Putin orders Russian special forces into Iraq.

Fair point, too much time and bandwith have been wasted already. I won’t post on this little sideshow any more.

Moderator Comment

Gentlemen, gentlemen……. calm down, please. 🙂

I’m sure we all agree that would be a shame for this interesting thread to be spoiled by us paying less attention to what is being said than we do to the finer points of how it is being said.

Less pedantry – more debate! 😀

GA

It seems that some people just don’t see things that they don’t like. :rolleyes:

Well there we go, but at the end of the day you still have to face the fact that the Russian military was run out of Afghanistan and almost run out of Chechnya

Addressed in post 37.

and botched a number of rescue attempts. You don’t have to take my word for it.

Addressed in post 18.

Those specific facts speak for themselves.

Yes they do when you actually examine them in detail, but they don’t ‘say’ anything like what you seem to want them to.

Actually, now that the issue of sweeping claims and hard evidence has been raised, I feel free to note that the history of the last 60 or so years would suggest that the Russians have demonstrated a tallent for bad judgement in political, social, economic and military matters as evident by their current situation, which if it were not for a fortuitous rise in oil prices, would be much worse for the average Russian than it is now. Standard of living and all that stuff.

How exactly did me asking you to back up your past unsupported sweaping remarks become ‘yes, lets have yet more unsupported sweeping claims please’ to you? :rolleyes:

Well there we go, but at the end of the day you still have to face the fact that the Russian military was run out of Afghanistan and almost run out of Chechnya and botched a number of rescue attempts. You don’t have to take my word for it. Those specific facts speak for themselves.

Actually, now that the issue of sweeping claims and hard evidence has been raised, I feel free to note that the history of the last 60 or so years would suggest that the Russians have demonstrated a tallent for bad judgement in political, social, economic and military matters as evident by their current situation, which if it were not for a fortuitous rise in oil prices, would be much worse for the average Russian than it is now. Standard of living and all that stuff.

China and India’s thurst for oil has more to do with Russia’s current prospects than the Russian government or the Russian military.

Regards

Sauron

Exactly, u anti-Russkies made claims that none of you could back up except with the evidence that exists in ur own obviously heavily biased imaginations. Next time u make claims against ANY nation and its politics or military, maybe u could have some hard evidence to support it…just an idea 😉

Well at least we have established that the Russian SF are part of the Russian military.

As if that was ever in dispute. :rolleyes:

Beyond that it would appear that any attempt to make reasonable comments about the situation the Russian SF would face in Iraq, is obviously pointless.

Sauron

Thats true, and its a shame, but thats what happens when people make sweeping claims and then refuse to back up those remarks with evidence or logical reasoning.

Well at least we have established that the Russian SF are part of the Russian military. Beyond that it would appear that any attempt to make reasonable comments about the situation the Russian SF would face in Iraq, is obviously pointless.

Sauron

Anyway would Russian special forces not qualify as part of the Russian military. This thread is titled Putin orders Russian special forces into Iraq.

Yes the Russian SF are part of the Russian military, but that does not mean that the shortcomings of the largely conscription based army can be attributed to Russian SF forces.

And yes, we all know the name of the thread, which makes your decision to used examples of the regular Russian army’s poor performance more perplexing. I recall reading articles in which taliban fighters showned great respect and even fear when discussing Russian SF units operating the Afganistan, and Im sure there are similar reports regarding Russian SF in Chechnia.

As to my suggestion that the Russians lack the skill and the weapons mix necessary, it was made in the context of the situation in Iraq where the Russians have had no combat or special ops experience

So how are Iraqi cities so different from cities anywhere else on the world that the nature of urban combat changes there? The insurgents in Iraq are not going to be sitting in the middle of the desert under a plam tree sipping juice waiting for a coalition helo to pass overhead so they can shoot at it(well some of them might be, but they are not the ones the Russians are after). They will be in cities and towns, and in such places, the location of the cities matter little. You do not have to have fought in every city on earth to qualify as having experience at urban combat ops.

Also, these won’t be wide-eyed conscripts that the Russians are sending in, my money is on them being seasoned veterans of chechnia who have been hunting insurgents for years, and they must have done something special in that time to be picked from the hundreds, if not thousands of other potential candidates.

…and selling weapons decades ago dosn’t qualify.

What kind of SF troops do they have where you come from who ‘sells weapons’? I have never heard of ‘weapons selling’ as being a role of SF before.

Given the experience the U.S. and the UK has had in tracking down and killing or capturing specific terrorist leadership or groups, it takes more than just sending in teams with small arms.

And how did you come by this insightful peice of US and UK SF operational experience? It would be interesting to know because as far as I know, all SF units guard the secrets of their ‘playbooks’ jealously.

