Anatomy of Failed War: Russia’s Military ‘Fundamentally Vulnerable,’ New Report Reveals

[Ikari]

Russia's War of Aggression and Land Grabbing has turned into quite a black eye for Putin.

 

[Roadvirus]

Russia's War of Aggression and Land Grabbing has turned into quite a black eye for Putin.

It's a black eye for everything "Russia".

It's people, it's government, it's military & it's economy.

 

[Roadvirus]

Have you ever considered the possibility that Mexico has on interest in alinging with China?

That and the Cartels would be very upset about having China entering their turf.

 

[Ikari]

It's a black eye for everything "Russia".

It's people, it's government, it's military & it's economy.

Well it's a good thing Putin has his hooks into Trump so deep.

 

[Roadvirus]

Well it's a good thing Putin has his hooks into Trump so deep.

Hooks aren't the only thing he's got deep in Trump.


Wow. I just made myself throw up.

 

[Tigerace117]

The Caucus Military District supported multiple mechanized and armored divisions. Youre also grossly inflating the scale of Chechnya. Chechnya covers just 7,000 square miles with most of its political and economic power nestled in a heavily built up urban area, with a population of less than 2 million. Its your attempt to compare it to that Afghanistan doesnt hold up



By allowing their ports and roads to be traversed by logistical routes, not by contributing significant military forces.



The logistical effort to support ISAF was never simple and relied on extensive air and sea lift which limited troop strength to a little over 100,000.



As long as you decide to pretend that the Serbs didn't lose the Bosnian or Kosovo War.



They were literally on the backfoot until the US armed, trained, and supplied them.


Have you ever considered the possibility that Mexico has on interest in alinging with China?

And the infrastructure still wasn’t great. The fact that they had mechanized and armored units deployed in the region doesn’t change that. Frankly, that only makes the maintenance crunch worse, not better, because vehicles were getting a lot of wear and tear whenever they happened to actually have to move around.

Yes, because as we all know heavily built up urbanized areas are great for troops who don’t know where their next paycheck is coming from.

The Chechens also….. didn’t stay in Chechnya itself, which makes that objection rather meaningless

Logistical support was more important than actual troops in many of these cases.

Gee, it would have been a lot harder if they’d had to try and run the whole thing non stop from Virginia.

So why did NATO allow Kosovo to happen? After all, they won the war, right?

The Iraqis were armed, trained and equipped by the U.S. and completely shattered in the early stage of ISIS’ rampage, so that argument doesn’t hold up either.

We were training the Iranians? You got a source for that?

Gee, I suppose they could align with Russia instead for protection from the country that keeps threatening to invade them and is training its border patrol to use mortars instead, yes.

 

[Tigerace117]

It's a black eye for everything "Russia".

It's people, it's government, it's military & it's economy.

Coming from the country happily helping carry out a genocide in Gaza as well as threatening to invade multiple neighbors, the posturing is just a little bit hypocritical

 

[Jredbaron96]

And the infrastructure still wasn’t great. The fact that they had mechanized and armored units deployed in the region doesn’t change that.

Actually it's a pretty important part since the Soviets design their rail and road networks with military conditions in mind.

Frankly, that only makes the maintenance crunch worse, not better, because vehicles were getting a lot of wear and tear whenever they happened to actually have to move around.

You could say the same for ISAF.

The Chechens also….. didn’t stay in Chechnya itself, which makes that objection rather meaningless

No it doesn't, because random terrorist attacks don't affect the troop density in the main battleground, which was in Chechen territory.

Logistical support was more important than actual troops in many of these cases.

You're saying this because you think it makes you sound smart, but really it's just revealing your ignorance of the conflict.

Lack of manpower was actually a major problem for ISAF throughout the entirety of the conflict, in fact it was a big part of why other non-US forces struggled so much to secure territory; the Brits, Australians, Canadians, and French simply didn't have the manpower to hold territory while also conductive offensive operations against Taliban strongholds. The US could, at least temporarily, surge forces to achieve both, but this was still limited by the fact that logistics could still only support around 120,000 ISAF troops for a country of 250,00 square miles.

So why did NATO allow Kosovo to happen? After all, they won the war, right?

How did the Kosovo War end?

The Iraqis were armed, trained and equipped by the U.S. and completely shattered in the early stage of ISIS’ rampage, so that argument doesn’t hold up either.

