See other Resistance Articles
Title: Assessing the Russian Military as an Instrument of Power
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/assessing ... ary-as-an-instrument-of-power/
Published: Aug 28, 2016
Author: The Saker
Post Date: 2016-08-28 17:56:02 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 325
Comments: 37
It has been a quarter of a century now since the fall of the Soviet Union and yet the memory of the Soviet Armed Forces is still vivid in the minds of many of those who lived through the Cold War or even remember WWII. The NATO-sponsored elites of Eastern Europe still continue to scare their citizens by warning of a danger of “Russian tanks” rolling down their streets as if the Soviet tanks were about to advance on Germany again. For a while, the accepted image of a Russian soldier in the West was a semi-literate drinking and raping Ivan who would attack in immense hordes with little tactical skills and an officer corps selected for political loyalty and lack of imagination. Then the propaganda narrative changed and now the new Russian bogeyman is a “little green man” who will suddenly show up to annex some part of the Baltics to Russia. Putatively pro-Russian “experts” add to the confusion by publicly hallucinating of a Russian deployment in Syria and the Mediterranean which could wrestle the entire region away from Uncle Sam and fight the entire NATO/CENCOM air forces and navies with confidence. This is all nonsense, of course, and what I propose to do here is to provide a few very basic pointers about what the modern Russian military can and cannot do in 2016. This will not be a highly technical discussion but rather a list of a few simple, basic, reminders. Russia is not the Soviet Union The first and most important thing to keep in mind is that the Russian military is truly focused on the defense of Russian territory. Let me immediately say that contrary to much of the Cold War propaganda, the Soviet military was also defensive in essence, even if it did include a number of offensive elements: 1) The military control of all of Eastern Europe as a “buffer zone” to keep the US/NATO away from the Soviet Union’s borders. 2) An official ideology, Communism, which was messianic and global in its stated goals (more or less, depending on who was in power) 3) A practice of global opposition to the US Empire anywhere on the planet with technical, political, financial, scientific and, of course, military means Russia has exactly zero interest in any of these. Not only did the nature of modern warfare dramatically reduce the benefits of being forward deployed, the messianic aspects of Communism have even been abandoned by the Communist Party of Russia which is now focused on the internal socio-economic problems of Russia and which has no interest whatsoever in liberating the Polish or Austrian proletariat from Capitalist exploitation. As for a global military presence, Russia has neither the means nor the desire to waste her very limited resources on faraway territories which do not contribute to her defense. But the single most important factor here is this: the overwhelming majority of Russians are tired and fed up with being an empire. From Peter I to Gorbachev, the Russian people have paid a horrific price in sweat, tears, blood and Rubles to maintain an empire which did absolutely nothing for the Russian people except impoverish them and make them hated in much of the world. More than anything else, the Russians want their country to be a “normal” country. Yes, safe, powerful, wealthy and respected, but still a normal country and not a global superpower. Many Russians still remember that the Soviet Politburo justified the occupation and subsequent war in Afghanistan as the completion of an “internationalist duty” and if somebody today tried that kind of language the reply would be “to hell with that”. Finally, there is the sad reality that almost all the countries which were liberated by Russia, not only from Nazi Germany, but also from the Turkish yoke show exactly zero gratitude for the role Russia played in their liberation. To see how our so-called “Orthodox brothers” in Bulgaria, Romania or Georgia are eager to deploy NATO weapons against Russia is nothing short of sickening. The next time around, let these guys liberate themselves, everybody will be happier that way. It is a basic rule of military analysis that you do not look at the intentions but primarily at capabilities, so let us now look at Russian capabilities. The Russian armed forces are relatively small First, the Russian armed forces are fairly small, especially for the defense of the biggest country on the planet (Russia is almost twice the size of the USA, she has a about half the population and land border length of 20,241km). The total size of the Russian Armed Forces is estimated at about 800,000 soldiers. That puts the Russian Armed Forces in 5th position worldwide, somewhere between the DPRK (1,190,000) and Pakistan (643,800). Truly, this kind of “bean counting” makes absolutely no sense, but this comparison is useful to show something crucial: the Russian Armed Forces are relatively small. SakerRussia This conclusion is further bolstered if we consider the fact that it is hard to imagine a scenario in which every Russian soldier from Kalinigrad to the Kamchatka will be engaged at the same time against one enemy. This is why the Russian territory has been broken up into five separate (and, de facto, autonomous) military districts (or “strategic directions): East, Central, Northern, Western and Southern. While there are a number of units which are subordinated directly to the high command in Moscow, most Russian units have been distributed between the commands of these strategic directions. [Sidebar: it is also interesting to know that