I ended my previous article about The real meaning of the South Ossetian war with the words: historians will probably look back at the month of August 2008 as the moment when Russia decided to strike back at the Empire for the first time. Today, I want to pick up this conclusion and take a look at what might happen next. But before looking into the future, I want to return to one aspect which I think needs to be stressed: the US and NATO really got humiliated, whacked, whopped, thrashed, thumped – pick your expression – on all levels and the Imperial High Command understands this perfectly.
Predictably, the faithful corporate media came to the immediate rescue of its masters and immediately began publishing an avalanche of articles aimed at putting a face-saving spin on this humiliation. Let’s take a couple of examples:
Where the Russians ready or not?
That topic has been the source of endless amusement for me. The corporate media which is used to the usual condescending nonsense about the “poorly trained” Russian military could simply not explain how the Russian response to the Georgian attack could be so fast. It therefore concluded that “the Russian were ready to attack”. Some of the most politically correct media outlets even said that the Russians attacked first. Simultaneously, other sources indicated that the US intelligence community saw no signs of Russian preparations and that it was caught totally off-guard. It is obvious that neither Saakashvili nor his American masters were ready for what happened.
So, either the Russians were fine ready and the US intelligence community is the most useless, overpaid, over-rated and incompetent on the planet having missed the Russian preparations, or the Russians scrambled the resources they had locally and they did a superb job. So which is it?!
Actually, it is probably a mix of both. The 58th Army, which is responsible of the North Caucasus Military District including Chechnia, is one of the most combat ready of the Russian armed forces, at least its ground forces element (its airpower was less convincing). Since Russia had been issuing regular warnings at the UNSC that the Georgians were planning an attack there is little doubt that the Russian military intelligence was fully aware of the potential for a Georgian attack. What they seemed to have done is to carefully plan a response, but without actually concentrating detectable means and forces. In other words, the Russians were confident that the 58th Army would be capable of a lightening response if and when so ordered. So while it is normal that the US intelligence community did not detect (non-existing) attack preparations such a force concentrations in assembly areas, this also shows that it was unable to detect the more subtle signs of Russian, shall we say, ‘alertness’ in the North Caucasus MD and that is rather shameful for the most expensive intelligence community on the planet.
Besides the 58th Army, Russian Airborne Forces were also scrambled to the rescue of the Russian peacekeepers, as were a number of Spetsnaz units. Lastly, the Black Sea fleet ships left port almost immediately after the Georgian attack. This clearly shows that the overall readiness of Russian forces has been far superior to what US military analysts expected and that the Russians were very successful in concealing their capabilities. Another bad point for the US intelligence community which missed it all.
This war is yet another intelligence fiasco for the US and its allies. But then, what can one expect from an intelligence community which managed to survive 9/11 and the disastrous 2006 war in Lebanon without a single head rolling…
What about the US and Israeli trained Georgian forces?
Even more nonsense has been written about the performance of the Georgian military. My absolute favorite article on the topic is entitled US trainers say Georgian troops weren’t ready which is replete with a full cornucopia of lame and outright idiotic excuses for the Georgian defeat (the most hilarious one being “The Americans were training them to use the U.S. military’s M-4 rifles, he said. But when fighting broke out, the Georgians went back to the Soviet AK-47, the only weapon they trusted. They appeared incapable of firing single shots, instead letting off bursts of automatic fire, which is wildly inaccurate and wastes ammunition” which shows that its author does not even understand the basic difference between US rifles and Russian AKs).
So let’s ask the basic question: Which is it? Were the Georgians well-trained or not?
If yes, than all these excuses only serve to hide a most embarrassing fact: US and NATO doctrine, training and weapons suck. There is simply no other way of putting it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and in this case the eating leaves a rather disgusting taste: being totally defeated in four days is really pathetic for a presumably top of the line force.
If the Georgians were not ready for combat, then the US tax payer is wasting millions of dollars for useless training programs for military forces abroad. I mean – come on! – the Georgians had been trained by US and Israeli special forces for over a *decade*, their equipment was upgraded and modernized (including their tanks and air defense systems), all their gear was top of the line US stuff (from Marine-like goggles to fancy Humvees) and their engagement doctrine was 100% NATO stuff (and not this primitive “Russian style” fighting with “incompetent NCOs” and a “rigid command structure”). A decade is enough to built up an army from scratch, but the Georgians learned nothing from the best and the brightest in the business. How is this possible?! Maybe the best and the brightest are not really so good after all?
The most desperate corporate newsreports blamed it all on the ‘”huge” Russian army trampling the “tiny” little Georgian nation, some even mentioned 6’000+ Russian tanks. Nonsense, of course, as what matters is not the size of the entire Russian military but the actual size and capabilities of the Russian forces committed to the war in South Ossetia.
