Press TV recently interviewed Webster Tarpley in a report Press TV entitled Russia will confront any US-led attack on Syria. In that interview, Tarpley mentioned an article in the rather reputable Russian newspaper Nezavisimaia Gazeta which, according to Tarpley, mentioned the preparation of one Motor-Rifle Division, one Airborne Division and one Spetsnaz Brigade for this operation, I looked up the article and I found it (here). Tarpley made it sound like Russia was about to dispatch these divisions and brigades into Syria to either crush the insurgency, or prevent NATO from invading, or both. Tarpley said: “Putin is a deterrent” and “how he will respond to an attack in Syria, nobody knows how“. This is in fact not at all what the article said.
What the article does say is the following (main points):
a) Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the anti-terrorist element of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are working together on a new plan to deploy Russian forces outside Russia’s borders.
b) Syria is, according to anonymous sources, one of the countries in which Russian forces “could” be deployed in the future. However, such a deployment could only happen with the authorization of the UN Security Council.
c) Special training programs have been implemented in some Airborne, Spetsnaz, Ground Forces and Naval Infantry units including special training in the norms of international humanitarian law and language courses.
d) The two Chechen special battalions “West” and “East”, which performed with excellence in South Lebanon in 2006-2007 and in the war against Georgia in 2008 are now also receiving special training to be deployed outside Russia.
Now, does that look to you like preparations to join the civil war in Syria or to fight NATO? Of course not!
What is really taking place is that the Russian military has been given the mission to prepare a mix of various military forces for operations abroad, mainly for possible CSTO and SCO operations. What we are talking about here is operations in the “near abroad” and not at all long-distance interventions.
People often assume that the Russian Airborne Forces are something like the US 82nd or 101st divisions. They are not. Nor are they anything like the Marine Expeditionary Brigades. Unlike their US “counterparts”, the Russian AB Forces are fully mechanized, and come with their own armor and artillery, and that means that they are far, far, heavier. Their main purpose is not to invade some island like Grenada or or be a tripping-wire like the the 82nd did during Desert Shield. Russian Airborne forces are ideally suited to operate at a battalion-regimental level in the operational depth in the enemy’s rear, and they are designed to hold on to some strategic location until the main, ground, forces arrive. They were never designed to be sent far into the strategic depth and to operate independently for more than a short period of time. As for the Spetsnaz, they are even more specialized, mainly as an reconnaissance/intelligence/diversionary force.
The factual reality is that Russia does not have the power projection capability to send enough forces into Syria to threaten a NATO operation. In fact, such power projection has never been a goal of Russian force planning or strategic thinking. The Russian armed forces are, by their very nature, as is clearly demonstrated by their structure, defensive forces whose maximal offensive capability is limited to the near abroad. This is not a political statement of intention, this is simply what the structure of the Russian military clearly proves.
Now, it is true that Russia did send Airborne and Spetsnaz units to Bosnia and Kosovo, but only as a part of a much larger international operation and it is possible that this is exactly what is being prepared for here: a UNSC mandated operation of peace enforcement under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Now, let me make something clear here: I am not, repeat, not, saying that Russia is about to back-stab Syria, like it did with the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo or like it did with Libya. All I am saying is that Russia is preparing for any contingency which might include a military role in Syria under UNSC authority as part of a multi-national operation.
Does that make sense?
Yes, of course it does! The Russian political leadership will have to take the decision of whether such a Russian participation in a military operation in Syria makes sense or not, but the military does have to be prepared for such a contingency. The fact that they are looking into it does not at all mean that Putin is about to betray Syria or hand it over to NATO.
As I have said many times before, Russia will oppose a US/NATO aggression against Syria at the UNSC. It is not impossible that with a lot of rock solid guarantees from the US and NATO Russia might agree to some kind of Chapter VII operation in Syria if, and only if, that means that the mandate is extremely limited and precise. Russia will not acquiesce to such vague and dangerous formulations as “all measures needed to protect the civilian population”. Unlike Bosnia or Kosovo, I don’t even believe that Russia would agree to participate in US/NATO lead operation. But a truly multinational one with, say, a meaningful Chinese military participation, and national sectors of responsibility? Maybe, that I would not categorically exclude.
What about the two Chechen battalions? Allow me a short historical digressions here.
These ethnically Chechen battalions, mainly formed of ex-insurgents from the Iamadaev clan, are now formally part of the 42 Guards Motor-Rifle Division based in Chechnia. The battalions have a rather good military record and a, shall we say, “checkered” record in terms of being law-abiding citizens. Initially, their role was central to the Russian concept that Chechens should be in charge of Chechnia, but rapidly another, more interesting, concept began to be floated: the creation of purely Muslim forces to deal with any conflicts involving Muslim parties.
