Georgia on my Mind

[Prince of Eckmühl]

The question was about 10 milllions you've mentioned. Do you have proofs for this figure? No, you don't. And I can easily give you another figure - 27 mln of my people killed by the Nazies you are so fond of. There is no family in our country which didn't suffered in the war. So I will not give a s**t about such "researches".

s**t?

Have you ever paused for a moment and contemplated the fact that your little commie heroes killed more of your own people than the Germans did? For that matter, the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was at its core so evil and unbearable that the perps had to build a wall around the "liberated" to keep them from escaping to freedom. Or are you simply spouting Red-apologist propaganda out of fear that Putin's henchmen will put some Polonium 210 in your vodka?

[dima]

Hi Mom! Hehehe

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, this is starting to go down the road I feared it would. Let's try and keep an even keel, or it will be locked up.

It is a fact, and I mean a fact, that the Soviet Union slaughtered more people than the Nazi regime did. The difference is that the Soviets did it over a very long period of time, especially in the 1930s before Hitler invaded, and over a much larger geographical area. It also is directly responsible for all the misery, suffering, corruption, and murder in Eastern European countries. The few times they tried to shake off the Soviet oppression, their attempts at self determination were squashed with tanks and even more atrocities against the civilian population. These countries were not "liberated" in 1944, rather they moved directly from one brutal foreign dictatorship (Third Reich and lackeys) to another (Soviet Union and lackeys). True liberation did not come until the collapse of the Soviet ability to prevent it.

In my opinion, as a student of both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union (my university degree is History ) is that overall the Soviet Union was worse than the Third Reich in terms of body count, misery, oppression of thought, and lingering after effects. How much worse the Nazis would have been in comparison to the Soviet Union if it had lasted as long is absolutely unknown.

The problem is that Russia is still controlled by much of the same people and culture as the Soviet Union. There are similar problems in Eastern European countries, though change is happening much faster there. In fact, critics of Putin have been able to point to factual events which can be argued to be reversing Russia back towards a more repressive nation instead of a less repressive one. The fact that it is economically better off is irrelevant since China and the Middle East are clear examples of how repressive regimes can still be fairly profitable ones.

How does this impact the current conflict in Georgia? Well, the most obvious is the unreliability of the Russian media. It has been purposefully steered back to a state controlled propaganda tool, through many means including assassinations of journalists trying to speak the truth (two just within the last couple of weeks). It is difficult enough to get accurate facts out of a war zone even under the best of circumstances. However, when it is clear that the governments in control of the territory on the ground are deliberately distorting the truth for their own political purposes... it's even worse.

Remember, this is typical of war in general. The media here in the US made a lot of factually incorrect statements before and after the attack of Iraq in 2003. Many of those distortions and lies came directly from US government officials who, knowingly or unknowingly, were spreading false information in order to justify military action. The difference between a robust "free press" and a "state controlled press" is that the truth is never fully suppressed and eventually the mainstream media catches up and corrects their earlier mistakes. This is what has happened with the Iraq war, though it took quite a bit of time for this to happen.

And yes, there are people in the United States who do not believe the truth and instead react against it. I personally was called a "traitor" by a US Marine SGT in Iraq when, in 2004, I said there were no WMD in Iraq. He denied that and called me all sorts of names. He resorted to calling me a "traitor" when I backed up my statements with links to various White House speeches by President Bush. Never could figure out how quoting a man he said he admired and respected is treasonous, but I'll never forget that he did

Anyway, the problems with the media and politicians, especially when war is involved, is a problem for nations with several hundred years of freedom of expression and press. To expect the same standards from Russia, not even 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is unfair. These things take time to integrate into a culture, lots and lots of time. I'm happy to give Russia the time it needs to sort itself out, but I'm not going to bury my head in the sand about its current practices.

Steve

[alan15rus]

About the Georgia conflict, I'm actually quite sure S. Ossetia wasn't a real issue for either Russia, Saakash or U.S.. No offense to any Osset (Alan particularly), but the region simply doesn't hold any real value. A few mountains and sheep.

However I think Georgia was trying to pull of something here. Perhaps Saakashvilli is stupid, but come'on, not THAT stupid. He must have known there would be a response from Russia. He did know that his army didn't hold any single chance against Russia. Even had he defeated the 58th, I'm sure Russia would have brought up more soldiers. Its like a K1 fight of Harry Potter VS Sem Schildt (Multiple time K1 winner). If Harry Potter think he could have won anything militarily, I need some of that **** he smokes

Perhaps it was a test for Russia. I don't think he would believe USA would start WWIII about S. Ossetia (mountains & sheep).