Take a look at this great little article entitled Georgian army may be tough nut for Russia to crack written just before the Russians eviscerated the Georgians in 4 days. Let me quote the best paragraph:
Russia as a regional power enjoys, of course, overall superiority over the Georgians, in the short term with a much stronger air force, and in the longer term with the Kremlin’s potential ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops and conquer Georgia – provided the men in the Kremlin have the will to take the losses needed to eliminate their doughty opponents.
Amazing, no? I particularly love the “hundreds of thousands of troops” part. In reality, the most quoted figure of Russian soldiers participating in the war is about 10’000 soldiers, included the ones in Abkhazia which never participated in the combats in South Ossetia. The real figure of soldiers, MBT or APCs really does not matter. What matters is that the Russian force was not substantially larger than the Georgian military and that only a part of the 58th Army was actually involved in the war.
The reality is far simpler. First, while the Georgians were very well trained and equipped by NATO standards, anyone from the former Soviet Union can tell you that the Georgians are not exactly famous for being tough soldiers. In contrast, the 58th Army had just won a long a difficult war against the Chechens, formidable soldiers by all accounts, and dealing with the over-confident Georgians proved to be not much of a challenge for it. Second, the US and NATO are not good at ground warfare, at least not nearly as good as the Russians. The West, as usual, got it all wrong about Chechnia after seeing a bunch of un-trained Russian recruits sent inside Grozny by Pavel Grachev getting smashed up by Chechen fighters but failing to notice the subsequent brilliant operation to re-take the city in the first days of January 1995. Anyway – the bottom line is simple: the US protege in the Caucasus got everything and anything he wanted, he started the conflict as ready as can be, and he still got crushed a rather small Russian force.
One of the biggest weakness of the US military culture is that it actually believes its own propaganda about its alleged superiority. From WWII, to Korea, to Vietnam, to Lebanon, to Somalia, to Grenada (arguably the worst military operation of the 20th century), to Kosovo to Iraq, history is full of examples of the contrary, but still the “best equipped and best trained military in the world” myth is repeated over and over again until it is accepted as revealed dogma by much of the military and the Establishment. Carefully filtrated and spinned accounts of past wars only reinforce this myth in the mids of those who are now struggling to explain the debacle in Georgia. Predictably, such an over-reliance on fancy technologies combined with a “we are the best” mantra results in mediocre military capabilities. What is true in Hollywood is not true in faraway countries.
Condi Rice and her threats
What was the US and NATO reaction to all this? It was best summed up by Condi Rice: “We are determined to deny them their strategic objective“. The Russians immediately saw this buffoonery exactly for what is was: hot air. While the purpose of this kind of huffing and puffing was to present a face-saving appearance of resolve, it turned into even more embarrassment when the Russian replied, in essence: and what are you going to do about it?
By the way, what were the Russian strategic objectives?
They were very clearly spelled out by President Medvedev on the first evening of the war. He said that the Russian operation had two objectives:
a) to repel the Georgian aggression
b) to punish those responsible (i.e.: to destroy the Georgian armed forces)
It is pretty darn clear that the Russian had already achieved both of these objectives in 4 days. What Condi Rice is referring to is another, presumably unspoken, Russian strategic objective: to split off South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. But, again, Condi is entirely missing the point: Russia does not need Abkhazia or South Ossetia and, besides, after what happened these two regions could only be brought back under Georgian control by a bloodbath.
The reality is that Russia has already achieved all its strategic objectives and more: by making Sarkozy signing a document (the six point peace plan) which is unacceptable to the USA the Russians have succeeded in creating tensions inside NATO which resulted in the totally lame NATO statement about the conflict. It is becoming apparent now that even the US-NATO “ultimate weapon”, its awesome PR machine, has managed to conceal the bitter reality that the war in South Ossetia has proved that the Empire has become clueless paper tiger who cannot even roar convincingly.
So what next?
There will be a US response to all this. First, NATO will most likely accept both the Ukraine and Georgia as full members. The rule that NATO does not accept countries with territorial disputes will be set aside for the sake of political expediency as accepting Georgia will make the Imperial High Command feel that it took revenge on the evil Russians (there is the possibility that the political crisis in the Ukraine could result in a collapse of the Imperial scheme for this country and that Timoshenko might join forces with the opposition and oppose a Ukrainian entry into NATO). What else could NATO and the Americans do? Deploy parts of their ABM system in Eastern Europe? They already did that. Block the Russian entry to the WTO? It’s not like it was about to happen anytime soon. None of that really matters as the Russians do not care.