This is very controversial in Russia. The Russian military has always been profoundly multi-national, from the very early Russian history to the Soviet era, and to create “ethnic units” is something rather atypical for Russian military thinking. The one famous exception is Cossack forces, but these are not so much ethnically distinct as politically, culturally and organizationally distinct (though not different in the sense of “alien”). But historically, this was the exception which proved the rule.
The wars in Chechnia saw the parallel creation of Chechen units and Cossack units (initially they fought each other, of course). The Cossack units still exist, but really do not, I believe, play an important role in Russian force planning or strategic thinking. These Chechen battalions represent something possibly much more complex.
While the Russian military does not comment too much on this topic, it is quite evident that “Muslim” units in the Russian military could be far more acceptable in some environments than primarily Russian and Orthodox Christian units. Furthermore, by being able to find a “common language” with the locals, “Muslim” units could also be an excellent source of human intelligence.
Anyway, whatever may be the case, these Chechen battalions have not been disbanded after the end of the Chechen wars and, furthermore, the military command has praised them for their excellent military performance. If they can be convinced to become truly law-abiding, disciplined, and well-integrated, sub-units of larger Russian military formations they could form the basis for a “Muslim” force which could be most useful in certain circumstances. Oh, and did I mention that these Chechens truly hate the Wahabis, having seen them in their own land? The know these al-Qaeda types personally and well, many having been conned by them in the past, and they would love nothing more than to eliminate as many of these crazed murders as they can. Russian very much share such feelings.
I am not sure that this Chechen-battalion experiment will be a success in the long term. It is possible that it will, I just honestly don’t know. As any radical departure from the normal practice, it is full of dangers and opportunities. Come to think about it, maybe I should also mention something else: there is a little-known quasi-precedent to these Chechen battalions during the Soviet era.
Just before the invasion of Afghanistan, the Soviets formed a special “Muslim battalion” though it was not, of course, officially designated that way. It was initially called the “154th separate special purpose detachment” and it was staffed only by Uzbeks, Turkmens and Tadjiks. Since a Spetsnaz detachment is roughly the equivalent of a battalion in the regular ground forces, the unit was soon nicknamed the “Muslim Battalion”. This first detachment actually participated in the initial Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, dressed in Afghan uniforms, and in possession of Afghan identity papers. Later, four more such detachments were formed, including the the 173rd and 177th. As far as I know, all of these units were disbanded after the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan.
I referred to these “battalions” only as quasi-precedents because while they were called “Muslim” they were not truly Muslim at all. The idea behind these special ethnic detachments was to mislead and trick the Afghans and not to openly engage a truly Muslim unit as part of an official and larger Russian military operation. The idea being floated around today is very different: to truly entrust delicate operations in Muslim territory to Muslim units and try to let theses units operate with as much autonomy as practically possible.
In conclusion I want to say the following: folks like Tarpley are doing everybody a big disservice when they entertain a pipe-dream of Russia militarily protecting Syria from a US/NATO military aggression. That is simply something Russia cannot do, and therefore, will not do and, I believe, should not do.
As far as I recall, all the post WWII US/NATO operations were preceded by all sorts of delusional grandstanding and predictions about how the “invaders would be crushed” or about how Russia will intervene. The Serbs committed that mistake (twice!) the Libyans did it too, the Iraqis most definitely tricked themselves into believing their own propaganda, and now there is a group of pro-Syrian activists who hope to see Russia protecting them from Uncle Shmuel.
Guys – it ain’t gonna happen!
Russia is not the world policeman (and neither is China). There is only one country arrogant and reckless enough to believe that it must be militarily involved in every single conflict on the planet. The rest of them much prefer a mid to long term strategy of a careful use of soft power. This is the main reason why the big US/Israeli empire is on the decline and the BRICS countries on the rise.
The Saker
This is not a political statement of intention, this is simply what the structure of the Russian military clearly proves.
They can, but it’s not worth it.
@Snoopy de DELL:
No, my friend, they cannot. Ok. they can try to airlift as much troops and gear as they can, they can even try to deliver even more weight be sea, but NATO can *easily* stop them, and the Russians would not be able to support their forces once in place anyway.
Look what happened to the Airborne company who made it to the Pristina airport in Kosovo. Short of starting WWIII NATO the Russians could not maintain it there.
So no, the Russian *CANNOT*.
Its also not worth it, true…
The Cold War mentality is taking quite some time to disappear. One of its characteristics is found on the thought, shared both by anti- and pro-Russians, that Russia is/wants to be a rival to the US. Russia has a very powerful military, and in some areas it is still the only country able to keep pace with the US in terms of development of weapons; but it is undeniable that Russia can’t and doesn’t want to be a global military power.