It would require some kind of base from which to operate, supplies, air and ground transport, surveilance capabilities (UAVs?), cooperation from the new Iraq government, local knowledge and contacts that are willing to help, local intel, language skills, etc, and a lot of time.

And what makes you think the Russians lack any of that except air support (which is not a critial element of most operation they are likely to conduct anyways)?

It would be a major enterprise to track down and kill even one small terrorist group independent from the coalition forces that have all the experience.

What makes you think the Russians have no experience at anti-insurgency ops? And whoever said it would be easy?

Iraq is a big place. Their best bet would be to work directly with U.S./U.K. forces and that would require a level of cooperation, learning and humility I suspect the Russians don’t have.

If the experience of the coalition forces are so ace, why haven’t they taken out all the insurgents yet? How does doing exactly what the US and UK have been doing for the past couple of years going to help the Russians nab people that have been able to elude the coalition’s best efforts to date?

Smart people are humble enough to realise that there is often more then one way of doing things, and approaching the same problem with a different method may yield better results.

Lastly, please explain why you think the Russians lack ‘cooperation, learning and humility’.

Sending tents is also politcally motivated. It is clear that you win more
hearts with tents then bombs, but then again not every one gets tents
or any help when there is disaster. winning hearts in Muslim indonesia
is more important then hearts in El Salvador or Africa and you know the
reasons for that. I’m of the Atari generation.

You know what? Some of us give to charity out of charity, and even governments sometimes do that. You need to make one hell of a case to convince people that the international aid effort to help the tusnami affected countries were just a ‘politically motivated’ PR ploy. If anything, I seem to remember a few governments, who shall remain nameless, increasing their aid pled after the public response put the sums they originally promised to shame.

And I suggest you have a check first before suggesting that ‘El Salvador or Africa’ don’t get any aid.

I don’t think you understand what hypocrisy is. A nation or a person have the
right not to give a crap about another nation or person.
That doesn’t give anyone the excuse to attack them for no reason.

And who do you mean by ‘them’? If in ‘them’ you are refering to the Russians, then I would agree with you, what does that have to do with Russian hypocrisy?

So this troops are going to land where? They will be co-ordinating their moves with who? I wonder it terrorist going to see the Russian forces
“Not part of the Occupation”.

Have you not read my previous posts, in which I stated exaclt what I think the Russian responce would be?

What exactly do you think the Russians are going to do in Iraq? Take it over from the Americans?

If the US doesn’t attempts to remove them and gives them money, training,
weapons and shelter then of course they should be removed by force.
You are to smart to miss such an obvious point.

‘Removed by force’ by a foreign power?

Is this a Yes or no question? I think it’s both for selfish reasons and a true
desire to change the middle east. On the other hand we know thew UN
opposition to the war was clearly due to the fact that it will hurt their
dirty deals with Saddam.

And the fact that the US and UK didn’t make a very convincing case by flatly refusing pleas from the chef UN weapons inspector in Iraq who was confident that he could remove all WMD from Iraq given more time had nothing to do with it? :rolleyes:

I also look foreward to seeing some evidence of these ‘dirty deals with Saddam’ that everyone opposed to the war was supposed to be doing.

It was the people who were in charge of the Iraqi
civilians health that were killing them for profit and yet it is the US and Britain
that are evil, right?

And who exactly said any of that? If you got an axe to grind about something, feel free to start a thread on it, but what was the point in randoming venting your grevinces here?

Interesting. I was asked to supply examples where the Russian military has proven less than successful. I provided two examples that are obvious.

proven less than successful? the same people are ruling both afghanistan and chechnya which russia supported from the begining. it is the uncivilized bunch which are on the run.(offcourse supported previously by otherside).

The reply? Oh they are not valid examples for the following reasons/excuses as if stating them means the failures didn’t actually occur in the first place. :confused:
Sauron

so who else could do better job than russian do taking into account the opposition and russia currency was not reserve currency of the world. the fact that russian successfully killed chechens inside Qatar and Putin made statement in presence of saudi prince gives enough indication that he will get information from countries bordering irak.

So let’s see if I have this right? Alex seems to think the Russian Spec Op’s people are actually going to invade in tanks and APC’s where they need a landing ground? Ok! Not very covert, but ok! Why do they need a landing ground exactly? And why the hell do they need tanks? You do know what covert means right?

The Afghan were 19th Century Tribesmen…I haven’t seen many pic’s of 19th tribesmen wielding AK-47s and Stingers…but if that’s what u believe then it’s ALRIGHT. But if that is the case then the Yanks have got their hands full with a bunch of cave dwellers who have just discovered fire :rolleyes:

Funny how the “defeated” Taliban — AKA 19th Century Tribesmen — are worrying the Brits and “OH SO MIGHTY” Yanks isn’t it?