when Putin came to power the Western military district was almost demilitarized as nobody in Russia believed that there was a threat coming from the West. The aggressive US/NATO policies have now changed that and there now is an major program underway to strengthen it, including the reactivation of the First Guards Tank Army.] There is no US equivalent to the Russian military districts. Or, if there is, it is very different in nature and scope. I am talking about the US Unified Combatant Commands which have broken up our entire planet into “Areas of Responsibility”: SakerRussia-2 Notice that all of Russia is in the area of “responsibility” of only one of these commands, USEUCOM. In reality, however, in the case of full scale war between Russia and the United States USCENTCOM and USPACOM would, obviously, play a crucial role. The Russians are *not* coming The size and capabilities of the Russian Military Districts are completely dwarfed by the immense power and resources of the US Commands: in every one of these commands the USA already has deployed forces, pre-positioned equipment and built the infrastructure needed to receive major reinforcements. Furthermore, since the USA currently has about 700 military bases worldwide, the host countries have been turned into a modern version of a colony, a protectorate, which has no option than to fully collaborate with the USA and which has to offer all its resources in manpower, equipment, infrastructure, etc. to the USA in case of war. To put it simply: all of Europe is owned by the USA which can use it as they want (mainly as canon fodder against Russia, of course). It is important to keep this immense difference in size and capabilities in mind when, for example, we look at the Russian operation in Syria. When the first rumors of an impending Russian intervention began flooding the blogosphere many were tempted to say that the Russians were about to liberate Syria, challenge NATO and defeat Daesh. Some had visions of Russian Airborne Forces deployed into Damascus, MiG-31s criss-crossing the Syrian skies and even Russian SLBMs cruising off the Syrian coast (though they never explained this one). At the time I tried to explain that no, the “Russians are not coming” (see here, here, here, here and here), but my cautionary remarks were not greeted with enthusiasm, to put it mildly. A Russian task force did eventually materialize in Syria, but it was a very far cry from what was expected. In fact, compared to the expected intervention force, it was tiny: 50 aircraft and support personnel. What this small force achieved, however, was much more than anybody expected, including myself. So what happened here, did the Russians really do everything they can, or did they get cold feet or were they somehow pressured into a much less ambitious mission than they had originally envisioned? To explain this, we now need to look at the actual capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces. The true “reach” of the Russian armed forces First, Russia does have very long range weapon systems: her missiles can reach any point on the planet, her bombers can fly many thousands of miles and her transport aircraft have a range of several thousand miles. However, and this is crucial, none of that amounts to a real power projection capability. There are two main ways to project power: to take control over a territory or, failing that to deny it to your enemy. The first one absolutely requires the famous “boots on the ground” while the second one requires air supremacy. So how far away from home can the Russian soldiers and pilots really fight? How far from home can the Russian Aerospace forces establish a no-fly zone? Let’s begin by dispelling a myth: that Russian Airborne Forces are more or less similar to the US 82nd or 101st Airborne. They are not. The 82nd and 101st are light infantry divisions which are typically engaged in what I would call “colonial enforcement” missions. In comparison to the US airborne forces, the Russian Airborne Forces are much heavier, fully mechanized and their main mission is to fight in the operational level support of the front to a maximum depth of 100km to 300km (if I remember correctly, the Russian Aerospace Forces don’t even have sufficient aircraft to airlift an entire Airborne Division although they will acquire that capability in 2017). Once landed, the Russian Airborne Division is a much more formidable force than its US counterpart: not only are the Russians fully mechanized and they have their own artillery. Most importantly, they are far more tactically mobile than the Americans. But what the Russians gain in tactical mobility, they lose in strategic mobility.: the US can easily send the 82nd pretty much to any location on the planet, whereas the Russians most definitely cannot do that with their Airborne Forces. Furthermore, even a Russian Airborne Division is relatively weak and fragile, especially when compared to regular armed forces, so they are critically dependent on the support of the Russian Aerospace forces. That, again, dramatically reduces the “reach” of these forces. All this is to say that no, the Russian VDV never had the means to send an airborne division/Brigade/Regiment to Damascus any more than they had the means to support the Russian VDV company in Pristina. This is not a weakness of the Russian Airborne Forces, it is simply the logical consequence of the fact that the entire Russian military posture is purely defensive in nature, at least strategically. Like any other modern military force, the Russians are capable of offensive military operations, but those would be executed primarily as a part of a defensive plan or as a part of a counter-attack. And while the Russian Ground Forces (aka “Army”) have excellent terrain crossing capabilities, they are all designed for missions of less than a couple of hundred kilometers in depth. This is why in the past I have written that the Russian Armed Forces are designed to fight on their national territory and up to a maximum of 1000km from the Russian border. Now, please do not take this “1000km” literally. In reality, 200km-400km would be much more realistic, and I would say that the capabilities of the Russian military diminish in a manner roughly inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the Russian borders. Here is what this maximal 1000km looks like on a map showing the western and southern borders of Russia:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, randge, horse, cynicom, neoconsnailed (#0)