Conceivably the SCO might in time develop into a military alliance capable of confronting NATO globally. This would depend on the growth of the Chinese and Russian economies and their success in developing high technology. You’d be talking decades rather than years for this to happen however.
Plus the SCO is more of an alliance of convenience than anything else and the Russians are bound to feel uneasy about China. With China’s vastly greater population it can’t be an alliance of equals. The bear will always be in the dragon’s shadow. I suspect Russia is wary of its Chinese ally and will try to develop alliances with India and Europe to counterbalance the Chinese.
The SCO – CSTO has done a good job of reasserting Russia in post Soviet space but that’s all it can do for the foreseable future.
@Robert: the Russians are bound to feel uneasy about China. With China’s vastly greater population it can’t be an alliance of equals.
In the 1990 – yes. But nowadays? Tomorrow?
I am not so sure about that. First, militarily Russia is far more powerful and it also has the huge advantage of strategic depth: key Russian infrastructures are far away from China whereas key Chinese infrastructures are all very much within Russian reach.
Then China does not have many good neighbors. At the very least it needs to worry about the USA, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and India, plus the DPRK and Pakistan as possible sources of instability. And remember, the Vietnamese beat the crap out of the Chinese in 1979. Big army does not mean good army.
China also have much more severe regional issues.
In contrast, the only likely foreign enemy to Russia is Georgia, assuming they did not learn their lesson in 08.08.08, and separatism if finished in all of Russia.
As for China’s size, it is as much a handicap as it is an advantage. The ratio of natural resources per capita is so much higher in Russia that it makes it far more flexible than the huge China.
Right now, the major Chinese “threat” to Russia are illegal immigrants, and that is not much of a threat, I would say.
All in all, I would say that Russia packs far more power, both potential and actual, than China. Finally, none of that matters very much because both sides have nothing to gain and all to loose from any kind of problems. They are in fact wonderfully complimentary to each other and all the signs are that they are in the process of building a very long term strategic partnership.
My 2cts. cheers!
I don’t know, Saker, I agree more with Robert. While I am sure the Chinese understand the advantages of a long-term strategic alliance with Russia, their huge demography may push them towards the only place full of natural resources and with scarce population: Siberia and the Russian Far East. Russia needs to keep an eye on this, and take all measures possible to increase its population and settle people in its Asiatic territories.
Robert Saker is correct about Russia/China.
The Siberian oil/gas fields are northeast of Lake Baikal and there are no roads between them and China. They are out of China’s military reach. A Chinese amphibious force would never make it to the oil/gas fields on Sakhalin. And the Chinese know it. That’s why the Chinese gvt maintains excellent relations with the Russian gvt.
Those relations will only get better because the Anglosphere believes that the best way to influence Russia is to maintain a constant barrage of insults and demands.
@Everybody: I think that this idea of China as a threat to Siberia is a canard. Yes, the Chinese have a huge population and yes, they have immense energy needs. But that does not at all mean that the Chinese have to somehow seize Siberia! China is not the USA where the only and default option is military intervention. The Chinese need energy and by far the cheapest and safest option for them is to simply have the Russians extract it for them and deliver it to their doorstep, which the Russians will be delighted to do for them. I bet you that even if the Russians *gave* Siberia to China for free, the Chinese would ask them to please stay and continue working on extracting Siberia’s vast resources.
The Chinese have two options really: to have the Russian bear obliterate their entire society into a stack of smoldering ruins or to have the Russians as their personal pizza delivery boy bringing them their “petrochemical pizza” right at their doorstep. Which do you think that they will choose?
Also, while Russia is growing economically, it becomes a fantastic market for China, in particular in the context of a collapsing USA and Europe. So not only will the Chinese get their energy from Russia, they will also sell their ‘Walmart goods’ to the Russian market which will accept them with gratitude.
Lastly, Russia is also interested in a partnership with China and therefore, should China ever get into a crisis with the USA, Taiwan, India or any other party, Russia will “cover the back” of China.
I think that we are far too influenced by Western history. This is Asia, and both Russia and China have a long history of being very, very, skilled at Asian politics. The very last thing either party will ever do is act like some dumb cowboy and try to invade each other, if only because of the fact that geography makes both of this countries totally un-invadible.
One more thing: look at Kazakhstan – an amazing and often overlooked country with some really amazing people. The Kazakhs are very smartly playing it all very low key while in reality building excellent ties with China and, even more so, Russia. They also want stability above all else, and then good commerce and peace. As far as I am concerned, I have great hopes that Russia, China and Kazakhstan will continue to build a huge territory of stability and trade which will gradually entice more and more smaller nations to join it.
@Everybody: I want to add a small follow-up to my previous comment.
