What would have happened in a Russo-American conflict?

I was recently re-reading And To Think It Might Have Happened by Star Eater, and it got me wondering how a potential Russo-American war would have progressed.

Of course, such a conflict would be incredibly unlikely and would require some kind of suspension of disbelief; but would have happened if, following a serious of misunderstandings and very, very idiotic decisions, a full-blown war developed between Russia and NATO (or at least a regional war taking place in Ukraine)? I honestly believe that such a conflict would never turn nuclear (though, given how nearly-impossible the situation would already be, that belief may be debatable); so a conventional war would be the most likely form of conflict between the two powers. In that case; what would have such a war looked like?
 
Well, provided that it doesn't turn nuclear, I can't imagine Russia coming out on top in a conventional war vs NATO. That said, I can't imagine the Obama administration actually trying anything. It will be mostly the other people in NATO. Of course when Obama leaves office the hammer will drop and drop hard. So long as it doesn't turn into something like Iraq or Afghanistan the Russian loose hard. Of course China and Iran might try to join in, at least through support if not actual combat.
 
I was recently re-reading And To Think It Might Have Happened by Star Eater, and it got me wondering how a potential Russo-American war would have progressed.

Of course, such a conflict would be incredibly unlikely and would require some kind of suspension of disbelief; but would have happened if, following a serious of misunderstandings and very, very idiotic decisions, a full-blown war developed between Russia and NATO (or at least a regional war taking place in Ukraine)? I honestly believe that such a conflict would never turn nuclear (though, given how nearly-impossible the situation would already be, that belief may be debatable); so a conventional war would be the most likely form of conflict between the two powers. In that case; what would have such a war looked like?

When the war happened would be a major factor.

I have read accounts from officers who served with the US Army in Europe in the mid-50's that describe it as '...a hollow shell...' President Kennedy staged the biggest peacetime military buildup in American history, supposedly as a response to this, at least in part.

Again the American military of the 70's through early 80's was described at the time as a drug riddled mess. I remember reading accounts of drug abuse scandals in ballistic missile submarines and an F-14 crash where 11 people on the carrier died, with only ONE of them NOT being off his face on something at the time according to autopsy evidence. This on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier during flight operations!

Cleaning it up has been claimed to be THE big achievement of the Reagan defence buildup, hugely more important than the expensive bits of machinery that got all the publicity.

So are we talking about the Korean War getting out of hand? The invasion of Czechoslovakia in August of 1968 somehow drawing in NATO? Sometime during the 70's low point a hard-line group stages a coup in Moscow and attacks to take advantage of a temporary opportunity? The 80's war game people keep mentioning that nearly triggered a war ACTUALLY triggering a war?

All of these would have very different results.
 
When the war happened would be a major factor.

I have read accounts from officers who served with the US Army in Europe in the mid-50's that describe it as '...a hollow shell...' President Kennedy staged the biggest peacetime military buildup in American history, supposedly as a response to this, at least in part.

Again the American military of the 70's through early 80's was described at the time as a drug riddled mess. I remember reading accounts of drug abuse scandals in ballistic missile submarines and an F-14 crash where 11 people on the carrier died, with only ONE of them NOT being off his face on something at the time according to autopsy evidence. This on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier during flight operations!

Cleaning it up has been claimed to be THE big achievement of the Reagan defence buildup, hugely more important than the expensive bits of machinery that got all the publicity.

So are we talking about the Korean War getting out of hand? The invasion of Czechoslovakia in August of 1968 somehow drawing in NATO? Sometime during the 70's low point a hard-line group stages a coup in Moscow and attacks to take advantage of a temporary opportunity? The 80's war game people keep mentioning that nearly triggered a war ACTUALLY triggering a war?

All of these would have very different results.

Well; I'm mainly referring to a modern day war (say over Ukraine) such as described in And To Think It Might Have Happened (beginning sometime in 2014).
 
Well; I'm mainly referring to a modern day war (say over Ukraine) such as described in And To Think It Might Have Happened (beginning sometime in 2014).


Ok.

Not having access to the book, a question. Are any of the countries that would have to fight this war actually in a position to do so?

Because NATO traditionally said it would need German support and literally all the reports I have seen on this show Germany wanting nothing to do with a war against Russia. France is the same. Given that I live at the other end of the planet and have no local connections I could be totally misreading that.

But without the active support of the major western European countries the US cannot effectively fight Russia. Russia could take the Baltic states, probably, but where does that get them exactly? A fight can start, but the military resources to achieve a decision are lacking. It would end up back with negotiators from from Russian basically demanding the old Czarist borders back and NATO counter proposals that seem to take no account of the fact that the Russian leader is a Russian nationalist.

Which is where the whole thing is currently and has been for some time.
 
Assuming at least a modest level of NATO support. No France, No Germany but the U.S. U.K. Poland, and a handful of others.

Assuming a 4-6 month buildup or so.

