Posted on 08/16/2008 11:01:26 AM PDT by SeafoodGumbo
Conventional wisdom has rapidly hardened around the proposition that there is no practical military response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. In fact, if the Georgians were inclined to fight, there is quite a lot they could do militarily, and in a way that would not directly involve U.S. or NATO forces. To understand how this military option would work, some background is required.Most people have been grossly exaggerating Russian military strength and prowess in this exercise, obviously one long in the planning, and actually involving relatively small forces. By all accounts, the Russian "58th Army" has invaded Georgian territory with about 500 tanks and an equal number of infantry fighting vehicles--the equivalent of roughly two armored divisions. That's pretty small beer, really, but adequate to handle a smaller Georgian army largely dispersed to deal with counter-guerrilla operations.
A close examination of video and photos of the Russian force also reveals top of the line equipment--late model T-80 and T-90 main battle tanks, and BMP-2 IFVs. Now, the Caucasus Military District is something of a backwater, home of Category II and Category III divisions, most of which are kept below strength and equipped with older systems, such as the T-72 MBT. On the other hand, the Category I divisions are kept close to Moscow and the western military districts, because that is where the main threat is perceived, and also because that's much better terrain for tank warfare. Obviously, the Russian army carefully transferred the forces for this operation from central Russia all the way to the Caucasus--in secret--and also accompanied the move with a comprehensive maskirovka intended to put us at our ease (e.g., Putin did go to the Olympic opening ceremonies, after all).
From this we can infer what most experts already know--that the Russian army, though still numerically large, has relatively few competent, deployable formations--there are the airborne divisions and the air assault brigades, and a few tank and motor-rifle divisions, but not much else. Similarly, the Russian air force doesn't have very many fully operational aircraft or deep reserves of fuel, spare parts and munitions. This invasion has probably eaten deeply into Russian operations and maintenance funding, to say nothing of its war reserve stockpiles of ordnance and equipment. Russia must have bet on a short and fairly bloodless war, because it cannot afford--militarily or politically--a protracted slog. Not only doesn't it have the equipment to do so, but it doesn't have enough highly trained troops to sustain heavy casualties. The Russian military consists of a small, diamond-hard point on the end of a wooden stick. If the point shatters or wears down, you are left fighting the stick. (It should be noted that Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, has been scathing in his assessment of the Russian army's performance in Georgia, so by Western standards even the best of the Russian army would be considered rather mediocre).
The question is how to wear it down. Georgia is a mountainous country, with few good roads and many choke points. A dismounted guerrilla or light infantry force can hold up a road-bound armored force and inflict disproportionate casualties, if properly equipped and led. Unfortunately, the Georgian Army was neither, in this particular instance. Rather, it was trained and equipped the fight the war it had--an insurgency by separatist guerrillas, requiring mostly infantry and small arms. Confronted by tanks and close support aircraft and helicopters, the Georgian forces had little choice but to run.
Having pulled back from Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Georgians can now regroup and re-equip. They are in desperate need of two things: weapons to kill tanks, and weapons to kill or deter aircraft and helicopters. We can supply both. The Stinger missile, the bane of Russian Frontal Aviation in Afghanistan, is still the most potent shoulder-fired weapon around. It will cause Russian close support aircraft to keep their distance, or to attack from higher altitude. Providing Georgia with medium-range surface-to-air missiles which can be deployed from Georgian territory proper will further push back their high-altitude aircraft (e.g., Tu-22M Backfires).
Freed from aerial observation and the threat of air attack, Georgian forces could move dismounted over the mountains more readily than Russian mechanized forces can move along the roads. Which means that the Georgians would be free to set up ambushes to block further Russian advances and to interdict their lines of communication. We can provide the wherewithal for them to do this. First, we need to give the Georgians anti-tank mines, and not just any kind, but our latest "smart" off-route mines like the XM93 Wide Area Mine (WAM). These don't have to be placed directly on the roads, but can be put off to the side, where built-in sensors can detect armored vehicles and launch explosive formed penetrator (RFP) warheads at them.
