www.trtworld.com
Depends on the circumstances. There will be cases where the citizens of the country are ready and want democracy but are thwarted by their political masters who fully understand that they have the support of the West to maintain the status quo. Then there are cases where the West decides that it will throw its full support behind the masses in order to overthrow their unelected undemocratic leader; this usually occurs when it's in the interests of the West to do so; i.e, Libya and Syria. Having Western support has long been a key prerequisite which enabled various Arab governments/leaders to stay in power.
The irony is that women in Iran for decades have had more rights [allowed to work, drive, go out unaccompanied, etc] than their counterparts in Saudi; yet Saudi is best chums with the West. To be fair; despite being largely responsible for the mess that is now Yemen and other things [which he got away with due to realpolitik/self interests]; under MBS there has been social progress in Saudi Arabia. On double standards and hypocrisy; in Afghanistan the West went all gung ho about bhurkas and how the Taliban wasn't women friendly but was silent about the situation in certain other countries.
Right; so as I said with Egypt; it had an elected government which was overthrown in a coup backed by the Gulf Arabs. The West kept quiet because it was in line with its interests to placate the Gulf Arabs [for them a democratic government in Egypt would have been undesirable] and to have a certain type of government in Cairo. Having a democratic government in Cairo [not necessarily a liberal democratic one in the Western sense but one more democratic to what it replaced] would have been problematic for both the West and the Gulf Arabs.
True but that would I suspect be off set by the fact that Russia has a lot of EW [especially ground based] which is integrated to all level of ops and formations; right down to brigade level. I can't think of any other army which has integral EW components at brigade level.
Would you agree that despite whatever limitations it has; having an extensive and advanced EW capability. plus the fact Russia is intimately familiar with Ukrainian AD network [something you alluded to] provides it with a decisive edge? The Ukraine too has some level of EW capability [the Kolchuga comes to mind] but it comes to nowhere close to what Russia has. I may be assuming too much but if an actual invasion starts; in addition to the Ukrainian cell phone and internet network being jammed; I'd expect the Ukrainians to face serious issues in even deploying there UASs at a tactical/operational level.
You would know better but I was under the assumption that good planning and careful distribution were things the Russians have traditionally done well. They've also learnt a lot from the Syrian experience where they deployed an expeditionary force which wasn't large and had fairly limited resources.
I don't want to derail this thread more on how democratic is Ukraine compared toward countries like Saudis or Russia. However I have to answer this because in what way there's democracy by law Ukraine to begin with, and how's that any different between that and the authoritarian oligarchy by law that exists in Saudi and Russia.
Different EW systems are set up to target different things. Russia has a lot of EW at the brigade/division and army level but most of it aims at enemy comms. Russia also has a lot of EW dedicated to anti-UAS roles, and to jamming and spoofing GPS signals. Rolling back IADS requires different kinds of equipment. Specifically for enemy IADS Russia has the Rychag helo-based system, and the results of OKR Prorubschik, if it was completed successfully.
This is all entirely plausible but it doesn't help Russia overcome Ukrainian air defenses which are quite numerous.
In my experience, Russia is very inconsistent about these things and has a tendency to fail when lacking institutional knowledge and experience in dealing with certain kinds of things. Syria only looked like a brand new operation. In reality the Soviets fought many "Syrias" during the Cold War using advisers that flew combat jets, operated IADS nodes, and directed ground forces. If you look at the role Russian advisers took in Syria, the only new thing is learning how to use modern air power. And it didn't happen immediately. Initially it was a deployment of mostly Soviet rotary and fixed wing flying Soviet-style strike missions, right down to having two aircraft per target. It took practice to learn modern BDA, give pilots freedom to hunt for targets, and to limit strikes to one aircraft, since two were overkill. The situation was one that allowed them time to learn and adapt. Depending on how quickly Russian ground forces have to move against Ukraine, they may not have time to adapt. I have no doubt that given a decent-length timeline Russia will learn and destroy Ukrainian IADS successfully. All the odds are stacked against Ukraine. But it may involve losing aircraft, and will almost certainly involve losing time.
You're referring to the MiG pilots in the Korean war; advisors in Angola; air defence operators operating Egyptian AD systems during the War of Attrition' and Libyan Sa-5s in the 1980's.
Most of the new stuff Russia learnt is still related to use of modern air power, things like repelling drone swarm attacks, jamming cruise missiles to steer them off course, employing kamikaze drones of their own, deploying and testing their own strike drones and having a good look on how the US and Isreali air force operates in theatre.. Syria has ben a place where Russia hasn learnt, continues to learn and most importantly carries out live fire practice
You are mistaken.
The way I see it; it's the other way around. Russia has the initiative. It's NATO/the West which is running around; unsure of how to react. It's NATO/the West which is reacting to Russia's moves.
Firstly does Russia want the whole of the Ukraine? Secondly apart from sanctions, expressing solidarity; supplying the Ukraine with arms and training; etc, there is not much more NATO/the West is willing to do at this juncture. Russia is not deterred at all.
I don't know. My bet is Russia want some kind of deal, rather then military action. My guess is that West will not give to RF what RF wants.
No it's not. Ukraine fate determine whether West want continue support them. What Russia did is raising the cost to see if West still willing to match it.
No but Putin's previous statement about the Ukraine and Russia being the same ethnically/linguistically [which we know to be untrue] gave rise to speculation that his ultimate goal is to absorb it into Russia.
Of course it wants a deal. Why do you think it's dong what it's doing? The exercises, troop deployments; statements and demands are all intended to create and effect; the conditions which would lead to NATO/the West reaching some level of accommodation with Russia. The level of compromises Russia is willing to make is dependent on what NATO/the West is willing to make. If you read his statements; it's obvious that Putin is in no rush and is adopting a pragmatic wait and see approach. For now at least; the threat of invasion is certainly there but I doubt the Russians are at a point where thy are close to actually launching one.
Their experience in Syria is against insurgents, not a peer threat. The learning curve from merely watching one side getting bombed without some counter-action is very limited.
This would apply not only to Russia in Syria but other countries in various other conflicts in which they deployed airpower without the other side being able to respond in kind.
Just activating airforce in environment with lot of other actors both AD and airforces give valuable experience.
They moved forces from other borders, like China for example. It is very riski move, can not continue forever.
Ukraine doesn't need to.
Does it? I wasn't aware.
Well they only been at it for a while and look at the effect its had. Not a single Russian troop has entered the Ukraine but the whole of Europe is on edge. It's not risky as moving troops from other areas of Russia or military districts poses no risks as Russia dos not have tensions with any of its other neighbours.
That's an understatement but yes ...