Discussion on the invasion of mother Russia (hypothetical)
 

Invasion of mother Russia

Ok here is the scene NATO have declared war on the Russian federation for some disagreement over oil in the arctic, the USA have decreed they will not enter the war unless absolutely necessary so that major power is out.

How do you think The Russians will fare against NATO in a defensive posture?

Could you plan the defensive position using land sea and air units effectively to stop NATO units advancing?

How do you think Moscow will react to the invasion threat by NATO and do you think the war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear?

Please discuss in a civilised manner possible out comes for this hypothetical war.

You might as well ask what will happen if the Flying Spaghetti Monster declares war on the Federated States of Micronesia. I can't see any situation where NATO's European allies attack Russia while the US sits there on the sidelines.

Exactly. If they're not too keen on being in Afghanistan right now fighting lowly tribesmen I don't see much for them to love in a conflict with a former superpower still armed with nuclear weapons.

It will be quite hard to NATO to invade Russia. The only land links are Northern Norway (An easy enough position to defend) and the Baltics, a concentrated defence of those is not at all beyond Russia's ability. Naval invasions don't pose too much of a threat as much the coastline freezes in the winter, making supply almost impossible, and sufficient air cover could prevent an invasion from getting through in the first place (Especially if the US carrier fleets are out).

All this providing it is not nuclear, if it is than all this doesn't matter and the war will be over in 2 hours.

Then again, I cannot see any reason for NATO to attack Russia...

EDIT: Whoops, forgot that Russia has no border with Turkey anymore... :damn:

Need more sleep...

For a Russian defense I'd go with the tried and true. Scorched Earth and a Russian winter. It stopped Napoleon, it stopped Hitler, it'll stop NATO too. If it went nuclear it would be over in less than 2 hours, I give it 30 minutes with Russia still standing.

Oh and if you take the US out of NATO you just get the EU. :03:

EDIT: Finally not that gay looking medic dude anymore!

A "Navy Dude" with a popped collar isn't a huge improvement ;)

NATO is a pretty pathetic fighting force of you remove the US of A. Half the reason most countries refuse to leave it is that the US will protect them, which in turn results in ever decreasing defense budgets since they increasingly rely on the USA. THe UK may be the only force left with an ever dwindling offensive force and they alone can't take on the bear.

I have to vote with Russia stomping the crap out of everyone. They alone are way more capable than the rest of NATO.

If it's nuclear though, it's over in an hour because the US will launch too. Half the worlds population gone in 1 hr's time.

-S

yeah, the only fighting force worth a damn is the US army....:nope:

NATO wouldn't do a very good job of invading Russia. They never were meant to. They would do an excellent job of holding off a Russian invasion, even without American help IMO.

PD

Hmm... has anyone inverted a missile system to intercept a missile...:hmmm:

No, inverting a missile would mean it would launch towards the ground and therefore create an unnecessarily large mess for some miserable people to clean up...

... a system that makes the missiles navagation systems make it go into space one it gets in the air.:hmmm:

No, that wouldn't work, you can (Most likely) shoot down ICBMs these days though

I haven't read the other replies but IMHO it would be difficult for Nato to soundly beat Russia and get a unconditional surrender out of them. Russia is the kind of country that thrives under duress and a war would unite them, pretty much like it has in the past.

If it'd be a nuke-fest then it'd be even more difficult to predict. Those Topols pack a punch.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ay_2008-14.jpg

I made your text in white so I could actually read it.

Quote:

Please discuss in a civilised manner possible out comes for this hypothetical war.

Alright, I'll make an honest effort.