Sure, the Russians complain a lot about the NATO enlargement and about US radars and missiles in Eastern Europe, but the truth is that they don’t care one bit. The Russians fully understand that NATO has ceased to be a military organization a long time ago and that its real purpose is to maintain the US domination of Europe. Militarily, NATO is irrelevant, it cannot even meaningfully help the US in Afghanistan, nevermind taking on Russia. As for the American ABM system, it is just a way to provoke Russia and to spent more money on military programs. In purely military terms all that deployment of US missiles has “achieved” is to turn Poland (and other host nations) into targets for Russian short range missiles, that’s it. Other than that these missile will never intercept anything or protect anyone.
No, what the Russians do care about is not the military threat of NATO expansion or the US missiles, but the highly provocative political message its sends Russia: screw you, we will do whatever we please, no matter how provocative. The war in South Ossetia was the Russian answer to this challenge: ok, so will we.
Is there anything the Empire can do besides expanding NATO? Sure! It can return to all the tried and tested methods of the Cold War: finance “dissidents” (let’s resurrect Elena Bonner and Sergei Kovalev from their current oblivion), support various “democratic” and religious groups, increase the broadcast time for its propaganda radios, voice plenty of support for any and all minorities in Russia (including gays and lesbians this time?), raise the specter of a rise in Russian Antisemitism and, last but certainly not least, justify even more spending on its already bloated military and intelligence to “counter the threat of a resurgent Russia“. “More of the same” will be the order of the day. Expect a Newsweek or Time Magazine cover with Medvedev as the “new Hitler” soon.
An empire on the decline – like the USA – always ends up doing what it is used to do instead of adapting to new realities or learning the lessons of its defeats. Instead of being “result oriented” such dying empires are always fully “activity oriented”, they steadfastly hold on to the belief that their ways are right and more of the same will do the trick.
As for Russia, it will remain careful and act only when needed as dying empire is potentially very dangerous and it should not be provoked into some ultimately stupid action (remember the talks about using nukes on Iran?).
There is a basic and crucial asymmetry in this new US-Russian Cold War: the US is seeking world domination (“full spectrum dominance”) while Russia has long given up any imperial dreams it might have had. The new, post-Soviet, Russia aims at being a ‘normal’ nation, treated with respect by others and whose fundamental national security interests will be protected from US imperial designs. Whereas Russia wants a multi-polar world the US wants to hold on to its self-perceived role as the “world sole superpower” nevermind that it is over-extended, basically insolvent, with a virtual currency, a shirking industrial base and that it is hated worldwide. Of course, the US still has momentum, the Saudis will protect the greenback as long as possible, the EU will support the NATO’s nonsense, the Chinese will keep Walmarts well stocked and the rest of the world will be careful not to antagonize the dying giant lest it lash out with its cruise missiles and bombs.
While this new Cold War probably not last as long as the previous one, it will probably outlast the short-lived global war on terror (GWOT) which has already lost all traction with the American public. Russia will be the bogeyman again (unless the Israelis do something really stupid and draw the USA into a major war in the Middle-East). Unlike the previous one, this new Cold War will probably not end with a photogenic opportunity like the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. Paradoxically, Russia will not even be a key player in this new Cold War as the USA will mostly be busy defeating itself (think about it: no evil KGB plot could have ever contemplated devastating the USA the way 8 years of Neocon power did under Baby-Bush).
The Empire will not die in a Red Dawn -like invasion of Russian paratroopers, nor will it collapse as a result of one major event. Instead, it will gradually crumble as a result of many small strikes, some economic, some military, some political and some social. Sure, the Russians will be glad to add a couple of small strikes of their own, like what they did in South Ossetia, but that’s it. The rest of it will be self-inflicted.
Can you comment on Russia’s aerial performance in this war? I vaguely remember reading that you were surprised at Georgia’s success in downing Russian jets. Do you attribute this to weaknesses in Russian jets, aerial tactics, or to the strength in Georgia’s air defences?
Best Regards,
Queue
Saker, do you think the dissident tactic would be effective today? I mean the Russian government enjoys wide support and America’s moral stature isn’t what it used to be. They can make a fuss about khodorkovsky but we put our tax cheats in jail here too. Not much traction with that.
Thanx
@mssr.queue: good point. Here is what I guess happened:
The Russian Air Force was clearly not prepared to act forcefully. I remember going to bed the evening of the attack quite sure that by the next morning the Georgian air force would have simply ceased to exist. Nothing like that happened at all. Quite to the contrary, the Russians not only failed to destroy the Georgian airfields, but they even failed to establish air supremacy. That is quite amazing considering that they must have had just about perfect intelligence about everything in Georgia. They also definitely had the hardware and ‘reach’ to end the air war on day 2.
