Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Conflicts that came in from the Cold => Topic started by: Rob_bresnen on March 12, 2013, 05:25:36 PM
-
This might seem a bit odd, but I am planning a Force on Force Campaign involving Russia invading Finland in 2015. Obviously, this isn't really about to happen, but I want to create a plausible 'what if?' scenario.
I was wondering if some of the LAFers in the Finland-Russia area, or who just have an interest in that sort of thing, could suggest some reasons why Russia would invade Finland.
Let me begin by saying this VERY IMPORTANT POINT. This is a discussion of a purely hypothetical situation for a game. Russia is not about to invade Finland. I defiantly do not want to engage in any 'Russian bashing' or 'Finnish bating'. If this thread starts wandering off into politics, I will ask the moderators to lock it. I am not anti-Russian; I will be painting both sides in the conflict, and in all probability will end up playing the Russian myself.
OK, with that said, here are a few questions you might want to think about...
So why would Russia invade Finland?
What would it take for the diplomatic situation between Finland and Russia to break down?
What would it take for them to actually resort to force instead of sanctions?
What would be their real strategic goals, and what would they present to the world as the reasons for their actions?
What resources do the Fins have that the Russians might want?
Here are a few Ideas I have had myself- but they are in the very early stages of germination.
What If ...
...the new Finnish government were right wing nationalists and the Russian government was dominated by ultra-nationalists...What if some border disputes escalated into a small skirmish between Finnish Border Guards and Russians, where shots were exchanged...What if the press in Finland, prompted by the government, was whipped up into a frenzy of anti-Russian sentiment... What if attacks on Russians living in Finland increased...What if Finnish Ultra-Right wing extremists, with connections to the Finnish secret service, attacked the Russian embassy in Helsinki, and the Russian ambassador was killed...What if the Russians expelled the Finnish ambassador in protest...What if a Russian ship was captured in Finnish territorial waters, and the crew interred. Without diplomatic communication the situation quickly devolves and a Spetsnaz team are dispatched to free the Russian sailors... What if some Finnish soldiers were killed in the raid, and the Finns retaliate by sinking a Russian patrol boat...What if the Russian decide that they need to invade Finland to change the regime for a more pro-Russian one....
How does that sound? Is it plausible? I welcome any comments and suggestions.
-
I think no chance for an anti-Russian government and prolly no real solo Finland vrs Russia scenario, since we are now part of the EU. I think a small Spetsnaz operation of some sort would be most plausible. We have stopped couple of ships lately with contraband arms and/or military spare parts on board so that would be possible cause for a small hotspot, so to say.
Lately on the political side of things discussion has been about Finnish-Russian couples fighting over the parenting rights but I see that as something not causing a military intervention.
Yesterday there was a documentary in the telly about how vulnerable our electrical grid is... few cruise missiles and half of the country would be without electricity in under one hour. Same feat could be achieved by a small group of people as well... maybe there's a possible scenario for you? Once shots are fired and things are under way, some Spetsnaz (fire team or two) are sent to dispose one major electrical transformer that are mostly located above ground.
-
Thank you. That's exactly the sort on information I am after, especially about the electric grid.
Why don't you think you could have an Anti-Russian government? Is it unlikely, or out of the question (some times with these 'what if' situations you have to stretch the facts a bit).
So, as Finland are part of the EU, any large scale invasion of Finland (comparable to the Russian operation in Georgia) should provoke a response from the other EU nations?
As the EU has no army, I guess it would be down to the individual member states. This takes time, and political will, so I would think that what ever the Russians objectives would be they would have to believe they could achieve them before the EU members could retaliate. As no one really wants to go to war with Russia, perhaps they would try to force the Russians to negotiate using diplomacy and sanctions first (That's what happened in Georgia) In the mean time there are Russian Tanks closing on Helsinki!
Anyone any idea what objectives the Russians could hope to achieve in a few weeks?
-
We the people don't have a strong anti-Russian (people) sentiment, not on a level that it would materialize on having quite openly anti-Russia (country) government. But of course all this can be somewhat disregarded for the sake of a what-if scenario, that's why "what-if-isms" are of course interesting.