Extremely difficult to say without a comprehensive knowledge of asset disposition on the eve of the war, but I'll try.
Assuming that NATO adopts a Barbarossa-style buildup, the Russians would certainly be alerted to their presence well before the attack, so I'll rule that out in favor of a slight augmentation of exsisting troop strenghts and a troop buildup in the guise of a wargame held in southeastern Poland.
The Polish buildup offers a major advantage in that Ukraine, tank-country at its' finest, is readily accessible. Assuming that Ukraine does not join the war on the Russian side, violation of its' neutrality is still acceptable, primarily because invasion of Russia through any exsisting EU-Russian border would face major terrain hurdles and could only offer a narrow attack front.
Although the main thrust of the attack would be through Ukraine, there would have to be a secondary attack through the shared border between Estonia, Latvia, and Russia. Belarus can be ignored if it remains neutral because there is little to gain from advancing through the vast marsh there, especially if the invasion takes place in the spring or early summer. Better yet, if the Russians counterattack through Belarus, they will be throwing themselves into a marshy, forested salient betwtixt the two prongs of the attack, making them vulnerable to encirclement. They will have more to worry about than bad terrain, however. The Belorussians will almost certainly offer some resistance, further slowing them. Even if they make it to the Polish border, they still have to cross the Vistula to make a decisive thrust into EU territory and if the EU forces can hold the relatively defensible ground along Poland's Northern and southern borders, the Russians will be throwing themselves into yet another salient where they can be encircled in short order.

Russia also suffers from a lack of force-readiness and military infrastructure at the moment. Shall I assume that in this hypothetical scenario that they have remedied those shortcomings? It would make a big difference.

Quote:

Could you plan the defensive position using land sea and air units effectively to stop NATO units advancing?

Assuming that Russia's military is in readiness, and that the EU pursues the initial strategy outlined above........no. There is very little the Russians could do to stop the EU from advancing rapidly into Ukraine, and most of their units lack the reliability and organization neccesary to conduct modern mobile defence. They also lack the numerical superiority required to counter schwerpunkt NATO attacks, particularly of the combined-arms and vertical envelopment variety.

However, Russia could eventually stop the NATO advance, if they play their hand right. Much as in the Second World War, Russia would have to adopt a general policy of shifting troops eastward and drawing their opponents in. Despite advances in transportation engineering and air-supply, the NATO forces would be severely hampered by their long supply lines. This is doubly true if Belarus remains neutral.

Modern armies, for all their advancements, are even more reliant upon supplies than 20th-century forces. They need more fuel, more finished products, more technical support, and most of all, more communications.
The latter is NATO's greatest strength and greatest weakness. If NATO could launch a devestating strike against Russian military communications centres and headquarters units with long-range precision-strike aircraft, they could cripple the Russian military (in the West, maybe even as far as the Caucuses) in one fell swoop for weeks, maybe even months. NATO possesses the aircraft to make this strike, even though their ability to deliver such a strike is somewhat hampered by the buffer states of Ukraine and Belarus. If Russian units were prepared for such a strike, the effectiveness of it would be minimal. HQ's were moving about or taking cover because an attack was imminent, it would be difficult to effectively pin most of them down and eliminate them. As a consequence, the Russian defence would be coordinated, and NATO would run into stiff opposition sooner or later. Stiff opposition that would ruin any chance of victory over Russia. Russia's ally is time, and NATO cannot afford to let Russia utilize that ally.

As I said, NATO's superiority in battlefield communications is also their greatest weakness. The Russians would be hard-pressed to launch effective strikes against NATO comm units and HQ's because NATO units have access to some of the most advanced communications equipment known to man, and their comm centers will be far behind the lines (if they can be called lines in modern warfare) and protected by significant, advanced, air defense artillery, orbital surveillance, aerial surveillance, quick-reaction forces, and exceptional air-superiority fighters. Russian anti-radiation artillery fire is not even a concern when you have radio, microwave, and sattelite communications that can transmit traffic to units 100 miles away in adverse circumstances and anywhere on the planet in ideal circumstances.
The weakness lies in the fact that NATO units are so reliant upon constant battlefield communication. It only takes about 5 minutes (assuming that one has access to electrically conductive wire) to set up a field-expedient jamming array whose range is limitd only by the power source you provide it with.
Sure, NATO anti-radiation artillery fire or airstrikes will destroy the array within minutes (or hours, if the range of the array is such that it requires a planned airstirke and anit-air artilery is in place), but ground forces and combined-arms support are stalled in the meantime.
Whether Russian units are trained in the form of electronic warfare, I do not know, but I do know that if they were to use it, they could cripple a NATO offensive before it gained any significant ground. Again, time is Russia's ally, and the longer they can delay a decisive NATO offensive, the more likely they are to stave it off or reverse it.

