3 ms·

> When the shooting starts, how much you could have spent on our military doesn't matter. Agreed. However, NATO, and the U.S. in particular, still outspend Ru

> When the shooting starts, how much you could have spent on our military doesn't matter. Agreed. However, NATO, and the U.S. in particular, still outspend Russia by a very wide margin. > The size of Russia's military From what I've read, they lack the capability or money to deploy more than small forces beyond their borders. Russia is poor, has serious economic problems, and wars are very expensive. Iraq cost the U.S. over a trillion dollars, IIRC. Everything they do is on the cheap, designed to maximize the appearance of strength: In Syria Russia sticks to the air, and we don't know how many missions (or at least I don't), how much it costs or for how long they can afford it. In Ukraine they used small amounts of special forces to seize Ukraine's southern peninsula, Crimea, and support insurgents mostly with equipment. They hide deaths of the any Russian troops in Ukraine, indicating that there may not be much public support for foreign deployments. > especially the number of nuclear weapons Nuclear weapons make a strong impression but are status symbols; in practice, they are almost unusable. They do prevent the invasion of Russia, but nobody was going to do that anyway except, as a long shot, China in the far east. Probably they do make the U.S. and Russian forces in Syria keep a distance from each other, to avoid unintentional conflict. Otherwise, they provide no influence; nobody worries that Russia will nuke them.

int_19h 10y ago
> In Syria Russia sticks to the air, FWIW, it's not entirely correct. There are specs ops and advisor teams on the ground (and there have already been officially reported casualties). But beyond that, some people who previously fought for the separatist militias in Ukraine told me that quite a few of their militia friends have been unofficially "contracted" to Syria. This appears a convenient arrangement, since when they get killed, it doesn't get reported as a military casualty, and doesn't really need to be reported at all. Similar to the use of contractors by US in Iraq, I guess - but these guys are actually used at the frontline to support Assad troops in direct engagements, not just to provide security for civilians etc. BTW, ironically, they have a very low opinion of the local troops. One guy over there joked that the war is essentially fought by foreign troops against each other on either side (Assad and ISIS), whereas local recruits on either side are really unmotivated to fight, and are easily routed or forced to surrender. The only locals he considered to be a viable, motivated fighting force capable of winning without foreign manpower backing them are the Kurds. (This is unverified Internet rumors, I don't know those people personally, you don't know me personally, so take it all with a grain of salt.)
- hackuser 10y ago
  I've read in several credible sources report that former anti-Russian insurgents from the Caucuses (e.g., Chechnya) are also in Syria, and rumors say Russia facilitated that.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    This is likely a conflation of two different facts. On one hand, the Syrian branch of what later became ISIS has a lot of Chechen fighters, mostly associated with Doku Umarov and his "Caucasus Emirate"; indeed, one of the groups that united to become ISIS was founded by a group of Chechen separatist commanders. The aforementioned contractors pegged them as the best fighting force that ISIS currently possesses, due to both high morale and experience. On the other hand, Russia has been kinda sorta reviving the "savage division" traditions of the Empire, specifically with Chechnya as a source of recruits. They were used in Ukraine (ironically, sometimes fighting against Chechen separatists who came to join the Ukrainian National Guard volunteer battalions), and now also in Syria. But they're usually not former anti-Russian insurgents from the most recent war (the one that started in 1999). Many of them were separatists in the first war (1994-96), but switched sides in the second war, like the current Chechen leader Kadyrov.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Thanks. OT: Where do you learn all this? I read a lot of foreign policy and I'm always interested in excellent new sources. The Jamestown Foundation provides in-depth coverage Russian and Caucuses issues like these, if long-winded a little partisan, but I haven't found much else.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        I'm Russian, so it's easy to follow the local news and social media. Also, I follow a variety of "interesting" people on LiveJournal. Among them are some separatist militia fighters from Donbass, so I get a scoop of their inner news, rumors and propaganda. These guys are actually surprisingly ready to share with most anyone who's willing to listen - they have a lot of broken expectations, and many are angry in a very loud way.
rohit89 10y ago
The russians are more likely to use nukes because any conflict with them will have to be near their borders since their military simply does not have the capability to fight far from home. Its easier to get support from your population when your threat is near your home than on the other side of the world. China is also in the same situation. They don't have projection capabilities either yet.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > China is also in the same situation. They don't have projection capabilities either yet. True right now, but to add to my table above: * China: $11.3 trillion / 1,376 million China absolutely has the resources to be a superpower.

int_19h 10y ago

> In Syria Russia sticks to the air, FWIW, it's not entirely correct. There are specs ops and advisor teams on the ground (and there have already been officially reported casualties). But beyond that, some people who previously fought for the separatist militias in Ukraine told me that quite a few of their militia friends have been unofficially "contracted" to Syria. This appears a convenient arrangement, since when they get killed, it doesn't get reported as a military casualty, and doesn't really need to be reported at all. Similar to the use of contractors by US in Iraq, I guess - but these guys are actually used at the frontline to support Assad troops in direct engagements, not just to provide security for civilians etc. BTW, ironically, they have a very low opinion of the local troops. One guy over there joked that the war is essentially fought by foreign troops against each other on either side (Assad and ISIS), whereas local recruits on either side are really unmotivated to fight, and are easily routed or forced to surrender. The only locals he considered to be a viable, motivated fighting force capable of winning without foreign manpower backing them are the Kurds. (This is unverified Internet rumors, I don't know those people personally, you don't know me personally, so take it all with a grain of salt.)

hackuser 10y ago
I've read in several credible sources report that former anti-Russian insurgents from the Caucuses (e.g., Chechnya) are also in Syria, and rumors say Russia facilitated that.
- int_19h 10y ago
  This is likely a conflation of two different facts. On one hand, the Syrian branch of what later became ISIS has a lot of Chechen fighters, mostly associated with Doku Umarov and his "Caucasus Emirate"; indeed, one of the groups that united to become ISIS was founded by a group of Chechen separatist commanders. The aforementioned contractors pegged them as the best fighting force that ISIS currently possesses, due to both high morale and experience. On the other hand, Russia has been kinda sorta reviving the "savage division" traditions of the Empire, specifically with Chechnya as a source of recruits. They were used in Ukraine (ironically, sometimes fighting against Chechen separatists who came to join the Ukrainian National Guard volunteer battalions), and now also in Syria. But they're usually not former anti-Russian insurgents from the most recent war (the one that started in 1999). Many of them were separatists in the first war (1994-96), but switched sides in the second war, like the current Chechen leader Kadyrov.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Thanks. OT: Where do you learn all this? I read a lot of foreign policy and I'm always interested in excellent new sources. The Jamestown Foundation provides in-depth coverage Russian and Caucuses issues like these, if long-winded a little partisan, but I haven't found much else.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      I'm Russian, so it's easy to follow the local news and social media. Also, I follow a variety of "interesting" people on LiveJournal. Among them are some separatist militia fighters from Donbass, so I get a scoop of their inner news, rumors and propaganda. These guys are actually surprisingly ready to share with most anyone who's willing to listen - they have a lot of broken expectations, and many are angry in a very loud way.

rohit89 10y ago

The russians are more likely to use nukes because any conflict with them will have to be near their borders since their military simply does not have the capability to fight far from home. Its easier to get support from your population when your threat is near your home than on the other side of the world. China is also in the same situation. They don't have projection capabilities either yet.

hackuser 10y ago
> China is also in the same situation. They don't have projection capabilities either yet. True right now, but to add to my table above: * China: $11.3 trillion / 1,376 million China absolutely has the resources to be a superpower.