• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Georgia and the Russian invasions/annexations/Lebensraum (2008 & 2015)

stegner said:
For instance, the much maligned Iraqi Air Force got some kills of top American jets during the First Gulf War, including a Mig-25 kill of a F/A-18.  I reckon that the Russian Air Force would put up a much better fight. 

Can you provide more info on this? According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force) the Iraqi Air Force managed only one kill during the Gulf War.

I will respectfully disagree.  The Bear Bombers are still a threat despite your assertions as the Tu-95MS6 can carry 6 Kh-55  and on the updated Tu-95MS16 16 Kh-55 with ranges up to 3,000 km.   In sum this constitutes a very serious threat.   Would you consider none of the Russian bombers a threat or is it just the Tu-95? 

The TU-95 is a big fat target. I would love to see its radar cross section - it must be a beaut! As for the Kh-55 its a nuclear armed cruise missile, not a conventional missile.
 
Can you provide more info on this? According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force) the Iraqi Air Force managed only one kill during the Gulf War.

I was thinking of the one air to air kill and the bunch of SAM kills.  Sorry if i gave the impression of more than one air to air kill.  Having looked at the wikipedia page it is interesting to see how the IrAF force, particularly the Mig-25's caused significant problems for the coalition forces.   
 

Not sure why I got this response.  I was responding to Retired AF Guy who mentioned the wikipedia- in the post right before mine.    I see no problem with wikipedia, nor the always collegial Retired AF Guy citing it as a source.  Wikipedia has its limitations, but I would not condemn all of wikipedia.  If anyone has any information that contradicts the IrAf wikipedia entry by all means share it with the group and correct any information on the wikipage.  Please keep me abreast of the progress in revising that page.  Kind wishes. 
 
stegner said:
I was thinking of the one air to air kill and the bunch of SAM kills.  Sorry if i gave the impression of more than one air to air kill.   Having looked at the wikipedia page it is interesting to see how the IrAF force, particularly the Mig-25's caused significant problems for the coalition forces.   

Let's see if I understand you. One Mig 25 gets one air-to-air kill and that equals "significant problems". ::)

I think CDN Aviator and Infidel-6 nailed it.
 
2 Cdo et al.  I'm not sure why the merits (de-merits?) of MIG-25s come into this.  In any event, I think we were talking about US response to Russia, and the military ability (if any) of Russia to counter any moves.  Russia is NOT Iraq, Syria or any other such nation.  Russia is a large power, with a powerful military.  As a thought exercise, how would Russian forces fare?

Before answering, don't use Iraqi or other foreign users of Russian weapons as an example.  The former USSR and current Russia, as a rule of thumb, didn't export the good stuff (with some exceptions, such as to the German Democratic Republic).
 
2 Cdo said:
Let's see if I understand you. One Mig 25 gets one air-to-air kill and that equals "significant problems". ::)

I think CDN Aviator and Infidel-6 nailed it.

Fair enoughon the first sentence; but, regarding the second, stegner's complaint about the  :rofl:  is valid. He was, as he said " ... responding to Retired AF Guy who mentioned the wikipedia- in the post right before mine." All stegner did was comment on the data on the page RAFG put into play.

If wikipedia is the problem (as it very clearly was for CDN Aviator) then both CDN Aviator and I-6 need to take a new point of aim.
 
Back on topic.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is an interesting opinion piece by Edward Luttwak:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wcogeorgia20/BNStory/specialComment/home
The party's over for Europe: The bear is back

EDWARD LUTTWAK

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
August 20, 2008 at 8:38 AM EDT

South Ossetia may be very small, but it has become the scene of an event of colossal proportions: the return of Great Power politics, in which tanks are the deciding factor, not "soft power," let alone international legitimacy.

This huge change follows inevitably from Russia's regression to its own historic version of empire, which existed under the czars and was revived by Stalin. It is based on a tacit bargain: The Russians accept authoritarian rule and the loss of personal freedom in exchange for an imperial role on the global scene, starting with the "near abroad" - countries such as Georgia that used to belong to the Soviet Union.

For all its weaknesses, the Russian Federation has all it needs to function as a Great Power, from a determined ruling elite to a vast nuclear arsenal, adequate military forces now being modernized, and a revitalized intelligence service. Hence, the reversion of Russia to the dangerous rules of Great Power politics compels all others to change their behaviour as well - it is not a game, and participation is not voluntary.

Understandably, the Poles were the first to react. After bargaining with the Americans for months to extract more rewards for accepting a small anti-ballistic missile base on their territory, within hours of the Russian advance into Georgian territory, they dropped all their demands to sign on the dotted line. Other reactions may be much less obvious but could be much more important. Japan, for example, is likely to draw even closer to the United States, while China's rulers might be influenced in a most unfortunate way. After leaning this way and that, they had seemingly decided that maximum economic success was more valuable than a fast buildup of military strength; they may now revise their priorities.

