Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Shurimgreat

smurgen wrote: »

The Russians have been some of the greatest engineers throughout history.they manage to do alot with little resources. The Soyuz space craft for example was first developed by them in the 1960's and is the main transport vehicle nowadays, being hsed by nasa and the ISS.your portrayal of russian engineering sounds very different from reality.

They had some of the greatest. And you're forgetting the contribution of german scientists post war including their early space adventures. They also gave us the chernobyl and kursk disasters. The west have spent billions funding nuclear decommissioning in russia and also gave the russians much technical help. Todays russian military is a pale shadow of the former ussr. The money and resources isnt there. Still using dumb bombs and cluster munitions when everyone else has moved on.

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

Russian doctrine however had very different ideas.

I think this is fair.

The way I see it, Russian military expertise fits well with the capabilities Russia expects of its military.

Essentially, you create the technology to match the strategy.

Russian military capability is still based on peer-to-peer, open field battle.
Therefore what they develop enhances this doctrine.

The US has spent the last 15 years engaged in something entirely different that she too had to adjust to.... Urban conflict & aerial/standoff strikes against targets of meager value.
Thus with this shift in doctrine, the matching technology as given precision munitions of much smaller yield, scalability of munitions, enhanced theatre access capabilities & so forth.

There are major areas of military concern that the US have neglected while they develop cheaper ways of destroying a pickup truck from 100kms away.

InTheTrees

Russia has one aircraft carrier?

They had two more on order from France (they cant seem to build their own!) but had to cancel because they cant afford them after all.

glued

InTheTrees wrote: »

Russia has one aircraft carrier?

They had two more on order from France (they cant seem to build their own!) but had to cancel because they cant afford them after all.

That's not true. France cancelled them because of Russia's involvement in Ukraine and ended up paying Russia $1.2Bn as Russia has bought the two Mistrals upfront.

BoJack Horseman

InTheTrees wrote: »

Russia has one aircraft carrier?

They had two more on order from France (they cant seem to build their own!) but had to cancel because they cant afford them after all.

No.... France declined to sell them due to the Ukraine invasion & MH17... so they were sold to Egypt instead.

Russia received their refund for monies already paid to France.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No.... France declined to sell them due to the Ukraine invasion & MH17... so they were sold to Egypt instead.

Russia received their refund for monies already paid to France.

This is correct

Skylinehead

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

(also from the blog... check this beautiful image of an A-10 bathing in the northern lights, on station in Estonia)

The US military is insane to want to replace those with F35s. No comparison in capability whatsoever.

IrishTrajan

karma_ wrote: »

Historic capacity? You are completely disregarding a good point because you don't understand Russian doctrine or strategy. I mean, I can easily see how someone like yourself would argue the very same point in 1941, and whilst you would be technically correct, Russian doctrine however had very different ideas.

What doctrine are you even talking about?

We're talking about Russia's technical expertise today, and as proof of this, he was making references to the technology developed by the Soviet Union decades ago. Russia's technical skills are antiquated. Russia's military is in a poor condition. Hell, they only gave socks as part of a soldier's uniform in 2013.

Like I said, the Russia of today is not the Russia of 1960.

alcaline

The Russians have done more damage in a week to ISIS than the USA in a year.
Either the US military is hugely overrated or the conspiracy theorists regarding ISIS as a US creation are correct.
One way or the other it is not showing the US in a good light.

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have done more damage in a week to ISIS than the USA in a year.
Either the US military is hugely overrated or the conspiracy theorists regarding ISIS as a US creation are correct.
One way or the other it is not showing the US in a good light.

Based off what exactly

alcaline

Gatling wrote: »

Based off what exactly

Every news report coming out of the region, including those from western media.
The Russians have stepped up, and every right minded person in the world is grateful to them, about time someone took on ISIS.

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have done more damage in a week to ISIS than the USA in a year.

Nope...

Not even close to being objectively accurate.

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

Every news report coming out of the region, including those from western media.
The Russians have stepped up, and every right minded person in the world is grateful to them, about time someone took on ISIS.

That's not true at all

alcaline

Gatling wrote: »

That's not true at all

Says who?
Are we supposed to believe you over all the news emanating from the region

AbusesToilets

alcaline wrote: »

Says who?
Are we supposed to believe you over all the news emanating from the region

What stories would those be then, that give data to support your assertion that the Russians have done this level of damage to ISIS in the time frame you reference? Any links?

IrishTrajan

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have done more damage in a week

To themselves, maybe. The US has carried out airstrikes against ISIS when there isn't a risk of numerous civilian casualties. Russia has no such qualms.

alcaline

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What stories would those be then, that give data to support your assertion that the Russians have done this level of damage to ISIS in the time frame you reference? Any links?

You only need one, the Russian government have said they are pounding ISIS day and night and it could be all over in a matter of months if not weeks.
Ask yourself one simply question, Why would the Russians state that unless it was true?
If they are lies they will be exposed soon, so there is nothing to be gained by lies.

alcaline

IrishTrajan wrote: »

To themselves, maybe. The US has carried out airstrikes against ISIS when there isn't a risk of numerous civilian casualties. Russia has no such qualms.

