Military Review

Shoigu: Russia significantly reduced its Armed Forces in Syria

39
The Russian Ministry of Defense has completed the withdrawal of the main group of Russian troops from Syria, said the head of the Russian military department, Sergei Shoigu, during an expanded meeting of the board of the Russian Defense Ministry.


Shoigu: Russia significantly reduced its Armed Forces in Syria


According to the Minister of Defense, the strength of the Russian military in Syria has been reduced and brought to the established state, which is enough to complete the tasks. The composition is typical, and the number is the same as at other Russian military bases located abroad. All equipment that is not part of the Russian bases in Hamim and Tartus has been returned to Russia. The same goes for weapons.

In addition, Shoigu added, Russian flights were reduced to a minimum aviation. Instead of hundreds of sorties per day, 3-4 per week are committed, mainly for aerial reconnaissance.

In addition to military personnel serving on Russian bases, military advisers remained in Syria, special operations forces, employees of the Warring Conciliation Center and military police who perform assigned tasks in de-escalation zones and other places on the territory of the SAR, the minister added.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
39 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Samara_63
    Samara_63 18 December 2018 15: 03
    -2
    Now the Ukrainian direction is more important ... It is necessary to Strengthen the Marine Corps, to transform the divisions from brigades, because they will soon be in demand ...
    1. Russia
      Russia 18 December 2018 15: 05
      +1
      We assume that we are not stuck in Syria.
      1. kasatky
        kasatky 18 December 2018 15: 17
        +11
        It’s just that Shoigu released the service home for the New Year. What would be with family, with children, with a Christmas tree :)
      2. askort154
        askort154 18 December 2018 15: 24
        +9
        Rusland .....We assume that we are not stuck in Syria.

        Yes, to drive the "remnants" in the desert - the Syrians were trained. Now they must "get stuck" in their bowels. We have already signed contracts for the development of oil and gas. yes
        1. Aleks2048
          Aleks2048 18 December 2018 16: 35
          +2
          Already signed an agreement on the development of oil and gas.

          And here you can read more?
          1. Nyrobsky
            Nyrobsky 18 December 2018 18: 31
            +8
            Quote: Alex2048
            Already signed an agreement on the development of oil and gas.

            And here you can read more?

            Well, the contract, so to speak, has not yet been concluded. This comrade "Alex2048" was a little in a hurry, although he is not far from the truth. Assad not so long ago made a statement in the sense that in the post-war reconstruction of the Syrian economy, priorities will be given to those countries that helped in the destruction of terrorists and, accordingly, contributed to the collapse of the countries of the US-led coalition. Russia will receive contracts for the restoration of the oil industry and for the further development of fields, and China for the restoration of destroyed infrastructure. I believe that Iran will also find work there. At the same time, Assad stressed that not a single country that was part of the coalition against Syria will work on its territory.
            1. Aleks2048
              Aleks2048 18 December 2018 20: 20
              +2
              Moreover, Assad linked the treaties with the complete liberation of Syria. And I really hope that in addition to the territories occupied by coalition forces led by the USA and the Turks with Kurds, he did not mean the Golan heights.
              To promise to marry and to marry things are different.
              1. Nyrobsky
                Nyrobsky 18 December 2018 21: 19
                +3
                Quote: Alex2048
                I really hope that in addition to the territories occupied by coalition forces led by the United States and Turks with Kurds he did not mean the Golan heights.
                Erdogan, of course, behaved "like a pig" when, after joint family gatherings with the Asads couple over a cup of tea (they were friends with families), he strongly participated in overthrowing Assad and at the expense of the Syrian territory slightly expanding the possessions of Turkey, which soon broke off having received on its border a real prospect of the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, which, when it was drawn into the Syrian adventure, the stars and stripes "friends" forgot to warn. When Edik realized that not only would he not acquire the Syrian land, but it is quite likely that he would lose a piece of Turkish land (where 17 million Kurds live compactly), he decided to play back and take part in the Kurdish issue, contrary to the interests of the United States, which is beneficial Damascus, which, in turn, does not pour out angry notes about the Turkish invasion of Syrian soil. In Damascus, the saying about "Mountain and Magomed" was paraphrased in a new interpretation - "If the Kurds do not go to Assad, then Erdogan will add them to him," and then they will agree among themselves ... As for the Golan Heights, this problem is pre-war and should be settled it will be in the same mode as before. Maybe Syria will have a new subject for bargaining with the Jews, namely Accommodation on its territory Iranian bases ....... or opportunity their appearance ..... or absence Iranian bases. Shorter options may be. hi
        2. Gardamir
          Gardamir 18 December 2018 17: 27
          +2
          Already signed an agreement on the development of oil and gas.
          Glory to Sechin and Miller!
    2. the most important
      the most important 18 December 2018 15: 12
      -10
      Quote: Samara_63
      Now the Ukrainian direction is more important.