To Finland to have openly anti-Russia government, I think it would mean that something very directly anti-Finland would have happened in Russia or by Russia. That would then have caused Finnish people to vote an anti-Russia government into the power. Then things could get worse by line of actions done on either side of the border; stopping freighters, raising road taxes on national borders, taking back the property bought by citizens of other country in "opposing" country etc...
Finland being a member of EU would mean that Russia would need to be swift thus the attack on power grid would be quite fitting scenario... to bring Finland to its knees asap, without a slow and long military campaign that enables EU to take action and also gives Finland a chance to mobilize its 250K-300K strong reserves.
I think action would be rather small scale, not huge tank columns advancing... at least not in the beginning. Russian air-supremacy can be achieved, but with a cost.
Would Russia be interested to occupy demilitarized Aland isles? If so, would Sweden appear to help Finland?
Oh, gotta ask, what are you planning to use as FDF?
-
Again, an excellent insight. Thank you.
Your right about the anti-Russian government. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a reason for the fins to elect an anti-Russian government.
AS far as the FDF, well perhaps oddly, I thought I would go for TAG Russians. here is as tester I have been working on.
(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3224/dscf8174u.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/dscf8174u.jpg/)
What do you think?
I also thought the Russians from Mongrel and Red Star would be useful as Russians.
-
Test figure is looking really good and gearwise it's ok, especially since there are no modern Finns offered by any company/maker that I know of... of course the helmets and ballistic protection looks quite different from Russian gear.
Here are some recent news links related to Finnish-Russian relations, maybe you can get something useful out from them:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/russia_still_a_mystery_to_many_finns/6529271
http://yle.fi/uutiset/concerns_grow_over_russian_nuclear_plant_safety/6529717
http://yle.fi/uutiset/finland_easing_visa_procedure_for_russians/6533150
http://yle.fi/uutiset/stuk_most_russian_reactors_wouldnt_pass_muster_in_finland/6533766
http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish-russian_cultural_centre_to_open_in_helsinki/6534085
http://yle.fi/uutiset/upgrading_cyber_defenses/2987415 (NATO's cyber defense centered in Estonia, IIRC)
http://yle.fi/uutiset/defence_minister_wallin_finland_decides_independently/6166369
And here's Youtube channel of Finnish Defence Forces:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=finnish+defence+forces&oq=finnish+de&gs_l=youtube.3.1.0l10.522.4239.0.7087.12.10.1.1.1.0.258.966.2j3j2.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.guXmUsDaKzs
-
I can't imagine a Russian attack on any of her European neighbours provoking anything other than a full response by either the EU, NATO or both (not to mention direct or indirect Swedish support – surely a certainty?). Possibly including a threat of nuclear war, especially in the face of a large invasion.
If you were to draw up a list of possible flashpoints across the globe, I think the Russo-Finnish border would be pretty low down on the list. Russia in particular has far more pressing concerns than launching off on such an adventure.
Does it have to be Finland? There are many other far more plausible Russia-involved conflicts you could use.
-
Test figure is looking really good and gearwise it's ok, especially since there are no modern Finns offered by any company/maker that I know of... of course the helmets and ballistic protection looks quite different from Russian gear.
Here are some recent news links related to Finnish-Russian relations, maybe you can get something useful out from them:
Brilliant stuff, very helpful.
I am glad you like the test model, I was hopping you would approve. I plan to use the woolly hats only for the FDF as the helmets are not the same. I can always use the ones with helmets as Russians. I am going to paint the Finns in white and the Russians in green to make it very obvious which side is which.
I can't imagine a Russian attack on any of her European neighbours provoking anything other than a full response by either the EU, NATO or both (not to mention direct or indirect Swedish support – surely a certainty?). Possibly including a threat of nuclear war, especially in the face of a large invasion.
If you were to draw up a list of possible flashpoints across the globe, I think the Russo-Finnish border would be pretty low down on the list. Russia in particular has far more pressing concerns than launching off on such an adventure.
Does it have to be Finland? There are many other far more plausible Russia-involved conflicts you could use.
I picked Finland because my regular gaming buddy is half-Finnish. It's to peak his interest really. As I said Russia attacking Finland is pure fiction, (except for that time in 1939. And 1941.), but its more for the fun of it. Also I was planning to make some scenery for The Winter War, and thought it would be good to get more use out of it.
