Georgia on my Mind

[Lethaface]

TempV,

I think you are missing the point completely. I think you might know of 'The Enemy of my Enemy is my Ally. That was certainly the case during WWII. I dare you to say that Stalins regime was good for its people. If you do, please read the book "The Goelag Archipel" by your national hero, the nobel price winner Solzhenitsyn. The world, West Europe especially, has to be thankfull to the Sovjets during the WWII. It is true that Russia has fought of the bulk of the Germans. Without Russia there is a good chance I would be typing this message in German

However, the fact that the Sovjets defeated the Nazi's doesn't make Stalin a better men, or it's Regime a better regime. Stalins regime was very repressive at its own people and had thoroughly corrupted higher staff. Hell, even Chroetjov agreed Stalin wasn't the greatest leader. To conclude, I think the East European countries were happy being freed from the Nazi's, but weren't so happy that this 'freedom' turned into a new occupation by the Sovjets. Which seems completely logical to me.

And regarding Poland, may I remind you of the so called Ribbentrop pact?

Anyways, I dont have anything against Russia. I see Russia on a similar place as USA. I dont trust Bush as much as I dont trust Putin.

However, I think you should not feel harmed in your national belief. Everybody makes mistakes, nobody is perfect. Russia has been in good and bad times, like any other country. Fact remains that the Soviet regime, especially during Stalin, has been one of the most repressive regimes world wide. Its subjugation of East Europe has been bloody.

I don't 'allow' USA to have influence spheres in the middle east, they create them. I did oppose the Iraq war. Russia has its own spheres as well and of course likes to enlarge them. But Russia aint no angel either, whether you like to admit it or not. Propaganda is used by all sides.

So, how you feel about a little PBEM with me as RED and you BLUE?

[TempV]

2 Lethaface

Thank you for your well-thought answer. Honestly, you haven't discover America for me concerning Stalin's regime, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, etc. I know it well and I didn't defend repressive regime in my posts. I just don't like when some people misinterpret the role of Red Army and Soviet Union during WW2.

As for modern politics:

I don't 'allow' USA to have influence spheres in the middle east, they create them. I did oppose the Iraq war. Russia has its own spheres as well and of course likes to enlarge them. But Russia aint no angel either, whether you like to admit it or not. Propaganda is used by all sides.

You are right absolutely.

So, how you feel about a little PBEM with me as RED and you BLUE?

OK, you can send me PM and we'll arrange the things.

[The_Red_Rage]

Lavrov is a badass! Talk about "keepin' it real"!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2667840/David-Miliband-subjected-to-F-word-tirade-from-Russian-foreign-minister.html

With Miliband can't blame him though - wtf were the Brits [known for their careful approach to foreign policy] thinking when they put an arrogant boy as a Foreign Minister...

[Bigduke6]

Personally, I think destruction of Georgia, not energy per se, is the top Russian priority. The Kremlin simply does not want to accept a NATO-friendly country in the Caucasus, and it is quite willing to destroy the sovereignty and independance of one of the oldest nations on earth - the Georgians - in order to work towards that goal.

I quite agree that in most cases these conficts come down to who gets the energy and especially the oil, but as I see it Georgia and South Ossetia are exceptions. Russia of course can move its oil and gas wherever it pleases no matter what Georgia does.

As to Kazakh and Azeri oil, certainly a trans-Georgia pipeline might help an energy stream bypass Russia, but after all that's not the only lever the Russians have. They already have a nice friendly authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan willing to make no trouble for the Russians as long as the ruling class in Baku keeps making its billions. The Kazakhs have other outlets for their fuel besides through the Caucasus bottleneck, i.e., China and as I understand it even Iran. And with these export streams able to reach the international market by means other than through Georgia, Georgia becomes that same degree less a global energy player.

Of course, influence and the ability to create or remove political stability is a fine tool, and if Georgia is hostile to Russia then that can spell all sorts of trouble in places Russia doesn't need it, particularly Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan. Instability in those regions would have some - although far from decisive - influence on Russia's ability to move energy, and so I would say there is a moderate incentive for the Kremlin to undermine Georgia on those grounds.

But I think also the Russian agenda is much simpler. It is: Dominate the Caucasus, and reduce all nations (i.e. ethnicities) there to the status of lackeys working directly for the Kremlin. The Kadyrov regime in Chechnya is a classic example of what the Kremlin wants - a brutal and untouchable group of bully boys running the place with state violence on the level of North Korea, no rights whatsoever for the Chechens, and a tacit acceptance of murder and mayhem conducted by Russia's local hirlings, in exchange for outward loyalty towards and pliability by the Kremlin.