(Edited)
In international affairs, as in many other areas, it is better to never say never. So I will only say that to see the Russian armed forces going into an offensive operation remains exceedingly unlikely. Nor will Russia defend even an important partner at “any cost”. The primarily mission and military posture of the Russian armed forces will remain fundamentally defensive and while Russia might use her armed forces in support of a political goal or to help an ally, she will do that with extreme caution not to allow that engagement to escalate into a regional war or, even less so, a direct war against the Empire. Unlike the West where a possible war with Russia is almost never discussed (and, when it is, it is done in an absolutely ridiculous manner), the prospects of war with the West are discussed in the Russian media on an almost daily basis, including on the main, state-funded, TV stations. As for the Russian armed forces, they are engaged in huge rearmament and force-training program which, so far, has been roughly 50% completed. These are all clear signs that Russia is preparing, very intensively, for war. Should the Neocon “crazies in the basement” trigger a war they will find Russia ready, militarily and psychologically, to fight and to win, no matter what the costs. But Russia will never again volunteer for the role of global anti-US agent or engage her armed forces if there is a viable alternative to such an engagement. So no, most definitely not, the Russians are not coming. The Saker says that Russia is preparing for war
Offensive or defensive war???? There is a difference and intent is very important.
According to The Saker, defensive: So I will only say that to see the Russian armed forces going into an offensive operation remains exceedingly unlikely. Nor will Russia defend even an important partner at “any cost”. The primarily mission and military posture of the Russian armed forces will remain fundamentally defensive and while Russia might use her armed forces in support of a political goal or to help an ally, she will do that with extreme caution not to allow that engagement to escalate into a regional war or, even less so, a direct war against the Empire.
We must face one truth. The U.S. has been waging a low grade war against not only Russia, but China as well. How much longer will they tolerate this sort of thing? ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
That being factual, we have nothing to concern ourselves with?
We invaded Russia once, that was enough. We have FEWER grunts now than we had in 1941. Russia and China fear an invasion any day?
Only time will tell, folks. Besides the other longsuffering countries whose needs yawl are studiously ignoring, there's Chechnya -- 58 brutal aggressive years' worth on and off, and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War#Chechnya_within_Imperial_Russia_ and_the_Soviet_Union _____________________________________________________________ USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um
Muscovy started out as a city state. Became worlds largest country...by force.
We have military bases across Russia's borders. They have no bases in Mexico or Canada.
And that is how all large or powerful countries do it, alas. Overall, not a good thing I fear. It's like what Lennon said about rock 'n' roll -- the biggest bastards are the biggest successes, and the Beatles succeeded because they were the biggest bastards (his word, supposedly) of all. _____________________________________________________________ USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um
There is a reason for that. Tell me why we do that?
To surround them and demand they surrender their nuclear weapons.
Also what is the reason or necessity for Australia to allow us to station troops in Australia? Those troops will invade Mother Russia?
Be rational, why do we do such?
Dunno why Australia puts up with it unless we've convinced them that the Yellow Peril did not end with WWII.
We are there at their request, why do they want us there? Australia this year has the largest defense budget in 15 years!!!!!! Why?
Who is the "they" who want us there? Put another way is Australia independent? The Forgotten Coup
Australia.... Australians see a rerun of 1941 possibly washing up on their shores. The US saved Australia last time. The battle of Coral Sea stopped Japanese from invading Port Moresby, their last stop before invading Australia if they desired.
Ada... Take a look at this...The olde man was there when we saved Australia at battle of Coral Sea...If you listen he says"Australians must never forget it was the Americans that saved us"....
Yeah, that's was my first guess. (See post #15.) We've put the fear of the return of the Yellow Peril on them. China, of course, this time even though China has never been expansionary. Australia does have their undies in a twist over the Brown Peril, i.e., Indonesians, Indians, Cambodians, etc. , but they don't need the US military to handle that.
IF . . .
What did the Aussies have that the Japs could have used except sheep?