And the Iraqis that were armed and trained by the Soviets shattered against the US in 1991, and against Iran in 1981. The problem in all situations was the Iraqis, not the US.

We were training the Iranians? You got a source for that?

Why did you switch from the Kurds to the Iranians?

Gee, I suppose they could align with Russia instead for protection from the country that keeps threatening to invade them and is training its border patrol to use mortars instead, yes.

And why aren't they doing that then?

 

[Tigerace117]

Actually it's a pretty important part since the Soviets design their rail and road networks with military conditions in mind.



You could say the same for ISAF.



No it doesn't, because random terrorist attacks don't affect the troop density in the main battleground, which was in Chechen territory.



You're saying this because you think it makes you sound smart, but really it's just revealing your ignorance of the conflict.

Lack of manpower was actually a major problem for ISAF throughout the entirety of the conflict, in fact it was a big part of why other non-US forces struggled so much to secure territory; the Brits, Australians, Canadians, and French simply didn't have the manpower to hold territory while also conductive offensive operations against Taliban strongholds. The US could, at least temporarily, surge forces to achieve both, but this was still limited by the fact that logistics could still only support around 120,000 ISAF troops for a country of 250,00 square miles.



How did the Kosovo War end?



And the Iraqis that were armed and trained by the Soviets shattered against the US in 1991, and against Iran in 1981. The problem in all situations was the Iraqis, not the US.



Why did you switch from the Kurds to the Iranians?



And why aren't they doing that then?

Just because you are aware of the potential problems, it doesn’t make terrain maintenance and general conditions suddenly not a problem. Especially since the eventual Russian land border shifted significantly from the Soviet one in the Caucasus.

Except the U.S and pals still had far more resources available than the Russians did, especially in the mid 1990s

…. It was more than just “random terrorist attacks; the Chechen insurgents made a concentrated effort to bring chunks of Dagestan under their influence and control on multiple occasions , so that argument doesn’t hold up either

No, I’m saying this because the existence of the literal physical logistical hub is more important than another few hundred Tajik or whatever soldiers being deployed in garrison duties.

Especially since many of those neighboring countries’ troops were not trained anywhere near the standard of the wealthy European countries to begin with.

So why did NATO let the Kosovo War start to begin with, then?

…..except for the inconvenient fact that they were fighting other Iraqis when they shattered. Going “the problem is that they were Iraqis!” falls apart when that glaring hole is pointed out.

….. I’ve been bringing the Iranians up as well for multiple posts now? You really just now noticed?

Because they know the U.S. would immediately invade, or otherwise engage in “regime change operations”

 

[Jredbaron96]

Just because you are aware of the potential problems, it doesn’t make terrain maintenance and general conditions suddenly not a problem. Especially since the eventual Russian land border shifted significantly from the Soviet one in the Caucasus.

This doesnt effect the rail and roadways still present in the North Caucus.

Except the U.S and pals still had far more resources available than the Russians did, especially in the mid 1990s

Resources which were necessary to support a much more logistically demanding enterprise, and it still left ISAF with a smaller troop density than the Russians.

…. It was more than just “random terrorist attacks; the Chechen insurgents made a concentrated effort to bring chunks of Dagestan under their influence and control on multiple occasions , so that argument doesn’t hold up either

Even if you treat all of Dagestan is part of the battlefield, that's still only 20,000 square miles in addition.

And the invasion of Dagestan only lasted for a month.

No, I’m saying this because the existence of the literal physical logistical hub is more important than another few hundred Tajik or whatever soldiers being deployed in garrison duties.

Okay? What point do you think this is rebuking?

Especially since many of those neighboring countries’ troops were not trained anywhere near the standard of the wealthy European countries to begin with.

What neighboring countries?

So why did NATO let the Kosovo War start to begin with, then?

So your argument is now in favor of NATO launching pre-emptive incursions?

…..except for the inconvenient fact that they were fighting other Iraqis when they shattered. Going “the problem is that they were Iraqis!” falls apart when that glaring hole is pointed out.

Not at all. ISIS was the product of basically Darwinian survival of the fittest in that it was composed of veterans of other organizations that had survived the Iraqi Civil War. So you basically had the cream of the crop attacking Mosul; its no coincidence that once that initial wave was eliminated, ISIS began losing territory substantially.