Russia already has for practical purposes done away with independant media and political opposition, and Russia's leaders are moving rapidly towards nullification of even the pretense of open elections. What Russia wants, as I see it, is to extend that political model to the smaller nations on its periphery, starting with the former Soviet republics.

Georgia and the Georgians stand in the path of that. We shouldn't make the Georgians out to be an incarnation of the Founding Fathers - the Georgians are not by tradition overly democratic, nor well-organized fighters, nor open and honest negotiators; and as we have seen the Georgians are quite capable of putting their faith in a goofy leaders. But for all their warts the Georgian ethnicity has existed as an identifiable nation for two to three times as long as the Russians, and Georgian national pride I would say exceeds Russian national pride by a large margin.

So at bottom I would say the conflict over South Ossetia was the result of a collision of those two ethnicities: The Georgians and their assumption that their nation should exist as an autonomous and independant entity in its ancient lands, and the Russians and their assumption that all small nations on Russia's borders must either be under the Kremlin's direct control, or destroyed.

Sure, the Russians again and again have said they respect Georgian territorial integrity. The Georgians certainly do not believe them, but hey, maybe Russia really is a free country and now they are telling the truth, and Russia and Georgia will live in peace and happiness from here on out.

\

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

[alan15rus]

Lavrov is a badass! Talk about "keepin' it real"!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2667840/David-Miliband-subjected-to-F-word-tirade-from-Russian-foreign-minister.html

With Miliband can't blame him though - wtf were the Brits [known for their careful approach to foreign policy] thinking when they put an arrogant boy as a Foreign Minister...

Yeahhh! 3rd world war not as far as you think:D

Soon we'll get that "roll call" from Dima aka "Medved"

[The_Red_Rage]

I think you also underestimate Russian national pride. Georgia might have been there longer as a "nation", but its impact on history can be equaled to that of Zimbabwe - so not much to be proud about. I didn't read about any Georgian soldiers blowing themselves up with grenades to avoid capture or calling fire missions on their own positions when overrun.

You also overestimate Georgian's knowledge of their own history. A nation with such a rich sense of history and tradition "eating" Saaskashvili's speeches in ENGLISH!

So much for being grateful...

[Bigduke6]

RR,

I think if you would talk to almost any Georgian, you would find most of them are sick of hearing their President speak English.

Maybe I am wrong about Russian national pride, it's just a personal judgement after all.

But from my experience there are essential differences between the two nationalities and how they see themselves. Speaking generally, and in my own personal opinion only, Russian national pride is agressive, assertive, and has a chip on its shoulder. It seeks to demonstrate Russia is just as good as anywhere else, to wit: "U nas ne khuzhe." Russian national pride does not accept equals, and only allows inferiors or the enemy, whom Russia must be prepared to defeat. When a prideful Russian meets a foreigner, the foreigner is first seen as a threat and, if he is not a threat, then an inferior.

Georgian national pride is the deep belief that of all the places in the world, the one most fortunate is Georgia. Georgian wine, Georgian food, Georgian hospitality, Georgian scenery, Georgian families - all of this is to the Georgian mind the best the planet has to offer. A Georgian would say "impact on history" is not the indicator of the greatness of a nation. A Georgian would say how well a nation allows its citizens to live, to have the good things in life, that is the index of the greatness of a nation. Any Georgian would say inventing wine or bringing Christianity to the Caucasus (for which the Georgians rightly or wrongly take credit) is a far greater contribution to human civilization than, for instance, the conquering of Ismail fortress or defeating the Swedes at the Battle of Poltava.

A prideful Georgian meeting a foreigner will, by Georgian tradition, do his utmost to convince the foreigner of the same thing, i.e., that Georgia is the finest country in the world, and that Georgian people are the friendliest. A foreigner by definition is in Georgia not a threat or an inferior, or even some one to be cheated or attacked (as is frequently the case in Russia) but a guest.

So it comes down to what one thinks is important. If one defines national greatness in terms of conquests, sure, Russia is a great country and Georgia is not. But most people including the Georgians use a wider definition of national vitality than that.

In any case, I personally find the present upswing of Russian national pride rather silly. All this patriotic breast-beating, these claims Russia is now a power to be reckoned with, these declarations that the mighty Russian army has returned - and this after the defeat of a country 20 times smaller than Russia.

