WI: NATO attempts to prevent Russian annexation of Crimea

[Blue cat]

My $.02 worth...

I suspect a Russian Attack on any of the NATO countries would trigger a war between at least most if not all of NATO and Russia. Period, no if ands or's or buts Maybe the standing peace time NATO forces are up to the challenge of stopping and evicting the Russians or not but it doesn't really matter much as in the long run the West / NATO would mobilize their superior man / woman power, economies etc and at the very least evict Russia from all NATO territory.

Even if NATO is not fully aligned behind these efforts does it really matter once the U.S. and perhaps a few other major NATO nations consider themselves to be at war with Russia ? As mentioned the multi national nature of the trip wire forces in the Baltics is likely to pull a lot of NATO nations into the fighting if only to avenge their losses.

If Russia threatens to use Nukes to keep their ill gotten gains my guess is NATO basically shrugs and carries on evicting Russia by force. I suspect the NATO response to a Russian use of nuclear weapons to retain seized NATO territory would be robust and calcualted to remove the ability of Russia to use any further nuclear weapons. I have my doubts what the outcome would be.

I just can't see a number of the more important NATO nations accepting a situation in which Russia (or any other nation) could seize NATO territory and then keep it by threatening to use nuclear weapons. I suspect there would be a general willingness to roll the dice and see what happens when NATO calls the Russian bluff.

As I mentioned before I suspect NATO folding over this type of issue and allowing Russia to use nuclear black mail to retain seized territory would likely lead to other nations getting their own nuclear weapons. I suspect any nation with a potential border dispute with Russia would be looking long and hard at their options in the unlikely event NATO folded and failed to stand up to Russia.

 

[M79]

...but despite this Euro-NATO alone possesses a slightly superior force in terms of deplorable combat units.

What about non-deplorable combat units?

 

[TerenceofGod]

If NATO decides to intervene Russia could go balls to the Wall and try for the whole of Eastern Ukraine, and as popular opinion cannot be swayed quickly within the short week it would take for Russian objectives or reach the river. The end remains the same it would become a fait accompli, since the battle space is Russian and the required force to wrest control of said battle space would be far too large to justify over something like Ukraine.

 

[Ato]

What about non-deplorable combat units?

There you get into the realm of formations that technically exist, but are really parceled out as small independent detachments, or only exist on paper. The west has quite a few of these, and they could with time be reorganized into proper combat formations, but realistically any modern conflict is going to be over long before they are ready. The same goes for the massive amounts of Russian units that technically exist but really are just depots full of equipment and reservists on lists, with maybe a small active cadre. Russia maybe/probably has more, but again they would be mostly irrelevant to any conflict scenario, unless of course NATO tries to drive to Moscow, which I highly doubt would happen.

 

[M79]

There you get into the realm of formations that technically exist, but are really parceled out as small independent detachments, or only exist on paper. The west has quite a few of these, and they could with time be reorganized into proper combat formations, but realistically any modern conflict is going to be over long before they are ready. The same goes for the massive amounts of Russian units that technically exist but really are just depots full of equipment and reservists on lists, with maybe a small active cadre. Russia maybe/probably has more, but again they would be mostly irrelevant to any conflict scenario, unless of course NATO tries to drive to Moscow, which I highly doubt would happen.

Deployable vs deplorable?

 

[Alstein]

Okay, so here's my thinking. Around 2014 or so, just as Russia is moving into Crimea, NATO suddenly issues a statement that goes along the lines of "We very much support Ukraine's territorial integrity, so back off unless you want war.". Will this intimidate Russia enough, or will more action be necessary?

I don't think the Russians would back down, and would even be willing to risk nukes over it. They'd probably try to avoid direct conventional warfare, so they'd probably go very quickly to nukes if other tactics couldn't get the US to back off.

