The Guardian newspaper, civil servants were digging up old files from the 1980s detailing wartime plans. However, NATO’s leaders had no intention of starting a war. It was hoped that a significant response would pressure Putin into coming back round the negotiation table.

President Obama gave a press conference in which he condemned as “reprehensible” the Russian actions, a view echoed by the rest of NATO as well as NATO allies around the world such as Australia and Japan. Others, such as South Korea, called on both sides to deescalate tensions. At an emergency sitting of the United Nations Security Council however, China defended Russia, insisting that there was no proof that the shooting down of Flight 12 was deliberate and that more time was needed to establish solid facts. The British government was criticised for a knee-jerk response to satisfy public demand for tough action. The United Kingdom dismissed these claims, but its actions were making even some NATO members nervous. David Cameron met with both the Dutch and Norwegian ambassadors in Downing Street, who voiced the concerns of their government that Britain was pushing Europe into unnecessary escalation. Cameron agreed to try to calm the situation down, by calling for a summit in Geneva including Russia, the United States, and European Union, to establish a framework for better cooperation.

March 29, 2014

The United States raised its alert level to DEFCON 3, in response to reports of a wider military mobilisation of Russian forces. In the Baltic States, the government was preparing for the worst. Up to 30,000 civilians had evacuated from the three countries by this point, intending to stay in Polish, Czech, and German hotels until the end of the crisis. Interviews with them were regularly seen on national news across the world, while back home their governments were mobilising their forces in preparation for possible hostile action. The 2nd Cavalry Regiment, United States Army, and three infantry battalions and an armoured battalion from the 2nd Marine Division, were airlifted into Latvia in a rapid deployment. The aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, already present in the North Sea, stationed itself off western Norway while joined by the amphibious assault ship Kearsage and amphibious transport dock Mesa Verde, along with a complement of destroyers and cruisers. The carriers Dwight D. Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush had already stationed themselves in the North Atlantic and eastern Mediterranean, respectively. The presence of the Kearsage and Mesa Verde signalled a capability by the Americans to make rapid amphibious landings, implying a resolve to counter any Russian occupation of the Baltic States. They were soon joined by the Royal Navy ships Ocean and Bulwark.

The Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, reported to the Prime Minister that President Putin had been meeting regularly with the General Staff of the Armed Forces. COBRA had been meeting regularly since the shooting down of Flight 12, and now began discussing worst-case scenario plans. Russian activity in the Baltic had also been stepped up, with additional flights by the Russian Air Force regularly buzzing the NATO ships stationed there. In Moscow, President Putin ordered the armed forces to begin a full scale military mobilisation. Reservists were called up, with roads across Russia filling with convoys of green military trucks.

March 30, 2014

The awaited summit meant to take place in Geneva was postponed by three days, at the request of the Russian government. The Russians claimed that they needed additional time to formulate several proposals, which they described as “promising.” In truth, the postponement was a ruse. President Putin was meeting once again with the General Staff. Certain that Russia’s status as a great power was on the line, Putin told those assembled that “today we must decide if our greatness will be banished for a century.” The General Staff presented the President with a plan, which had been in existence since 1995 and updated regularly, called Operation Scythe. The plan was to make a first strike which would push NATO out of the Baltic States, before offering negotiations from a position of strength. General Sergey Shoygu, Minister of Defence, condemned the plan as suicidal but Putin was convinced that such a conflict would be localised, and certain to end with Russian gains. The small size of the contested area would make a nuclear exchange hugely improbable, and he was certain that Western politicians so sensitive to the opinions of an anti-war public would jump at the chance for negotiations. Did NATO really want the Baltic States that badly, after all? General Shoygu resigned as Minister of Defence, refusing to be party to the operation. He was arrested minutes later.

March 31, 2014

An additional 8,000 American troops arrived in Lithuania, along with French and Spanish air assets. British forces began to arrive at North Sea ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, with trucks carrying heavy equipment into Poland. Autobahns in northern Germany were regularly filled with military equipment. The extraordinary size of the NATO deployment was dismissed by its organisers as “strictly defensive.” It was also hugely ambitious, requiring a remarkable feat in logistics and transport over a very short period. Few NATO forces ended up stationed in Estonia. Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were the focus of the troop deployment, with Estonia considered too dangerous at the present time. Anti-war rallies went off across the European Union and United States. The President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, made an address in which he called on all sides to immediately end the growing hostility and begin talking again. His pleas were brushed aside, as Japan reported increased Russian submarine activity in the Sea of Japan. British ships in the North Sea reported being shadowed by Russian submarines.

