Note: I thought about not publishing this post, and just using it as one of those cathartic rants that stays forever in the drafts folder but makes one feel better. But I’m grumpy today. So here it is. It’s dedicated to the smart people out there. You know who you are!
It fascinates – and pisses me off – the way that debate about Russia has been turned into a warped zero sum game of Russophobes versus Russophiles.
The only thing that matters is whether you’re for or against Russia and whether you can consistently twist the facts to meet a twisted worldview.
“I am nothing more than a Kremlin shill.
There’s not a lot of room left for the kind of people who are prepared to accept that a bad government can do something right, and that a good government can do something bad. Or, shock horror, even that a good government can occasionally do something wrong, or stupid.
Over the past few months, I’ve written posts that have both criticised and praised Russia. I write them because I think that Russia is often right, although it’s also far too often wrong.
And, far too often, I take crap from people. Usually because of what they think I have said, in the context of their tiny little world views, rather than what I have actually said, in the context of an entire blog post, or a series of posts.
Take this post about the Russo-Georgian war, for example, in which I pointed out that Georgia had been stupid to invade South Ossetia in the face of Russian provocation. Georgia, I argued, had effectively walked into a Russian trap.
One enlightened Russophobe took one look at the article, came to the stunning realisation that I am nothing more than a Kremlin shill:
“Which Gulag in Siberia do you blog from? Perhaps you should change the title to Siberian Lightly censored. I don’t know if you receive funds from the Kremlin, but you follow its line.
Before you blog, you ought to at least educate yourself instead of posting untruthful diarrhea all over the internet.
You might be too thick headed to understand. Putin wants to control the flow of oil in Russia’s backyard. The Georgian pipeline is not under his control. Putin has to bring about regime change in Georgia to get control of the pipeline. That is what this whole conflict is about. You can side with Putin or you can side with the Free world. I am siding with the Free world.”
Or, how about this post, from yesterday, in which I argued that Russia was running diplomatic rings around the EU because it was playing divide and conquer, and didn’t have too many qualms about using energy supplies as a tool of diplomacy.
Guess what. I’m not a Kremlin shill any more.
What a stupid, positively juvenile article. I don’t know why I take your RSS sometimes.
[...]That Russia poses a danger to the EU was the basic premise of the article, and it is a moronic one.
You know, it’s not really the inane insults that bother me. Or that the people who write the inane insults almost always do so behind the illusory screen of anonymity.
It’s that there are far too many people out there who simply don’t have the intelligence, or the patience to read anything properly any more, and who are too intellectually stunted to see anything outside of their own inflexible worldview.
OK. Rant over.
About Andy Young
No, even Mike is not old enough to remember much about the Falklands War. By his own description, he was back then a “blonde California surfer” who wasn’t “taken seriously among academic types” because of his looks.
I was about 7 or 8 at the time of the Falklands war, but even I remember the wave of nationalism / patriotism that came back with the British Navy…
Nationalism doesn’t tend to be a particular problem in America as far as I can tell – largely because America doesn’t really have a national (racial) identity that underpins its society to the extent that it underpins European societies.
Andy´s last blog post..Word Cloud
”No, even Mike is not old enough to remember much about the Falklands War. By his own description, he was back then a “blonde California surfer” who wasn’t “taken seriously among academic types” because of his looks.”
db you’re just a total legend:-)
” was about 7 or 8 at the time of the Falklands war, but even I remember the wave of nationalism / patriotism that came back with the British Navy…”
I was the same age then, and its the first war I remember on tv – they used to show the ruins of the Argentine ships. I have read subsequently that there was a massive show of Brittannia Rules the Waves at the time and that Thatcher, who’d been in serious political trouble, was saved by her intervention. I dont actually know why Mike brought up Las Malvinas at all.
db (Chris Doss)
Another example of how disturbed an individual you are.
Of late, I understand that you’ve somewhat acknowledged that alcohol might explain your demented state at these venues.
You’re a “legend’ among trolls.
Andy
Alexy’s so-called “nationalism” embraced the other main faiths in Russia. Key Muslim, Budhist and Jewish leaders in Russia seemed to have been on good terms with him.
I brought up the Falklands for the clearly stated reason I gave.
Not being able to comprehend it explains part of the problem, which is certainly no fault of my own.
Contary to the once gain displayed trolling here, I’m the one being the more earnest.
