Yes, it is clearly worse than Libya circa 2005. What we don’t know is what would have happened if there had not been intervention. Does the civil war last and Libya becomes Syria? That was the fear at the time. Did we have good reason to think that Libya ends up like Iraq/Syria instead of Tunisia or Egypt? Not sure. At any rate, this is probably another good case for staying out of civil wars.
Russia’s fighter jets [in Syria] are, for now at least, conducting nearly as many strikes in a typical day against rebel troops opposing the government of President Bashar al-Assad as the American-led coalition targeting the Islamic State has been carrying out each month this year.
Somehow, this is supposed to be a demonstration of Russian weakness and Obama’s steeliness.
The truly worrisome bits are these:
Although Russia crushed the American-trained forces of Georgia’s government, driving them from areas surrounding the breakaway region of South Ossetia, Russia’s ground and air forces performed poorly.
The Russians lost three fighter jets and a bomber on the first day of the war that August, and seven over all, according to an analysis conducted after the conflict. Russian ground forces suffered from poor coordination and communication, as well as episodes of so-called friendly fire.
In the war’s aftermath, Mr. Putin, then serving as prime minister, began a military modernization program that focused not only on high-profile procurement of new weapons — new aircraft, warships and missiles — but also on a less-noticed overhaul of training and organization that included a reduction in the bloated officer corps and the development of a professional corps of noncommissioned officers.
…
The Russian advancements go beyond new weaponry, reflecting an increase in professionalism and readiness. Russia set up its main operations at an air base near Latakia in northwestern Syria in a matter of three weeks, dispatching more than four dozen combat planes and helicopters, scores of tanks and armored vehicles, rocket and artillery systems, air defenses and portable housing for as many as 2,000 troops. It was Moscow’s largest deployment to the Middle East since the Soviet Union deployed in Egypt in the 1970s.
“What continues to impress me is their ability to move a lot of stuff real far, real fast,†Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of United States Army forces in Europe, said in an interview. [emphasis added]
The professional noncom corps is a break with Soviet doctrine, BTW.
Also mentioned are the new Russian cruise missile, which despite one noted failure appears to be better than anything we’ve currently got.
Looks like the Pentagon planners are going to have to do some rapid reassessments of the strategic capabilities of the Russians. That should probably happen at State and the White House, too, but that’ll never happen until the both the current crop of assholes is gone and the US gets badly bloodied somewhere because of this.
Oh well, not my country, not my problem. They’re unlikely to ever bother bombing Pine Hills, whoever ‘they’ are.
An Alan Church in the comments on the article makes the following points:
There is a certain chicken little quality to this piece that is probably the exact effect that the Russians are seeking. Given the size of their military, to insert an elite expeditionary force of about 48 aircraft, 600 marines and three or four missle frigates is not exactly a 21st Century equivalent of the Spanish Armada. The US could whistle up a carrier and a Marine assault group of three times the size on extremely short notice, The salient point here is that the Russians have the stomach to draw their saber not just rattle it. However, it is highly unlikely that their military could handle more than a couple of such sideshows at one time.
I have no doubt that he’s at least mostly correct in his assessment of the respective abilities of the US and Russian militaries.
That said, his bit about the Russians being willing to draw the sabre and not just rattle it is more important. Sure, the US could rustle up a carrier group or two and a Marine expeditionary force, but will they? Also, there’s a huge overhead involved in that, because the US is committed to having the capability, if not the desire, to intervene anywhere in the world on short notice. The Russians, on the other hand, seem to be more interested in the Russian neighborhood, and neighborhoods just beyond that with direct interest to the Russians. I imagine they’ll do some mercantilist kind of stuff here and there, too, if only to keep their fingers in the pot, and to annoy the Americans and let the Chinese know that they too can reach out and buy someone.
There is almost always two carrier groups in the east and west, and there are two Marine Expeditionary Units (or whatever they are called today) floating around in the east and west. Part of the assets are already in place or close enough.
The professional NCO’s indicate the Russians do not fear their citizens. It goes against the narrative, but when one is delusional, reality will never affect the narrative.
(For those wondering, NCO’s are common people who can organize uprisings if they are well trained, or they can refuse to carry out orders if they are allowed to think for themselves. Your officers run everything, and they usually do so with harshness and brutality.)
How much worldwide projection capability the Soviet Union had was debatable, and Russia today does not have that much. The problem is not just putting troops into the field. You need to feed and house them, and it is expensive – real expensive.
Protecting Syria is about future clients. If you let your best client get slaughtered, there is no reason to hire you. If Assad goes down, it will not be because Russia abandoned him. They are doing everything they can. On the other hand, there is no benefit to becoming a rat for the US. Not only will the US stand aside while a long time client (Mubarak) is overthrown but they will also join in the destruction of their own informants (Gaddafi).
In reference to your highlighted item, it sounds as though they were restructuring their forces to more closely resemble ours. Imitation is the sincerest form of etc.
In reference to the cruise missile, I think that’s a misconception. Ours fail occasionally, too. It just doesn’t make front page headlines. That was its first battlefield use. Not unexpected.
The Russians realize that their military needs to be updated. Sounds like they’re using their Syria operation for that purpose.
TB:
In reference to Russia’s ability to project power, as I’ve pointed out before sans nuclear weapons Russia is a regional superpower only. Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria are all well within their region. As I’ve pointed out before Damascus is about the same distance from Sebastopol as Atlanta is from New York.
