James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Feb 13, 2020 9:37:01 GMT
Wow- well done and stunning! Russian 4GW seems to have triumphed. Hybrid 4th gen. warfare has won the day. Soft casualty adverse political leaders have done been forced to cave in. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Feb 13, 2020 9:39:35 GMT
Does this mean the end of NATO if so many of the European powers are refusing to fight on? If so it could be a hell of a lot worse for much of Europe. Not direct occupation yet but just about everywhere east of Britain and France at least are going to be open to intimidation. It seems a very bad decision to make and I can understand why Poland was the last major power in Europe to agree to stop fighting.
Hopefully at least the government in Britain and preferably other powers will work on developing their forces, both conventional military and things like cyber warfare to be better prepared next time around as another clash is almost certain.
Steve
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Feb 13, 2020 12:24:40 GMT
Does this mean the end of NATO if so many of the European powers are refusing to fight on? If so it could be a hell of a lot worse for much of Europe. Not direct occupation yet but just about everywhere east of Britain and France at least are going to be open to intimidation. It seems a very bad decision to make and I can understand why Poland was the last major power in Europe to agree to stop fighting.
Hopefully at least the government in Britain and preferably other powers will work on developing their forces, both conventional military and things like cyber warfare to be better prepared next time around as another clash is almost certain.
Steve
Formally NATO still exists but it is done for in reality. There would be thousands of British casualties after a week and a half of fighting. I doubt any British government could survive. A new one would have to prepare for the next fight. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Feb 13, 2020 15:34:23 GMT
Does this mean the end of NATO if so many of the European powers are refusing to fight on? If so it could be a hell of a lot worse for much of Europe. Not direct occupation yet but just about everywhere east of Britain and France at least are going to be open to intimidation. It seems a very bad decision to make and I can understand why Poland was the last major power in Europe to agree to stop fighting.
Hopefully at least the government in Britain and preferably other powers will work on developing their forces, both conventional military and things like cyber warfare to be better prepared next time around as another clash is almost certain.
Steve
Formally NATO still exists but it is done for in reality. There would be thousands of British casualties after a week and a half of fighting. I doubt any British government could survive. A new one would have to prepare for the next fight.
The next election would be interesting. Would the bulk of anger be about being unready and being defeated or about the fact we suffered losses in a fairly short war? If the former then there would be a desire to regain greater security quickly, if the latter things could get very bad. Of course those Russia influences and cyber assets not yet detected would be seeking to push things in the latter direction.
I could see Britain, the US and Canada getting together fairly quickly depending on the reaction of the US to this mess. Who else might be interested and be welcome would be a different matter and under what terms.
Given that the EU has lost three member states, and possibly part of another there would be questions on its future and the myth of it being a key role in maintaining peace in Europe would be exposed although its 'true believers' would continue to deny that and very likely argue for an even more centralised state. Which might mean there are three blocs developing, a Russian empire and satellites in the east, a western/Atlantic one in the west and a weaker continental European bloc between them.
|
|
Brky2020
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 406
Likes: 406
|
Post by Brky2020 on Feb 13, 2020 19:29:00 GMT
If Brexit happened in this timeline, the war would almost definitely draw the UK into a closer all-around relationship with the US and Canada and even further away from Europe.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Feb 13, 2020 20:20:31 GMT
Formally NATO still exists but it is done for in reality. There would be thousands of British casualties after a week and a half of fighting. I doubt any British government could survive. A new one would have to prepare for the next fight.
The next election would be interesting. Would the bulk of anger be about being unready and being defeated or about the fact we suffered losses in a fairly short war? If the former then there would be a desire to regain greater security quickly, if the latter things could get very bad. Of course those Russia influences and cyber assets not yet detected would be seeking to push things in the latter direction.
I could see Britain, the US and Canada getting together fairly quickly depending on the reaction of the US to this mess. Who else might be interested and be welcome would be a different matter and under what terms.
Given that the EU has lost three member states, and possibly part of another there would be questions on its future and the myth of it being a key role in maintaining peace in Europe would be exposed although its 'true believers' would continue to deny that and very likely argue for an even more centralised state. Which might mean there are three blocs developing, a Russian empire and satellites in the east, a western/Atlantic one in the west and a weaker continental European bloc between them.
It would be much of both, I'd guess. An Anglosphere alliance is likely, sure, though no certain. It depends if the US rages at 'cowardly Europeans' and blames Britain alongside everyone else. Europe will be a very much changed place indeed. If Brexit happened in this timeline, the war would almost definitely draw the UK into a closer all-around relationship with the US and Canada and even further away from Europe. We avoided that issue in the story, like saying which political party the government was, on purpose. Though, in such a Brexit scenario, you can bet that would be the case. Never doubt the ability of us Brits to blame Jonny Foreigner for all our woes! |
|
|
|
Post by fieldmarshal on Feb 22, 2020 4:14:08 GMT
Nice short little story here, @james G and forcon . Quite honestly I feel that in this scenario the Russian victory you present here is the most likely outcome. While I do not bemoan the relative peace the West has enjoyed since the end of the Cold War, that "peace" - along with the relatively "limited" wars we have fought in the Middle East - have resulted in us becoming very casualty averse. The idea of losing tens of thousands or even millions like were lost in the World Wars or Vietnam or whatever appears far and away from the modern Western mind. In a general war with Russia (or China, or Iran, or North Korea, or any other near-peer adversary) in the opening days of war NATO would probably be taking thousands of losses a day. Could the political climate in the modern US or Britain really stomach that? And that's not even bringing up the nuclear element - does the average American really feel protecting Baltic sovereignty is worth the potential risk of everything he has ever known and loved burning in an atomic pyre? To be sure, Russia has a lot of the same problems; their wars in Ukraine and Syria are deeply unpopular (or at least highly controversial) domestically, and even with all the new reforms and training their military might still pales in the face of NATO. In a knock-down drag-out fight to the finish or a war on the periphery - say in Syria - they'd probably lose (or in the case of the former cry havoc and let loose the nukes). But being an autocracy in which citizen's rights are only guaranteed as far as the leadership wants them to be has its benefits, and the political divisions both between and within modern-day NATO states are ripe for exploitation. Russia has a fair chance of winning if they strike hard and deep early on and then focus on helping NATO tear itself apart before it can field sufficient troops to repel them. Given that the EU has lost three member states, and possibly part of another there would be questions on its future and the myth of it being a key role in maintaining peace in Europe would be exposed although its 'true believers' would continue to deny that and very likely argue for an even more centralised state. Which might mean there are three blocs developing, a Russian empire and satellites in the east, a western/Atlantic one in the west and a weaker continental European bloc between them. I do wonder, in this scenario what would Russia's new satellites be? To be sure Belarus, the occupied and puppetized Baltics, and perhaps Ukraine either in part or in whole; but what of the rest of Europe? Can they force territorial concessions from Poland? Can they Finlandize Poland, Romania, or Bulgaria and perhaps pull them into their orbit? What of the Caucasus and Central Asia? Do they wriggle further from Russia's grasp or do they get pulled in yet closer via CSTO or a Eurasian Union of some sorts? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,971
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 22, 2020 9:22:06 GMT
Congratulations James G and forcon on winning in the 2020 L. Sprague de Camp Awards in the category of Best Short Timeline. |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Mar 22, 2020 17:05:12 GMT
Congratulations James G and forcon on winning in the 2020 L. Sprague de Camp Awards in the category of Best Short Timeline. [br Thank you Lordroel! I appreciate the award, and I'm sure James does too. |
|