That said, it would largely be the US saying this (folks are right about most of NATO not wanting in on this, though Eastern Europe would probably join in with the US) - and probably putting real troops in Ukraine as a tripwire. I think Crimea/Black Sea access is so important to the Russians they would go all the way. I suspect they would consider this equal to invading Russia itself , or that this becomes inevitable if they fold.

 

[Ato]

Deployable vs deplorable?

Oh, just noticed that spell correct stabbed me in the back there. Was definitely meant to be deployable.

 

[ivanotter]

It is not a great situation for Western Europe (as it has turned out). Crimea, as mentioned, was 2/3 Russian population. Ukraine was collapsing in mismanagement and corruption whereas Russia had experienced a 300% growth of salaries (and in essence living standard.

The whole thing about Crimea can also be 'blamed' on krutchov. He was the one who 'donated' Crimea to Ukraine (which was not a country at that time anyway). Reason? thanks for you efforts in WWII.

Eastern Ukraine is more or less the same: If one can vote to be 'back' in the motherland and getting a decent living on top of, then it is hard for any outside force to deny one the right.

Ukrainian 'integrity' is a bit of a misnomer as well. Ukraine became a country in 1991. As it turns out: there is no 100% right or 100% wrong in this.

So, we end up in political expediency (as usual): Germany is not interested in doing too much as the economy is reliant on gas from Russia. Ukraine is not interested in too much conflict, because they get the transfer tarifs of gas to Europe.

US is not interested. UK is jumping up and down, but now the sanctions are nearly irrelevant as UK is out of EU anyway.

NATO supporting a non-NATO member with a real shooting war in Europe? over a disputed piece of land where the majority (never mind the rigged referendum) would like to go to Russia? Not happening.

... and with all the new HW that Putin has commissioned it is going to a bit 'iffy' anyway.

Maybe pilots would like to fly Sukhoi instead of F-35. It is now so expensive that I believe Holland and Belgium together areT buying one F-35. 6 months in Holland and 6 in Belgium (ok, that is sarcasm).

The project becomes rather 'stuck':

1) Let us invade through the Baltics. Has anyone got a copy of Fisher's plan? Ah, jolly Good. 2 carriers from UK, Is the F-35B not ready? oh, let us use the Harrier. We scrapped those? OK, so 2 ships and no jets? ... but still

2) Let the German 'panzers' roll through Poland. No problem, they will have forgotten about the 'field grey' from some years back. and Ukraine took a aprt of Poland or was it the other way round? Never mind,

3) Let us force the entry to the Black Sea. Let us see, who was it now? yes! Churchill did something like that. Can someoen find that book again?

4) Let us combine the UK carriers and those from France and Italy and then sail around Africa and attack Russia in the back. THERE! Port what-is-it-again? we will succeed. No bloody 1905 for us!

5) Let us chuck nuclear bombs around until they get out of Ukraine - or whtever is left of the world

Sorry - let us try again

 

[History Learner]

The RAND report only really goes into detail on the Baltics which, yes, would be overrun very quickly. It is quite obvious that NATO has no intention of deploying heavy forces to protect them, and has instead placed small tripwire units that will guarantee Russian conflict with NATO units, rather than just local defence forces and presenting the movement as a fait accomplit. Instead the plan seems to be to let the Russians expend their opening assault on the Baltics, whilst NATO mobilizes to fight them in Poland. This is where larger forward deployed units are being set up, and of course holds the Polish Army itself, which has no intention of letting Russia occupy them again and will fight to the knife. The rest of EuroNATO will be drawn in by the doomed last stand of the tripwire units, and the rapid reaction brigades will start deploying into Poland to form battlegroups that will fight the real battles.

Intentions don't matter, capabilities do and what exactly does NATO have the ability to fight with? Contemporary to these events, the Dutch Army for example was having ammunition shortages, the German Army was practicing with broom sticks due to a lack of machine guns and the French Military was busy with Mali. NATO in 2014 and, hell, even today, is a glass cannon only protected by U.S. nuclear forces.