The international community is already are voting with their pocketbooks, the Russian stock market is seeing the worst loss of capital since the crash of 1997, as any one with sense gets their money out of Russia. Whatever Georgia's motivations, it seems now to have placed itself on a fast track to NATO, and appears maybe even to be tugging Ukraine along with it. Those are not Russian foreign policy successes, and in this modern interconnected world, it seems to me like Russia is heading back into the last century, fast. It would seem to me that Russians looking for their country to go forward would hardly be proud of something like that.

But maybe President Medvedev and his good friend Putin have a plan to fix all that. They certainly say they want Russia to integrate with the rest of the world. Maybe they are telling the truth.

[Mikko H.]

Regarding the attitude of Russia's neighbours...

When a religious sect here in Finland wants to threaten people with God's wrath (as they are wont to do), the instrument of divine displeasure usually is a Russian invasion and the inevitably ensuing tribulations. Some preachers carry on their tours a map of "post-invasion Finland" showing the new borders where all but the southwestern third of Finland is coloured red. The gleeful message is that when the righteous are taken to Heaven, the sinners have to deal with the Russians in what remains of Finland.

Our Russian members might be interested to know, that there are people around here who quite literally think you're the Scource of God :-)

[Battlefront.com]

TempV,

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

As has already been pointed out, the liberation from Nazis was welcomed only in the sense that there were no longer Nazis to cause them problems. But very few were happy to have the Soviet Union take over. Just look at the extremely long and bloody insurgency in the Ukraine against the Red Army as it rolled over the German positions. They already knew what to expect from the Stalin and were willing to die to prevent it from happening to them again. Similar insurgencies were fought in all the countries the Red Army moved into, but of course they were eventually stomped out by military force.

Yugoslavia actually prevented the Red Army from entering, and yet Tito was receiving aid from the Soviet Union!! This really, really pissed off Stalin but there wasn't much he could do about it. Tito and his forces had already liberated their own country (the only example in the history of WW2) on their own and were a well organized military force. Stalin knew he had enough to handle with the rest of the territory under Red Army control and, I suspect, felt he could squeeze Yugoslavia into the Soviet sphere as with Bulgaria.

But then again we have different perspectives. I live in the US and there are millions of people living here who fled to this country from Soviet occupied Europe. In fact, I work with one every day of the week I also have friends who grew up in places that were dominated by the Soviet Union escaped to the West. If you live in Russia it is only natural that you do not have this same perspective since the number of people running to the Soviet Union to escape Western oppression over the last 50 years can probably be counted on a couple of hands while the numbers running from the Soviet Union's domination is in the tens of millions. More would have gone but were fearful of the consequences of being caught (murdered, families imprisoned, torture, economic ruin, etc.)

Or put another way... the Soviet's borders with the West looked both ways because they saw threats from the military forces on one side and the civilian populace trying to escape on the other. The West's borders were only pointed in one direction and they almost always accepted those from the East as refugees.

Also, look at what happened when the Soviet Union collapsed? Did the countries show their love and appreciation for Mother Russia by joining with it in a new form of the Warsaw Pact? Or did they ask the West what it was they needed to do so that they could be more like them? How many countries in the former Warsaw Pact and under direct domination of Russia have joined the EU and NATO? How many of them have joined CIS? If the "liberation" of their countries was such a great thing, then why were all these countries so "ungrateful"?

Anyway... it's a silly argument to say that the people of Eastern Europe were happy to be dominated by the Soviet Union. Arguing that there is no such thing as gravity or the world is really flat has a better chance of success

And again... why is this relevant? It isn't except as an explanation as to why Russia's neighbors aren't at all comfortable with Russia crushing a sovereign state.

Personally, I am hopeful that over time Russia will continue to improve its record as a responsible nation state. I think it has done a lot of good towards that already. Sure, it isn't perfect... but neither is the country I am living in. The important thing is the fundamentals and in that department Russia has a ways to go before it can compare to the US. With time I think it will, and hopefully not because the US has gone backwards

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6,

Oh, I do know it is a bit more than the oil issue. I think even if there wasn't any oil, Russia would still be interested in resting control of Georgia from the Georgians. My point is that the reason for this particular conflict has a lot more to do with oil than not. At least if there was no oil the US wouldn't care nearly as much, if at all. Instead it would have done the same thing it did when Chechnya was being invaded and ruthlessly occupied.

In any case, I personally find the present upswing of Russian national pride rather silly. All this patriotic breast-beating, these claims Russia is now a power to be reckoned with, these declarations that the mighty Russian army has returned - and this after the defeat of a country 20 times smaller than Russia.

