U.S. Victory Highlights Russian Weakness

AP | 4/21/03 | VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

[kattracks]

U.S. Victory Highlights Russian Weakness

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV .c The Associated Press

MOSCOW (AP) - There's a message to the Russians in the swift defeat of Saddam Hussein's military, which was modeled on the rigid Soviet war machine.

The triumph of a high-tech adversary has spotlighted the weakness of Russia's own crumbling armed forces and strengthened the hand of radical reform advocates.

``The Iraqi war has proven once again that a volunteer contract force equipped with state-of-the art weapons and using modern tactics can fulfill any task ... and do it with minimal casualties among civilians,'' said liberal lawmaker Alexei Arbatov, a leading advocate of a Russian volunteer army.

When the war began, Russian generals forecast a long and fierce battle and expected the United States to suffer massive casualties if it stormed Iraqi cities. Just a week before Baghdad fell, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov extolled the strength of the Iraqi army and said a U.S. victory was ``far from certain.''

``There were expectations of a new Vietnam,'' said Yuri Fyodorov, a deputy director of the PIR-Center, an independent Russian think-tank.

Russian generals and diplomats, who also predicted an all-out battle for Baghdad, drew on Russia's own botched experience in the storming and virtual destruction of Grozny, the Chechen capital.

``The U.S. victory in Iraq has become an unpleasant surprise for the Russian political and military elite,'' said Yevgeny Volk, head of the Moscow office of the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. think tank.

The Iraqi army closely copied the Soviet organization and tactics and was equipped with mostly Soviet-built tanks, aircraft and missiles. Although official military contacts were severed after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, two retired Russian generals visited Baghdad to advise its defenders, according to Russian media reports. They later acknowledged the visit but denied serving as military advisers.

Many Russians say their army suffers from the same weaknesses that contributed to Iraq's defeat - badly maintained weapons, poorly trained troops, rigid command and poor coordination.

Retired Gen. Andrei Nikolayev, head of Parliament's defense affairs committee, said the Russian army is similar to the Iraqi army in its low morale and lack of motivation.

``Go on the street and ask who is ready to defend the motherland and you will immediately see unpleasant parallels,'' he said. ``The outcome of a war depends on army's morale.''

In an article published this week in the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta, commentator Maxim Glikin recalled his own experience in the Soviet military in the late 1980s, saying he and his comrades would have surrendered just like Saddam's soldiers.

``We would have thrown away our rifles and changed into civilian clothes before an aggressor approached our unit,'' Glikin wrote.

The Russian military has declined steadily since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, lacking funds to modernize weapons, hold exercises and even properly feed and dress servicemen.

Miserable conditions and rampant hazing of young conscripts have led to suicides, desertions, shootouts and widespread draft-dodging. All Russian men aged 18-27 are required to serve two years in the military, but 90 percent avoid the draft.

President Vladimir Putin has sought to reverse the meltdown by ordering a gradual transfer from the draft to a volunteer force by 2010. But the top brass are stubbornly defending a bulky, Soviet-era military on a meager budget equivalent to $11 billion this year. In contrast, Soviet defense spending stood at the equivalent of $155 billion in 1991, the year of the Soviet collapse, according to official statistics. Some Western experts believe it was even higher.

In stark contrast with the computerized, satellite-guided U.S. military, the Russian army's arsenals are of Cold War vintage, precision weapons are few and tactics largely imitate the World War II patterns. A lack of fuel and spares has grounded aircraft and left most navy ships to rust in port.

While the top brass is using the Iraqi war as a pretext to plead for more funds, critics are urging the military to further trim ranks, dump excessive weapons and radically streamline its bloated, antiquated structure.

``Pumping more cash into the outdated defense structure would be a useless waste of money,'' said Konstantin Kosachev, deputy head of Parliament's foreign affairs committee.

04/21/03 01:56 EDT

[John Lenin]

All I can say is, Wow.

[jnarcus]

I have an email friend in Moscow who has been translating various articles for me during the recent war in Iraq...the Russians are wringing their hands big time...I believe tat instead of tanks the are ordering large quatities of Depends

[fella]

the Russian army is similar to the Iraqi army in its low morale and lack of motivation.

Troops that don't want to fight, aint. Now would be a god time for the E.U. to proove it self by marching on Moscow say this comeing September. Then the French can really sturt their stuff instead of caveing into tinpot rebels in Africa.

[Bonaparte]

fyi

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

If I understand classic russian army assault tactics, they were based on the idea of overwhelming massed firepower and massive fixed defense positions to protect important area. Troops moved only under the ongoing support of field guns and large tank concentrations.