Like MSF hospitals?

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

Says who?

Says me.

US involvement against ISIS has been running for 15 months.
Russia... 10 days.

The US, 3 carrier groups & several land based squadrons from Qatar.
Russia, 4 Squadrons in Syria & 2 ships in the caspian.

Russia has hit several targets & supposedly killed scores of ISIL militants.
The brunt of their efforts have been against non-ISIL targets, one of the consequences has been creating a vacuum subsequently filled by ISIL.

IrishTrajan

alcaline wrote: »

Like MSF hospitals?

Since when was that in Syria/Iraq?

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Says me.

US involvement against ISIS has been running for 15 months.
Russia... 10 days.

Russia has hit several targets & supposedly killed scores of ISIL militants.

The brunt of their efforts have been against non-ISIL targets, one of the consequences has been creating a vacuum subsequently filled by ISIL.

You have blinkers on, this week Russian attacks Homs and the western media says ISIS are not there, but only a few weeks ago the same media was telling up ISIS is throwing homosexuals of the top of building in Homs.

Elmer Blooker

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Says me.

US involvement against ISIS has been running for 15 months.
Russia... 10 days.

The US, 3 carrier groups & several land based squadrons from Qatar.
Russia, 4 Squadrons in Syria & 2 ships in the caspian.

Russia has hit several targets & supposedly killed scores of ISIL militants.
The brunt of their efforts have been against non-ISIL targets, one of the consequences has been creating a vacuum subsequently filled by ISIL.

I don't quite understand the highlighted bit - do you see any difference between al-Qaeda and IS? - would you mind going into a bit more detail.

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

You have blinkers on.

No... I've just read the releases from the Russian DOD....

The minority of their missile and flight sorties have been against ISIL targets.
This is according to the Russian's themselves.

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

US involvement against ISIS has been running for 15 months.
Russia... 10 days.

The US, 3 carrier groups & several land based squadrons from Qatar.
Russia, 4 Squadrons in Syria & 2 ships in the caspian.

It could be that the Chinese are correct, the USA is a paper tiger.
The Russians have got stuck in and done more in 10 days than the US in 15 months with only a fraction of the resources.

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

It could be that the Chinese are correct, the USA is a paper tiger.
The Russians have got stuck in and done more in 10 days than the US in 15 months with only a fraction of the resources.

No

alcaline

Gatling wrote: »

No

Emphatic answer, based on what?

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have got stuck in and done more in 10 days than the US in 15 months with only a fraction of the resources.

Another poster asked you to prove it.... not just say it...

So... back yourself up.

All the Russian DOD press statements are available online... they will give you the sortie numbers and estimated casualty numbers.

BoJack Horseman

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I don't quite understand the highlighted bit.

Going by this

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Another poster asked you to prove it.... not just say it...

So... back yourself up.

All the Russian DOD press statements are available online... they will give you the sortie numbers and estimated casualty numbers.

Pot, kettle and black.
Where is the proof the US has done any damage?
In fact they have admitted they parachuted supplies to ISIS by mistake on more than one occasion.

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Going by [usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/09/islamic-state-syria-aleppo-advance-russia-airstrikes/73671254/"]this[/URL]

Hold on a moment, stick to one story and stop with the contradictions.

In one post it is claimed the Russians are bombing where there are no ISIS and then you have this link which stated ISIS are in the region.
It can't be both, which is it?

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

Where is the proof the US has done any damage?

You would have to quote my post where I mentioned US inflicted casualty numbers.

So as for your repeated statement.... again, prove yourself.

You said Russia has dealt more damage to IS in the last 10 days.

I'm simply asking you to prove yourself with data.

Russia claims approximately 100 IS deaths inflicted.... we await you proving that Russia inflicted 100 times that... in 10 days!

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

In one post it is claimed the Russians are bombing where there are no ISIS and then you have this link which stated ISIS are in the region.

Quote the post where I said that!

every poster/reader knows that Russia has been hitting non-ISIL groups for the most part.

I never said that ISIL were't in Aleppo governate, I just said that ISIL werent the primary target of Russian strikes.
as the article says, when the other groups pull back.... someone takes their place.

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

WTF is this?

A request for you to back yourself lad... very simple.

Russia claims 100-ish (unconfirmed) ISIL kills...
You say this has beaten 15 months of US endeavors (which claim 13,000 kills).

So... you must have some way of increasing the '100' Russian estimate by a factor of 100!

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I just said that ISIL werent the primary target of Russian strikes.

Who says this? The USA who have been shown to be impotent when it come to attacking ISIS, the Russians have got stuck in and made the US look like amateurs.

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

A request for you to back yourself lad... very simple.

Russia claims 100-ish (unconfirmed) ISIL kills...
You say this has beaten 15 months of US endeavors (which claim 13,000 kills).