The most direct impact, however, will be on Europe and the North Atlantic alliance. All through the Cold War, it was a truly operational organization, in which every member had to be ready to fight in defence of every other member. There were serious defence plans for vulnerable borders that were realistically exercised by hundreds of thousands of troops, and periodic airlifts to bring reinforcements to exposed frontiers as a reminder of what would happen in war.

Once the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO was not abolished, as some would have wanted. It never really worked for expeditions elsewhere, and mostly became something of a social club for European armed forces. That is why Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were allowed to become members, even though nothing was done to prepare for their defence in the event of a Russian threat to their borders. The same was true of Poland, less indefensible with its much deeper territory and significant armed forces but also the prime focus of Russian hostility. When it comes to Poland, the Russians just can't help themselves.

It was in that other world of "soft power" that has just ended that the admission of both Georgia and Ukraine to NATO was being rapidly prepared. Indeed, that was the strategic setting of Vladimir Putin's attack on Georgia's independence. Under Mr. Putin, Russian influence has been restored over the Central Asian republics and Moldova, but Ukraine is the big prize. Its territorial integrity is also threatened by a claim over the Crimea, in which Russia retains a fleet at Sevastopol, whose city authorities side with Russia and are subsidized out of the Moscow city budget. There is a large Russian minority, and also Ukrainians would like to join today's newly prosperous Russia.

There is also a new threat: Last Wednesday, the Russian news agency Interfax relayed the accusation that Russian warplanes flying in the "peace enforcement operation" in Georgia were shot down by S-200 and Tor anti-aircraft missiles supplied by Ukraine.

If Ukraine is allowed to enter NATO, all other members must be ready to send their troops to defend its borders - an outlandish notion for most of them. Would German troops go back to the Ukrainian front? Would the Italians? Or the British, for that matter? Yet, to refuse Ukraine's admission now would surely hand it over to Russian hegemony.

One way or the other, Europe's holiday from serious geopolitics is over.

Edward Luttwak is senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies

There are three key bits in Luttwak’s analysis:

1. "For all its weaknesses, the Russian Federation has all it needs to function as a Great Power, from a determined ruling elite to a vast nuclear arsenal, adequate military forces now being modernized, and a revitalized intelligence service. Hence, the reversion of Russia to the dangerous rules of Great Power politics compels all others to change their behaviour as well - it is not a game, and participation is not voluntary."

2. "Once the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO ... became something of a social club for European armed forces."

3. "One way or the other, Europe's holiday from serious geopolitics is over."

I take serious issue with him on one point. He says, ”Russian influence has been restored over the Central Asian republics ...” That is a Russian wet dream. In my opinion, based on my readings, Chinese influence is nearly absolute in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, it is stronger than Russia’s in Kazakhstan and it is probably the strongest of the three contenders (America, China and Russia) in Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Russia wants to regain influence and some measure of control over the Central Asian ‘Stans’ but the Chinese will fight them tooth and nail, threat for threat and bribe for bribe.


 
The MiG-25 force (NATO codename 'Foxbat') recorded the only Iraqi air-to-air kill during the war. A Mig-25PD shot down an American F/A-18 on the first night of the war. In another incident, an Iraqi Foxbat-E eluded eight American F-15s, firing three missiles at an EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission. In yet another incident, two MiG-25's approached a pair of F-15 Eagles, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then out-ran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the Foxbats; none of which could reach them.

Without getting too far off topic.  Above is the section from wikipedia that I read that caused me to think that the Mig-25 caused coalition forces significant problems, just thought I clarify. 

Before answering, don't use Iraqi or other foreign users of Russian weapons as an example.  The former USSR and current Russia, as a rule of thumb, didn't export the good stuff (with some exceptions, such as to the German Democratic Republic).

Indeed.  Given that some of the satellites were not the most loyal this made perfect sense.   

As a thought exercise, how would Russian forces fare?

I think in a protracted war it would largely be a question of keeping equipment running.  I give full credit and even the advantage to the Russians.  Russian equipment is built for a mind for practical use.    I will give an example.  The Russians don't bother ensuring that runways are clean and tidy, like the west.  To them this seems like a ridiculous notion as during a conflict  a runway will be littered with debris and so they construct their fighters to take this into account.  Russian fighters have a filter that comes down for take-offs and so they don't have to worry about wrecking the engines.  The west has a lot of gee-whiz kit that seems really cool, but is a maintenance nightmare.  This equipment works for a short war or in one which we don't have to worry about support elements and  bases being attacked. 
 
Edward -- Ret AF guy may have cited it -- but Stegner admitted using to bolster his claim that the Mig-25 has given "significant" problems.

