Hypothetical U.S. Air Force Intervention in Georgia

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Hypothetical U.S. Air Force Intervention in Georgia
ugadawg5 8/12/2008 10:14:32 PM

What would be the likely Russian military/diplomatic reaction if we sent in a few fighter sweeps over Georgia to clear the sky of Su-25s and Su-27s terrorizing Georgian civilians?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

RealCelebrim 8/13/2008 4:14:28 PM

What would be the likely Russian military/diplomatic reaction if we sent in a few fighter sweeps over Georgia to clear the sky of Su-25s and Su-27s terrorizing Georgian civilians?

1) Russian attack on US naval assets in the Black Sea. Russian use of short range ICBMs in terror attacks on US assets in Iraq (Green Zone makes a big target). Stepped up ethnic cleansing by troops on the ground to secure long term advantage. Russia possibly making threats to widen the war to other former Soviet satellites. Eventual stalemate and brokered peace in Georgia, either before or after the threat of or actual tactical nuclear exchange.

2) Likely Russian indirect long-term intervention in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts by supplying insurgents with weapons and possibly a tacit alliance of convienance with Al Queda. Stepped up Russian Cold War style aggitating around the world - Columbia comes to mind. Russia enters into closer alliance with Iran.

We are back to Cold War logic. The US won't risk direct conflict with a beligerent nuclear power.

Quote Reply

Barca 8/14/2008 4:14:19 PM

What would be the likely Russian military/diplomatic reaction if we sent in a few fighter sweeps over Georgia to clear the sky of Su-25s and Su-27s terrorizing Georgian civilians?

1) Russian attack on US naval assets in the Black Sea.

I think that would result in the elimination of the Russian Black Fleet. So unlikely.

Stepped up ethnic cleansing by troops on the ground to secure long term advantage.

No doubter. I suspect as much of that as possible is happening now.

Russian use of short range ICBMs in terror attacks on US assets in Iraq (Green Zone makes a big target).

Don't think so, that would trigger world war.

Russia possibly making threats to widen the war to other former Soviet satellites.

That may happen now. The only reason for Russians to consider ceasefire is because they are weighing how many former satellites are about to take action and how well can they withstand it.

As if that wasn't already happening. The Russians must of weighed whether the US will start actively arming Chenchens and other seperatist groups or if they will just stop giving Putin intel on them.

Putin must have made a number of calculations because I can see that this will cost him in a number of ways. Does Russia really want to 'reunite' North Ossentia and South Ossentia into a new separate republic? Surely there will be a big push for it now that everyone has heard their names.

Quote Reply

norden WW3 8/14/2008 6:25:47 PM

USAF against Russia well.. if thats not a declaration of war then i dunno what is. I think we missed an oppurtunity with Russian post 9-11 when Bush would not recognize Chechnya conflict as war on terrorism. I have no great love for Russia or hate, but i think the UN decision would have been different in regards to Iraq if we made some guarantees in regards to their debt with Saddam. I mean why not we are gonna bill the Iraqi government for every bullet expended. The more we alienate Russia the more they buddy up to Iran and like minded. Even though russia is a mafia-ocracy i do think they are changing towards a democracy even though its ugly slow and painful. maybe im stupid but i think there is a little hope there

Quote Reply

doggtag 8/15/2008 12:48:18 PM

We are back to Cold War logic. The US won't risk direct conflict with a beligerent nuclear power.

You might be surprised at how many people would actually prefer that over the current War on Terror condition we're in.

Russia and its puppet states had, for the most part, clearly defined borders.

We were much more certain of their tactics and weapons capabilities (the thought of IEDs anywhere was non-existant).

We had clearly-defined threats we had to counter, so getting money for new high-tech destroyers, new high-tech jets, new high-tech AFVs, and any other new high-tech weapon was never really a serious problem.

Now with all these anti-terror ops being our primary concern, too many naysayers have raised enough question as to why we need such high tech to defeat such low tech, to the point we are seeing now, and will continue to see, major cuts in the budgets that were going trro bring us all this high-tech stuff.

Russia resurfacing as our primary threat would surely satisfy the defense contractors royally, and we'd be needing as many F-22s, F-35s, even Super Hornets to counter their growing air menace,

new destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and while we're at it, new submarines to counter the threat of a growing blue water Russian Navy.

