Jump to content

War on the rocks - hypothetical NATO-RUS


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, kinophile said:

You guys are ruining my potential Russian campaign :'(

I know this sounds obvious,  but just so it's said,  from this discussion  the primary factor affecting if Russia goes full retard on the Ukraine is not NATO but the Ukrainians themselves.  They have rebuilt their army (and are continuing to do so) into something sufficient to require a full-on, open book RUS commitment to defeat. They are a strong, but brittle, tripwire. 

Yes.  The beginning of this conflict Ukraine was in maximum chaos and minimal military competency.  The Ukrainian general staff on down was riddled with FSB informants/agents.  Society was genuinely unsure of what was going on or what was about to happen.  Long standing Russian plans for fake uprisings were in full operation everywhere, from Kharkiv to Odessa.  And yet Ukraine held, fought back, and would have wiped out the "insurgency" if Russia had not invested thousands of frontline troops directly into the war.  Even then it only managed a fairly modest improvement of the situation.  In situations to follow the performance was even worse and Debaltseve required yet another major injection of Russian forces even though the battle was favorable to the Russian side.  The results there were not very good for Russia despite the major investment.

I think it is pretty clear that Russia won't gain anything of significance in Ukraine without a military effort that is even larger than that of summer 2014.  Even with more force the potential risks are much higher than they were before.  The recent major loss of Russian forces in Syria certainly doesn't help.

54 minutes ago, kinophile said:

It would take a massive effort of agitating fresh rebellion,  fighting against the general awareness of Russia's hand in everything,  in order to stretch the UA to breaking point. But the UA has already seen what can happen if it doesn't act quickly and I suspect will stamp down hard and fast on any new rebellions. 

You mean Ukraine will be faster to stamp out foreign invasions pretending to be rebellions?  Sure, but that's not going to happen again.  Russia tried it and it only worked a little bit in Donbas and a tiny bit in Kharkiv and Mariupol.  Given the results of the last 2 years there's no chance of creating a fake uprising anywhere else.  It already worked as well as it could have, and even then Russia had to supply forces (volunteers, vacationers, and direct military force) to keep it from collapsing.

54 minutes ago, kinophile said:

At this point I dont think we can posit a RUS attack and not have it part of a much wider, and as mentioned  opening act" to a general war. 

Since I've been saying this since the start, obviously I agree ;)  Russia's usual bag of dirty tricks (on this scale) is completely empty. 

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The recent major loss of Russian forces in Syria certainly doesn't help.

?

Off my own topic, and I'm no military expert, not by a  mile, but I can find no reference to major Russian losses. Max ten soldiers dead is the most.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, lets posit that, a general war.

Now, not a formal WW3. But there have been several futurist, and sci fi novels (eg the Red/Blue/Green Mars trilogy), which suggest that the age of the grand coalitions, of ideology v ideology are past. It is coming down to population support, resource control, societal control. Which,it can be argued, is what the heavyweight ideologies were about. But in this future scenario it's more about population survival, access to water and food at the basic level and not some nonsense Volksraum.

The implication and derivation is that World War 3 will not be a formally declared war of coherent front lines and clashing hemispheric hegemonies, but that local, regional wars and conflicts in widely disparate regions will coalesce into one gradually accelerating general conflagration, a complete hydra of religious, social, military, economic and technological factions. 

(hold on,. it gets happier...)

Now, this idea takes what happened in Rwanda and extrapolates it into a very crowded world (in Rwanda, about 50% of all murders were motivated by the desire for more space, food, access to water, etc. Tribal tensions exacerbated everything, but it was the massive overpopulation that drove it).

(wait no it didn't)

Anyway, the long winded point here is that a formal RUS v NATO war may never happen, ever (regardless of Russia's military ability) but that both sides will get drawn by regional actors under intense societal pressures into an undeclared and vicious confrontation. Indeed, I believe this was a real worry when Putin began his woman and child murdering jaunt into Syria.

I think I'm making sense...I think...

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kinophile said:

?

Off my own topic, and I'm no military expert, not by a  mile, but I can find no reference to major Russian losses. Max ten soldiers dead is the most.