So... you must have some way of increasing the '100' Russian estimate by a factor of 100!

A simple request for you boyo, i can find plenty of reports of Russia inflicting casualties on ISIS, now be a good lad and back up the alleged 13,000 ISIS casualties inflicted by uncle sam.

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

Who says this?.

Russia.

MRnotlob606

The training strategy in Syria initiated by the US has been a bit of a failure. it was confirmed they only trained five free Syrian army soldiers and that soldiers were giving up their arms after making the passage into Syria after being trained in Turkey.

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

i can find plenty of reports of Russia inflicting casualties on ISIS.

Ok... then show us..

10 days worth of IS casualties inflicted by Russia(as opposed to other militant or rebel groups)
vs 15 months of US casualties.

You made the statement remember.... you've been asked repeatedly by multiple posters multiple times to prove yourself...

You still shirk.

alcaline

It truly is pathetic the russophobic nature of some of the posters here, Russia has stepped up and got stuck into ISIS and some see this as a bad thing.
These posters must have been raised on a diet of american propaganda, USA good, Russia bad.
The US was either unwilling or unable to take on ISIS and now that Russia is ,it is now the evil aggressor.
The facts are Russia is the only foreign power legally acting in Syria, the US and NATO have broken international law by bombing Syria.
Naturally the russophobic posters ignore this fact.

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

It truly is pathetic the russophobic.

ooh.... perhaps its first day jitters?

Commonly people refrain from the whole "phobic" thing when things go bad.
Its usually a things aren't going well lash out, that doesn't reflect well.

Thing is... when you make up stuff....

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have done more damage in a week to ISIS than the USA in a year.

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have got stuck in and done more in 10 days than the US in 15 months with only a fraction of the resources.

... people will ask you to back with some sort of information for validation.

So again... 10 days in
You will not only need to prove Russian casualty estimates, you will also need to disprove 15 months of US casualty estimates.

Its a mammoth task for sure.

Gatling

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

The training strategy in Syria initiated by the US has been a bit of a failure. it was confirmed they only trained five free Syrian army soldiers and that soldiers were giving up their arms after making the passage into Syria after being trained in Turkey.

Actually that's not 100% true is it ,
Looks like you took a single headline and applied it to the whole set up,
The trained a lot more than 5 soldiers yes the programme has failed but at least get the details right

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

ooh.... perhaps its first day jitters?

Commonly people refrain from the whole "phobic" thing when things go bad.
Its usually a things aren't going well lash out, that doesn't reflect well.

Thing is... when you make up stuff....




... people will ask you to back with some sort of information for validation.

So again... 10 days in
You will not only need to prove Russian casualty estimates, you will also need to disprove 15 months of US casualty estimates.

Its a mammoth task for sure.

Again 15 months of US "action" only say ISIS gain in strength, 10 days of Russian action and ISIS are on the ropes.
It really is a mammoth task for you to get your head around this fact.

alcaline

Gatling wrote: »

Actually that's not 100% true is it ,

You might be correct, its about 95%

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

15 months of US "action" only say ISIS gain in strength, 10 days of Russian action and ISIS are on the ropes.

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have got stuck in and done more in 10 days than the US in 15 months with only a fraction of the resources.

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have done more damage in a week to ISIS than the USA in a year..

Again.... prove it!

more sweeping statements on top of sweeping statements does not constitute an argument.

prove your statements, its a very simple request.

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Again.... prove it!

more sweeping statements on top of sweeping statements does not constitute an argument.

prove your statements, its a very simple request.

And you still offer no proof that the USA has done anything to degrade the fighting ability of ISIS, yet the whole world acknowledges that Russia has them on the run in 10 days.
Russophobia can be easily cured, just stay away from hollywood movies for a month and you should be fine.

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

And you still offer no proof that the USA has done anything to degrade the fighting ability of ISIS, yet the whole world acknowledges that Russia has them on the run in 10 days.
Russophobia can be easily cured, just stay away from hollywood movies for a month and you should be fine.

You do realise you made claims and because your asked for proof to back up your statement you then claim russophobia ,
This isnt After Hours,

I'll wonder if any mods are around

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

And you still offer no proof that the USA has done anything to degrade the fighting ability of ISIS,

I don't have to... I havent made that claim (fee free to quote the my post where I declared same

You made the claims.....

alcaline wrote: »

15 months of US "action" only say ISIS gain in strength, 10 days of Russian action and ISIS are on the ropes.

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have got stuck in and done more in 10 days than the US in 15 months with only a fraction of the resources.

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have done more damage in a week to ISIS than the USA in a year..

The burden of proof lies on you & only you.

So, I'm asking again, please validate your posts with proof.

AbusesToilets

Why even bother responding to such an obvious troll?

Streetwalker

Russia now laying waste to terrorist scum all across Syria whilst the US arms and funds them. America is the good guy right?

glued

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Why even bother responding to such an obvious troll?

How is he/she an obvious troll?

Just because they don't agree with your viewpoint doesn't make them a troll.