I think that as long as the Russians planned to succeed in a short amount of time, then they might be able to succeed in securing some strategic objectives before they were forced to negotiate by the EU and USA. A blitzkrieg type surprise attack could catch the western nations off guard, giving time for the Russians to do what ever it is they are wanting to achieve before the democracies can organise a response. All this could be some heavy handed way to force other nations into concessions. Russia could negotiate new borders etc from a position of strength if they had troops in Helsinki.
As to the treat of a nuclear response, I think that would be unlikely. What would be gained? That would only escalate the conflict to the point that the nuclear nations would be in direct danger themselves. The US threatened to put troops on the ground when Russia invaded Georgia, but they never threatened a nuclear strike.
-
in 1941 the Finns invaded not the other way around... lol and never say such a thing like 'there is no way X can invade Y' it is bad for galactic Karma... lol (I recall someone saying to me that there was no way Iraq could have invaded Kuwait... it was end of July 1990... ::) ). Back to 'serious' stuff...
One thing I hate in scenario background is when someone postulates that some ultra-X government takes power. It is fine if you really want to have good guys vs bad guys, but if you want to engage both sides there are ways to have both sides acting rationally. We did this until 1939 more or less... despite what some people says about the Kaiser even 1914 Germany was rational (if there was some with some streak of irrationality was on the Entente side... a certain mr. J. Fisher... oook reaction to Andrew Lambert again back on stuff...).
Let's say the Russian government is engaging in some saber rattling with EU for some reason. Maybe just a reaction ot a new HR campaign against the Kremlin. They decided to send some clear signal that they are getting bored with the usual EU ranting and deploy some combat units in the western district and hold a big wargame (1:1 scale those things called field exercise). During the exercise one of the Parchim II corvette of the Baltic fleet straddled in the Finnish territorial water and it is seized. Helsinki is not pleased of having the Baltic Fleet wandering around. Westenr media do their usual rant on how bad the Russians are at sea, the even interview prof. Andrew Lambert from KCL who deliver one of his caustic talk on the Russian Navy. EU ramp a bit the rhetoric just to show how strong they are. Of course the Russians are not impressed. They simply said that the maritime border was not trespassed and that the Finnish Navy seized the corvette illegally. There is a tense diplomatic stand-off. The Kremlin and the bulk of the Military leadership are quite bored of the usual 'the russian are bad' line in the media. EU do not want to apologize fearing to look weak. Both sides are quite confident that if the push their casse hard enough everything will be solved in their favor and without any incident. Someone in the Baltic fleet came up with a plan to raid the ship and free the sailors using special forces. In a typical case of mission (and publicity) creep several Military agencies want to have a role in the operation (to get publicity and money in the next budget), from a small SF raid it became a small combined arms operation they will land a naval infantry battalion near the Finnish naval base where the Parchim is held to secure it while two airborne battalions will seal the area. Get the hell in get the hell out, minimal reral force used, the display of Russian potential firepower will awe the defenders. Air cover will awe the defenders too... nothing could gone wrong... the Naval Infantry and the Paratroopers are top notch, contract soldiers, well equipped, well trained, the plan is fool proof. After all the Finns illegally seized the Russian ship... it is not a raid but a rescue operation...
and someone higher up think this is a good idea... and give green light. Short spectacular action, the kind that boost the image of a superhero-president, build confidence, and even better show the EU are jut talkie talkie fools...
So the operation is launched. But something is not going as planned. Finnish F-18 get involved ans shot down a couple of Flankers. The airborne drop is not completely successful... what we do... fall back and apologize... or up the ante... the western military districts were already mobilized for the exercise and even reinforced. If a lighting strike could be conducted before EU and NATO reinforcements are deployed, probably a favorable settlement could be obtained... just a short victorious war... the Finnish army in not mobilized, the reinforced 6th Army is more than enought o conduct quick operations with the support of the Baltic Fleet and the Airborne Troops command (and it is doable, the Russian forces of the Leningrad district are indeed capable to pull it out, with naval and airborne support remember that Russian brigades now are larger than Finnish ones) Just a little war to show Russia has fangs... so the Kremlin orders contingency plans (I am betting there is a contigency plan for a limited strike into Finland if not as training tool) activated.
The Russians crossed the border... how long it will be and how it will turn out will depend on your dice.
