The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon is reporting:
Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, received the Secretary General of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Nayef Hawatmeh, accompanied by Political Bureau member of the Front, Ali Faisal, in the presence of Hizbullah Political Council member, Al-Hajj Hassan Hodroj.
They discussed the risks and challenges threatening our region and aimed at the Arab and Islamic nation, today specifically manifested in the “Israeli” brutal aggression on the Gaza Strip with its daily crimes and massacres against our steadfast, patient and oppressed people.
Hawatmeh stressed that “this aggression is the result of the ‘Israeli’ expansionist policy aimed at writing off the Palestinian national rights.” He also stressed “the need to stop absurd negotiations going on for seven years now without results”, deducing that “we and our people have no choice but resistance, our slogan today is ‘we would rather give up our souls than give up our weapons’.”
He also said that there is “a necessity to set up a unified operation room and a joint resistance-factions political leadership.”
Those present expressed full confidence that “the Palestinian resistance factions who proved efficiency and ability to repel the aggression and abort its military objectives, will, with their unity and maturity, be able to fight the political battle, with a high degree of competence to stop aggression, lift the siege and open the crossings, in the context of continuing along with the Palestinian people in their legitimate national struggle and triumphant jihad record, to liberate their land, obtain their freedom and sovereignty and fully restore their legitimate national rights.”
hI SAKER
Thanks for your answer about the (im)possibility of Russia as an honst broker.
The ironic thing is that it seems, tome at least, that stop the foots os Isral is very much in Russian self interest, given the multiple links between zionist and neocons. Besides, what advantage could Russia get in the consolidation of Isral as regional hegemon that lies at the herat of the zio project?
REgards
@anonymous: the things is not Israel per se, but the fact that Russia is already a favorite target of Jews in the West (USA and Europe) and that Russian Jews such as Khodorkovsky or Berezovsky (and the rest of the so-called ‘Oligarchs’) are using their connections to the Jewry in the West to trash Europe.
Then, there is the fact that the USA is still a major power which Russia is NOT going to antagonize for the benefit of the Palestinians or anyone else. Always keep in mind my example with the Corleone family: they only do what is in THEIR interests.
Remember how Russians under Yeltsin sold out the Serbs…
No, unless *RUSSIAN* national interests are at stake, Russia will not openly oppose the USA.
What Russia might do is quietly let the USA sink into the molasses of the various wars the Neocons have started and *not help* them too much. Like in Afghanistan where the Russians still allow the transit of NATO supplies through Russia, but where Russia is quite content to see the US and NATO get stuck in a loose/loose situation.
Basically, the Russian are quite happy to see the US Empire slowly but surely collapse (they really *hate* the USA), but they will not overtly accelerate this process unless the Empire starts messing with them (like in Georgia this summer).
HTH
VS
OT
BUSH STOOPS FOR OLMERT WHO PISSES ON HIM
Russia, like any country, *should* do what is in its interests, so long is it is not violating basic principles of law.
Russia has no interest in standing up for the Palestinians. The benefits are few and the costs are great.
That said, so long as the U.S. is actively undermining Russian interests in the Balkans, Baltics and Cacauses as well as central Asia, then Russia may have an interest in shifting the balance of power in the mideast. If for no other reason, then as a leverage point.
Which brings up another point. Why does the U.S. antagonize BOTH Russia AND Iran? I mean, if Iran is such a great threat, shouldn’t the U.S. cut a deal with Russia to enlist their cooperation?
Alternatively, If Russia is the big threat, why not get Iran on your side? I guess the empire simply doesn’t do compromise.
More on topic, the article seems to indicate that Hizb has planned ahead. If Hamas falls in Gaza Then Hizb intends to rally the resistance in Lebanon. Abbas and his cronies will remain illigitimate in the eyes of Palestinians and Israel’s attempts to cut a deal with him will appear like the farce it is. I really do think that both Iran and Hizb are lead by strategic thinkers who plan for the long haul. Meaning decades.
Off Topic again,
What do you think of Russia’s air defense systems? Could they be a serious challenge to the IAF or USAF? Assuming Iran were armed with the best Russian systems, would they be any safer from attack? Or has the west already come up with counter measures?
@Lysander:Why does the U.S. antagonize BOTH Russia AND Iran? I mean, if Iran is such a great threat, shouldn’t the U.S. cut a deal with Russia to enlist their cooperation?
Because the SOBs running the Empire are both too stupid and too arrogant. Just like Hitler was in the bad old days…
What do you think of Russia’s air defense systems?