We'd need a new generation of SAMs beyond Patriot and THAAD, if anything to counter the concerns trhat would be rising about any speculated Russian stealth aircraft under development (the MiG-29, Su-27, and MiG-31 took us by surprise when they were first revealed, especially when we learned of their latest AAMs, radars, and optical/FLIR/laser tracing fire control systems).

We'd need money for heavy armor, not rapid deployment lightweight AFVs, to counter growing concerns of some future Russian heavy tank.

We might even actually then see renewed interest in the US in capable tube artillery that could more readily outrange any Russian gear.

Ditto on additional funding into some kind of follow-on to theMLRS.

This spike in oil prices this past year gave us the one thing we didn't need: a renewed strength in the Russian bear (financial power to upgrade its stagnating military).

But like I said above, though: there are probably people who'd rather have it that way anyway, as just such a threat with such a large financial resource could prove more profitable for defense contractors than the current War on Terror, who would now see themselves as needing to develop and market new stuff to the US Govt to counter the new Russian stuff.

And with the US Govt instead focusing on countering a rising Russian threat the world over,

it might mean we'd be stretched too thin to keep meddling in the affairs of the Middle East so intently...

There was a campaign adage some decades ago by a businessman whose product said, "I don't care who wins. My business is buttons." (buttons with campaign slogans)

Seems the same ideal is alive and well today in the defense industry: "We don't care who's fighting, as long as we can still sell our products to somebody who's willing to buy."

Not suggesting any conspiracy, but...

Who exactly stood to benefit most by such profitable spikes in oil prices, and who, if anybody, would've had the power and influence to manipulate the market into doing so?

(and no, I'm not necessarily suggesting the Russians, either.)

I think you're right about one think, Nanheyangrouchuan : some of these MNCs are not to be trusted.

Quote Reply

afrc 8/15/2008 7:26:17 PM

What would be the likely Russian military/diplomatic reaction if we sent in a few fighter sweeps over Georgia to clear the sky of Su-25s and Su-27s terrorizing Georgian civilians?

Hmm, I see only one way it can happen... if UN approves no-fly zone and task USAF with enforcing it. This proximity of two unfriendly forces can cause some incidents, not unlike that accidental ram of US spy plane by Chinese pilot. There was some saber rattling after, but eventually it died down after both countries milked it dry. I assume that US and Russia will not go to war over incidents. One side will claim that their plane got lost or confused, another side will speak angry words... but I doubt that it will go any further.

Quote Reply

doggtag 8/15/2008 8:10:18 PM

What would be the likely Russian
military/diplomatic reaction if we sent in a few fighter sweeps over
Georgia to clear the sky of Su-25s and Su-27s terrorizing Georgian
civilians?

Here's a suggestion: if it's going to be done under a UN -imposed NFZ mandate,
let France and the rest of western Europe play CAP with the Russians.

After all, they want to prove how capable and superior their Rafales and Eurofighters are in the air-to-air regime,

this'll be the perfect opportunity.

Maybe, just for once, the US needs to just sit this war out...

Quote Reply

Jimme How bout this one 8/17/2008 1:02:59 AM

What if we sent in some Russian built fighters with superior American pilots to down the Russian air threat over Georgia. What the hell could Russia do then if the fighters where un-traceable back to the US.

Quote Reply

swhitebull Celebrim!!!! 8/17/2008 2:59:30 PM

What would be the likely Russian military/diplomatic reaction if we sent in a few fighter sweeps over Georgia to clear the sky of Su-25s and Su-27s terrorizing Georgian civilians?

We are back to Cold War logic. The US won't risk direct conflict with a beligerent nuclear power.

Welcome BACK!!!!

swhitebull

Quote Reply

warpig 8/19/2008 12:12:37 AM

I agree with Celebrim, USAF defensive counter air aircover over Georgia would be go-time for the Russians. Doggtag, the MiG-29, Su-27, and MiG-31 were not surprises to us. We saw all three of them coming years in advance; I'm sure a check of back issues would show AW&ST was full of stories on them before they entered service.

Quote Reply

Shirrush 8/19/2008 3:38:33 AM

What would be the likely Russian military/diplomatic reaction if we sent in a few fighter sweeps over Georgia to clear the sky of Su-25s and Su-27s terrorizing Georgian civilians?

We are back to Cold War logic. The US won't risk direct conflict with a beligerent nuclear power.

Welcome BACK!!!!

swhitebull

Yeah! And it's about time too!

Quote Reply

1 2