 

 So far there are 6 dead Russian servicemen from combat, and 2 from a helicopter crash (MI-28 crashed during maneuvers) 

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

You guys are ruining my potential Russian campaign :'(

I know this sounds obvious,  but just so it's said,  from this discussion  the primary factor affecting if Russia goes full retard on the Ukraine is not NATO but the Ukrainians themselves.  They have rebuilt their army (and are continuing to do so) into something sufficient to require a full-on, open book RUS commitment to defeat. They are a strong, but brittle, tripwire. 

It would take a massive effort of agitating fresh rebellion,  fighting against the general awareness of Russia's hand in everything,  in order to stretch the UA to breaking point. But the UA has already seen what can happen if it doesn't act quickly and I suspect will stamp down hard and fast on any new rebellions. 

At this point I dont think we can posit a RUS attack and not have it part of a much wider, and as mentioned  opening act" to a general war. 

Mariupol has been strongly dismissed as a useful objective. 

Looking further ahead,  Melitopol seems like a useful intersection. 

 

 

Don't worry about realism.  I mean, sort of worry about it, but accept sometimes a good fight is more interesting than a realistic battle.  I do micro armor table top stuff sometimes, and I usually set it in Korea.  My DPRK is many times more armor focused and capable than the real one, and my battlefields are way more maneuver friendly than anywhere in Korea.  

It's okay if you're writing a scenario and Mariupol is your objective.  It's just a bit off if you're trying to guess how a war in the Ukraine involving total Russian commitment might play out.

 

 

35 minutes ago, kinophile said:

?

Off my own topic, and I'm no military expert, not by a  mile, but I can find no reference to major Russian losses. Max ten soldiers dead is the most.

 

There's some rumblings that the Russian truthiness might be running the par for the course.  I think Steve might be referring to this though:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36368346

Which is rather curious to say the least.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

There's some rumblings that the Russian truthiness might be running the par for the course.  I think Steve might be referring to this though:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36368346

Which is rather curious to say the least.  

Yep Russian COVER UPS!

I seen the "sattelite images" The neareast ISIS ever was  to t-4 air base was 5-6 KM, all hits were "perfect" with no misses all hit the stationary targets pinpoint if this is suppose to be true. (it is totally not believe it or not stuff like this would find its way into the Russian public) Unless we have some NATO guys with some handy laser designators its just another rumor.(BTW NATO SOLDIERS DO NOT OPERATE WITH ISIS LOL) 

http://www.dw.com/en/us-intelligence-company-confirms-attack-on-russian-military-equipment-in-syria/a-19280135 look at this, there is not one single miss. Nor any ground crew deployed to repair the area.

We have a FO guy on the forum he provided some good info about how FOs work. I do not think this would be possible without laser designators (which ISIS does not have let alone do they have the precision guided shells needed)

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how Stratfor (debka of the west) was able to develop any type of authoritative analysis from this photo alone, so I assume they are either filling in the blanks themselves or have multiple sources. That being said, precision munitions and precision targeting equipment wouldn't be needed to achieve those types of effects.  We've lost aircraft in Afghanistan on the ground in the same way as is being suggested happened here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Yep Russian COVER UPS!

I seen the "sattelite images" The neareast ISIS ever was  to t-4 air base was 5-6 KM,

How exactly did you determine ISIS never got closer than 5-6km?  They wear a special "I am ISIS shoot me" sign as they did recon on the base?  Look how insecure NATO facilities are in Afghanistan and repeat to me with a straight face that Uber Russian ISIS sniffers know who is a sympathizer working on their airbase.  I need a good chuckle today.

Now the argument that ISIS didn't claim it carries far more weight.  If they did they'd be broadcasting it to the high heavens as a glorious victory for Islam.  I am betting more on inept drunken supply guys accidentally setting off a fuel dump.

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, sburke said:

How exactly did you determine ISIS never got closer than 5-6km?  They wear a special "I am ISIS shoot me" sign as they did recon on the base?  Look how insecure NATO facilities are in Afghanistan and repeat to me with a straight face that Uber Russian ISIS sniffers know who is a sympathizer working on their airbase.  I need a good chuckle today.