As for the US military currently being largely undeployable, that is a rather recent (and one would hope short term) development due to global pandemic, and doesn't apply to the scenario at hand.

The article is from 2013, so it's completely applicable to the situation at hand. As late as 2016, the U.S. Army still only had 20 deployable Combat Brigades which is, again, short of the 23 it took to do Iraq in 2003.

How about the U.S. air power advantage? In 2013, flight training dropped as low as 120 hours and has since only recovered to about 150 hours, which means your average American pilot is getting less training then his Russian counterpart. To further put this in context, the Air Force back in the 1980s considered below 180 Hours for a pilot to mean they were unfit for combat duties. In addition to a pilot quality shortage, the Air Force is also having a pilot shortage period, as well as lacking in maintenance personnel. This, along with a spare parts shortage and the increasing age of the air frames themselves, means readiness is only at about 50% with increasing issues in just maintaining the aircraft. The situation is even worse for the Navy and Marine Corps, with half of the Navy's total air power grounded while 62% of their F-18s are likewise while the figure is over 70% for the Marines.

By the way, here is how the Navy is doing in general:

Submarines​

​

On its books, the Navy has 52 fast-attack submarines (SSNs) and a requirement for only 48 according to the 2012 FSA. So, the Navy is four boats ahead and should easily be meeting the needs for Navy submarines worldwide. That is not the truth, however.​

​

One report suggests the attack submarine fleet is only meeting 40 to 45 percent of combatant commanders’ needs and with the aging fleet of Los Angeles-class not being replaced as quickly as needed the fleet is expected to fall to 41 submarines by 2029.​

​

That number is below the 2012 assessment’s requirement of 48 and well below the 2016 version which calls for 66. The SSN was partially bolstered by the conversion of four Ohio-class SSBNs that were converted to cruise missile submarines but even those hulls are to be out of service by 2028.​

​

The Navy is expected to continue to buy two Virginia-class attack subs per year for the foreseeable future even with construction looming for the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. Initially, it was expected that construction of future Virginia-class boats would drop to one per year as Stackley explained during the appropriations hearing:​

​

“In the past we had anticipated dropping down our submarine construction, our attack submarine construction, during years of the Columbia program procurement. In fact, we intend to, and we’re laying the groundwork, to sustain two submarine per year procurement rate – because that is our number one shortfall.”​

​

It’s not only about getting new attack submarines. It’s about keeping those in the fleet seaworthy, and making sure trips to the shipyard are completed correctly and in a timely manner.​

​

For instance, USS Boise has been sitting pierside at Norfolk Naval Base for 47 months—yes, almost four years!—because it has lost its dive certification. This means the submarine cannot submerge and that is a fundamental problem. Work to begin to repair Boise is not even slated to begin until January 2019 so the SSN has six more months tied to the pier. Boise is not alone however. Connecticut and Albany, two fast attack submarines, also had extended absences from the fleet. In each case, the maintenance period was expected to take approximately 24 months. Instead, it took four years for each submarine to return to the service.​

​

The problem is only going to get worse as the backlog at U.S Navy shipyards keep growing and SSNs continue to receive lowest priority at those shipyards.​

​

Cruisers​

​

Currently the Navy has 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers in its inventory. Easily the most powerful surface combatant the Navy possesses, the type introduced the AEGIS combat system to the world when the first ship of the class was commissioned in 1983.​

​

Since then AEGIS has been the gold standard in fleet air defense and now forms an integral part of the nation’s ballistic missile defense. The first five ships of the class have all been decommissioned as the earliest Ticonderogas had older guided missile launchers rather than the current ones.​

​

The youngest cruiser in the fleet is USS Port Royal, commissioned on July 4, 1994. With a projected 35-year service life that the Navy hopes to possibly extend for the final 11 cruisers built to 40 years, the Navy cruisers are closer to the end than the beginning—and with no replacement in sight.​