In reference to the cruise missile, I think that’s a misconception. Ours fail occasionally, too. It just doesn’t make front page headlines. That was its first battlefield use. Not unexpected.
Yes, thus my ‘despite’ phrasing. But it seemed that several sources that I was hearing/seeing were taking some pleasure in the failure of four missiles. Such is the state of reporting these days. I had wondered how the missiles landed on Iran, but now knowing that they were launched from the Caspian Sea (!!) makes sense of that.
Also, there’s something else about these new cruise missiles of the Russians: they’re the kind of thing that other nations would be interested in buying. While they would probably not be interested in selling them to Iran (within their sphere of influence, as you’ve noted), they probably wouldn’t mind selling them to, say, a Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil or Argentina. That last would make the British Navy a bit uncomfortable, I’d imagine.
Which is to say, there’s more than one way to project power.
Yeah, that’s why China and India (in addition to Russia) are investing in space exploration. It’s not just the prestige. It’s the aerospace business that goes along with it.
Libya, like Iraq, like Syria is a nation no more. It probably won’t be the last to fall.
Yes, it is clearly worse than Libya circa 2005. What we don’t know is what would have happened if there had not been intervention. Does the civil war last and Libya becomes Syria? That was the fear at the time. Did we have good reason to think that Libya ends up like Iraq/Syria instead of Tunisia or Egypt? Not sure. At any rate, this is probably another good case for staying out of civil wars.
Steve
From the NYT:
Somehow, this is supposed to be a demonstration of Russian weakness and Obama’s steeliness.
The truly worrisome bits are these:
The professional noncom corps is a break with Soviet doctrine, BTW.
Also mentioned are the new Russian cruise missile, which despite one noted failure appears to be better than anything we’ve currently got.
Looks like the Pentagon planners are going to have to do some rapid reassessments of the strategic capabilities of the Russians. That should probably happen at State and the White House, too, but that’ll never happen until the both the current crop of assholes is gone and the US gets badly bloodied somewhere because of this.
Oh well, not my country, not my problem. They’re unlikely to ever bother bombing Pine Hills, whoever ‘they’ are.
An Alan Church in the comments on the article makes the following points:
I have no doubt that he’s at least mostly correct in his assessment of the respective abilities of the US and Russian militaries.
That said, his bit about the Russians being willing to draw the sabre and not just rattle it is more important. Sure, the US could rustle up a carrier group or two and a Marine expeditionary force, but will they? Also, there’s a huge overhead involved in that, because the US is committed to having the capability, if not the desire, to intervene anywhere in the world on short notice. The Russians, on the other hand, seem to be more interested in the Russian neighborhood, and neighborhoods just beyond that with direct interest to the Russians. I imagine they’ll do some mercantilist kind of stuff here and there, too, if only to keep their fingers in the pot, and to annoy the Americans and let the Chinese know that they too can reach out and buy someone.
@Icepick
There is almost always two carrier groups in the east and west, and there are two Marine Expeditionary Units (or whatever they are called today) floating around in the east and west. Part of the assets are already in place or close enough.
The professional NCO’s indicate the Russians do not fear their citizens. It goes against the narrative, but when one is delusional, reality will never affect the narrative.
(For those wondering, NCO’s are common people who can organize uprisings if they are well trained, or they can refuse to carry out orders if they are allowed to think for themselves. Your officers run everything, and they usually do so with harshness and brutality.)
How much worldwide projection capability the Soviet Union had was debatable, and Russia today does not have that much. The problem is not just putting troops into the field. You need to feed and house them, and it is expensive – real expensive.
Protecting Syria is about future clients. If you let your best client get slaughtered, there is no reason to hire you. If Assad goes down, it will not be because Russia abandoned him. They are doing everything they can. On the other hand, there is no benefit to becoming a rat for the US. Not only will the US stand aside while a long time client (Mubarak) is overthrown but they will also join in the destruction of their own informants (Gaddafi).
Ellipsis:
In reference to your highlighted item, it sounds as though they were restructuring their forces to more closely resemble ours. Imitation is the sincerest form of etc.
In reference to the cruise missile, I think that’s a misconception. Ours fail occasionally, too. It just doesn’t make front page headlines. That was its first battlefield use. Not unexpected.
The Russians realize that their military needs to be updated. Sounds like they’re using their Syria operation for that purpose.
TB:
In reference to Russia’s ability to project power, as I’ve pointed out before sans nuclear weapons Russia is a regional superpower only. Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria are all well within their region. As I’ve pointed out before Damascus is about the same distance from Sebastopol as Atlanta is from New York.
In reference to the cruise missile, I think that’s a misconception. Ours fail occasionally, too. It just doesn’t make front page headlines. That was its first battlefield use. Not unexpected.
Yes, thus my ‘despite’ phrasing. But it seemed that several sources that I was hearing/seeing were taking some pleasure in the failure of four missiles. Such is the state of reporting these days. I had wondered how the missiles landed on Iran, but now knowing that they were launched from the Caspian Sea (!!) makes sense of that.
Also, there’s something else about these new cruise missiles of the Russians: they’re the kind of thing that other nations would be interested in buying. While they would probably not be interested in selling them to Iran (within their sphere of influence, as you’ve noted), they probably wouldn’t mind selling them to, say, a Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil or Argentina. That last would make the British Navy a bit uncomfortable, I’d imagine.
Which is to say, there’s more than one way to project power.
Yeah, that’s why China and India (in addition to Russia) are investing in space exploration. It’s not just the prestige. It’s the aerospace business that goes along with it.