Now the argument that ISIS didn't claim it carries far more weight.  If they did they'd be broadcasting it to the high heavens as a glorious victory for Islam.  I am betting more on inept drunken supply guys accidentally setting off a fuel dump.

ISIS is not getting any accurate firing solutions into a  corner of a helicopter base, without us Russians finding their approximate area. (Just the same as Americans I'm just tryna sound cool with the whole Russkii thing) 

As for drunken soldiers blowing the fuel up, that's a no go. I would fear the consequences... Especially contractors they are pretty serious. Lads going to Syria are as professional as they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

I'm not sure how Stratfor (debka of the west) was able to develop any type of authoritative analysis from this photo alone, so I assume they are either filling in the blanks themselves or have multiple sources. That being said, precision munitions and precision targeting equipment wouldn't be needed to achieve those types of effects.  We've lost aircraft in Afghanistan on the ground in the same way as is being suggested happened here.  

That effect could be achieved, but there are no evidence of other craters. Such accuracy is very doubtful. What weapons does ISIS have other then some mortars that would be used to achieve such successful accurate hits...(without being seen by counter-battery radars) And how close were they? 

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

?

Off my own topic, and I'm no military expert, not by a  mile, but I can find no reference to major Russian losses. Max ten soldiers dead is the most.

 

See next comment...

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

 So far there are 6 dead Russian servicemen from combat, and 2 from a helicopter crash (MI-28 crashed during maneuvers) 

Add 4 more helicopters and a bunch of trucks, plus whatever personnel was killed in the raid.

 

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Yep Russian COVER UPS!

Absolutely LOVE cover ups.  It's like a national pass time.  "Those aren't our troops in Crimea" is the best one so far, though "a Ukrainian SU-25 shot down MH-17" is a very close second.  And more runner ups than I can count.

Quote

I seen the "sattelite images" The neareast ISIS ever was  to t-4 air base was 5-6 KM, all hits were "perfect" with no misses all hit the stationary targets pinpoint if this is suppose to be true.

Yeah, ISIS never moves its fighters around for deep penetrating surprise attacks.  Not even this past week.  Certainly not something that Russia Today would cover...

https://www.rt.com/news/344052-syria-latakia-jableh-explosions/

Quote

(it is totally not believe it or not stuff like this would find its way into the Russian public)

Ah!  So it was the Russian media that showed the T-90s in the Luhansk battles?  Funny, I thought the Russian media kept saying there were no Russian regular forces in Ukraine and dismissed all the evidence as being faked.  Thanks for correcting me.  For a second I forgot how unbiased and independent the Russian media is.

Quote

 

(it is totally not believe it or not stuff like this would find its way into the Russian public) Unless we have some NATO guys with some handy laser designators its just another rumor.(BTW NATO SOLDIERS DO NOT OPERATE WITH ISIS LOL) 

http://www.dw.com/en/us-intelligence-company-confirms-attack-on-russian-military-equipment-in-syria/a-19280135 look at this, there is not one single miss. Nor any ground crew deployed to repair the area.

We have a FO guy on the forum he provided some good info about how FOs work. I do not think this would be possible without laser designators (which ISIS does not have let alone do they have the precision guided shells needed)

Or guys running into the base with explosives and detonating the fuel tanks?  Nah, ISIS has NEVER tried to put fighters inside a defended perimeter as part of a coordinated attack.

11 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

ISIS is not getting any accurate firing solutions into a  corner of a helicopter base, without us Russians finding their approximate area. (Just the same as Americans I'm just tryna sound cool with the whole Russkii thing) 

As for drunken soldiers blowing the fuel up, that's a no go. I would fear the consequences... Especially contractors they are pretty serious. Lads going to Syria are as professional as they get.

