Kerch strait crisis

[FriendlyFire]

Does it? The only victims in this story are Ukrainian sailors, who were following their orders. And the only beneficiary is Ukrainian president who gets the chance to postpone elections with his current 7% approval rating. What Russia got from all this, is less clear. Few boats with holes in them?

Poor Russia, forced to shoot, ram and capture the Ukraine patrol boats as they tried to flee back to Odessa
What benefit Russia from controlling Azov Sea ? What benefit Russia blockading the strait ? What benefit to poor innocent Russia whom got to humiliate Ukraine again ?

 

[Commodore]

The world should stop tolerating Russian aggression and punish it even more severely.

Nah, the world only seems to condemn military action when it is either the US or Israel that is conducting the action. Everyone else seems to be free to do whatever the hell they want with their military.

Why cant Russians acknowledge that corruption is a problem ?

Perhaps because what you and I see as corruption is not seen as corruption by the Russians. That was a big problem we would run into in Iraq. We would see something go down that would be a clear cut case of corruption in the US, but the Iraqis just saw it as how things get done and couldn't understand why we would be so bent out of shape about it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Nah, the world only seems to condemn military action when it is either the US or Israel that is conducting the action. Everyone else seems to be free to do whatever the hell they want with their military.

You do get to use the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency though for being the worlds number one military power
On the other hand its ironic that the US lead Nato into Afganistan and Iraq, yeah not your finest hour

 

[red_elk]

Poor Russia, forced to shoot, ram and capture

Nope, if anyone is "poor" in this situation, it's not Russia.

Perhaps because what you and I see as corruption is not seen as corruption by the Russians.

Dirty savages, sir. They haven't learned the benefits of civilized society yet.

 

[red_elk]

Stratfor analysis of the situation:
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/ukraine-challenge-russia-kerch-strait-navy-sea-azov

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Nuclear blackmail is an interesting option. I'd suggest to train on easier targets first, like Iran or N.Korea. They can't reply in kind. Yet.

Nah, it is just the opposite. In fact it is only nuclear blackmail that allows Russia to play the superpower in Ukrania, Syria, etc. West (or even USA alone) doesn't need to use nuclear blackmail on Russia as it is much more stronger conventionally and could wipe Russia out of Crimea without much difficulty.

 

[red_elk]

Nah, it is just the opposite. In fact it is only nuclear blackmail that allows Russia to play the superpower in Ukrania, Syria, etc. West (or even USA alone) doesn't need to use nuclear blackmail on Russia as it is much more stronger conventionally and could wipe Russia out of Crimea without much difficulty.

As mentioned earlier, even countries like Iran or North Korea have enough conventional deterrence to discourage the West for decades from wiping them out "without much difficulty". Russia is in different weight category.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Yep, Russia is in a different category but still several categories lighter than the West. That discourage the West of wiping Iran or North Korea without any difficulty is precisely the East (Russia and China) backing them, so nuclear blackmail again (and some economical blackmail from China too)

 

[red_elk]

That discourage the West of wiping Iran or North Korea without any difficulty is precisely the East (Russia and China) backing them, so nuclear blackmail again (and some economical blackmail from China too)

Russia or China won't start nuclear war over North Korea, much less over Iran. Get real.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Uh, I have the feeling it is not me who needs to get real here. There is not even the need to speculate about this since we have the perfect antecedent and example in the First and Second Gulf Wars. How long Iraq, with a similar army as Iran, as proven in the Iran-Iraq war few years before the first Gulf War, lasted in front of the West armies? It was laughable, a walk in the park. Neither numbers nor technology are in the same weight category at all, as you would say. The only difference now is that Russia is not a total ruin anymore like in the 90s and has a strong leader whose words are backed with nukes! and China is as strong economically as USA or the EU. So we have the two blocks again and a new cold war, only a bit more subtle than 40 years ago.

 

[red_elk]

How long Iraq, with a similar army as Iran, as proven in the Iran-Iraq war few years before the first Gulf War, lasted in front of the West armies? It was laughable, a walk in the park.

It doesn't matter how long Iran would hold. I'm saying that it has enough conventional power and other leverages to make Western invasion unworthy the cost and force it to resort to economical measures. It doesn't have nuclear weapons, neither Russian or Chinese nuclear weapons have anything to do with it.

As for Russia, yes, it has nukes and it will use them to defend itself in case of aggression. Didn't know that it's called nuclear blackmail. Thought it was deterrence.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

You said Iran/NK had enough conventional power to detter the west, which is laughable. The problems coming after an invasion has nothing to do with conventional power and are of asimetrical and non-conventional nature, as guerrilla warfare, terrorism, etc.