You're looking at about 200,000 NATO troops clashing with a maximum of about 250,000 Russian troops invading Ukraine and perhaps Poland.

Russians role in and make gains, then push for a cease fire in place with of course them holding significant territory.

NATO and the U.S. rejects it and pushes the Russians back across the border.

Russia threatens use of nuclear weapons behind the scenes if NATO troops cross into Russian territory. Both sides agree to a cease fire and both claim victory after about 30 days of fighting.

The major factor in the war is NATO's complete uncontested control of the Atlantic and everyone knowing full well that the U.S. can stream more and more troops into Europe uncontested. The U.S. will lose some warships (probably a dozen or more) but never enough to seriously worry about losing their sea control

Assume 25,000 to 50,000 NATO troops killed, 40,000 to 70,000 Russian troops killed, (these totals include ships sunk and their crews). and probably 50,000 or so civilians killed in Ukraine and Poland.

Call it a death toll of around 150,000 people killed total in 30 days of fighting. Not like World War Three in central Europe in the 1980s would've been but still pretty nasty and indicative of what real war is like.
 
Assuming at least a modest level of NATO support. No France, No Germany but the U.S. U.K. Poland, and a handful of others.

Assuming a 4-6 month buildup or so.

You're looking at about 200,000 NATO troops clashing with a maximum of about 250,000 Russian troops invading Ukraine and perhaps Poland.

Russians role in and make gains, then push for a cease fire in place with of course them holding significant territory.

NATO and the U.S. rejects it and pushes the Russians back across the border.

Russia threatens use of nuclear weapons behind the scenes if NATO troops cross into Russian territory. Both sides agree to a cease fire and both claim victory after about 30 days of fighting.

The major factor in the war is NATO's complete uncontested control of the Atlantic and everyone knowing full well that the U.S. can stream more and more troops into Europe uncontested. The U.S. will lose some warships (probably a dozen or more) but never enough to seriously worry about losing their sea control

Assume 25,000 to 50,000 NATO troops killed, 40,000 to 70,000 Russian troops killed, (these totals include ships sunk and their crews). and probably 50,000 or so civilians killed in Ukraine and Poland.

Call it a death toll of around 150,000 people killed total in 30 days of fighting. Not like World War Three in central Europe in the 1980s would've been but still pretty nasty and indicative of what real war is like.

Very interesting, and kind of along the lines of what I was thinking (short war and a quick peace; though not quick enough for those that would have died). It would've been interesting to see the potential political outcomes of such a conflict (say, in Syria for example; would the Russians have sent support in sooner?).

This also begs the question; what has happened to Crimea in your scenario? Would the America/NATO/Ukraine have liberated it in the process of pushing back against the Russian forces?
 
Very interesting, and kind of along the lines of what I was thinking (short war and a quick peace; though not quick enough for those that would have died). It would've been interesting to see the potential political outcomes of such a conflict (say, in Syria for example; would the Russians have sent support in sooner?).

This also begs the question; what has happened to Crimea in your scenario? Would the America/NATO/Ukraine have liberated it in the process of pushing back against the Russian forces?

Probably not. Russians consider Crimea part of Russia (with some justification) so it would probably fall under the "we'll use nukes if NATO troops cross into Russian territory".

Note, just because NATO troops don't cross into Russian territory doesn't mean there aren't extensive probably thousands of NATO airstrikes on Russian territory.

There is also the issue of Belorussia. It holds flanking positions against Poland and Ukraine and is effectively part of Russia by long tradition and current political inclinations.

That said, I can see extensive NATO ground incursions and occupations into it with the Russians ultimately leaving them to their own devices.

What is more interesting is what happens in the rest of the world.

With the U.S. tied down in Europe does North Korea finally make their big move against South Korea or the Chinese against Taiwan? Or the Iranians in the Persian Gulf?

Any combination, all or none of these might happen and be even more deadly to the U.S. than the war in Europe.
 
Assuming at least a modest level of NATO support. No France, No Germany but the U.S. U.K. Poland, and a handful of others.

Assuming a 4-6 month buildup or so.

You're looking at about 200,000 NATO troops clashing with a maximum of about 250,000 Russian troops invading Ukraine and perhaps Poland.

Russians role in and make gains, then push for a cease fire in place with of course them holding significant territory.

NATO and the U.S. rejects it and pushes the Russians back across the border.

Russia threatens use of nuclear weapons behind the scenes if NATO troops cross into Russian territory. Both sides agree to a cease fire and both claim victory after about 30 days of fighting.

The major factor in the war is NATO's complete uncontested control of the Atlantic and everyone knowing full well that the U.S. can stream more and more troops into Europe uncontested. The U.S. will lose some warships (probably a dozen or more) but never enough to seriously worry about losing their sea control

Assume 25,000 to 50,000 NATO troops killed, 40,000 to 70,000 Russian troops killed, (these totals include ships sunk and their crews). and probably 50,000 or so civilians killed in Ukraine and Poland.