In Minsk, capital of Belarus, there were conflicting reports that Russian-speaking troops wearing unmarked uniforms had appeared outside government buildings. Attempts to contact the Belarussian government failed before President Alexander Lukashenko appeared several hours later, informing the people of Belarus on national television that the Russian troops in the capital were there to “protect us from potential outside attack,” and encouraged Belarusians to welcome them. Several anti-Russian rallies took place in the capital, but were met with brutality from riot police. In the United States, the National Reconnaissance Office reported that Russian tank columns were crossing the border into Belarus. No resistance was reported, as President Lukashenko insisted that Belarus was “an equal partner with the Russian Federation.”

In Moscow the United States' Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, met personally with President Putin in an attempt to sort out a clear arrangement before the planned summit in Geneva, their ambassador having been expelled several days before along with the other NATO embassies. She later reported back to Washington; “it’s just like in the movies. It’s hopeless.”
 
Last edited:
Read this timeline, quite good, but one thing REALLY irked me out was the deployment of a GODDAMNED CVN into the Baltic. No way in hell would the USN put a nuclear carrier in a closed environment like that with distances too small to prevent engagements. That is just asking for the Theodore Roosevelt to be sunk in there.
 
Read this timeline, quite good, but one thing REALLY irked me out was the deployment of a GODDAMNED CVN into the Baltic. No way in hell would the USN put a nuclear carrier in a closed environment like that with distances too small to prevent engagements. That is just asking for the Theodore Roosevelt to be sunk in there.

What kind of range do carrier-based fighters have? If the goal is to be able to defend the Baltics from the Russians, could they be deployed off the northern coast of Scandinavia or beyond the Skaggerak (sp)?
 
What kind of range do carrier-based fighters have? If the goal is to be able to defend the Baltics from the Russians, could they be deployed off the northern coast of Scandinavia or beyond the Skaggerak (sp)?

If they want to defend the Baltic from the Russians, F-15Cs, F-22As and E-3 Sentries could do the job there rather than a full nuclear carrier group. And I wouldn't suggest deployment of a carrier strike group to northern Scandinavia unless you want to PISS off the Russians and even then, I would suggest putting out the nuclear subs in force to protect that carrier group along with P-3 Orions. If anything, you could leave it in the southern portion of the Norwegian Sea, or even the regular North Atlantic. And also, you would start seeing the POMCUS in the fjords of Norway being pulled out and readied just in case of the Russians trying anything as well to add to that.
 
One rather important note: Japan and South Korea will not reflexively support the US in this situation. After all, Ukraine and Estonia are far off lands with which they have no strategic interest. IOTL, Japan half-heartedly joined the US and EU in imposing token sanctions on Russia, while continuing to negotiate energy deals. South Korea flat-out refused to join the sanctions, and stated its military technology deals with Russia will not be affected.

ITTL, these two nations will verbally criticize Russia and impose some sanctions but will refuse to be drawn into something in which they have no strategic interest.

Knowing Putin's personality I suspect he will seek to convince them to stay out in order to deny the US a two-front war.
 
While,its pretty obvious were things are headed somehow i doubt Obama would be so stupid as to accept a major war in the last 2 years of his presidency.Obama love him or hate him does seem to be the kind of guy that unless he has no other choice he will not involve ground troops on a large scale in a war.Look at the ISIS problem were only after the entire state of Irak seemed to be unraveling did he actually start bombing missions but no combat troops on the ground.To actually risk throwing the US in a major war now when no direct attack on a US ally took place would be weird of him.:confused:Plus any president in the twilight of his term is thinking of his so called legacy,what bigger irony than a Nobel Peace Prize winner who becomes involved in the biggest war since 1945.:DTo be honest someone like a Hillary would probably be more inclined to deploy ground troops Obama is a drone war man.The way i see it Obama would be trying to decrease tensions in Europe even at the cost of making NATO seem weak,unless a direct attack on a NATO member takes place since as of 2014 the US is in no mood for a new war.The public would turn against the democrats immediately because of this.As for the europeans the germans would try everything to avoid a war Merkel knows that Berlin is within striking distance of Russian aviation,the french would also likely try to decrease tensions.It might even lead to some direct tensions between the british and the other europeans who would view british escalation as provocative,especially since in a war the continent would be affected a lot faster than Britain.
 
Last edited:
This apparent Russian takeover of Belarus and Putin's reaction to NATO deploymments in the Baltic States is going to lrad to a serious escalation. If Putin invades the Baltic States despite the NATO deployments he knows it will mean war. He seems to have decided on that course in any case.