Funny what you would ask that. I always think of this as THE big secret. Russian air defense systems are *awesome*, vastly superior to anything in the West, and that is true on every level, from the battalion level to the army level. There are simply no equivalent in the West to systems like the SA-15 or S-300V or even the Buk and many others. I am confident that if Iran was armed with the best Russian systems it would be a huge headache for the USA. But that is not a real option. Here is why:
To fully perform as they would in the Russian context, these systems would need to be truly integrated and that is a HUGELY expensive and time consuming goal. It would take YEARS to really deploy a Russian-style air defense system to protect most of Iran. So even the sale of a number of top systems, say some SA-15 does not do the trick.
I am not saying that Iran should not attempt to modernize its obsolete air defenses, but only that the best and cheapest way to frustrate the US air power is not to offer a target: camouflage, deception, fake targets, dispersion, mobility, etc. are very effective in particular when combined with some good air defense tactics (even with older hardware).
But don’t think of air defense as “weapon A” versus “weapon B”. Its more like one highly integrated and complex system composed of numerous layers versus an equally complex system composed of very different and mutually supporting airborne platforms. For example, so-called “stealth” aircraft work much better if they are supported by powerful electronic warfare (jamming) electronic countermeasures aircraft. You might literally have hundreds of aircraft in the air at the same time organized groups working together.
It depends on many factors beyond only hardware.
I hope that this answers your question adequately.
Cheers,
VS
PS: I have seen the reports about the Israelis having already developed countermeasures to the S-300PMU1. That is bullshit. Ignore it.
VS,
I remember reading some time ago that Russia has a big “blind spot” in its air defense systems in the Far East. The authors who professed to be experts were saying that Russia would be very vulnerable to any aerial attack (bombers? cruise missiles?) from the East. Do you think that is true?
-Q
@Q: oh yes, there were/are many of such blind spots in the Russian air defense system. That is a function of budget and of the years of destruction and chaos under Eltisn. When I was saying that Russian air defense systems were the top of the line, I was referring to the Russian model of integrating army, division, regiment and battalion air defense systems with airborne capabilities into one integrated air defense network. That, and the superiority of Russian systems on each level to their Western equivalents (when they exist). But I was *in no way* saying that Russia had actually managed to fully deploy such a system in the present days. Sure, the Moscow Military District and the Leningrad Military District are probably in the best shape while the Siberian and Far East Military Districts are probably in a worse shape. So Russia does not have a “360 degree” protection covering all borders anymore. But keep in mind that it is doubtful that Russia would really need such a capability. Even without air defenses Russia has more then enough other assets to present a very credible deterrent to any attack. The Russians are quite aware of that and this is why they are not even trying to give an ironclad air defense system along all their borders.
I hope that this answers your question more fully.
VS
@Saker: “Remember how Russians under Yeltsin sold out the Serbs…»
I seem to have missed the fact that Russians sold out the Serbs. Could you be more specific on that. I understand it’s off the topic but I’m really amazed by this news.
As for Russia to become an “honest broker” in the truce process. You have to be realistic – Israel wouldn’t let that happen. Neither will the US. They just can’t afford anyone especially Russia interfere in the “peace process” which has been led by Washington up to what we’ve got there now.
What will probably happen now – Obama would jump in and being a world’s only hope would try to firstly stop the war. And if Israel will play along he may get a really huge credit for that.
There is no room for Russia there.
@alibi:I seem to have missed the fact that Russians sold out the Serbs. Could you be more specific on that.
Sure, it happened on many levels and in many phases. First, Russia did vote for vague, open-ended and ambiguous UN resolutions which were clearly introduced by the USA in order to isolate and eventually attack Yugoslavia. Then, when Milosevic agreed to betray the Bosnian Serbs and participate in the blockade against them the Russians supported Milosevic. Then the Russians supported sactions against Serbia once Milosevic had outlived his utility for the USA. And finally, when the Russia paratroopers by their own initiative brilliantly moved to Pristina in Kosovo, the Russians failed to support them and eventually pulled them out, thereby betraying the Serbs in Kosovo too.
I highly reccommend the articles of Lieutenant-General Ivashev on these topics.
HTH, kind regards,
VS
PS: I consider that Eltin’s regime was the most anti-Russian regime in power since Trotsky and Lenin. So when I say that “the Russians” betrayed Serbia, I really mean “the Russophobic clique of Etlisn and his oligarchs betrayed Serbia AND RUSSIA”.
I hope his clarifies my position on that.
Saker, do you think if Putin/Medvedev had been in charge in the 90’s That Russia would have been more forceful, or was Yeltsin’s betrayal a function of Russia’s relative weakness at the time?
Just curious
P.S. I do understand that Yeltin was probably Clinton’s boy in Moscow.
