From what we can gather in the previous posts and this last one, in 1997 the Russians finally break the Chechen resistance and proceed to commit some massive human rights violations once they secure victory (which comes at a very, very high cost). In the Prelude on page one we get testimony from a survivor of the fall of Grozny who testifies against Zhirinovsky and describes mass executions. And Yuri Saltykov makes a passing remark in his Foxnews interview in the last post, talking about how his town has been emptied of Chechens. From these posts we can assume that the victory in 1997 is followed by massive acts of ethnic cleansing, which could butterfly the second Chechen war as Chechnya has now been so depopulated due to the horrific war, and due to these acts of ethnic cleansing (which Zhirinovsky is on trial for in the Hague), that there no longer is a viable Chechen Republic. But in 2002 Zhirinovsky is keen to replicate his “winning” formula for the war on terror in Afghanistan, much to the chagrin of the Americans.
Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire
- Thread starter Pellegrino
- Start date
From what we can gather in the previous posts and this last one, in 1997 the Russians finally break the Chechen resistance and proceed to commit some massive human rights violations once they secure victory (which comes at a very, very high cost). In the Prelude on page one we get testimony from a survivor of the fall of Grozny who testifies against Zhirinovsky and describes mass executions. And Yuri Saltykov makes a passing remark in his Foxnews interview in the last post, talking about how his town has been emptied of Chechens. From these posts we can assume that the victory in 1997 is followed by massive acts of ethnic cleansing, which could butterfly the second Chechen war as Chechnya has now been so depopulated due to the horrific war, and due to these acts of ethnic cleansing (which Zhirinovsky is on trial for in the Hague), that there no longer is a viable Chechen Republic. But in 2002 Zhirinovsky is keen to replicate his “winning” formula for the war on terror in Afghanistan, much to the chagrin of the Americans.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
So what methods will Zhirinovsky deal with the other Caucasian territories like Dagestan, Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria, etc? Also, with the coup in Georgia occuring, does this mean Georgia is out of the UIS? Will we see Saakashvili come to power a lot earlier? Finally, when you mentioned that Zhirinovsky will replicate the 'winning formula' in Afghanistan, does this mean that the Pashtuns will be the ones to receive a lot of beating? I can imagine "The Kite Runner" having a very different plot in this kind of world.
The issue with the other Republics like Dagestan will start to clarify itself as this conflict goes on. As for Georgia, it is still in the UIS, but we now have a leader who aparently wants to break free. The question is how will Russia respond? They now have their hands full with Chechnya, but to allow Georgia to leave would shatter the Union. In the end we know that Georgia is still in the UIS during the Lebed Presidency, but we don't know much else. But Georgia is about to come into play in a big way in the next post...
And as for Zhirinovsky's winning formula, well, he is having a literal cold war with the Pakistanis (who back the Taliban and the Pashtuns) and we see the Russians have carved up Afghanistan into smaller ethnic republics. An Uzbek republic (which is unrecognized) and a Tajik republic (which is). Later in this TL we will see what the Russians game plan is in regards to Afghanistan...
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
And it is already established that the Russians are best buds with the Hazara community, so would an independent Hazarajat emerge as well? Or would Zhirinovsky's plan of carving Afghanistan into small republics eventually backfire?
Incognito
Banned
I don't have time to read & comment on the last few updates, but this jumped out at me.
Pellegrino Shots, I have to ask: where did you get your info on the Chechen War from? I admit I am no expert on the subject but from what I've been told the Chechens had no shortage of assault riffles or RPGs during the 1993 Chechen War. In fact AFAIK the Russian military was surprised by amount of anti-tank weapons the rebels possessed and many soldiers died in ambushes on armored vehicles. So why would the separatists need U.S. hand-me-down M-16s and M-47s when in OTL they had (AFAIK) all the firearms they could want and in this ATL, with that "Kalashnikov for any Russian moving to Central Asia!" and the black market it generated, the Chechens should already be swimming in weapons.
Incognito
Banned
The caption at the top says "South Ossetia". Just so you know
Destroyed Russian T-72 Tanks near the town of Ishcherskaya (November 01,1993)
.This report put together by USMC Lt. Col. Timothy Jackson discussed the overall lack of quality weapons the Chechens had, among other disadvantages they had...
http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/davidgoliath.pdf
This was a direct quote taken out of the article by one of the leading Chechen commanders, Husein Iskhanov:
H. Iskhanov: We had an acute shortage of ammunition right from the start of the war. We also lacked ammunition for grenade launchers, RPG-7s, for our 7.62mm automatic AKM rifles, and we had no 5.45mm ammunition for our AK-74s. ... That day (31 December 1994) we had 34 rounds of RPG-7 ammunition left under our beds. We felt great, but there were times when we had only three or four rounds. The fighters came constantly to ask for ammunition. We were lucky; somebody always turned up bringing ammunition when we most needed it.