It reminds me of the US invasion of Grenada and then Panama. The right wing of the US population swelled up with pride over crushing a tiny island 2 bit dictatorship and a 3 bit Central American drug lord (which we put into power and kept there knowing what he was doing). Ridiculous. It's like cheering when your friend, who is 6'4 and 250 pounds of solid muscle breaks the nose of a 110 pound computer geek who happened to look at him the wrong way.

On the other hand, I do think Russians should be proud of the fact that this time their government didn't totally f-up the operation and get a lot of Russian boys needlessly killed and cost the treasury gobs of hard earned tax money. I can appreciate that and in fact do personally. It was one of the first things I said to someone after the first day of fighting "wow, Russia learned how not to f-up an overwhelming attack against a tiny and inferior enemy force". This might sound like a slight on Russia, but it absolutely is not. I am quite happy for Russia, as a nation state, that it was able to handle the Georgian military the way it did. A Russia with no self confidence is, I think, a more dangerous Russia than one with pride in its capabilities. I am also at the same time sad for Georgia that they completely blew it! Since I have "no horse in the race" I can afford to have these feelings for both at the same time without any reservations. I do not wish either the Russians or Georgians ill will.

Steve

[The_Red_Rage]

BigDuke6,

Oh, I do know it is a bit more than the oil issue. I think even if there wasn't any oil, Russia would still be interested in resting control of Georgia from the Georgians. My point is that the reason for this particular conflict has a lot more to do with oil than not. At least if there was no oil the US wouldn't care nearly as much, if at all. Instead it would have done the same thing it did when Chechnya was being invaded and ruthlessly occupied.

On the other hand, I do think Russians should be proud of the fact that this time their government didn't totally f-up the operation and get a lot of Russian boys needlessly killed and cost the treasury gobs of hard earned tax money. I can appreciate that and in fact do personally. It was one of the first things I said to someone after the first day of fighting "wow, Russia learned how not to f-up an overwhelming attack against a tiny and inferior enemy force". This might sound like a slight on Russia, but it absolutely is not. I am quite happy for Russia, as a nation state, that it was able to handle the Georgian military the way it did. A Russia with no self confidence is, I think, a more dangerous Russia than one with pride in its capabilities. I am also at the same time sad for Georgia that they completely blew it! Since I have "no horse in the race" I can afford to have these feelings for both at the same time without any reservations. I do not wish either the Russians or Georgians ill will.

Steve

Steve,

You should also be very happy about the fact that as a result of the campaign Medvedev "saw a need for vast modernization and re-armament of armed forces". Very good news indeed as far as CMSF2 is concerned! Apparently over 200 battalion level units are to be completely rearmed by 2011 with bulk of orders already in place. This means BMP-T, T-90, BMP-4, BTR-90 should all be very viable now.

Air Force is to recieve 2000 new/upgraded units by 2015 as well.

With the current amount of orders, Russia should take a solid #2 spot after US with regards to military spendings. Balanced forces for CMSF2 ftw!

[TempV]

2 Battlefront.com

Our Russian members might be interested to know, that there are people around here who quite literally think you're the Scource of God :-)

You know, I can remind my Finnish "friend" who were his ancestors at X-XII centuries and what was the Rus around the same time. But I think it's a job of moderators to prevent some idiotic insults based on national issue.

[Mikko H.]

To TempV:

I'm sorry if you took that as an insult, it was meant to be a joke on the expense of certain religious sects who try to whip up irrational fears among the God-fearing population. Please note the smiley I used. :-)

[The_Red_Rage]

Mikko,

Religion fanatics still don't stop hordes of regular Finns from coming to St.Petersburg to get wasted. Gotta love the Finnish "dry" laws

[Mikko H.]

TRR,

there's a Russian saying that applies as well to Finns: "Alcohol is the people's worst enemy, unfortunately the people is not afraid of its enemies".

Gotta visit St Petersburg one day, and stay sober to admire the city.

[The_Red_Rage]

I think it's alcohol + boredom. My impressions from being to Finland - CLEAN (to all my fellow Canadians who think that our streets are clean, Finland makes us look like Beirut), everyone had a cellphone (and that was 1998) including bums on the street and 8 year old children, extremely polite population (90% spoke better English than i did at a time)....BUT entertaiment value is absolutely zero - there is simply nothing to do. While tourists can admire all the sights, i truly feel for the locals.

Another interesting observation - while visiting a military cemetary near Helsinki, I noticed that Soviet soldier's graves had been taken care of with same level of care as those of Finnish soldiers - that made a very positive impression on me.