@lysander: I honestly don’t know the answer to this one. My suspicion is that the folks behind Putin and Medvedev sort of let the situation rot a lot in order to assume a more “consensual” change of power in the Kremlin. The people who replaced the Eltsin clique clearly succeeded in deceiving the oligarchs and their supporters by pushing for the (presumably) ‘weak and obedient’ “newcomer” Putin only to accomplish a fantastic “coup” inside the Kremlin and overthrow the “Eltsin people” and, thereby, giving the boot to the US puppets in the Kremlin and cutting off the USA any meaningful channels of influence in Russia. Amazing really. How in less than 6 months the USA when from THE determining power in Russia into almost total irrelevancy.
Yet another absolutely stunning failure of the bloated, useless, stupid and incompetent US intelligence community…
Saker
To sell the Serbs out The Russians must’ve had some sort of a defence agreement with them first, and then sell them by failing to oblige. Sort of like the Brits had with the Czechs back in 1948, or the US sold Argentina during the Falklands war.
Russia has never had any defence pacts with Serbia. Yugoslavia has not been a Warsaw Pact member. Russia and Serbia had no any special relationship apart from both being mainly Orthodox Christians. But Greeks are Orthodox too, should Russia have send troops when Turkey invaded Cyprus then?
About moral duties. Russia fought a war with Ottoman Empire way back when Turkey was a world super power. The sole reason for the war was to support Serbian and Bulgarian uprising. Russia won the war and Serbia got it’s independency after a few hundreds years of Turkish occupation.
Somehow during Russia’s preparation for the war the Serbs managed to sign a separate truce agreement with the Turks – so the Russians fought together with Bulgarians.
During the Kosovo crisis Russia did what it could considering that it just went bankrupt announced itself a default state and was barely surviving on the International Monetary Fund money. It wasn’t about to go to war with NATO to save the Serbs again. And there was no other way to stop the US. After the war started it was up to Serbs to fight back for their country. But Milosevich didn’t feel like fighting. Having all his army intact he gave in just because Russia couldn’t help this time. NATO had exhausted all means except for a ground operation. And a ground operation was exactly what the Serbs needed. NATO destroyed all major roads and bridges which they would need to build back if they wanted to move in. The country was ideal for guerrilla war. The NATO members were desperately reluctant to start a ground operation. The Serbs could and would fight a good war and then they could bargain their terms for a truce. But since Russia sold them out by not sending the cavalry they decided not to fight but sign a humiliating agreement and blame it all on Russia. Milosevich had dragged his country in that mess but didn’t have the guts to pull it out of it. The Serbs had about two thousand killed during the bombing, their cities had been destroyed and they just gave in without a fight which they could and would win.
But of course it’s all Russia’s fault.
@Saker: “And finally, when the Russia paratroopers by their own initiative brilliantly moved to Pristina in Kosovo, the Russians failed to support them and eventually pulled them out, thereby betraying the Serbs in Kosovo too»
I don’t know if it was a “brilliant move” by the Russians. What was the objective of that move? Sending 200 boys with only light arms with an order to take an airfield in Pristina. And then what. Was then any plan to send a support for them? Was there any possibility to send a support for them? What were the Generals smoking?
@alibi: the entire first part of your argument can be summed up as follows: under the Czars Russia had a foreign policy in which aid for fellow Orthodox Christians was a priority. In the post-communist Russia no such priority exists. I agree with that.
But then you make an outright bizarre comment:
But of course it’s all Russia’s fault.
Did I ever say that? Let’s check:
when Milosevic agreed to betray the Bosnian Serbs and participate in the blockade against them the Russians supported Milosevic.
Looks to me like I am clearly placing blame on Milosevic for betraying the Bosnian Serbs (and the Kosovo Serbs too, by the way).
The move to Pristina.
The 200 boys were 200 PARATROOPERS who had the wits to seize an AIRPORT for Pete’s sake. Not only that, but they had the active support of the local population (the Albanians had fled the place at that time). And there was not a single NATO solider in sight at that time. I say that 200 Russian paratroopers can hold a position against a full NATO regiment. The problem were not the paratroopers, but the Eltsin regime who refused to reinforce them by, for example, sending more paratroopers and special forces in civilian aircraft just as had been done in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Anyway,
Where I do fully agree with you is in your assessment of the outcome of the NATO air campaign: it achieved *nothing* (other than killing civilians, of course), and the Serbs could have fought, but Milosevic decided to (yet again) betray his fellow Serbs and fold (no doubt he was lured into this betrayal by a promise that he would be allowed to stay in control of rump Yugoslavia).
