Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #6

PapaDragon wrote:RE: Russian ground deployment, purpose of Russian mlitary is not to do the job of Syrian border police.

The same thing they do in the Armenian and Tajikistan borders.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did actually.

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:RE: Russian ground deployment, purpose of Russian mlitary is not to do the job of Syrian border police.

The same thing they do in the Armenian and Tajikistan borders.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did actually.

The purpose of Russian military will not be to perform SBP's, it will be to actually fight a war.

While I do not have an appetite for it, and especially after seeing the SAR marine get killed. There needs to be a solution to some glaring issues in front line defense. Also there can be a lot of things to learn from this, especially in countering ATGM's without complex measures on AFV's.

Man portable radars can do a lot of good job. And those the Syrian army has used in very scarce occasions.

BREAKING: Russia MoD says a Russian ship had to shoot warning shots at a Turkish ship in the Aegean sea to avoid collision

EDIT:A Russian warship has opened fire on a Turkey warship 22 klm off the Greece island of Lemnos according to Russia ministry.

Solncepek wrote:BREAKING: Russia MoD says a Russian ship had to shoot warning shots at a Turkish ship in the Aegean sea to avoid collision

EDIT:A Russian warship has opened fire on a Turkey warship 22 klm off the Greece island of Lemnos according to Russia ministry.

They fired AShM warning shots I hope.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:RE: Russian ground deployment, purpose of Russian mlitary is not to do the job of Syrian border police.

The same thing they do in the Armenian and Tajikistan borders.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did actually.

The purpose of Russian military will not be to perform SBP's, it will be to actually fight a war.

The Tajik-Afghan border (and the country itself till 97) was more like a war (or continuation of the Afghan crisis) after Najibullah fell and up to 2001.
But I know what you mean, I was insinuating a limited deployment after SAA and co. cleans it up first. To avoid Kesab situations like last year.

AlfaT8 wrote:Russian Frigate Uses Firearms to Prevent Collision With Turkish Vessel

The crew of the Russian "Smetlivy" destroyer was forced to use firearms on Sunday to prevent a collision with a Turkish seiner vessel in the northern part of the Aegean Sea, according to Russia's Ministry of Defense.

"On the 13 December 2015 the crew of the Russian patrol ship "Smetlivy" prevented a collision with a Turkish seiner vessel 22 kilometers from the Greek island of Limnos in the northern part of the Aegean Sea,"  Russia's Defense Ministry statement reads.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151213/1031680448/russian-frigate-collision-turkey.html

They didn't respond to radio and flares and came within 600 m of the Russian vessel.
Yeah what did they expect?

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:RE: Russian ground deployment, purpose of Russian mlitary is not to do the job of Syrian border police.

The same thing they do in the Armenian and Tajikistan borders.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did actually.

The purpose of Russian military will not be to perform SBP's, it will be to actually fight a war.

While I do not have an appetite for it, and especially after seeing the SAR marine get killed. There needs to be a solution to some glaring issues in front line defense. Also there can be a lot of things to learn from this, especially in countering ATGM's without complex measures on AFV's.

Man portable radars can do a lot of good job. And those the Syrian army has used in very scarce occasions.

Solution is called carpet bombing & SAA doing their job for a change.

Excuses for SAA are gone, Russia now provides air support, weapons, ammo, supplies an diplomatic cover. Now Syrians need to get their asses into gear.

And those Tu-22s can be flown once a week instead of once a month. Plenty of old Soviet bomb stocks still left to clear out.

If Russian grunts are to be sent anywhere it should be Novorossia. Otherwise they need to keep their butts back home and practice for the real thing. VKS and Navy got this.

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Russian Frigate Uses Firearms to Prevent Collision With Turkish Vessel

The crew of the Russian "Smetlivy" destroyer was forced to use firearms on Sunday to prevent a collision with a Turkish seiner vessel in the northern part of the Aegean Sea, according to Russia's Ministry of Defense.

"On the 13 December 2015 the crew of the Russian patrol ship "Smetlivy" prevented a collision with a Turkish seiner vessel 22 kilometers from the Greek island of Limnos in the northern part of the Aegean Sea,"  Russia's Defense Ministry statement reads.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151213/1031680448/russian-frigate-collision-turkey.html

They didn't respond to radio and flares and came within 600 m of the Russian vessel.
Yeah what did they expect?

Turks must be making another play for the virgins...

Captain of the USS Kebab was probably called Mustafa.

PapaDragon wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Russian Frigate Uses Firearms to Prevent Collision With Turkish Vessel

The crew of the Russian "Smetlivy" destroyer was forced to use firearms on Sunday to prevent a collision with a Turkish seiner vessel in the northern part of the Aegean Sea, according to Russia's Ministry of Defense.