Now Chechnya is awash with weapons, but in the last update we learn tht the "real" Chechen army is preparing for a defensive battle around Grozny. It is the lone soldiers and the local militias that are doing battle with the Russian army in these towns.
Now the M-47 are, from my research, vastly superior to what the Cechens already had (and which they used in OTL to maximum advantage) so this makes an already successful strategy even more successful.
And the Chechens turned down the used M-16s for the reason you cited above and for reasons listed in the last post
Last edited:
The caption at the top says "South Ossetia". Just so you know
In the words of Homer Simpson:
Doh!
Orville_third
Banned
Hmmmmmm...with the US supplying Dragons to the Chechens, will there be blowback? When the US get hit by Al-Quaida, will those who favored arming the Chechens face criminal or political punishment? Will Russia or Russians try to get some AKs into the hands of groups in the USA?
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
There may be loopholes in a case scenario like that, should prominent figures who advocated sending arms to the Chechens face criminal and legal charges.
Doubtful we would see any criminal charges on this. More likely it will just be a huge embarrassment down the line, much like Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand in 1984, or the United States funding the mujahidin in Afghanistan.
I have not decided what will happen in regards to the Belsen School Siege at this point. More likely it will be butterflied away, but something similar somewhere else in the country may still occur...
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Are there any other post-Soviet conflicts that can happen ITTL? Inside the UIS itself of course, since we already have the Chechen Wars, the Yugoslav Wars and the conflict between the Hungarians in Romania and the Romanian government, plus the Afghan War.
On the other hand, do we still get to see the US invade Iraq though? I doubt Zhirinovsky would allow the Americans to attack a nation that is practically the UIS's ally in the MidEast.
On the other hand, do we still get to see the US invade Iraq though? I doubt Zhirinovsky would allow the Americans to attack a nation that is practically the UIS's ally in the MidEast.
I can't think of any political groups that would use guns in the US. Maybe some state sponsored crime (Zhirinovsky supplies a cartel or a resurgent Mafia or something) but I can't see any real possibility for the Russians to supply violent political groups within the US.
Orville_third
Banned
Most of the secessionist groups (Alaska Independence Party, Republic of Lakotah, Southern Party, Free State Project, Second Vermont Republic, Christian Exodus) are not violent, and many originated after 2000. That said, no doubt Russia could help find some who could be violent.
There's also some Communist groups that could go violent- though they'd likely be reluctant to get help from Capitalist Russia.
I can't see a way that the Russians would even try and send weapons to an American group. Huge risk, no reward. Any quasi-terrorist group in American can get their own guns and for the Russians, sending aid could backfire on them and even trigger a major conflict.
This is not to say there won't be some interesting posts on what the Russians are planning to do to in regards to trying to even the score with the USA in their backyard. But it will be a lot less dramatic than that, and in one instance it will be almost comically inept.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Not to mention that most of these secession groups hardly dominate US politics.
A few other noteworthy quotes from that article as to why I felt the M-47 would have been a major improvement to what the Chechens were working with:
H. Iskhanov[FONT=IIHPEL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=IIHPEL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]: At the beginning of the war, because of a lack of ammunition for grenade launchers designed for use against armored vehicles, we used anti-personnel fragmentation shells. They were not effective against the new T-80 tanks. They were powerful and had better protection around the caterpillars, the vulnerable spot in the older model. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=IIHPEL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=IIHPEL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=IIHPEL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=IIHPEL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Necessity forced us to play on psychological factors. Because it was so very difficult for us to destroy T-80 tanks, we would tie 100-200 grams of trinitrotolud to the grenade shells. It produced a great explosion without damaging the tanks, but it shocked the crews, and there were frequent cases where they abandoned a perfectly operational tank. When you were in a tank or an APC, you had the feeling of being trapped in a metallic coffin. Even a small hit often caused soldiers to abandon their vehicles. When they ran out of the tanks we killed or captured them.
[/FONT][/FONT]
And one more quote from that article, this time from a different commander:
Many people did not have weapons. Men and youngsters followed us on the off chance of finding weapons. We always distributed weapons to them. Sometimes people were looking for weapons in order to sell them because they were hard up. They sold them to other Chechens at half price or bartered them for flour, sugar etc. In some cases entire battalions were formed with trophy weapons. We usually fought with Russian weapons. We did not have our own manufacturing or supplies from abroad.