I think that Russia’s future is very much in Asia. Frankly, both Europe and the USA offer little or no hope of collaboration or development for Russia. What rkka calls the “Anglosphere” (love that expression!) is sclerotic, deeply immersed into a devastating economic and social crisis, and is run by a plutocracy which viscerally hates Russia. What is the point, really?
Look at it from the Russia point of view: look at the Balts, with their overtly racist and Russophobic ideology; look at the Polacs, who dream only of being the first in line to brown-nose the USA; look at the rest of Central Europe – Rumsfeld’s “new Europe”, which is anti-Russian to the core; what about the EU, which is oh so busy trying to save the EU banking order and dealing with immigration (a lost cause if I have ever seen one); look at the USA, run by AIPAC and Wall Street. Why would Russia ever find any of them attractive? Oh sure, they will sell them gas and petroleum, and they will smile at official receptions, and speak of a “community of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” when in Paris. But in reality, Russia’s future is in Asia, with partners like Kazakhstan, China and India. Countries which have far more to offer and which do not share the sclerotic and maniacal desire of the West to return to yet another Cold War.
I would even say that Russia and China have a long term mission that they, and only they, can truly accomplish – to slowly press the US military out of the Asian-Pacific theater and to replace the US imperial order with a multi-national Asian security system.
Historically, the ‘Anglosphere’s mindset’ was formed on two islands: the British Isles and the USA (protected on all sides from invasion). So the Anglos have almost always fought their wars far away from home. Russia and China are land-powers, who know all too well that the enemy can *drive* to their capital city. They are far more acutely aware of how devastating wars can be and they do not have the typically Anglo sense of arrogant impunity. This is why they will not seek to establish an imperial order with one big policeman in charge, but a multi-polar system in which every country’s security depends on the security of every other country.
At least this is what I believe. Feel free to disagree, I have a proven record of being wrong ;-)
Cheers!
i liked your last sentence on how, in a multipolar system, your security depends on others’ security. where can i read more on this?
@anonymous: i liked your last sentence on how, in a multipolar system, your security depends on others’ security. where can i read more on this?
Actually, I heard Putin explain that in a recent interview but I have listened to so many of those recently that I cannot remember which one it was. If I am not mistaken, he also made this same point in a recent article in reference to the US anti-missile system in Europe where he explained that the security of the USA cannot be achieved at the cost of others being threatened, that security is by definition a collective phenomenon.
Sorry about not giving you a precise reference, but I am sure that the pointer about Putin is correct.
HTH!
Cheers :-)
“If I am not mistaken, he also made this same point in a recent article in reference to the US anti-missile system in Europe where he explained that the security of the USA cannot be achieved at the cost of others being threatened, that security is by definition a collective phenomenon.”
Back in the late 1930s, Soviet foreign minister Litvinov told everyone who would listen “Security is indivisible.” Neville Chamberlain preferred “Germany and England as two pillars of European peace and buttresses against Communism.”
You will recall that did not work out well for Neville. It does show that the Anglosphere only cooperates with Russia when there are no other options.
I really hope that Saker and rkka are correct about Russia and China. I also see a brilliant future for both countries if they manage to form a long term strategic partnership in all fields. But what I fear is that China, pressed by a too big population, will try to conquer Siberia not to get oil and gas fields, but more basic needs as water and agricultural fields – Southern Asiatic Russia has a lot of these, and is scarsely populated. This is what I fear, and I hope it never happens. I hope Russia succeeds in overcoming its demographic crisis and in attracting people to Siberia and Far East – these are the only measures that can assure that a Chinese takeover will never happen.
the context for litvinov’s argument:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=eKZ-jXeq9s0C&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Peace+is+indivisible,+litvinov&source=bl&ots=kuHorBhMKm&sig=3q-Tk4ONejzmjJyOJCJkBlndGjY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=stzdT5ynAsT76gGyysGwCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Peace%20is%20indivisible%2C%20litvinov&f=false
i’m not sure, though, that lenin’s position was about deliberately aggravating relations between capitalist powers. my reading of lenin is that he wanted to turn the imperialist war between states into civil wars between classes, especially in germany and france.
I wonder about the link between litvinov’s maxim and Stalin’s policy of ‘socialism in one country’. or kautsky’s theory of ‘ultra-imperialism’.
It was driven by Hitler, not Marxist theory. Adolpf had objectives in both the East and the West. Stalin and Litvinov understood this. Chamberlain thought Adolpf could be talked out of his Western objectives.
@Carlo According to Anatole Karlin Russia has come out of its demographic crisis
http://darussophile.com/2012/05/05/russias-demography-continues-to-improve-rapidly-in-first-3-months-of-2012/