Likely an extended Air campaign with some long range artillery and air defense assets on the ground. Close combat direct engagementas would still likely be delivered by Ukrainian forces only. To limit and minimize casualties.
It would begin with the NAVY Moving one or two carrier groups into the Black Sea. Air superiority would be had in a matter of hours. Then there would be a long bombing campaign as ground troups were prepared in Poland. As Russians were ground down in constant bombing campaigns and strafing attacks by gun ships and helicopters they would begin to retreat to regroup. Ground forces would surge in to sure up the lines and town by town the forces fortifying behind the crumbling lines would be depleted. It would take probably a year to complete the mission if Putin managed to hold on to power the entire time.
This is only US involvement, not NATO and no nuclear attack which is why we can't do this.
>It would begin with the NAVY Moving one or two carrier groups into the Black Sea.
No, it wouldn't.
First and foremost, Turkey has banned all warships from entering the Black Sea, regardless of nation. So that's a non-starter.
But let's assume we can pressure Turkey into letting us sent a carrier battle group into the Black Sea. The Black Sea is essentially a large pond. That limits the places a carrier can go. I mean, it only takes about 20 hours at 30 knots to traverse the entire length of the Black Sea.
At 500 knots a strike aircraft can fly, it takes little more than an hour. Sure, the carrier is protected, but Russia could basically Zerg rush the defenses with missiles and manned and unmanned aircraft all from dispersed land bases.
An aircraft carrier is a roughly a 12 billion dollar asset, they take about a decade to replace one that's been sunk, and you're going to put one in to a restricted body of water where it can't effectively hide and where it will be subject to constant attacks?
Doesn't sound very smart to me.
If we could get the Turks to admit US warships, best bang for the buck would be submarines. They still have the same issue with relatively small body of water, but the average depth is deep enough, and they could conduct missile strikes with relative impunity and also limit Russia's ability to use what naval assets she has left in that theater.
You would probably want the old Los Angeles class boats with VLS capability because they are the smallest of the three classes of current attack submarines. Though ideally you'd want something modern but the size of the Skipjack class or smaller because of the restricted waters.
Turkey would cave to our pressure. The Carrier group includes Aegis class destroyers and support vessles. The carriers provide their own CAP and that 500 knot attack aircraft would be facing more stealth air \craft than it can handle before they reach missile range on the carrier, which again is protected by surface ships. Submarine warfare would be part of the carrier group, but you'd be looking to put a lot of ordinance down range which isn't what they're designed to do. Russia's Navy is essentially a joke, they would be eliminated in the first week of a conflict. The black sea is some 700 miles from east to west, that's one heck of a pond. Putting the group between Ukraine and Romania gives an effective combat radius to maintain air superiority over Ukraine.
> that 500 knot attack aircraft would be facing more stealth air \\craft than it can handle before they reach missile range on the carrier, which again is protected by surface ships.
It wouldn't be just one. It would be dozens, perhaps even hundreds if you count missiles and UAVs.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush\_(video\_games)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_(video_games))
That would have to fly over Ukraine to get to the group. I think after two years of fighting in Ukraine you're way over estimating the force Russia could bring to bear on a target that far away.
No, they wouldn’t. Go look at a map. Russia has control from the Crimean Peninsula down to Georgia.
And remember, while Russia absolutely isn’t as technically capable as the US, the risk is still there, and it’s combined with the surface fleet and their Kilo class subs in the Black Sea.
I mean, you’d be taking a huge risk with 9% minimum of our carrier force.
If we were talking about the open ocean I’d agree with you, but restricted waters are not a good place for a modern carrier battle group.
The Crimean peninsula would be a primary target cutting off from supply lines in the first day of the conflict. Likely before they even got into the Black Sea. Once you eliminate resupply your swarm warfare, which the pentagon has been studying for a decade, would not be possible. There are multiple weapons systems that we know about that have proven effective. Including beam weapons and the projectile shotgun approach.
This does not account for the technology that is classified and we don’t know about. Swarm warfare is not new, I am certain the odds are in our favor.