Sucking up to the db moniker of Chris Doss serves as a confirmation.
Later with the dreck.
There was much havoc in Chehnya before the lead up to the start of the first Chechen war. Russian did in fact leave in liarge numbers for the reason stated. Not all Checehens displayed neagtyive manner. This explains why a good number of Russians remained.
Pardon misspell.
On the matter of looks, Chris Doss’ apparent friend looks like he can lose some weight:
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/
See how he plays up to the Chris Doss kook.
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080602/009552.html
Sorry Andy.
I sure didn’t initiate this.
”Contary to the once gain displayed trolling here, I’m the one being the more earnest.”
Not to start a flamewar here, but I havent been trolling. And db is not Chris Doss.
” brought up the Falklands for the clearly stated reason I gave.
Not being able to comprehend it explains part of the problem, which is certainly no fault of my own.”
You brought up an example – which in any case 3 seperate people have shown to be wrong – which had no relevance whatsoever to your point that RT incorrectly called Alexei II a nationalist. He was a nationalist. No, methinks the confusion lies not in Connemara or London or Moscow, but in New York.
And I havent trolled against you. You’re always saying you want earnest discussion; thats what I am giving to you. Stop turning everything into a zero-sum game.
db is an obnxious troll in the Chris Doss manner. Showing the kind of approval for such input constitutes trolling.
You once again overlook what was actaully said pertaining to nationalism and Alexy.
”db is an obnxious troll in the Chris Doss manner. Showing the kind of approval for such input constitutes trolling.”
Its just amazing how he finds the stuff he does. I dont think most actual Californian surfer dudes would even call themselves that!:-)
”You once again overlook what was actaully said pertaining to nationalism and Alexy.”
I overlooked nothing at all and anyone reading can see this. You have not provided a shred of evidence that he was not a nationalist, and worse referred to an example – a wrong one – that Britain was unnaffected by nationalism during the Falklands War. I dont think you even know what you’re trying to get at.
There he goes again with his ongoing misrepresentations.
Once again, it’s not my fault that he can’t grasp what has been clearly stated.
[quote]There is no evidence of the mass migration of Russians from Chechnya before the war started, cos it didnt happen. Admittedly Russians would be loathe to leave their apartments – far and away the biggest thing in the life of a Russian – but life was not unbearable for Russians pre-December 1994. Russian bombing did that.[/quote]
I suggest you do some reading. You’re flatout wrong. Not only were Russians persecuted in Chechneya but in just about every other small country in the area you can think of to one extent or another.
”suggest you do some reading. You’re flatout wrong. Not only were Russians persecuted in Chechneya but in just about every other small country in the area you can think of to one extent or another.”
I have read, Scrat. De Waal’s ‘A Small Victorious War’, ‘To Catch a Tatar’ by Chris Bird (about Chechnya, despite the weird title), ‘A Dirty War’ by Ploitkovskaya (admittedly a poor, poor book) and ‘The Return of War to Chechnya’ by Vanora Bennett.
Now I will be the first to admit these are written by westerners and Anna Politkovskaya, but the books by De Waal and Bird are unmerciful in the criticisms of the Chechens and neither have any reason to back them. Certainly I need to read something by Russians on the subject, by my Russian isnt good enough to read a book – its hardly good enough for Spokoinoi Noche, Malshii – but I have never came across any description of the movements of large quantities of Russians back to Russia pre-war. If you can provide a link of some description to prove your point then please do, but dont become a la Averko and make glib stupid statements like ‘do some reading’. I dont dispute that life was difficult for many Russians there – their jobs were taken or vanished, apartments stolen from Russian owners – but to say Russians endured systemic persecution on a large sacle is simply not true, and again I refer you back to the commenter (I’ll get the link) at SRB who actually LIVED in Grozny at the time and said it was no worse there than pre-1991. As for Russian persecution in general – it may come as a suprise to you Scrat, but Chechnya is occupied territory; until the late 18th century it didnt belong to Russia. I dont condone ill treatment of anyone, but Uzbekistan is well…Uzbek. Kazakhstan…Kazakh. Did you think these people were just going to let Russians have any sort of control or wealth once they became independent states?
”Once again, it’s not my fault that he can’t grasp what has been clearly stated”
No Mike, you just havent a clue, and so conversation with you is a waste of time. Even Andy caught you out about the Falklands.
