Russian
military options in Syria and the Ukraine (UPDATED)
8572
Views August 16, 2016 51 Comments
This
article was written for the Unz Review:http://www.unz.com/tsaker/russian-military-options-in-syria-and-the-ukraine/
The
past two weeks have been rich in military developments directly affecting
Russia:
Syria:
1)
Russia has announced that she will transform the Khmeimim
airfield into a full-fledged military base with a permanently deployed task
force.
2)
Russia will deploy her heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser (often referred
to in the West as an “aircraft carrier”) Admiral Kuznetsov to
the eastern Mediterranean to to check the combat capabilities of the ship and
its strike group and to engage, for the very first time, the state-of-the-art Ka-52K Katran helicopters.
The
Ukraine:
1)
Following the failure of the Ukronazis to
infiltrate saboteurs on the Crimean Peninsula ,which
President Putin called “stupid and criminal”, Poroshenko has
now ordered a reinforcement of his military forces
on border with Crimea and eastern Ukraine and placed its military on its
highest alert.
2)
The authorities in Kiev decided not to accept the credentials of the
new Russian ambassador to the Ukraine.
3)
President Putin declared that in this context, negotiations with Kiev are “pointless”.
While
not directly connected, all of these news items point to a possible military
escalation which could result in Russia having to engaged her military in
combat operations in Syria, Crimea and Novorussia. Thus is makes sense at this
point to review the Russian options in all these theaters of war.
There
is a great deal of misunderstanding about the Russian military options in
Syria. Just as the major Russian military intervention which was initially
expected failed to materialize (the actual Russian intervention was very
limited in both size and time), the reinforcement of the Khmeimim airbase will
not result in a major strategic shift in the regional balance of power. A
couple of reminders:
Second,
the airbase in Khmeimin is located in a very dangerous spot: roughly 1000km
from the Russian border and only 50km from the Turkish border. It is also
nicely wedged right between the CENTCOM “area of responsibility” and NATO. This
is most definitely not a location you want to try to threaten US forces from.
Also, this is also not a location which Russia would
defend with nuclear forces.
Defense
Minister Shoigu did, in fact, clearly spell out what
the purpose of the Russian presence in Khmeimim will be: a) to attack
terrorists and b) to defend Russian nationals. Again, these are very limited
goals which will be attained by using limited means. To be sure, Khmeimim will
also become a crucial intelligence hub for Russia and, once the airbase is
expanded, the Russian search and rescue capabilities will be dramatically
enhanced. For both of these tasks Russian special forces will be permanently
stationed at the airbase. Finally, the Russians will increase the size of the
runways to make it accessible to the heaviest Russian transport aircraft. But
the fundamental characteristic of the Khmeimim airbase will always remind that
it will remain vulnerable due to its location and long distance from Russia.
As
for the deployment of the Kuznetsov, which is primarily a formidable air
defense ship, it will allow the Russians to get a much fuller signal
intelligence picture the region and will provide a solid protection for both
Tartus and Khmeimim. The first-time deployment of the Ka-52K (which were
initially commissioned to be deployed on the French “Mistrals”) will be a
testing side show but not a crucial game changer in the war.
All
in all, the Russians are most definitely increasing their capabilities and the
range of options to chose from different options depending on the evolution of
the situation. At this point, there are no signs of a major shift in the
Russian position: ever since the “semi-withdrawal” of Russian Aerospace forces
from Syria, Russia is still counting primarily on her long-rage bombers
(Tu-22M3). These can, if needed, be supplemented by Su-34/Su-30/Su-35 strike
groups flying out of southern Russia.
The
Ukrainian theater:
The
situation in the Ukraine is much more unpredictable than the one in Syria and
it has been so for a long while now. Almost every week we saw warnings about a
possible Ukrainian attack, sometimes even announced as “imminent” and then that
attack failed to materialize. The dangerous thing about these false warnings is
that they were not false at all and that these attacks truly could have
happened almost any week. Worst of all, there is now a “boy who cried wolf”
phenomenon taking place where everybody is becoming bored with the endless
warnings about an imminent Ukronazi attack. The problem is that, of course,
such attack is becoming more and more likely with every passing day.