Since they lack a technological edge and were using conscripts for uniform hangers, the only possible successful strategy was forcing enormous numbers of casualties on both sides. Since they have an enormous pool of warm bodies to draw upon, the soviet leadership found forty percent or higher casualty rates perfectly acceptable.

In a straight war of attrition, the west wouldn't have stood a chance. It's our superior weaponry and the training of our volunteer warriors that gives the U.S. superiority on any modern battlefield. Remove our tech toys and we're in trouble.

[wireplay]

The US far outnumbers Russia in terms of population (145M in Russia vs ~300M in US) plus Russia has a declining population.

In a war of attrition it would depend upon the cause as to how well a 40% casualty rate would be accepted by the troops as well as the population at home.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

It's not the population numbers that would determine the overall outcome of a battle between the United States and the soviets. It's how many of those people could be put under arms and fielded in combat. The Russians could do a better job of putting bullet catchers into uniform or they could during the communist era.

Straight census numbers don't take into account the greater number of older people in the United States versus Russia, the inflation of our census by estimates of illegal aliens in the population and foreign nationals working in the U.S. at any given time, etc. Besides, how many of our people are required to supply food, medicines, material and basic necessities for that much larger population? That's another fair drain on fieldable soldiers right there. Soviet food production was so low as to be laughable, as was their production rates for most other commodities except for weapons and ammunition. Most of the soviet diet was/is composed of imports. They lose little in the way of warm bodies to these necessities.

As to the 40% plus casualty rate, if I'm not mistaken, the soviet union was a communist state up until recently. I doubt very much that the leadership of the party would have had much patience for questioning of their orders by soldiers or civilians. Besides, even if the rates went much higher, it's doubtful that the people back home would have heard that the glorious soviet war machine was taking losses any where near the actual numbers. No Fox News in the glorious workers paradise.

I was unaware of the russian population decline, I've been too wrapped up in local trivia for that to creep in. Sounds like the old soviet union is dying a slow death. If it were not for the bloated census numbers here, caused by illegal immigration, I have a feeling that we might be edging toward a population decline of our own.

If the outcry against casualties in the current war is any indication, I doubt very strongly that the people of the United States would be willing to accept anything nearing a 5% casualty rate in an actual war. We've been scandalized by the miniscule losses we suffered in Iraq and most of those were accidents or preventable mishaps.

Just the opinion of a tired old man, but heck, at least I tried to answer. Going to get a few hours sleep before I have to get busy. Goodnight.

[wireplay]

Most of this depends upon the reason for combat. If Russia was invaded then a much smalkler population would fight a lot harder. We can look at Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to see how hard a small number will fight if another people is seen as occupiers.

I think the population figures are pretty accurate and my reading of them currently are completely in the US favor whether you look at the age of teh population (US is younger and lives longer) and/or the economics.

The Russian economy and society have changed a lot since the fall of the Soviet Union. BTW, when I visited Moscow, all of the food I ate in people's homes was local and/or from one of the former republics.

Insofar as the US accepting a high casualty rate, it depends on the cause.

Oh well, off to a customer site. No better fun than chatting on FR while I am on the road away from the house...

[Tokhtamish]

The catch, of course, is that high casualty combat presumes a fiercely motivated population willing to pay any price for victory. Absent an enemy of Hitler/Mongol level utter cruelty and absent North Vietnamese levels of motivation this is questionable. The Soviet doctrine was not updated to reflect the fact that an increasingly Europeanized Russian people are no more willing to die for duty, honor, and glory than the Germans are.

Another problem was the unsuitability of Soviet tactics to Third World countries. A Third World country cannot expend college graduates. A huge Soviet style tank army absorbs an enormous number of technically educated people and thereby throttles economic growth.

[Just mythoughts]

This article sounds like Russia lost the war in Iraq.

The need to replace the Clintons as advisors.

Why is Russia going to go play war games with India?

Is India now in the business of manufacturing high-tech weapons?

[uglybiker]

I have an email friend in Moscow who has been translating various articles for me during the recent war in Iraq...

Many here would be interested in reading some of those articles.

[jnarcus]

Silly me...since I wasn't thinking about it at all deeply I didn't even think about posting them here. Somtimes in the translating I don't always get the time and date stuff but I will work to get those and start posting them as I get them...Thanks for the heads up

[hotpotato]

the Russian army is similar to the Iraqi army in its low morale and lack of motivation.

I understand the N Koreans are die-hard nationalists who view their leader in an almost God-like fashion

I suspect our special forces who did not have embedded journalists along for the action are siginificantly responsible for the outcome of this war. I'd say they would be a force to recon with.