However I wouldn't be surprised if Russia hold some of the strings behind this (If that would be the case, only FSB and sort alike would know), to make sure Georgia doens't join Navo and to set an example for the rest of the caucasus (Dont fok with us).

I also wouldn't be surprised if this was a sneaky way of USA to put advanced weaponry inside Georgia aimed against Russia. Something like; here is a billion $ for you on an offshore bank account. You will wage war against russia and be defeated, we supply your country with many $, which you use to buy weapons from us (which will let Carlyle and Haliburton cash in major, sounds familiar?), and we need to have a small (covert) military base somewhere so we can install a few *things* there. Perhaps a little "anti-missile shield" to protect us from "Iran missiles".

What really did happen though, is :confused:

It's ok about our land, you're 100% right - we don't have oil, gas or something else...

And I completely agree with you on other parts of your post.

By the way - to get into NATO a country must not have any problems inside of it(civil war for example )

[dima]

Guys, instead of spending your energy on arguing, why don't you instead spend it to make a mission(s) that recreates this conflict. CMSF has the equipment, terrain is reasonable and the events and maps are available on the internet.

Trust me, it would really be appreciated by CM community more than fighting here

[alan15rus]

Guys, instead of spending your energy on arguing, why don't you instead spend it to make a mission(s) that recreates this conflict. CMSF has the equipment, terrain is reasonable and the events and maps are available on the internet.

Trust me, it would really be appreciated by CM community more than fighting here

YES!! I've told you 2 times already - let's make scenario (and thank God CM "is not about politics" :D)

[panzermartin]

Guys, this is starting to go down the road I feared it would. Let's try and keep an even keel, or it will be locked up.

It is a fact, and I mean a fact, that the Soviet Union slaughtered more people than the Nazi regime did. The difference is that the Soviets did it over a very long period of time, especially in the 1930s before Hitler invaded, and over a much larger geographical area. It also is directly responsible for all the misery, suffering, corruption, and murder in Eastern European countries. The few times they tried to shake off the Soviet oppression, their attempts at self determination were squashed with tanks and even more atrocities against the civilian population. These countries were not "liberated" in 1944, rather they moved directly from one brutal foreign dictatorship (Third Reich and lackeys) to another (Soviet Union and lackeys). True liberation did not come until the collapse of the Soviet ability to prevent it.

In my opinion, as a student of both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union (my university degree is History ) is that overall the Soviet Union was worse than the Third Reich in terms of body count, misery, oppression of thought, and lingering after effects. How much worse the Nazis would have been in comparison to the Soviet Union if it had lasted as long is absolutely unknown.

Steve

Hmm, well Nazis turned one of the most cultural, scientificaly, and industrialy developed world nations into a dark age murdering force, that exercised a witch hunting of "Untermenschen", Jews, Gypsies, handicapped and mentally ill right in the middle of the 20th century. I didnt see that happening in Hungary or Chechoslovakia during the Soviet occupation though. Unfortunately everything the Nazis did was in such an impressively calculated and sickly imaginative way that they stand miles away from any competitor. Nazis killed their own people en mass too, and the fact alone that they ignited WW2 is enough to hand them the first prize in body counts category as well.

[The_Red_Rage]

Scenario, or better a campaign, does sound better than arguing here:) While Russian forces can be simulated well (expecially with T-90 and BMP-3 coming up) - what about Georgians? Or rather how to combine Red and Blue on one side to make believable Georgian army? For special foces US infantry of Green/Regular quality will do, however for regulars Red side units have to come in. Equipment wise, T-72 TURMS can act as T-72 SIM, BMP 1/2 are both viable, Hummers are a must, and i'm fairly sure Georgians used T-55s as well.

[dima]

Scenario, or better a campaign, does sound better than arguing here:) While Russian forces can be simulated well (expecially with T-90 and BMP-3 coming up) - what about Georgians? Or rather how to combine Red and Blue on one side to make believable Georgian army? For special foces US infantry of Green/Regular quality will do, however for regulars Red side units have to come in. Equipment wise, T-72 TURMS can act as T-72 SIM, BMP 1/2 are both viable, Hummers are a must, and i'm fairly sure Georgians used T-55s as well.

Yep, all the tools are there. Also russians used T-72BM which is really a T-90.

And a lot of georgians used AK rifles, instead of M4's.