And nuclear weapons have all to do with it, as always had. Even more now when conventional power is way more unbalanced. If the west attack Iran and there is a Russia intervention, Russia forces are wiped along iranian forces, war scalates, Russia uses tactical nukes to defend its troops, things goes strategical, etc. The possibility of such scenery makes such adventures impopular even among the most hawkish sectors. Simply does not worth the risk.

That is the reason Putin hates too much any form of anti-missile shield. It would render Russia mostly irrelevant, as it was back in the 90s when USA et al made his will .

 

[red_elk]

You said Iran/NK had enough conventional power to detter the west, which is laughable.

But it's true. The simplest example is North Korea, it can bombard Seoul with conventional artillery and cause unacceptable damage in case of Western invasion. This deterrence is one of main reasons why they still exist. Iran can block Hormuz strait. Or may be it cannot, but there is a risk that it can and nobody wants to check. With Russia, the risks are different by nature and by magnitude.

If the west attack Iran and there is a Russia intervention, Russia forces are wiped out, Russia uses conventional nukes to defend themselves, things goes strategical, etc.

Why would Russia drag itself into a war over Iran? This is crazy.
The situation may escalate if Russian forces in Syria or Crimea will be attacked. And yes, the fact that Russia possesses nukes strongly discourages such kind of adventures.
But this is not a blackmail, unless you think that being able to attack Russia is West's undeniable right. Russians think otherwise.

 

[Ajidica]

Uh, I have the feeling it is not me who needs to get real here. There is not even the need to speculate about this since we have the perfect antecedent and example in the First and Second Gulf Wars. How long Iraq, with a similar army as Iran, as proven in the Iran-Iraq war few years before the first Gulf War, lasted in front of the West armies? It was laughable, a walk in the park. Neither numbers nor technology are in the same weight category at all, as you would say. The only difference now is that Russia is not a total ruin anymore like in the 90s and has a strong leader whose words are backed with nukes! and China is as strong economically as USA or the EU. So we have the two blocks again and a new cold war, only a bit more subtle than 40 years ago.

Are you seriously arguing that Western countries should be taking serious military action against the Russian Federation?
Secondly, following the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranian and Iraqi armies were in very different situations. The Iraqis had basically tried to make a "conventional" army on the cheap. While they had no shortage of armors and warplanes, their electronic warfare and command and control skills were rubbish. (Due to sanctions, as the war dragged on, Iran began keeping its remaining stock of F-14s and other American fighters on the defensive; increasingly relying on massed infantry attacks against the Iraqis.) As a result, the Iraqi military was literally the perfect enemy for the NATO forces in Desert Storm to fight against. An army with a heavy focus on armor with a high centralized command system and poor communications.

Following Desert Storm, everyone took notice of how badly the Iraqi army got mauled. That was when we began to see China modernize its forces - they realized that quantity was no longer its own quality. Iran has focused heavily on "asymmetrical" warfare - missiles and small unit stuff- designed to make it as difficult as possible for modern armies to fully use their equipment. Should a modern, Western army go to war with Iran, the conflict would unfold very differently from the war against Iraq due to different strategies and the terrain difference. Southern Iraq was a largely featureless desert while Iran is very mountainous.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

@Ajidica i am not talking about who should do what but about who could. See last paragraph.

And all that theory about Iran new strategies are nice until the war starts. In fact Sadam also had ten year to change his strategy focusing in SAMs and small weapons (since the big ones were all destroyed in the first war anyway), he even distributed Kalashnikovs among the population, only to be wiped out again, even more easily. I would not put my money on Iran even for a second, and i bet you wouldn't either...
Mountains could be a problem after the conventional war. Afghanistan style.

But it's true. The simplest example is North Korea, it can bombard Seoul with conventional artillery and cause unacceptable damage in case of Western invasion. This deterrence is one of main reasons why they still exist. Iran can block Hormuz strait. Or may be it cannot, but there is a risk that it can and nobody wants to check. With Russia, the risks are different by nature and by magnitude.

Seoul case is not conventional either. Conventional warfare means two armies fighting each other in the battlefield with conventional tactics. Seoul is a case of using conventional weapons in a not conventional way, it is more as using a strategical nuke, or chemical weapon against civilians. Leaving aside the Seoul issue, which is a big issue i will admit, NK army is not rival at all, probably not even for South Korea alone. Iran even less, it would close the Ormuz Strait as long as it could, which may be a matter of hours or days before Iranian tiny navy and weak air force are reduced to nothing. Or you really think it would be another way?

Russia is not that inferior conventionally of course but it is inferior too. It has some quality assets but in general it is not rival either. It is nukes that makes the true difference.