I have seen the explanation that the Russians were not really fighting a war, but only protecting peacekeepers and that therefore they deliberately limited their air operations. That makes no sense to me at all. On the very first day of the war the Russians gave a sure sign that they were in for a major operation: they established a special operational HQ in Vladikavkaz commanded by the C-in-C of the ground forces. So the explanation that they were not really serious in the first two days is bull.
No, I can only come to the following conclusion: the initial air operations of the Russians were a half hazard effort conducted by hastily assembled assets. I have to admit that I have no explanation for this (but I will keep looking).
As for the downed aircraft, we are talking about one reconnaissance version of the Tu-22M3 and 3-4 Su-25. The first one seems to have been shot by a modernized S-200 which is a old, but long range system, while the others where clearly shot during low-level flights. All in all, I consider that this must reflect very good tactics and training by the Georgians and that is, in itself, very interesting.
While the US, NATO and the Israelis are not the hot shots they think they are in ground operations, they are truly extremely skilled in air warfare and I suspect that air defense must be an area were foreign technical assistance and training really paid off. What is clear is that the Georgians air defenses fought very well and the tide only really turned on day 3 when the Russians managed to pull-in better assets, On days 3, 4 and 5 Russian air operations finally reach the full depth of the Georgian territory, the Russians established air superiority and a well planned strike campaign was initiated with the aim of destroying a limited number of important targets.
Keep in mind that while Russia does have some of the best aircraft in the world, these modern aircraft are mostly few in numbers and that most of the Russian aircraft are at least 20 years old or more. Also, financial limitations have meant few flight hours, less fuel, poor maintenance etc and only the last couple of years did the Russian Air Force begin to receive halfway decent resources, In contrast, the Georgians did receive lavish help from many countries and they clearly were able to put it to good use.
The Russian Air Force did work on a rapid reaction air component concept in the early 1990s and I betcha that they will go right back to this concept after a possibly painful “lessons learned” exercised in the wake fo this war. Russia has really only a limited need for long range bomber flights along the Norwegian coast or even to Cuba and it has a much more pressing need to develop the means to establish full air supremacy right across its border on a small military district size are of responsibility. Thus, the Russian government will have to choose between politically sexy feel-good showcase maneuvers and the development of a serious war fighting air doctrine and air force.
@lysander: Saker, do you think the dissident tactic would be effective today?
No, not *at all*. But that’s what the US is good at and so that its what the US will do. And if this sounds stupid that’s because it is.
The Tu-22MR was probably downed by a 9K37 Buk-M1 (SA-11 GADFLY), the whole “Georgia got S-200s from the Ukraine” appears to be fabricated as the Georgian S-200 site is inoperable and there isn’t any evidence of any transfer.
I go into the S-200 thing on my blog in the Disinformation piece from August 17th.
@Sean O’Connor: yes, I did see the Buk theory. I have also seen the Tor mentioned as a possible candidate. Since it was the Russian deputy Chief of Staff Anatoly Nagovitsin who made the claim that the Tu-22MR (and not M3 is I wrote) was shot down by a S-200 I see no reason to doubt it. After all, being brought down by a Buk or Tor is less embarassing than being brought down by an old, even if modernized, S-200, I think.
Still, you might well be correct and your expertise in this field far, far, outweighs mine.
NB: the article Sean is referring to can be found on his (excellent) blog here:
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/08/russia-georgia-disinformation.html
Such a good an of the analysis of the situation, really. You are right about their objectives and you made compelling points.
Bobbi (lois from flhurricane)
look forward to reading more
@Bobbi: hi my fellow Floridian hurricane tracker – always a pleasure to hear from my “sub-tropical neighbors”! I hope that Fay was not too hard on you. Stay around, as the recent events made me focus on Russia, but I try to cover much more issues on this blog.
Kind regards,
VS
It says here that the US was trying to restrain Saakashvili, but that he attacked anyway. do you think this is spin?
U.S. knew Georgia trouble was coming, but couldn’t stop it
@Puzzled: could be just spin, of course. But there is another, better, explanation.
In many ways, there is no such thing as “the US”. Often, State does one thing, DoD does another, CIA does another, various White House officials do something different, etc. In many instances the USA is not a unitary actor at all and the resulting policies appear to be contradictory or even schizophrenic. Under Dubya things got even worse with the Neocon cabal totally bypassing various agencies and administrations,including possibly even the President himself.
This event was just another test for”the big one”, Iran! Poke a spear into the bear cage and time the reaction and material used in counteraction. This is common knowledge in the Russian ranks and they withheld a few Aces up their sleeves.
Next test for how the Russians respond to armed provocation will be the Ukraine. With a split in a East- and West Ukraine as result. War by proxy and ruling by dividing is the rule in the Pentagon now. The “Big One” is still to come or US will be bankrupt.
Saker, have you seen this from globalresearch.ca?
