OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Raellus]

I like what you've come up with so far, Rainbow. I'll comment at length when I get home. Until then, these two articles from today's Yahoo News homepage address the evolving China and Russia-Ukraine situations.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-splurgin...92026097.html#

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-launch...161958758.html

[Raellus]

I haven't had a chance to respond at length but I'm in the midst of my 30 -minute lunch break so I thought pop in for a bit.

I arbitrarily chose 2030 because it's 16 years from now and, IIRC, the original Twilight 2000 came out in 1984.

More worrisome developments in eastern Europe.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-troops-land...135554490.html

And the leader of Georgia has warned the West not to make Russia angry because, basically, bad things happen when you do. He should know, I suppose.

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks Raellus, would be interested in your thoughts - there's obviously still a long way to go to get from where my post ended to a T2K setting. Also, one of the areas that I would say my knowledge is quite limited is the Pacific, particularly any potential conflict between the US (and allies) and China. I'm also not up to speed on current orders of battle.

However, to expand a little further...let's call the start of the Asian and European Wars Year 1...so to recap / summarise/ expand slightly....

Year 1

Asia

The US, with perhaps limited support from the UK*, is involved in a hot War with the Chinese in the Pacific

• Causes? A Chinese attack on Taiwan? Or an flashpoint in the Spratly Islands?
• Who else would be allied with the US? Anyone? The Australians? Someone unexpected like the Vietnamese (my enemy's enemy is my friend etc)
• Who's on the Chinese side? The North Koreans are a given. The Russians (covertly perhaps)?

North Korea has invaded South Korea. This is essentially a fight between the two Koreas and their respective - and, when reserves are fully mobilised huge, - Armies. US Forces in Korea are fighting alongside their Korean counterparts but commitments elsewhere mean there are relatively few reinforcements coming to Korea from the (or elsewhere for that matter). The fighting in Korea becomes very, very bloody, very, very quickly. No quarter is asked or given by either side and the situation becomes bogged down in a very nasty stalemate somewhere just north of Seoul. Would the Chinese send troops to help the North?

• Potential for first use of nukes being in this theatre is probably relatively high - e.g. if the South breaks the stalemate and drives north. NK leadership use nukes against military and civilian targets in the South, killing large numbers of US troops. The US responds in kind. If the Chinese have sent troops into Korea they suffer large numbers of casualties. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and tit for tat escalation begins (this doesn't necessarily happen in Year 1).

* UK support would be limited inasmuch as by this stage the UK would most likely lack the capability to project significant power in multiple theatres

Europe

Following a Russian attack on the Baltic States, some (not all) NATO members are involved in a hot war with Russia (let's say the UK, the USA, Germany, and the former Warsaw Pact states - Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania). Ukraine, although not a NATO member, volunteers to commit troops as well. The US sends reinforcements from the Continental US by both air and sea (the former marrying up with the POMCUS gear) in what becomes known as REFORPOL (although the number of reinforcements is affected by what is happening in the Pacific). Canada also commits a Brigade Group.

I don't know about Bulgaria - from what I've read I was under the impression that the Bulgarians were on relatively good terms with the Russians and in the original T2K scenario some countries changed sides, so I'm positing that the Bulgarians are sitting on their hands for now. Conveniently located next to Bulgaria is Serbia, which I would say is also a potential Russian ally. Eastern Ukraine and Belarus have been annexed so count as Russian territory.

France has opted out of NATO, as have most of the southern European members (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy). Turkey, the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark remain in NATO. The Norwegians are concerned about their own border with Russia, so are unwilling to commit troops to the Baltics. The Danes send troops to Norway to reinforce their Nordic neighbour. Belgium is split down the middle - the French speaking Walloons favour opting out, the Dutch speaking Flemish favour staying in.

So, we have the potential for two fronts in Europe - fighting starts in the North and is focused on the Polish border with Lithuania, and Russia (Belarus and the Russian Federation exclave of Kaliningrad). The Norwegians are right to be wary - the Russians attack northern Norway only days after the first NATO units enter combat in the Baltic States. The Swedes and the Finns keep a wary eye on developments but remain neutral. By the start of Winter NATO forces have liberated southern Lithuania, including the capital Vilnius, and have made limited inroads into Belarus. Fierce fighting continues in and and around the Kaliningrad oblast. After making initial inroads into Norwegian territory, the combined Norwegian / Danish forces, reinforced by British and American Marines and mountain troops have held their ground some 50 km east of Tromso.

The Southern front remains quiet until early summer when Russian forces launch a surprise attack out of East Ukraine aimed at driving through the Ukraine. Simultaneously Bulgaria and Serbia declare War on NATO and attempt to link up with the advancing Russians. With much of the Czech and Polish Armies occupied in the Baltics, it falls to the Romanians, the Croatians, and the now overstretched Germans to oppose the Russian / Bulgarian / Serbian forces. Sadly the Balkan States once again descends into the same anarchy they experienced in the 1990's. Turkey, still a part of NATO, conducts limited offensives against the Bulgarians, but the bulk of the Turkish Army remains far away from the front line, securing the country's long and porous borders with Syria, Iraq, and Iran, as well as dealing with the internal threat posed by Kurdish Separatists. Then, taking the whole World by surprise, the Greek Government joins the Russian / Bulgarian / Serbian alliance and immediately launches an offensive against the Turks. By the end of the Year Bulgarian and Russian armoured columns are driving towards Istanbul (does that line sound familiar?).

