Before I read the rest of the posts in this excellent thread I'd like to build more on this. The Russian economy is in no way, shape, or form, ready to take on the gravity of a shooting war. Not now and not in the next 10 to 20 years. They need the open marketplace far more then NATO does. Especially as GD points out they really cant use their fuel stocks as a weapon in a shooting war.
Actually economics wouldnt really play a large part in this sort of high intencity conflict, that wouldn't last more than a few weeks. The longer term economic effects would indeed be disasterous for the ruskies. What would be vital are munitions stockpiles, because both sides would probably run out in anywere from a few weeks to a couple of months. Due to the long time it takes to manufacture these munitions and the very short time it takes to expend them, sustaining industrial output in order to keep your units supplied like WW2 wouldnt be feasable. Therefore the war would be fought with what both sides allready had, considering that i'm not too sure what effect the state of the russian economy would have on this scenario.
And why is that? Because NATO has the military means to secure its mideast oil spigot that's why. Most of all with the USN but our NATO allies also have important naval assets to contribute. Taken as a whole we can not only secure our oil supplies but we can also easily secure our North Atlantic convoy routes. Take a good look at Russian naval bases in google earth sometime to get a true sense of the predicament they are in.
Actually, oil wise, we are in better shape now then we were in the Cold war based simply on the reduced Russian threat to the supply lines.
Both sides would have an adequadte supply of oil for the campaign. This wouldnt be like WW2, It would however be quick and bloody. The effects on the civilian petrochemical market would be significant but again i'm not to shure if this would have any effect on the campaign.
As for the threat to the lines of communication across the atlantic, your right the threat is minimal. The Submarine arm is a shadow of its former self and i would be very impressed if a single SSN or SSK made it through SOSUS GIUK line alive. However with the retirement of the F14 and the introduction of more advanced russian AShM's I would be carefull sending USN CBG's into the barrents looking for trouble, the Backfire is still a formidable adversary and she's got sharper teeth nowadays. Ticonderoga class cruisers are indeed very capable, but they may have their work cut out for them in russian warters. Given the inherent limitations of the F/A 18E as an interceptor, i dont like its chances of intercepting Backfire strike packages before they get to launch points. Aegis and SM2 would face the ultimate test facing dozens and dozens of supersonic low altitude anti ship missiles.
However the backfires impact on supply lines would be negligable given the loss of much of the ruskies IRS capability and null as long as the USAF could get Naval Air Station Keflavick operational again.
Further, and another snack for consideration, while the Russian fighting man is almost without peer when defending his homeland exactly how enthusiastic do you think he'd be fighting to build Vlad another empire? I bet a large percentage would simply surrender and defect if NATO offered it to them.
I personaly dont like relying on the enemy surrendering or their state of mind when dealing with these sort of scenario's, it seems like an easy way to justify a point of view and is inherently unpredictable due to its reliance upon mass psycology. Given the ruskies aptitude for propaganda and ability to manipulate popular opinion, especially with an audience like the military, the though of fighting for putin wouldn't pass through many heads. Defeating american imperialism, restoring russias greatness and defending the motherland from immanant yankee nuclear attack which would occur as soon as their missile shield was in place, that would probably be more along the lines popular opinion in the military, given the ruskies propaganda skill and 70yrs of fearing americans for the average moscovite.
And while Russia may still have great quantities of Soviet era military supplies, such materials are useless as tits on a Bull if you cant successfully integrate and fight with them. NATO was always prepared to fight a numerically superior enemy using "bleed em dry" forward defense tactics, superior technology, and severing the major arteries of centralized Soviet style command and control and resupply.
Who says they cant? They have some 20 odd divisions standing as we speak, and thats on a peace time footing. And how many of those ivans have been rotated through Chechenia in the past few years do you think? I'd guess most of their officer and NCO's are blooded hard ass russians for the most part. I dont like your mass surrender theory too much.
