"Will Russia Go into Libya Next?" Topic

"Vladimir Putin was anointed president in 1999 as the Russian Federation teetered between currency crises, political instability and a general sense that all was not right in Moscow. While the collapse of the ruble in 1998 hammered the economy, separatists in Chechnya had defeated the mighty Russian army and carved out their own briefly independent country.

Reordering the Russian economy was too tough a bill to achieve quickly; it required structural shifts in both Russia's economy and society that were just too big a pill to swallow in the late 90s. As Putin sought to overcome the post-Soviet chaos and establish legitimacy as only the second president of Russia, he needed something akin to a political sliver bullet — something that would slay the beasts pulling the federation apart.

So he turned to literal bullets and he ordered them fired more or less at random into Chechnya…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

'Anointed' does have a certain religious feel to it over appointed…

No. Makes no sense.There's no a faction here worth supporting.

No. He'll leave that mess for others to sort out and argue over.

Libya does not have a central figure like Syria with Assad. The Russians will not get involved. If Gaddafi is still around it would be a different matter.

I 'like' the implication here that we could start seeing some recolonization of various ports and pieces of real estate in the various failed/weak states that are cropping up.

From a gaming perspective, of course.

Why? They could just lease naval bases from impoverished Greece!

Geopolitically speaking … it would not be a bad move…

Amicalement
Armand

No, Tango. Even with Gaddafi, Lybia was unstable "friend" to say the least. Russia was getting contracts here, and then they were revoked, and then awarded again, and the circle was going all the time. Italy and France are in much better position to get/control the Lybian oil&gas infrastructure, and that's what they're trying to do. There's no strategic or economical gain foir Russia to be involved there.
Frankly, Russia will be better if these guys kill each other and blow all their pipelines in the process – at least it will affect oil prices.

I would think going into Libya would stretch Russia and maybe too much. They would be smarter to stay out of that area and let NATO look bad trying to defeat ISIS. Putin then can ramp up his actions in Europe and it will be a bigger cause of concern because fewer assets will be available.

I would think going into Libya would stretch Russia and maybe too much. They would be smarter to stay out of that area and let NATO look bad trying to defeat ISIS. Putin then can ramp up his actions in Europe and it will be a bigger cause of concern because fewer assets will be available for NATO.

I agree … there is no reason for the Russians to really get involved in Libya. That being said, they changed/are changing the war in Syria to a dramatic extent. Which as much as many hate Assad. He's better than Daesh. I'd think similar could be said about the situation in Libya …

Syria had a government they could talk to, and who invited the Russians in.

It could also provide safe basing facilities.

Libya offers none of those, and has nothing the Russians actually need.

As I said, there is no reason for the Russians to get involved there. However, from a hypothetical military standpoint. IF Russia could & would deploy to Libya there is little the Libyans could do effectively. Even if they were not invited. Like in the Ukraine … not being invited is called "an Invasion" … That is what I meant by " I'd think similar could be said about the situation in Libya …"

Something militaries do is look at hypothetical situations like this. For example in the 30s the USN wargamed what would happen if the UK and US were involved in a naval conflict on opposite sides.

We also have an OPLAN if Canada invaded the US today …

I'd bet we wargamed how and what would be needed to destroy Daesh HQ/Center Of Gravity in Raqqa and/or Mosul.

There also is an OPLAN to go to Pakistan if the Taliban, AQ, sympathetic locals/government, etc.,. attempt/decide to take and employ Nucs.

There is an old saying, often used in the military. "Prior Planning Prevents Pr Performance" …

I even bet there are even protocols/OPLANs for an Alien Invasion … somewhere in there as well.

There is, however, a lot the Algerians, Egyptians and NATO could do about it…

In theory …

Would the Algerians and Egyptians care or even be a match for the Russians ?

Not too mention what could a depleted NATO do ? Would the second largest military in NATO, the Turks even care ?

No one did anything when the Russians "snatched" the Crimea or invaded the Ukraine ?

Nobody … not even the Turks next door, really did anything when they deployed to assist the failing Syrian military ?

That is why the military "wargames" such events.