      Do you think. that without completing the matter you need to leave? But it seems to me that this is stupidity. Of course, the Syrians themselves must defend their country, but support will not be superfluous. I would also have transferred two tank brigades there to place one south of Damascus to prevent Netanyahu from stupid thoughts, and the second sent north of Aleppo to reason with the Turkish Sultan. They should not fight the barmaley, but they could remind the "partners" who is in charge in Syria.
      1. Samara_63
        Samara_63 18 December 2018 15: 15
        +4
        Shcha tanks in Syria do not need to be kept at all, the IDF plans to abandon them altogether over time, dear thing with ATGM
        Ukraine is more important for us, but to keep serious forces in Syria is not worth it ...
        1. K-612-O
          K-612-O 18 December 2018 15: 21
          0
          Therefore, they developed a new tank.
        2. the most important
          the most important 18 December 2018 15: 21
          +2
          Quote: Samara_63
          Shcha’s tanks in Syria shouldn’t be kept at all, the IDF plans to abandon them altogether over time,

          Is the IDF aware of such transformations? And why then all the tanks equipped KAZ there? To scrap more?
          1. Samara_63
            Samara_63 18 December 2018 15: 28
            0
            Well, the IDF SPIKE will destroy any tank, it hits from above ... As far as I know, they have suspended all new developments on tanks ...
      2. Aleks2048
        Aleks2048 18 December 2018 16: 33
        -5
        And in the government of the Russian Federation they like not to finish quitting everything, and then wonder who has problems. Now it is no longer possible to let the situation in Syria drift, but in the Kremlin everything is at a glance.
      3. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 21 December 2018 12: 38
        +1
        Quote: the most important
        I would also have sent two tank brigades there to place one south of Damascus to prevent Netanyahu from stupid thoughts, and the second I would send north of Aleppo to reason with the Turkish sultan.

        Those. Do you want Russia, besides the unfinished work in Syria, to embark on a war with Israel and Turkey? It’s just that if the Turkish Sultan and Israel decide to hit, then the tank brigade to stop them will not be trite.
      4. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 22 December 2018 04: 53
        +1
        Quote: the most important
        Do you think. that without completing the case you need to leave? But it seems to me that this is nonsense. Of course, the Syrians themselves must defend their country, but support will not be superfluous.
        In no case ! Although the Syrian government troops have greatly restored, with our help, their combat capability in recent years, leaving them alone even in the face of the Kurds, not to mention the "Ishilov" scumbags, is fraught with ...
    3. K-612-O
      K-612-O 18 December 2018 15: 20
      +1
      The point is small, than to carry out airborne operations then? Marine amphibious operation is a dozen BDK + cover.
      1. Samara_63
        Samara_63 18 December 2018 15: 31
        0
        Well, while the BDK, although old, is, the Marine Corps is universal, and you can use it on the land ...
  2. shura7782
    shura7782 18 December 2018 15: 23
    +2
    Reducing the New Year's Eve is becoming a good tradition and a great gift for families. It is likely that normal rotation occurs. Let's see how things go this time ..
  3. Hypersound
    Hypersound 18 December 2018 15: 25
    +1
    And when will everything in Syria finally end? It has been more than a year since the operation was completed, but there is still no final peace
    1. Tusv
      Tusv 18 December 2018 15: 53
      +5
      And when will everything in Syria finally end? It has been more than a year since the operation was completed, but there is still no final peace

      The civil war ended in 1922, they fought with basmachism until 1938, the Second World War ended in 1945, the forest brothers were cleaned until 1957. The United States defeated Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of the century. Howl still.
      Not all at once. The hardest thing to teach a peaceful life hi
      1. Hypersound
        Hypersound 18 December 2018 16: 24
        +1
        Then do not announce the end of the operation. That's when you finish completely, and not 90%, then announce
        1. parma
          parma 19 December 2018 07: 09
          +1
          Quote: Hypersound
          And when will everything in Syria finally end? It has been more than a year since the operation was completed, but there is still no final peace