Correct again!  Russian professional soldiers never make mistakes, not in Syria and certainly not at home.  And this faked NATO footage shows the lengths the West will go to to convince people otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah Steve, Stratfor is definitely more a better source. The T-90s haven't made it into Russian government owned media, but Russians have the internet and after a little bit of research and talking to some lads, It's obvious Russia has deployed troops into Ukraine when moments were critical. Infact we(majorly) support this move... 

BTW That ammo explosion was caused by drunken Russian soldiers? Or was there another story to it? For example an artillery system exploding during an exercise which caused the ammunition dump to explode. Now stop twisting stuff on me, I didn't say Russian troops can't make mistakes. Every one is human. Although getting drunk on base and causing fuel dump explosion near helicopters during a "refuel" is totally out the window ESPECIALLY in a war environment. 

ISIS driving a VBIED into a Russian military operated base? Without checkpoints putting about 500 rounds into just the engine block? I've heard this claim during march too. Take a look at the roads leading to the airbase, the internet shows alot. You will see how insane this sounds. Ontop of that take a look at the military map of Syria (who owns what piece of lands you know what I mean) look at the T-4 Air base and look at the nearest ISIS controlled areas. And then ontop of that please try to find out what units are deployed around the T-4 air base. 

Now I'm betting all this is false, if it turns out you guys are right I'll say ****. But just analyzing it on my own, it makes no sense, how it would be possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vladimir, I'm not here to participate in any discussions of east vs west, I was just correcting the record.  Counter battery radar gives you the POO and POI, the point of origin and the point of impact.  It can't stop the enemy from inititating fires on you, and I would imagine even Russian forces in Syria have rules of engagement for initiating counter battery fires.  If the enemy sets up their tubes or rockets in a location that cannot be engaged without incurring an unnacceptable risk of collateral damage, or civilian casualties, it likely will not be fired, or minimally, the response time will be slowed by a lengthened clearance of fires process.  It is quite normal for insurgent weapons teams to attack large targets, bases, airfields etc, and quite normal for them to escape counter battery fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Ah Steve, Stratfor is definitely more a better source. The T-90s haven't made it into Russian government owned media, but Russians have the internet and after a little bit of research and talking to some lads, It's obvious Russia has deployed troops into Ukraine when moments were critical. Infact we(majorly) support this move... 

And yet at the time this was going on there were Russians on this forum (which I think included you) denying everything.  Even the stuff that was obvious.  Please don't try to rewrite history.

Quote

BTW That ammo explosion was caused by drunken Russian soldiers? Or was there another story to it? For example an artillery system exploding during an exercise which caused the ammunition dump to explode. Now stop twisting stuff on me, I didn't say Russian troops can't make mistakes. Every one is human. Although getting drunk on base and causing fuel dump explosion near helicopters during a "refuel" is totally out the window ESPECIALLY in a war environment. 

I don't know if anybody will ever know what caused the Rostov base explosion because whomever started the chain reaction is dead and the Russian government won't likely admit to a cause it doesn't like.  There were a couple of large explosions in Donetsk as well, though again it's unclear what caused them.  Some sources say it was bad discipline, other say it was Ukrainian special forces.

The point here is that something blew all that stuff up.  So either bad base discipline caused it to happen or an ISIS attack did.  Considering that ISIS claimed responsibility for it, and doesn't have a history of claiming responsibility for things it didn't do, I'm going to side with ISIS on this.  Sadly, they are a more credible source of information when it comes to this stuff.

Quote

ISIS driving a VBIED into a Russian military operated base? Without checkpoints putting about 500 rounds into just the engine block? I've heard this claim during march too. Take a look at the roads leading to the airbase, the internet shows alot. You will see how insane this sounds. Ontop of that take a look at the military map of Syria (who owns what piece of lands you know what I mean) look at the T-4 Air base and look at the nearest ISIS controlled areas.

You don't seem to know very much about how ISIS, Hamas, or other armed terrorist groups operate.  For those of us not wearing blinders we've seen these sorts of attacks before in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, Saudi Arabia, and of course Syria.  Did you read the Russia Today link I posted?  This JUST happened yesterday.  "Safe" areas deep within regime territory were struck by multiple attacks and killed many people.  Or do you think that was faked as well?