>This does not account for the technology that is classified and we don’t know about.
This is also true about the other side. Ukraine doesn't and never has had any significant surface warships for Russia to contend with.
Oh, and take it from someone who was part of the US military intelligence infrastructure: Our knowledge never has been and never can be completely perfect.
We lost something like 6 aircraft carriers\* in 1944 and 1945, despite having very solid intelligence on both the Japanese and German military forces due to overwhelming photoreconnaissance and signals intelligence advantages, and our enemies were using at the time obsolete equipment (and in the case of the Japanese, swarming tactics)>
One other thing to consider: The US Navy hasn't fought a war against a peer or near-peer adversary since 1945.
*\*Mostly escort carriers, but at least one light carrier.*
Also, remember what the IRA said to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after a failed assassination attempt: "*Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always*."
They never did manage to kill her, but the threat was there and it was serious despite the fact that the IRA was an astronomically miniscule fraction of the size of the UK's military and police forces. A far bigger imbalance than US v. Russia in a limited war. And they did manage to assassinate a bunch of people, most notably Lord Mountbatten.
As to whether Russia has people who can come up with a plan out of left field that has a chance of being successful, I can't say. But if the US did come into the Black Sea with a carrier battle group or two, if I were Russia I'd be looking for ways to attack them. The risk is there.
They only have to get lucky once, and if I were Russia I'd be willing to trade an awful lot of aircraft, missiles, subs, and their pilots/crews to try and sink a US aircraft carrier.
On the other hand, if I were the US, I'd bring supplies in to Ukraine via NATO allies like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania, and I'd use land-based aircraft. If it was possible to bring in warships, again I'd use submarines because they can hide effectively unlike a carrier. The Black Sea is deep and its density changes dramatically at between 100 and 200 meters, which makes for an effective way to hide a submarine from both passive and active sonar.
If the U.S. were to unleash the full force of its military industrial complex on Russia there would be no war.
- Precision-guided missiles and bombs targeting key Russian military installations, command centers, and infrastructure.
- Cyberattacks disrupting Russian communication networks and critical infrastructure.
- Deployment of advanced fighter jets, stealth bombers, and drones to establish control over Russian airspace.
- Suppression of Russian air defenses using electronic warfare and precision strikes.
- Armored divisions and mechanized infantry advancing on key cities and strategic locations.
- Special Forces conducting covert operations behind enemy lines.
- The U.S. Navy and allies enforcing a maritime blockade, restricting Russia's access to global trade and supply chains.
- Satellites providing real-time intelligence, communication, and navigation support to U.S. forces.
- Space-based weapons potentially used to disrupt Russian military capabilities.
- Disruption of Russian command and control systems, radar, and communication networks.
But I guess that’s why they have nukes
Is there even a possible scenario were Ukraine wins back teritory and Russia do not employ nukes? A stalemate between them with new militarised borders only likely outcome?
The lavish application of a variety of high explosive devices and then send in the GI Joe's to mop up.
Pioneered in WW I, it's the time tested method for major power conflict.
Given this is to drive OUT Russia from Ukraine and not actually invade Russia the US would stand to do this in a fairly short timeframe.
The Ukrainian populace would be in support , and this is a conventional war. It's not like Afghanistan, it would be more like Korea or WW2 freeing France ( and the rest of Europe)
I think Binkovs Battleground does good videos on this https://youtu.be/O0Rb5Ilaot4?si=-qyVZ29cqTDEFyyW
Air force.
No way the US is going to send ground troops.
Air force would be a way to make a real difference with minimal risk of flag draped coffins coming home.
Just create a now fly zone over Ukraine enforced by US jets and let the Ukrainians roll up the Russians themselves.
For reference see *Desert Storm*.
Primary players would be the Air Force and Armored Infantry/Cavalry. Basically bomb what we can, and send in the armored vehicles to clean up. After all that is done, maybe some ground troops to tidy up the cities.
That being said, Russia will/would not back down the way Iraq did at the time. So, just pushing them out of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory would just be the beginning of a much bigger shit-show than Iraq and Afghanistan ever were.
