Potential Model for dealing with the conflict with Russia
Unfortunately in these modern times, tensions have risen with Russia again. After invading Ukraine and bombing rebels in Syria, killing large volumes of innocent people, Russia has pretty much been at odds with most of the rest of the free world. Placing sanctions on western countries for things like food and humanitarian aid, Russia has deliberately isolated itself from the rest of the world, which only worsens the existing divide and isolation provided by such countries in the first place. With growing tensions, Russia has sent bomber planes closer to the U.S. than the U.S. ever had during the cold war, and Russia is now threatening many other European and middle eastern countries. On top of this, Russia has aligned itself with Syria and Iran, two countries notorious for human rights abuses and mass murders. Neither are welcomed by the international community at large.

With Russia arming these countries, it's inevitable that at some point these weapons will face off against the U.S. and it's allies. With Russia's activities in the Ukraine and Syria, at first hidden, and now open (it's soldiers were just on vacation to begin with, of course) if the U.S. makes a move against these countries, it's invariable that they will be facing off against Russian troops, whether open or not. Sending their special forces, air force and mechanized units to the areas, generally their best troops, these far more capable troops augment the rabel of the Syrian army, which given how poor the average Russian soldier is, makes it like virtually facing off against the Russians, only in smaller numbers. With their leadership, spearhead capabilities and advanced technology, they could easily turn the tables in the favor of their allies, if anything just A small skeleton crew of just 10's of thousands is usually all that's required to provide all the modern luxuries experienced by professional militarys. Air support, tanks, artillery, surveillance and intelligence, and training are in general the most difficult things to acquire for a military, and all of these can be supplemented by Russia's support. On top of this, logistics, for things like food and water and even international pull in treaties can be provided. A million some odd decent soldiers can be backed up by good leaders and logistics and become far more effective, which means at the very least the costs to ourselves may be grave if we try to attack them directly.

On the other, the mounting human right's issue continue to worsen. At least 300,000 innocent people have been killed in the fighting, and an additional 14 million displaced. The dictator is widely believed to have used Nerve Gas on innocent civilians, and other weapons which have lead to the destruction of the infrastructure and signification loss of lives from civilians. Nearly half the country are now without homes, and nearly a third have left the country all together. The significant problems mounting will of course also have secondary effects on the world, as people become strained trying to support the refugees and the fall-out from the war. It likely will not end with Syria or Ukraine; the more ground Russia gains, the more proud and defiant they will become, and the more damage they are likely to cause. Given their raw power and isolation of other countries such as North Korea, Iran and Syria, all of which Russia has close relations with, it would be possible for them to form their own alliance, designed to fight the allied powers. WMD's aside, the results could be devastating.

Looming over all our heads is the threat of international nuclear war, the Damocles sword that has thus far stalled international action in these war-strucken regions of the world. Unfortunately, the term "nuclear war" is a bit of a stretch; if nukes go off, it's highly likely that the "war" would be over in a manner of days, possibly annihilating the world. Even if they survive, the combined nuclear fall-out and other effects will so severely effect the environment and weather that the planet could become virtually unlivable for a non-negligible length of time. Nuclear winter is a real possibility, which would cause famines with crops and other health issues on top of the radioactive waste that would contaminate the world; this effect could be achieved if just 100 nukes were launched, and there are thousands in the waiting. Nerve gas, biological agents and dirty bombs are all additional factors that could be considered, with nerve agents so toxic that just It's not difficult to imagine these being proliferated over the world, where they could last for 30 years and just a drop could kill someone. Biological weapons could contaminate thousands, and just 1 well placed person could spread it to millions in a matter of days. The end of the world as we know it would occur, leaving behind just a handful of survivors, isolated from major areas. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what is the world to do?


(Un)Plausible Deniability to control escalation
We've been presented with a rather rare opportunity for both sides to deny official involvement in a region. With Russia largely covering up it's involvement, it can save-face from it's people by pretending they were never involved in a conflict. Surely, given the insult to Russia that would occur as a result of an attack by outside forces, such an attack would demand retaliation and the escalation of war, which would inevitability lead to nuclear weapons and other WMD's. But what if the attack was't open? What if it wasn't the Americans fighting them, or Europe, but just a bunch of rebels? What if someone, off-the-books, was fighting against Russia, instead?