Why would Russia drag itself into a war over Iran? This is crazy.
The situation may escalate if Russian forces in Syria or Crimea will be attacked. And yes, the fact that Russia possesses nukes strongly discourages such kind of adventures.
But this is not a blackmail, unless you think that being able to attack Russia is West's undeniable right. Russians think otherwise.

I dont know. The same reason because it draged itself in Syria?

I am not speaking about right or wrong, it was you who used the word blackmail. Look, i always used to root more for Russia than for USA. I have always seen Russia/Soviets more as the defendant and USA as the agressor. (Lately i am not so sure though) But militarly speaking USA is way way stronger, both in quality and quantity. Not even adding the rest of western powers. That is the reality. Conventionally speaking at least.

 

[Silurian]

You said Iran/NK had enough conventional power to detter the west, which is laughable. The problems coming after an invasion has nothing to do with conventional power and are of asimetrical and non-conventional nature, as guerrilla warfare, terrorism, etc.

And nuclear weapons have all to do with it, as always had. Even more now when conventional power is way more unbalanced. If the west attack Iran and there is a Russia intervention, Russia forces are wiped along iranian forces, war scalates, Russia uses tactical nukes to defend its troops, things goes strategical, etc. The possibility of such scenery makes such adventures impopular even among the most hawkish sectors. Simply does not worth the risk.

That is the reason Putin hates too much any form of anti-missile shield. It would render Russia mostly irrelevant, as it was back in the 90s when USA et al made his will .

The problems that come after an invasion are absolutely to do with conventional power.
The purpose of an invasion is to take and hold territory. If you can not hold the territory the invasion is failing.

 

[Ajidica]

And all that theory about Iran new strategies are nice until the war starts. In fact Sadam also had ten year to change his strategy focusing in SAMs and small weapons (since the big ones were all destroyed in the first war anyway), he even distributed Kalashnikovs among the population, only to be wiped out again, even more easily. I would not put my money on Iran even for a second, and i bet you wouldn't either...
Mountains could be a problem after the conventional war. Afghanistan style.

Not the same thing. Iraq, following Desert Storm, was under arguably the harshest sanctions regime ever implemented. Pencil lead was banned, same with leukemia medicine until popular outcry forced the US/UN to relent and admit it under inspection. Water sanitation equipment and chemicals necessary for water purification were banned. Iraq wasn't ever really able to rebuilt basic utility infrastructure, let alone rebuilding and re-equipping their military.
As far as fighting Iran goes, it all depends on how much blood and treasure the US is willing to spend. In the lead up to the second Iraq War, the US ran a military exercise to simulate an invasion. The enemy commander decided not to follow the "Iraqi Army" playbook and instead switched over to what is largely in line with the strategy of the Iranian army.
EDIT: Turns out the exercise was to simulate a war against Iran. Thanks Silurian. He used a large number of ground-to-sea missiles, small boat swarms, and suicide attacks to force the USN to operate far out to sea -and in the process sank one carrier and severely damaged another. He did not use any electronic communication, instead switched over entirely to landline telephones or hand delivered notes to avoid US intelligence gathering capabilities. IIRC, the exercise was ended after a few days on the grounds the enemy commander was abusing the rules of the exercise and was not properly simulating the army he should have been. The exercise was re-run with the enemy commander using a conventional strategy and, to nobodies surprise, the US army wiped the floor with the enemy.
In the intervening years, technological developments have only favored the "Iran style" military and tactics. Carriers are very big, very vulnerable, and very juicy targets - which is why China -and to an extent Russia- have been funning gobs of money into building anti-carrier ground launched missiles. Those missiles have become very worrying to US military planners.

 

[Silurian]

@Adjidica
that was an exercise about Iran not Iraq.

 

[red_elk]

Seoul case is not conventional either. Conventional warfare means two armies fighting each other in the battlefield with conventional tactics.

Seoul case is an example of non-nuclear deterrence, which successfully works for decades. Despite all NK "inferiority".
Russia's non-nuclear deterrence capabilities are much higher. This is what I'm arguing about, not about whose missiles are thicker.

I am not speaking about right or wrong, it was you who used the word blackmail.

Yes, in response to suggestion to "use all measures" and that Russians wouldn't want to turn into radioactive dust because of Crimea dispute.
This sounds like using threat of nuclear war, to force Russia to comply. In other words, blackmail.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Seoul case is an example of non-nuclear deterrence, which successfully work for decades. Despite all NK "inferiority".
Russia's non-nuclear deterrence capabilities are much higher. This is what I'm arguing about, not about whose missiles are thicker.

Show me where Russia has 10,000 artillery pieces pointing to a western big city 40 km away.