….. I’ve been bringing the Iranians up as well for multiple posts now? You really just now noticed?

You were talking about the Kurds.

Because they know the U.S. would immediately invade, or otherwise engage in “regime change operations”

[Citation needed]

 

[Tigerace117]

This doesnt effect the rail and roadways still present in the North Caucus.



Resources which were necessary to support a much more logistically demanding enterprise, and it still left ISAF with a smaller troop density than the Russians.



Even if you treat all of Dagestan is part of the battlefield, that's still only 20,000 square miles in addition.

And the invasion of Dagestan only lasted for a month.



Okay? What point do you think this is rebuking?



What neighboring countries?



So your argument is now in favor of NATO launching pre-emptive incursions?



Not at all. ISIS was the product of basically Darwinian survival of the fittest in that it was composed of veterans of other organizations that had survived the Iraqi Civil War. So you basically had the cream of the crop attacking Mosul; its no coincidence that once that initial wave was eliminated, ISIS began losing territory substantially.



You were talking about the Kurds.



[Citation needed]

Which, again, were never intended for any sort of significant troop movement, because there was no threat in the Northern Caucasus, as clearly opposed to areas next to, say, Turkey.

Resources that far exceeded anything the Russians had, seeing as Russia physically couldn’t have deployed any significant military assets to, say, Brazil if they’d needed to. The Russians had to shut Lourdes in Cuba down for fifteen years because they couldn’t afford it, for example.

“Only” thousands of miles of additional mountainous, heavily forested terrain well suited for guerrilla warfare.

Insurgents continued trying to strike targets in Dagestan for years.

How much do you actually would have changed if the Uzbeks had sent their national army to fight alongside the U.S. instead of “only” allowing the U.S. to use base there? More soldiers doesn’t necessarily mean better results.

How many wars end in “victory” only for the defeated country, led by the same dude, to do the same thing a few years later, again?

…..so Iraqis, who went up against US forces and U.S. trained Iraqi forces for years, and then dealt a shattering blow to the U.S. trained Iraqis.

ISIS didn’t have defensible borders in the first place. It was a bunch of open desert and people who didn’t have any sort of significant air defense.

I also mentioned the Iranians, not solely the Kurds, who’ve basically been fighting since before there was a United States at all.

US behavior in Cuba, Guatemala, Brazil, etc.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You mean like the U.S.?

A report on the Russian military immediately causes predictable Pee Wee arguments/diversions.

Rubles deposited! Pennies from Heaven!

 

[Tigerace117]

A report on the Russian military immediately causes predictable Pee Wee arguments/diversions.

Rubles deposited! Pennies from Heaven!

Awww, someone’s mad peacenik’s observation applies far more to the U.S

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Awww, someone’s mad peacenik’s observation applies far more to the U.S

It could apply to Bolivia's army too....or Paraguay...or take your pick of distractions. I mean, why limit yourself to military concerns, you could talk about the price of baklava in Turkey......ANYTHING....but the subject.

kching! Pennies!

 

[Tigerace117]

It could apply to Bolivia's army too....or Paraguay...or take your pick of distractions. I mean, why limit yourself to military concerns, you could talk about the price of baklava in Turkey......ANYTHING....but the subject.

kching! Pennies!

Except Bolivia and Paraguay don’t call themselves the “most powerful military ever” and the United State does

I get that frantically defending the U.S. is your only priority, but that doesn’t change the facts

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Except Bolivia and Paraguay don’t call themselves the “most powerful military ever”

You have proof positive for this new tac? Oh wait, who cares if you do....your posting points accumulate ka-ching!

and the United State does

ka-ching!

I get that frantically defending the U.S. is your only priority, but that doesn’t change the facts

My pointing out your constant need to defend Putin 24/7.....in a thread about Russian military fails.......is......my defending the US? Weird, I didn't bring up the US, that was your deal.
It is always your job, apparently.

Ka-ching

 

[Tigerace117]

You have proof positive for this new tac? Oh wait, who cares if you do....your posting points accumulate ka-ching!

ka-ching!

My pointing out your constant need to defend Putin 24/7.....in a thread about Russian military fails.......is......my defending the US? Weird, I didn't bring up the US, that was your deal.
It is always your job, apparently.