So no, I do NOT blame Russia for it all, not in the least. I blame Milosevic and Eltsin for it all. I blame those communist mother****ers for starting wars they don’t have the will to see through, I blame them from idiotically negotiating with their enemies (US and NATO) and I blame them for always being eager to betray the simple people who are willing to fight.
The Serbs in Croatia and in Bosnia were more than willing to fight, the Serbs in Kosovo were more than willing to fight, the Russian paratroopers were more than willing to fight and they were all betrayed by the commie scumbags in Belgrade and Moscow.
I had friends who fought in the RSK Army, I knew a Russian general who went to fight in Bosnia as a simple volunteer (we told each other good-bye in Moscow before his departure), during the Croatian invasion of the Krajina I was in contact with UNPROFOR commanders on the ground who clearly saw what was happening and all their testimonies concur: the Serbs in the Krajina, in Bosnia and in Kosovo were sold out be the commies in Belgrade and Moscow.
I do not blame “Russia” as there was not real “Russia” out there. This is why a clearly wrote:
I consider that Eltin’s regime was the most anti-Russian regime in power since Trotsky and Lenin. So when I say that “the Russians” betrayed Serbia, I really mean “the Russophobic clique of Etlisn and his oligarchs betrayed Serbia AND RUSSIA”.
@Saker: “The problem were not the paratroopers, but the Eltsin regime who refused to reinforce them by, for example, sending more paratroopers and special forces in civilian aircraft just as had been done in Czechoslovakia in 1968»
I don’t really see how reinforcement could be sent to fight against NATO troops using airspace totally controlled by NATO air forces.
Saker: “I blame Milosevic and Eltsin for it all…»
I detest Eltsin pretty strongly but in this case I don’t really see what was done wrong by him. Seriously you couldn’t expect NATO to listen to what Russia had to say at all. Russia did all usual moves any insignificant international player would have done – it frozen NATO-Russia relationship, sent out all NATO representatives, it managed to get included in the commission that prepared the truce agreement which was really amazing considering what Russia was at the time. Chernomyrdin wasn’t a brightest politic in Russia but it didn’t really matter. Nobody was gonna listen to him anyway. Definitely not the Americans. The agreement was in fact pretty decent considering the situation. Russia couldn’t make Milosevic to fight if he didn’t want to. And if you don’t fight you sign what you told to. Milosevic got upset by the agreement but seriously – what he had expected? He lost the war lost it absolutely and unconditionally, and when you loose your war you accept what you told. I don’t see what could have been done for the Serbs except for Milosevic to shoot himself and pass the leadership to someone who would have cared about his country.
@Saker: “But of course it’s all Russia’s fault» Did I ever say that? Let’s check…»
No – you never said that, I’m sorry.
@Saker: “I do not blame “Russia” as there was not real “Russia” out there»
I don’t blame you for blaming Russia in general – Russia is guilty of many vices and it’s got plenty to be blamed for I just really don’t see what Russia or Eltsin, or whoever else realistically could have done in that situation at that time legally, or military.
Cheers
@Saker: “the entire first part of your argument can be summed up as follows: under the Czars Russia had a foreign policy in which aid for fellow Orthodox Christians was a priority. In the post-communist Russia no such priority exists. I agree with that»
What I was trying to say was – Russia helped the fellows Orthodox Christians when it could, but in 1999 it couldn’t. The very existence of Russia as a state was in doubt. It still had a second Chechen war looming, it had it’s regions looking to scatter out, it was broke financially militarily and politically. It had nothing to offer to the Serbs. It looked like out of the whole world only the Serbs hadn’t realised that and instead of fighting for their country they kept expecting Russia to do wonders. Well it just wasn’t able to anymore.
@Saker: “I say that 200 Russian paratroopers can hold a position against a full NATO regiment»
Remember what happened with the 300 Spartans. They just got slaughtered by arrows. Persians simply didn’t want to waste their people fighting the Greeks.
@alibi:
I don’t really see how reinforcement could be sent to fight against NATO troops using airspace totally controlled by NATO air forces.
That is *precisely* why it probably could have been done. And I don’t even mean with military IL-76, but by using civilian marked aircraft *mixed in* with military aircraft escorted by SU-27s (at least that would have been my recommendation). Can you imagine the chaos that would have triggered. But that, of course, would not have been enough. Since the USA and NATO had no UNSC resolution authorizing their military action, and since these powers had decided to act on their own in support of the “spirit” of previous UN resolutions, Russian could have done exactly the same saying that it wanted to stop the “genocide in Kosova” while promising a press conference explaining it all within 24 hours (enough time to pull this one off). There were other options available, such as creating an insurrection among the Serbian forces in Kosovo who had only endured the NATO bombing to be told by Milosevic to suddenly drive off the Serbia. I assure you that by the time NATO would have figured what the heck was going on there would have been enough of a “fait accompli” on the ground to change the equation. Of course, the Empire would threaten Russia with fire and brimstone, but that would have been hot air. Let’s face it: nobody in Europe, besides the Brits, has any stomach left to fight Russia; not after WW2…
Remember what happened with the 300 Spartans
First, the Spartans were fighting the Persians, not Western sissies. Second, the Spartans were not VDV and unlike the Spartans, this is exactly the kind of mission the VDV is created for, but you know that better than I, don’t you? :-)
But, as I said, I would not have expected the paratroopers to do it all on their own. However, being the “precipitating element’ for the Serbs was, at that time, a real option.