Now, I am not saying that ISIS got guys inside the compound.  The satellite images show impact craters which can be seen even in the very low res shot of the fixed wing aircraft.

The thing is with ammo and fuel packed in so close to each other, it doesn't take much to cause more damage than what was explicitly hit.  Again, look at the Rostov video for an example of this.

 

Quote

And then ontop of that please try to find out what units are deployed around the T-4 air base.

 

Straftfor did this and said there was a Russian attack helicopter unit operating out of there with helicopters that the Syrian forces don't have.  They also stated the fixed wing aircraft that was hit was Syrian, not Russian.

Quote

Now I'm betting all this is false, if it turns out you guys are right I'll say ****. But just analyzing it on my own, it makes no sense, how it would be possible. 

Not surprising given your apparent lack of understanding of how groups like ISIS work.  Hint... there is no such thing as a frontline for them.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, conducting a military raid on a military base behind government lines is not as easy as exploding some stuff in the cities (urban environment) 

About Ukraine, Yes I did believe that there weren't active Russian formations in Ukraine until I did some research for my own. (albeit its not like how UA claims saying all of Novorussian armed forces is actual Russian army) And I'll admit you were right there. There were Russian formations deployed into Ukraine. 

Rostov how ever, honestly I'd rather believe that it was an accident. Because if there were evidence that Ukrainian special forces did it, Russia would not be quiet about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if it wasn't ISIS, and it wasn't negligence/an accident, then what was it? It wasn't a western strike (bet your ass Russia would know and would be open about it, nevermind the West has no reason to do that). If ISIS has gotten within a few kilometers, and has acquired some of those lose Grads lost in the country, this is totally doable. With a tight target, a physics book on a calm day, and a smart phone they could easily (well maybe not easily but believably) pull this off. It sucks for your countrymen, but this has happened many times in recent years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Steve, conducting a military raid on a military base behind government lines is not as easy as exploding some stuff in the cities (urban environment) 

Of course it isn't easy, but there's a VERY long track record of terrorist groups doing this.  This is the thing you seem to not be aware of.  Plus they don't have to get into the base to attack it, they only have to get within range.  Since bases are defended pretty much at the wire, not a multi KM radius around the base, it's pretty obvious how these sorts of attacks are possible.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

About Ukraine, Yes I did believe that there weren't active Russian formations in Ukraine until I did some research for my own. (albeit its not like how UA claims saying all of Novorussian armed forces is actual Russian army) And I'll admit you were right there. There were Russian formations deployed into Ukraine. 

Thanks.  And I do understand that your view has come closer to the truth, but it's still far short of what the truth is.  I don't know the full truth either, but nobody will until Russia admits what it has done.  That is not likely to happen for decades.

Your admission, however, works against what you previously said about information and conclusions.  The information that Russia was DIRECTLY involved in fighting within Ukraine was painfully clear to a guy sitting in the US with no knowledge of the Russian language.  But Russians, including yourself, were in total denial.  Why should I think this situation is different?

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Rostov how ever, honestly I'd rather believe that it was an accident. Because if there were evidence that Ukrainian special forces did it, Russia would not be quiet about it. 

No, the Rostov explosion was never claimed to be a Ukrainian action.  For sure it was some sort of Russian military accident and really bad practices which allowed such a huge chain reaction.  The Ukrainian special forces claim was made about a serious of MUCH smaller explosions of Russian/DPR supply bases during 2015.  I remember one of them was large enough to cause an emergency "Humanitarian Aid" convoy to be sent from Russian a couple of days later. 

1 minute ago, Codename Duchess said:

So if it wasn't ISIS, and it wasn't negligence/an accident, then what was it? It wasn't a western strike (bet your ass Russia would know and would be open about it, nevermind the West has no reason to do that).

Hence the "hoax" theory.  If you can't explain something, or don't like the obvious explanation, claim the evidence is a hoax.

1 minute ago, Codename Duchess said:

If ISIS has gotten within a few kilometers, and has acquired some of those lose Grads lost in the country, this is totally doable. With a tight target, a physics book on a calm day, and a smart phone they could easily (well maybe not easily but believably) pull this off. It sucks for your countrymen, but this has happened many times in recent years. 

