Russia - General Discussion.

STURM

Well-Known Member
at the end of the day, people living in a country probably have more influence on their own future than "external" forces, be it "the west" or from elsewhere.
Depends on the circumstances. There will be cases where the citizens of the country are ready and want democracy but are thwarted by their political masters who fully understand that they have the support of the West to maintain the status quo. Then there are cases where the West decides that it will throw its full support behind the masses in order to overthrow their unelected undemocratic leader; this usually occurs when it's in the interests of the West to do so; i.e, Libya and Syria. Having Western support has long been a key prerequisite which enabled various Arab governments/leaders to stay in power.

Yes it is convenient to blame someone else; which is precisely why I pointed out that although the West is largely to blame for various things [artificial borders; being selective on democracy/human rights when needed and be propping up dictators] the Arabs themselves are also largely to blame. This does not change the fact that like in Africa and other places; a lot of the problems currently faced in the Middle East are due to selfish arbitrary non democratic policies undertaken by the West at a time when the locals did not have a say in in the running of their own affairs. We also saw what happened in Iran, Libya and other places during the 1950's and 1960's when locals decided they had enough and wanted a say in their own affairs.

like for instance women's rights, or corruption.
The irony is that women in Iran for decades have had more rights [allowed to work, drive, go out unaccompanied, etc] than their counterparts in Saudi; yet Saudi is best chums with the West. To be fair; despite being largely responsible for the mess that is now Yemen and other things [which he got away with due to realpolitik/self interests]; under MBS there has been social progress in Saudi Arabia. On double standards and hypocrisy; in Afghanistan the West went all gung ho about bhurkas and how the Taliban wasn't women friendly but was silent about the situation in certain other countries.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Need to judge what current state is and where does it headed to.
Right; so as I said with Egypt; it had an elected government which was overthrown in a coup backed by the Gulf Arabs. The West kept quiet because it was in line with its interests to placate the Gulf Arabs [for them a democratic government in Egypt would have been undesirable] and to have a certain type of government in Cairo. Having a democratic government in Cairo [not necessarily a liberal democratic one in the Western sense but one more democratic to what it replaced] would have been problematic for both the West and the Gulf Arabs.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Given the geography, Russia may be stretched thin on their EW capabilities.
True but that would I suspect be off set by the fact that Russia has a lot of EW [especially ground based] which is integrated to all level of ops and formations; right down to brigade level. I can't think of any other army which has integral EW components at brigade level.

I know during the 5 day war helo-based EW was used, and in recent years Russia took delivery of a number of Rychag-AV systems, which are based on new-built Mi-8s.
Would you agree that despite whatever limitations it has; having an extensive and advanced EW capability. plus the fact Russia is intimately familiar with Ukrainian AD network [something you alluded to] provides it with a decisive edge? The Ukraine too has some level of EW capability [the Kolchuga comes to mind] but it comes to nowhere close to what Russia has. I may be assuming too much but if an actual invasion starts; in addition to the Ukrainian cell phone and internet network being jammed; I'd expect the Ukrainians to face serious issues in even deploying there UASs at a tactical/operational level.


I think the biggest hurdle will be the planning and execution, with some resource constraints. In principle the tools are there, especially with good planning and careful distribution. However the Russian military is not known for those things so I suspect things will get tricky.
You would know better but I was under the assumption that good planning and careful distribution were things the Russians have traditionally done well. They've also learnt a lot from the Syrian experience where they deployed an expeditionary force which wasn't large and had fairly limited resources.

 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
am not really biased, neither i can't see problems in Ukraine. But You must make distinction on one flaw supported by law and another that exist contrary to law.
I don't want to derail this thread more on how democratic is Ukraine compared toward countries like Saudis or Russia. However I have to answer this because in what way there's democracy by law Ukraine to begin with, and how's that any different between that and the authoritarian oligarchy by law that exists in Saudi and Russia.

What Law that Euro Maidan has to toppled elected government, asside a coup ? What Law a democratic principle that surpress other ethnic factions Political movement using "National Security" talk, while provide Political venue for Right Wing nationalist faction that by any count is aim on ethnic and racist purity idea?

If you don't see that as a big problem for democracy development, well that's within your right. However don't try to convince everyone else that nothing wrong with Ukrainian democracy development. There's no democracy development in Ukraine at this moment, it's just another oligarchy politics. Not different with authoritarian regime.