But as you see the scenario is believable (ok things have to happens in the order prescribed) and it is not even base don conspiracies, extremist governments or regime changes. Starting wars is quite easy.
-
Wow...that's brilliant! that is even better than I had hoped for. Once again I am awed by the speed and level on insight and imagination to be found on LAF.
If it's all right with you I think I will cut and paste that whole scenario as the background for my campaign. Well done!
I am a bit worried you might have give but too much thought as to how to start a war. lol
-
Well if you are set on gaming an unlikely war, then use an unlikely premise.
Russia is running low on lutefisk, so they plan an attack on Scandinavia to secure the precious and pungent resources. But because their maps are a bit crap they end up in India and have to fight tigers to survive. In the confusion the Taliban believes that Russia is trying to capture Robert Fisk. So they send a team into Moscow, who rescue Robert and get a chance to visit Lenin's tomb. Eventually France and Germany declare war on Russia and begin a campaign to make the world safe for food that smells odd.
With the rest of the world distracted, Iran decide to advance their nuclear programme and really mess up their environment with uranium mines.
Did you want a game involving uranium mines and tigers?
Didn't think so.
Don't worry about the story so much.
It is 2015. Finland and Russia have gone to war. End of story.
Now start the game! ;)
-
Don't worry about the story so much.
It is 2015. Finland and Russia have gone to war. End of story.
Now start the game!
True, but I liked Arrigo's story better.
-
True, but I liked Arrigo's story better.
You're right, I should have added a main character. :?
-
Another option is that Russia has a toilet paper shortage and is trying to harvest all of Finlands trees to solve it. ;D
-
Another option is that Russia has a toilet paper shortage and is trying to harvest all of Finlands trees to solve it. ;D
That is brilliant! :o
-
Another option is that Russia has a toilet paper shortage and is trying to harvest all of Finlands trees to solve it. ;D
This could be it. Finland does have quite the forestry industry and do export loads of stuff to Russia among other countries.
-
I think we wouldn't seize Russian corvette... if it ventured into the Finnish territorial waters it would be notified about its presence in our waters without authorization, then advised to leave the said waters and then made to leave. But I see no seizing of happening on any nations navy vessels. But a cargo freighter would be a completely different story... in this scenario the freighter could be sailing even under a Finnish flag but carrying undeclared military class items (has happened, Patriot missiles marked as fireworks bound for Korea and undeclared tank parts from Russia to Syria).
Our forests, by the way, would not be a reason for Russia to invade, they have lots more trees on that side of the border and Finnish forest industries use quite a lot of Russian trees.
And just to nitpick on a technicalities, back in the 1941 the first offensive was done by Russia (air attack by several hunded planes) after which Finnish army started the offensive.
-
Wow...that's brilliant! that is even better than I had hoped for. Once again I am awed by the speed and level on insight and imagination to be found on LAF.
If it's all right with you I think I will cut and paste that whole scenario as the background for my campaign. Well done!
I am a bit worried you might have give but too much thought as to how to start a war. lol
Ehy, I am hailing from the War Studies Department... I know some of my colleagues are just happy to show themselves around telling people they are from WS... but I am doing real war studies, and those things are like contingency plans, as absurd they are you never know when you will need one... or two... and I think that if Andrew got in prime time speaking of the Russian Navy as he does in class there would be at least a diplomatic incident. Ok once he told us the story of when he was arrested by the KGB... just after the collapse of the Iron Courtain he had been invited to a big conference in Leningrad, got completely drunk (at least he told us so, I have almost never seen him drinking anything more than juice) with a professor from US (Hattendorf or Love forgot whom) and the police took them under custody... because they were westerner the KGB showed up. Ok maybe he made it up but it was fun. Anyway coming up with wars is both a challenging intellectual exercise and fun. And it is also a pre-requisite to use our contemporary collection for anything except the headlines that could be not so funny to game.
-
Sample figure is very nice BTW.
Russia falls out with Norway over resource exploitation in Spitzbergen...Russian Special Forces en route to Norway overland stray across the Finnish border (by accident or design) and trigger border clashes.
or...as part of a classic NATO vs Russia scenario Russian forces bypass Norwegian forward defences by crossing the "Finish Wedge"...