So, Sauron my all knowing friend, if Bush and Blair both said on the news tomorrow “ok, this s*** is costing us too much cash lets go home!” That means the worlds last SUPERPOWER and it’s Poodle have BOTH been RUN OUT of Afghanistan by those same TRIBESMEN—CORRECT??? Or is that different cos they are AMERICAN and BRITISH…NOT THE OH SO EVIL RUSSIANS 😡

Nice to see you have managed to miss the point of my previous post entirely. :rolleyes:

You must be a true child of the Nintendo generation if you actually beleive dropping bombs on people is comparible to sending tents and food. If you truely can’t see the difference then there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Sending tents is also politcally motivated. It is clear that you win more
hearts with tents then bombs, but then again not every one gets tents
or any help when there is disaster. winning hearts in Muslim indonesia
is more important then hearts in El Salvador or Africa and you know the
reasons for that. I’m of the Atari generation.

America didn’t want to know about WWII till the japanese bombed them, guess them deciding to get involved in the war afterwards is also an example of hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

I don’t think you understand what hypocrisy is. A nation or a person have the
right not to give a crap about another nation or person.
That doesn’t give anyone the excuse to attack them for no reason.

Also, the Russians are sending a very small force to hunt for the people who murdered their diplomates, they are not going to contribute to the occupation, so its not even like the Russians are going back on their previous position.

So this troops are going to land where? They will be co-ordinating their moves with who? I wonder it terrorist going to see the Russian forces
“Not part of the Occupation”.

So, by your logic, if it can be proven that there are ‘terror camps’ in the US, anyone and everyone else have a legitmate reason to send in troops to take over? Get real mate. :rolleyes:

If the US doesn’t attempts to remove them and gives them money, training,
weapons and shelter then of course they should be removed by force.
You are to smart to miss such an obvious point.

And you think the US and UK went into Iraq to help the average Iraqi? :rolleyes:

Is this a Yes or no question? I think it’s both for selfish reasons and a true
desire to change the middle east. On the other hand we know thew UN
opposition to the war was clearly due to the fact that it will hurt their
dirty deals with Saddam. It was the people who were in charge of the Iraqi
civilians health that were killing them for profit and yet it is the US and Britain
that are evil, right?

Request from Worthyone
They have performed poorly have they, please…explain…..

Anyway would Russian special forces not qualify as part of the Russian military. This thread is titled Putin orders Russian special forces into Iraq.

As to my suggestion that the Russians lack the skill and the weapons mix necessary, it was made in the context of the situation in Iraq where the Russians have had no combat or special ops experience and selling weapons decades ago dosn’t qualify.

Given the experience the U.S. and the UK has had in tracking down and killing or capturing specific terrorist leadership or groups, it takes more than just sending in teams with small arms. It would require some kind of base from which to operate, supplies, air and ground transport, surveilance capabilities (UAVs?), cooperation from the new Iraq government, local knowledge and contacts that are willing to help, local intel, language skills, etc, and a lot of time. It would be a major enterprise to track down and kill even one small terrorist group independent from the coalition forces that have all the experience. Iraq is a big place. Their best bet would be to work directly with U.S./U.K. forces and that would require a level of cooperation, learning and humility I suspect the Russians don’t have.

Sauron

You’re coming dangerously close to personal attacks in those last couple of postings, plawolf.

Criticising the content of a posting is one thing – criticising the person who made the posting is a different thing entirely.

It’s all about respect, chaps. 🙂

GA

Interesting. I was asked to supply examples where the Russian military has proven less than successful. I provided two examples that are obvious.

The reply? Oh they are not valid examples for the following reasons/excuses as if stating them means the failures didn’t actually occur in the first place. :confused:

Sauron

Can you not even read? :rolleyes:

When exactly did anyone ask you to “supply examples where the Russian military has proven less than successful”?

Just to refresh your memory, you came up with the ridiculous claim that the Russians ‘lack skill and the weapons mix to do anything effective on their own.’ And then Worthyone asked you to elaborate.

The only person who even meantioned the term ‘Russian military’ is you, when everyone up to that point have been talking exclusively of special forces. Yet, here you are, trying to blame someone else when you are the one who tried to change the subject so you can use your pointless examples to help your Russian bashing crusade. Grow up.

You can’t fight a tsunami with laser guided bombs and you can
fight terrorist with makeshift tents. Every situation calles for
different action.

Nice to see you have managed to miss the point of my previous post entirely. :rolleyes:

You must be a true child of the Nintendo generation if you actually beleive dropping bombs on people is comparible to sending tents and food. If you truely can’t see the difference then there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Putin was against the Iraqi invasion because
it wasn’t in his intrest. Now it is so he is for sending troops.
You don’t see the hypocrisy here?