[alan15rus]

Scenario, or better a campaign, does sound better than arguing here:) While Russian forces can be simulated well (expecially with T-90 and BMP-3 coming up) - what about Georgians? Or rather how to combine Red and Blue on one side to make believable Georgian army? For special foces US infantry of Green/Regular quality will do, however for regulars Red side units have to come in. Equipment wise, T-72 TURMS can act as T-72 SIM, BMP 1/2 are both viable, Hummers are a must, and i'm fairly sure Georgians used T-55s as well.

Oh God - I've forgot about Marines module coming out(T-90's and BMP-3's).

But why use US infantry for spec forces? Georgians don't have Javelins (though they were using M4's and M60's.(but only Spec's were using M's)) I think 70% of georgian forces should be made of Red mech. infantry units(BMP's and BTR's)(and of course T-72's). And you're right, it will be a problem to combine Red and Blue to create georgian Spec. Forces(maybe even create some mods?).

And those T-55's you're talking about(I think you've seen them in some videos haven't you?) - were probably S.Ossetians(I saw 2 in Java).

Plus georgian Spec. Forces should have "Fanatic" level of motivation, while some parts of Mech. Infantry "Poor"(reinforcements for example)...

but Humvees were few I guess.

[The_Red_Rage]

Using US for Georgian spec forces could work for several reasons: 1) Small arms used by Georgian special forces were of American, German and Israeli origin (predominantly M4s and m240 machine guns from what it looks like) 2) We can combine them with hummers 3) don't even have to reskin them since they used marpad (although marpad woodland would still be nice).

I really wish they added BTR-80, and I must admit it is mostly for aesthetic reasons. I just cannot muster enough imagination to pretend that the super crappy BTR-60 is BTR-80 (even though in gameplay terms we won't notice much difference since game engine doesn't simulate things like engine and tranny breakdowns on BTR-60 and with respect to combat characteristics the two are similar). Plus BTR-60 is just so repulsive to look at compared to the 80 version (just my personal opinion).

[alan15rus]

Using US for Georgian spec forces could work for several reasons: 1) Small arms used by Georgian special forces were of American, German and Israeli origin (predominantly M4s and m240 machine guns from what it looks like) 2) We can combine them with hummers 3) don't even have to reskin them since they used marpad (although marpad woodland would still be nice).

I really wish they added BTR-80, and I must admit it is mostly for aesthetic reasons. I just cannot muster enough imagination to pretend that the super crappy BTR-60 is BTR-80 (even though in gameplay terms we won't notice much difference since game engine doesn't simulate things like engine and tranny breakdowns on BTR-60 and with respect to combat characteristics the two are similar). Plus BTR-60 is just so repulsive to look at compared to the 80 version (just my personal opinion).

Oh yeah. My bad. I forgot that you have to acquire those Javelins. By the way I remember some people were saying "...georgians were dressed in black..."(they were talking about Spec's).

[Battlefront.com]

alan15rus,

It's ok about our land, you're 100% right - we don't have oil, gas or something else...

That something else is gas and oil pipelines to the Black Sea Here is an article I just found from 2006 that gives some background on some of the conflict between Russia and Georgia regarding energy.

Ali-Baba,

Hmm, well Nazis turned one of the most cultural, scientificaly, and industrialy developed world nations into a dark age murdering force, that exercised a witch hunting of "Untermenschen", Jews, Gypsies, handicapped and mentally ill right in the middle of the 20th century. I didnt see that happening in Hungary or Chechoslovakia during the Soviet occupation though. Unfortunately everything the Nazis did was in such an impressively calculated and sickly imaginative way that they stand miles away from any competitor. Nazis killed their own people en mass too, and the fact alone that they ignited WW2 is enough to hand them the first prize in body counts category as well.

The same can be said for the Soviet Union in many ways, except that it took a culturally rural area and created an industrial powerhouse (much the same way China has, with all the negatives). As for killing its own people, the Soviet Union is head and shoulders above the Nazis. Here is one of the best, most comprehensive studies I've ever found on the subject. I've seen many other sources that have come to similar conclusions. And that is the Soviet Union killed about 3 times as many people as the Nazis. Doing it over a longer period of time and with less sophisticated methods doesn't make those people any less dead. Roughly 10,000,000 Ukrainians are estimated to have died as a result of forced collectivization (forced labor, deliberate and accidental famine). The low end of the estimate is 2.5 million, the high end 20,000 so I'm using one of the more common approximations. Since the Soviets didn't keep tally as well as the Germans did the real number will never be know. Whatever is, though, it's huge.