Then again Western standard on democracy is always bias toward their Political goals. Just see the ethnic Pandora box that west entertaint in Balkan. What's the basis West continue sideline Serbs, while embracing the Albanian ? Both of them still playing ethnics cards, in fact all Balkan still playing ethnics cards. If West really want to enforce democratic values, then they should sideline all of Balkans ethnics (perhaps asside Slovenian), that includes Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian and not just the Serbs. Again because all of them still playing ethnic games that definitely not in line with democratic values.

When the West cherry picking on this type of "democracy" game, then they risk continue entertaining what's come out from this ethics Pandora box. As ethnic games got affirmation from others to be continued played out on other region. Basically the West loosing their own credibility as democracy champion.

That's my last argument on this thread for this topic. If anyone else want to continue talking how democracy standard in Ukraine, Better creating new thread. However I suggest check with the mods in here, cause that topic in the end will be very colourful.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #326
True but that would I suspect be off set by the fact that Russia has a lot of EW [especially ground based] which is integrated to all level of ops and formations; right down to brigade level. I can't think of any other army which has integral EW components at brigade level.
Different EW systems are set up to target different things. Russia has a lot of EW at the brigade/division and army level but most of it aims at enemy comms. Russia also has a lot of EW dedicated to anti-UAS roles, and to jamming and spoofing GPS signals. Rolling back IADS requires different kinds of equipment. Specifically for enemy IADS Russia has the Rychag helo-based system, and the results of OKR Prorubschik, if it was completed successfully.

Would you agree that despite whatever limitations it has; having an extensive and advanced EW capability. plus the fact Russia is intimately familiar with Ukrainian AD network [something you alluded to] provides it with a decisive edge? The Ukraine too has some level of EW capability [the Kolchuga comes to mind] but it comes to nowhere close to what Russia has. I may be assuming too much but if an actual invasion starts; in addition to the Ukrainian cell phone and internet network being jammed; I'd expect the Ukrainians to face serious issues in even deploying there UASs at a tactical/operational level.
This is all entirely plausible but it doesn't help Russia overcome Ukrainian air defenses which are quite numerous.

You would know better but I was under the assumption that good planning and careful distribution were things the Russians have traditionally done well. They've also learnt a lot from the Syrian experience where they deployed an expeditionary force which wasn't large and had fairly limited resources.
In my experience, Russia is very inconsistent about these things and has a tendency to fail when lacking institutional knowledge and experience in dealing with certain kinds of things. Syria only looked like a brand new operation. In reality the Soviets fought many "Syrias" during the Cold War using advisers that flew combat jets, operated IADS nodes, and directed ground forces. If you look at the role Russian advisers took in Syria, the only new thing is learning how to use modern air power. And it didn't happen immediately. Initially it was a deployment of mostly Soviet rotary and fixed wing flying Soviet-style strike missions, right down to having two aircraft per target. It took practice to learn modern BDA, give pilots freedom to hunt for targets, and to limit strikes to one aircraft, since two were overkill. The situation was one that allowed them time to learn and adapt. Depending on how quickly Russian ground forces have to move against Ukraine, they may not have time to adapt. I have no doubt that given a decent-length timeline Russia will learn and destroy Ukrainian IADS successfully. All the odds are stacked against Ukraine. But it may involve losing aircraft, and will almost certainly involve losing time.

In my opinion Russia's trump card to play is massed longer ranged missile strikes against GBAD sites, using Iskanders, Kalibrs, and X-101s/X-555s. Maybe even tapping the Kinzhal hypersonics. This would require prioritizing the air campaign, committing significant resources early, and reaping the rewards of air dominance afterwards.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
In reality the Soviets fought many "Syrias" during the Cold War using advisers that flew combat jets, operated IADS nodes, and directed ground forces.
You're referring to the MiG pilots in the Korean war; advisors in Angola; air defence operators operating Egyptian AD systems during the War of Attrition' and Libyan Sa-5s in the 1980's.

Apart from Afghanistan however; Syria was the only example where Russia deployed an expeditionary force with all the arms and supporting assets. No doubt; previous experience in Afghanistan taught the Russians a lot; as did analysing Western or rather U.S. mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan but didn't the Russians do a lot of new things in Syria; apart from employing and learning the use of modern air power? Or in your opinion was the Ukraine more pivotal in terms of lessons learnt?
 
