War Against ISIS

Update.

Russian air strikes continue, hitting a vehicle base in Idlib with 30 vehicles, including T-55 tanks, all destroyed in 6 air strikes. Also in Kesladzhuk, Idlib province, they hit an IED factory, in Jizr-el-Shugur they hit 3 munitions and fuel depots, with KAB-500 bombs. 4 command posts were hit using BETAB-500 bombs. At Maaret-en-Numan they hit a command post and a munitions depot. At Et-Tabka, Raqqa province, they hit a training camp and munitions storage with KAB-500 bombs. The information is official MoD dispatch.

ПротивотанкиÑÑ‚Ñ‹ - Берлога Бронемедведа
Продолжение операции ВКС РоÑÑии в Сирии 4 октÑÐ±Ñ€Ñ - bmpd

Map of Russian air strikes by day.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=z4PF1SFiMPjQ.kFa_qMMdFl48

A video of either cluster munitions or land mines being dropped by an Su-24.

КаÑÑета - Военный Блог

Western sources claim the rebels have been firing MLRS rockets towards Hmeimeem airbase, but have so far no hits.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Òåððîðèñòû âñòóïèëè â âîéíó ñ ÐÔ â Ñèðèè: îáñòðåëèâàþò âîåííûå áàçû è îáúÿâèëè íàãðàäó çà ïîèìêó ñîëäàò

A specialized and brand new Russian EW complex was sighted in Syria, the Krasuha-4. It's meant for suppressing on-board radar systems in AEW, tactical aircraft, and satellites. A Russian ELINT vessel (the Kil'din) is also being sent there, which is standard practice.

Info on Russian Kh-25 and Kh-29 guided rockets being used has also surfaced, though details are lacking.

РоÑÑÐ¸Ñ Ð² Сирии: не только Ñамолеты - Берлога Бронемедведа
СпалилиÑÑŒ... - Вахтенный журнал Ñтареющего пирата
СириÑ: не только бомбы - Берлога Бронемедведа
И вот что там помимо Ñтого еÑÑ‚ÑŒ - Берлога Бронемедведа
РоÑÑийÑкий разведывательный корабль «Кильдин» направилÑÑ Ðº берегам Сирии | Военный информатор

A SAA fighter holds two RPG-7 tandem rounds, one of Russian manufacture, the other Iranian.

Гранаты - Юрий ЛÑмин

Another photoset of Russian planes at Hmeimeem.

Ðвиабаза Ð›Ð°Ñ‚Ð°ÐºÐ¸Ñ - Djoker's journal

Russia opposes a no-fly zone over Syria. Of course they've already effectively imposed on over part of it.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ðîñèÿ âûñòóïèëà ïðîòèâ ñîçäàíèÿ áåñïîëåòíîé çîíû íàä Ñèðèåé

Saudi religious figures are calling for a Jihad against Russia.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ñàóäîâñêèå ïðîïîâåäíèêè ïðèçâàëè ìóñóëüìàíñêèé ìèð îáúÿâèòü Ðîññèè äæèõàä èç-çà "îêêóïàöèè" Ñèðèè

And the Pentagon suggests Russian ground operations are imminent.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com ::  Ïåíòàãîíå ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî Ðîññèÿ ñêîðî íà÷íåò ñóõîïóòíóþ îïåðàöèþ â Ñèðèè

Turkish tanks enter Silvan, a major Kurdish city.

Турецкие танки вошли в город Силван наÑеленный курдами | Военный информатор

Feanor said:

That's interesting. I'd assumed the opposite, because the existing budget is already allocated to specific spending categories. Where did they pull money out of to re-allocate it to the Syrian venture? I'd have expected them to use money from some special fund or other to run the Syrian venture, separately from the MoD budget.

Click to expand...

Feanor, I was surprised also. There is a little article on that in RIA Novosti's economy rubric of 2.10.15. My phone won't let me post a link. Perhaps the minister uses the term budget in an overly wide sense which may include some kind of a war-chest or maybe its just bad journalism.

A.V. Berg said:

Feanor, I was surprised also. There is a little article on that in RIA Novosti's economy rubric of 2.10.15. My phone won't let me post a link. Perhaps the minister uses the term budget in an overly wide sense which may include some kind of a war-chest or maybe its just bad journalism.

Click to expand...

There's also Aljazeera's 'Counting the Cost' show which just had a segment on how Russia finances the Syrian campaign. In short, the analyst gestured towards a sixty-billion dollar fund ear-marked for military operations. Maybe this is what Siluanov meant when he said no extra money was needed.