Second, we need to give them our best anti-tank guided missile, the FGM-148 Javelin. This is a "fire and forget" weapon: once the operator lines up the target in his sights and locks on, he can fire the missile and get away, while the missile will fly autonomously to the target. With a range of about two kilometers, the Javelin also uses a "top attack" profile, diving down onto the roof of the tank where the armor is thinnest. In action in Operation Iraqi Freedom, javelins were devastating against Russian-designed tanks. Knocking out a few tanks or other armored vehicles on a narrow mountain road creates a barrier to movement behind which all traffic piles up, immobile and vulnerable to attack.
Most of that traffic will consist of trucks and other "soft" vehicles. It's a waste to go after them with expensive missiles, but cheap mortars work pretty well. Even better would be long-range, highly accurate heavy sniper rifles, such as the 12.7mm (.50-caliber) Barrett, much favored by U.S. special forces. Georgian special forces are reputed to be well trained and highly motivated. They would probably be even more motivated fighting Russians on their own soil than they were fighting al Qaeda back in Iraq.
Pretty soon, Russian forces will be taking serious casualties. They will have to inject more troops to protect their lines of communication. They will have to get out of their troop carriers and climb up into the mountains, where they will take more casualties from an agile and elusive enemy. They can't even resort to the time honored tactic of butchering the local population of Ossetia and Abkhazia, since these are now "Russian citizens," having been granted passports by the Russian government (thereby doing Hitler one better: there actually were Germans in the Sudetenland, but Putin had to invent his downtrodden "Russian" minority in Georgia).
As Russian forces start to bleed, it will be impossible, even in the controlled media of Putin's Russia, to hide the casualties from the Russian people. They will probably respond to this as they did to the bloodletting in both Afghanistan and Chechnya. Worse, for the Russian government, a prolonged and bloody war will require a massive increase in the Russian military budget, which has been run on a shoestring for most of the Putin era. That would mean making painful choices between the military and other priorities, precisely at the same time that oil prices have begun to come down, cutting into Russian revenues. In addition, the Russian military will begin to worry about the derailing of its abortive transformation plan: as the U.S. military recently discovered, you can fight a war, or you can transform yourself, but it's almost impossible to do both at once. Warfighting will eat into the already thin training, procurement, and research & development budgets, and soon the Russian staff will be howling, too.
So what will Russia do, in such a circumstance? They could escalate, but they might find more palatable a face-saving withdrawal, turning over Ossetia and Abkhazia to an international peacekeeping force, and leaving Georgian territory free of Russian troops. Georgia would then have to make its own peace with the separatists, but with a buffer between itself and the Russian army, the Georgians may have more leverage over its intransigent minorities.
Two things are needed to make this happen: political will on the part of the U.S. to provide the Georgian army with the necessary equipment and training (our Special Forces already have a close relationship with the Georgian army), and more important, political will on the part of the Georgian government to continue fighting until the Russians are off their soil. Whether the Georgians would want to fight what would certainly prove a long and difficult war is hard to say; it would surely depend in large measure on whether they believe we would stand with them to the end. Guerrilla wars are always messy, and without a sponsor, the guerrillas usually lose. But it is premature and more than a little defeatist to write off the Georgians' chances of bloodying the nose of the resurgent Russian bear.
Of course Putin would and does kill his own citizens...you are right. Can we say “Gulag”?
I really think at this point, we will be sending in aid, and then the reconstruction can begin. And in reconstructing, we can arm the Georgians.
But the lynchpin is the Euroweenies. Without them, and the US stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan it is a difficult situation.
we also need to assist Ukraine and the Baltic states and beef up Poland ( which a missle shield etc will help). the Estonians are already sending troops. I mean, really, what have they got to lose? they are already in the bulls eye.
Another brilliant ( or exhausted ..ha) thought: Arm our illegal Mexican immigrants and send them over with a promise of US citizenship after a year fighting the Russians. Ok, not a good idea.
The Georgians really have no choice now. Fight or completely lose their freedom. They have tasted freedom after living under Russian tyranny for decades. Their retreat was also a move to a more defensible position and to protect Tbilisi. The only way into Tbilisi from the Russian current position is through two tight river gorges. And we certainly could not expect the Georgians to stand and fight against 2 Russian armored divisions on open tank territory. The fact that we still have options demonstrates that the Georgians made the right move given the circumstances. How does that go, better to run and live to fight another day then to die fighting a battle that cannot be won. Or something like that. I still think there had to be a tremendous stand by the Georgians to prevent an encirclement. The best Russian plan would have been to break of Ossetia in the east and cut off the retreat path to Tbilisi from Gori. Somehow that retreat path stayed open. The Russian could have then completely annihilated the Georgian forces that would have been trapped in a valley with an armored division on the west and in the east.