"On the 13 December 2015 the crew of the Russian patrol ship "Smetlivy" prevented a collision with a Turkish seiner vessel 22 kilometers from the Greek island of Limnos in the northern part of the Aegean Sea,"  Russia's Defense Ministry statement reads.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151213/1031680448/russian-frigate-collision-turkey.html

They didn't respond to radio and flares and came within 600 m of the Russian vessel.
Yeah what did they expect?

Turks must be making another play for the virgins...

Captain of the USS Kebab was probably called Mustafa.

And he's keeping company to the captain of TuN Yildiray submarine which our Marines had to shoot it up with Strim AT rockets and MGs for coming within 1,5 km from Farmakonisi island shores.

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:RE: Russian ground deployment, purpose of Russian mlitary is not to do the job of Syrian border police.

The same thing they do in the Armenian and Tajikistan borders.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did actually.

The purpose of Russian military will not be to perform SBP's, it will be to actually fight a war.

The Tajik-Afghan border (and the country itself till 97) was more like a war (or continuation of the Afghan crisis) after Najibullah fell and up to 2001.
But I know what you mean, I was insinuating a limited deployment after SAA and co. cleans it up first. To avoid Kesab situations like last year.

Nah KG we're good, I know what you meant. I was only outlining the reality to Papa Dragon.

Fishing boats getting to close to warships cannot be underestimated ..they can be suicide boats
of turkey paid terrorist armed with 3 tons of tnt to seriously damage or even destroy a warship if get too close. Ideally Russia should hire foreigners to go in small boats to confront such pirate turkey ships. As a matter of fact the fishing boat was withing firing range of any tow missile that could have been very dangerous is hit a warehouse.

There is also the risk of "ISIS fishing boats" in the dozens ambushing Rusians warships and all
armed with Anti tank missiles and heavy machine guns. Russian MoD better equip their warships with control mass weapons , like sound weapons or microwave to push away fishing boats not allow them get closer than 1,000m. Because if the fishing boats attack the warship.. Erdogan Pig will claim it was ISIS who did it and say have nothing to do with it. But if Russia sink the fishing boats who gets too close to the warship ,then Erdopig will use the incident for propaganda to demonize Russia ,and use the incident to get more public support and justify closing the bosphurus strait for Russia. Russia did however the right thing ..in making the event public and summoning the Turkey terrorist military.. So Europe is aware that Turkey pigs are provoking Russian warships free travel on international waters .

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:RE: Russian ground deployment, purpose of Russian mlitary is not to do the job of Syrian border police.

The same thing they do in the Armenian and Tajikistan borders.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did actually.

The purpose of Russian military will not be to perform SBP's, it will be to actually fight a war.

The Tajik-Afghan border (and the country itself till 97) was more like a war (or continuation of the Afghan crisis) after Najibullah fell and up to 2001.
But I know what you mean, I was insinuating a limited deployment after SAA and co. cleans it up first. To avoid Kesab situations like last year.

Nah KG we're good, I know what you meant. I was only outlining the reality to Papa Dragon.

I read that in Tajikistan Russia recruited locals for their deployed Division there (or better leftover).
They could do the same in Syria I guess, setup one or two mixed brigades, keep them deployed near the Turkish border.

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:RE: Russian ground deployment, purpose of Russian mlitary is not to do the job of Syrian border police.

The same thing they do in the Armenian and Tajikistan borders.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did actually.

The purpose of Russian military will not be to perform SBP's, it will be to actually fight a war.

The Tajik-Afghan border (and the country itself till 97) was more like a war (or continuation of the Afghan crisis) after Najibullah fell and up to 2001.
But I know what you mean, I was insinuating a limited deployment after SAA and co. cleans it up first. To avoid Kesab situations like last year.

Nah KG we're good, I know what you meant. I was only outlining the reality to Papa Dragon.

I read that in Tajikistan Russia recruited locals for their deployed Division there (or better leftover).
They could do the same in Syria I guess, setup one or two mixed brigades, keep them deployed near the Turkish border.

Actually the problem is that in Tajikistan there were still plenty of Musbat guys that were either laid off, or simply were paid better by the Russian, so basically they were "hot fresh from a theatre or opsn just accross the border (litterally). Russian wasn't a problem and military practices were kif-kif.

In Syria the gap is huge, the people to have a mixed bat, you need a lot of time, that they don't really have.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Actually the problem is that in Tajikistan there were still plenty of Musbat guys that were either laid off, or simply were paid better by the Russian, so basically they were "hot fresh from a theatre or opsn just accross the border (litterally). Russian wasn't a problem and military practices were kif-kif.