Yup.  Maybe Vladimir should read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wanat

The Taliban surrounded the remote base and its observation post, attacking it from Quam and surrounding farmland. They destroyed much of the U.S. heavy munitions, broke through American lines, and entered the main base before being repelled by artillery and aircraft.

This was against some of the US' best troops in a battle zone the US had been fighting in for 7 years.  Oh, and here's another one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kamdesh

As a result of the battle, COP Keating was partially overrun and nearly completely destroyed.  Observation Post ("OP") Fritsche was attacked simultaneously, limiting available support from that position.

[6] The Coalition forces withdrew from the base shortly after the battle.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could just be an extreme version of how the US reacted to enemy attacks.  While it sometimes leaked out regardless, we tried to avoid giving the insurgents much in the form of battle damage information.  So we WOULD release injured/killed numbers simply because transparency/it's the right thing to do for the families of those guys, we wouldn't say they died when the mortar round nailed the daily 1400 baseball game at the recreation area  because it let the enemy know what they were hitting, and how to continue to make it effective.  

A great example of this, was on my last FOB.  It had been a much larger compound before we took if over, and had preciously had a wide array of recreational activities, real buildings with foundations to live in, and indoor plumbing.  When we took it over however, we only occupied a very small corner of it, away from the "nice" part of the post which was abandoned.  

We took rockets and mortars very frequently, but they were positively raining down on the now vacant buildings.  If people had lived there, we'd have taken all sorts of losses.  But instead we just kept mum about it, told our Iraqi counter parts simply that the mortars all "missed" and every attack from the first to the last went right into those buildings.  

It could be the Russians were hoping to do the same, by entirely not recognizing the attack or admitting any damage, that ISIS wouldn't know that it had been wildly successful, which might explain why there was never a ISIS claim of doing the damage, because as far as they knew until the news story hit, they missed.  

Just a random guess.  It's also just possible it's deeply embarrassing that the Russians were unable to self-secure, or some Chechen contract soldier or something re-found Allah in the desert and did some serious damage.  

Either way it's an interesting point of data, and when paired with Russian historical deceit and lack of transparency, begs for further inquiry.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Just a random guess.  It's also just possible it's deeply embarrassing that the Russians were unable to self-secure, or some Chechen contract soldier or something re-found Allah in the desert and did some serious damage.  

While possible (it has happened to the US a few times), it is far more plausible that one of the Syrian workers was acting as a double agent.  Gathering intel at the least, possibly acting as a spotter.  The US, and others, are painfully aware of these sorts of inside activities and MUCH worse:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Attack-on-U-S-base-kills-22-at-mess-tent-Mosul-2627746.php

Quote


Either way it's an interesting point of data, and when paired with Russian historical deceit and lack of transparency, begs for further inquiry.  

Something happened, of that I'm convinced.  What happened, on the other hand, is still unclear.  Though I hate to say it... but ISIS claim of responsibility needs to be taken as probably true.  They might be an apocalyptic, mass murdering death cult, but they are a fairly honest one when it comes to claims of responsibility.  Note their lack of claims to the downing of Egypt Air 808, though they could have easily done so.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/24/syrian-airbase-used-by-russia-damaged-in-isis-attack-report

On the other hand, the Russian press is it's usual "throw as much crap at this and see what sticks" methodology.  One Russian government source says the damage was from before they took over the base, another says there was a fire that triggered the explosions.  I expect one or more additional "official" statements to come out that contradict the others.  The government will then decide which one is less laughable and stick to that.  At least that's the usual pattern of behavior:

https://www.rt.com/news/344254-russian-helicopters-isis-syria/

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, It was ignorant of me to say such things about the information regarding the Ukrainian crisis, the internet is open to everyone. You are totally right that the Russian army was in Ukraine, but regarding politics in Ukraine I will still have to disagree with you but without going deeply into Ukraine on this topic.