A.V. Berg said:

There's also Aljazeera's 'Counting the Cost' show which just had a segment on how Russia finances the Syrian campaign. In short, the analyst gestured towards a sixty-billion dollar fund ear-marked for military operations. Maybe this is what Siluanov meant when he said no extra money was needed.

Click to expand...

Maybe Putin and some of his gang are funding all this with some of their "personal funds".

All this talk about the russian economy ... it was pretty annoying during the ukrainian crisis, article after article of how the sanctions are hurting Russia, how the ruble is falling etc. It was grating on my nerves after a while, like some western propaganda trying to make Russia seem to be paying a heavy toll for their assertiveness.

And now I see the same happening only days after a rather small deployment. I'm sure there have been large scale exercises much more costly than this. Now a few months down the line maybe the costs will add up but this early, really?

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise of course, if strong arguments are put forward.

A question, has the oil infrastructure in Syria been hit? In whose hands is it? ISIS? Is oil being exported?

Regarding the cost of this campaign, I think that everybody is missing the point. Well, the Russian economy is in recession. What does an economy in recession does, according to the Keynesian practice all the world follows during the last decades? The government borrows and spends to improve infrastructure and local industry, thus creating jobs and putting some more money into circulation.

Now, let's look in the actual campaign. Almost everything is paid with rubbles. Everything. Russia does not have to spend dollars or euros or anything to finance this. Soldiers are paid in rubbles, all equipment is made in Russia with Russian resources, even the fuel that they use is Russian. Forget about any dent in foreign reserves. The whole cost is in rubbles.

So what does Russia actually do? It borrows rubbles from local banks (and in reality from the Russian central Bank), to finance contracts with it's best exporting local industries (oil and weapons). Whether it makes a considerable dent in the budget is irrelevant. It's a Keynesian easing, paid with your local currency. And since the Russian deficit and debt are in very manageable levels they can surely do it as long as it does not skyrocket.

On the plus side, they get actual combat testing of various new weapon systems and world wide advertisement of their arms industry by all the media in the world.

chris said:

Regarding the cost of this campaign, I think that everybody is missing the point. Well, the Russian economy is in recession. What does an economy in recession does, according to the Keynesian practice all the world follows during the last decades? The government borrows and spends to improve infrastructure and local industry, thus creating jobs and putting some more money into circulation.

Now, let's look in the actual campaign. Almost everything is paid with rubbles. Everything. Russia does not have to spend dollars or euros or anything to finance this. Soldiers are paid in rubbles, all equipment is made in Russia with Russian resources, even the fuel that they use is Russian. Forget about any dent in foreign reserves. The whole cost is in rubbles.

So what does Russia actually do? It borrows rubbles from local banks (and in reality from the Russian central Bank), to finance contracts with it's best exporting local industries (oil and weapons). Whether it makes a considerable dent in the budget is irrelevant. It's a Keynesian easing, paid with your local currency. And since the Russian deficit and debt are in very manageable levels they can surely do it as long as it does not skyrocket.

On the plus side, they get actual combat testing of various new weapon systems and world wide advertisement of their arms industry by all the media in the world.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple. Keynesian economic theory is no panacea against shortage of funds. It might be very useful in terms of informing some aspects of fiscal management but if applied across the board, often results in central banks just printing more money.

You'd be surprised how much foreign currency and expertise sustains the Russian military. Firstly, up to 80% of electronics in Russian satellites is imported from the West. Most Russian jets have critical foreign components as well. Some of the helicopters deployed have Ukrainian engines. Secondly, much of Russian high-tech military production is done using Western or Chinese manufacturing equipment. Remember that Soviet machine building industry collapsed. Thirdly, financial well-being and capacity for innovation of the Russian military-industrial complex still depends on earning dollars through export. And lastly, a lot of Russian sub-contractors for defence companians take out loans in foreign currency.

Strategic Rocket Troops would be the only part of the Russian military which has a policy of self-sufficiency but even that is not absolute.

Feanor said:

It's more complex then that. I think that ISIS is not a proxy, it's an organization and a power in its own right.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Russia -- the ability to jam electronics of coalition aircraft?


The officials also said that Russia has moved electronic jamming equipment into Syria. Both a truck-mounted system and a number of pods that can go on aircraft have been observed. This could potentially give the Russians the ability to jam electronics of coalition aircraft.

NATO secretary general questions Russia's aims in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Is this an indication of Russian intentions themselves to create a no fly zone?

The movement of S-300's into the arena, it certainly adds up to this.