Last edited:

Atunga

Member
You're referring to the MiG pilots in the Korean war; advisors in Angola; air defence operators operating Egyptian AD systems during the War of Attrition' and Libyan Sa-5s in the 1980's.

Apart from Afghanistan however; Syria was the only example where Russia deployed an expeditionary force with all the arms and supporting assets. No doubt; previous experience in Afghanistan taught the Russians a lot; as did analysing Western or rather U.S. mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan but didn't the Russians do a lot of new things in Suria apart from employing and learning the use of modern air power? Or in your opinion was the Ukraine more pivotal in terms of lessons learnt?
Most of the new stuff Russia learnt is still related to use of modern air power, things like repelling drone swarm attacks, jamming cruise missiles to steer them off course, employing kamikaze drones of their own, deploying and testing their own strike drones and having a good look on how the US and Isreali air force operates in theatre.. Syria has ben a place where Russia hasn learnt, continues to learn and most importantly carries out live fire practice
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Apart from statements by its Foreign Minister Russia has been largely quiet; stark contrast to the West where various politicians have spoken on the issues and where the threat of invasion has caused a lot of alarm and anxiety. Even non NATO Sweden and Finland are concerned and have taken certain steps to safeguard themselves. .

After almost a month Putin has spoken out.


''He warned that a Ukrainian accession to NATO could lead to a situation where Ukraine launches military action to reclaim control over Russian-annexed Crimea or areas controlled by Russia-backed separatists in the country’s east. Imagine that Ukraine becomes a NATO member and launches those military operations,” Putin said. “Should we fight NATO then? Has anyone thought about it? He also said Washington is not primarily concerned with Ukraine’s security, but with “containing Russia’s development”. In this sense, Ukraine itself is just a tool to achieve this goal,” he said.''

''For his part, Lavrov said he emphasised in his call with Blinken that the Kremlin wants the West to respect the 1999 Istanbul Charter for European Security, which states that no country can “strengthen their security at the expense” of others, a point it considers at the heart of the crisis.''
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
In the end it's back on how Ukraine worth to either US/West and Russia. This already turn into whose between two sides willing to pay the most on cost for Ukraine. Ukraine it self getting less and less matter on the calculation games between both sides.
 

Beholder

Active Member
In the end it's back on how Ukraine worth to either US/West and Russia. This already turn into whose between two sides willing to pay the most on cost for Ukraine. Ukraine it self getting less and less matter on the calculation games between both sides.
You are mistaken.
Ukraine is very important in all of this.
It is Ukraine desire to return lost territories even by military means that is reason for this conflict.
West will not sell Urkraine to RF (meaning West will not force Ukraine to relinquish territory), so RF is in military dilemma.
West on the other hand is in much more relaxed position.
It is true that RF succeeded to create situation where Ukraine have conflict that prevent her to join NATO, but it does not prevent Ukraine from creating other alliances and getting modern army.
And RF need to somehow defend it's ill gained territories.
West only need to prevent RF from getting whole of Ukraine, which is easily done. IMO
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
West on the other hand is in much more relaxed position.
The way I see it; it's the other way around. Russia has the initiative. It's NATO/the West which is running around; unsure of how to react. It's NATO/the West which is reacting to Russia's moves.

West only need to prevent RF from getting whole of Ukraine, which is easily done.
Firstly does Russia want the whole of the Ukraine? Secondly apart from sanctions, expressing solidarity; supplying the Ukraine with arms and training; etc, there is not much more NATO/the West is willing to do at this juncture. Russia is not deterred at all.
 

Beholder

Active Member
Firstly does Russia want the whole of the Ukraine? Secondly apart from sanctions, expressing solidarity; supplying the Ukraine with arms and training; etc, there is not much more NATO/the West is willing to do at this juncture. Russia is not deterred at all.
I don't know. My bet is Russia want some kind of deal, rather then military action. My guess is that West will not give to RF what RF wants.
UK, Ukraine and Polan have alliance now, which basically means western weapons to Ukraine prety much putside of NATO-RF equilibrium.
And Ukraine is big country. To have current escalation RF gathered forces from all over the country.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Ukraine is very important in all of this.
It is Ukraine desire to return lost territories even by
No it's not. Ukraine fate determine whether West want continue support them. What Russia did is raising the cost to see if West still willing to match it.