Quote:

How do you think Moscow will react to the invasion threat by NATO and do you think the war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear?

If America remained neutral I'm pretty sure their first reaction would be to attempt to gain diplomatic intervention from America. There is absolutely no way that the EU could prosecute a war against Russia if America intervened on behalf of the Russians, which it probably would, especially if the cause of the war was something as trivial as an oil dispute in the arctic.
Then again, it depends upon the administration in power, and the political climate. If oil were in very short supply and the E.U. had an oil trade arrangement with the U.S. and the electorate didn't go bonkers about the whole situation, the U.S would probably intervene on behalf of the E.U.
That is pure conjecture, though.

After that, I only have more conjecture to offer in regards to whether or not the war would go nuclear. The only thing I know for certain is that a nuclear exchange would bring the U.S. in on one side or the other. Common sense might dictate that the U.S. stay as far away as possible from nuclear exchanes, but there would indubitably be a strong reactionary sentiment that would deman a nuclear strike. The fear of nuclear weapons and the assurance of U.S. superiority is too great for it to be othwerwise. I have no doubt that within the current political climate, the U.S. would nuke the hell out of whatever it considered to be the offending party, and it would do so very quickly.

I imagine that Russia and the E.U. are aware of this, and would not allow the war to escelate into a nuclear conflict. That, however, is only a cursory view of the scenario. There are many, many, factors to be considered beyond that, including whether or not troops of whichever faction the U.S. allies with are going to be markedly affected by U.S. nuclear fallout, the state of readiness for nuclear attack by the target nation(s), the degree of success or failure of U.S. diplomatic efforts (another thing I am sure would be pursued), and the level of nuclear exchange.


Even after all this, things would be very much more complex and deserve more elaboration, but I will await your response and feedback before I go further.

I think History has told us plenty of times by now that invading Russia will result in no victory for the invaders.

HunterICX

The EU couldn't even invade Liechtenstein

Nato without the US would lose - badly. *Edit - even conventionally - with the US - Nato would lose*

This is NOT because the other Nato countries lack effective military equipment or good soldiers.

It is however because without the US, the remaining parties would never agree on a general strategy or leadership. Each would end up bickering over the forces it dedicated, and how they were used. Alliances work when everyone is on the same page - and the US has been able - from a position of strength - to keep Nato on close to the same page. Without that agreed focus, you end up with exactly what was stated before - the "EU" trying to run a war. Given the fact that the EU can't agree on much of anything - overall leadership in a Euro/Russian conflict would be nonexistent, resulting in each country doing its own thing. In other words, chaos.

Now, lets assume for a moment that this was somehow overcome. A unified, well led EU force invading Russia. How would it go? I still have to say badly. Look at how each side has prepared for the feared "ww3" - the Russians being offensive, and Europe being defensive. To that end, the forces have trained to those tasks. EU fighter pilots train for defensive missions, over their own territory, inside their own radar coverage. The ground troops rarely practice offensive (counterattack) scenarios compared to defensives missions, and when they do - the counterattack is not run in extended ranges.

While the Russians are on the flip side of the coin, its alot easier to defend than attack. By definition, defense means the other guy has to win - where as a defender - you simply have to "not lose". I know it sounds like the same thing - but in combat - its not.

Next, look at the balance of forces. I am going to assume we are talking Russia proper and the still associated satellite states, versus a reunited greater Soviet "Republic". They may not have the largest army, but the Russians have VAST stocks of wargear wharehoused away. Remember their idea was quantity over quality. In war, the russians would conscript HUGE numbers of personell to put to use that equipment.

Attrition - compounded by the defensive posture of Russia, would greatly go against the EU forces. Add to that the ungodly supply situation (as European Nato forces STILL have not standardized a supply system), and I can see the battle being almost WW1 like, a stalemate where the only true "progress" is possible in the air war.