In Syria the gap is huge, the people to have a mixed bat, you need a lot of time, that they don't really have.

True that about ex-Musbat, Russian-speaking locals.
I guess in Syria it's kind of a "I say tomato you say shawarma" situation that will hamper Russian deployments.

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Actually the problem is that in Tajikistan there were still plenty of Musbat guys that were either laid off, or simply were paid better by the Russian, so basically they were "hot fresh from a theatre or opsn just accross the border (litterally). Russian wasn't a problem and military practices were kif-kif.

In Syria the gap is huge, the people to have a mixed bat, you need a lot of time, that they don't really have.

True that about ex-Musbat, Russian-speaking locals.
I guess in Syria it's kind of a "I say tomato you say shawarma" situation that will hamper Russian deployments.

Exactly, plus while I'm sure the Syrians aren't akin to Afghanis with the US troops, so they're willing to fight, some things they don't do even now after 4 years. Now, with Iranians, that would be something I'd want to see.

SAA found pilot seat of downed RuAF Su-24 during advance in Jabal.

I suspect there is more than what is being said about the Turkish fishing trawler incident:

Today the Rostov-on-Don submarine (the one who fired Kalibr missiles at 2 targets in Syria) was crossing the Bosphorus on its way to Novorossysk: http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/71511/

It happens to be the same day as when the destroyer Smetlivy vs Turkish trawler incident happened near the Lemnos island in the Aegean sea (which is very close to the Bosphorus passage).

What was the Smetlivy doing in the Aegean so far from Syria's coast?
Was it escorting/covering the submarine from any Turkish foul play?
Was the trawler a Turkish intelligence ship with a mission to interfere with the submarine who had participated in the war against ISIS?

Rostov-on-Don Imp. Kilo, transits Bosphorus.

TheArmenian wrote:I suspect there is more than what is being said about the Turkish fishing trawler incident:

Today the Rostov-on-Don submarine (the one who fired Kalibr missiles at 2 targets in Syria) was crossing the Bosphorus on its way to Novorossysk: http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/71511/

It happens to be the same day as when the destroyer Smetlivy vs Turkish trawler incident happened near the Lemnos island in the Aegean sea (which is very close to the Bosphorus passage).

What was the Smetlivy doing in the Aegean so far from Syria's coast?
Was it escorting/covering the submarine from any Turkish foul play?
Was the trawler a Turkish intelligence ship with a mission to interfere with the submarine who had participated in the war against ISIS?

Actually it's indeed on the pathway to cross into Marmara sea from Canakkale but far away from the Bosphorus, and the Turks were most probably playing their favourite game on how to be the most perfect assholes with Greek territorial waters. But from what you're saying, that might be it, Turks being Turks.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:I'm personally not a fan of having troops risking their lives for a war that isn't ours. We are in Syria on the gesture of goodwill to Assad and the people of Syria. With all that said, it is understandable that in order to ensure a quicker victory there must be some presence on the ground. Russian military today is almost in no way similar to the Soviet Army that fought in Afghanistan or even the Russian Army in Chechnya. Russia's leadership isn't throwing away the lives of their soldiers anymore. As long as the troops come home alive and well, let them do their thing.

You're right, the Russian military today is in no way similar to the Soviet Army that fought in Afghanistan. It has nowhere near the ability to sustain that many troops far away at the bottom of Central Asia for over a decade, has nowhere near the resources, supplies, logistics, ammo at its disposal that the Soviet Army had, far less money and resources to spend on economically developing the region or even building up military and transport infrastructure all over the place.

flamming_python wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:I'm personally not a fan of having troops risking their lives for a war that isn't ours. We are in Syria on the gesture of goodwill to Assad and the people of Syria. With all that said, it is understandable that in order to ensure a quicker victory there must be some presence on the ground. Russian military today is almost in no way similar to the Soviet Army that fought in Afghanistan or even the Russian Army in Chechnya. Russia's leadership isn't throwing away the lives of their soldiers anymore. As long as the troops come home alive and well, let them do their thing.

You're right, the Russian military today is in no way similar to the Soviet Army that fought in Afghanistan. It has nowhere near the ability to sustain that many troops far away at the bottom of Central Asia for over a decade, has nowhere near the resources, supplies, logistics, ammo at its disposal that the Soviet Army had, far less money and resources to spend on economically developing the region or even building up military and transport infrastructure all over the place.

Actually, it does.

Economics aside, which is actually very easy to handle and probably would bring in more money to Russia overall, there is so much leftovers from Soviet times, they are handing them over to Syrian military.  They have the personnel as well too.