[alan15rus]

....So is there anyone who's working on the scenario?

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

Perhaps the most unique example of contrasting and comparing societal values I've ever seen!

Steve,

Thanks for reasserting control by enforcing the old "one foot on the floor" billiard hall rule.

Lethaface,

Respectfully beg to differ. Long before Dresden came the firestorms of Hamburg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gomorrah

Regards,

John Kettler

[The_Red_Rage]

Found another interesting article on "propaganda" war:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/fake-georgia-pi.html (follow the links, some interesting picture comparissons there)

If it is true, wouldn't be the first time some shady photos were aired by a "respected" source (if anyone remembers the German journalist caught with fake photographs of "murdered civilians wrapped in barbed wire being thrown into pits", which turned out to be Chechen rebels flushed out of Komsomolskoye)... hey i think it was Reuters as well!

[John Kettler]

The_Red_Rage,

Good stuff! Have you seen the classic on this technique called "Wag the Dog," which shows how you manipulate whole nations with artfully staged pseudoreality? I thought the post mortem opening of the T-shirt wound, self relocating body and the unquiet dead woman in gori were quite interesting.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

heh... photos have been faked for propaganda purposes since the days of cave drawings My favorite one of all times is a WWII shot of some Soviet soldiers running around a burning PzIII. Off to the side you can see a German officer sitting down with a clipboard. The origins were traced back to a mid war propaganda piece, by the Germans, to help bolster the fighting instincts of its soldiers. Yet to this day I still see that photo in history books as if the picture was what it was staged to look like.

More recently the Iraqis did some really funny ones before the Coalition invaded. There were several scenes of outraged "Iraqi citizens" at various bomb sites in diverse locations. Problem was it was the same Iraqis in the same clothing! In this case they were doing their dancing and angry chanting in front of western cameras, so it wasn't immediately noticed that it was all a show. That and the mosque that satellite photos showed Iraqi forces destroying and then blaming on US bombs. Some great ones in there, for sure

The silly thing is that I don't see why the Georgians needed to fake anything. There were Georgian civilians killed by Russian attacks, so why not just go out and photograph real bodies in real situations? Faking some photos, if indeed they are faked, only undermines credibility. Like when we found out that the little Kuwaiti girl who testified before the US Congress about Iraqi behavior in Kuwait (the infamous baby incubator incident) turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US who was reading a script not based on her experiences (or, as it turned out, facts). But then again, this news only came out after GW1 was over so I guess it did what they wanted it to do. Like father, like son I guess

Steve

[BigDork]

An interesting little article, though not something that is really modeled into CM right now...

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/airforce_georgia_uav_091608/

[The_Red_Rage]

JK,

I was thinking "Wag the Dog" as well (truly a visionary film considering last 8 years).

Steve,

Usually most of the "angry" demonstrations are staged events usually organized by well-paid professionals (often working for rival country's itellegence agencies). It is especially bad in Islamic world, where it is standard practice to use mobs of civilians to create provocations and block even most modern armies whenever them want. Some even "work" as professional demonstration participants (a twisted version of a movie extra).

On why Georgians needed to fake drama, I personally have only two theories: either 1) they lied about "hundreds of civilian casualties", or 2) They preferred to stage it for more dramatic effect (similar to the PzIII example that you gave - real life will never look as "good" as a dramatic representaion of it).

Alexander Babkin's picture set (

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551 ) , which IMHO is a solid example of amazing war photography, is alot dirtier and grittier than Georgian pictures from Gori and therefore is alot harder for Western audiences to digest.

Another interesting article:

http://discoursology.net/2008/09/16/did-saakashvili-lie/

And some serious accusations:

http://greengorilla47.wordpress.com/

From personnal perspective, I can't say I 100% believe it, but my first reaction after seeing the picture of Saaskashvili few years back was to ask "what is this guy on" quetion. Back in my 48-hour-straight party days, I've had a few contacts with various illigal substances ( ) and their users to know the "sketchy" face very well - skin discoloration, sunken eyes, body language, way he talks all fit the profile...could be stress of course.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Alexander Babkin's picture set (

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551 ) , which IMHO is a solid example of amazing war photography, is alot dirtier and grittier than Georgian pictures from Gori and therefore is alot harder for Western audiences to digest.

Is there any other good photography for the Russian side of the war?

[John Kettler]

BigDork, The_Red_Rage,

Excellent links, raising profoundly disturbing issues! The_Red_Rage, left you a note in the Red on Red thread.

Regards,

John Kettler