NUCLEAR CHICKEN IN POLAND by Mike Whitney
“If the Bush administration proceeds with its plan to deploy its Missile Defense System in Poland, Russian Prime Minister Putin will be forced to remove it militarily. He has no other option. The proposed system integrates the the entire US nuclear arsenal into one operational-unit a mere 115 miles from the Russian border. It’s no different than Khrushchev’s plan to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba in the 1960s.
Early last year, at a press conference that was censored in the United States, Putin explained his concerns about Bush’s plan:
“Once the missile defense system is put in place it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability….And, for the first time in history—and I want to emphasize this—there will be elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security…..Of course, we have to respond to that.”
Read the rest of it if you have time. And if you can tell us anything about the technical aspects of the missile shield and the technical response we would be much obliged.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home
@lysander: I have read the article and I am sorry to say that it is so full of inaccuracies that I don’t even have the time to address them here. Let me just say that the idea that the Russians would have to strike at Poland or anyone else is utter nonsense. There is no game of “nuclear chicken” being played right now, not in Poland, not in Ossetia nor anywhere else. I would also repeat here that the American system does not, repeat *NOT* pose a significant military threat to Russia. It constitutes a political provocation for sure, and the idea of a ABM “shield” has the *potential* to make a first-strike possible by protecting the striking side from a retaliation. But that is THEORY. The reality is that Russia can nuke the US and Europe if it wants and there is absolutely nothing which can be done to prevent that, at least in the foreseeable future.
I would also note that while globalresaerch has often published very interesting stuff, it is currently undergoing a process of “DEBKAtization” by publishing more and more baseless sensationalist stuff and I would urge everybody to take anything they publish with, oh, a couple of ounces of salt…
Ok it’s only Wikipedia but according to them a Goldman Sachs report predictrs that Russia could be one of the dominant economies of the world by 2050 along with China India and Brazil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC
If you scroll down and look at their ranking for 2050 the US will be dwarfed by China and level with India, with Brazil and Russia coming close behind. The US remains one of the top world powers, but the days when the West could dominate the world will be long gone. Any thoughts on whether this is worth taking remotely seriously? I’m no economist.
@robert: interesting. I was not familiar with this BRIC stuff. I have to tell you that even though I also have an MA in international economics, I have not researched economic issues for the past 15+ years so I am not competent to form an opinion. All I know is that in economics a lot depends on the hypotheses you use. I also think that projecting to 2050 is a little too long term for my taste. But sure, Brazil, Russia, India and China are all potential economic powerhouses, albeit in very different ways. But I would not want to risk guessing about this any further.
Maybe somebody more up to date then myself will pick up this question?
To Saker
‘There will be a US response for all this. First, NATO will most likely accept both the Ukraine and Georgia as full members’
I’m pretty sure that if NATO would keep pushing with Ukraine Russia would try to destabilise the region. It’s a matter of national security and national pride. It’s got some opportunities with Sevastopol, considering the situation there, There is a loud message flying in the air that the Russian Navy is not leaving in 2017. No way. There are ten million Russian nationals in Ukraine, Majority of Ukrainians don’t support the idea of joining NATO, neither do some of NATO members. There’s still a chance to bring up the Crimea dispute. And there is a strong urge within the Russian top brass officials to kill somebody. So – unless the USA would push it to the edge, there is a chance to keep Ukraine neutral for a while. And if the USA would push it anyway, I would be very much surprised if Russia wouldn’t strike again. And it would be very bad. Russians don’t want to fight Ukrainians. And Ukraine is not Georgia. But I will be very much surprised if Russia won’t strike.
And Russia is not going to let Georgia to join NATO, not that easy. That’s why it’s digging in in Poti. It even looked like they tried to provoke the US Navy to dear and land in Poti. Good thing that the US decided to avoid that and turned to Batumi.
There is a red line there in Georgia. Russia just can’t let NATO cross it. And it may get really bad if the USA wouldn’t realise that. I hope both sides would be able to freeze it the way it is now and bargain their ways out of it.
As for the air operation in Georgia – it seemed to me that Russians weren’t sure that they were ready to launch strikes inside Georgian territory both air and ground for obvious political reasons. There was a lot of confusion and uncertainty as to how far to go. The Russians weren’t trying to topple Saakashvily or really accept independence of Abhasia and SO. Russia wanted to maintain the tension in the region, to prevent Georgia from joining NATO and make investors to think twice before putting their money in new pipeline projects there. So – routine shelling and local strikes from both sides seemed good enough to keep it that way. It had been like that for 16 years and it worked so far. Russians weren’t interested in escalation. They sent a few air craft to ‘cool off some hot heads’ a few weeks back when it looked like Georgia was up to something. Russia warned every international body, to keep an eye on the Georgians. And it wasn’t in Russian interests to accept Abhasia and SO independency considering separatist movements inside Russia.