As for starting WW2, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax The Soviet Union is not blameless either, since it was allied with Germany and invaded 4 countries and muscled territory out of a 5th before WW2 "officially" started. It was also interested in doing more before its plans were altered by the Third Reich's invasion.

This is not to say that other murderous regimes, such as the Nazis, the Mao Chinese, Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. are any better by comparison. They aren't. The point that is relevant to this thread is that the traditions of the people in charge of Russia today are rooted in the legacy of the Soviet Union. That legacy includes genocide and long term occupation of foreign countries. It is only natural that its neighbors, especially the victims of the Soviet Union, should be very nervous when they see Russia acting in ways that are similar to those of the past.

Steve

[alan15rus]

alan15rus,

That something else is gas and oil pipelines to the Black Sea Here is an article I just found from 2006 that gives some background on some of the conflict between Russia and Georgia regarding energy.

Steve

Those pipelines were transferring gas to Georgia by Russia(from Russia, not from S.Ossetia) - it means that if Russia wants it can cut them off.

[Bigduke6]

You do have to wonder at Gazprom's logic though. They build a gas pipeline across the Caucasus Mountains into South Ossetia, rather than simply pumping gas into the existing Georgian gas network so the gas could go, through existing pipelines, into South Ossetia. That's an awful lot of corporate funds spent on what would seem to be on excess gas transport capacity - and Gazprom's bosses keep telling us they're just a company interested in making a profit, and their actions have nothing to do with the Kremlin's political priorities.

Of course, if you have half a brain, you might just suspect Gazprom is lying, and in fact the point of the pipeline was to allow Russia to supply gas to South Ossetia directly, bypassing Georgia and thereby undermining Georgian sovereignty, and extending Russian sovereignty, over South Ossetia.

True, the Kremlin and Gazprom deny this. Maybe we can trust them.

[The_Red_Rage]

Gazprom is a Russian version of Halliburton, so no surprise in it being used for political purposes. Medvedev is Gazprom through and through (and it is a GOOD thing), so political connection is strong.

[Lethaface]

Steve, Alan is right (by my knowledge). While Georgia does hold the 'famous pipeline' between Black sea and Turkey, by my knowledge this doesn't go through S. Ossetia. This is neither mentioned in the article you posted.

However, I must admit that Georgia isn't too big and those pipelines arent far from S. Ossetia (they were supposedly bombed during the conflict). On the contrary Russia aint so far away either. That pipeline there is offcourse a big strategical asset to some, and without doubt holds part of the reasons for this conflict.

Funny thing is that, in first few days of the war, I read an article from the 90's about pipelines through Kazakhstan, Afghanistan (Georgia, Iran; the Black sea region) and the strategic values they hold to USA, China and Russia. All three aren't going to let the others take all the 'loot' easy. Afghanistan has seen action as well as Iraq. Both are important, one as a Oil source, the other as a host for an important pipeline route. Georgia holds another important pipeline. I wouldn't be surprised to see some more Proxy style wars in the region the coming 5 years orso.

Who knows China is dealing secretly backdoors with Saakash and has a little influence in this conflict, while they're organizing their own Olympics ? It did got all the bad media coverage away from China, thats for sure. Perhaps there could be other goals for China in this.

However I strongly doubt it, that would truly be an oth to the mastery of Deception, which has been well documented in ancient China

Apart from the obvious possible reason that Georgia needed to get rid of it's territorial problems to join NATO, what could other reasons be for such an assault by Georgia. No matter how hard I think it will allways include USA for some part at least. Georgia could have maintained the status quo and even let Abkazia and S. Ossetia be independent if they wanted to join NATO so badly.

[Bigduke6]

No, Gazprom is much bigger than Halliburton, it is one of the largest corporations in the world and responsible for something like 3 per cent of Russia's entire GDP. A better analogy would be Aramoco.

Since it is a "good thing" Medvedev, the (ahem) fairly-elected leader of Russia is a Gazprom man, I suppose all that Gazprom profit will improve the lot of the Russian middle class, build better schools, finally give Russia decent roads, maybe do something about all the corrupt bureaucrats.

Because it would be a real shame if a company making all that money from gas owned by the Russian people, who of course own all Russian natural resources exploited by state-owned companies, spent its money not on things improving the lot of Russians, but things like extending Russian government influence into places like the Caucasus by building pipelines that, from an economic point of view, needn't have been built. Some one might get mad.