It’s good to see that you are so optimistic about the Russian military forces. Considering that you are professionally trained military specialist I can assume that this view may be shared by quite a few western military analysts let alone the general public. I guess the credit for that should go to the Soviet army – that’s what people from the West still think when they say “the Russian army”
Unfortunately it’s not true.
You may have heard about the 6th company of Pskov VDV division when 92 paratroopers fought against 1500-20000 Chechen forces from midday Feb 29 till morning March 2. Only 6 Russians survived, about 400 Chechens killed. It’s a very well known episode of the second Chechen war.
Imagine this – form noon Feb 29 till morning March 2. 92 men against 1500-2000.
All that inside Russian territory. In the area was staked with military forces. During a war when there is a “full alert” state.
By evening March 1 there was a hand to hand fight.
All this time they had communication with their base asking for support.
I don’t know how many years it would have taken for the Russians to send support for the 200 Spartans in Kosovo.
@Saker: That is *precisely* why it probably could have been done. And I don’t even mean with military IL-76, but by using civilian marked aircraft *mixed in* with military aircraft escorted by SU-27s (at least that would have been my recommendation)
You probably know that Romania and Hungary denied Russian request at that time for an air corridor for a flight which was meant to deliver two VDV battalions to reinforce the 200 men.
You really underestimate the level of disaster Russia was facing at that time.
@alibi: You may have heard about the 6th company of Pskov VDV division
Yes, I know the case of company of the Pskov division. I did not to bring it up for two reasons:
a) most readers would have no idea what I was talking about
b) I did not want to raise this painful memory with you
But now that you bring it up let me tell you this: this example is, I think, the single most powerful illustration of my point one could imagine.
Let look into part one: the company itself:
92 Russian paratroopers against 1500-2000 Chechen fighters. Who are we talking about here?
Russian side: 6th company, 2nd battalion, 104 regiment, 76th Pskov Airborne Division. They were told to take up position on a hill, thus WITHOUT ANY KIND OF ARMOR OR HEAVY WEAPONS. All they had was the weapons they could carry and a radio to call in support.
Chechen side: 1500-2000 fighters retreating from Grozny. The group included several top Chechen commanders and some elite units such as the “White Angels” battalion (600 men). Both Basaev and Hattab were probably among the Chechen commanders present.
The Chechens rapidly managed to surround the small Russian force making a reinforcement by forces on foot impossible (a river needed to be crossed under Chechen fire) and the weather conditions prevented any support by air. Besides, I have seen footage the actual place: a dense cover of high trees on a hill: how do you want to reinforce from the air in these conditions anyway. Oh, and one more thing: fog and rain was covering the hill most of the time.
After three days of intensive fighting (the Chechens were running for their lives to the Argun canyon to escape for the rest of the Russian Army who had just taken Grozny and Shatoi), the commander of the Russian company was killed and his deputy seeing that almost all of his man had died called in an artillery strike ON HIS OWN POSITION. Here is a photo of this man:
http://pskov.pobeda.ru/6foto/image135.jpg
84 Russian soliders died including 13 officers.
Now I ask you a simple question: IF THAT IS HOW THE RUSSIAN ARMY FIGHTS AT ITS ABSOLUTELY WORST (2000 was the last year of the Eltsin regime), HOW DOES IT FIGHT IN BETTER CONDITIONS?!?!?!?
92 Russian paratroopers took on 1500-2000 *elite* Chechen fighters, on their own terrain I would add and held a position for THREE DAYS. Keeping in mind that 92 Chechen fighters could probably hold a position for three days against 1500-2000 NATO/US sissies, how do you think 200 Russian paratroopers (supported by local Serbs) would fare against a NATO force?
Dude, if anything, the tragedy of the 6th Company proves that the Russian military has forces which the West could only dream about in its most delusional dreams!
One more thing: on the issue of support I think that you are being unfair to the Russian forces. The conditions objectively made sending in reinforcement practically impossible.