I don’t think Russia expected such an attack from Georgia. Like all big powers Russia is overconfident. Ask any Russian on the streets or in Kremlin and you would receive a response that it was impossible to be such an idiot as pres. Saakashvily turned out to be. Everybody knew Russia would respond. Every single Russian knew that so supposed every Georgian. That’s why I doubt Russians expected such a suicidal attack. They very likely were caught off guard by that. That would mean that the Russians didn’t really have a precise plan as to how far to go with their respond. The scale of destruction in Tshinvaly could give them justification for strikes inside Georgia including it’s military bases and antiaircraft facilities. That’s why it took so long for them to destroy Georgian antiaircraft forces.
Well, anyway – it’s just my thoughts.
Thanks for the article I really enjoyed reading it. Keep it up.
Regards.
Alibi
VS,
Why do you discount the threat of nuclear interceptor missiles to Russia’s nuclear arsenal? It seems like most pieces of the technology that would enable confident shoot down of missiles in flight is already available. Having these installations already in place means that one day they can be quickly converted to ABM defense as soon as the other pieces become available.
@qwerty: at best, such technology could hope to shoot down a limited number of missiles, within a narrow number of flight paths. First, the Russians, if needed, could destroy this forward deployed system with short range missiles (which the system is not designed to engage) and they could also easily saturate it with decoys, maneuvering missiles, etc.
Think about it this way. If I stand in front of you will a machine gun and you stand with a “machine gun bullet interceptor system” are you going to feel confident that you will be able to shoot down my bullets? How many bullets would your system need to miss to make itself useless? What if only 5 of my bullets hit you? You are going to be as dead as if I had hit you with 500.
For a first strike you need to be sure that 100% of Russian ICBMs get stopped. Would you trust this fancy system to get the job done?
Besides, there are many ways of destroying such a system, ranging from short range missile strikes and ending with Spetsnaz forces (which were actually originally created for a very similar task).
HTH
The missile station in Poland is probably not a realistic threat to Russia in the immediate future, but it is a foothold that can, with future technology, morph into an unknown threat, based so close to Russia that it makes them nervous. With today’s technology, its not effective, but it establishes the precedent of a US strategic military presence this close to Russia, and in a time of future crisis, a US offensive system might be deployed, and the abm component only would serve to (falsely) reassure the Poles that they would be safe. There is a wide variety of mischief that the US could do from that vantage point, if the Poles thought they would be invulnerable to retaliation, whether this was realistic or not.
@alibi: I don’t think Russia will strike at the Ukraine unless Yushchenko and his crazies really do something extremely provocative. Frankly, Russia has no need for the Ukraine other than the Crimean peninsula. Also – I think that Russia will be careful not to provoke the USA or NATO. Russia’s interest is to cool down the situation without being bullied into submission by the Empire – a fine line for sure, but a clear one. At least that is my guess.
As for the air war, I don’t see how the Russians could immediately realize that there is a need for a serious ground and naval operation, but not one for a robust air operation. That just seems bizarre to me. Military logic would dictate that the very first thing to do would be to strike at the Georgian forces throughout their full depth. Not only that, but by their very nature air assets are the easiest to concentrate and use. Frankly, I have no idea what happened there, but I will keep looking.
Please let me know if you come across any theories, versions of explanations.
Привет и поклон,
The Saker
The problem is that Yuschenko doesn’t seem to be getting the message. He even wants to speed up the process.
Russia wants both Ukraine and Georgia stay neutral that’s all. If not it will be forced to go further. I don’t think Russia would launch a military strike at Ukraine, but it’s possible that it will bring up a question about the Crimean peninsula and Sevastopol in particular. There are a few legal loopholes, so it will be a matter of power, and a will to go to the end.
As for the direct conflict with NATO – Russia would like to avoid it just as much as NATO itself, so the price – Ukraine and Georgia stay out of NATO, or else… seems fair to me. And we all know that from the beginning the whole idea of dragging these two countries in NATO stunk.
And I think if NATO and the US in particular wouldn’t get the message there is a chance of direct confrontation. At least from the Russian side.
Russia has been minding it’s own business since 1991. It’s more interested in business now than in wars, but there are still hot heads there, and a lot of them. And this problem with expanding NATO seems very much unfair to the Russians, considering that for almost twenty years they were nothing but polite to the West.
Considering that Putin and Medvedev most likely would get all the support they need in Russia and the West probably wouldn’t be so determent to give okay to their governments Russians may try to push it.
For the USA the whole problem is just a matter of dumb stubbornest, when for Russia it’s a matter of national security and pride so we can count only on Europe to stay cool.
Keep my fingers crossed.
Regards.