[The_Red_Rage]

I'm fairly sure there are extensive education/pension/and industry reform programs atm. Aveation industry for example was completely resurrected with large government orders in place. Defense sector, which employs huge amount of people in Russia, seems to be in revival stage as well. On a personal experience, going back to St.Petersburg in 2007, I barely recognized the place - decent roads (and St. Petersburg was notorious for its roads), restored building, not Vienna-clean but can't compare to what it was in 2002, smiling faces and generally a shocking contrast to end of '90s.

By "good" i meant that he is primarily is an economist, and an economist is always open to a dialogue. Looking at his background, reading some of his work and following his speeches, I came to the conclusion that he is the best thing that happened to the West since the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Bigduke6]

Ah yes...how often have we heard that song -

Andropov, likes classical music, he's probably a reformer, we can talk with him.

Yeltsin likes to dance rock and roll and play tennis, he's a nice guy, we can talk with him.

Putin speaks German and since he was in the KGB he's well-informed, he's very Westernized and we can talk with him.

Medvedev isn't a member of the KGB, and he's an economist, so we can talk with him.

Stalin made some great speeches too, but he wasn't exactly a gift to the West. And FDR was just convinced he could talk with Stalin.

I suspect Medvedev will be more of the same, and that hoping for a more reasonable, Euro-standard Russian foreign policy, based on useful negotiations with the guy in charge in the Kremlin, is a fool's hope.

[Battlefront.com]

My understanding is that the intent of Russia's economic interest in South Ossetia is to bypass Georgia completely and use Abkhazia as its prime transshipment point into the Black Sea area and to have Georgia knocked out of the picture entirely. So as BigDuke6 speculates, it isn't difficult to see why Russia would want to use South Ossetia as a means of further destabilizing Georgia and, at the same time, ensure that it is a viable border province to protect its most important resources.

But whatever the details, it is very clear that Russia wants nothing less than Georgia's destruction as a nation state. It appears that most of the reasons are based on oil and gas, but also because it doesn't want more NATO presence in its rear. Especially astride its most powerful asset. An asset that they have repeatedly used as a weapon against its neighbors (Ukraine, Europe, and Georgia itself have all felt this already).

Unfortunately, when you boil down almost all politics and military maneuvers these days they almost always come back to oil/gas. If not entirely than at least primarily. The West is interested in Georgia for the same reasons Russia is. Therefore, Russia and the West are interested in S. Ossetia for the same reasons too. It is said, by many energy and defense policy experts, that if the US didn't need oil it wouldn't care what happened in the Middle East, Venezuela, and other oil rich areas. I think it is fair to say that this saying also applies to Georgia and S. Ossetia as well.

Steve

[TempV]

2 Prince of Eckmühl

Or are you simply spouting Red-apologist propaganda out of fear that Putin's henchmen will put some Polonium 210 in your vodka?

I live in free country and I'm not afraid to live there. And if you consider all the Russians drinking vodka everyday you are idiot who judge the people by sterotypes.

P.S. And I don't drink vodka.

2 Battlefront.com

These countries were not "liberated" in 1944, rather they moved directly from one brutal foreign dictatorship (Third Reich and lackeys) to another (Soviet Union and lackeys). True liberation did not come until the collapse of the Soviet ability to prevent it.

Oh, USSR should stop at its borders in 1944 and leave so-called "Allies" to liberate entire Europe against all Third Reich power. Should I remind how your leaders pledged Stalin to begin winter offensive much earlier than planned while your divisions had been beaten in Ardennes?

Speaking about democracy and freedom. It's very strange but native people of Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, etc were so determined against "democratization". They are barbarians of course. Oh, and their land has an oil?! They are evil indeed!

I see, only western states may have "zones of influense". When Russia declares Caucasus its zone of interest it automatically becomes Evil Empire with leaders being worse than Sauron himself.

I don't know English well, so I can't write big answers with many links and honestly, I don't want to. I've registered here to find partners for PBEM games.

As one of our ministers have said recently, "The West is not whole world"

[Sven Dufva]

Oh, USSR should stop at its borders in 1944 and leave so-called "Allies" to liberate entire Europe against all Third Reich power.

Surprisingly, they DID stop and let the SS chew up the nationalist uprising in Warsaw 1944.

[TempV]

This is called "catch to the words and not see entire thought". And don't forget kiss the Allies' ass for staying in England during 4 years. I guess 600 thousands Soviet soldiers who gave their life in Poland mean nothing to you (BTW, this is more than all the casualties of US). Oh, those were "invaders", not "liberators", you say. I'd say "Blue propaganda" washes brains as perfectly as "Red".

[alan15rus]

"Politic Mission: Word Force" :D:D