Iraqi defeat jolts Russian military

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | April 16, 2003 | Fred Weir

[Dubya]

Defense and policy experts said last week that modernizing the Army is a top priority.

MOSCOW - In the US's easy defeat of Saddam Hussein's army, Russia sees a lesson for its own conventional forces.

The Iraqi Army - which was cloned from the Red Army in the final decades of the Soviet Union - mounted only a feeble defense before falling apart.

"The key conclusion we must draw from the latest Gulf war is that the obsolete structure of the Russian armed forces has to be urgently changed," says Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry's official think tank on strategic nuclear policy. "The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast. We are very lucky that Russia has no major enemies at the moment, but the future is impossible to predict, and we must be ready."

The swift victory by mobile, high-tech American forces over heavily armored Iraqi troops dug in to defend large cities like Baghdad has jolted many Russian military planners. "The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals," says Vitaly Shlykov, a former deputy defense minister of Russia.

Like its Soviet prototype, Iraq's Army was huge but made up mainly of young, poorly trained conscripts. Its battle tactics called for broad frontal warfare, with massed armor and artillery, and a highly centralized command structure. But those forces were trounced in a few days by relatively small numbers of US and British forces, who punched holes in the Iraqi front using precision weapons and seized the country's power centers more rapidly than traditional military thinkers could have imagined. "The military paradigm has changed, and luckily we didn't have to learn that lesson firsthand," says Yevgeny Pashentsev, author of a book on Russian military reform. "The Americans have rewritten the textbook, and every country had better take note."

Last week, the independent Council on Foreign and Defense Policy - a group of top Russian military experts and former policymakers, including Mr. Shlykov - met to assess the implications of the US triumph in Iraq for Russia. Their conclusion: The Kremlin must drop all post-Soviet pretense that Russia remains a superpower, and make rebuilding and redesigning the nation's military forces a top priority. "We cannot afford to postpone this any longer," Boris Nemtsov, head of the liberal Union of Right Forces, told the meeting.

Twelve years after the USSR's collapse, the most unreformed branch of Russian society remains its armed forces. Though its numbers have been halved to about 1.2 million personnel, and its annual budget has dropped to a mere $10 billion, the structure, weaponry, and doctrines of today's Russian military remain those of its Soviet predecessor. Each Russian defense minister since 1991 has pledged sweeping reform, yet more than half of the Army's combat forces remain ill-trained conscripts required to serve for two years for just 100 rubles ($3) a month. Aside from the strategic nuclear forces, no branch of the Russian military has acquired significant quantities of modern weaponry in more than a decade.

According to a Defense Ministry survey in early 2003, cited in the daily Izvestia, more than a third of Russian officers and their families live below the poverty line, and fewer than half of the officers want to remain in the service.

Critics say that military manpower must be at least halved again, and the draft abolished in order to make reform feasible. "We can afford an army comparable to those of France or Britain, but hard decisions must be made," says Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent defense expert. Adequate spending for equipment, training, and payment of professional troops is key, he says.

Others say that Russia also must define a clear post-Soviet security doctrine. "How can we reform our Army when we have not defined the threats it must deal with?" says Mr. Dvorkin. "We must first identify our national interests, then we'll know who our enemies might be."

As the US prepared to invade Iraq, many Russian military experts warned that American forces would come to grief in the streets of Iraqi cities. Some predicted the battle of Baghdad would resemble the Russian Army's two assaults on the Chechen capital of Grozny - in 1995 and again in 2000 - each of which lasted more than a month and cost hundreds of Russian casualties.

Early in the Iraq war, the Russian online newspaper Gazeta.ru reported that two retired Soviet generals may have played a key role in designing Iraq's defenses. The paper published photos of Vladimir Achalov, an expert in urban warfare, and Igor Maltsev, a specialist in air defenses, receiving medals from Iraq's defense minister two weeks before the war began. Russian TV later quoted General Maltsev as saying "the American invaders will be buried in the streets of Baghdad."

Some in Russia's military establishment still appear reluctant to accept the sweeping military verdict in Iraq. "I think American dollars won the war, it was not a military victory," says Gen. Makhmut Gareyev, president of the official Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow. "The Americans bought the Iraqi military leadership with dollars. One can only envy a state that is so rich."

But others are obviously shaken. "Thank God our public has finally begun to discuss the state of the Army," General Vladimir Shamanov, who commanded Russian troops in two Chechnya wars, told a Moscow radio station after the extent of the US-led triumph in Iraq became clear last week. "Maybe our strategic nuclear forces will protect the country for another decade, but then what? A strong Russia is impossible without a strong army."

One bright note for Moscow, however, is a report that Iraqi forces used Russian-made, laser-guided antitank missiles to destroy several Abrams tanks during the US attack. This could boost profits for Russian armsmakers, who are already receiving inquiries from Syria and Iran, according to Shlykov.

The US has complained that Russia supplied Iraq with defense equipment in violation of UN sanctions. "As a result of the Iraq war and accusations of illegal Russian arms deliveries, applications for Russian weapons have soared," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said last week.

[jackbill]

Perhaps if they had the money to pay their army, they might get better performance.

[Congressman Billybob]

Please join in a live discussion on RadioFreeRepublic on implications of the Iraq WAR. Now. Billybob Live!

Billybob

[elfman2]

"Its battle tactics called for broad frontal warfare, with massed armor and artillery, and a highly centralized command structure"

Sounds like their whole society. Better reform that first.