Alibi
И от меня тебе привет и поклон
@alibi: Russia has been minding it’s own business since 1991. It’s more interested in business now than in wars (…) For the USA the whole problem is just a matter of dumb stubbornest, when for Russia it’s a matter of national security and pride so we can count only on Europe to stay cool.
I totally agree with you here, but the sad reality is, I think, that the Europeans are absolutely hopeless. If Blair was Dubya’s “poodle”, then Europe, without exception, is not Dubya’s kennel. I am utterly disgusted at how spineless the Europeans have shown themselves to be. European rulers are basking in a quasi-colonial subservience to the USA even though the public opinion in Europe is mostly opposed to that. But the European public is apathetic, incapable of revolt, totally stupidified by too much TV and too little moral and ethical fiber.
Nah, Alexander the III was correct: Russia has only two allies: its Army and its Navy…
(sorry for the gloomy tone, I am just discouraged by all the wasted potential of Europe, which I love dearly and miss a great deal…)
Alibi, please hang around. I appreciate your comments and great deal and I hope that you will become a regular poster on my blog!
Nah, Alexander the III was correct: Russia has only two allies: its Army and its Navy…’
I don’t think the USA have any real allies at all. All that readiness to follow will vanish as soon as there will be a real threat. I really doubt any of the European allies will dare to act in case of a conflict between the USA and Russia /God forbid/. I’m sure American people understand that, one can tell that seeing the way Europe is being treated by the USA.
‘Alibi, please hang around. I appreciate your comments and great deal and I hope that you will become a regular poster on my blog!’
I’m not going anywhere. You’ll have to kick me out to make me shut up. And I’m enjoying hanging around.
Regards
Alibi
“Wounds of Thskinvali” – Russian TV documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgSvYtjzZt8
FkD
@fkd: thanks! I will watch that later tonight.
First of all, great article! Now one question: one of the things that most surprised me was the complete absence of Russia’s most sophisticated weapons in this conflict. Russia has small numbers of them, but still they would be more than enough to deal with small Georgia. Instead of using the upgraded Su-24M2 and Su-25SM, which can use more precise weapons and have greater survivability, it seems that Russia used only the original Soviet versions from the 80’s. Also, Russia used mostly T-72 tanks, and none of the newest T-90.
What is your opinion on this? Did Russia not use them because they wouldn’t be necessary in a small war? Anyway, necessary or not, it would be a good opportunity to test them in real combat. In the 90’s, for example, Russia used some of the pre-series Ka-50 in Chechnya, just to test them, and there are rumours that Su-34 was also employed. Or was it too expensive to move them to that theater (in the last years the most advanced weapons are going to units stationed in South Siberia and the Far East)?
Greetings from South America!
To Carlo
Traditionally Russian military never advertise much about what sort of weapons it uses. There was very brief answer by gen. Nagovitsyn on request to comment at what sort of precise weapons had been used in the conflict. He said that the use of guided missiles and bombs had allowed to eliminate Georgian fortifications and artillery facilities without using carpet bombarding in sensitive areas. /Sensitive – means populated/.
As for testing new weapons he specifically said that they never test weapons at war.
The Georgian and S. Ossetian landscape is a mix of forests and mountains which limits use of laser guided shells and missiles. If you were following Serbian conflict you may remember that 78 days of bombardment did little to harm Serbian military. It did hurt Serbian industrial and civilian infrastructure though. And the Russians weren’t hitting Georgian industrial targets. But practically all military targets in Georgia were destroyed. There are speculations among military experts in Russia as to what types of weapons had been used in Georgia, but the official version is very brief.
As for the old equipment used in the conflict – Russians used what they had in the region. Most sophisticated weapons traditionally go first to military districts in sensitive areas. /Moscow military district in particular, Far east military district, Leningrad Military district/
Regards.
Alibi
Does anyone know if Russia has an equivalent to JDAMs or some sort of satellite guided weaponry?
@lysander: here is a link to an old discussion: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4381.html keep in mind that 2005 is not 2008. also, remember that Russians tend to be very secretive about their precision weapons. Still, Russia definitely has advanced precision munitions of various types, but the GLONASS system is still fully operational (as far as I know).
Maybe some of our Russian readers have better info?
To Lysander
Sure they do. Russian weapons are among the most sophisticated in the world. You may know that Russia is second largest exporter of weapons. And it’s not so much of a big deal to upgrade an unguided bomb to become a JDAM one. Russian Glonass is not as good as GPS due to lack of satellites at present. They’ve got 18 operational satellites when a flawless operation requires at least 24. Russians also have cruise missiles with combined – satellite/radar/laser guidance.
I want to point though that when their number of cruise missiles can be matched to American, there’s no match in the JDAM bombs and shells. The USA are well ahead in that department. There are a few reasons for that.