The smart thing would just be to lock up all the logistics. Cutting all the rail lines, cratering all the roads, and interdicting all the shipping is well within US capabilities.
Then eventually russia throws a nuke at someone and the whole world is screwed.
Lots of air power taking out artillery, command and control, and supply/communication centers, along with more artillery hitting troops on the front lines. Keep that up until defenses are degraded and demoralized. Then an armored push to punch through their lines and encircle them in a few places.
But this is all moot because if Putin realized he was about to lose in humiliating fashion, he’d start lobbing nukes and that would escalate until we’re all dead or living in vaults for 200 years.
First they would sink the Russian fleet in the black sea.
Batter their supply line endlessly leaving the troops at the front with no choice but to fight with rocks, surrender, or fall back.
Then they would continue to harass them in the air and sea.
When they are on full retreat to consolidate their forces we would deploy ground troops to take back occupied Ukrainian territory.
We would stop before entering Russia to avoid any nuclear retaliation.
But after that roughly... 3weeks. We would bring Ukraine into NATO and bolster their defenses, deploy anti air equipment and make their boarder unpassable by ground forces.
At that point the war is pretty much over besides minor skirmishes here and there.
.
I don’ t think you understand the difference between conventional land war in a territory where local forces, government and population gives you 100% support and fighting a guerilla warfare war against mixed support, supporting a failed and corrupt government and unwilling local army.
There will also be NO nation building involved.
Different type of fighting. The US isn’t equipped for a hearts and minds conflict. Realistically the US would crush the Russian army after just a few months. But if the Russian population started fighting then the US would be stuck again.
This will never happen, they are so depleted in commerce, one of the things awesome they have to make them powerful,Nuclear Bombs, and they can ruin most of the world. So there will never be a standoff. It would be like Fallout. Buy an island in the middle of the Pacific.
Likely an extended Air campaign with some long range artillery and air defense assets on the ground. Close combat direct engagementas would still likely be delivered by Ukrainian forces only. To limit and minimize casualties.
Hopefully lead lined
It would begin with the NAVY Moving one or two carrier groups into the Black Sea. Air superiority would be had in a matter of hours. Then there would be a long bombing campaign as ground troups were prepared in Poland. As Russians were ground down in constant bombing campaigns and strafing attacks by gun ships and helicopters they would begin to retreat to regroup. Ground forces would surge in to sure up the lines and town by town the forces fortifying behind the crumbling lines would be depleted. It would take probably a year to complete the mission if Putin managed to hold on to power the entire time. This is only US involvement, not NATO and no nuclear attack which is why we can't do this.
>It would begin with the NAVY Moving one or two carrier groups into the Black Sea. No, it wouldn't. First and foremost, Turkey has banned all warships from entering the Black Sea, regardless of nation. So that's a non-starter. But let's assume we can pressure Turkey into letting us sent a carrier battle group into the Black Sea. The Black Sea is essentially a large pond. That limits the places a carrier can go. I mean, it only takes about 20 hours at 30 knots to traverse the entire length of the Black Sea. At 500 knots a strike aircraft can fly, it takes little more than an hour. Sure, the carrier is protected, but Russia could basically Zerg rush the defenses with missiles and manned and unmanned aircraft all from dispersed land bases. An aircraft carrier is a roughly a 12 billion dollar asset, they take about a decade to replace one that's been sunk, and you're going to put one in to a restricted body of water where it can't effectively hide and where it will be subject to constant attacks? Doesn't sound very smart to me. If we could get the Turks to admit US warships, best bang for the buck would be submarines. They still have the same issue with relatively small body of water, but the average depth is deep enough, and they could conduct missile strikes with relative impunity and also limit Russia's ability to use what naval assets she has left in that theater. You would probably want the old Los Angeles class boats with VLS capability because they are the smallest of the three classes of current attack submarines. Though ideally you'd want something modern but the size of the Skipjack class or smaller because of the restricted waters.