​

Later this year, USS Bunker Hill will deploy to the Pacific on what will be its final mission. The cruiser was the first Ticonderoga built with VLS and the Navy will decommission it in 2019, closely followed by a second cruiser, USS Mobile Bay.​

​

A huge problem for the Navy with the Ticonderoga-class was that of the current 22 ships they were all commissioned during an eight year window between late 1986 and 1994. This means that the ships will all be approaching the end of their service lives together and therefore will all need to be replaced together.​

​

The Navy has tried to replace the Ticonderogas, but balked at the price when it was estimated to at $6 billion per copy. The Navy has done what it can to upgrade and make the cruisers available for service.​

​

In early 2015, the Navy adopted a plan put forth by Congress to modernize its cruisers with what was called the 2/4/6 plan. This means that no more than two cruisers per year can go into extended modernization periods, those modernizations can take no longer than four years, and no more than six cruisers can be undergoing the modernization at the same time.​

​

The oldest 11 cruisers have already received upgrades yet are quickly sailing towards the end of their designed lifespan. As the Navy looks to modernize the remaining 11 Ticonderoga cruisers, it more importantly needs to be looking for a fiscally appropriate replacement.​

The point is that Euro-NATO can hold the line in Poland, whilst the US spins up a big hammer to smash the Russians back across the border and make them call time out.

With what?

 

[Blue cat]

With what?

Larger populations, larger GDPs etc.. If necessary The West mobilizes, pulls gear out of war stocks, builds new gear etc.. Thousands of M1 tanks the US has in storage would likely be quite relevant in such a setting.

 

[Sarthak]

Larger populations, larger GDPs etc.. If necessary The West mobilizes, pulls gear out of war stocks, builds new gear etc..

Uh......The only GDP's worth mentioning in NATO after the screwover they will have with the stoppage of Russian energy is Britain, USA and Canada. On the continent, the economies would be damaged too largely to effectively use it for war.

 

[History Learner]

Larger populations, larger GDPs etc.. If necessary The West mobilizes, pulls gear out of war stocks, builds new gear etc..

Sure, but that would take years to do. It isn't the 1940s when everyone has lots of slack and has been preparing since the mid 1930s to give a basis for such, or had recent (i.e. World War I) experience in mobilization.

 

[Blue cat]

Uh......The only GDP's worth mentioning in NATO after the screwover they will have with the stoppage of Russian energy is Britain, USA and Canada. On the continent, the economies would be damaged too largely to effectively use it for war.

In so far as the popular press has at times compared the Russian Economy to that of Canada, I suspect Canada, the U.S. and the UK could deal with Russia on their own if needed


Edit to add: Some of the "5 eyes" nations backing the Eastern European / Baltic NATO members vs Russia (and probably Belarus and a few other minor allies) in a conflict while the rest of NATO is neutral on the western side does not seem entirely impossible to me.

 

[Sarthak]

In so far as the popular press has at times compared the Russian Economy to that of Canada, I suspect Canada, the U.S. and the UK could deal with Russia on their own if needed

They could, if the economic range included the mainland European continent, because by the time they could mobilize their economies to wartime standing, the Russians would be knocking in Europe with a huge force. It kind of is redundant to having a huge wartime economy if you have no where to deploy it.

Also I am pretty sure only the united states could handle the Russian economy in 2014 considering they have the 5th largest PPP on the planet ahead of UK, France and Canada. Russia's PPP is larger than UK and Canada combined. Only America can outmatch Russia on the economic front in a war in 2014.

The moment a russian military threat becomes known, it is 100% guaranteed, the Baltic States, Norway, Germany, Poland and probably Denmark will bail out. The idea of NATO going to war with Russia in 2014 is fantastical. In 2014 Russia held the cards, not NATO. There were 25,000 troops on Crimea since 1997. The Ukrainian government annulled the 2012 Law on Minority Languages which made the ethnic strife in Novorossiya and Crimea even larger. Russia may have escalated the tensions, however the tensions were already erupting in Crimea and Novorossiya whose blame can only be put on the Ukrainian government. I don't think people will find it fun to fight a war over a Non-NATO state, over a conflict they started in the first place.