Firstly – it’s too expensive, for instance one XM982 Excalibur costs in the area $80000. The USA spend on these propelled shells alone $3bn.
Russian military doctrine is very much different to American. Russia isn’t after world dominance. It’s doctrine is minimal/ultimate deterrence. It’s goal is to protect Russian borders and it’s national interests near abroad. Russia has learned it’s lessons. It went bankrupt because of enormous military spending. So at present instead of spending billions on precise weapons it declared that it’s has a right to use tactical nuclear weapons when it’s decided that there is a treat to it’s national security. Ratio cost/effectiveness of tactical nuc. weapons compared to precise in favour of nuc’s is simply overwhelming. You might know that in 1991 Russia had about 200 bn debt.
Now it’s not only payed all debts but it has 550 bn in cash. Compare it to 53 trillion American debt.
Secondly – every weapon has it’s antidote. Russian scientists began research in regards to build microwave weapons in mid 60s. In 1997 Russia introduced jammers which could practically blind GPS guided weapons within 50 – 150 km. As you know every JDAM missile/bomb/shell has to communicate with satellite trough its receiver so jammers produce radio frequency/high power microwaves which make communication impossible.
There is a rumour which Russia never confirmed that during air strikes on Serbia Russians supplied some of their jammers to Miloshevich. During 78 days of precise air strikes Serbs lost 13 tanks. NATO pilots managed to send a few missiles to Bulgaria. They hit Chinese embassy and we all know that accuracy of a JAMD weapons is within 4 – 10 meters from the target. During just one raid 28 Tomahawks got self destroyed because they lost targets.
When the USA were about to invade Iraq there was a big tension between Washington and Moscow. The Americans accused Moscow in supplying Iraq with it’s electronic weapons aimed against American GPS guided missiles. There was a lot of fuss about it. Washington sanctioned a few of Russian companies. Collin Powell expressed his disappointment and concern towards Moscow. Press sec. Ari Fleysher made a statement that it was confirmed that Russian jammers where smuggled into Iraq. Moscow denied everything. Later it was announced that about 100 Tomahawks got self destroyed.
Then, we all remember the accuracy with which The USA hit a satellite a few month ago. That’s another way to destroy GPS, GLONASS and get back to old ground operations.
You should keep in mind that the USA and NATO enjoyed air dominance and technological supremacy fighting countries which had no capability in producing their own weapons and had been banned from buying weapons for years. Iraq got banned in 1990. Yugoslavia in 1991. For example in Vietnam they lost between 3500 – 4000 air craft. Air defence was build from the scratch there by Soviet specialists. The USA learned they lesson there and never since they launched an attack on a country which hadn’t been isolated and banned for years.
Soviet army fought in Afghanistan for 11 years when the rest of the world including China supplied Taliban with weapons, training, bases, intelligence. And the Russians left the country on their own will. And when they moved out they left 600,000 strong Afghan army, which controlled most of the country, and it was the major force which drove Taliban out in 2001 after the USA strikes. Imagine for a second what would’ve happened if Russia and China began supply Taliban with antiaircraft missiles, antitank rockets, ammunition, intelligence, if Russia would’ve built bases in neighbouring Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Just think about that. A few days ago 10 French solders got killed in Afghanistan. Sarkosy personally went there and now the French parliament will vote to decide if French forces will continue to stay in Afghanistan. And now they think of fighting Russia on Russian territory.
@alibi: please send me an email to vineyardsaker@gmail.com. Thanks. VS
Truth about South Ossetia Wars
http://www.nebog.com/truthaboutwar.htm
Fox News: 12 Year Old Girl Tells the Truth about war Georgia – Video Censorship For the Americans
The answer Condoleeza Rice!
Truth about South Ossetia War – Video
Saakashvili’s crimes in S. Ossetia
As made a video in Gori Georgia
Saakashvili Dog of Bush
Hello!
I was reading your article.
As an Argentine, I can clearly see similarities between this war in the Malvinas War of 1982.
As in the 1982, both Argentines and Georgias consider Malvinas and Ossetia as integral part of the country. In both cases, those territories are under the control of world powers (Britain in the former and Russia in the Second).
In 1982 gen Galtieri seized the Malvinas Islands, thinking the UK will respond vaguely, because it considered himself an USA Ally. I think Georgian president thought the same about the Russians.
It’s obvious now than the Russians were aware of the georgian intentions, and in 1982 the British also know about Argentine intentios (of course, both powers deny that). They used this knowledge to lure its foe to take the first measure and then strike back with all its military power.
In both cases, US got an “off-side” position, and kept its support to a minimun, or even declared against the interest of its “self-declared allies”.
In both cases, the ill-calculated moves done by the weak countries against the Powers collapsed.