How effective is this jamming equipment thought to be?

gazzzwp said:

Russia -- the ability to jam electronics of coalition aircraft?


The officials also said that Russia has moved electronic jamming equipment into Syria. Both a truck-mounted system and a number of pods that can go on aircraft have been observed. This could potentially give the Russians the ability to jam electronics of coalition aircraft.

NATO secretary general questions Russia's aims in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Is this an indication of Russian intentions themselves to create a no fly zone?

The movement of S-300's into the arena, it certainly adds up to this.

How effective is this jamming equipment thought to be?

Click to expand...

I think the Krasuha system was used on the border with the Ukraine with some success. It's a very new system. Also, Khibina pod may have been used against an American ship in the Black Sea a little while ago.

I would say that the Russian posture is more reflective of self-defence rather than a no-fly zone in a strict sense because there are not enough aircraft to patrol it. Of course, Latakia and environs can become a defacto no fly zone due to SAM/ECM assets.

swerve said:

Agreed.

Click to expand...

There's no doubt ISIS is a separate organization. They set up local government, education etc all to potentially legitimize their efforts.

Eventually the will need to be dealt with with a credible force

A.V. Berg said:

I think the Krasuha system was used on the border with the Ukraine with some success. It's a very new system. Also, Khibina pod may have been used against an American ship in the Black Sea a little while ago.

I would say that the Russian posture is more reflective of self-defence rather than a no-fly zone in a strict sense because there are not enough aircraft to patrol it. Of course, Latakia and environs can become a defacto no fly zone due to SAM/ECM assets.

Click to expand...

I also see these assets there not only for base security operations, but also to gain Intel on western 4th gen and ideally US F22s from a tracking and targeting standpoint

Toblerone said:

I'm sure there have been large scale exercises much more costly than this.

Click to expand...

Bullseye. I'd wager there's at least one major annual exercise that dwarfs the cost of the Syrian campaign. The bi-annual "West" exercises, inheritors of similar Soviet exercises, make the entire war in Syria look small.

A.V. Berg said:

It's not that simple. Keynesian economic theory is no panacea against shortage of funds. It might be very useful in terms of informing some aspects of fiscal management but if applied across the board, often results in central banks just printing more money.

You'd be surprised how much foreign currency and expertise sustains the Russian military. Firstly, up to 80% of electronics in Russian satellites is imported from the West. Most Russian jets have critical foreign components as well. Some of the helicopters deployed have Ukrainian engines. Secondly, much of Russian high-tech military production is done using Western or Chinese manufacturing equipment. Remember that Soviet machine building industry collapsed. Thirdly, financial well-being and capacity for innovation of the Russian military-industrial complex still depends on earning dollars through export. And lastly, a lot of Russian sub-contractors for defence companians take out loans in foreign currency.

Strategic Rocket Troops would be the only part of the Russian military which has a policy of self-sufficiency but even that is not absolute.

Click to expand...

It would be very interesting to see just how heavily they rely on western components in things like fighter jets. On the Ukrainian engines, it seems that Motor-Sich is continuing to sell engines to Russia for re-export purposes but not domestic military use. So they only have to replace their own defense procurement, and they're already doing so. The Mi-8AMTSh for example is now fully indigenous (at least according to recent trumpet blaring by the manufacturer).

gazzzwp said:

Russia -- the ability to jam electronics of coalition aircraft?


The officials also said that Russia has moved electronic jamming equipment into Syria. Both a truck-mounted system and a number of pods that can go on aircraft have been observed. This could potentially give the Russians the ability to jam electronics of coalition aircraft.

NATO secretary general questions Russia's aims in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

Is this an indication of Russian intentions themselves to create a no fly zone?

The movement of S-300's into the arena, it certainly adds up to this.

How effective is this jamming equipment thought to be?

Click to expand...

But they've only deployed 4 fighter jets there total. 4 Su-30SMs. And they're not even carrying R-77s (they've got R-27s). They fly fighter caps, but very few, presumably to dissuade anyone from an "accidental" shoot down. And of course to try them out. I think it's more likely they they're sending the west a message, not to bomb Assad's forces, by placing Russian assets directly in the line of fire.

Feanor said:

Bullseye. I'd wager there's at least one major annual exercise that dwarfs the cost of the Syrian campaign. The bi-annual "West" exercises, inheritors of similar Soviet exercises, make the entire war in Syria look small.

Click to expand...