          And after NG, they will again introduce additional forces, as a couple of years ago they "finished" the operation .... The war will be there for years, and so will we, because at least Syria will not have money for planes for another 10 years, which means air support must be rendered to someone ...
          1. Hypersound
            Hypersound 19 December 2018 15: 00
            -1
            Well, so I say, if nothing has ended yet, why announce the end
            1. parma
              parma 19 December 2018 23: 06
              0
              For a zomboy ... Why do they roll the "armature" across the red square? And why has the PAK FA already given an index? And why are they talking about 70% of modern equipment in the troops, if 90% of this equipment after modernization?
              1. Hypersound
                Hypersound 19 December 2018 23: 19
                -3
                Well, the first copies of the Su-57 will go to the troops next year. Modern technology is not 70%, but 62.5. The next one will be 67, and only at the end of 2020 - 70. By the way, these plans are being fulfilled. 90% after upgrading? This is not true. Also, check out what the term "modern weaponry" means. In short, this weapon is at least as good as the best foreign counterparts (or superior to it). That is, 62.5% of the armaments of our Armed Forces are at least not inferior to the best foreign classmates. And some of these 62.5 are even superior. And only 37.5% is inferior to the best foreign samples. Which, by the way, doesn't automatically make them bad. For example, if any of our complexes from the list of 30 analogs are not on the 1st, but on the 2nd place in the world, does this make it a gamno? Of course not. It's still a very good weapon. Well, at the end of 2027, 99% of our weapons will at least not be inferior to the best foreign counterparts, or surpass. At the latest, already somewhere in the early to mid-20s, we will become the No. 1 army in the world, both with and without nuclear weapons.
                1. parma
                  parma 20 December 2018 09: 36
                  -1
                  Egor, are you broadcasting to us from school or from the "Zvezda" TV channel? Do you seriously believe this?
                  Take, for example, the Air Force, our aircraft are at least inferior in avionics and explosive missiles, helicopters (mi-28, Ka-52) are inferior to the Apache in terms of anti-aircraft guns and radar (mi-35, even more so, about the mi-24 of which most of us are generally silent) …. ATGM "fire-forget" no, the Navy is a complete mess ...
                  We have "everything", or rather "here it will be," but just take a MiG-35, how many years have they been finishing it? I remember they tried to sell him to the Indians, so he did not pass in the competition in almost more than one parameter! 10 years have passed, and he is not ready ...
                  But what equipment is there ... Take at least the same warrior - on closer examination, this is the level of American equipment of the early 2000s (approximately the level of the Iraqi campaign of 2003, and even then not in full, both in terms of equipment, in terms of materials and solutions) ... NVG? if not the quantity in the troops, so look at the quality, not the highest on the equipment, that on the infantry .... And the camouflage "digital"? Of course, this is a personal opinion, but it masks worse (the experience of flightball in the Ural forest) than, say, Marpat, which, by the way, is already 15 years old ... In general, we are going the same way as the USA 15-20 years ago - the transition to "pixels", who do not even favor their own SSOs (in the USA, too, acupant was not used in SSOs, they dragged cartoons. We do not like "digital", they prefer "moss" or "atax" in the west) ..
                  In general, if you compare with the Russian army of the 2008 model, then yes, the progress is enormous, if compared with the US Army, then we are approximately approaching their state of 2003 ...
                  And if in 10 years we have not been able to catch up with NATO, then by the beginning and mid-2020s we will not be able to get around exactly (beginning in a year, middle in 6 years) ... At least the budget is not the same .... As a maximum, a lot of words and few adequate decisions ...
                  1. Hypersound
                    Hypersound 20 December 2018 12: 06
                    -2
                    Apparently military experts are fools, including even American ones. In 2017, the Russian Federation by GlobalFirePower lagged behind the United States by ~ 110 points, in this - already by ~ 50. In the following, if the trend continues, we will at least keep up with the United States, and maybe even bypass a tiny fraction. In 2021, we will bypass 100% and gain a foothold in 1 place. You apparently still live in the old reality and poking at the shortcomings of our Armed Forces (which, of course, exist), you do not notice the enormous degradation of the US Armed Forces. For example, 80% of US military aircraft were produced in 70-80gg. The United States reached its peak of might by the beginning of the 90s, but then continuous continuous degradation, which continues to this day. Yes, in terms of army size they are larger than us and will be for a long time, but in terms of quality, on average, we are already better and the gap is only growing in our favor. This does not mean that in some specific areas we cannot lose - certainly, in some ways they are still better. This is especially true of the Navy, and inside the Navy - primarily surface ships. But AVERAGE, in terms of the quality of weapons in all types of troops, we are already better. And we continue to come off. True, after reaching the 1st place in 2019-2020, after only 2-3 years, China will bypass us, if we count only conventional weapons. They progress even faster. But taking into account the nuclear, we will be the first in 2019 for a long time. In conventional armaments, the United States in the 20s will not only not be the first, but not even the second. Only an honorable 3rd place. And even if they right now somewhere find a trillion a year and start frantically updating their aircraft, they will be able to return to line 1 only in the 30s. But this is practically impossible, they and the current 700 lard per year there is no way to support for many years, and a trillion more so from nowhere to take
                  2. Hypersound
                    Hypersound 20 December 2018 12: 08
                    -2
                    Quote: parma
                    if compared with the US Army, then we are approximately getting closer to their state of 2003 ...

