| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Iraqi Defeat Jolts Russian Military |
| 2003-04-17 |
| EFL--Read the article for more. MOSCOW ? In the US's easy defeat of Saddam Hussein's army, Russia sees a lesson for its own conventional forces. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. |
| Posted by:Baba Yaga |
| #6 Several points here: "The Americans bought the Iraqi military leadership with dollars. One can only envy a state that is so rich." Works for me a"win is a win". The Soviets were the first to develope the"Combined Arms"army concept.But it took American injinuity,and technology to make it come of age. If you remember what C.Powel said when ask how we would fight the Iraqi military GW1"First we are going to cut off the head then we are going to kill it".Worked in"91"and worked this time too.Looks like the average Iraqi grunt(and officer corps)rememberd that concept. Also if Russia could get it's act together vis-a-vi Siberia,they would be an economic powerhouse second to none. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-04-18 07:45:42 |
| #5 RW, you just stated a concept that is so simple for us Merkins, but the entire third world, and (I'm convinced) most of the industrialized world does not understand. That's why they mistrust us. They think that we got prosperous by taking it with superpower force. Because that's what THEY would do in our place. (do you see France, Russia, here?) They can't believe we'd liberate a country and them help them build. Even with Japan, Germany, Korea as past history. They think we're like them. Simplistic, yes, but I believe it goes a long way towards explaining why the hateful muslims and even the sophisticated euros hate us. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-04-17 23:38:57 |
| #4 Maybe that'll finally change. Reforming their army will require a change of attitude. That change may well be infectious. It appears to me to be going reasonably well in China (based on personal experience, not the SARS fiasco). |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-04-17 23:35:24 |
| #3 "One can only envy a state that is so rich." You got that right. And that ain't no accident. The lesson for the rest of the war-torn, corrupted world: study the reasons why the USA is so rich and there's a chance you might duplicate their success. So put down the AK, stop spewing hatred, send your kids to school, and.... y'all just try to get along! |
| Posted by: RW 2003-04-17 23:09:26 |
| #2 "The Americans bought the Iraqi military leadership with dollars. One can only envy a state that is so rich." The Russians are sitting on the largestest economuc jackpot in the world as far as land based resources and all they can complain about is how freaking poor they are. The economic potential of the Russian rebuplic let alone the former USSR is staggering. My opinion is they still are indoctronated to ask to go to the bathroom like a first grader |
| Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire 2003-04-17 22:47:40 |
| #1 RW, you just stated a concept that is so simple for us Merkins, but the entire third world, and (I'm convinced) most of the industrialized world does not understand. That's why they mistrust us. They think that we got prosperous by taking it with superpower force. Because that's what THEY would do in our place. (do you see France, Russia, here?) They can't believe we'd liberate a country and them help them build. Even with Japan, Germany, Korea as past history. They think we're like them. Simplistic, yes, but I believe it goes a long way towards explaining why the hateful muslims and even the sophisticated euros hate us. |
| Posted by: Scott 4/17/2003 11:38:57 PM |