Time scale will of course be an important factor. Very few campaigns in the middle east have ever been short affairs. The longer it goes on the more it will hurt. Particularly if the West or the Gulf states decide to play a bigger role.

gazzzwp said:

This is a complex situation. I wonder if NATO has Turkey on a tight leash right now?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone is going to put a leash on Erdogan, he's pretty much a loose cannon. For someone who ran on a platform of "zero problems with neighboring countries" He's managed to antagonize all of his neighbors and most of turkey's allies at one point or another.

A.V. Berg said:

It's not that simple. Keynesian economic theory is no panacea against shortage of funds. It might be very useful in terms of informing some aspects of fiscal management but if applied across the board, often results in central banks just printing more money.

You'd be surprised how much foreign currency and expertise sustains the Russian military. Firstly, up to 80% of electronics in Russian satellites is imported from the West. Most Russian jets have critical foreign components as well. Some of the helicopters deployed have Ukrainian engines. Secondly, much of Russian high-tech military production is done using Western or Chinese manufacturing equipment. Remember that Soviet machine building industry collapsed. Thirdly, financial well-being and capacity for innovation of the Russian military-industrial complex still depends on earning dollars through export. And lastly, a lot of Russian sub-contractors for defence companians take out loans in foreign currency.

Strategic Rocket Troops would be the only part of the Russian military which has a policy of self-sufficiency but even that is not absolute.

Click to expand...

Agreed and in addition to this you have to take into account interest rates and inflation. Russian bonds are trading at about 11% right now and inflation is running in excess of 15% for the year. That impacts their ability to borrow, even from russian banks and obviously the purchasing power of the ruble. BTW the russian central bank has been bailing out individual russian banks lately, most of them are in no position to lend the government anything. They have to finance this out of current funds on hand not from borrowing.

Can Russia sustain the Syrian operation in the short term? absolutel. The question is whether or not their economy will support the operation in the long term in addition the the many modernization programs they have planned?

The other thing to keep in mid is that even if oil does rise and temporarily bolsters the russian budget, the break even on fracking oil wells is down to about $60 for some US producers, once oil gets near that point, they will start drilling again placing a soft cap on oil prices. (assuming the saudis allow oil to rise at all)

Twain said:

I'm not sure anyone is going to put a leash on Erdogan, he's pretty much a loose cannon. For someone who ran on a platform of "zero problems with neighboring countries" He's managed to antagonize all of his neighbors and most of turkey's allies at one point or another.

Click to expand...

Interesting. All the more need to question Russia's incursions. If he is an unpredictable character, Russia should beware that they are potentially stirring a hornets nest.

On the other hand the potential is there for Turkey to be a liability to the alliance if they decide to act unilaterally.

Twain said:

The other thing to keep in mid is that even if oil does rise and temporarily bolsters the russian budget, the break even on fracking oil wells is down to about $60 for some US producers, once oil gets near that point, they will start drilling again placing a soft cap on oil prices. (assuming the saudis allow oil to rise at all)

Click to expand...

A little off topic so apologies; Iran's output will I imagine soon be ramping up to complicate oil prices even more and hence adversely affecting Putin's purse. An ally of Russia or not, Iran will want it's income to rise by selling off all of that stored oil.

gazzzwp said:

A little off topic so apologies; Iran's output will I imagine soon be ramping up to complicate oil prices even more and hence adversely affecting Putin's purse. An ally of Russia or not, Iran will want it's income to rise by selling off all of that stored oil.

Click to expand...

Though interestingly enough Iran will spend quite a bit of their oil money in Russia. They're already sniffing around the Sukhoi SuperJet, and there's rumors of a 21 billion dollar mega-package for various high-tech goods and services for Iran, from another nuclear powerplant to passenger jets, helos, etc. Details, of course, are lacking.

Russian Recession

Some people here consider the current Russian recession to be debilitating. But I disagree.

This recession is actually atypical. It is not characterized by rising unemployment, falling labor participation, and declining production like typical western recessions. This quazi recession is due to two primary factors: sanctions/trade barriers and decline in oil prices/falling terms of trade. The trade barriers aka sanctions are a temporary shock to GDP, they will cause/are causing trade diversion to neutral countries. These trade barriers are also greatly stimulating domestic industries, and with gov't financial assistance, things are actually looking very good for domestic producers. Sanctions are actually causing future economic gain from rapid domestic investment.

Oil price decline is translating into deteriorating terms of trade for Russia. That is probably the biggest source of GDP decline. Lower oil revenues however do not imply lower production. In reality this is not a true recession. Russians are forced to consume fewer western goods while the market for domestic producers and neutral-foreign producers has/is accelerating. The only real downsides are problems with private debt management and sanctioned dual purpose electronics purchases, but Russia seems to be making progress in solving these issues.