                    Lol, in 2003 the US Army was stronger (and much more) in relation to the world than the US Army in 2018
                  3. Hypersound
                    Hypersound 20 December 2018 12: 14
                    -2
                    Quote: parma
                    And if in 10 years we have not been able to catch up with NATO, then by the beginning and mid-2020s we will not be able to get around exactly (beginning in a year, middle in 6 years) ... At least the budget is not the same

                    I see you are not at all in the subject. Americans spend on the same thing at times, and sometimes tens of times more. The development of the Su-57 - according to various sources, from $ 1 to $ 2 billion. The development of the F-35 - 65 billion dollars. Comparing the artificial (long to write down why) budget head-on-head is incorrect. If you really count, then directly to rearm our budget more
                    1. parma
                      parma 20 December 2018 13: 32
                      -1
                      Quote: Hypersound
                      Apparently military experts are fools, including even American ones. In 2017, the Russian Federation by GlobalFirePower lagged behind the United States by ~ 110 points, in this - already by ~ 50. In the following, if the trend continues, we will at least keep up with the United States, and maybe even bypass a tiny fraction. In 2021, we will bypass 100% and gain a foothold in 1 place. You apparently still live in the old reality and poking at the shortcomings of our Armed Forces (which, of course, exist), you do not notice the enormous degradation of the US Armed Forces. For example, 80% of US military aircraft were produced in 70-80gg. The United States reached its peak of might by the beginning of the 90s, but then continuous continuous degradation, which continues to this day. Yes, in terms of army size they are larger than us and will be for a long time, but in terms of quality, on average, we are already better and the gap is only growing in our favor. This does not mean that in some specific areas we cannot lose - certainly, in some ways they are still better. This is especially true of the Navy, and inside the Navy - primarily surface ships. But AVERAGE, in terms of the quality of weapons in all types of troops, we are already better. And we continue to come off. True, after reaching the 1st place in 2019-2020, after only 2-3 years, China will bypass us, if we count only conventional weapons. They progress even faster. But taking into account the nuclear, we will be the first in 2019 for a long time. In conventional armaments, the United States in the 20s will not only not be the first, but not even the second. Only an honorable 3rd place. And even if they right now somewhere find a trillion a year and start frantically updating their aircraft, they will be able to return to line 1 only in the 30s. But this is practically impossible, they and the current 700 lard per year there is no way to support for many years, and a trillion more so from nowhere to take

                      while other "experts" called the army of Ukraine (may God forgive me for repeating this nonsense) the strongest in Europe! So what? By the way, this is an American rating, which means "give money" is also present in it ... And yes, financially, the arms race with our country, the United States will withstand longer than we ...
                      At the same time, I do not argue with you, the vast majority of USAF airplanes are indeed built in the 90s (exactly 90!), Only the quality of modernization of these airplanes brings them to the level with our new airplanes (I generally am silent about all kinds of Su-27SM or MiG-29SMT. ..and we are full of older stuff) .. But by the age of the 5th generation aircraft and strategists we are in the back seat (we don’t have 5 generations, but they are younger than our strategists B-2) ... Regarding the Navy, we lagging behind in the amphibious assault forces (and with cargo in principle), and in the submarines too, I am silent on warships .... The fact that we will bypass someone there is plans ... And if you look at the plans of the USA for F-35 You will understand that by 2025 the situation will be the same as in the early 2000s ....
                      Quote: Hypersound
                      Lol, in 2003 the US Army was stronger (and much more) in relation to the world than the US Army in 2018