They have enough materiel to equip 200+ divisions. Now i dont think they could hope to actually field 200+ divisions, but 40~50 wouldnt be beyonde their capability at all. They have the officer core, the equipment, the logistical structure, the operational doctorine and enough personell. So why cant they intergrate and fight with a proportion of those soviet erra supplies?
Yes, very formidable. At least as a wikipedia article. Which btw doesn't include the fact the assets are based on far fewer bases now then they were in the '80s, thus making them far easier to attack in what would be a fearsome NATO air strike "shock/awe" doctrine.
I'm not too sure your right on that one rich. IIRC after the collapse of the soviet union the deployed forces in the various military disctricts went to whatever nation they found themselves in. thats why the Ukrainians ended up with such a decent army in 1992. So the numbers of fighters stated were allways deployed with russian borders and therefore russian baces so nothing has changed.
Also it doesn't take into account the overwhelming superiority in NATO avionics, networked air defense, availability of basing, sortie rates, and training/morale. The Russian air force is not in the same league as NATO.
Your right the premiere NATO air forces are more capable that the russians, and the air war would be decisively won. However if your expecting another desert sheild/storm i think you might be in for a nasty suprise. Your looking at over 1000 frontline fighters on paper. Even if only 70% are battle ready thats 700. Remeber thats backed up by 14 (of 25+operational i think) capable AEW&C platforms like A50E, the iraqies never had anything that capable, with a decent air defence doctorine to boot. And as far as an IADS, the russians do have S300/S400 which are easily as capable as western counterparts, so i dont see how thats an advantage. The newest NATO fighters are much more capable that the average russian Fulcrum or Flanker, but as stated earlier most of the NATO airforce inventory is of cold war vintage too. And for the superior avionics you sight, most of those are cold war/90's vintage as well are they not? As for as radars anyway, IIRC most of the F15C's are still equiped with the APG 63(V)1. I would bet most NATO fighters are still equiped with for the most part their original avionics, bar a few nav and comms upgrades.
The main advantages i see for NATO air forces are pilot training, operational doctorine and the biggest one, sortie rate. You would have to wonder how well the ruskies maintinance system could hold up to high intencity campaigns. Electronic Warfare is also a big + for NATO with a level of sophistocation that the ruskies cant match.
So i dont see it as being the pushover you seem to be advocating. There would be significant losses amongst NATO air forces, but you would have assume that theruskies offencive capability would be significantly degraded pretty quickley and then they would be forced to assume a defenceive posture.
Diplomatically it would be a disaster for Vlad in that he would be remembered as the guy who saved NATO and turned France and Germany back into the fold. He's far better off with this meager NATO expansion. Nobody knows better then he that this small scale missile defense program is of no account in the continental balance of power.
Diplomaticaly this would be a disaster for the ruskies, as bad as it would be economicaly. You would probably see a change of government, which could be dangerous given the fact that the future leader would be in controll of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal.
However you would think that there would have to be a few vioces in Moscow asking questions likewhether this "small scale" BM missile defence could be mass produced into a "large scale" one. I mean what happens if the Yankies decide to go to full scale BM defence with thousands of interceptors? They might be able to get the shield to a point were it could dilute a russian counter strike to a point were a first strike could become feasable????? Such concerns would have been vioced to that hard ass little russian i'm sure. Ofcource the ABM shield has nothing to do with a full scale nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO, but 50yrs of missrtust doesent evaporate overnite, especially for the old guard concernring stratecig nuclear weapons.
Lastly we elders that lived and served during the worst years of the cold war get a big laugh when he starts babbling about re-targeting missiles. Most of all those of us who know a little something about missiles. If we were able to keep our courage during the terrible years of the 1970s why does he think we will fold now?
I think its probably aimed at the new NATO members and middle europeans rather than you yanks. The polish, hungarians, checks and half the germans used to be protected by the russians nuclear arsenal, now its pointing at them.
That's one of the benefits of NATO expansion towards the east.