Twlight 2000 starting with a 2020 timeline?

[Raellus]

Sectarianism is probably too great a barrier to a Turko-Iranian alliance. Turkey is majority Sunni, Iran is Shia. They typically don't get along, and it's hard to what their common interests are ATM- certainly there's not enough there to prompt any sort of military alliance but who knows- stranger things have happened.

There's plenty of ingredients for a major regional war in the Middle East. You've already got the Iranians and the Saudis fighting a proxy war in Yemen. You've got ISIS getting increasingly desperate in Iraq. You've already got Russian and U.S. airpower backing rival factions in Syria, with other regional players stoking the flames. It's a powder-keg.

In Europe, you've got the continued fighting in East Ukraine. You've got Russian saber rattling towards the Baltics. You've got the U.S. and NATO flexing in response. You've got instability in several of the former Soviet republics in the Caucuses.

The EU just lost a major member with the Brexit. The refugee and economic strains on south and east European member states are giving rise to right-wing movements. I could see other members leaving or even getting the ol' heave-ho (here's looking at you, Greece).

In Asia, you've got the Chinese pushing further out into the S. China Sea, building island airfields and taking pot shots at Vietnamese fishing trawlers. The Philippines starting to lean towards Beijing was pretty unexpected. I'm going to have to ponder the possible ramifications of that curveball.

And then North Korea is the ultimate wild card. Who knows what that regime will pull, especially if it feels threatened by foreign or domestic pressures.

I doubt it'll happen, but what if a U.S. presidential hopeful actually gets elected and follows through on his thinly-veiled threats to pull funding and troops from NATO? That might be just the invitation Putin needs to make his play for the Baltics.

[Hal]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Sectarianism is probably too great a barrier to a Turko-Iranian alliance. Turkey is majority Sunni, Iran is Shia. They typically don't get along, and it's hard to what their common interests are ATM- certainly there's not enough there to prompt any sort of military alliance but who knows- stranger things have happened.

There's plenty of ingredients for a major regional war in the Middle East. You've already got the Iranians and the Saudis fighting a proxy war in Yemen. You've got ISIS getting increasingly desperate in Iraq. You've already got Russian and U.S. airpower backing rival factions in Syria, with other regional players stoking the flames. It's a powder-keg.

In Europe, you've got the continued fighting in East Ukraine. You've got Russian saber rattling towards the Baltics. You've got the U.S. and NATO flexing in response. You've got instability in several of the former Soviet republics in the Caucuses.

The EU just lost a major member with the Brexit. The refugee and economic strains on south and east European member states are giving rise to right-wing movements. I could see other members leaving or even getting the ol' heave-ho (here's looking at you, Greece).

In Asia, you've got the Chinese pushing further out into the S. China Sea, building island airfields and taking pot shots at Vietnamese fishing trawlers. The Philippines starting to lean towards Beijing was pretty unexpected. I'm going to have to ponder the possible ramifications of that curveball.

And then North Korea is the ultimate wild card. Who knows what that regime will pull, especially if it feels threatened by foreign or domestic pressures.

I doubt it'll happen, but what if a U.S. presidential hopeful actually gets elected and follows through on his thinly-veiled threats to pull funding and troops from NATO? That might be just the invitation Putin needs to make his play for the Baltics.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Turko-Iranian alliance being more of a thing of convenience where both sides are getting what they want to some degree, but neither really committing fully. Each secretly hoping the other half gets burned by the maneuvering where they agree something should be done. Iran with its nuclear capabilities recently gained, Turkey with its strategic location and Russia perhaps getting its fleet into areas it couldn't in the past. Perhaps Russian surplus ships sold to Iran as part of a cementing move - both with the understanding that in order to maintain any of the surplus ships, the Iranians will have to deal through Russia to get the spare parts and training for maintenance crews.