There is some info on Rapid Reaction Forces and Finish relations with NATO in order to give timescales and background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Headline_Goal
http://www.arrc.nato.int/alliedrapidreactioncorps.aspx
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49594.htm
-
(not to mention direct or indirect Swedish support – surely a certainty?).
lol lol lol lol
Dear Answer, the Swedish army is nowadays so small that we could get invaded by Greenland and look forward to a decade of more fish eating.
-
In fairness MOST modern armies are very small now compared to the days of the Cold War - I doubt the Russians can put all thet much stuff into the field at short notice in this region; two brigades maybe?
The Swedes, whilst small, have some very nice kit - I love the look of the CV90 (have absolutely no idea what they're like in real life) and I'd bet that they're at a higher state of readiness than the Russians.
You could probably represent the whole of most European armies in a system like CWC without too much trouble lol lol lol
-
Fully agree,
The German army is reduced to more or less two maneuver divisions that have been earmarked to different NATO and EU reaction forces (they reduced the overall force level but not the overall commitment, so you have the same unit assigned to different commands). Russia has killed divisions but replaced with oversized brigades. But also modern brigades pack more punch and organic support than older ones and this is a general trend. Smaller leaner armies do not mean you cannot do thing, just that you do it with less both on the grounds. Current brigades hare high on firepower and maneuver, but lack the staying power of old divisions. A contemporary Russian brigade is able to deliver almost the same 'weight' of firepower than an old MRD but not to deliver the same 3 echelon assault.
Still I reckon that short wars are possible. Anyway even at the eight of the Cold war high intensity ops were limited by replacements and logistic stockpile. I am still holding the view that the Soviet Army would not have reached the Atlantic shores in two months or less has the 'red steamrollers' still maintain because after one month supplies would have gone down. According to US Army estimates based on Desert Storm/Sabre expenditure Central Front stockpiles would have evaporated in 2-3 weeks of war. Then everyone would have slowed down to resupply. In a reduced scale is what you can do today. A short initial burst of high tempo ops and then operational pause. How much you can go forward due to international pressure/internal public opinion/operational results is a guess. To a certain extent this can even create an 'exit clause'. If your initial push is successful you can exploit the operational pause to negotiate from strength, if unsuccessful try to get out. Of course you can also end upping the ante. Nothing is granted.
-
Impressive scenarios
I for my part prefer the bizarre ones:
on a PR tour close to the Finnish border when Putin tries to catch an Elk with his bare hands, the hunt incidentally pulls him over to
Finland and he loses contact to his entourage. The Spetnats search escalates into an international conflict that nobody wanted, when Nato involvement later triggers the meddling in of Finnish nationalists, anti-Putin Russian insurgents, Chechen rebels and an ominous spam factory from Sweden. The incident is only solved in 2015, when Putin is found cryogenically preserved in a Finnish lake together with the elk after both fell in.
-
Impressive scenarios
I for my part prefer the bizarre ones:
on a PR tour close to the Finnish border when Putin tries to catch an Elk with his bare hands, the hunt incidentally pulls him over to
Finland and he loses contact to his entourage. The Spetnats search escalates into an international conflict that nobody wanted, when Nato involvement later triggers the meddling in of Finnish nationalists, anti-Putin Russian insurgents, Chechen rebels and an ominous spam factory from Sweden. The incident is only solved in 2015, when Putin is found cryogenically preserved in a Finnish lake together with the elk after both fell in.
Don't forget that they take the frozen head of Putin and put it on an old Stalin-robot, thus starting the Laser Russo-Finnish War!
-
no, I rather thought of an alternate timeline when during the attempted defreezing he is transported back to the end of the 19th century and he kills Trotzky in order to take his place and change history.
But the moment he kills Stalin the resulting temporal disturbance field cracks up the time space continuum transferring the Japanese fleet from the 1941 Pacific to the 1917 Baltic where they sink the Tsarist fleet in Kronstadt.
or so....
-
I think Mark Copplestone makes a figure that could easily be converted for that!
http://www.copplestonecastings.co.uk/images/kkbb107col.jpg
Arrigo, have you seen this write-up of the "Global War Game" CPXs done during the 80s?:
http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/Newport-Papers/Documents/20-pdf.aspx
-
very interesting and I like the test figure , most likely start of a war would be outrage over vote riggng in the eurovision song contest ;)
-
I would like to take a more sci-fi approach. Something fell from the sky and landed in Finland, 80 meters from the Russian border. The Russians want it. The EU want it. Sweden deploys some troops, Russia deploys some troops. Someone fires a shot. Troops are dead on both sides. Each side points starts pointing fingers and things spiral out of control quickly. And suddenly grandma in Finland has Russian tanks rolling through her back yard and grandma in Russia has Swedish F-18's flying overhead dropping bombs.