No Andy didn’t “catch” me on the Falklands.
As Scrat astutely suggests, you don’t appear to be so familar with the subject matter.
One unnamed Russian at another blog doesn’t serve as ample proof to what you’re suggesting.
As previously noted, some Russians did stay. Most Russians and Chechens aren’t extremists. However, there was enough extremism against Russians to confirm what has been communicated.
Among known experts in the field, Robert Bruce Ware seems to share the fact based views of others besides myself. The same seems to be true of Charles William Maynes and Dmitry Simes.
Re: Russians leaving Chechnya -
Wikipedia (not necessarily the most reliable of sources, I know) notes that:
From 1991 to 1994 tens of thousands of people of non-Chechen ethnicity left the republic amidst reports of violence and discrimination against the non-Chechen population (mostly Russians, Ukrainians and Armenians). Chechen industry began to fail as a result of many Russian engineers and workers leaving or being expelled from the republic.
It gives three footnotes, but none are accessible, so I too would be interested to see if anyone can back this up.
In particular, I find the use of wording in the Wikipedia quote fascinating: it says non-Chechens “left… amidst reports of violence”, rather than as a result of violence.
On another note, I don’t think I’d go so far as to say I “caught” Mike on the issue of the Falklands. He suggested a comparison, and I pointed out that it was wrong. Things like this are the whole point of having a comments section, surely…?
”One unnamed Russian at another blog doesn’t serve as ample proof to what you’re suggesting.”
Actually I named four books, three of which were specifically about the First Chechen War. You however, have no such references at all.
”Among known experts in the field, Robert Bruce Ware seems to share the fact based views of others besides myself. The same seems to be true of Charles William Maynes and Dmitry Simes.”
Could you name the books or research papers written by these guys that confirm your views? And how many Russians do they reckon left before the war? You have actually read the, havent you? Its not like the situation a while back where you clearly hadnt read that book on the Soviet Union/Nazi deal about Czechslovakia? Sorry for bringing that up, but you do have ‘form’.
”As previously noted, some Russians did stay. Most Russians and Chechens aren’t extremists. ”
No Mike, MOST, not some, of the Russians in Chechnya did stay. They left when their own government bombed and destryoed the country and killed upwards of 20,000 of them in the First Chechen War. Have you figured out what an aul is yet Mike? Its not a Russian word so it might not confuse you too much.
”He suggested a comparison, and I pointed out that it was wrong. Things like this are the whole point of having a comments section, surely…?”
I do agree; but most people, when wrong, put their hands up, and at least try to explain what they are getting at. Mike, as usual, has made no attempt to do this and instead started the insults. Par for the course I suppose, and a pattern repeated everywhere in the blogosphere. I’m still waiting to hear how Alexei was not a nationalist, though its a wait in vain I suspect.
”In particular, I find the use of wording in the Wikipedia quote fascinating: it says non-Chechens “left… amidst reports of violence”, rather than as a result of violence. ”
I just read that, and one of the references is Memorial who I’d actually be inclined to believe. Lots of Russians did leave, but most didnt – as the casualty figures on the page indicate (very high maybe?)
But it wasn’t “wrong” Andy.
The use of the N word (nationalism) is overly selective. It has come to have a negative connotation as opposed to patriotism.
In the US, I didn’t recall American mass media describing a wave of British nationalism during the Falklands war. On the other hand, that word is more often put on others in a most hypocritical way.
As I correctly noted, ideas like America being the best authority for global involvement can take on a rather “nationalist” tint to it.
This article touches on some of the double standards out there:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/russia-west-media-stereotypes
On Wiki, we should all be careful when using it (the same is true with other sources).
I’ve noted inconsistent approaches to how it characterizes different actions with blatantly inconsistent usage of such words as “slaughter.”
The last set of comments doesn’t legitimately negate what I’ve said. Within his field, Ware is a recognized authority. In the lead up to the first Chechen war of the last decade, there was increased havoc within that republic. No spinning to the contrary can legitimately deny this point.
“It gives three footnotes, but none are accessible, so I too would be interested to see if anyone can back this up.”
The Jewish Telegraph Agency reported on this extensively at the time, focussing mainly as you would expect on violence against Jews. I thought it was common knowledge. I mean, would you hang around in Chechnya in 1991-1994 in the midst of a nationalist/ultranationalist movement in conditions of zero law enforcement if you were an ethnic minority?
