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

[Ato]

No they didn't. I wonder what may be your source?

They US and EU actually did put quite a lot of money into certain Ukrainian NGO in the two years prior to the hostilities. Mostly ones that were pro-US/EU and pro-democracy. Some of these were quite prominent in the Maidan protests.

This of course is exactly the same thing as a long running conspiracy to overthrow a government and install your own neo-fascist puppet regime.

 

[KuboCaskett]

They US and EU actually did put quite a lot of money into certain Ukrainian NGO in the two years prior to the hostilities. Mostly ones that were pro-US/EU and pro-democracy. Some of these were quite prominent in the Maidan protests.

This of course is exactly the same thing as a long running conspiracy to overthrow a government and install your own neo-fascist puppet regime.

Are you sure you're not getting this from conspiracy loving websites? Because endorsing them can get you banned here (and I don't blame the mods for doing so; conspiracies mostly taste good in fiction).

 

[Orville_third]

They have no ability to hit it.

Soviet Military Power 1984 would like a word with you. Unrefueled, Backfire
bombers would need bases only 1500 miles or less from Alaska to hit it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

No they aren't. They do have forces left over.

True. However, the US has forces all around the world. With the increasing losses in Europe, they will have to take forces from somewhere. With a raid on Alaska and Canada, they will have to defend those areas from aerial attack, leaving fewer forces available to go elsewhere.

They would not have the capability to do this, at least not easily.

All they need is to send some Backfires and Blackjacks to the southern bases, get permission to overfly Iran and launch some ASMs at the targets.

No they aren't. These would be countries that we would be obligated to defend, why would the US public suddenly turn their back on them?

The US public does not generally care about Ukraine. Many who do care are not on the side of the government and establishment. Some get their news from media outlets which take a different stand than the Administration.

No they didn't. I wonder what may be your source?

The original source is here. It is not at the beginning, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU

 

[Orville_third]

One more thing which Russia should do- and the US for that matter. With the growing aircraft losses, they need to start getting all available planes into the air. The US has the Davis-Monthan boneyard, and Russia has several. Some can be flown again by pilots. Others should be converted into drones. Those could be useful in drawing enemy fire, taking pictures or even attacking targets...

 

[Viscount Stanthorpe]

They US and EU actually did put quite a lot of money into certain Ukrainian NGO in the two years prior to the hostilities. Mostly ones that were pro-US/EU and pro-democracy. Some of these were quite prominent in the Maidan protests.

This of course is exactly the same thing as a long running conspiracy to overthrow a government and install your own neo-fascist puppet regime.

Well, it all depends, doesn’t it.

If you work on the basis that everyone has the right to democratically express their viewpoint & live in a non-corrupt society (disclaimer – I hold these positions) then funding NGO’s in support of democracy & to crack down on corruption is a perfectly legitimate (& laudable) action.

If you hold the view that ‘the people should do what they are told’ (because otherwise the country falls apart in protests about poor public services, high taxes & corrupt officials etc - or the country, God forbid might choose to leave 'your' sphere of influence because your leadership has been so shoddy etc) then pesky institutions that promote democracy & personal viewpoint are clearly part of a sinister western plot to destabilize your country.

 

[sharlin]

i'm kinda wondering how the So..Russian navy has suddenly become much more active (getting all their boats to sea would be a challenge to say the least as well as any surface ships as the Russians simply don't have the resources, money or crews to crew their ships/subs and have them all available and in operating condition.

And tied in with this how the NATO forces seem to be handling the Russian navy so badly, they trained for this from the 50's..and that seems to have gone out the window.

 

[ivfl]

Leaving aside the fact that no major naval battles have taken place since 1945,so both sides would make awful mistakes at first there is the fact that the russians despite having somewhat obsolete ships they can still pack a punch at least at first.Plus if Russia wants to fight NATO the best strategy is a full on offensive at first take out as much as possible before NATO starts to mobilise.Ships are a lot harder to replace than men,at this point with a carrier lost to enemy action the US Navy would be in a state of shock with in all likelyhood half of the flag officers in Norfolk facing dismissal for serious incompetence.Both sides are trying to obtain a clear victory at first so their commiting everything they got sometimes recklessly.In hindsight this might prove to be a bad thing with future historians starting to talk about the generals who ran this was just as bad as they talk about WW1 generals,although that would be an oversimplification.

