Syria Update Exclusive : Russia send its Air-Craft-Carrier to Syria

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-14/russia-sends-aircraft-carrier-syria-marking-ships-sixth-dep ^ | 10/14/15 | Tyler Durden

[100American]

Excellent post, great work

and to the follow on Rambo’s itching to get into a big battle with Russia and wave their swords

Grow up, this is real not a video game...

They were invited in, we tried to take over the country deviously and depose the legal ruler...

That is NOT the American way...

[Jim from C-Town]

I would consider Chechnya a shooting war. They damn near destroyed Grozny. They spent nine years fighting the Islamic Insurgency there.

[JEDI4S]

row row row your boat :-)

[kabar]

The Soviets/Russians have been fighting the Chechyans for centuries. It is really a civil war. That said, it is not the same as a foreign war nor does it test the same military capabilities. The use of Russia’s sole aircraft carrier in battle will be a first.

[SeaHawkFan]

The Russians could probably never do it. The U.S. has three new ones in various stages of construction.

[alexander_busek]

The Soviets/Russians have been fighting the Chechyans for centuries. It is really a civil war.

More like a (sporadic) war of conquest, wouldn't you say?

Regards,

[Scrambler Bob]

And soon the MSM can describe them as “Battle Hardened Russians.”

[blueunicorn6]

Russia moves another chess piece forward.

In the mean time, Obama is trying to play Rock Paper Scissors with his reflection in the mirror.

[Jim from C-Town]

I can accept that, but they have been testing much of their hardware in Chechnya for close on a decade including tanks, artillery, choppers, planes, battle plans and tactics, particularly tactics for an insurgency. Just the type of battle they are fighting in Syria.

Chechnya being landlocked makes means that Syria is its’ first chance to test its’ aircraft carrier.

Russia, however, has never had the compunction to fight a clean war. They fight to win and simply eliminate entire populations. They are unconcerned about collateral damage or international outrage at their tactics. In some ways am repulsed by, yet admire their tactics. After all, is it better to win quick and kill lots of the enemy and their people subduing the populace with fear or win a slow insurgency war of attrition and end up losing in the long run?

Their tactics never won out in Afghanistan, yet ours are looking no more successful. I think their tactics in Syria will more than likely succeed where our lack of tactics is failing miserably.

[kabar]

No doubt. The Russians understand the dangers of militant Islam better than most. I guess the Russians still want to hold on to it for strategic reasons. They would be better off just letting it go. However it is hard to see Chechnya being a viable state.

[kabar]

It reminds me of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. The great powers used it as a testing ground for weapons and tactics.

[kabar]

Russia, however, has never had the compunction to fight a clean war. They fight to win and simply eliminate entire populations. They are unconcerned about collateral damage or international outrage at their tactics.

Sort of the way we fought WWII. "Clean wars" are a luxury for those whose national survival is not at risk. It also endangers their own forces who suffer casualties that could have been avoided. We fought all of our wars since WWII worried more about international perceptions than about winning. It just invites more such wars.

Their tactics never won out in Afghanistan, yet ours are looking no more successful. I think their tactics in Syria will more than likely succeed where our lack of tactics is failing miserably.

How do you define success? Or more importantly, how do the Russians and Iranians define success?

[arthurus]

And Husein just pulled our carrier out of there.

[arthurus]

Rambos. It is NOT possessive.

[arthurus]

In the mean time, Obama is trying to play Rock Paper Scissors with his reflection in the mirror.

I love it.

[arthurus]

Thê goals are different. Russia wants to win a straight-forward victory over a defined enemy. The US Hussein wants to reshape the whole region into a hotbed of Moslem jihad against the West purified of infidels and heretics, including Shias and Jews.

[Lower Deck]

Russia moves another chess piece forward.

The chess piece has to make it there first. No guarantee of that where the Kuznetsov is concerned.

[meatloaf]

The other was never finished by the yard in Ukraine. That’s the one the Chinese bought and finished.

[Jim from C-Town]

I’m pretty certain that Russia would not define their experience in Afghanistan as a success. As for Iran, They have had nothing but success since before Obama came to office, but since he become president their success has been greater than anyone, particularly they, could have ever imagined.

[Jim from C-Town]

If Obama wants to eliminate Shiite Muslims, why does he support Iran the home of Shiite Islam. Putin is for Putin, not even Russia. He is a self serving Fascist. If he was for the benefit of the Russian people he would be attempting to increase Russia's economy by diversifying it beyond Crony Capitalism and complete dependence on oil and gas exports.