Significant to me means a little more than an annoyance - and quite frankly that is what the Mig was -- it is a high speed interceptor - it fires and runs - runs damn fast.  I am rusty on my A/C Recognition so I appologize in advance for any errors.


Regarding Russian equipment -- can their tanks stand up to the M1A2 TUSK?  I highly highly doubt it -- the US has been at war since 2001 - and the US Army is a very lethal force when unleashed.  does mistake that it is the premier fighting force on the planet.  The National Guard has been combat tested with many doing a second or third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Yes they are strained -- but they still have the ability given national will to project a metric shitload of force.

I dont think McCain as President (I dont give Osama Obama much credence given the way the election is looking recently) would hesitate to confront the Bear if he felt it was the correct action, and I think the Russians know they cannot go blow to blow with the USofA.

I joined the Army in 1987 and my first intro was a Maj. slamming a C1A1 into a table staying "Your Job is to kill Russians..."  I have never doubted that statement to this day.  However I dont think Russia wants any more confrontation with the US either -- yes they want to be a player, but they know the larger threat is still the Islamofascist terrorist element of radical Islam, and they dont want to the US turning from that direction.


 
Maintenance nightmare ???
Umm... care to be more specific ???
The kit we deploy with is reliable and dependable... if it isn't, and you can't rely on it being there for you, then what's the point.
 
Infidel-6 said:
Regarding Russian equipment -- can their tanks stand up to the M1A2 TUSK?  I highly highly doubt it -- the US has been at war since 2001 - and the US Army is a very lethal force when unleashed.  does mistake that it is the premier fighting force on the planet.  The National Guard has been combat tested with many doing a second or third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Yes they are strained -- but they still have the ability given national will to project a metric shitload of force.
Their tanks stand up as well to the M1A2 TUSK as well as they did to the M1A1: same gun; however, the question is: How does the M1A2 TUSK stand up to the latest Russian Armour?  Probably very well.

I also agree that the US is a very lethal force, premier fighting force on the planet.  The Russians, however, have in their history destroyed the then premier fighting force on the planet: the Wehrmacht.  Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.

(Edited adjectives in final sentence for clarity)
 
This, date/time stamped at 11:46 EDT today and reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail website, indicates that flaccid rhetoric from our side is not doing what one might have hoped:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wgeorgia0820/BNStory/International/home
Russians dig in, not pull back, in Georgia

MIKE ECKEL
Associated Press

August 20, 2008 at 11:46 AM EDT

SACHKERE, Georgia — Russian forces on Wednesday built a sentry post just 50 kilometres from the Georgian capital, appearing to dig in to positions deep inside Georgia despite pledges to pull back to areas mandated by a cease-fire signed by both countries.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says his troops will complete their pullback by Friday, but few signs of movement have been seen other than the departure of a small contingent that have held the strategically key city of Gori.

A convoy of flatbed trucks carrying badly needed food aid to one of the areas most heavily hit by the fighting was waved through a checkpoint by Russian soldiers. But conditions throughout much of the country remained tense.

Russian soldiers were setting up camp Wednesday in at least three positions in west-central Georgia. Further east, soldiers were building a sentry post of timber on a hill outside Igoeti, 50 kilometres from Tbilisi and the closest point to the capital where Russian troops have maintained a significant presence.

A top Russian general, meanwhile, said Russia plans to construct nearly a score of checkpoints to be manned by hundreds of soldiers in the so-called “security zone” around the border with South Ossetia.

And at a military training school in the mountain town of Sachkhere, a Georgian sentry said he feared Russian forces will make good on their threat to return after a confrontation the day before.

The sentry, who gave his name only as Corporal Vasily, said 23 Russian tanks, APCS and heavy guns showed up at the base on Tuesday and demanded to be let in. The Georgians refused and the Russians left after a 30-minute standoff but vowed to return after blowing up facilities in the village of Osiauri, he said.

Georgia's Defense Ministry said Wednesday that Russian soldiers destroyed military logistics facilities in Osiauri, but the claim could not immediately be confirmed.

“We're trying not to provoke them; otherwise they'll stay here for five to six months,” Vasily said. He said the school itself had no heavy weapons or other significant strategic value, unlike the military base raided by Russians at Senaki, “where they even took the windows off the buildings.”

Russia sent its tanks and troops into Georgia after Georgia launched a heavy artillery barrage Aug. 7 on the separatist, pro-Russian province of South Ossetia. Fighting also has flared in a second Georgian breakaway region, Abkhazia.

The short war has driven tensions between Russia and the West to some of their highest levels since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

A cease-fire signed by the presidents of Russia and Georgia calls for Russian forces to pull back to the positions they held before Aug. 7. The cease-fire allows Russia to maintain troops in a zone extending about 4 miles into Georgia along the South Ossetian border.