 

[Blue cat]

Also I am pretty sure only the united states could handle the Russian economy in 2014 considering they have the 5th largest PPP on the planet ahead of UK, France and Canada. Russia's PPP is larger than UK and Canada combined. Only America can outmatch Russia on the economic front in a war in 2014.

What is PPP ?? A quick Google search leads me to believe the 2016 Russian GDP is comparable to Australia, and I am still finding references in the Canadian popular press to Russia making less money than Canada in 2016.

Edit to add this type of discussion reminds me of a reported comment made by Putin several years ago that was widely reported in Canada when he essentially complained about having to sit at the same table as Canada during an economic conference... He seemed quite put out that Canada was widely viewed by other wealthy countries as being in the same economic league as Russia. In my view these types of statistics and reported comment from Putin more or less sums up much of the debate about the economic potential of Russia circa 2014 in this thread

 

[Blue cat]

The moment a russian military threat becomes known, it is 100% guaranteed, the Baltic States, Norway, Germany, Poland and probably Denmark will bail out. The idea of NATO going to war with Russia in 2014 is fantastical. In 2014 Russia held the cards, not NATO. There were 25,000 troops on Crimea since 1997. The Ukrainian government annulled the 2012 Law on Minority Languages which made the ethnic strife in Novorossiya and Crimea even larger. Russia may have escalated the tensions, however the tensions were already erupting in Crimea and Novorossiya whose blame can only be put on the Ukrainian government. I don't think people will find it fun to fight a war over a Non-NATO state, over a conflict they started in the first place.

Sorry I just don't see Poland and probably the other Eastern European states giving up if Russia were to actually try to invade them. That being said Ukraine is probably a lost cause if Russia wants to escalate. I don't believe there was any real enthusiasm within NATO for actually going to war over the Russian actions in Crimea. Attacks on NATO nations are another matter entirely.

If push came to shove I expect a combative US, UK and Canada could fight an ongoing war against Russia (and their assorted minor allies) essentially for ever without putting to much of a strain on their peace time economies. Even in the highly unlikely event of NATO essentially collapsing I expect the US UK and US Canadian ties would be strong enough to at least keep those three countries fighting for as long as it took to achieve a favorable outcome.

 

[Blue cat]

Sure, but that would take years to do. It isn't the 1940s when everyone has lots of slack and has been preparing since the mid 1930s to give a basis for such, or had recent (i.e. World War I) experience in mobilization.

I doubt it would take years for the US to pull a few thousand M1 tanks out of storage and train soldiers how to use them. Some of them would likely end up being shipped to the Eastern European members of NATO to replace their initial losses. And even if it did take a few years does it really matter much ? If one side is about to loose then nuclear weapons are likely to be used, the longer the conflict stays conventional the more time the West (well mostly the USA for the first year or so) has time to mobilize and build up new forces.

 

[History Learner]

I doubt it would take years for the US to pull a few thousand M1 tanks out of storage and train soldiers how to use them. Some of them would likely end up being shipped to the Eastern European members of NATO to replace their initial losses.

You should because existing production lines and training programs aren't there to support such a massive increasing; since production began in 1978, average yearly output has been less than 250.

And even if it did take a few years does it really matter much ? If one side is about to loose then nuclear weapons are likely to be used, the longer the conflict stays conventional the more time the West (well mostly the USA for the first year or so) has time to mobilize and build up new forces.

Or, as already has been pointed out, the Russians achieve their goals and threaten nuclear retailation should the Anglo-Americans come at them? This also presumes the Democracies have the political capital to endure a severe beating and then years of hardship thereafter.

 

[Blue cat]

You should because existing production lines and training programs aren't there to support such a massive increasing; since production began in 1978, average yearly output has been less than 250.