Pesronally I think his best move would be a defensive deployment in the Baltic States area, complete operations in Ukraine and Belarus which would achieve his foreign policy objectives without starting WW3. Hwever there is still risk of an accidental clash in whicch case Operation Scythe is a good contingency plan. Perhaps Putin's generals can still take this line and talk some sense into the man. I don't think anyoe really wants war in this situatin on either side, It could end peacefully witth bth sides able to claim success. NATO has deterred a possible attack on the Baltic States, Russia has taken control of Belourussia and at least the Russian speakng parts of Ukraine. If Putin goes no further than the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine the remainder of the country still has indepedance from Russia although they will still have lost the war.
 
just a few points, the British could send 15k troops to Poland on short notice, they won't be a combat heavy deployment but their is sufficient slack in non infantry arms for a short term surge.

there is sufficient mech inf and armour at various stages of the ops cycle to get a division out there within a month. It would play havoc with ongoing deployment but the scale and scope of Telic 1 along with the rapidity it was put into place means a deployment 1/3rd the size is possible without a general mobilisation.

it would all have to be paid for by HMT and cuts would have to be suspended and reversed if the deployment is to be maintained beyond a few months.

another point would be, the Russian federation does not have the market isolation or attempted autarky of the USSR. The economic clout of the west in a transition to war scenario would allow it to crater the Russian economy rapidly, as very limited sanctions are achieving at the moment.

the Russian economy has been hollowed out in gva terms by Putin's policies over the last decade. They don't have the depth to fall back on domestic supply in most areas, moreover when they are out of foreign reserves they are going to find it difficult to buy in from China as the rouble will be decimated on fx markets.

finally the Russians struggled in Georgia, their ability to deploy and sustain operations against a determined opponent with defence in depth is questionable at best.

obviously they would be strong off the start line but by the end of the first week of ops I doubt they will have the capability to generate a high tempo of sortie rates etc necessary to break through any firm stop line on the major rivers.
 
also a suggestion, have the a380 over Russia, near the Ukraine border, which won't be closed airspace, and have it as a air defense failure and shoot down by incompetent reservists.
 
also a suggestion, have the a380 over Russia, near the Ukraine border, which won't be closed airspace, and have it as a air defense failure and shoot down by incompetent reservists.

That might work. Having a major airliner with a major British politician on it getting anywhere near a war zone is kind of hard to swallow.
 
obviously they would be strong off the start line but by the end of the first week of ops I doubt they will have the capability to generate a high tempo of sortie rates etc necessary to break through any firm stop line on the major rivers.

That might be how the war ends, but which river will be the river too far? The Baltics don't seem to have any major rivers, based on my Google Maps examination.

Given how nobody wants to risk civilization, maybe the Russians occupy the Baltic States and then offer to trade them for Belarus and Eastern Ukraine? NATO could try to kick them out of the Baltics, but they'd probably be a real pain to deal with dug in, there's the risk of civilian casualties, and the Russians might escalate if NATO troops get too close to St. Petersburg.
 
On closer examination, Riga looks like it's on a river line. Estonia might get plowed quickly (Russia's "one week of glory"), but that might be a good place for NATO forces to make a stand. There's another river line in southern Lithuania almost on the border of Kaliningrad.

On that matter, could NATO occupy Kaliningrad? That seems like it could be something done pretty quickly with troops from Poland. It could be something forfeited at the peace table if Russia insists on keeping Crimea.
 
That might be how the war ends, but which river will be the river too far? The Baltics don't seem to have any major rivers, based on my Google Maps examination.

Given how nobody wants to risk civilization, maybe the Russians occupy the Baltic States and then offer to trade them for Belarus and Eastern Ukraine? NATO could try to kick them out of the Baltics, but they'd probably be a real pain to deal with dug in, there's the risk of civilian casualties, and the Russians might escalate if NATO troops get too close to St. Petersburg.

Question is do either side actuallly want a full scale European war over this. If Putin goes into he Baltic States (NATO members) Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty comes into play. Plus of course US and Russian troops would veryy quickly be in combat against each other.

Putin knows that, if the crosses this particular Red Line he has probably just strted World War 3. At this point he desn't need to take such a rash step to met his military objectives in Ukraine and Belorussia. So, unless someone does something amazingly stupid to provoke war this can be settled peacefully.

I can see both sides trying to row back from a European war but with large military forces in close proximity trigger fingers are liable to be jittery so you can easily strt a war nbody actually wants:eek:
 
Speaking further to revise a couple of things, I would think really the Roosevelt and Bush would be the only carriers needed, considering at the moment, the Eisenhower is undergoing her fourteen monnth DPIA (docked planed incremental availability).

Furthering that, you might see the Seawolfs transferred to the Atlantic Fleet, P-3 Orions moved up to Scotland and Iceland, with 688-class and Virginia-class SSNs being deployed in the Norwegian Sea in the event that Russia decides to launch her subs in full force.

Also might not have said it before, but this is quite an interesting timeline nonetheless, and I will love where it goes next. ;)
 
Top