America didn’t want to know about WWII till the japanese bombed them, guess them deciding to get involved in the war afterwards is also an example of hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

Also, the Russians are sending a very small force to hunt for the people who murdered their diplomates, they are not going to contribute to the occupation, so its not even like the Russians are going back on their previous position.

Not sure you are aware of it but the terrorist camps were in Afghanistan
and not in Manhaten. NATO the US and others did send troops to get
the terrrosits. They are still there!

So, by your logic, if it can be proven that there are ‘terror camps’ in the US, anyone and everyone else have a legitmate reason to send in troops to take over? Get real mate. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Every nation cares about it’s own intrest and that’s why
Putin decided to send the special troops only after his people were
hurt and not before hand ;cause he had nothing to gain by helping
the average Iraqi.

And you think the US and UK went into Iraq to help the average Iraqi? :rolleyes:

Interesting. I was asked to supply examples where the Russian military has proven less than successful. I provided two examples that are obvious.

The reply? Oh they are not valid examples for the following reasons/excuses as if stating them means the failures didn’t actually occur in the first place. :confused:

Sauron

I’m…speachless. I find it astonishing that someone can believe with what I have just read above. Surely you can see the gaping gulf of difference between a HUMANITARIAN AID effort and MILITARY INTERVENTION!

How many locals did the international tsunami relief effort kill and how many were killed in kosovo and Iraq? It might come as a shock to some, but most rational people find it one thing to choose to send aid to help the needy and quite another to drop bombs on them to achieve their ‘liberation’. :rolleyes:

Did the Russians not send aid to help the tsunami victims or donate aid to help with the reconstruction?

You can’t fight a tsunami with laser guided bombs and you can
fight terrorist with makeshift tents. Every situation calles for
different action. Putin was against the Iraqi invasion because
it wasn’t in his intrest. Now it is so he is for sending troops.
You don’t see the hypocrisy here?

Purhaps an example will make it more clear how obserd your original protest is. Terrorists killed thousands of Americans and other nationals on American soil, does that give Nato or the Russians or the Chinese grounds to send troops into America to hunt terrorists? :rolleyes:

Not sure you are aware of it but the terrorist camps were in Afghanistan
and not in Manhaten. NATO the US and others did send troops to get
the terrrosits. They are still there!

Just because you’re are not dropping bombs on people does not mean you do not care.

And so what if Putin cares little about the suffering of others? I did not see the US or UK doing much to stop the genocide in Congo and what did the international community do about the British occupation of Northern Ireland? Every nation puts their own interests first and foremost, and I don’t see why the Russians should be criticised for doing the same. Putin is the president of Russia and not Iraq. Russia and Russians should be his primary concern, if he places the goods of other peoples ahead of Russians, then he is a poor RUSSIAN president.

Exactly. Every nation cares about it’s own intrest and that’s why
Putin decided to send the special troops only after his people were
hurt and not before hand ;cause he had nothing to gain by helping
the average Iraqi.

PS, can we please stay on topic guys? If you want to talk about the Kursk, please start another thread, and I would be happy to discuss the subject there, but not here.

First off, we were talking about SF units, not the military in general, as if you could have somehow missed that point. So the shortcomings of a largely conscript army has no baring on the abilities of the SF units.

The Russian military was run out of Afganistan by 19th century tribesmen.

A) The CIA supplied, trained and financed taliban are no 19th century tribesmen.

B) The russian (or rather soviet) military had overwhelming military superiority and the Taliban would not have been able to drive them out in a hundred years militarily. The soviets pulled out because of the cost of the occupation were too high and because they lost interesting in that barren country. Or do you also think that the mighty USA were run out of vietnam by ’10th century’ farmers? :rolleyes:

The Russian military didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory in Chechnya. Grozny for example where it appearently forgot everything it learned in WW11 about street fighting.

I am sure the list could be expanded.

Again, shortcomings of the conventional army and poor leadership. Has no baring on SF performance. And please do ‘expland’ your list, purhaps with some SF related examples this time? :rolleyes:

It would be interesting to see what resources they could bring together in Iraq. It would have to be more than a few guys in black outfits with no InTel, air support, etc and no experience working with the locals not to mention the new Iraq government.

Sauron

You are living in wonderland if you think the Russians don’t have a highly developed and sophisticated intellegence operation in Iraq, with American tactics, technology and weapons performance being one of their primary observation objectives. This same network of operatives, informants and intellengence gathering assets would now be used to ID and track down the people responsible for the kidnapping and murder of the diplomates. The SF contingent would most likely be a killteam and/or some explosive experts/snipers etc.

The spies already established would find the targets, and the SF unit would take them out or take them in for ‘questioning’.