 

[Star Eater]

On the subject of the navy, what's vital to remember is that the United States has never been in a serious naval conflict since the Second World War, and have never fought naval battles using modern technology. All the training and preparation in the world can't completely prepare you for the real thing, and it's going to take time to get used to it all. A lot of it is simply down to luck at this stage.

 

[Ato]

Are you sure you're not getting this from conspiracy loving websites? Because endorsing them can get you banned here (and I don't blame the mods for doing so; conspiracies mostly taste good in fiction).

Sarcasm is truly a lost art.


That funding was revealed by some official budget breakdowns released by the US and EU (Prior to any unrest in Ukraine). It was only seized upon after the Crimean incident by the RT apologist crowd seeking ways to show that poor defenseless Rossyia was merely responding in kind to things badevil west was doing.

Of course it makes the global anti-russia conspiracy even more plausible, becasue if you were plotting cultural-economic Barbarossa 2.0 you would no doubt make sure to properly enter your funding of Banderist militias as line items in your budgets, as only a true germanically efficient Imperialistic Fascist Oppressor would do.


Oh wait, bad Ato! You are doing it again. They don't understand the jokings!

 

[sharlin]

On the subject of the navy, what's vital to remember is that the United States has never been in a serious naval conflict since the Second World War, and have never fought naval battles using modern technology. All the training and preparation in the world can't completely prepare you for the real thing, and it's going to take time to get used to it all. A lot of it is simply down to luck at this stage.

Please point out the many naval conflicts that the Soviet union has been in since the end of WW2 (having their own subs and ships sink due to engine faults does not count) as i'd be deeply interested to hear and read about them. And the Soviets are still on the short end of the technology stick and are VERY heavily outnumbered by navies that do a lot more training than they do at sea, mainly because Western Warships are in a running condition. Whilst the Soviets built a lot of ships, most of the ones in Russian service have been canibalised to keep the few runners they've got in working condition, they'd be in no fit state to bring them back to operating condition as well as getting enough trained crews for them in anything short of a decade of hard work and investment.

Soviet subs do not go to sea anywhere near as often as they use to in the cold war, their surface ships are mostly dockyard queens too. They've not introduced a new major surface ship since the Sovremenny and Udaloy classes of the 80's, and they have vastly cut back on their sub fleet so they only have Akula's and some old Victor III's left along with what ever operational Oscar II's they can get running. Also the USN for its faults (*glances at their current procurement plan*) is still very well trained and again has a considerable technological advantage over the Sovi..Russians. Then factor in I assume the RN which was and still IS NATO's main ASW force which is vastly experienced even if they make do with older kit for the most part, the Germans, Dutch etc, all of whom trained like bastards and still do in things like ASW.

Also looking here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships (yes I know not the best sauce but enough) you'll see that most of their most modern subs the Akula's are under refit leaving 24 year old Victor III's to carry the weight. Sorry this fleet could not overcome NATO and control the seas off Europe.

 

[Orville_third]

To be fair, the US has been more focused on littoral war for the past decade or two, and ASW seems to be focused more on finding narcosubs than Russian or other subs. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Plus Russia has the element of surprise, or close to it.
As for the Germans and Danes, what's going on in the Baltic? When will the Russians send troops into Turkey? (Or launch more airstrikes?) Will they begin psyops to support the Turkish opposition or Kurds?

 

[sharlin]

To be fair, the US has been more focused on littoral war for the past decade or two, and ASW seems to be focused more on finding narcosubs than Russian or other subs. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Plus Russia has the element of surprise, or close to it.
As for the Germans and Danes, what's going on in the Baltic? When will the Russians send troops into Turkey? (Or launch more airstrikes?) Will they begin psyops to support the Turkish opposition or Kurds?

They've still not abandoned or ignored their deep water role though, especially keeping a weather eye on China with more exercises and Sinkex's going on in the pacific, where ships are rotated through from the various fleets to take part, and any time a CVN goes to sea her escorts will be doing exercises on AA and ASW. Really the littoral thing the USN's got in its bonnet is more a case of mine warfare and how to deal with it, something the RN's been helping a lot with.

 

[Snowstalker]

Is there a chance of any NATO countries deciding not to fight? Greece seems like the only likely case.

 

[ivfl]

I doubt any NATO country would decide on neutrality but there is a possibility that some might give little if any practical support.Portugal or Belgium might at least at first not give any troops for the front line invoking a lack of preparation.As for Greece there might be protests against a war and maybe even some isolated cases of greeks deciding to fight for the russians but the government is unlikely to say they're neutral.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Are you sure you're not getting this from conspiracy loving websites? Because endorsing them can get you banned here (and I don't blame the mods for doing so; conspiracies mostly taste good in fiction).