There
are those who argue that an Ukronazi attack against Crimea would be suicidal,
and they are absolutely correct, and that an Ukronazi attack against Novorussia
would be exceedingly unlikely to succeed, and they are correct again. The
assumption here is that the regime in Kiev is capable of rational calculation
and that the purpose of such an attack would be victory. But, in reality, victory
was never a Ukronazi goal. Instead, the goal was always to draw Russia into
a open war. The Ukronazis themselves are deluding themselves in the hope that
they will get to do what the Croats did in 1995 when they, backed by the full
airpower of NATO, attacked the (disarmed) Croatian Serbs in the so-called
“Krajinas”.
In reality, the situation in the Donbass is totally different: not
only are the Novorussians not disarmed like the Krajina Serbs were (all their
“heavy weapons” were in UNPROFOR controlled depots), but unlike the poor Serbs
(who were betrayed by Milosevic), the Novorussians know that if things get
tough Russia will back them, including by deniable long-range artillery strikes
(as she did in July 2014). As for Crimea, even the most deluded Ukrainians must
realize by now, even if they don’t admit this, that they will never re-take Crimea.
The
problem for Russia is that while the regime in Kiev is slowly rotting into
irrelevance, there is only one thing which the Ukraine can offer the
AngloZionist Empire: to become the sacrificial lamb in a desperate effort to
provoke Russian into an intervention and thereby make the current “tepid war”
between NATO and Russia fully irreversible or even “hot”. An overt Russian
counter-attack in the Donbass, or even from Crimea, is every Neocon’s dream
come true.
So
far, all the Ukronazis were capable of doing is constantly shelling the
civilians of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics which, being 100% dependent on
Moscow, had to put up with this infamy even though scores of innocents
civilians have been killed every day. There is also a lot of indirect evidence
that the military capabilities of the Novorussians have dramatically increased
over the past year or so and that makes it even more frustrating for them to
put with the constant provocations and murders of civilians. The Kremlin,
however, has evidently decided that a small and steady stream of murdered
civilians in the Donbass is still preferable to a full-scale military operation
followed by, and this is often overlooked, the occupation of at least some part
of the Ukrainian territory. Indeed, once you occupy it – you own it and you are
responsible for it. Nobody in Russia is willing to shoulder the costs of a war
and the subsequent occupation and reconstruction of a territory currently under
Ukronazi control. Finally, why give the regime in Kiev a life-saving
distraction when it does such a world-class job slowly but surely destroying
itself?
The
paradox here is that the Russian strength is also the Russian weakness: chances
are that the Novorussians are capable of not only stopping a Ukronazi attack,
but even of an operational depth counter-attack. Thus, it is most likely that
Russia herself would not be pulled into an over war over the Donbass. But in
Crimea there are no Novorussians, no Donetsk or Lugansk people’s republics. In
Crimea there are only Russians and Crimea is Russia. Thus any Ukronazi attack
on Crimea would be a direct act of war against Russia which Russia could not
ignore or reply to by using a “voentorg” + “northern wind” combo (voentorg:
covert supplying of weapons; “northern wind” covert supplying of military specialists).
If Crimea is attacked, the Russians will have to strike back, whether they want
it or not.
If
that happens, the Russian counter-strike will most likely be limited and will
probably focus on the forces directly responsible for the attack. But if the
Ukronazis use their artillery from well-entrenched positions to unleash a
steady barrage on the towns of northern Crimea or if, God forbid, the Ukronazis
use ballistic missiles to target major urban centers in Crimea, the Russians
will have no choice but to counter-attack swiftly and decisively. And since
08.08.08 it is become clear that the West will *always* blame Russia, even
if she is first attacked by another party.
In
purely military terms, any conflict between the Russian armed forces and the
Ukronazis would be a massacre: all the Ukrainians can bring to the battlefield
are numbers, but they are completely out-gunned, quantitatively and, even more
so, qualitatively by the Russians. The Russian artillery is currently the most
capable on the planet, it is even far superior to anything in the West, and its
effects on the Ukrainian military have been absolutely devastating in the past.