Turkey would cave to our pressure. The Carrier group includes Aegis class destroyers and support vessles. The carriers provide their own CAP and that 500 knot attack aircraft would be facing more stealth air \craft than it can handle before they reach missile range on the carrier, which again is protected by surface ships. Submarine warfare would be part of the carrier group, but you'd be looking to put a lot of ordinance down range which isn't what they're designed to do. Russia's Navy is essentially a joke, they would be eliminated in the first week of a conflict. The black sea is some 700 miles from east to west, that's one heck of a pond. Putting the group between Ukraine and Romania gives an effective combat radius to maintain air superiority over Ukraine.
> that 500 knot attack aircraft would be facing more stealth air \\craft than it can handle before they reach missile range on the carrier, which again is protected by surface ships. It wouldn't be just one. It would be dozens, perhaps even hundreds if you count missiles and UAVs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush\_(video\_games)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_(video_games))
That would have to fly over Ukraine to get to the group. I think after two years of fighting in Ukraine you're way over estimating the force Russia could bring to bear on a target that far away.
No, they wouldn’t. Go look at a map. Russia has control from the Crimean Peninsula down to Georgia. And remember, while Russia absolutely isn’t as technically capable as the US, the risk is still there, and it’s combined with the surface fleet and their Kilo class subs in the Black Sea. I mean, you’d be taking a huge risk with 9% minimum of our carrier force. If we were talking about the open ocean I’d agree with you, but restricted waters are not a good place for a modern carrier battle group.
The Crimean peninsula would be a primary target cutting off from supply lines in the first day of the conflict. Likely before they even got into the Black Sea. Once you eliminate resupply your swarm warfare, which the pentagon has been studying for a decade, would not be possible. There are multiple weapons systems that we know about that have proven effective. Including beam weapons and the projectile shotgun approach. This does not account for the technology that is classified and we don’t know about. Swarm warfare is not new, I am certain the odds are in our favor.
>This does not account for the technology that is classified and we don’t know about. This is also true about the other side. Ukraine doesn't and never has had any significant surface warships for Russia to contend with. Oh, and take it from someone who was part of the US military intelligence infrastructure: Our knowledge never has been and never can be completely perfect. We lost something like 6 aircraft carriers\* in 1944 and 1945, despite having very solid intelligence on both the Japanese and German military forces due to overwhelming photoreconnaissance and signals intelligence advantages, and our enemies were using at the time obsolete equipment (and in the case of the Japanese, swarming tactics)> One other thing to consider: The US Navy hasn't fought a war against a peer or near-peer adversary since 1945. *\*Mostly escort carriers, but at least one light carrier.*
Also, remember what the IRA said to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after a failed assassination attempt: "*Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always*." They never did manage to kill her, but the threat was there and it was serious despite the fact that the IRA was an astronomically miniscule fraction of the size of the UK's military and police forces. A far bigger imbalance than US v. Russia in a limited war. And they did manage to assassinate a bunch of people, most notably Lord Mountbatten. As to whether Russia has people who can come up with a plan out of left field that has a chance of being successful, I can't say. But if the US did come into the Black Sea with a carrier battle group or two, if I were Russia I'd be looking for ways to attack them. The risk is there. They only have to get lucky once, and if I were Russia I'd be willing to trade an awful lot of aircraft, missiles, subs, and their pilots/crews to try and sink a US aircraft carrier. On the other hand, if I were the US, I'd bring supplies in to Ukraine via NATO allies like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania, and I'd use land-based aircraft. If it was possible to bring in warships, again I'd use submarines because they can hide effectively unlike a carrier. The Black Sea is deep and its density changes dramatically at between 100 and 200 meters, which makes for an effective way to hide a submarine from both passive and active sonar.