Ka-ching

Uh…. Yes, I’m pretty damn confident Bolivia never declared itself to have the “most powerful military ever.”

Aww, more frantically wailing instead of even trying to face up to what I’ve been pointing out. Weird, it’s almost like you came to this thread solely to squeal your fear and p outrage that anyone would dare point out the blindingly obvious fact peacenik’s statement applies far to the U.S. than Russia.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Which, again, were never intended for any sort of significant troop movement, because there was no threat in the Northern Caucasus, as clearly opposed to areas next to, say, Turkey.

This is complete nonsense. Soviet rail and roadways were explicitly designed with military movement and transportation in mind.

Resources that far exceeded anything the Russians had, seeing as Russia physically couldn’t have deployed any significant military assets to, say, Brazil if they’d needed to. The Russians had to shut Lourdes in Cuba down for fifteen years because they couldn’t afford it, for example.

This comparison doesn't even work as part of your argument because we're talking about Russia's intervention in Chechnya, taking place within Russia's international border. The logistical demand of the war was nowhere as demanding as ISAF in Afghanistan.

“Only” thousands of miles of additional mountainous, heavily forested terrain well suited for guerrilla warfare.

Yes only a few thousand more, with the Russians still able to maintain a troop density of 2.5 per sq mi, compared to less than .5 for ISAF in NATO, and with a substantially smaller populace to deal with.

Insurgents continued trying to strike targets in Dagestan for years.

Which did not have any significant impact on the outcome of operations.

How much do you actually would have changed if the Uzbeks had sent their national army to fight alongside the U.S. instead of “only” allowing the U.S. to use base there? More soldiers doesn’t necessarily mean better results.

There are two things you never have enough of in war; troops and time. Would additional Uzbek troops have been a game changer? Probably not, but ISAF would not have turned them down.

How many wars end in “victory” only for the defeated country, led by the same dude, to do the same thing a few years later, again?

So the Texas Revolution didn't succeed because the Mexican-American War broke out?

…..so Iraqis, who went up against US forces and U.S. trained Iraqi forces for years, and then dealt a shattering blow to the U.S. trained Iraqis.

ISIS didn’t have defensible borders in the first place. It was a bunch of open desert and people who didn’t have any sort of significant air defense.

I like how you go from "ISIS kicked Iraqs ass" to then "ISIS was doomed" without any more thought other than just ensuring you have something to constitute a rebuttal.

I also mentioned the Iranians, not solely the Kurds, who’ve basically been fighting since before there was a United States at all.

What about either detracts from the instrumental role the US played in defeating ISIS?

US behavior in Cuba, Guatemala, Brazil, etc.

Which ones are currently seeking an alliance with China?

 

[Tigerace117]

This is complete nonsense. Soviet rail and roadways were explicitly designed with military movement and transportation in mind.



This comparison doesn't even work as part of your argument because we're talking about Russia's intervention in Chechnya, taking place within Russia's international border. The logistical demand of the war was nowhere as demanding as ISAF in Afghanistan.



Yes only a few thousand more, with the Russians still able to maintain a troop density of 2.5 per sq mi, compared to less than .5 for ISAF in NATO, and with a substantially smaller populace to deal with.



Which did not have any significant impact on the outcome of operations.



There are two things you never have enough of in war; troops and time. Would additional Uzbek troops have been a game changer? Probably not, but ISAF would not have turned them down.



So the Texas Revolution didn't succeed because the Mexican-American War broke out?





I like how you go from "ISIS kicked Iraqs ass" to then "ISIS was doomed" without any more thought other than just ensuring you have something to constitute a rebuttal.



What about either detracts from the instrumental role the US played in defeating ISIS?



Which ones are currently seeking an alliance with China?

Already addressed by pointing out they weren’t fighting anyone in the region of Chechnya and Dagestan, which are on the other side of the Caucasus from the Turkish border where any actual fighting would be taking place.

Except you keep ignoring the fact Russia was in a far worse economic state during the Chechen Wars— especially the first one— than the U.S. was during Afghanistan, struggling to provide its troops with pay, much less anything else.

As already mentioned “only” a “few” thousand more is still plenty of terrain well suited for defense and guerrilla warfare.

The fact that the insurgents had no hope of defending the Russians in the long run doesn’t change the difficulty of the war.