Russia would have no real reason to retaliate. It could wag it's finger at America for supporting it's enemies, but would have no real reason to attack them. Similarly, American doesn't have to escalate if the combat stays just between Russian-supported rebels and it's own supported Rebels. By both sides not admitting a heavy role in the region, we could prevent the need for escalation in combat. While this may seem somewhat insane, it's already occurring to some degree. When called out for it's Special Forces involvement in the region, Russia has vehemently denied it's activity, despite the obvious involvement of it's soldiers (which are just on vacation!). While Russia has later admitted to some of this, it's been heavily downplayed by the Russian administration. Despite it's heavy involvement, it is working closely with the rebels, which mask the Russian involvement; it's virtually impossible to tell, on the grandscale, just how many rebels are actually rebels and how many are Russian forces. While it could be as high as 5-10% Russian soldiers, the fact remains that it is truly Russian-supported rebels. These rebels of course lack logistics, proper training, an airforce, tanks, mechanized vehicles and artillery, or the knowledge of how to use them. They lack the centuries of cultivated war history and strategy taught to every Russian officer, and utilized strategic experts of the Russian military. Analyzing military archaeological sights to glean perspective on battles fought by Genghis Khan or the Roman military. Individuals trained for years to be the best soldiers.

Perhaps strangely, this is pretty easy to provide. Russian commanders can simply give orders to loyal pro-Russian rebels, giving them good leadership. Incredibly important intelligence data on troop movements, enemy forces and in general knowledge about the enemy's plans and strategies can be provided by the Kremlin's FSB, renowned for spying and via satellite imaging and areal reconnaissance. Just a little bit of data, something impossible for rebels but easy for a professional military, can turn the tide. Something that could turn the tide of combat, worth days, equipment and lives to try and send in scouts to spy on the enemy, can be replicated in 10 minutes by simplying flying a plane over and seeing where the military base is or even bombing it instead of sending in soldiers to attack it. You don't need your own spy satellites if you can simply look at print-outs provided by other militaries. Most militaries have no more than a few thousand aircraft as it is, and thus sending it but a few thousand aircraft and their pilots is all that's needed to replicate the impact of the modern military's air capability. The same is true with tanks and other heavy weaponry. Artillery is fairly easily manned and proliferated, and firearms are by far the easiest. The hardest thing to replicate is training; there simply is no substitute for skilled marksmen, soldiers who understand how to implement strategies, and individual movement techniques and small unit tactics. Special forces are designed, specifically, to train militia and other rebels, providing them basic combat skills, such as those done in WWII where soldiers were trained in under 90 days to possess a passable level of skill in combat, so they weren't simply walking in cold turkey.

Luckily, the Americans are even better at this than the Russians. The CIA is better known around the world, our satellites and spying are top-notch globally, and in general our technology is superior. With aircraft carriers we can deploy up to 1,000 aircraft overseas in less than 72 hours, without the need for capturing airports like in , and have tanks that can withstand any tank-shot in the world, and destroy and other tank in a single shot. The Green Berets were among the first to pioneer training the local militia, a military program known as "Robin Sage", where they meet up with locals and must train them in less than 4 weeks to be able to fight an imaginary enemy army. Where as an 1/8th of the Russian population died in WWII in human wave charges against the Germans (and virtually all of it's military), well over 20 million, the U.S. lost only 400,000 soldiers, despite having similiar levels of time to train their troops.

Special forces can essentially serve as a spearhead for an operations group, taking objectives and then having the larger, but weaker occupying group follow in behind it to hold on to the captured territory as the spearhead forces itself onwards. The "line" of soldiers, such as in the battle of the bulge, fight for territory at this imaginary forward position, allowing it to concentrate it's elite soldiers on the "front lines" while it's weaker soldiers come in behind and simply maintain the logistics of the captured territory behind it. With aircraft countered by other aircraft, and tanks countered by other tanks, it would essentially devolve in to infantry combat to capture the territory. Unless a scorched earth policy was invoked, both sides would try relentlessly to preserve the places they captured, thus necessitating the use of infantry. Things like food and water which rebels lack could be provided by the military, and thus their crumbling infrastructure wouldn't represent their total fighting force. Special forces "advisers" can train troops in the region and serve as this operational spearhead, doing most of the fighting for a military that's in the hundreds of thousands. It's widely been said that less than 20% of soldiers will see combat, and less than 2% will kill anyone. For these reasons, a handful of soldiers, 10,000 to 40,000, can often make or break the success of an entire military. With the most basic positions filled, it would be possible for a professional military to utilize far inferior troops to achieve similiar results on a grand scale. Things like medical care, flight over enemy territory and the like could be easily supplied by these large forces.

Thus, we've been presented with a unique opportunity to simply "do nothing". Pretend we aren't involved when we really are. Both sides will lambaste the other for their secret involvement... and just do that. Unless Russia is threatened directly, it's likely it won't resort to nuclear weapons, as won't the U.S. and Europe. Thus they can wage a "secret war" against the Russians giving us deniability, which would prevent escalation. Just as mutually assured destruction was used to prevent nuclear war between countries, mutually assured revelations would prevent either side from talking about it, thus preventing the need for escalation in the wars. Anti-nuke missile systems being well placed could also weaken the threat of nuclear bombs, which would force nukes to be used only on a large level, as a handful of nukes could be shot down, thus preventing nuclear weapons from being used in a handful of incidents.


As insane as this all sounds, it seems like it would work. What do you think ED? And what do you think about the Crisis in the region in general?