-
I don't see why there needs to be a plausible reason for a game but perhaps
territorial dispute going back to the break up of the Russian Empire or ethnic Russians forming a break away from Finland
-
And maybe reinforcements could come from the Nordic Battle Group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Battle_Group
-
I think that as long as the Russians planned to succeed in a short amount of time, then they might be able to succeed in securing some strategic objectives before they were forced to negotiate by the EU and USA. A blitzkrieg type surprise attack could catch the western nations off guard, giving time for the Russians to do what ever it is they are wanting to achieve before the democracies can organise a response. All this could be some heavy handed way to force other nations into concessions. Russia could negotiate new borders etc from a position of strength if they had troops in Helsinki.
As to the treat of a nuclear response, I think that would be unlikely. What would be gained? That would only escalate the conflict to the point that the nuclear nations would be in direct danger themselves. The US threatened to put troops on the ground when Russia invaded Georgia, but they never threatened a nuclear strike.
Thing is, any Russian invasion of a neighbour of that scale would be preceded by months of diplomatic and military build-up - it would be no 'bolt from the blue'. As such Finland's friends would be well placed to prepare. Georgia was a different case, for they are not in Europe, and in many people's eyes (inc. the Russians) were the aggressors in the first place.
However, this being said, if you were to tell someone in 1920, at the height of Europe's democratic trend, that over the next two decades barely five European nations would maintain functioning democracies*, they'd probably laugh you down, and considering the current world turmoil, I won't be making any bets!
*Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes, p.111. The five were Britain, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland...
-
Because Mr Putin says so?
-
And maybe reinforcements could come from the Nordic Battle Group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Battle_Group
I read it through quickly, and then all the sudden my well devoleped ability to spot inmature words kicked in and I found this rather funny remark:
In 2007 the commander ruled that the lion's penis had to be removed. Since civilian women are often sexually abused in the war zones of the world, they did not consider the depiction of a penis appropriate on a uniform worn into battle. However, this decision has been questioned by some Swedish heraldists, including heraldic artist Vladimir Sagerlund, who has asserted that coats of arms containing lions without a penis were historically given to those who had betrayed the Swedish Crown
-
:o :o :oI must admit that I didn't read that bit :o :o :o
A few years ago I did make a colour for my re-enactment unit, the main device of which was a bull with an engorged todger!
-
Because Mr Putin says so?
Yes that might work!Sample figure is very nice BTW.
Russia falls out with Norway over resource exploitation in Spitzbergen...Russian Special Forces en route to Norway overland stray across the Finnish border (by accident or design) and trigger border clashes.
or...as part of a classic NATO vs Russia scenario Russian forces bypass Norwegian forward defences by crossing the "Finish Wedge"...
I like that one too.
Ehy, I am hailing from the War Studies Department... I know some of my colleagues are just happy to show themselves around telling people they are from WS... but I am doing real war studies, and those things are like contingency plans, as absurd they are you never know when you will need one... or two... and I think that if Andrew got in prime time speaking of the Russian Navy as he does in class there would be at least a diplomatic incident. Ok once he told us the story of when he was arrested by the KGB... just after the collapse of the Iron Courtain he had been invited to a big conference in Leningrad, got completely drunk (at least he told us so, I have almost never seen him drinking anything more than juice) with a professor from US (Hattendorf or Love forgot whom) and the police took them under custody... because they were westerner the KGB showed up. Ok maybe he made it up but it was fun. Anyway coming up with wars is both a challenging intellectual exercise and fun. And it is also a pre-requisite to use our contemporary collection for anything except the headlines that could be not so funny to game.
That sounds like a REALLY interesting job. My dream job.
-
Plausible reasons
1. The Russians didn't get the joke in Leningrad Cowboys Go America. Aki Kaurismaki, is after all a Finnish director.
2. Super Vlad, goes hunting along the Karelian border in deepest winter , removes his shirt for a photo op as is his particular fetish and freezes to death. Press secretary is so mortified at the consequences he buries the body and blames it on the Finns.