The fact that the U.S. wouldn’t have outright insulted the people whose country they were using bases in doesn’t change the fact that, as admitted, those troops wouldn’t have changed anything, and the bases themselves were therefore more valuable.

The Mexican American War happened for an entirely different reason— namely, that the U.S. desperately want to carve off all that scarcely defended Mexican land— than the Texan Revolution, so that comparison falls flat.

You went on about “oh, it’s just that it was Iraqis” and ignored the fact other Iraqis were the ones driving them in disarray back towards Baghdad.

The geographical realities of the Iraqi and Syrian desert do not go away just because you find them inconvenient

So what “US training and arms” did the Iranians and their allies get again? Given, of course, that like the Kurds they did an awful lot of the work in actually driving ISIS back.

The U.S. carried out an undeclared invasion of Guatemala because their president dared to claim that the local people actually deserved control over their own land. Given that reality, we are supposed to believe the US wouldn’t use force to try and stop China from forming a coalition of allies…why, exactly?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Already addressed by pointing out they weren’t fighting anyone in the region of Chechnya and Dagestan, which are on the other side of the Caucasus from the Turkish border where any actual fighting would be taking place.

Again, this is nonsense. The Soviet union built virtually all of its civilian infrastructure with military usage in mind, and that includes the north Caucus. That you think that area wasnt under particular military threat is irrelevant to the material reality.

You seem to believe that Chechnya is this plateau surrounded by unscalable cliffs on all sides, rather than being the relatively built-up region where the Russiana were literally able to just drive straight into in both wars.

Except you keep ignoring the fact Russia was in a far worse economic state during the Chechen Wars— especially the first one— than the U.S. was during Afghanistan, struggling to provide its troops with pay, much less anything else.

By the 2nd Chechen War the Russian economy has already stabilized and was on the upward swing with the worst of inflation behind. And this doesnt nothing to change that fact that the Russians were still able to make use of already existing Soviet military infrastructure which was plentiful throughout the Caucuses.

Chechnya was, by ever conceivable metric, a much easier logistical operation than the war in Afghanistan. It required fewer resources, less infrastructure, fewer troops, even when accounting for the economic disparity between the US and Russia.

As already mentioned “only” a “few” thousand more is still plenty of terrain well suited for defense and guerrilla warfare.
The fact that the insurgents had no hope of defending the Russians in the long run doesn’t change the difficulty of the war.

It was such a difficult and arduous campaign it lasted a month and subsequently played little impact on the rest of the Chechen War.

The fact that the U.S. wouldn’t have outright insulted the people whose country they were using bases in doesn’t change the fact that, as admitted, those troops wouldn’t have changed anything, and the bases themselves were therefore more valuable.

I have no idea what point you think you are proving here.

The Mexican American War happened for an entirely different reason— namely, that the U.S. desperately want to carve off all that scarcely defended Mexican land— than the Texan Revolution, so that comparison falls flat.

You could just as easily turn around and say the Kosovo War happened for a completely different reason, the ownership of the 1389 battlefield being distinct from wanting to secure ethnic enclaves of Bosnian Serbs. Especially when this all just cope because you dont want to acknowledge that NATO defeated Serbia, so now you want to qualify that victory as being "well it wasnt decisive enough".

You went on about “oh, it’s just that it was Iraqis” and ignored the fact other Iraqis were the ones driving them in disarray back towards Baghdad.

Driven back because US airstrikes and support.

The geographical realities of the Iraqi and Syrian desert do not go away just because you find them inconvenient

You dont even have an actual point to make here. Youre just clinging to talking points.

So what “US training and arms” did the Iranians and their allies get again? Given, of course, that like the Kurds they did an awful lot of the work in actually driving ISIS back.

Like the Phantoms the Iranians used to bomb them?

Given that reality, we are supposed to believe the US wouldn’t use force to try and stop China from forming a coalition of allies…why, exactly?

Because its not the cold war? Duh?

 

[Tigerace117]

Again, this is nonsense. The Soviet union built virtually all of its civilian infrastructure with military usage in mind, and that includes the north Caucus. That you think that area wasnt under particular military threat is irrelevant to the material reality.

You seem to believe that Chechnya is this plateau surrounded by unscalable cliffs on all sides, rather than being the relatively built-up region where the Russiana were literally able to just drive straight into in both wars.