Only one small group (15 soldiers lead by a major) managed to fight through the Chechen forces (without taking any losses) and link up with their surrounded comrades. The major who lead this force did so in direct violation of the orders he had been given (so much for the Western myth about the Russian officers “not showing initiative”). Here is a photo of this man:
http://pskov.pobeda.ru/6foto/image069.jpg
I have trained a lot in hills and mountains and I know that there are many situations in which you can only send reinforcments by foot, with horses and/or mules, because nothing else can possibly get to the right location, and that is true in peacetime training, so how much more true this is under fire?
No alibi, you are I think making the wrong conclusions about what this tragedy shows. To you it shows the weakness of the Russian army, to me it shows the absolutely mind-boggling strength of the Russian army. Ironic, no?
One more thing: yes, I know that the Hungarians and Romanians turned down a request for reinforcement. Russia might well be the only army in the world who asks for permission to reinforce its soldiers and actually takes “no” for an answer. That is only a reflection of the pathetic, pitiful, shameful and outright repugnant nature of the Eltsin regime. With Putin/Medvedev in power the reinforcements would have been sent, no questions asked, And with Andropov in power nobody would have even noticed that the reinforcements had flown over these to crappy little NATO vassals!
@Saker: “Russian side: 6th company, 2nd battalion, 104 regiment, 76th Pskov Airborne Division. They were told to take up position on a hill, thus WITHOUT ANY KIND OF ARMOR OR HEAVY WEAPONS. All they had was the weapons they could carry and a radio to call in support»
The paratroopers in Pristine also had only light arms, it’s what UN peacekeepers normally have. They were riding on a few /something like 15 or so/ armoured troop carriers and trucks. And when the Chechens also had just light arms and some mortars, I doubt that the NATO boys would have chose to use anything less than a few megaton of TNT in different shapes. You can seriously think that NATO would send ground troops to fight the Russians. The airfield would have just been flattened plus a few hectares of surrounding area.
My point is – going deep inside the enemy’s line is what paratroopers are for that’s true. But they are tactical forces, which means that they are used as a PART of a bigger tactical or strategic plan. I didn’t see any cense in sending them to Pristina first and after that trying to figure out how to use the possible outcome.
You say it was a good chance that the Serbs would turn up to fight alongside.
I don’t know that. They weren’t eager to fight for their own land what would have changed their mind?
But let’s say the Serbs could have join the Russians.
So – it’s a strategy than, right? Shouldn’t that have been thought about, calculated, thoroughly planned, confirmed with the Serbs BEFORE the Russians moved.
I don’t know. I think that sending them there first and only then trying to figure out how they would be reinforced – is plain crime. Finding out that there is no air corridor available only AFTER the troops were deployed is plain crime /And even if there was okay from Hungary, you do not send transport aircrafts full of troops and military supply when the airspace is under total control of your enemies, ant to organise an air support by Russian air force it had to be planed and calculated way before your solders moved in/ Giving order to take the airfield and hold it without ANY idea what it is all for is plain crime. Having neither tactical nor strategic plan for the operation could have been called just stupid, but if you send your men to die for your stupidity – it‘s a crime.
My point is – the paratroopers were simply sent to fight just like the 6th company boys. But if in the Chechen case the problem was lack of intel, general lack of organisation and since all that had to be payed for by the boys’ lives it was a crime. In the Pristina case it was just a sheer crime. And people who planned the operation should have been stripped of their shoulder straps and sent to prison
. And yes – the 200 paratroopers would have fought and fought for real. Just like the 6th company boys did.
@alibi. Look, I did not plan this operation, nor did I execute it. I agree that things should have been planned more carefully. Heck, I live by the motto of the SAS: the “7 Ps”: Prior Preparation and Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance ;-)
But this is not like wars work, at least not most of the time.
I think that the idea of sending Russian forces into Kosovo was fundamentally an excellent one. I also do not believe that NATO or the US would have the balls to use nukes. Nor do I believe that the NATO vassals in central Europe would have dared to confront any Russian aircraft flying across their airspace. I have seen enough NATO officers to know the ball-less sissies they really are (except the Brits, that is).
As far as I know, the Pristina op was not planned at all, but more of a desperate attempt of some good guys to force the hand of the drunken moron sitting in the Kremlin to finally *do something*.
I will never be able to prove it, but I believe that the Russian could have send in reinforcements over central Europe without being stopped, I don’t believe NATO would have used nukes in Kosovo, and I believe that the basic concept of taking the airbase at Slatina was sound.
So no, these guys do not belong in jail, at least not in my opinion. That the kind of guys I like to drink vodka with!
Here is the account of one of the participants:
http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/topic1122.html
Again, it was “nobody but us!”. Nobody else tried – but the desantniki did!