If we presume that the EU starts to experience some difficulties due to fragmentation, we might see not only Greece attempting to exit the Union, but perhaps Ireland or Portugal or perhaps even France. I don't know the local politics enough to say yay or nay on that. But from what I'm reading, it seems that the issue, as ever, revolves around money and political power. Greece is blaming the EU for its woes, all the while refusing to accept an austerity budget. It kinda looks grim there from what I'm reading. I almost wonder if that might be deemed an opportunity for Russia. If they have access to the Mediterranean sea via Turkey AND Greece, NATO would have a hard time containing the break out from the Black Sea.

If Russia sends aid to Syria, Iran, and Greece, and works on obtaining Cypress as part of its alliance - NATO might be harder pressed towards containing the Russian Fleet. Question is - to what end? What is it that Russia wants at this point in time? A fractured NATO would play right into Russia's hands, something that Donald Trump, as President might facilitate. Once that "mistake" is made, perhaps the US might recommit to the welfare of NATO, but by then, it would be a weaker position. If Hillary Clinton is Elected instead, what might the ramifications be? Pay for Play making it such that a sufficient "bribe" might cause the US to withdraw from NATO sufficiently to weaken it (same effect either way the US decides who becomes the next president perhaps? Just different reasons for the same effect?)

The thing from my perspective is "Why". War's aren't fought just because. They usually have a triggering point, and a final objective. With the current climate regarding the US-Israeli relationship, one could almost expect that with one president, we'd have a worsened relationship, with the other president, we'd have a strengthening relationship. Perhaps an Iran/Syria axis threatening Israel might be a focal point. By itself, I don't think it would start a massive war. But the result of a game of chess (so to speak) in conjunction with Syrian/Iranian Alliance AND Russia playing a grand game - and a Russian Fleet in support of Syria and Iran - perhaps the first nuclear warheads get launched by Iran, only to be met by retaliation by Israel, then engulfing the Balkan region in a war thanks to the Russian grand strategy? What does Russia Gain from the scenario just outlined?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Hal

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Turko-Iranian alliance being more of a thing of convenience where both sides are getting what they want to some degree, but neither really committing fully. Each secretly hoping the other half gets burned by the maneuvering where they agree something should be done. Iran with its nuclear capabilities recently gained, Turkey with its strategic location and Russia perhaps getting its fleet into areas it couldn't in the past. Perhaps Russian surplus ships sold to Iran as part of a cementing move - both with the understanding that in order to maintain any of the surplus ships, the Iranians will have to deal through Russia to get the spare parts and training for maintenance crews.

Even ignoring the Sunni-Shiite sectarian rivalry I thinks its unlikely that Turkey would form an alliance with any other Middle Eastern power due to the fact that Turkey is Ottoman. The Arabs, Iranians, Kurds and other groups in the Middle East still have bad memories of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish hegemony in this part of the world. Turkey has been kept at arms length by the rest of the Middle East since the Ottoman Empire collapsed after WW1. Turkey would also have to leave (or be expelled) from NATO if started forming alliances with non-NATO countries, and this would have severe economic and military consequences for Turkey.

Originally Posted by Hal

If we presume that the EU starts to experience some difficulties due to fragmentation, we might see not only Greece attempting to exit the Union, but perhaps Ireland or Portugal or perhaps even France. I don't know the local politics enough to say yay or nay on that. But from what I'm reading, it seems that the issue, as ever, revolves around money and political power. Greece is blaming the EU for its woes, all the while refusing to accept an austerity budget. It kinda looks grim there from what I'm reading.

There is some truth to this.

Originally Posted by Hal

I almost wonder if that might be deemed an opportunity for Russia. If they have access to the Mediterranean sea via Turkey AND Greece, NATO would have a hard time containing the break out from the Black Sea.If Russia sends aid to Syria, Iran, and Greece, and works on obtaining Cypress as part of its alliance - NATO might be harder pressed towards containing the Russian Fleet.

Russia would see this as an opportunity, but maybe not in this part of the world for a number of reasons.

1) Turkey and Russia have been enemies for centuries. The Turks shot down a Russian Air Force jet that crossed into their airspace from Syria not so long ago. There is no possibility of these two forming an alliance.

2) Russia is far more friendly with Greece than Turkey. They both share the same Orthodox Christian religion.