3. Most plausible. The Russians invade because they are all drunk.
-
1. The Russians didn't get the joke in Leningrad Cowboys Go America. Aki Kaurismaki, is after all a Finnish director.
- Paskaa.
- Kuinka niin?
- Ei kaupallista potentiaalia. Menkää Amerikkaan. Niillehän kelpaa mikä tahansa.
Still a handy stock answer whenever a honest opinion is requested.
3. Most plausible. The Russians invade because they are all drunk.
You could easily invert that scenario.
-
I'd start with diplomatic issues getting bad between the two nations for various reasons.
1. One side isn't very careful talking to news cameras and makes comments that the other side feels are insulting. Other side makes comments back and an minor diplomatic incident occurs.
2. some non-diplomatic more shameful type crimes occur. Maybe the Finnish President has an early 20s son or daughter that takes a trip to Russia with some friends and gets drunk and in a car accident. Drugs are found at the scene and in the blood tests. Russian news uses this as an excuse to smear Finland, Finland start accusing Russians of planting the drugs and faking the tests to make it look worse. Russia counters that Finnish government approached the about trying to keep the entire thing quiet.
3. Some non-diplomatic big financial crimes happen. Guy in country A uses internet schemes to swindle a TON of money from people from country B. Country B doesn't do anything, either choosing to not prosecute or simply stating that they disbelieve country A's claim about who really did the crime.
4. In retaliation for this, Russia cuts off exportation of electricity and natural gas (or whatever other good key resources best fit) claiming they just have too much demand at home.
5...Meanwhile...EU issues. After the scare about the safety of Nuclear Power thanks to the meltdown in Japan, some very anti-nuclear energy politicians get into power in various EU nations and put about a moritorum on new Nuclear Power plants. Finland is very mad about this.
6. Meanwhile...global issue: Fuel issues. Oil consumption grows rapidly in a 3 year window. Some strict EU environmental regulations greatly slow output of current oil rigs and slow down new. A couple oil fields that were thought to be very large surprisingly run dry. This all feeds into oil prices going through the roof. Middle East Terrorists take this opportunity to strike at their own governments by attacking oil fields and shipping, making the oil concerns go into 'condition red'. Across the globe shortages of gasoline and diesel (even at extremely high prices) leads to shortages, rationing, very long lines at the pump. New Nuclear Power regulations from above are causing huge friction as well.
7. Big oil reserves found right on the border between Finland/Russia...possibly in the gulf, possibly on land, some of the land that Russia/Finland traded back and forth post WW2. Maybe Karelia. Maybe there were talks and Karelia was just given back or about to be given back before issues 1, 2, and 3 stalled. Either way BOTH sides claim the land and both sides start developing, and there is some sabotage on both sides by each-other.
Final results, both sides bring in military forces to support their claim on the resource and to 'provide security' to prevent sabotage. Some event leads to shots being fired and a minor war flares up.
-
^I so wish that oil would be found :) Of course, without the aggression part afterwards.
-
I think this whole thread has raised a couple of interesting points:
1. Modern gaming often falls down for lack of a plausible background story. Even looking at the "Global War Game" exercises that the US undertook in the 80s it appears that they struggled for a reason to go to war with the WarPac. Those exercises do however provide a reasonable background story.
2. Even with imagination we find it quite hard to think of a serious reason why two nations might go to war. The bottom line, of course, is that going to war has to seem less bad than not going to war. Nations generally only fight where there is more to gain than lose. Until 9/11 it was quite hard to get modern democracies to go to war because your average member of the public had access to everything they wanted anyway. Your average young person in Sub-Saharan Africa had little to look forward to in life and therefore little to lose by going to war.
And now, in case everything I've said thus far has been too serious, I do like the silly stories too.
-
I don't know....
there are right now too many idiotic reasons why people go to war around the globe, one has just to watch the news or read the newspapers.
Once the concept of wargaming does not collide with the above, I personally prefer the silly pretence..
global politics is rotten enough as it is....
-
I think this whole thread has raised a couple of interesting points:
1. Modern gaming often falls down for lack of a plausible background story. Even looking at the "Global War Game" exercises that the US undertook in the 80s it appears that they struggled for a reason to go to war with the WarPac. Those exercises do however provide a reasonable background story.