The air facet is the only one where the EU may hold some advantage, but it would be insufficient to break a ground stalemate. The advantage comes from not only the technology side, but also the vast frontal area the Russians would have to defend. However, within 1 month, that advantage would be gone, via redeployment of forces as well as attrition.

Two more factors must be raised in this. The political, and the economic.
Economically, Russia does need hard currency, though not as badly as it did. It gains ALOT of this currency through the sale of energy to western europe. At the flick of a switch upon commencement of hostilities, that needed energy would no longer be available. Thus, the economic ability of the EU to carry out a war would be seriously compromised.

This then impacts upon the political. How secure are those various governments going to be when their own people are in the dark, going hungry and cold? Especially since they will be the "aggressors" in many of their own citizens eyes. Those governments are going to be facing a lot of civil strife should they attempt to pursue such a policy.

As for the war going nuclear - such a thing is highly unlikely. Given the guidelines you put forth regarding this hypothetical situation, there is simply no line of thinking that can make a good arguement for a nuclear facet. Remember - only 3 NATO members have nuclear weapons in their arsenal. With America out, that leaves France and Great Britain. Neither would risk the backlash - worldwide and multifaceted (political, militarily, economically) - to conduct an offensive nuclear strike. The cost - even without a retaliatory strike by russia - would be too high. Yet the Russians WOULD strike back. No leader will sign off on such a order, because it would be signing the death warrant for his own country. Whatever survived the retaliation would be a world pariah.

With that said - there is ONE possibility of it going nuclear - but that would be in a very contained way, in which no counterstrikes would occur. This would occur if for whatever reason the russians found themselves unable to defend their motherland. Then - I would expect to see the Russian military and political leadership sacrifice their own in DEFENSIVE nuclear strikes - over their own territory - or what would have been theirs but may have been taken during the conflict by EU forces. In doing so, no EU civilian targets would have been hit - instead it would have been former russian targets - thus removing any ability of the EU to have an excuse to "retaliate". This would stop any EU advance cold as well.

Given the scenario as postulated - I have to say there really is no way for Western Europe - even on one page - to win such a conflict. Not in today's political and economic climate. A couple of decades from now, who knows. But in today's world the Bear would win.

I've done some reading on a potential Cold War era conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The consensus seemed to be that NATO *might* be able to thwart a Russian conventional attack without going nuclear, but it would be a very close run thing at best.

Since the defender has the advantage in warfare, there's absolutely no way that NATO, even with the US, could have attacked Russia with any hope of success without using nuclear weapons. They wouldn't have even gotten to Berlin, much less Russia itself.

Things are different today, but the general balance of power is still the same. NATO still has the technological upper hand over Russia, but Russia has a numerical advantage in terms of soldiers and equipment. If you include Ukraine as open territory, then the border between Russia and NATO is a lot broader than it was during the Cold War, but a broader front favors the side with the numerical advantage (the Russians).

So even on a purely military basis, Russia wouldn't have much trouble beating off the Europeans. If the EU had American help, it would be closer, but still not enough to pull off a successful Western attack.

But the real reason why an attack would fail is the political/economic factors. As Haplo said, the Europeans would be crippled by their own political infighting. Being attacked tends to wipe out dissent and infighting, but being the aggressor tends to magnify it. The Europeans would never have the united political will to even start an attack on Russia.

Then there's the resources issue. An attack on Russia would cause Russia to cut off its natural gas pipelines to Europe. It would rob the Russians of a big source of income, but it would be even worse for the Europeans, who would suddenly lose most of their natural gas. If the international community sided with the Russians (likely, since the Europeans would be the aggressors), then the Europeans would also lose much of their oil supply.

So in short, it would be a complete disaster for the Europeans, which is why they'll never even think about trying it.

I say hard to say also, as NATO is run by a bunch of whimpy pacifist nations (currently). Obama is too busy with converting us to socailism to worry about Europe. On the flip side, Russia can bearly handle the chechens.

I say both side collapse on day one.:yawn:

Wait, Russia would win. They would turn off the gas/oil spigot, europe cries uncle.