There was extensive violence on the part of Chechen gangs and individuals against non-Chechens, mostly murder and expropriation of property.
Incidentally, fantasies about a united Chechen people notwithstanding, Dudaev’s support base was the generally very uneducated mountain Chechens in the villages way up there, not the Chechens in the lowland and urban areas (Chechnya having the lowest literacy rate in Russia since time immemorial anyway). You can see this even in the name “Ichkeria.” “Ichkeria” is not a Chechen word. It is, I believe, Karachai (I’ll have to look this up again when I get home to make sure), and its choice was meant to emphasize the centrality of the highlanders and their superiority to the lowlanders.
The Russian side in this is not out there in any strength. I do know one thing though. My wifes best friend lives in Gomel Belarus. She lived in Vladikavkaz in the 80s, had a daughter, a husband a nice apartment a career. All of that changed, she lost her job, her husband was killed on the street, she was raped twice before she finally left, penniless, a refugee. She came to Belarus and started a new life. She is remarried has a second daughter, a good husband and a small business. Her eldest daughter is going to the university.
“There was extensive violence on the part of Chechen gangs and individuals against non-Chechens, mostly murder and expropriation of property.”
Were she here she would back you up Chris. This didn’t only happen in Chechnya either. All of the old republics had it to some degree or another.
Aha. Here is Ze Source:
http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/(httpEnvelopes)/4F9C54307DB6FFA3C1257478002C9DD8?OpenDocument
Displacement from Chechnya to areas outside of north Caucasus (Special report, 2008)
Non-ethnic Chechens started fleeing Chechnya before ethnic Chechens
In total, about 600,000 ethnic and non-ethnic Chechens fled Chechnya
Chechnya is being rebuilt, but the security situation is still volatile
Many IDPs do not want to return and those living outside of the North Caucasus are struggling to integrate
See Sources used
See Disclaimer
IDMC Special report, 2008:
“In an atmosphere of instability and violence leading up to the first separatist conflict in Chechnya in 1994, some 100,000 non-ethnic Chechens fled to other parts of the Russian Federation. People continued to flee until the conflict ended in 1996, and again when a second conflict erupted in 1999. In total, perhaps 600,000 people, including ethnic Chechens, have been forced out of Chechnya from 1991 to the present. In addition, some 40,000 people also fled to other areas of the Russian Federation following inter-ethnic conflict in North Ossetia in 1992…
Although more than 57,000 IDPs, mainly ethnic Chechens, have returned to Chechnya, the IDPs that are the subject of this report were generally unwilling to return to Chechnya. They do not believe it is safe there and have opted to integrate in areas to which they had fled or resettled. UNHCR confirmed in 2007 that insecurity in the north Caucasus still influenced the return of IDPs to Chechnya and UNHCR operations there. Also highlighting the insecurity and continuing human rights abuses in Chechnya, the European Council of Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) advocated that return of IDPs to Chechnya or other areas of the Russian Federation should not be encouraged.
The federal and regional governments have made efforts to improve the situation of IDPs living in and beyond the north Caucasus. They enacted legislation including the 1993 federal law on forced migrants, which sets out the entitlements and duties of IDPs and the rules for government assistance. In the framework of this law, they transported IDPs out of Chechnya and provided housing in temporary accommodation centres where they were available. The federal government has also paid compensation for lost or destroyed property to 39,000 families and has more recently included IDPs with forced migrant status in a federal housing programme. Government assistance to IDPs has been hampered by lack of funds, inconsistent implementation of legislation, high staff turnover at the Federal Migration Service and the low awareness of IDPs of how to exercise their rights.
Nonetheless, IDPs from Chechnya living outside of the north Caucasus are still struggling to settle at their current places of residence. Their situation is little known outside Russia as they have long had no contact with or humanitarian assistance from UN agencies and international NGOs. In order to obtain current information on their situation, IDMC conducted a three-week visit to the Russian Federation in March 2008 to determine the situation of IDPs living in seven places outside the north Caucasus: Moscow; Saint Petersburg; Veliki Novgorod; Pyatigorsk; Rostov; Volgograd and the Serebrianniki temporary accommodation centre in the Vishni Volochek district of Tver oblast. The locations were chosen based on the presence of IDPs and lawyers assisting them and their varying distances from the north Caucasus”.