Both he and Bush have given the Russians an ultimatum now and they have thumbed their noses at it. It's kind of a question of who will make the next move and how will the other side respond. But if the Russians don't make at least some show of complying with the cease fire soon that will be their move and the ball will be squarely in Pres. Bush's court.
There is really no reason for them to comply now. There are in a good position holding Tbilisi hostage to defend their protectorate Iran from attack. They will do exactly what they did in 1921. Claim to be abiding by the peace accord while they are still violating the peace accord.
Again, I agree. I don’t see them giving an inch. At the very least they will hold their positions while diplomats and leaders play word games and take their first opportunity to advance. IMO they want to occupy all of Georgia and they are not going to go home now and forget about it. The news is that they really haven’t stopped yet.
Clarification - I didn’t mean ‘news’ to us but what is in the news at this hour.
Ahh. The MSM. Moving at the speed of an oil tanker.
Well yes usually. But here I meant that they just reported live from Georgia that Russian troops were moving towards Tbilisi, setting up operational bases and so forth.
Soft responses, but the Russians control the game. A more intelligent playing in advance would’ve helped.
Yeah, right. Soft responses. Ask the Israelis how hard this type of warfare is to stop. How hard has it been for us to stop it in Iraq and Afghanistan? When Pat Buchanan’s beloved Russian storm troopers start going home in body bags, he and all his fellow Putinistas will see that the Russians are not invincible and no amount of Pat’s cheer leading will save them.
Are you stupid? Where is PJB talking about his ‘beloved Russian storm troopers”; where is he a Putinista? Where is he cheerleading the Russians?
He said that our policy is counter productive, and that we will appear impotent. He has been right; sadly.
Man, you are a sorry creature. The guy predicts what will happen, has been warning the administration they were risking looking impotent, is proven right so now in your eyes he’s the problem? Sheesh; grow up.
The Administration needs to be held accountable for a poor performance that has harmed American interests. Don’t credit PJB if it sticks in your craw. But keep your eyes on what’s good for this country. Looking as sorry as we have over this episode is not good for us.
BTW way, using the word ‘sycophant’ doesn’t carry your argument, anymore than bitch or Putinista did. It just underscores that you don’t have one.
What you mean to say is that Buchanan’s been the devil’s advocate all along and now you want everyone to be in awe of his powers of prophecy. He’s always a butt boy for dictators; he was for Saddam too. He didn’t even want Saddam out of Kuwait. It’s some type of weird attraction thing. But all Buchanan has been doing is providing a service to Putin. He’s been blaming American in advance for Putin’s bad behavior. Okay, wow. That’s an amazing talent. I guess if Pat had been alive when Hitler was romping around Europe murdering tens of millions he could have written his apologias in advance too instead of having to wait long after the war.
PJB is major conservative figure, who worked for President Nixon and President Reagan. He hung in there during the dark days of Watergate. He held President George HW RINO Bush accountable for betraying the Reagan Revolution.
Buchanan’s not been a ‘devil’s advocate’; paleo-conservatives are interested only in defending America and American interests. It’s unclear that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US; in fact, he wasn’t.
Buchanan argued against the Iraq War until we went in; that’s how he’s different than Noam Chomsky. He argued we were bothching things. Guess what? So did Pres. Bush. That’s how we got Gates and Petraus - the President changed course.
PJB is against putting NATO further on Russia’s borders, not least b/c we would not risk Americans for Tbilsi. He’s right, of course. Ditto Ukraine.
I’d think that the neo-cons would agree with him. Georgia is a distraaction from their provacations and war mongering against Iran. And looking impotent is not good for a superpower.
“PJB is [sic] major conservative figure....” Yeah, right! He ought to run for president, too, since he’s such a major figure. Oh, I forgot he did. Hey, how’d that turn out? LOL. You’ve been fun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.