But their leadership are scheming bastards and their security forces are thugs.

If only we could have the noble Russians without the others.

When my older son was serving his 15 month tour of duty in Iraq as an infantry platoon leader (August 2006-October 2007), I saw that John McCain was the one Presidential candidate who unabashedly supported the surge even before the surge was adopted by President Bush, and John McCain was visiting Iraq frequently in support of the troops — something that I personally greatly appreciated. It was those trips, I think, that caused Oliver North to write his column supporting McCain.

It has not, however, been just Iraq. McCain knows his stuff concerning foreign policy, military matters and national security. With my two sons in the military (the older a U.S. Army Captain and the younger a U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant), I cannot imagine anyone but McCain as the next Commander in Chief. Given McCain’s expertise in foreign policy, former Secretaries of State Schultz, Kissinger, Eagleburger and Haig all endorsed McCain early on.

We live in a very dangerous world. What McCain brings may be just what America needs at this point in its history.

Please mention the fact that there are over 1000 US troops in Georgia plus over 127 special forces which are force multipliers to the entire Georgian Army.”

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56704

elduende on August 12, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that the 1000 US troops were there for a specific exercise that was completed a few days before the invasion and the thousand US troops were no longer in Georgia.

Georgia’s fate was sealed the day Putin maneuvered his way from the Presidency to his-pseudo-parliamentarian role he holds today.

“Whatever actions the Russians take now we’ve given them plenty of excuses.”

This is a common pitfall. Too common.

In esssence by this logic, anything the West does, must be approved by Russia first?

A nation can “recognize” any nation it wishes. If Ukraine wishes to be part of NATO, part of the EU or a member of the League of Mystics, getting Russia’s permission first is not a practice that should be acceptable to any independent nation…by any civilized nation.

“Giving Russia excuses…” is on par with telling a battered wife that if only she’d shut up her husband would not beat her.

Whatever actions the Russians take now we’ve given them plenty of excuses.

We did help Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

MarkTheGreat on August 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM

It bears repeating.

Everything I’ve heard is that the MIG-29 and SU-30 series are better suited for air-to-air missions than than the F15E and F18. That’s why we’re looking to upgrade to the F22 Raptor, and why the Russkies are building PAKs (their replacement for the Foxhound).

Outlander on August 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM

From the Economist

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11916337&source=features_box_main

The military cost to Russia is still unclear. The Russian high command admitted to losing four planes, while Georgia claims to have shot down 20 aircraft; Mr Saakashvili claimed some Russian unexploded bombs had been daubed with messages such as “This one is for NATO”. Although routed in South Ossetia, Georgian forces might yet have put up a sterner fight to defend Tbilisi. The war, moreover, alarmed investors in Russia, weakening the rouble and Russian stocks.

In four days the Russians admit that four of their fighter and bomber planes were shot down. The comparable figure for America in the last twenty years is…?

About one-quarter of Russia’s fighters are MiG-29’s and Su-27’s. Impressive at air shows, but combat experience is lacking. From the videos of action over Georgia, most of the aircraft utilized were not Su-27’s and MiG-29’s. Logistics and maintenance continue to hamper keeping these aircraft air-worthy. Losing them over Georgia is not something the Russians would consider lightly. The Russians are faced with a decline in R&D funding across the board, and this impacts aircraft design as well. Getting a design into production, and testing and evaluating it takes time, and money, and then, you have to train pilots to utilize the aircraft…gain experience. There isn’t a very large pool of pilots in the Russian Air Force to allow for rotation and upgrading training, and that pool has very very few combat experienced pilots.

The Russians are working on fifth-generation aircraft…but are farming out a huge segment of their program to India, because at home resources are scant and cumbersome. This program has had delay after delay since the initial deals were signed. Most of the former Soviet heavy-lift aircraft now belong to Ukraine, which has made a good bit of money renting out or wet leasing Il-76’s and larger Condors commericially across the globe, even here within the United States. Most of Russia’s air heavy lift is still performed with old Antonov’s.

Lack of flight time for pilots, a few hours every few months, if that, is pretty much the norm, and lack of coodination in air-ground mode, diminishes the Russian Air Force’s ability to provide timely ground support, still relying on GCI and local air command relay of targetting information.

So, no, the Russians are in no way comparable to the US Air Force when it comes to emplying aircraft in a combat or even airlift mode.

But, what the Russians depend on is mass. Economy of force was never one of their favored military principles. In that, they have an advantage. But relying on mass clouds other essentials. Coordination is one. Turning loose a few divisions in a confined battle area, with poor communications, little or no coordination between adjacent units, all command being sent through a very narrow funnel…if you want to attack someone and casualties on your own side don’t mean much, and if colatteral damage and massive civilian deaths, non-combatant deaths, are no biggie, then the current Russian tactics in the employment of combat units is something you may wish to emulate. And, the Russian army? Large groups of armed thugs, led by armed thugs. Discipline is still enforced at the battlion level by brutality. At the upper levels by bribes. Military training? Perfunctory at best. They are not a 24/7 all-weather capable armed force.