Well Scrat, some people’s fantasies, that this kind of thing would take place would be obvious to anybody who has actually bothered to read any Ichkerian literature and noticed that it is basically fascist. I’m not one to bandy that word around much, but in the case of Ichkerianism with its emphasis on Blut und Boden and desire to return “Ichkeria” to a premodern, ethnically pure state of pristine rustic mountain tribes (going so far as to celebrate the destruction of Grozny!!), it’s a pretty close fit.
Sure, anybody from Uzbekistan with tell you how the Russians and Jews and Armenians were forced out. Happened all over the place. God I hate tribalism.
Sorry, that should be “despite some people’s fantasies”
Here’s Micheals article and like I said Andy, it’s safe to point a finger at Russia for a journalist when they write something.
“Anna Matveeva guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 December 2008 10.00 GMT Article historyA Russophobia virus has infected the air. What is it? It is when an English literature teacher in a good school, explaining how to answer an exam question on comedy, tells your daughter: “Don’t worry, simply write – I am Russian, I do not have a sense of humour.” Or the ease with which jokes like “You are Russian, you must know all about corruption,” are made. A BBC documentary presenter asks his Russian interpreter in the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad: “Do you feel Russian or European?” What does he expect the woman to say?
When a fashionable detective writer wants to write a thriller with a foreign twist, guess who will be the nemesis? An al-Qaida plot in Hackney runs the risk of being politically incorrect. But Russian dissidents and oligarchs chased by Scottish police fit the bill perfectly. The British media, mindful of inter-race relations, seeks to avoid hurting the feelings of Muslims, but the idea that Russians can feel hurt does not occur to them. For Russians in the west, if one is not an oligarch, pop star or secret assassin, and does not think that “Putin’s regime” is second-worst to that of Ivan the Terrible, treading these waters is problematic.
This is not to say that Russians in Britain are discriminated against in the workplace, or that my neighbours suspect me of dumping polonium when I throw rubbish away. Rather, it is possible to say things without thinking of what it might be like on the receiving end. Stereotypes promoted by the media are now entrenched: Russian companies are corrupt and are puppets of the state, minorities are not allowed to speak their languages and males are chauvinist machos. The economy survives on pumping gas, while the leadership dreams of conquering half of the world. News from Russia is bad news. It is hard to blame journalists for reporting what is newsworthy: saying that Russians go to supermarkets and buy the same food as their western counterparts is boring, while writing that Moscow hosts the first ever all-male strip joint is “sexy”.
The Russia-Georgia debacle brought these attitudes to the fore. The reaction of the media and the politicians was overwhelmingly anti-Russian, because their gut feeling told them who was in the wrong. More objective reports appeared much later. Why was the conflict in South Ossetia so important? Because Russia was a party to it. Readers were led to believe that minuscule South Ossetia is a proto-state like Kosovo, while no parallels were drawn with Nato action in ex-Yugoslavia in support of Albanians.
The question is: can Russia do anything good? In Russophobes’ eyes, it should (1) surrender and apologise, (2) give western companies control over natural reserves because Russians mismanage them anyhow, (3) limit their ambitions to culture and (4) award Boris Berezovsky a medal for democracy-promotion.
What feeds Russophobia? Moscow’s own actions are only part of the story. In the last few years several constituencies came together to create a new momentum. The cold warriors found a mission again. The existence of a familiar enemy who plays by the rules is more comfortable than the “enemy amongst us” who may work in a corner chip shop. Western liberals who passionately believed in Russia’s democratic transformation to their own recipe became disillusioned, turning the energy of embittered idealism into exposing the evils of “Putin’s KGB regime”. They were joined by immigrants who made their way in the new country by “unveiling the truth” about Russia.
What are the effects of Russophobia? Economically, as BP and Shell found out, it is harder to do business. Politically, it is impossible to conduct a frank dialogue on issues of common concern, as trust has gone out of the relationship. In the security field, it has resulted in militarisation on both sides, undermining the achievements of disarmament. Finally, polarising language flourishes. Unlike in the 1990s, the Russian elite reads English-language media, getting from it the idea that “the west is against us”.
Why should we care? Attitudes matter as Russia is at a crossroads. It can go either towards increased modernisation or militarisation. It can build pragmatic, but solid relations with the west, or it can indulge in spoiling the international game and setting up anti-western alliances. It is the responsibility of the western intelligentsia to see that stereotypes create enemies and not to miss their chance to prevent a new division of Europe.”