Call it a death toll of around 150,000 people killed total in 30 days of fighting. Not like World War Three in central Europe in the 1980s would've been but still pretty nasty and indicative of what real war is like.

The Russians would lose this battle but win the war. If Germany and France don't help then NATO is dead. The Conservatives would make it a big issue and the other parties would be suicidal if they sided with the lack of action of Germany and France. Most Americans are ok with NATO but not a NATO that chooses when they want to get into the fight. I think that this would be a very bad thing for stability and the odds are at least 50/50 that the US would sit out Russian aggression or any aggression.
 
The Russians would lose this battle but win the war. If Germany and France don't help then NATO is dead. The Conservatives would make it a big issue and the other parties would be suicidal if they sided with the lack of action of Germany and France. Most Americans are ok with NATO but not a NATO that chooses when they want to get into the fight. I think that this would be a very bad thing for stability and the odds are at least 50/50 that the US would sit out Russian aggression or any aggression.

Germany could make a good case for avoiding direct combat actions due to lingering memories (most especially in Poland and Ukraine) of Nazi actions in World War 2.

French inaction would only confirm American opinions of them.

By the way, Turkey would certainly be drawn in for obvious reasons.
 
The problem with any US-USSR war after the 1960s is that if the loser feels existentially threatened, then nukes fly and by the 60s its a lot of them. If in 2015 a war starts, but Germany and France drop out of NATO, where do the US and USSR fight? In Europe the USSR can over-run the former Warsaw Pact how does the USA stop them if France and Germany neutral (therefore no transit). The USSR successfully invades Alaska?? In the Pacific, unless the Chinese help, the USSR forces are pretty much wiped out quickly.

Frankly absent NATO the US won't go to war over Crimea, Ukraine etc - "if the Europeans aren't willing to be involved..." The other problem is, even if one side or the other does not see losing as an end to them, once there is serious fighting between the US & USSR the chance of nukes flying by error etc is always there.
 
A big part of the problem in terms of convincing European leaders to side with the United States and Ukraine against Russia is the relationship of the Ukrainian government (or at least the Yatsenyuk government which preceded the current Poroshenko government) with Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Pravy Sektor. This makes Germany and France pretty reluctant, as well as being somewhat of a concern for at least some Poles. Whilst Poland is pretty anti-Russia, I actually knew an older Pole who was hoping Russia would win, because the village his family were from was burnt to the ground by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army at the end of WWII.

In the event that a war actually happens, I don't think we can be sure that the Baltic States would jump in. As much as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia would side with the United States diplomatically, few countries are willing to make their country a battlefield, especially small ones. Not to mention that Latvia has a very large Russian minority which can't be sufficiently watched over, and Russia has already shown the kind of damage it can do to Estonia using cyberwarfare alone.

Poland would be likely to send volunteer contingents, given that their territory is unlikely to be directly affected assuming that the Americans can maintain defensive air superiority. Belarus probably won't be a route for a Russian attack on Poland since it is in the Russian interest to keep the war small, controlled and localised, with suits Lukashenko just fine, since he spends most of his time maintaining his power anyway.

I read an interesting article by The Diplomat yesterday, which pointed out aspects of the post-2008 Russian military reforms which have gone largely ignored by international observers. They're oriented largely towards improving professionalism and whilst incomplete, look like they're showing a lot of promise. We can expect a much more competent Russian performance than in Georgia.

We also shouldn't forget that Russian tactics have an effective dual orientation. The first part of this is that they're designed to counteract American superiority in firepower. The United States may maintain air superiority over Ukraine, but they can't achieve air supremacy, which most of their offensive doctrine relies upon. Secondly, Russian tactics are constructed with an eye on publicity and minimising political fallout, which is under-appreciated when looking at purely military factors.

Russian intervention would likely brush aside the Ukrainian army if it seeks to engage them immediately upon entering Ukraine. The remnants of the Ukrainian army fall back to the Psel at least and probably the Dnieper. By this time the Americans are likely to start deploying via the Black Sea. This will involve sending a Carrier Battle Group to cover deployment whilst the Western Europeans drag their feet. This Group is likely to be engaged by a mixed force of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, land-based aircraft and cruise missiles. The outcome isn't 100%, and this could impact America's domestic political landscape quite a lot, dictating whether escalation occurs. Nevertheless, the United States has to neutralise Sevastopol or they will be unable to win any real victory in Ukraine.

Kiev would be a meat-grinder for the Russians and they would know it. It's at this time that they would seek a settlement which would probably involve the fall of the government in Kiev and its replacement with a "National Unity Government" combining moderates, pro-Russian politicians and Donetsk separatists. It would be a Russian puppet essentially, even more so than Yanukhovych. Whether the Americans accept such terms or not depends on the particular leadership and internal political situation.
 
Top