Sarcasm is truly a lost art.

That funding was revealed by some official budget breakdowns released by the US and EU (Prior to any unrest in Ukraine). It was only seized upon after the Crimean incident by the RT apologist crowd seeking ways to show that poor defenseless Rossyia was merely responding in kind to things badevil west was doing.

Of course it makes the global anti-russia conspiracy even more plausible, becasue if you were plotting cultural-economic Barbarossa 2.0 you would no doubt make sure to properly enter your funding of Banderist militias as line items in your budgets, as only a true germanically efficient Imperialistic Fascist Oppressor would do.


Oh wait, bad Ato! You are doing it again. They don't understand the jokings!

Considering the idiocies that get posted in full seriousness, and considering that tone doesnt come across in plain text, the use of smileys is VERY useful when.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Considering the idiocies that get posted in full seriousness, and considering that tone doesnt come across in plain text, the use of smileys is VERY useful when.

or better yet use (sarcasm) after saying something that can be taken seriously.

 

[brokenman]

Please point out the many naval conflicts that the Soviet union has been in since the end of WW2 (having their own subs and ships sink due to engine faults does not count) as i'd be deeply interested to hear and read about them. And the Soviets are still on the short end of the technology stick and are VERY heavily outnumbered by navies that do a lot more training than they do at sea, mainly because Western Warships are in a running condition. Whilst the Soviets built a lot of ships, most of the ones in Russian service have been canibalised to keep the few runners they've got in working condition, they'd be in no fit state to bring them back to operating condition as well as getting enough trained crews for them in anything short of a decade of hard work and investment.

Soviet subs do not go to sea anywhere near as often as they use to in the cold war, their surface ships are mostly dockyard queens too. They've not introduced a new major surface ship since the Sovremenny and Udaloy classes of the 80's, and they have vastly cut back on their sub fleet so they only have Akula's and some old Victor III's left along with what ever operational Oscar II's they can get running. Also the USN for its faults (*glances at their current procurement plan*) is still very well trained and again has a considerable technological advantage over the Sovi..Russians. Then factor in I assume the RN which was and still IS NATO's main ASW force which is vastly experienced even if they make do with older kit for the most part, the Germans, Dutch etc, all of whom trained like bastards and still do in things like ASW.

Also looking here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships (yes I know not the best sauce but enough) you'll see that most of their most modern subs the Akula's are under refit leaving 24 year old Victor III's to carry the weight. Sorry this fleet could not overcome NATO and control the seas off Europe.

I agree with this. NATO subs alone (also outnumber) could prevent the Russian Navy from ever penetrating the Atlantic. How much more if they are supported by surface ships and naval aircraft. In addition, most Russian surface ships are decades old, and let me say, mostly just for decorations because they are neither maintained effectively nor replaced?

 

[brokenman]

On the subject of the navy, what's vital to remember is that the United States has never been in a serious naval conflict since the Second World War, and have never fought naval battles using modern technology. All the training and preparation in the world can't completely prepare you for the real thing, and it's going to take time to get used to it all. A lot of it is simply down to luck at this stage.

Lacking in one thing - quality. More modern and robust equipment gives you a very high advantage over your opponent's more aging and antiquated forces, even when we disregard training. Even China modernizes its navy much, much faster than Russia does.

 

[brokenman]

i'm kinda wondering how the So..Russian navy has suddenly become much more active (getting all their boats to sea would be a challenge to say the least as well as any surface ships as the Russians simply don't have the resources, money or crews to crew their ships/subs and have them all available and in operating condition.

And tied in with this how the NATO forces seem to be handling the Russian navy so badly, they trained for this from the 50's..and that seems to have gone out the window.

Well, one can say it all boils down to the narrator giving us the suspense and thrills. One cannot give the opponent too much advantage lest it becomes the cliche. It might be Russia winning this one in the end!

Needless to say, this is a somewhat nice start and I shall be reading this.



Sorry for the dismembered posts. I'll try to keep them all in one piece the next time.

 

[Cahaya Purnama]

I wonder what name this war would get?The Russia-NATO war?The Eastern european war?The great european war?World war 3 seems unlikely with the combatants only european,central asian,and north americans.Africa,most of Asia,Latin america and Australia seem to be largely neutral.Also what name does the Pentagon give to the operations in Europe?Although i have a feeling most people in Europe and North America would just call it WW3.

Russo-Nato War?