Tribalism is the problem there Chris, you hit it right on the head. If it wasn’t for Russia those people would still be in the neolithic or close to it.
Returning to the neolithic is one of Ichkerianism’s express goals. Literally. Nuhaev wrote about this a lot.
???-???? ??? ??-?????? ?????????-)
?????????
???-???? ??? ??-?????? ?????????-)
?????????? ?????? ??????
Can I note that the fact this post is so popular, 81 replies counting, and a RANT, actually in itself demonstrates why discussions on Russia frequently degenerate into heated rhetoric. Humanity doesn’t need reason and rationalism and all that other intellectual nonsense of the last few centuries, it needs blood and soil and struggle and return to a time when things were simpler and everyone knew what was good and what was evil.
Da Russophile´s last blog post..New Year Special: Year in Review and 2009 Predictions
I can agree with the rant to a degree. I would like to debate Russia as I am genuinely interested in the country. I have been there a few times often doing voluntary work for a few weeks every year and I have noticed that most people especially on the russophobe side have only second hand information about Russia. For instance on La Russophobe I pointed out that the claim that only state owned TV is broadcast terrestrially in Russia. Of course if you watched much Russian TV you would know that Euronews is broadcast terrestrially. Of course with that I was a Kremilin stooge effectively. This led me to believe they have no real intimate first hand experience of Russian culture or viewpoint. Looking at a few other posts on that and other sites I came to the conclusion that most people being critical of Russia often play to old russian stereo types and use second hand politically loaded information. Its largely propaganda on all sides. The problem with the internet is the crazies always come to the forefront. For me Russian blogs have become so politically loaded they are now inaccurate and illrevant.
Some more than others.
These kind of blogs have a relationship with traditional media. Like the latter, the former has good and not as good points.
Andy and yourself note a crankish aspect, having to do with how some immediately jump on a given particular in a way that overlooks other variables.
This isn’t to be confused with constructive criticism.
Michael Averko´s last blog post..Pontiac Sponsors College Football with Little Presence in the College Market
At present, the currently above mentioned (Pontiac Sponsors College Football with Little Presence in the College Market) isn’t mine.
Michael Averko´s last blog post..Pontiac Sponsors College Football with Little Presence in the College Market
I can see your point Michael though could you ever imagine having a term like USAphobe or Frenchophobe. I could understand it if these people had actually been to the country in question and had bad experiences. Instead of regergitating second hand politcally loaded articles from far from independant media sources.
Francophobe is a word.
Free World:
The very term “Russophobia” downplays the biases:
Among the “Russophobes,” how many of them actually fear Russia versus just plain not liking it?
A good number of us in the West are raised about the concerns of some non-Russian central and eastern Europeans, with not as much emphasis on how many Russians see the situation. As a result, many are unaware that not every non-Russian from the former Communist bloc isn’t so uneasy about Russia. Disliking Russia is related to why some other historic powers have been disliked. A matter that seems to get downplayed in some circles.
I make it a point to often read and listen to views that I don’t agree with. This is done with seeking to fully comprehend what’s expressed. As Andy notes (pardon the repeat), earnest attempts at dialogue can often end up in the kind of experiences described at this thread. This results in some of us withdrawing from exchanging views.
Michael Averko´s last blog post..Pontiac Sponsors College Football with Little Presence in the College Market
Chris:
Believe it or not I actualy have found people using the word Americanophobe. I am quite astounded that so many people can hate entire countries they have never been too. These ophobe websites I fell propagandists of the worst kind just not trying to influence people but actually influence them to hate.
From Irish Man
”The only person in the world, other Saakashvili, who still asserts this stuff is you. The OECD doesn’t seem to believe it.”
I didnt assert anything; I simply said thats the impression I got. The Russians were there very quickly, closed headquarters or not. And it was a lot faster than a day – on the day the Olympics started the Russians were beating the shit out of Georgia when the fun had only started in earnest the previous night.
”Allegedly, that is, according to Saakashvili, who also claimed that Tskhinvaili was destroyed by the Russians, who also claimed that the Russians had attacked the pipeline, who also claimed that the Russians were marching on Tbilisi.”
This is great stuff – pity it has no relevance. You’re simply using what you believe to be a lie to prove something else you believe to be a lie. You may be right, but it doesnt prove your case.