Money?  Well, it is in the form of investments.  As well, they can also justify it under various training costs as they already have with the aircrafts.

Your statement is eerily similar to those who said Russia would not commit at all due to the very same issues.  Yet, Russia rebuilt an airfield, building another one now if rumors are correct, has dozens and dozens of planes, lots of people available, air defense systems, and logistical supply chain and what seems like a never ending supply of cruise missiles and bombs.  And they done it really cheap too from previous records.  Oh, and they made the movements in very short period of time, that got even the US in a bitch fit too.

So I would say you are quite wrong, as Russia has done quite a lot to prove us wrong. They even rebuilt a repair plant quite quickly and with no word of it till it was finished. Clearly money is readily available.

flamming_python wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:I'm personally not a fan of having troops risking their lives for a war that isn't ours. We are in Syria on the gesture of goodwill to Assad and the people of Syria. With all that said, it is understandable that in order to ensure a quicker victory there must be some presence on the ground. Russian military today is almost in no way similar to the Soviet Army that fought in Afghanistan or even the Russian Army in Chechnya. Russia's leadership isn't throwing away the lives of their soldiers anymore. As long as the troops come home alive and well, let them do their thing.

You're right, the Russian military today is in no way similar to the Soviet Army that fought in Afghanistan. It has nowhere near the ability to sustain that many troops far away at the bottom of Central Asia for over a decade, has nowhere near the resources, supplies, logistics, ammo at its disposal that the Soviet Army had, far less money and resources to spend on economically developing the region or even building up military and transport infrastructure all over the place.

On a strictly operational regard, Russia has enough resources for a limited deployment (that's what they're doing, in case you've missed it). On the other side, the Afghan war was a completely different scale and kind of operation. In this mess everything is upside down. The exact same issue that you state, is the reason why a deployment is necessary (for both sides, US or Russia) in they want to achieve their respective operational goals.

Syrians can't get their selves alone out of this, be Nash Syrians or the others. In both cases, it's either a Syria on IV or outright economic slavery.
So basically your opinion is the safest route for Russian personnel, but the worst for a solution in Syria.

Militarov wrote:Rostov-on-Don Imp. Kilo, transits Bosphorus.

Looks like she is flying the Turkish flag. Moscow said last week that it flying it was a courtesy at the discretion of the ship's Captain, not mandated in the Treaty.

Be a long time before we see her passing there again.

sepheronx wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:I'm personally not a fan of having troops risking their lives for a war that isn't ours. We are in Syria on the gesture of goodwill to Assad and the people of Syria. With all that said, it is understandable that in order to ensure a quicker victory there must be some presence on the ground. Russian military today is almost in no way similar to the Soviet Army that fought in Afghanistan or even the Russian Army in Chechnya. Russia's leadership isn't throwing away the lives of their soldiers anymore. As long as the troops come home alive and well, let them do their thing.

You're right, the Russian military today is in no way similar to the Soviet Army that fought in Afghanistan. It has nowhere near the ability to sustain that many troops far away at the bottom of Central Asia for over a decade, has nowhere near the resources, supplies, logistics, ammo at its disposal that the Soviet Army had, far less money and resources to spend on economically developing the region or even building up military and transport infrastructure all over the place.

Actually, it does.

Economics aside, which is actually very easy to handle and probably would bring in more money to Russia overall, there is so much leftovers from Soviet times, they are handing them over to Syrian military.  They have the personnel as well too.

Money?  Well, it is in the form of investments.  As well, they can also justify it under various training costs as they already have with the aircrafts.

Your statement is eerily similar to those who said Russia would not commit at all due to the very same issues.  Yet, Russia rebuilt an airfield, building another one now if rumors are correct, has dozens and dozens of planes, lots of people available, air defense systems, and logistical supply chain and what seems like a never ending supply of cruise missiles and bombs.  And they done it really cheap too from previous records.  Oh, and they made the movements in very short period of time, that got even the US in a bitch fit too.

So I would say you are quite wrong, as Russia has done quite a lot to prove us wrong.  They even rebuilt a repair plant quite quickly and with no word of it till it was finished.  Clearly money is readily available.

The trick here is defeatism. Societies are psychological constructs so that real physical impacts can be achieved by manipulating public opinion.
If people do not try, then they do not achieve. Putin did the right thing by deploying to Syria. It is vital for Russia's long term security and
it also destroys the paralysis propaganda originating from outside and inside Russia. The Soviets had almost nothing in 1930. Yet they were
able to stave off the Reich invasion and kick their asses all the way back to Berlin. Where there is a will, there is a way. Russia needs that
will and not defeatism designed to serve the agendas of its enemies.