By the 2nd Chechen War the Russian economy has already stabilized and was on the upward swing with the worst of inflation behind. And this doesnt nothing to change that fact that the Russians were still able to make use of already existing Soviet military infrastructure which was plentiful throughout the Caucuses.

Chechnya was, by ever conceivable metric, a much easier logistical operation than the war in Afghanistan. It required fewer resources, less infrastructure, fewer troops, even when accounting for the economic disparity between the US and Russia.



It was such a difficult and arduous campaign it lasted a month and subsequently played little impact on the rest of the Chechen War.



I have no idea what point you think you are proving here.



You could just as easily turn around and say the Kosovo War happened for a completely different reason, the ownership of the 1389 battlefield being distinct from wanting to secure ethnic enclaves of Bosnian Serbs. Especially when this all just cope because you dont want to acknowledge that NATO defeated Serbia, so now you want to qualify that victory as being "well it wasnt decisive enough".



Driven back because US airstrikes and support.



You dont even have an actual point to make here. Youre just clinging to talking points.



Like the Phantoms the Iranians used to bomb them?



Because its not the cold war? Duh?

You are aware that this is what a lot of Chechnya looks like, right? It’s not just Grozny—which wasn’t an easy place to fight either.

With no military purpose for the region, the Soviets wouldn’t have invested much in the way of resources there, and the Russian state definitely didn’t have the maintenance budget for an area so far from Moscow in the mid 1990s, as I already pointed out.

The Russian economy no longer being in active free fall by 2000 doesn’t change the fact it had a long way to go before it was back to fully functional.

Much of the Caucasian infrastructure was owned by other countries by 2000.

The US was in a far stronger and more suitable position to wage war than Russia in 2001, and going “but they didn’t have as many men” doesn’t matter when the troops you do have are supposedly the best on the planet.

Except, again, for the fact that insurgents continuing striking into Dagestan for a lot longer than a month before the Russians crushed them.

Gee dude, you still haven’t named a war where one side “won” and then the defeated side, lead by the same dude, committed the exact same atrocities the war was supposedly fought over like five years later.

Especially since the Mexican American War was initiated by the U.S. in hopes of land grabbing, while the Texan Revolution was sparked by internal factors within Mexico itself.

….the U.S. was bombing the people it trained now to support ISIS? What?

My actual point is going “oh, well we bombed ISIS a bunch and they lost land!” doesn’t actually contradict any of what I pointed out especially given ISIS didn’t have defensible borders to begin with

The decades old Phantoms Iran inherited from the previous dictatorship? Those Phantoms? Calling that “US support” is a rather large stretch, don’t you think?

…..we are basically in another Cold War already, and the U.S. has been even more aggressive since the Cold War ended, so that argument doesn’t remotely hold up.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You are aware that this is what a lot of Chechnya looks like, right? It’s not just Grozny—which wasn’t an easy place to fight either.

Yhe Russians initiated their invasions in both wars through conventional march columns with hundreds of AFVs, into a capital which held nearly half the population of the entire region.

You are trying to overstate the Russian logistical difficulties because you think it cancels out American logistical difficulties in Afghanistan. This is a nonsensical argument; the Russian forces in Chechnya were a mechanized army backed by copious amounts of artillery which they employed for hours on end in sustained bombardments. These are logistically demanding exercises yet you have offered absolutely nothing to demonstrate this was actually a weak point for the Russians despite insisting otherwise.

The US was in a far stronger and more suitable position to wage war than Russia in 2001, and going “but they didn’t have as many men” doesn’t matter when the troops you do have are supposedly the best on the planet.

You are again trying to pretend you understand war better than you actually do.

ISAF actually had more men, which you would know if you actually had read about these wars instead of just browsing Wikipedia. The difference was that ISAF had to spread out their troops on a country 250,000 square miles large, where as the Russians had to contend with a much smaller territory and population.

That immensely simplifies operations, a reality you are loath to acknowledge because you want to pretend Chechnya is an expy of Afghanistsn. A smaller country means less territory to patrol, fewer ingress and egress routes, fewer roads, fewer ridges, hills, and valleys to cover. Less people means a smaller populace to control, and a higher troop to civilian ratio.