Just like Czech situation in 38, All who make decisions is UK, French and Germany. Ukraine can dream to try to retake the territory, but Ukraine did not have anything to bargain for without the West.

That's why it's the game between West and Russia and whose in the end willing to take more costs.

Russia never give indication that they want whole Ukraine. It's Western media and Politicians plus Kyiev that try to sell the idea. Some defense Think Tank in the west basically also already see that. Worse come to worse, Russia will consolidate the East and if it's possible the South. That's where Ukraine heavy Industry located and that's where the Coast located. Without the East and South, practically what's left of Ukraine (eventough 2/3 of territory) don't really worth for Russia.

If that happens, the question is whether it will be integrated to Russia or Russia build Pro Russian Republic in there. Despite all the Ukraine propaganda, there're still Pro Russian population in that area. Kyiev just push them down.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Russia never give indication that they want whole Ukraine.
No but Putin's previous statement about the Ukraine and Russia being the same ethnically/linguistically [which we know to be untrue] gave rise to speculation that his ultimate goal is to absorb it into Russia.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I don't know. My bet is Russia want some kind of deal, rather then military action.
Of course it wants a deal. Why do you think it's dong what it's doing? The exercises, troop deployments; statements and demands are all intended to create and effect; the conditions which would lead to NATO/the West reaching some level of accommodation with Russia. The level of compromises Russia is willing to make is dependent on what NATO/the West is willing to make. If you read his statements; it's obvious that Putin is in no rush and is adopting a pragmatic wait and see approach. For now at least; the threat of invasion is certainly there but I doubt the Russians are at a point where thy are close to actually launching one.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Most of the new stuff Russia learnt is still related to use of modern air power, things like repelling drone swarm attacks, jamming cruise missiles to steer them off course, employing kamikaze drones of their own, deploying and testing their own strike drones and having a good look on how the US and Isreali air force operates in theatre.. Syria has ben a place where Russia hasn learnt, continues to learn and most importantly carries out live fire practice
Their experience in Syria is against insurgents, not a peer threat. The learning curve from merely watching one side getting bombed without some counter-action is very limited.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The learning curve from merely watching one side getting bombed without some counter-action is very limited.
This would apply not only to Russia in Syria but other countries in various other conflicts in which they deployed airpower without the other side being able to respond in kind.

I would think that both Syria and the Ukraine were valuable for the Russians [in different ways] in that they learnt or relearnt how to do various things; were able to refine or test new tactics and procedures and were provided the opportunity to see how weapons and equipment would perform in actual combat conditions.
 

Beholder

Active Member
Their experience in Syria is against insurgents, not a peer threat. The learning curve from merely watching one side getting bombed without some counter-action is very limited.
Just activating airforce in environment with lot of other actors both AD and airforces give valuable experience.

Of course it wants a deal. Why do you think it's dong what it's doing?
They moved forces from other borders, like China for example. It is very riski move, can not continue forever.
It means they can consider military action seriosly.

Just like Czech situation in 38, All who make decisions is UK, French and Germany. Ukraine can dream to try to retake the territory, but Ukraine did not have anything to bargain for without the West.
Ukraine doesn't need to.
Ukraine is country of 40+ million people. It has written gurantee of UK, France, US of it's territorial integrity.
It is very hard to imagine that West will abandon her to RF. It will not happen.
Other then direct military intervention, all other means will be used to stop RF military action.
If that will fail direct military intervention still will be seriosly considered.
This is how West operate. Very predictable.
It is entirely possible that West will accept Ukraine into NATO with Dombass and Crimea as exceptions for article 5 application.
It will be disaster for RF. Exacly thing they tried to prevent.IMO
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
It has written gurantee of UK, France, US of it's territorial integrity.
Does it? I wasn't aware.

They moved forces from other borders, like China for example. It is very riski move, can not continue forever.
Well they only been at it for a while and look at the effect its had. Not a single Russian troop has entered the Ukraine but the whole of Europe is on edge. It's not risky as moving troops from other areas of Russia or military districts poses no risks as Russia dos not have tensions with any of its other neighbours.

It means they can consider military action seriosly.
That's an understatement but yes ...
 
Top