Russia has an unique combination of UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and EW
(Electronic Warfare) capabilities which are directly plugged-in into the
targeting systems of Russian multiple-rocket launchers which can reach as far
as 90km into the enemy’s rear. Finally, the Russians have been working for
years on advanced submuntions and thermobaric warheads which can be used with
devastating effect on armored forces and fortified positions.
This
combo of UAV and advanced multiple-rocket launchers form what the Russians call
a “reconnaissance-strike complex” or RSC (разведывательно-ударный комплекс)
which is a concept first developed by the Soviets as far back as the 1960s. The
RSC fully integrates all the following elements: reconnaissance, guidance,
electronic counter-measures, navigation and engagement of high-precision
weapons.
Now,
with the advent of new UAV and counter-battery radars, this concept has reached
its full maturity and is now the cornerstone of Russian combined-arms
operations. What this all means in practical terms is that the Russians now
have the capability completely destroy several mechanized battalions in 2-3 minutes
only. And there is nothing, nothing at all, which the Ukrainians could do
against this.
The
Russians also have vastly superior armor, electronic warfare capabilities,
aerospace forces, intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities, training – you
name it. The Ukrainians don’t stand a chance.
One
big canard is the notion that US deliveries of “lethal weapons” to the Ukraine
would somehow tip the balance. In reality, no amount of weapons would make any
difference. Russian capabilities today are as far superior to the Ukrainian
ones as the capabilities of the US military were superior to the Iraqi military
in 1990 during Desert Storm. While in 1991 the Ukrainian military was nominally
larger than the Russian one (the Ukraine inherited the entire Soviet strategic
2nd echelon forces), it did not have a war in Chechnia to force
it to begin reorganizing like the Russian one had to, nor did it have a
President like Putin who as soon as he came to power embarked on an immense
military reform whose fruits are now finally showing. As a result, the Russians
have now achieved several generational breakthroughs while the Ukrainians are
basically stuck with 1980s gear and a completely disorganized, corrupt and
incompetent military. It will take the Ukraine decades to catch-up to the
Russians, and that only if some kind of highly improbable economic miracle
happens.
Conclusion:
The
wars in the Syria and the Ukraine are, as is so often the case, largely
predetermined by geography. There is really nothing Russia could do to
meaningfully and directly oppose the US military in the Middle-East or the
Mediterranean. Likewise, there is nothing the US can to meaningfully and
directly oppose the Russian armed forces in eastern Ukraine. This is why both
sides will try to act indirectly, on the margins, via proxies but without
getting directly exposed. While this strategy is fundamentally sound, it is
also dangerous because indirect warfare by proxy is harder to control and
leaves both sides open to provocations, false flag operations and the covert
involvement of third parties. This is why both wars are so frustrating to
follow: on one hand all sorts of highly speculative scenarios cannot be simply
dismissed, but on the other hand, nothing much seems to be happening. And when
something finally does happen, it is unclear as to what the possible
consequences might be. Finally, both wars involve highly ideological and
fundamentally ideological actors (the Ukronazis, the Daesh crazies, the
Neocons) who cannot be counted on to act rationally. Alas, all the theories of
deterrence always assume a rational actor. But how do you deter a delusional
maniac?
The
Russian options in both of these conflicts are limited by objective
circumstances and by larger political considerations. I would argue that Russia
has done an absolutely amazing job in Syria with very limited means and in a
supremely dangerous environment. As for the Donbass, I would be much more
nuanced. And while I do believe that Russia took the right decision by not
overtly sending her armed forces in the eastern Ukraine, I also have to admit
that she also showed poor timing and even indecision in dealing with the Nazi
crazies in Kiev: it took the Russians a long time to get the Voentorg and
“Northern Wind” up and running and while this was the correct response, it was
also one which took a long time to become fully effective. Then there is the
issue of the (now former) Russian ambassador to Kiev, Mikhail Zurabov, who was
totally ineffective in getting anything done at all (while he was left in place
for so long is still a mystery to me). True, Zurabov had nobody to speak to,
but that does not justify him cozying up and playing buddies with Poroshenko as
he reportedly did. Now that the Russians have finally appointed a competent
person to this role, Mikhail Babich, the Ukrainians are refusing to
accredit him which, apparently, the Kremlin is accepting with
bizarre equanimity. In December, Putin also appointed another very powerful
figure, Boris Gryzlov, a
permanent member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, as the
plenipotentiary representative of the Russian Federation in the Contact Group
on settlement of the situation in Ukraine. It took Russia a very long time, but
now with Gryzlov and Babich involved, Russia is finally involving some high
octane personalities in the negotiations process dealing with the war in the
Ukraine. Again, a good decision, but a very belated one.