But as we approach Year 2 the nuclear genie has not, however, come out of the bottle in Europe. Yet

I would repeat that I haven't done a huge amount of research on this yet...much of the above is random thoughts which may not pass a plausibility test...in particular the Bulgarians and the Greeks changing sides, however the intent is to try and recreate the feel of the original T2K World but brought up to date, so in that respect the intent is to try and mirror the situation of the original timeline where Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Romania all changed sides. There's also the split in NATO that will eventually see the formation of the Franco Belgian Union (albeit Belgium will suffer its own schisms between its Walloon and Flemish populations). I also know I haven't mentioned every NATO member....Comments about where the front lines are at any given time are also highly speculative....I didn't really set out to write an alternate history timeline as much as bounce some thoughts around, so please, if anyone else wants to join in or has any thoughts or comments, feel free!

I'm not overlooking other parts of the World, but I'm out of time for tonight...

Cheers

[Raellus]

I don't think a division in formerly "united" Europe is that much of a stretch. There's already underlying tension there between the relatively affluent nations of northwestern Europe and the cash-strapped debtor nations of southern Europe. If countries like Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal were kicked out of the EU, or, more likely, countries like Germany, England, and the Netherlands opted out, there'd be rifts there that could be made to grow if the right stressors were put into play. At the moment, though, I'm not sure what those stressors might be. Perhaps a resurgent Russia makes a play to bring the poorer nations of Europe into its own sphere of influence. That could be made to work, I think.

What are some other factors that could lead to the disunion and polarization of Europe?

[Rainbow Six]

I don't know about divisions within the EU. Whilst the most likely stressor may well be another economic meltdown, I don't know what effect that might have. I think the likliehood of any individual country being kicked out is negligible - a quick check online would suggest that there is no mechanism in the Treaty on European Union for any Member State to be expelled from the EU so once you're in you're in unless you choose to leave - when the Eurozone Crisis kicked off a few years ago the members who were worst affected (predominantly in Southern Europe) were bailed out, so there is no incentive for such States to voluntarily leave (the worst sanction a Member State can face is to be suspended temporarily).

As for any of the major States choosing to leave, in the UK it's a common belief that France and Germany are at the heart of the EU and as such would be highly, highly unlikely to ever want to leave it, quite the opposite in fact, they would wish to see the EU States become more closely integrated until the EU eventually becomes a United States of Europe, with common laws, currency, a European Army, etc, etc...I said in an earlier post I didn't want to get into politics, but it goes with this territory...I'm not advocating for or against any particular position in the Real World here, however I do think it unlikely that any of the Northwestern European States would voluntarily withdraw from something that has taken decades to create. It's a belief in the UK that withdrawal from the EU (also known here as Euro Scepticism) is unique to the UK but I would be interested to hear what other European members think in relation to a possible EU breakup in a Twilight 2020's scenario

With regard to other factors promoting division in Europe, we have religious tensions / terrorism, social unrest (it's only a couple of years since the London riots), and reports of extremist / hate parties gaining ground in different parts of Europe, so there's probably a fair bit to work with, much of it quite distasteful.

Also, I did think that in this scenario the Russians would need to set up some sort of counter to the EU and then of course I remembered that such a thing already existed, the Eurasian Economic Community, or EurAsEC, which in our time line currently consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia..._customs_union

[Raellus]

Do you really think that Germany and France and the other more affluent EU member nations are going to keep bailing out Greece and Italy and Spain indefinitely? News reports here in the States during the last round of Eurozone bailouts suggested that Germany, at least, was pretty fed up and that the majority of the German public was against pouring more money into nations that they felt were only dragging their own economy down.

Also, the austerity measures that were required as a condition of the bailouts were/are extremely unpopular in those countries. There were riots in Greece and fairly recent riots in Spain. I know that many Greeks wanted to leave the Eurozone rather than suffer more social welfare cuts (not that it would have helped). To me, countries leaving the EU, either the creditors or the debtors, doesn't seem far fetched at all. If the Russians then stepped in and promised the poorer outcasts some sort of financial aid, maybe gas subsidies or something like that, it could create an even deeper division.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Do you really think that Germany and France and the other more affluent EU member nations are going to keep bailing out Greece and Italy and Spain indefinitely?

Honestly? Haven't a clue. That's why I would welcome opinions from other members.

I do think that if a second bailout was to become a major issue in the future there is much more chance of France and Germany forcing the expulsion of the debtor States from the EU (which would involve rewriting the Treaty of Europe if the debtors did not leave out of choice) rather than France or Germany (or any other creditor State) choosing to leave. As I said in a previous post, France and Germany (and others) have too much invested in the EU to walk away from it. So it would be the debtors that would be forced out, effectively creating a two tier Europe, consisting of the have's on one side and the have not's on the other.

From the point of view of a Twilight 2030 scenario that's probably not a bad outcome, as the have nots would, presumably, not be well disposed to the have's who not refused to bail them out again but threw them out of the club. Sounds like fertile ground for the Russians to reach out to and offer aid in the way that you mentioned. (I find it analagous to a relative who has run out of money and can't pay their rent - how often do you bail them out before you eventually say "no more" and at that point who do they turn to)

So, as part of the T2030 scenario are we proposing a renewed economic crisis at some point in the future that causes serious and permanent splits within the EU that lead to a number of States (Spain, Portugal, Greece?) being forced to leave the EU? If so I think I could go along with that.

And, as a separate matter, there also remains the possibility of the United Kingdom opting to leave the EU of its own accord dependent on the result of the 2015 General Election and any subsequent Referendum.