                      judging by the "lol" and other jargon in speech (by the way, I looked at your comments during the existence of the account, almost 700 pieces in a month) you are broadcasting from school .... About the fact that the gap is narrowing in some industries ... In others it is growing .. As an example, UAVs are growing at an alarming rate, explosives are also growing on radars and missiles, on anti-tank systems it is growing, on the Navy, naval aviation, AWACs, helicopters ... and on individual equipment, soldiers are decreasing (although here it is more likely due to the fact that NATO countries have already reached the ceiling without normal exoskeletons) ...
                      Quote: Hypersound
                      I see you are not at all in the subject. Americans spend on the same thing at times, and sometimes tens of times more. The development of the Su-57 - according to various sources, from $ 1 to $ 2 billion. The development of the F-35 - 65 billion dollars. Comparing the artificial (long to write down why) budget head-on-head is incorrect. If you really count, then directly to rearm our budget more

                      And I see you are very naive .... For some reason, you don't add "subsidies" from the state to the price of the product (software, etc.) ... Look, for example, at UVZ, at Kurgansev, Petrosyan's office, oh Pagosyan and other factories The military-industrial complex - they all receive subsidies from the state and at the same time this money does not go into the military budget ...
                      1. parma
                        parma 21 December 2018 12: 06
                        0
                        And by the way, Yegor, if you were really at least a little informed about the level of equipment of the US army (well, and, accordingly, would know where we are lagging behind, where we are approaching and in what it even has leadership), you would notice my gross mistake (but by the way, made on purpose) that ACU (aka "occupier" in the common people) is a type of sewing uniforms for the US Army adopted in 2004 .... And the pixel itself (which is not very successful, although it bypassed the cartoon at the competition of the Ministry of Defense) is UCP .. But You are a connoisseur of only "expert opinions", you do not see your own .... And therefore you do not need knowledge ....
  4. Gardamir
    Gardamir 18 December 2018 17: 26
    +3
    Shaw, again?
    Three times everyone won! The troops were reduced five times! They are building a base, then they are cutting.
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 19 December 2018 00: 36
      +1
      Quote: Gardamir
      They are building a base, then they are cutting.

      Ugh, you, bad luck, trouble-woes ... wassat
      According to the Minister of Defense, the number of Russian troops in Syria has been reduced and brought to the established staff, which is enough to complete the tasks. The composition is typical, and the strength is the same as at other Russian military bases located abroad. Returned to Russia all equipment that is not part of the Russian bases in Hmeimim and Tartus.
      If, so, it is not clear, then ... and it is not necessary. laughing
  5. high
    high 18 December 2018 18: 35
    -1
    According to General Ivashov, Russia sent troops to Syria to prevent Qatar from laying a gas pipeline through Syria to Europe.
    However, in the second half of 2018, Israel launched the frozen EastMed gas pipeline project to Europe: Israel-Cyprus-Crete-Greece-Italy (the Israel-Egypt gas pipeline, Israel-Jordan will start operating in 2019).
    Israel’s supply to Europe of 40% of the world's natural gas is an alternative to gas supplies to Europe by Gazprom and the United States.
    The question arose: do you need the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline and did Russia need to send troops into Syria, lose 14 aircraft and dozens of soldiers?
    Alas, Russia has nothing to do in Syria, the maintenance of troops thousands of kilometers from Russia is very expensive, the standard of living in Russia has already dropped to 101 place in 2017 from 60 place in 2000.
    By the way, Shoigu needs to think about whether it is necessary to keep the largest army in the world, numbering 3 586 128 people?
    For comparison:
    - In billionth China, the army is 2
    - In the USA, where the population is 2 times larger than Russia, the army is 2 083 100 people
  6. Henderson
    Henderson 18 December 2018 18: 42
    +2
    How many times have troops withdrawn?
  7. Nychego
    Nychego 19 December 2018 05: 13
    0
    If we consider the withdrawal of forces as a very preliminary preparation for a possible BV, then it is completely justified - the Syrian group is “doomed if something happens”, because the theater of operations is remote, communications are easily cut, the balance of forces, to put it mildly, is not in our favor.
    If considered as a conclusion due to the "solution of combat missions", then this is most likely evidence that no progress in the redistribution of control over territories is expected in the near future: completely dissatisfied sit in Idlib, Turks in Afrin, Kurds in the northeast ...
    There will be no real restoration of peaceful life in the coming years. On the contrary, we have been waiting since the beginning of the first Shiite-Israeli war.
  8. meGrail
    meGrail 19 December 2018 09: 28
    0
    It is strange that he did not declare another victory in Syria