Libya is a basket case. No advantages for Russian involvement, just a potential graveyard. Why waste the money?

I can't think of any positives at all. So Libyans will love them? Would this better isolate American diplomacy, weaken the EU or NATO? Would another war strengthen Putin''s position at home? Nope!

This is an African & European (not NATO) problem.

The Algerians and Egyptians would asily me a match for the Russians. The Russians are not known desert fighters…and it would be easy in that instance to simply give lots of guns to the locals to make it a running air.

My $$$ is still on the Russians … The Russians have more & better CAS plus Naval assets. Their ground forces are IMO are far superior to both of those armies. If either of these countries or both, attempted to go toe-to-toe in a conventional war with Russia … again, the Russians would defeat them. The Russians would gain air superiority quickly. To start … Of course this is a hypothetical scenario … But again, man for man … I'd rate the Russian's superior.

The Algerians and Egyptians would asily me a match for the Russians. The Russians are not known desert fighters…

While I would agree that the Egyptians are very well armed at this point and could bring more muscle to the fight faster than the Russians could, I am amused at the "known desert fighters" comment. The Egyptians did lose every war to the Isrealis…

You forget … some here don't like the IDF. Regardless of their record and the fact that against most of the Arab Forces in a number of conflicts. The IDF prevailed …

While I would agree that the Egyptians are very well armed at this point and could bring more muscle to the fight faster than the Russians could,

Of course, but again Russian CAS from Syria(?) and naval assets on the coast could most likely attrite the Egyptians in short amount of time.

And when did the Algerians actually see any combat ?
Of course again, it's all hypothetical …

Had to google Algerian capabilities, actualky not bad. 500k under arms, as much again in reserves. T-90s and S300 air defenses. Can't speak for quality, but they can probably hold their own in defense.

Egypt's military is huge. Modern forces, 1200 Abrams tanks, US training. Buk, S300 and Patriot air defenses. While they never won against the IDF, they did fight tooth&nail in close fought wars. Definitely have the equipment and will to stand up to modern Russia.

These wouldn't be the kind of countries that Russia likes to invade.

Merely for discussion of course…

Yes, Of course … And in many cases "numbers" may "win". But my only thought is the Russian troop quality over the Arab quality ?

Definitely, especially the veterans and special forces types now fighting in Russia's various "little wars".

Before the Ukrainian troubles, I recall sharing my opinion here that the modern Russian soldier would be a formidable fighter, and being scoffed at.

Now the entire Russian military isn't ready for war, but neither are the USA, NATO, the Arabs, Iranians, China, etc.

The only ones really ready are the islamo-terrorists … and they don't care if they die …

I recall sharing my opinion here that the modern Russian soldier would be a formidable fighter, and being scoffed at

Those who said that must have forgotten – Don't underestimate your enemy …

The Egyptians did lose every war to the Isrealis…

There's a serious argument about whether they really lost in 1973.

They gave the IDF a very hard time, and shortly afterwards they got Sinai back.

And since then they've had US arms and training.

As for Russian troop quality… perhaps not as good as people think across the board, and Putin would have to explain why he's incurring casualties.

He'd have no secure airbase for a start, things could get tricky quickly.

Down south of course they may have to deal with the forces of Chad – and they are tough.

Can't see the game being worth the candle.

Yes stu … you are correct all those forces you mention man for man are better than the Russians (DOH ?!?)… I think only you believe that …

And I'm not underestimating your picks for this "fantasy" bash in the desert. But I'm looking at the past histories, combat effectiveness, etc. … IMO … obviously yours are again 180 from mine.

There's a serious argument about whether they really lost in 1973.

Serious argument only by the side that lost, and those who deny history.

They gave the IDF a very hard time, and shortly afterwards they got Sinai back.

And since then they've had US arms and training.

Nobody says they didn't fight hard, and then they lost.

…And the Sinai was returned in 1982 AFTER the signing of the Egypt-Isreali peace treaty in 1979 , and AFTER promise of Americans weapons & training.

Since that time, Egypt has found that it shares more similarities with Isreal than some of their Arab brethren, same for the Jordanians, Saudis, Kurds, Kazakhs, Uzbeks and the Turks (again).