2. Even with imagination we find it quite hard to think of a serious reason why two nations might go to war. The bottom line, of course, is that going to war has to seem less bad than not going to war. Nations generally only fight where there is more to gain than lose. Until 9/11 it was quite hard to get modern democracies to go to war because your average member of the public had access to everything they wanted anyway. Your average young person in Sub-Saharan Africa had little to look forward to in life and therefore little to lose by going to war.
And now, in case everything I've said thus far has been too serious, I do like the silly stories too.
1) Yeah, but serious reasons much less cause war than human foibles. WW1 - there too many reasons to list why this broke out that have much less to do with geo-politics than human failings such as ego, afraid to be the first one to stop mobilizing and say, "Why are we doing this," the usual human stupid idea of a 'quick, easy war," and incredibly bad judgment of another countries leaders/priorities/history, ad infinitum.
2) Go look at past wars - we are not unlikely to use the same bad choices to get into awar that humans have used in the past.
One reason I stay away from "Today/near future" wars is the fact that it is an uncomfortable subject (and highly unpredictable) unless you are a professional Dr. Strangelove (raises hand) and even then...
I would suggest Aliens cause the war by manipulation of human politics/psychology for their own arcane reasons.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Hi,
I can only see one good reason for Russia to invade Finland : due to climatical changes, there is a shortage of snow in Russia, and President Putin sends some of it's best troops to seize the white gold of Finland so he can enjoy skiing.
There will be spec forces fighting small actions ( like destroying all the snowplow trucks ), large scale combat with batalions seizing big areas to secure the snow access, logistical nightmare with truck/ train convoys briging back the snow to Russia under constant attack from FDF & partisans.
We can also imagine Finland sending Special Jäger Batalion in Russia to capture Putin's pair of ski in retaliation.
;) Fred
-
One reason I stay away from "Today/near future" wars is the fact that it is an uncomfortable subject (and highly unpredictable) unless you are a professional Dr. Strangelove (raises hand) and even then...
I initially felt the same as you when it came to modern gaming- I thought, and continue to feel, that entertaining myself by gaming a conflict that is very fresh, or even ongoing, like Afghanistan or Iraq, is somehow 'wrong'. I know its a matter of personal taste, and judging by how many manufacturers there are making Afghans and Somalis etc, there are a people out there who do enjoy it, and don't share my feelings. And that's fine too.
What changed for me was the discovery of VBCW, and it's fictionalised setting, which allowed me to use all the inter-war and early WW2 figures, without the moral angst that comes with in. My first journey into 'ultra-modern' wargaming was inspired VBCW. I created a fictional African state called Zugando and drew up a background that I felt comfortable with, explaining the conflict. That way i could delve into Ultra-modern gaming without feeling that I was being disrespectful.
The Finland idea grew out of a desire to try something a bit different. As I said earlier, I was going to get some snow/woodland scenery and I wanted to get the most out of my scenery. The fictional 'what if?' nature of a conflict with Finland/Russia in an Ultra modern setting has the same suspension of reality as VBCW and African Imagi-nations. It never happened, so it's just for fun, like a Tom Clancy book. No moral angst.
As to the idea that modern wargaming falls down because of a lack of logical reasons for war, well I think some of the feedback so far on this thread has suggested that there are a number of very plausible reason for such a conflict to occur (along with a whole raft of not so plausible ones). Not that we need a good reason to enjoy a game...Call of Duty has the most ridiculous and implausible background, but it's still fun to play.
I know I don't really need a 'reason' for a conflict to take place, but in my mind at least a game is more fun if there is a strong narrative running through it, which locates it in a time and place. I like names characters and battles where set objectives are at stake.: it just gives the games another dimension.
Just my thoughts. Your welcome to comment.
-
Just to let know, I have Finnish blue-white roundels as decals, I think 9 of them, so in case you need those for vehicles, let me know and I will sent them to you.
-
That would be great! I have just bought a 1/48 scale Leopard 2A for the Finns (After what you said about the T-55M.
-
PM me the address and I will send them on Monday.
Leo2 will be nice to see in Finnish colours... will you keep it in normal colours or winter whitewash?
-
That depends how brave I feel. White washing looks hard.
PM sent.