Or, as already has been pointed out, the Russians achieve their goals and threaten nuclear retailation should the Anglo-Americans come at them? This also presumes the Democracies have the political capital to endure a severe beating and then years of hardship thereafter.

Presuming the conflict stays conventional who says the Democracies would endure a severe beating and years of hardship ejecting a nation from their territory that reportedly had a GDP similar in size to Canada. Sure if NATO tried to invade Russia and impose a new regime I can see things getting rather grim, but holding the line at some point in western Europe and pushing the Russians more or less back to their start lines should be fairly straight forwards. Most likely the Eastern European members of NATO do the bulk of the initial fighting and the US ends up shipping reasonable quantities of mothballed equipment to them to keep them in the fight while the rest of NATO builds up a large army to methodically push the Russians back. Frankly I don`t see the Russians being able to sustain their military once a serious shooting war starts against motivated first world nations backed by the USA. With US backing I would not entirely discount the possibility of the Eastern European nations being able to stop the Russians in their tracks.

If nuclear weapons get used I suspect things might get rather grim, but frankly I don`t see NATO using nuclear weapons so long as there is the possibility of a large Anglo, Franco, German, US, Canadian etc force being assembled to eject the Russians at some point, nor do I see the Russians using nukes unless NATO actually invades Russia. Even if some NATO members drop out of the fighting for what ever reason I doubt the end result will change much.

From a pragmatic perspective I can see a number of reasons why the US, UK, and Canada (and likely a number of other countries) might be quite willing to fight a war circa 2014 to 2016 if the end result was greatly reduced Russian influence in Western Europe (and presumably by extension the rest of the world.) In my view the US president at the time made it quite clear that any attacks on NATO members would be answered with force, and I personally don`t believe he was bluffing.

 

[History Learner]

Presuming the conflict stays conventional who says the Democracies would endure a severe beating and years of hardship ejecting a nation from their territory that reportedly had a GDP similar in size to Canada. Sure if NATO tried to invade Russia and impose a new regime I can see things getting rather grim, but holding the line at some point in western Europe and pushing the Russians more or less back to their start lines should be fairly straight forwards. Most likely the Eastern European members of NATO do the bulk of the initial fighting and the US ends up shipping reasonable quantities of mothballed equipment to them to keep them in the fight while the rest of NATO builds up a large army to methodically push the Russians back. Frankly I don`t see the Russians being able to sustain their military once a serious shooting war starts against motivated first world nations backed by the USA. With US backing I would not entirely discount the possibility of the Eastern European nations being able to stop the Russians in their tracks.

Again, with what exactly are the European NATO members supposed to fight with? Further, what equipment could the U.S. ship? REFORGER hasn't been conducted since 1993 and most of their own in service equipment, as I've already pounted out, is out of service.

If nuclear weapons get used I suspect things might get rather grim, but frankly I don`t see NATO using nuclear weapons so long as there is the possibility of a large Anglo, Franco, German, US, Canadian etc force being assembled to eject the Russians at some point, nor do I see the Russians using nukes unless NATO actually invades Russia. Even if some NATO members drop out of the fighting for what ever reason I doubt the end result will change much.

It would take years to build up such a force and by then the Russians will have a fait accompli backed up by nuclear weapons. You may be disinclined to believe such, but NATO definitely doesn't, as I've already shown with the RAND study I linked to initially.

From a pragmatic perspective I can see a number of reasons why the US, UK, and Canada (and likely a number of other countries) might be quite willing to fight a war circa 2014 to 2016 if the end result was greatly reduced Russian influence in Western Europe (and presumably by extension the rest of the world.) In my view the US president at the time made it quite clear that any attacks on NATO members would be answered with force, and I personally don`t believe he was bluffing.

These are the same nations and the same President that failed to to enforce the Red Line on Bashar Al-Assad over his use of chemical weapons?