Could
these measures indicate that the Russians have information that something major
will soon happen with the Ukraine? Possibly. I sure don’t know, but it does
look to me that they are preparing for something.
As
for Syria, the Russian are trying to increase their options, but it unlikely
that anything major happens before the next US administration comes in. Besides,
with Erdogan still busy with his crackdown on any opposition, it is also
unclear what course Turkey will take once the purges are completed.
And
then this, just in:
According
to almasdar news (https://www.almasdarnews.com), Iran has just granted Russia the
right to use the Hamedan Air Base in western Iran.
The original article entitled “Russia deploys jets at Iranian Airbase to
combat insurgents in Syria (Pictures)”
(https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-deploys-jets-iranian-airbase-combat-insurgents-syria-pictures/)
even claims to show pictures of Russian Tu-22M3s already deployed in Iran. IF
that is true, this is very significant. Unlike Khmeimim, Hamedan is safe and is
perfectly located to conduct military strikes in Syria and elsewhere in the
Middle-East. One problem though: al Masdar is an Israeli project, part the Israel Project, a
“pro-Israel public diplomacy organization founded in the United States at
the height of the second intifada”. I checked with a well-informed Iranian
source, and it is not confirming any of this at this time. The Russian blogger
“Colonel Cassad”, however, did some investigating of his own and
seems to consider that information as plausible. Other Russian sources are
confirming that Russia has asked Iran to allow Russian cruise missiles to fly
through Iranian airspace. It does appear like the collaboration between Iran
and Russia is strengthening which is, of course, very good news.
Finally,
if Erdogan is serious about collaborating with Russia and Iran against Daesh,
then one way for Turkey to do that would be to open the Turkish airspace to
Russian air and missile strikes against Daesh. If that happens, Russia will
have the choice of four locations to launch strikes: Crimea, southern Russia
(Abkhazia), Khmeimim in Syria and, hopefully, Hamedan in Iran.
A
place to keep a special eye on is the Bombora military airfield near Gudauta,
in Abkhazia. According to Lentra.ru,
the length of the main runway is 4km (this is a mistake, the actual length is 3km)
and this runway ends right on the seashore allowing aircraft to take off at
very low altitudes and thereby remain under enemy radar coverage (see image
below). This airfield is currently protected by some 4’000 Russian soldiers
deployed in Abkhazia who are equipped by the newest Russian weapon systems and
who form the backbone of the Russian 7th Base [for more on this
base, see here (from
an anti-Russian source) and here (including
some pretty interesting photographs)]. This airfield is ideally located to
become a major hub for the operations of Russian Aerospace forces.
The Saker
Bombora
military airport near near Gudauta in Abkhazia
UPDATE:
First,
as Aram Mirzaei correctly pointed
out, I made a mistake and confused two websites called
Al-Masdar (the source):One is the Israeli project mentioned in this article,
led by chief editor Shimrit Meir. This website is called Al-Masdar.net.
The other page is a pro-Syrian-Iranian-Russian news website called almasdarnews.com.
I apologize for this mistake.
Second,
it seems that almasdarnews.com is
correct. Several Iranian websites are now also reporting the Russian
deployment at the Hamedan Air Base:
http://www.eghtesadonline.com/بخش-جهان-29/140628-استقرار-بمب-افکن-های-روسی-در-پایگاه-هوایی-همدان-عکس
RT
is now also quoting the Al Masdar article thus indirectly confirming it:https://www.rt.com/news/356098-russian-bombers-iran-hamadan/
This
is an extremely important and positive development which shows that the
military cooperation between Russia and Iran has now reached a new level and
which will have a major impact upon this war. This is very,
very good news.
The Saker
The
Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world
$27.95
More offers
More offers
No comments:
Post a Comment