VS
I wasn’t talking about nukes.There was no need to use nukes to kill 200 men. Conventional TNT makes same destruction only cheaper.
@Saker: “As far as I know, the Pristina op was not planned at all, but more of a desperate attempt of some good guys to force the hand of the drunken moron sitting in the Kremlin to finally *do something*”
I still think that if the Serbs “did something” to defend their country then Russia could and should jump in with help.
Imagine if the Serbs had put up even a fraction of a fight the Chechens did NATO would have been eager to get out of Serbia on Serbian terms.
@Saker: “The Chechens rapidly managed to surround the small Russian force making a reinforcement by forces on foot impossible (a river needed to be crossed under Chechen fire) and the weather conditions prevented any support by air. Besides, I have seen footage the actual place: a dense cover of high trees on a hill: how do you want to reinforce»
The height they were fighting for was located within 5 kilometres from a local village. There are roads to villages even in Chechnya. Bad roads true, but roads.
The 6th company had walked to the height about 15 km because they had to get there undetected by the locals. There wasn’t anything to hide anymore for the reinforcement. And even if the road to the village wasn’t possible to ride reinforcement still could walk the same 15km the 6th company had. Let’s say 1km in an hour – 15h. Not the 3 days. And the river which had to be crossed just would have to be crossed that’s what happens at war. But it will be superior force crossing the river and the Chechens would have to choose between continuing slaughtering the 92 paratroopers or start looking for an exit.
We are talking about a very small territory here, tough terrain true but small. It should never have taken 3 days to get help to the boys.
But anyway – it all had happened long time ago. We will hope it will no happen again.
Cheers.
@alibi: I don’t think that regular airstrikes would have done the job against dug-in forces. You mean the Yanks would have used fuel-air explosives? Yes, that is possible, but I still don’t think that NATO would have attacked Russian forces. The Brits would have wanted to do just that, but the French and the others would have gone ballistic to avoid it. I guess we will never know.
As for the 6th company, as far as I know most of the Russian forces were still clearing up Grozny and Shatoi and the forces available locally were not sufficient to force the river. Let’s put it this way: if it took the 1500-2000 Chechens 3 days to pass 200 paratroopers, how many Russian troops would have been needed to pass 1500-2000 Chechens?
And, if you throw into the equation the traditional 3:1 ratio of attack to defense, please a real danger form the locals?
Let me ask you this: are you saying that the local commanders simply let these boys die without trying everything to get to them?
As far as I know, the commission of inquiry did not charge anybody with dereliction of duty, but that proves very little (I know how the Russian brass can cover its ass after getting people uselessly killed).
What do you know about this?
Can you point to a specific failure in command?
What are your colleagues saying about this?
@alibi: Imagine if the Serbs had put up even a fraction of a fight the Chechens did NATO would have been eager to get out of Serbia on Serbian terms.
Sadly, I have to agree with you.
@Saker: “I don’t think that regular airstrikes would have done the job against dug-in forces»
What do you mean by “dug in forces”?
200 men with sapper shovels?
@Saker: “Let me ask you this: are you saying that the local commanders simply let these boys die without trying everything to get to them?»
That’s the point – local commanders are solders just like the ground troops. They don’t “let the boys die”.
Remember, we have started from arguing if the decision by the Russian TOP commanders to send paratroopers to Pristina was justified? You think that it was I think that it wasn’t.
There was probably not much that could have been done to save the 6th company at that very moment. It’s still very murky there.
What I’m getting to is – top brass in Russia keep planning and executing wars and operations as if the solders’ lives are not relevant. And in time it has led to the point when top brass could have written off as many casualties as they pleased.
General Troshev reported in a week after the 6th company was lost that there were 31 men killed. What a fuck? Why 31? Why not 35, or 15?
You see they just don’t care. They plan, screw up most of the time, get their men killed and just don’t count the casualties.
In Pristine it was all the same. They had fucked up with the Serbs when it become obvious that the Serbs weren’t about to fight. The Russians didn’t have any clue as to what to do, how to do it and had eventually decided to make a statement: “in your face NATO” but they put lives of their own men on the table without even thinking.
“Fuck it we will just write them off. Just like always”
Collateral damage.
And it all for NOTHING. There was no plan, no strategy, no tactic, NO CLUE what it all was for. Just a pathetic pose but on someone else’s account.
And you know what that bitch Eltsyn said when they reported about the Pristina. He said: “Ah, I finally managed to give them a flick on their noses”.
Do you see? He said “I managed”
These clowns had no exit plan for their solders, no military or political reinforcement strategy, they just put lives of their men on a table just to please their pathetic egos.