The Russians mobilized 80,000 men in 1999 to take on maybe 12,000 Chechens at most, including foreign volunteers. ISAF had 120,000 at their peak (which wasnt sustainable), against 30,000-60,000 Taliban. So the Russians also faced not only a nnumerically smaller force, but also one that was proportionally much smaller than their own forces.

You want to claim that Chechnya is proof the Russians are superior at War and expect nobody to point out all the advantages Russia had that NATO didnt. Its disingenuous and fueled by your hatred of America rather than any actual military logic.

Except, again, for the fact that insurgents continuing striking into Dagestan for a lot longer than a month before the Russians crushed them.

In a series of scattered, inconsisntent raids that had no major effect on operations.

Gee dude, you still haven’t named a war where one side “won” and then the defeated side, lead by the same dude, committed the exact same atrocities the war was supposedly fought over like five years later.

By your logic then the Kosovo War was a victory but Bosnia wasnt. If we accept this, what on Earth do you think that proves?

….the U.S. was bombing the people it trained now to support ISIS? What?

My actual point is going “oh, well we bombed ISIS a bunch and they lost land!” doesn’t actually contradict any of what I pointed out especially given ISIS didn’t have defensible borders to begin with

The decades old Phantoms Iran inherited from the previous dictatorship? Those Phantoms? Calling that “US support” is a rather large stretch, don’t you think?

No, seeing as they were still using them, they didnt apparently have anything better.

…..we are basically in another Cold War already, and the U.S. has been even more aggressive since the Cold War ended, so that argument doesn’t remotely hold up.

Yes it does, as evident by the fact that its not even considered. Do yoi think it might have to do with the fact that its not in their interest to do so?

 

[Tigerace117]

Yhe Russians initiated their invasions in both wars through conventional march columns with hundreds of AFVs, into a capital which held nearly half the population of the entire region.

You are trying to overstate the Russian logistical difficulties because you think it cancels out American logistical difficulties in Afghanistan. This is a nonsensical argument; the Russian forces in Chechnya were a mechanized army backed by copious amounts of artillery which they employed for hours on end in sustained bombardments. These are logistically demanding exercises yet you have offered absolutely nothing to demonstrate this was actually a weak point for the Russians despite insisting otherwise.



You are again trying to pretend you understand war better than you actually do.

ISAF actually had more men, which you would know if you actually had read about these wars instead of just browsing Wikipedia. The difference was that ISAF had to spread out their troops on a country 250,000 square miles large, where as the Russians had to contend with a much smaller territory and population.

That immensely simplifies operations, a reality you are loath to acknowledge because you want to pretend Chechnya is an expy of Afghanistsn. A smaller country means less territory to patrol, fewer ingress and egress routes, fewer roads, fewer ridges, hills, and valleys to cover. Less people means a smaller populace to control, and a higher troop to civilian ratio.

The Russians mobilized 80,000 men in 1999 to take on maybe 12,000 Chechens at most, including foreign volunteers. ISAF had 120,000 at their peak (which wasnt sustainable), against 30,000-60,000 Taliban. So the Russians also faced not only a nnumerically smaller force, but also one that was proportionally much smaller than their own forces.

You want to claim that Chechnya is proof the Russians are superior at War and expect nobody to point out all the advantages Russia had that NATO didnt. Its disingenuous and fueled by your hatred of America rather than any actual military logic.


In a series of scattered, inconsisntent raids that had no major effect on operations.



By your logic then the Kosovo War was a victory but Bosnia wasnt. If we accept this, what on Earth do you think that proves?



No, seeing as they were still using them, they didnt apparently have anything better.



Yes it does, as evident by the fact that its not even considered. Do yoi think it might have to do with the fact that its not in their interest to do so?

That’s nice. It doesn’t actually negate any of what I pointed out, though. Going “but a lot of people live in Grozny” proves only that… a lot of people live in Grozny.

The Russians were struggling to pay their own soldiers, much of their surface fleet was effectively dock bound in this period, there was serious concerns about the security of their WMDs….and you expect us to believe the logistical apparatus in a remote portion of the country that hadn’t had anything notable happen there for forty plus years was in tip top shape.

Riiiight

The objective reality, that no amount of blind denial can change, is that the fighting in Chechnya was not remotely easy, yet the Russians repeatedly won wars in the region, while the self proclaimed “most powerful military ever” lost in spectacular fashion in Afghanistan, and likewise failed to accomplish anything in Iraq.