3) There are British military bases on Cyprus (also used by the US) which sort of guarantee that the Greeks and Turks behave themselves. The Russians, Greeks and Turks will not want to get into a war with the British who will certainly be backed by the US and others.

4) The Russian Navy is not very powerful, particularly its Black Sea Fleet. The current fleet they are sending from the Arctic to Syria is a flag showing fleet with limited capabilities. The US Navy would make mince meat out of it.

Originally Posted by Hal

Question is - to what end? What is it that Russia wants at this point in time? A fractured NATO would play right into Russia's hands, something that Donald Trump, as President might facilitate. Once that "mistake" is made, perhaps the US might recommit to the welfare of NATO, but by then, it would be a weaker position. If Hillary Clinton is Elected instead, what might the ramifications be? Pay for Play making it such that a sufficient "bribe" might cause the US to withdraw from NATO sufficiently to weaken it (same effect either way the US decides who becomes the next president perhaps? Just different reasons for the same effect?).

I don't think there is any real chance of NATO fracturing in the way you are implying. The Greek-Turkish and Med part of NATO has always been the weak link in NATO, they gain a lot but don't seem to want to contribute much. Its the northern European countries who count.

As for the Donald. Love him or hate him, the guy says crazy things to appeal to certain demographics in the US voting electorate. He could say the moon is made of cheese and little Green Men have taken over the Kremlin and some would believe him.

[Hal]

So if the Russians don't benefit from a Medeterrian break out, that seems like a moot point. Current events in Turkey look as though the government is about to become more authoritarian and possibly less secular than it had in the past. That's why I'm trying to figure out what might happen as far as current events being extrapolated into another four years or so.

One could always simply go with the material in the book and call it an alternate earth, but it would be interesting to see if one could get something more modern.

Anyone got ideas?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I do think that most of us here acknowledge that it's entirely possible to make a more modern setting/timescale with some creative manipulation of current events.

For instances, perhaps Russia and China start messing with each other over borders and this leads to low level warfare between the two. Their fighting spills over into Mongolia who asks for UN help to keep control of its borders. Both Russia and China ignore Mongolian sovereignty and UN troops get killed in the process causing the UN to place sanctions & embargoes on both countries. Russia tells the West to keep it's nose out of local business and reduces the sale to European UN members of those resources that the UN still allows it to sell (e.g. natural gas, petroleum fuels, timber).

China in an effort to continue (and hopefully win) the war against Russia, ramps up its exploiting of Africa and the Pacific Ocean nations for resources. Both these actions cause further tensions for the UN.
Eventually China & Russia use nukes and do so indiscriminately with Mongolia being hit directly and Japan being indirectly affected by residual effects of weapons used on the China/Russia border between Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. Finally the UN has to take real action to protect member nations, this leads to a declaration of "peace enforcement" by UN troops but when the Russians or the Chinese accidentally use a nuke against UN forces (accidentally, deliberately, or maybe don't actually care who they hit...) peace enforcement degenerates into open warfare.

Is this scenario possible? Maybe.
Is it likely? Probably not - I think it's highly unlikely.
Is it plausible? Well... I think this is the most important question because it depends on how willing your Players are to suspend disbelief and accept the world view you need to make this scenario happen for your game. The big bonus we have here is that many members of this forum have good knowledge or access to information of this sort of thing so any scenario can benefit from their constructive criticism.

However, it still comes down to what your Players are willing to accept. Some of them don't actually care about the world background of the game, they just want to play it, some Players are happy to have quirky or unconventional things thrown into the game and some prefer to keep the realism. Basically I'm saying I think you can get away with anything... or nothing... based on your Player group.
Me personally, I still want a plausible world background but I don't tend to worry so much about all the little details needed to make that background, a broad overview works for me so I would happily suspend my disbelief and accept the scenario above to get a good game.

[Silent Hunter UK]

I have developed a Merc: 2020 setting, in which China becomes a democracy, although one still keen to dominate the world commercially.

[Hal]

So, how did that work out?