The Kremlin said Medvedev told French President Nicolas Sarkozy by phone Tuesday that Russian troops would withdraw from most of Georgia by Friday — some to Russia, others to South Ossetia and a surrounding “security zone” set in 1999.

The White House has made clear that it expects Russia to move faster.

“Both the size and pace of the withdrawal needs to increase, and needs to increase sooner rather than later,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. “I don't think they need any more additional time.”

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian general staff, told a briefing Wednesday that Russia will build a double line of checkpoints totalling 18 in the zone, with about 270 soldiers manning the front-line posts. He said the security zone would be 40 kilometres from the strategically key city of Gori, but the city is significantly closer to the zone's presumed boundaries than that.

South Ossetia technically remains a part of Georgia, but Russia has said it will accept whatever South Ossetia's leaders decide about their future status — which is almost certain to be either a declaration of independence or a request to be incorporated into Russia.

Western leaders have stressed Georgia must retain its current borders.

A U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee delegation is travelling to Georgia to show solidarity with its government and assess the situation after fierce fighting between Georgian and Russian troops.

“This is a moment in history when it is vital for the world's democracies to stand in solidarity,” U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said in a statement before the trip.

Lieberman and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham were meeting with Georgian officials as well as with the ranking U.S. general on the ground.

U.S. Brig. Gen. Jon Miller arrived with a team Monday to assess humanitarian needs. About half of the displaced Georgians have taken refuge in schools, municipal offices and even condemned buildings in and around the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

The Igoeti checkpoint that the aid trucks crossed, about 30 miles west of Tbilisi, is one of the deepest penetrations made by Russian forces into Georgia after fighting broke out in South Ossetia nearly two weeks ago.

The Russian seizure of Gori and villages in the region has left thousands of people with scarce and uncertain food supplies. The nine flatbed trucks carrying aid from the World Food Program could bring them some small comfort for a few days.

On Tuesday, Russian forces drove out of the Black Sea port city of Poti in trucks and armored personnel carriers loaded with about 20 blindfolded and bound Georgian prisoners — identified by local officials as soldiers and police — and seized four U.S. Humvees. They reportedly were taken to a Russian-controlled military base nearby, and Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said Wednesday they still were being held.

Nogovitsyn, the Russian general, indicated his forces may not return the U.S. vehicles, which had been waiting at Poti to be shipped home after being used in recent U.S.-Georgia exercises.

Asked about U.S. demands that Russia return seized weaponry to the Georgian military, he said “we don't intend to give up trophies.”

Sen. Lieberman’s call for ‘solidarity’ is well taken but it, I fear, will be ”more honour’d in the breach than the observance.”

France, Germany, Italy and Spain, mainly, are more likely to put secure oil supplies – a very immediate problem – ahead of potential military threats. They can always hope that, as in he past, the USA will ride to their rescue.
 
wolfshadow said:
Hey Oligarch

Russians Revise death toll for South Ossetia from 1600 to 133:

Must be a problem with the decimal points.....
 
wolfshadow said:
Hey Oligarch
Russians Revise death toll for South Ossetia from 1600 to 133:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572635.stm
You're not baiting Oligarch, are you? 

Anyway, as they say, Truth is the first casualty of war.  But facts are facts.  Georgia launched into South Ossetia, which, of course, is part of Georgia.  Perhaps as much as Chinese Taipei is part of the People's Republic of China, albeit with no formal international recognition, but there it is.

Anyway, this looks to have the making of a large Scheiße-Sandwich, and I'm hoping not too many of us have to take a bite.
 
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
You're not baiting Oligarch, are you? 

Nawwww.  We just miss the contrasting viewpoints, so eloquently presented.

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
Anyway, this looks to have the making of a large Scheiße-Sandwich, and I'm hoping not too many of us have to take a bite.

Someone fairly high up the food chain here at NDHQ commented to me the other day (knowing I had served in Georgia) that this "is the most strategically significant thing going on in the world today".  I told him I'd kept my maps.
 
Haggis said:
Someone fairly high up the food chain here at NDHQ commented to me the other day (knowing I had served in Georgia) that this "is the most strategically significant thing going on in the world today".  I told him I'd kept my maps.
They laughed at me when I took the old Soviet-era ORBAT and doctrine books from the unit library (they were being earmarked for destruction).  They called me a "Cold War Dinosaur".  Who's laughing now?  Well, I'm not, because this isn't funny.


PS: I only kept those old books for my hobby: wargaming.
 
Haggis said:
Nawwww.  We just miss the contrasting viewpoints, so eloquently presented.
:rolf:

Oh, you mean the old "R2!"/"RNOT!" arguments? ;D
 
Back
Top