Going “but the raids didn’t conquer Dagestan in one fell swoop” or whatever doesn’t change the fact they remained a thorn in the side of Russian troops in the region throughout the occupation.

So you have no actual examples of such. Didn’t think so

Oh, they pretty clearly do. They just weren’t going to throw out dozens of aircraft as long as they could still fly, because that would be stupid. After all, it wasn’t like ISIS had any sort of significant air defense.

Except it is clearly considered, because America keeps threatening to invade them.

And that’s without news of alliance with China reaching the U.S.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That’s nice. It doesn’t actually negate any of what I pointed out, though.

Yes it does. The initial battle for Grozny involved three simultaneous mechanized columns pushing into the city from three different directions. You mentioned earlier how difficult fighting in Grozny was-why do you think that was? Could it be that as part of the USSR, it was extensively conducted and expanded and incorporated into the road and rail network of the Soviet Union?

If Chechnya was as remote and rugged as you like to claim the Russians wouldn't have been able to push multiple corps into it in the first place.

….and you expect us

There's no "us". There's just you pretending that Chechnya was the same level of difficulty as Afghanistan.

to believe the logistical apparatus in a remote portion of the country that hadn’t had anything notable happen there for forty plus years was in tip top shape.

If the logistical challenges the Russians faced were as severe as you like to pretend the Russians wouldn't have been able to support 80,000 troops with accompanying aviation, artillery, and mechanized assets.

Yet they did, firing thousands of shells at Grozny per day, and you want to pretend that this was harder to do than supporting 120,000 troops thousands of miles from American soil.

The objective reality, that no amount of blind denial can change, is that the fighting in Chechnya was not remotely easy,

You have not presented any evidence to suggest Chechnya was a more logistically or operationally challenging than the war in Afghanistan. Nor have you provided any sourced argument to counter my points about the Russian numerical advantages, and when territory was brought up all you've done is made allusions to raids in Dagestan, which even if we pretend involved the whole of the oblast still didn't encompass half of the size of Afghanistan.

Going “but the raids didn’t conquer Dagestan in one fell swoop” or whatever doesn’t change the fact they remained a thorn in the side of Russian troops in the region throughout the occupation.

It had no effect on the outcome of operations. Youre just bringing it up because you have no other counter to pointing out how much more challenging Afghanistan was.

So you have no actual examples of such. Didn’t think so

Is that why Serbia controls Bosnia and Kosovo?

Oh, they pretty clearly do.

Like what?

Except it is clearly considered, because America keeps threatening to invade them.

[Citation needed]

 

[Tigerace117]

Yes it does. The initial battle for Grozny involved three simultaneous mechanized columns pushing into the city from three different directions.

If Chechnya was as remote and rugged as you like to claim the Russians wouldn't have been able to push multiple corps into it in the first place.



There's no "us". There's just you pretending that Chechnya was the same level of difficulty as Afghanistan.



If the logistical challenges the Russians faced were as severe as you like to pretend the Russians wouldn't have been able to support 80,000 troops with accompanying aviation, artillery, and mechanized assets.

Yet they did, firing thousands of shells at Grozny per day, and you want to pretend that this was harder to do than supporting 120,000 troops thousands of miles from American soil.



You have not presented any evidence to suggest Chechnya was a more logistically or operationally challenging than the war in Afghanistan.



It had no effect on the outcome of operations. Youre just bringing it up because you have no other counter to pointing out how much more challenging Afghanistan was.



Is that why Serbia controls Bosnia and Kosovo?



Like what?



[Citation needed]

Chechnya is unequivocally remote and rugged. The Soviets pushed many of those exact same vehicles into and across Afghanistan; are we to pretend that isn’t “remote and rugged”?

The U.S. had it much easier than the Russians, as I’ve already repeatedly pointed out, and still lost.

You are aware they did struggle to support their troops, especially in the first Chechen War, which is why there was a second Chechen war to begin with….. right?

Not sure why you are under the impression Russia wisely stockpiling vast amounts of equipment on the off chance it needs to be used some day makes the existing U.S. base network across the globe somehow no matter.

Given the fact the Dagestan was the centerpiece of much of the fighting in the northern Caucasus by the early 2010s, that’s clearly not true.

The Su-35, for starters.

Did you miss the president of the United States repeatedly talking about bombing “the cartels”?