The link you shared(the incident with the taliban) is interesting, and surely has opened my eyes. Could be a raid, but if they were successful that would show weakness in the Russian defenses and would be exploited further. Kuweires air base comes to mind, where the SAA defended against huge offensives for 2 years. If ISIS can conduct a raid on the go onto a Russian operated base then that is not a good sign.

 

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Steve, It was ignorant of me to say such things about the information regarding the Ukrainian crisis, the internet is open to everyone. You are totally right that the Russian army was in Ukraine, but regarding politics in Ukraine I will still have to disagree with you but without going deeply into Ukraine on this topic.

It is good of you to say this.  I am happy for us to be closer together on what the facts are even if we still have disagreements on all of them.

19 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

The link you shared(the incident with the taliban) is interesting, and surely has opened my eyes. Could be a raid, but if they were successful that would show weakness in the Russian defenses and would be exploited further. Kuweires air base comes to mind, where the SAA defended against huge offensives for 2 years. If ISIS can conduct a raid on the go onto a Russian operated base then that is not a good sign.

It is no different than any other type of terrorist attack.  Give them enough time, enough resources, and enough motivation and they WILL eventually succeed.  It is never a matter of IF but WHEN.  There are many things that can be done to lessen the chances or minimize damage, but that's the best that can be hoped for.  Look at recent terrorist attacks in Dagestan.  By Western standards Chechnya and Dagestan are "police states" and yet there have been a number of successful attacks in the past 2 years.  In particular the Grozny attack in 2014. 

Yes, it is true that terrorist organizations learn what to do and will try to replicate success.  However, they sometimes find it difficult to repeat these successes for one or more reasons.  Very often it's because the victim has learned something and changed its tactics accordingly. 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

While possible (it has happened to the US a few times), it is far more plausible that one of the Syrian workers was acting as a double agent.  Gathering intel at the least, possibly acting as a spotter.  The US, and others, are painfully aware of these sorts of inside activities and MUCH worse:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Attack-on-U-S-base-kills-22-at-mess-tent-Mosul-2627746.php

Something happened, of that I'm convinced.  What happened, on the other hand, is still unclear.  Though I hate to say it... but ISIS claim of responsibility needs to be taken as probably true.  They might be an apocalyptic, mass murdering death cult, but they are a fairly honest one when it comes to claims of responsibility.  Note their lack of claims to the downing of Egypt Air 808, though they could have easily done so.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/24/syrian-airbase-used-by-russia-damaged-in-isis-attack-report

On the other hand, the Russian press is it's usual "throw as much crap at this and see what sticks" methodology.  One Russian government source says the damage was from before they took over the base, another says there was a fire that triggered the explosions.  I expect one or more additional "official" statements to come out that contradict the others.  The government will then decide which one is less laughable and stick to that.  At least that's the usual pattern of behavior:

https://www.rt.com/news/344254-russian-helicopters-isis-syria/

Steve

Oh I'm well aware of the insider stuff.  I was just trying to think of situations that would be beyond simply unfortunate and well into "never speak of this again" levels of things going wrong.  I certainly wouldn't rule out some especially "patriotic" and "pro-Russian" Syrian with a smart phone or even just a good memory getting the lay of the land for whatever happened next.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

And yet at the time this was going on there were Russians on this forum (which I think included you) denying everything.  Even the stuff that was obvious.  Please don't try to rewrite history.

Hm, not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is please go back and re-read what I was writing back then. I stand by it still after two years have passed. As for helicopters in Syria, helicopters burned as part of a landfire created by mortar fire. No personnel reported injured on Syrian or Russian crews. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BTR said:

Hm, not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is please go back and re-read what I was writing back then. I stand by it still after two years have passed. As for helicopters in Syria, helicopters burned as part of a landfire created by mortar fire. No personnel reported injured on Syrian or Russian crews. 

I heard it was actually swamp gas reflecting off of Venus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I heard it was actually swamp gas reflecting off of Venus.  

Pretty irrelevant I say. I know some reports don't satisfy the "millions Russian dead" bloodthirsty wishful thinking of some, but that is that. Unless more detailed information is available, I'm sticking to the only available report. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...