But all of this is moot in the present circumstance.

Putin has set the stage for a sea change in how the world views Russia. In exchange for destroying Georgia (and potentially Azerbaijan and Armenia, among others) how the rest of the world reacts to Russia is what will be gained or lost as a result of this past week’s Russian-sponsored destruction.

Instead of arguing over whether or not the Su-27 is more or less capable than the F-18, perhaps we should look at the overall picture. Tactics are for amateurs. Bean-counting is for voyeurs. Strategic thinking involves a higher plane of thought.

Kissinger being in Beijing this past week may not have been happenstance.

The idea of tying everything Russia does with everything Russia does or wants to do makes good sense. Russia needs investment and markets, among other things. If Russia wants to play bully in one vein, then it would be perfectly appropriate for us to deny Russia what is wants in another vein. [Hopefully, the old Euros are listening. The new Euros have been speaking quite loudly on this matter.] Hitting on Russian weaknesses to deter their strengths in other areas is of strategic value. It works. Kissinger, among others, was an author of this line of thought.

Not all of Mother Russia is willingly falling in line behind Putin. He holds power. The moment that power is shown to be nothing but a tattered facade, he’s gone. He understands this. So do all the “siloviki.” The old apparatchiks and nomeclatura will sell their daughters to Putin to remain on his loyal list. But the rest of Russia? They have seen the limited gains of the early ’90’s taken away from them under Putin…and it is a safe bet to believe that they’d like to get some of those gains back. Thus, the Russian economy is a key to bringing down Putin.

The power elites ["siloviki"] are marshalled under the thumb of Putin and his methodical emplacement of KGB loyalists at every Ministry, every district, every autonomous republic, every industrial concern, every center of power throughout Russia. “A Tsar is Born!” is one of those bumper-sticker slogans that has great depth and lethality behind it.

Our question to ourselves should be, what are we going to do about it?

Second look at McCain.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Did this a few weeks ago and now I am convinced… McCain will clobber Barry O. Now if we could only get Republicans elected that would fight him on immigration…

I can see the bumper stickers now:
“Russian invasion? WWWtPD?”!

In case everyone missed it, I do believe Sir William of Bentdick was inhabiting the White House at that time, and might have been too busy coddling Chinese interests to be bothered with helping Russia!

Everything I’ve heard is that the MIG-29 and SU-30 series are better suited for air-to-air missions than than the F15E and F18. That’s why we’re looking to upgrade to the F22 Raptor, and why the Russkies are building PAKs (their replacement for the Foxhound).

Outlander on August 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Largely comes down to how often the flight patterns and tactics are changed. As far as I know, the US is still doing it about every 5 years to Russia’s 10.

…arguably have better tanks and planes than we do…Outlander on August 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM

I was a platoon leader in a tank company with the M1A1’s. There’s NO WAY a t-72 or a t-80 has a chance against a M1A1, it wouldn’t even be close.

The best book out there fyi is a NONfiction by Tom Clancy called Armored Cav. This book will set you straight.

I served mostly under Clinton so the only thing I shot at was made of plywood or scrap metal.

The Georgians can handle this readily. We just need to provide support, especially ground to air missiles, and logistics.

MIG-29s versus F15Es or F-18s? We win. Foxhounds versus Raptors? MadisonConservative on August 12, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Everything I’ve heard is that the MIG-29 and SU-30 series are better suited for air-to-air missions than than the F15E and F18. That’s why we’re looking to upgrade to the F22 Raptor, and why the Russkies are building PAKs (their replacement for the Foxhound).

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That’s only polite.

********************************

Interesting arti…

When faced with a real “3 a.m. moment,” Obama — who boasts about 200 foreign policy advisors, broken into 10 subgroups — proclaims, “I’m going to get some shave ice.”

Heh.

MIG-29s versus F15Es or F-18s? We win. Foxhounds versus Raptors? We win. T-72 versus Abrams? Heh. Heh heh.

Not if our leadership shows itself to be the empty suits they have appeared to be for the past few days.

The troops are ready; the equipment is good; the leadership is….apparently wanting.

Fantastic Documentary, if I taught US history I would show it in class.

someone put the whole thing on Youtube recently!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJQi8nEIj2g

They beat the U.S. into space…

…and the US beat them to the moon.

…arguably have better tanks and planes than we do…

Outlander on August 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM

MIG-29s versus F15Es or F-18s? We win. Foxhounds versus Raptors? We win. T-72 versus Abrams? Heh. Heh heh.