[Billthedrill]

Thanks, and a Dragon bump...haven't read it yet but I will, I promise...

[McGavin999]

They are threatened by the Chinese but they don't realize it yet. They will cozy up to the Chinese thinking that will ensure their safety, all the while the Chinese will plan to take them out. Unfortunately, Russia won't figure that out in time because they'll be so caught up in the french/German alliance that it'll take them completely off guard.

[Billthedrill]

A Dragon III bump, that is...read the others...now get back to your word processor!

[Dubya]

I wondered about that also.

[mdmathis6]

"They need to be prepared in case the French back into them."


....and keep their pants on in case the French "rear end them"!

[Dubya]

Yes they need to pay them.

I beleive it will more than money to have good soldiers.

Such as love and respect for them.

[Dubya]

Thanks for the invite.
I don't know how to do that. :^) Sorry.

[polemikos]

"The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals," says Vitaly Shlykov

And they were feeding this pap to Putin?

[Jeff Head]

Better hurry, Volume III was just published and Volume IV is in work. I'll BUMP you to the latest thread.

The entire series postulates a couple of things in a fictional sense we have been discussing. (1) A highly motivated enemy. (2) A resourceful enemy who develops high-tech of their own that counters some of our critical advantages.

In the latter case it is the Chinese who put our billions in trade surplus and the hight tech factories we are building all over the place over there to good effect in that regard.

I look forward to your thoughts when you finish.

[thoughtomator]

This could boost profits for Russian armsmakers, who are already receiving inquiries from Syria and Iran, according to Shlykov.

[Nick Danger]

"How can we reform our Army when we have not defined the threats it must deal with?" says Mr. Dvorkin. "We must first identify our national interests, then we'll know who our enemies might be."

Lemme help you out here, Vladimir. Your national interest is to maintain Russia's territorial integrity, so that you can someday make use of all the mineral riches your country has in abundance.

The threat to that is from those billion Chinese just South of you, who must be eyeing your very sparsely populated country with some envy. Remember Hitler's old term, lebensraum? Well, that's what the Chinese need. And that's what you have.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, Vladimir. The Chinese have been breeding a generation with a huge surplus of males. That generation is approaching adulthood. Soon, China will be able to field a million men -- men they don't even need; men they can spend as cannon-fodder and not even miss. You figure they're going to invade India? I think it's you.

[oyez]

bfl

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Hmm, the Chinese. Call me naive, but it's hard for me to imagine the Chinese having territorial designs on Russia.

I suppose there could be smaller border disputes, or perhaps third party disputes, and the show of force, if not the actual use of force, could be important.

[Dubya]

Volume IV is in work

Good

[Dubya]

Good info.

[Beck_isright]

This article is full of understatement. Too bad for Putin he pissed of Mr. Bush and there will be less military cooperation now.

[Light Speed]

Hello Jeff.....forwardings are probably not new news to you..but for others to consider.

Russian military technology is to some degree copy of U.S.,Great Britian and Israel.

They however do R&D..and are not likely to spill achievements into the media stream

Everyone here remember the start treaties?....well...missile warheads have been removed from boosters...boosters then crushed.
Warheads are infact all not being destroyed..but housed away..and available to be fitted to newer boosters if needed.

Russia's rockerty prowess....Impressive.
new multistage cryogenic boosters..at present Russian Birds are out doing Ariane..whose consortium is still picking their teeth off the ground after so many equitorial launch failures in Guyanna.

Regular visits to intel sites such as Janes..Stratfor etc reveal a different Russian capability...one that is embracing "Stand off launch" munitions..with a heavy lean towards hypervelocity flight..which means no known system can intercept the missile.

Here..one does not require stealth to the battle arena..one only need launch from the periphery...using numerics to overwhelm the recievers defense grid.
AEGIS...Phalanx...they would get some..but enough would arrive..in short order your fleet are burning hulks.
*** Not my exageration..but a quote from the previous outgoing Admiral of the Pacific theatre fleet who commented that the U.S. Navy would get thrashed if it was to close to Chinas shore..aka..the Taiwan straits.
Same for the Russians should they present a battlegroup and it is mapped via satillite.

Here too would be the real first round should the Russians be confronted in a large theatre conflict...they would be going for satillite grid and radar arrays...theirs would be gone aswell shortly...sort of who goes first gets a definite edge.

Its probably not going to happen..not unless mental insanity spreads like SARS.

China too is embracing the hypervelocity stand off munitions...they have a system to do the mass numeric thingy offshore a certain distance.
China wanted to purchase ex Soviet "Backfire bombers"...Russia refused knowing Bejing would mass them out as stand off launch platforms.
China has built a fighter very similar to the Euro fighter..in some regards it mirrors the Israeli Lavi which was forced out of production by political workings.
Not a threat in reality..but a kodak that they are indeed catching up.

Russia has several aircraft which could go into production..but they would be just advanced aircraft on par with the new F-18 and F-15.
Russia is toolihg on a F-22 comparative..but like the U.S...its a huge fiscal leap..one that even has U.S. defense experts questioning feasability.

Missiles...satillite..radars...EMP...the high ground of R&D....tanks and such are just assets with low value...only usefull if you can get them to the battlefield..keep them there a while.

** Not glorying in Russia or China's technical capabilties...just a passing comment that they are indeed not on the floor like some giant rising from a Drunken stupor....they have sobered up quite a bit of late.