”Nobody in the military seems to believe it.”
”The OECD doesn’t seem to believe it.”
Plenty of ’seems’, are there any ‘doesn’ts’?
I am sorry being a fello Irishman who was in Vladikavkaz in mid September a few weeks after the conflict I managed to talk to a few soldiers and others there.
The impression you got about the speed of the Russian response I have heard this questioned before so I believe you have been influenced here. First Vladikavkaz is only 65miles from Tskhinvali as the crow flies, you can check it out on google earth. Similar to Belfast to Derry. The road from Vladikavkaz to Tskhinvali including the Roki tunnel was designed for military and refered to as the miltary road. It takes around 3 to 4 hours to get to Tskhinvali from Vladikavkaz due to the mountains and indirect route of the road.
Vladikavkaz is constantly on a state of allert from attacks from both the Ingush and Chechens. Driving from Beslan airport to Vladikavkaz you pass the Beslan memorial which when I passed in Septembar had a makeshift military camp with tanks and artillery clearly soldiers withdrawn from Georgia. There is a permanant military base in Vladikavkaz with a military airbase. Infact Vladikavkaz is a military town translated to power or fortress of the Caucasus. The 58th army where stationed there and draws recruits from the area. Their headquarters was reformed in 1995 in the North Caucasus Military District from the 42nd Army Corps at Vladikavkaz during the chechen conflict. Vladikavkaz reminds me a bit like Belfast in the 80′s, you are searched going into the markets or shops for bombs.
The 58th army where running maneuvers before the conflict in the region that is North Ossetia. Satellite photos provided by Georgia prove this and sugest a troop build up. However the reality is the 58th army always ran maneuvers in the area they where based and had always been on high alert due to the volitile situation not just due to the build up of military and training in Georgia but the tradtional Ingush/Chechen/North Ossetian problems.
Russian planes and attack helcopters where within 20mins of attacking targets inside South Ossetia and the 58th army could have been inside South Ossetia in just a few hours. So the question should not be how did the Russians arrive in South Ossetia so slowly but how did it take them so long?
Remeber Georgia attacked a city full of Russian citizens 65miles from Russias most experienced army. Also the Russian force was roughly equal to that of the Georgians and while having attack planes individual soldiers where equiped with inferior gear. Russians with old Ak47s and georgians with m16s etc. While between 200-300 Georgian soldiers where killed its reported that 3000 went missing during the conflict. This was not so much as a war but sheel a city into submission and if the Russians respond we will run away.
“So the question should not be how did the Russians arrive in South Ossetia so slowly but how did it take them so long?”
Exactly. From my understanding (which is drawn from talking to an American scholar of the Russian military), the Russian operation has been EXCORIATED in the Russian military press for its slowness. The Russian military does not view it as a great success.
“Exactly. From my understanding (which is drawn from talking to an American scholar of the Russian military), the Russian operation has been EXCORIATED in the Russian military press for its slowness. The Russian military does not view it as a great success.”
From what I could make out they had mechanical problems with many vehicles and many soldiers had taken leave after a summer of maneuvers. Of course this may be inaccurate but its what I heard from a soldier who served in the 58th.
I agree. It’s absurd to think that an army of Russia’s calibre (much as we like to rubbish it compared to Western militaries, it’s still a decent army on a global scale) couldn’t react to an incident that took place 65 miles away from a major army base within 24 hours.
Imagine if, two or three years ago, Iran had invaded a part of Iraq that was 65 miles away from the nearest US troop base. How long would it be before the first US counter-attack was launched?
Andy´s last blog post..Siberian Light nominated as Best European Blog
“So the question should not be how did the Russians arrive in South Ossetia so slowly but how did it take them so long?”
Because the General Headquarters was shut down and in the process of being moved to a new location. Something I am sure the Georgians knew about.
Andy
Imagine if, two or three years ago, Iran had invaded a part of Iraq that was 65 miles away from the nearest US troop base. How long would it be before the first US counter-attack was launched?
You also have to take into account that Vladikavkaz is one of Russias largest and most combat ready military bases. It would be like Iran attacking US citizens 65 miles from Fort Bragg. Also 58th army where heavily involved in the Chechen and Ingush conflicts so they had a high level of combat experience.
Clearly Georgia despite Russia saying it would defend South Ossetia I think Georgia thought that its standing with the US and international community would prevent that. It was a high stakes game of bluff.
