If they turn us down – which of course they would – who around the world could still feel bad for them, or muster any serious sympathy for them?
RD on August 21, 2008 at 12:50 AM

Are you suggesting the Russians might act UNILATERALLY?

I think we all know how the liberals would respond to that.

Where’s that bastard Hans Blix when you need him!

wildweasel on August 20, 2008 at 9:45 AM

“Hans Briiix? Ooooh Noooo!”

A slow, but decisive payback, could be testing IEDs on Russian armor.

byteshredder on August 20, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Yes, then offer – in a smarmy, treacly fashion – to deploy American troops to Georgia to help Russia “deal” with its IED “problem”, ostensibly to help them better occupy Georgia, seeing as how we have gained so much recent, valuable experience in dealing with the problem ourselves, and thus have so much to offer them.

If they turn us down – which of course they would – who around the world could still feel bad for them, or muster any serious sympathy for them?

logis on August 20, 2008 at 8:25 PM

I hold the La Légion Etrangère française in higher regard.

I’d equate the Russian mercenaries and thugs as the “imponitori” of the Mob.

Having an armed non-Russian ethnic force available to the Russian Army to put down another ethnic force allows the Russians “deniability” of sorts. “It wasn’t the Russians that burned that town, raped and pillaged, it was Chechens, or Abkhazians, or loyal Ossetian ‘militias’…and you know how tough it is to rein in these lesser-humans.” has actually appeared in whole or part, or implied in any number of Russian recent pronouncements.
coldwarrior on August 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Their version of the French Foreign Legion.

“…Russian troops stole five military Humvees…”

So now they will reverse-engineer it and *poof*, they’ll have another piece of military hardware that looks eerily similar to ours…

And if you really want to be Machiavellian… don’t even really give them a nuke, just gen up some bogus evidence that one had been stolen…

Romeo13 on August 20, 2008 at 1:39 PM

even better, detonate one on the west yourself and blame the terrorists. . . but you didn’t hear me say that.

Oldnuke on August 20, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Key question is how far they are willing to escalate… whats THEIR view on the situation.

I mean, they’ve invaded a neighbor, and even after saying they would withdraw, look like they are going to stay. So far there has been no real Western response except to fast track a couple of treatys that were probably going to happen anyway….

I think Putty is going to continue to push, until we push back… he is seeing a real weakness in our response… and its always been the Russian/Soviet doctrine to reinforce success.

Romeo13 on August 20, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Supporting a development program for nuclear power is one thing (yes I know that’s a front). Overtly supplying a nuclear weapon that will most surely be utilized is completely different, especially if there’s a chance it will be used against you. Russia can always claim that they were hoodwinked by the Iranians and that their development of weapons was all on their own and they had no knowledge of it. Same with Iraq’s WMD programs, if you recall there was also some French and German equipment involved in that effort. The disinformation scenario might work might not.

Was responding to something Romeo 13 posted.

Suitcase, or man-pack, is possible, if shielding isn’t a really big issue. The containers for the old Davy Crocket rounds were the size of two or three BC-5 footlockers…most of that cradeling and shielding.

Russia has improved its nuclear surety program over the past ten years. In the early 90’s a number of sites visited by the On-Site Inspection Agency showed that safeguards were non-existant, alarms disconnected, fences removed by the locals, and guards who hadn’t been paid in months tasked with protecting whatever was inside. Stolen devices? Certainly possible. Blackmarket purchases? Quite possible. Giving the jihadis one of these…not likely, but not impossible either, should the conditions warrant.

A short article on the current situation inside Georgia seems to indicate that the Russians are establishing a separate Ossetian Republic inside Georgia.

Are the Russians cutting back from their stated goal from a week ago, a different goal than that Russia announced when they invaded? Are they simply trying to cut Georgia up into seperate armed enclaves? It is this confusion/friction on the ground that has me doing a lot of indepth thought and analysis about Russia’s overall intentions. Something that has been revealing weaknesses here and there regarding Russia’s overall capabilities.

Oldnuke on August 20, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Then why are they supporting Iran in their nuclear ambitions?

Why were they involved in Iraq’s WMD programs?

The Jihadist movement is not a solid organization with a Chain of Command, as much as its a subset of groups with common goals… you would not have to hand one to Al Q itself, but could hand it to a splinter group while making them “promise” to use it on a Western or Israeli target…

And if you really want to be Machiavellian… don’t even really give them a nuke, just gen up some bogus evidence that one had been stolen…

coldwarrior on August 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Suitcase nuke is a nebulous term. We have the technology to build nukes with a yield similar to fat man or little boy that will be small and light enough to be handled easily by a couple of average men. The Russians certainly have this level of technology. That said, the Russians are not terminally stupid they would never willingly give a nuke to any terrorist organization.

The technology exists, from the old Davy Crocket warheads of the 1950’s to the present, but the technological difficulties of fashioning such a device also forces the yield of such a weapon downward as size decreases.

Interesting bit of info can be found here.

As for the Russians giving such devices to the jihadis…there are still a lot of Chechens involved in the upper levels of al-Qaeda. If they had one, would they be tempted to use one in Moscow…or would they use one on Kabul? Me? I’d lean on the jihadis using one on Moscow first, given the wonderful level of love and respect the Russians have for most Chechens.