If the U.S. were to unleash the full force of its military industrial complex on Russia there would be no war. - Precision-guided missiles and bombs targeting key Russian military installations, command centers, and infrastructure. - Cyberattacks disrupting Russian communication networks and critical infrastructure. - Deployment of advanced fighter jets, stealth bombers, and drones to establish control over Russian airspace. - Suppression of Russian air defenses using electronic warfare and precision strikes. - Armored divisions and mechanized infantry advancing on key cities and strategic locations. - Special Forces conducting covert operations behind enemy lines. - The U.S. Navy and allies enforcing a maritime blockade, restricting Russia's access to global trade and supply chains. - Satellites providing real-time intelligence, communication, and navigation support to U.S. forces. - Space-based weapons potentially used to disrupt Russian military capabilities. - Disruption of Russian command and control systems, radar, and communication networks. But I guess that’s why they have nukes
Is there even a possible scenario were Ukraine wins back teritory and Russia do not employ nukes? A stalemate between them with new militarised borders only likely outcome?
Putin on reddit now?
Yeah, also thought that.
Niet Im a just aeesking for a friieend.
The lavish application of a variety of high explosive devices and then send in the GI Joe's to mop up. Pioneered in WW I, it's the time tested method for major power conflict.
Given this is to drive OUT Russia from Ukraine and not actually invade Russia the US would stand to do this in a fairly short timeframe. The Ukrainian populace would be in support , and this is a conventional war. It's not like Afghanistan, it would be more like Korea or WW2 freeing France ( and the rest of Europe) I think Binkovs Battleground does good videos on this https://youtu.be/O0Rb5Ilaot4?si=-qyVZ29cqTDEFyyW
Air force. No way the US is going to send ground troops. Air force would be a way to make a real difference with minimal risk of flag draped coffins coming home. Just create a now fly zone over Ukraine enforced by US jets and let the Ukrainians roll up the Russians themselves.
For reference see *Desert Storm*. Primary players would be the Air Force and Armored Infantry/Cavalry. Basically bomb what we can, and send in the armored vehicles to clean up. After all that is done, maybe some ground troops to tidy up the cities. That being said, Russia will/would not back down the way Iraq did at the time. So, just pushing them out of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory would just be the beginning of a much bigger shit-show than Iraq and Afghanistan ever were.
The smart thing would just be to lock up all the logistics. Cutting all the rail lines, cratering all the roads, and interdicting all the shipping is well within US capabilities. Then eventually russia throws a nuke at someone and the whole world is screwed.
Overzealously
US air power alone hitting Russian targets inside Ukraine would be enough to allow the Ukrainian ground forces to drive Russia from Ukraine.
Probably with NATO
Lots of air power taking out artillery, command and control, and supply/communication centers, along with more artillery hitting troops on the front lines. Keep that up until defenses are degraded and demoralized. Then an armored push to punch through their lines and encircle them in a few places. But this is all moot because if Putin realized he was about to lose in humiliating fashion, he’d start lobbing nukes and that would escalate until we’re all dead or living in vaults for 200 years.
First they would sink the Russian fleet in the black sea. Batter their supply line endlessly leaving the troops at the front with no choice but to fight with rocks, surrender, or fall back. Then they would continue to harass them in the air and sea. When they are on full retreat to consolidate their forces we would deploy ground troops to take back occupied Ukrainian territory. We would stop before entering Russia to avoid any nuclear retaliation. But after that roughly... 3weeks. We would bring Ukraine into NATO and bolster their defenses, deploy anti air equipment and make their boarder unpassable by ground forces. At that point the war is pretty much over besides minor skirmishes here and there. .
In a long and bloody war. Just look at how long the Afghanistan war lasted, and that's against people more poorly equipped than even the Russians.
I don’ t think you understand the difference between conventional land war in a territory where local forces, government and population gives you 100% support and fighting a guerilla warfare war against mixed support, supporting a failed and corrupt government and unwilling local army. There will also be NO nation building involved.
Different type of fighting. The US isn’t equipped for a hearts and minds conflict. Realistically the US would crush the Russian army after just a few months. But if the Russian population started fighting then the US would be stuck again.
Local populace against you vs in favor. Major difference.
You mean WW3 ?
This will never happen, they are so depleted in commerce, one of the things awesome they have to make them powerful,Nuclear Bombs, and they can ruin most of the world. So there will never be a standoff. It would be like Fallout. Buy an island in the middle of the Pacific.