@Saker: “As far as I know, the commission of inquiry did not charge anybody with dereliction of duty, but that proves very little (I know how the Russian brass can cover its ass after getting people uselessly killed).»
I will give just one name for you: Pavel Grachev. Rings a bell?
Look, Russians understand that there are times when you sacrifice even your own life. They mourn their people and keep on fighting but it has to be a reason. Not a pathetic statement or a cover up for pathetic presidents and generals.
A REAL reason.
They could have just ordered the 6th company to withdraw. It wasn’t a battle for Moscow anyway.
@alibi:They could have just ordered the 6th company to withdraw. It wasn’t a battle for Moscow anyway.
Absolute nonsense. The reason why the 6th company fought to the end was double:
a) to prevent the worst Chechen leaders and soldiers to escape from the forces pursuing them.
b) to show the Chechens (and anybody else who cares to look) that Russian soldiers do not surrender.
Is that second one important or not? Well, that depends on your point of view. I say that if Russian paratrooper company can hodl against 1500-2000 elite Chechen fighters, then fighting the Russians makes no sense for the Chechens. I think that a lot of them got that message loud and clear (enough to see how many switched sides after that).
Dug in forces: yes. you give paratroopers 2-3 days to dig in and they will be hard to dislodge.
As far as I know, the decision to send the paratroopers to Pristina was taken at the VDV HQ, but the decision not to reinforce them was a political one in the Kremlin,
Troshev, by the way, was a LOCAL commander, he was on the front line, just like, same thing for Rokhlin who sat at the front line, same thing for Romanov. These were the guys who took the decisions in Chechnia, not Grachev in “Arbat Military District” (in Moscow).
If you want to charge these generals with a gross neglect of their soldiers and abandoning a VDV company, you will need to come up with some proof because this is a very very serious accusation.
@Saker: “The reason why the 6th company fought to the end was double:
a) to prevent the worst Chechen leaders and soldiers to escape from the forces pursuing them.
b) to show the Chechens (and anybody else who cares to look) that Russian soldiers do not surrender»
a) The reason “a” hadn’t been achieved. And if a company of the Russian elite forces couldn’t achieve that it makes me think that the objective was physically impossible. 92 men who had been engaged in combat right from a march can NOT stop 2000 Chechens who desperately wanted to get out of Chechnya.
They could hold on for a while that’s what they did and if there was no reinforcement coming which there was not they should have withdrawn.
And their commanders instead of telling them to hold on, even though they knew that there was no reinforcement should have ordered them to withdraw not surrender but back off. The company did good reconnaissance job, they found the enemies they couldn’t deal with so – organised retreat should have been ordered.
Otherwise you get tho outcomes:
a) the Chechens walked through them and went where they had been going before the combat.
b) you got 86 dead paratroopers.
@Saker: “b) to show the Chechens (and anybody else who cares to look) that Russian soldiers do not surrender»
Well, sure that’s one option. I, personally don’t like it. And I didn’t say surrender. You don’t surrender to the Chechens if you a Russian solder. And for not to show anybody anything but just out of simple egoism. You don’t want to get tortured and then beheaded.
So – not a surrender but a retreat would be my option.
About Troshev – I don’t know much about him, but in what had happened with the paratroopers was his fault too since he was a senior commander in Chechnya. So a week after their fall he could have honoured their deaths by telling the truth about them. I’m not talking about the details of what happened. Just honour their heroism. Tell the country about it’s heroes.
I don’t know if his men respected him.
I understand that we are way off the topic with these arguments, so I will be finishing at that.
All I wanted to say was – there are times when you sacrifice your own life and lives of your people. But it’s the commanders duty to think, plan, and execute operations the way that would keep your men alive.
But then – there are still plenty of people out there who call Marshal Jukov a hero.
Cheers.
@alibi: when the 6th company was moved out to the hill it had no idea that the Chechens were coming this way. It was the recon section which first reported the move and then came back. Call it the “fog of war” or whatever, this was not at all planned. But once they had contact with the Chechens, they were the only one who could block them, and they did just that.
I don’t any Russian general would send out one VDV company to stop 2000 Chechens, in particular when regimental forces were available at the beginning of the operation.
From what I know Troshev was respected and considered a good commander. In any case, I don’t think it is right to accuse a fellow officer of gross dereliction of duty and of the death of his man unless one has some pretty darn strong proof, and not just a suspicion that the dead men were neglected. This is about the most serious accusation that ever could be made against a commander and I, for one thing, would not make it short of some rock solid facts to ascertain them.
However, in the Zhukov case, I think the facts are there: that guy did not care one bit about his soldiers and used them as disposable cannon fodder. Here I agree with you.