Gotta wonder how some critique Russia on the very issue of Russia counterattacking.
A Russian non-response would have the “Russophobes” gleefully noting a Russian weakness.
It also would serve to encourage the military option in the disputes concerning Pridnestrovie and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Shortly after the Russian counterattack, Russia involved itself in enhanced negotiations in the disputes over Pridnestrovie and Nagorno-Karabakh. For now, these two disputes appear to be entrenched in a non-military Cyprus like “frozen conflict,” of periodic negotiations.
Michael Averko´s last blog post..Disciples of George W. Bush Back Away From No Child Left Behind
For clarity sake, Pridnestrovie is also referred to as Transnistria, Transdniestria, Transdnestr and Trans-Dniester.
Michael Averko´s last blog post..Disciples of George W. Bush Back Away From No Child Left Behind
”i am sorry being a fello Irishman who was in Vladikavkaz in mid September a few weeks after the conflict I managed to talk to a few soldiers and others there.”
Indeed and no need to apologise. Clearly I was not correct. I assumed – wrongly – that the Russian response was fast and efficient (its hard to blame me – they were murdered in Chechnya a lot of the time). Obviously you have first hand info that that was not indeed the case.
I know we like to travel, but what are you doing in the Caucuses?! At any rate go raibh mhaith agat agus Nollaig Shona agus Athbhlian Duit.”
agree. It’s absurd to think that an army of Russia’s calibre (much as we like to rubbish it compared to Western militaries, it’s still a decent army on a global scale)”
Funny you didnt say that until now. In fairness the Russian army have been absolute shite since, well, 1945, and to see them win so quickly and effectively of course would raise eybrows. They bombed and bribed Chechnya into submission after all, and even that took them years to get right, and only after a defeat. Its a bit like an athlete suddenly knocking half a second off his 100 meters time. Of course questions are going to be asked.
”Gotta wonder how some critique Russia on the very issue of Russia counterattacking.”
I dont know what you’re wondering about, but, seeing as you yourself dont handle ‘critique’ too well, its hardly suprising.
”A Russian non-response would have the “Russophobes” gleefully noting a Russian weakness.”
That might be true for gobshites in Russophile v Russophobe-Land, but the rest of us would have been happy simply with the minimum loss of life.
”Incidentally, fantasies about a united Chechen people notwithstanding, ”
”Well Scrat, some people’s fantasies, that this kind of thing would take place would be obvious to anybody who has actually bothered to read any Ichkerian literature and noticed that it is basically fascist.”
Chris, if you’re referring to me, then do so, and not act like a big bloody blouse. I thought Moscow toughened people up, not softened them.
I have no fantasies about a united Chechen people. What I do have an issue with, and always had, is levelling a country with fighter bombers and tanks, killing around 40,000 people in the process (many of them Russians, who, shock-horror, hadnt left, indeed the majority of Russians did not leave until bombing started), a country which did not even belong to Russia until 200 years ago, and which I believe is fully entitled to run its own affairs if they so wish. I do appreciate that Chechnya was never a proper bordered country in any sense, but that did not give and still doesnt give the Russians the right to level the place and then have it run by paid gangsters. Thats my issue, not ‘Ichkerian Facism’. Listening to you one would think every Chechen who didnt want the Russians around was a Facist. Total bullshit. You seem to think every Chechen who took up a gun against the Russians was like Basaeyev or Abu Khattab(who wasnt even a bloody Chechen!). They werent. They were just people who didnt much fancy Russian tanks rolling in again. What precise problem you have with this I dont know.
“Chris, if you’re referring to me, then do so, and not act like a big bloody blouse.”
I’m referring to everybody who referred to the Maskhadovites as “moderate nationalists,” without ever reading anything they wrote and noticing that they were, in fact, really nasty little fascists running a really nasty little fascist regime. It wouldn’t have been hard to do, really, since a lot of their writings used to be available on the Internet, in English, until they were mysteriously taken off a few years ago, in which you would have read them celebrating the destruction of Grozny as the God-willed annihilation of a den of sin where race-mixing took place.
“but the rest of us would have been happy simply with the minimum loss of life.”
Isn’t minimum loss of life basically what happened? Unless one things permitting Tbilisi to keep pounding South Ossetia and the corresponding reprisal attacks, likely escalating to partisan war, would somehow have involved less death?