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
One reading history finds that the Japanese navy was for invasion after Port Moresby. The army said no they did not have enough men. After the Coral Sea, the if was removed. Little did the Japanese realize that the Australians were planning on allowing the Japs to take the northern half of Australia without a fight. The Australian General in charge of defense told the prime minister, "I have 12,000 miles of coastline to defend and NOTHING TO DO IT WITH". We saved them once, now it looks like a rerun.
Land... Japan intended to send...three million...permanent settlers into northern Australia alone. Now if we look, China is "renting thousands of acres in Australia". Both countries had and have a common problem, they cannot feed themselves.
Having bases in allied countries acclimatizes troops to an area they might have to be in if necessary sometime in the future; communications and other links would not have to be hastily arranged during hostilities. Rapport established with host country personnel.
Why go to the bother to invade when you can rent? China is buying land and natural resources all over the globe, thanks to their surplus of US$. China and Australia have been enjoying mutually-profitable business deals for decades. US troops in Australia are nothing more than an expense to us.
That belies history and reality of the present time.
Are you hinting at The Pine Gap Base?
Not familiar with that. Bases around the world have multitude of useful purposes. For instance, we have 20,000 grunts in South Korea, north Korea has over a million man army. What on earth could be the thinking that allows that????
Other than to surround Russia?
There is a sound reason for such bases, disregarding Russia, China or anyone in particular.
When stay at home Americans ALL stand together, en masse, on April 15, refuse to pay their taxes, I will deem it worthy to listen to their complaints. Will they???????
Those who pay taxes are entitled to complain the very loudest.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Not when they demean the military people, then like robots stand in line to pay their taxes, because they are afraid. Taxpayers should show their solidarity, stop complaining, dont pay their taxes. I like the other cowards, pay my taxes ahead of time BECAUSE I AM A COWARD, I dont want to go to prison or lose my home etc etc but I aLSO DO NOT DEMEAN THE HUMAN LICE THAT COMPRISE THE MILITARY. They pay their taxes also, from fear.
The human lice are those who control and direct the military, imo.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Ayn Rand..."the masses are but human lice, with barely a right to life". She and her adherents despised those that "labored" to sustain life.
Conclusion
#2. To: Ada (#1)
These are all clear signs that Russia is preparing, very intensively, for war.
#3. To: Cynicom (#2)
Offensive or defensive war????
#4. To: Ada, Cynicom (#3)
According to The Saker, defensive:
#5. To: Ada (#3)
According to The Saker, defensive:
#6. To: BTP Holdings (#4)
We must face one truth. The U.S. has been waging a low grade war against not only Russia, but China as well.
#7. To: Ada (#3)
defensive
#8. To: NeoconsNailed (#7)
#9. To: Cynicom (#5)
That being factual, we have nothing to concern ourselves with?
#10. To: Cynicom (#8)
#11. To: Ada (#9)
We have military bases across Russia's borders. They have no bases in Mexico or Canada.
#12. To: Cynicom (#11)
Tell me why we do that?
#13. To: Ada (#9)
#14. To: Ada (#12)
To surround them and demand they surrender their nuclear weapons.
#15. To: Cynicom (#13)
#16. To: Ada (#15)
Dunno why Australia puts up with it
#17. To: Cynicom (#16)
We are there at their request, why do they want us there?
#18. To: Ada (#17)
Who is the "they" who want us there?
#19. To: Ada (#17)
#20. To: Cynicom (#18)
(Edited)
#21. To: Cynicom (#18)
The battle of Coral Sea stopped Japanese from invading Port Moresby, their last stop before invading Australia if they desired.
#22. To: Ada, Cynicom, 4 (#21)
#23. To: Ada (#21)
IF . . .
#24. To: Lod (#22)
What did the Aussies have that the Japs could have used except sheep?
#25. To: Cynicom (#11)
#26. To: Cynicom, Lod (#24)
(Edited)
Now if we look, China is "renting thousands of acres in Australia".
#27. To: Ada (#26)
US troops in Australia are nothing more than an expense to us.
#28. To: Cynicom (#27)
That belies history and reality of the present time.
#29. To: Ada (#28)
Are you hinting at The Pine Gap Base?
#30. To: Cynicom (#29)
Bases around the world have multitude of useful purposes.
#31. To: Ada (#30)
Other than to surround Russia?
#32. To: Cynicom (#31)
There is a sound reason for such bases
#33. To: Ada (#32)
Close all military bases?
#34. To: Cynicom (#33)
#35. To: Lod (#34)
Those who pay taxes are entitled to complain the very loudest.
#36. To: Cynicom (#35)
#37. To: Lod (#36)
The human lice are those who control and direct the military, imo.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest