Cold War of the Third Age

Specific Behaviors for Major Actors

Now that we understand the theoretical foundations of the international order of Middle Earth, how would the relevant actors behave? Well, we do have the real world Cold War to look at to derive ideas from. Like the battle between the US and USSR, neither could strike directly at each other. Hence a reliance on proxies, side theaters, intelligence and covert operations. We also know that Gondor is both the strongest of Mordor's enemies and the first in the path of Mordor's advance. The main story is a battle between Gandalf and Sauron in the covert realm. Culturally, the conflict may between the Elves and Mordor due to their radically divergent worldviews. But in terms of the real military activities, the main battle is between Gondor and Mordor.
This has important impacts for our story. It means that for all practical purposes, Gondor cannot fall. If it did, the rest of Middle Earth would not be strong enough to resist. First, this would cause significant balancing to kick in so that Gondor would be the center point of the global coalition against Mordor. But more importantly for the cold war logic is it would push states to operate under domino theory. The idea is that if one area fell to Communism (or for us Mordor), the surrounding areas will inevitably fall next. While this would prove false in the context of Vietnam, in Middle Earth it would be different. Gondor is the closest thing to a world power able to resist. The rest of Middle Earth would be too weak and divided among potential rivals to be an effective counter after Gondor's fall.
Now, we have to look for a second at potential buck passing options. It would be well known what war with Mordor would cost a participant. It seems unlikely that any other power would have any interest in direct engagements with their own troops - or seeing Mordor make it to their frontiers. It would also be well known that there would be no positive outcomes for band wagon options. The likely outcome of a band wagon strategy would result in the genocides of all people outside of Mordor's starting coalition. They too might fall to genocide by Mordor after the Free People fall, but they will come later. This means that balancing and buck passing are the only real options.
Maintaining cool relations with Gondor is not an option. Rohan would fall next and with easy. The elves knew that the Last Alliance of Men and Elves required Gondorian aid - and that was when the elves were stronger. Even if Gondor won with no aid, this option would likely cost the dwarves valuable investments and farm land. Thus, only good terms with Gondor could be expected to be the main policy for the Free Peoples of Middle Earth. The reverse is also true. Positive relations with Mordor would be a clear, profoundly negative and irreversible option. It would at best lead to hostility with Gondor and at worst do nothing to improve their strategic situation. Most powers will recognize this. Bloodletting would do nothing for the simple reason that all other powers need Gondor to win - not just survive longer.
The last two buck passing options would be the only two viable ones. The first of those is a military build up of one's own forces so that Mordor would not strike it first. This is sound as the extra strength would be needed if Mordor breaks through and strikes the rest of Middle Earth. Also, Mordor appears to recognize that it does not have the power to take on the whole world at once. Hence why he waited as long as possible. This got him more time to build up his own forces and look for the One Ring. He then applied a defeat in detail strategy with Isengard aiming to defeat Rohan so it could not aid Gondor. Plus, Gondor was clearly weaker than it was in the days of the Last Alliance, so it was a soft target. Domestic arms buildups might actually have the sort of deterrence impact needed. At worst, when battle did come, the nation in question would be better able to handle it. This tactic would certainly not help the nation in question avoid war with Mordor, but it would leave them with more time to prepare and would thus be stronger when the time comes. Mordor would ideally turn his attention on softer targets.
In the real world, we see this in practice in the build up to World War Two. Japan's elites were divided between a group who felt it should attack the USSR and those who favored China. A battle in what I think was modern Mongolia persuaded the Japanese to prioritize China. The later embarrassment that was the Soviet invasion of Finland did the reverse. Hitler felt that the USSR was weak enough to invade.
The other viable option is support for the "buck catcher" - in this case Gondor. This would include sending military and economic aid to them. Advisers, arms and loans are the most common tools for this. Lend Lease was a good example of this tactic. As was the providing of logistical support and aerial refueling provided to the Saudi coalition in the war on Yemen. The idea is that when the aggressor is too bogged down in the fight against the buck catcher, the supporters are safe. The thing that separates this tactic from bloodletting is that the buck passer wants the buck catcher to ultimately win. It is a "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" logic.
We cannot forget the domestic considerations as well. Especially for the dwarves, who rely so heavily on slaves. The defeat of a superpower can easily embolden domestic enemies of a regime. This was posited by Max Boot as an explanation for why US back regimes began to fall in the wake of US withdrawal from Vietnam. Left Wing Terrorism follows a similar apparent logic. Austria prior to World War One is another classic example. It felt that without a show of strength, its ethnic minorities would rise up. Its battlefield defeats and those of Russia made them look weak and were contributing factors in the coming destruction of those regimes.
We have the role of elves as peacekeepers. Their troops would be highly skilled and well equipped. They would be perfect to send some of their troops to provide advice and training to Gondor. The dwarves in my conception of them would have a history of providing loans and other economic aid to further their own economic and political interests. Plus there is the dwarven mercenary tradition as well. I would not be surprised to see them provide loans to Gondor on the condition they use that money to hire dwarven mercenaries and buy dwarven made equipment for the war.
This would cause the rest of the Free Peoples of Middle Earth to bet all or nothing on stopping Mordor at Minas Tirith. But, we have to remember that prior to the massive defeat of Mordor at Minas Tirith, it still had a huge army and strong allies protecting its borders. Meanwhile, without the One Ring's destruction any gains would be temporary. This means at best the Free People would be limited to containment.
Containment is basically what it sounds like it is. It is a policy aiming to trap an enemy inside its current borders. It is a sort of middle ground between regime change and normalized relations. Ideally in its most extreme form, the targeted government would be cut off entirely from the outside world. No international trade, no allies or anything. The proxy battles of the Cold War were part of this logic. Any government that worked with the Soviet Union was seen as hostile and US actions aimed to overthrow that government. Veitnam and NATO are the two most obvious examples.
The US felt that the Soviet Union was bent on world domination. It was seen as not being logical. Instead, the Soviets would only respond to force. Local agents would be the tools for expanding Soviet influence. The Soviets were also seen as being perpetually at war with the Capitalist world. When faced with a strong enough of a response, it was expected to back down.
This is a surprisingly accurate portrait of Mordor prior to the outbreak of war. Sauron was not ready for full scale operations, but was not open to peace either. So a strong response could force him to back down. This is in stark contrast to the potential for logical argument to get him to back down. He was certainly not open to redemption or debate.
The only way the State Department felt the USSR could be dealt with effectively was constant, vigilant and firm blocking of the expansionist tendencies. The security apparatus blocked penetration of the US by individual agents. Militarily, we see containment in the interventions overseas. There was also the coups and assassinations of leaders. But there was also the financial aid in the form of the Marshal Plan or the Truman Doctrine.
Now, many of the later actions of the US would fall under the rubric of "Rollback". Guess what that means. The Afghanistan operations of the CIA were under this strategy. As were support for the Contras. Ideally, the goal is to reduce the influence of the target to within their own borders. Any gains in the international realm are, shall we say, rolled back.
The most famous expression of the rollback idea is the Reagan Doctrine, in which support for rebels and resistance movements to Soviet back regimes was given in the hope that the extra strength would allow them to win. Prior to the Reagan Administration, fear of retaliation led to the more defensive containment strategy. Reagan opted for the more offensive option he became famous for. Its success came in part due to its timing - the Soviet Union was clearly faltering by this point. But the cost of supporting a rebel group is much cheaper than propping up a client state. Hence the successes attributed to the Reagan Doctrine and how it helped push the USSR towards its end quicker.
Now, rollback is clearly a more offensive tactic than containment, but is much cheaper and easier to mask than direct confrontation. Thus, I suspect that both sides would use rollback to a degree. But the White Council, being weaker and in decline, would naturally fear discovery of these operations. We can assume then that it would opt for covert rollback operations. Mordor, being much stronger and growing in power, would have less to lose from the White Council taking a massive retaliation response. But for similar reasons and its Cult of the Offensive, it has less to fear from using more overt rollback options.
The strike Aragorn launched against Umbar would constitute rollback in my mind. As would the Blue Wizards infiltrating the Easterlings. But the power most likely to use a rollback strategy would be Mordor. Remember - Sauron's objective is to defeat Gondor and follows the cult of the offensive. This means that his use of a proxy (Isengard) to strike at Gondor's weaker neighbor (Rohan) would cut off vital reinforcements and Gondor's diplomatic gains. This sounds like classic rollback to me. As does him acting in Dol Goldur.
We all know that war is coming. Sauron cannot be held at bay forever - he will attack when he feels ready. Yet we also know that the Free People are unprepared for this assault. Thus, something must be done to delay it to the point that it becomes at least survivable. So, now the question becomes how does a the Free People of Middle Earth buy time? Deterrence Theory.
Deterrence is again one of those pretty self explanatory ideas that fits nicely into the balance of terror framework I see Middle Earth operating in. Essentially, an extreme form of weaponry (like nuclear weapons in real life) can make leaders feel the costs of aggression would mean equally extreme responses. Ideally, the costs of attack should be so high that no matter what the war aims, it would not be worth it. Diplomacy essentially is backed up with extreme force - almost to the point it becomes coercion or intimidation. Force is always seen as on the table but avoidable if the other side takes a policy of accommodation or appeasement. Now, the risk of accidents, miscalculations, incomplete information and irrational leaders all make deterrence inefficient. But assuming these are not there, it holds.
At a tactical or operational level, deterrence is not much different from brinkmanship. Threats of extreme force work as part of this framework. Disproportional use of force, massive retaliation and huge power imbalances even with conventional forces can serve to deter the other side. The key is to force the other side into complying through scaring them into submission. The means matter less than the desired outcomes, which is the above mentioned surrender through fear. Essentially, deterrence is most likely to succeed if the costs of non-compliance it can impose on are strong enough to make it appear not worth it. But it is far more likely to work when combined with a bribery approach at the same time, so that the benefits of compliance. The idea is that the benefits of compliance should be higher than any expected gains from noncompliance or costs of compliance.The reverse is to be true as well. Noncompliance is to produce greater costs than the gains of noncompliance and the costs of compliance.
This means that the state wishing to deter another one does not need to unleash ungodly pain and suffering on the other in order to make deterrence work. Just enough pain and suffering is needed to make aggression clearly not worth it. This can come through either the second strike or no strike options. Economic sanctions in the right contexts can be enough. Second, it must be made clear that cooperation will lead to security. Should a state comply and still suffer aggression from the "deterring" power, future deterrence will fail. Lastly, if a state is not seen as credible, deterrence will not work. Essentially, states seen as too weak to impose the needed costs on another will not have any credible deterrence power. Nor will those states seen as unwilling to use the force needed should the threats fail.
There are some serious problems with applying deterrence to the Cold War of the Third Age though - mainly due to the nature of Mordor itself. Sauron has well known maximal objectives that he cannot be bargained out of. He will attack and he will seek total conquest of Middle Earth. Deterrence will simply be a short term measure when applied against Mordor. He will hold off at first and just long enough to build up his forces. Thus, when the inevitable attack comes, deterrence will lead to an even worse onslaught.
Also, if the political leadership can be broken, the deterrence will fail. We know that Theoden and Denethor are both vulnerable to subversion that cripples their military deterrence value. In fact, without the interventions of Gandalf, Isengard and Mordor could have essentially walked right in and conquered their respective targets with little more than skirmishes with renegades devoid of real power. Both Mordor and Isengard knew this and took steps to act on this.
The only possible salvation would be if the Free People can rearm faster than Mordor. But interestingly for our purposes, any delay can buy more time for the Fellowship to accomplish its goals. To me, this means that the Free Peoples will actually recognize the potential flaws in deterrence and use it anyway. They will use the extra time to do both - prepare for war and allow the Fellowship to get closer to Mt. Doom.
So, how would this deterrence manifest itself? First, the Rangers would need to be beefed up a significant amount so that they can mount significant operations throughout the borderlands between Gondor and Mordor. Next, the border walls would need to be fully garrisoned so that attacks would have a much harder time getting in. Then, the elves and dwarves would have to step up their actions in terms of their buck passing to shore up Gondor's failing economic and military power. Finally, the White Council would have to fully commit to the Fellowship option and mobilize its full resources.
Any forces deployed to Gondor Would probably be tripwire forces. The idea of a tripwire force is essentially a somewhat token force meant to demonstrate the nation deploying it has the determination to fight. Ideally the force would be a medium sized one. It cannot be so big it can launch offensives, otherwise it might be considered preparation for one and trigger a preemptive attack. The downside is that the force is too small to be a serious impediment. The ideal middle ground is one that is too small to really turn the tide, but is too big to be avoided. Thus, it cannot offer decisive levels of resistance itself. It must be engaged and can slow down the enemy to the point the rest of the army can mobilize in time to provide said decisive resistance. This provides deterrence without triggering any enemy actions before the defenders are ready.
So, how would these trip line forces be recruited and deployed? Well, I suspect that the potential anti-dwarf bigotry I mention in my discussions of them means that the core areas of Gondor would not likely be a wise area for them. But in the same discussions I mention how they would have a strong mercenary tradition and solid experiences with fortifications. Like, say, the border walls at the northern and southern frontiers. This would play to their strengths, make them useful and keep them away from areas where racial animosity might cause problems.
Meanwhile, elves are much more culturally acceptable to humans, in no small part due to shared history and elven soft power. Then there is the extra value of their fighting styles. It appears they would be perfect to integrate into the Rangers. Their long experience would also make them perfect for training Gondor's new recruits. Their long lives, familiarity with the Gondorian elites and naturally better eyes also would make them perfect for incorporation into the Tower Guard.
We must remember that Denethor's turn to despair was a long drawn out process. Only at the very end was he in the mood to totally give up. When one is confronted with a huge threat, despair is on one hand rational. But any hope in the face of that threat would also motivate one to take defensive measures to increase one's odds. It is only towards the end when he feels that hope is no longer warranted does he give in. However, the critical period in which these decisions would be made would be long before Denethor gets to this point. Thus, we would not need to change such an important element of Denethor's story to get these tripwires.
Now, there was a very interesting figure in real world histroy - Otto Liman von Sanders. This guy was a German general sent just before World War One to help the Ottoman Empire modernize. He was more than effective as a military commander. Some of the credit for stopping the British and French landings in the Gallipoli Campaign goes to his leadership. His promotion of Ataturk was also quite important to history and came from a recognition of talent. But the impact of outside assistance to a declining empire can be impressive - even if it is just one dude in a leadership position away from 3 of the main fronts.
After all, Liman was one guy. We can look at the impact of the German Army on Austria during World War One too. They got more economic aid, reinforcements and leadership assistance. To the point that the Austrian political leaders were concerned that such aid was turning the Hapsburg Empire into a German colony. Without that aid, Austria would have been utterly destroyed by Russia by the end of 1915 at the latest. It couldn't even handle Serbia even with its vastly larger army. So, the elves, who could take over as major advisers and troop trainers could be quite influential.
Well, what about Mordor using deterrence against the Free People? Well it would be quite effective in preventing an all out attack on Mordor in the vein of the Last Alliance. But the well know goals of Sauron will again come to work against it. Deterrence requires that the receiving state feel that compliance will be at least the least bad option. But anyone going up against Mordor knows that giving in means total destruction and would be giving up on all three of the essential, fixed national priorities. As small of a chance as it is, resistance is the only option where survival is even possible. Defeat and surrender both have the same dire outcomes, so there is literally no extra cost to resistance. Deterrence only really works in cases where the attacking power has limited objectives and fundamental interests are not at stake.