Mike D. on August 20, 2008 at 1:04 PM

I actualy think the bigger threat is if Russia suddenly announced that a “few” of their suitcase nukes have gone missing…

And they then mysteriously end up in Jihadist or Iranian hands. The West would be so busy chasing those things down that Russia would have a free hand in their Near Abroad…

Jihadists don’t like Russia… but America is the GREAT Satan after all.

A slow, but decisive payback, could be testing IEDs on Russian armor.

A lot longer than I realized.

Would the US or NATO respond to a Russia nuke on a non-NATO member? Most likely not, at least not with nukes.

But, if Russia does use nukes agaisnt the Near Abroad or even recalcitrant Russian “republics” the fallout (no pun intended) would be grave for Putin’s Russia in the long run.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM

How long have you been retired?

Terrain certainly is one of the very important considerations in Georgia.

For both sides.

If we act to lower the price of oil and starve Russia of its export potential, their imperialist impulses may have to yield to business realities.

Yeah, either that or Putin goes Travis Bickle on us and starts nukin’ fools.

Interrogative: If God forbid Cold War II heats up in the next year or two, and Putin wakes up one day and decides to launch limited tactical nukes at Ukraine or Georgia or Kazakstan for example. Does the West generally or the USA in particular nuke Russia back if Russia tactically nukes key parts of one or more of its former Commie satellites??
I say no. The US wont nuke Russia if Russia nukes a former Soviet Republic.

Thots?

We have combat-tested armor brigades in CONUS – the 30th out of North Carolina; the 81st out of Washington, the 155th out of Mississippi – in addition to the recently formed 218th also out of North Carolina. National Guard and reserve units.

We can also separate out armor a brigade or two from the 1st Cav at Fort Hood. Separating out a brigade from the 1st Armor Division would be a more difficult porposition given the present status/committments of the 1st Armor.

The 2nd, 3rd and 11th ACR’s can be utilized. Would be a first-in deployment, to screen potential assembly and re-constitution areas from Russian attacks or advances, and to carry out forays into contested areas.

Again, as for carriers in the Black Sea during the Cold War…when we sent carriers into the Black Sea then, there were in place restrictions, speed bumps, as to Soviet response. Had they been so inclined to do so, they could have fairly easily dispatched those carriers, but it would have meant a far larger conflict. In the context of a European NATO war, the dispatch of those carriers into the Black Sea would have served best as a means to force the Soviets to devote assets otherwise dedicated to the European war to protect that “soft underbelly” of the USSR.

Russia, today, could easily construe the passage of even a single carrier into the Black Sea today as a provocation for a larger war. They could risk attacking the carrier (a dumb move, but not impossible) from shore or from their limited capability Black Sea Fleet, or they could decide to finally offer the US and NATO a fait accompli by bringing their strategic reserve (all of the 76th out of St. Petersburg, for example) and elements of the 58th Army and make a headlong rush to the Armenian border, in effect incorporating Georgia into Russia proper before that carrier or carrier group could establish a presence in the Black Sea.

There are no easy solutions.

Measured response may work. But measured responses outside of a clear long-term strategy will be just that…responses.

We are letting Russia dictate terms, and timing and setting the tempo.

All of this, is above my paygrade (damn that Obama for ever using that phrase…) but I would hope that the purple suiters at the JCS are seriously gaming the options right now.

As for China…forcing them to remain neutral may not be necessary. They’ve a lot more to gain from us, right now, than they can gain from Russia. That window, though, is closing a bit more rapidly than one would have thought even a few short years ago.

Georgian forces retreated from Gori to the area around Msheta, in the hills around that ancient stronghold site they’ve ground the Russians to a halt. Infantry armed with excellent Israeli and American anti-armor weapons have halted the bear which would be sitting ducks in the narrow pass. That also seems to be why they’ve brought in SRBM’s to shoot over the mountians down into Tbilisi.

We hear that the Russsians won, etc. etc., but the Georgians and this war isn’t anywhere near over with, the bear can’t get to Tbilisi via ground and they can’t get air superiority either.

Why don’t we see more reporting from the ground?? Reporters can get into Tbilisi via Armenia and Msheta is just a few miles up the road from there.

Hans Blix: “Or else!”

Kim Jong Il: “Or else… what?”

Hans Blix: “Or else… we’ll write you a letter and tell you how angry we are!”

To add another layer to consider, Syria and Russia are playing around again.

Time, is not on our side.

Time, however, can be on our side, with a bit of joint effort.

coldwarrior on August 20, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Hmmm… direct Russian response to the Poland and Ukraine deals?

coldwarrior on August 20, 2008 at 11:43 AM

A couple of points…

With the Cheney reorganization of the Army, from Corps sized elements to Brigade combat teams, I don’t know how fast we could potentialy redeploy now, especialy as this would be an Armor engagement…

Carriers in the Black Sea? A three Carrier group into the Black Sea was one of the “plans” we had in the Cold War… A single carrier can project power for a large footprint, but just as we did during Storm, they do not need seperate operating areas. If you were going to throw assets into the Black Sea, three Carriers would be the minimum needed to be able to really protect themselves (IMO)… the combination of Russian Land based Air and the Black Sea Fleet would necesitate a very strong ability to protect the task force with CAP… (once again, not suggesting its a good idea… more what it would take to actualy do it).

On the China question… all they have to do is not support the West in an embargo or its economic war with Russia… it would not have to be an active opposition, saying they were staying neutral while maintaining their trade relations with Russia would be enough to really blunt any sanctions the West would put on…

Question then becomes, does the West have enough influence with China to force them out of a “neutral” position?