James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 7, 2019 20:20:30 GMT
Taking the staging ports and airports out would be a game changer. Looking back at the Cold War did not the US plan to surge the carrier groups to take out the Kola Peninsula. I'm sorry, I'm a bit lost by what you mean. Do you mean when war comes Russia attacking NATO staging ports? And also the US Navy going up into Barents Sea? |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Jan 8, 2019 18:02:16 GMT
Six:
At the end of November, troops from Russia’s Interior Ministry (MVD) began to deploy to cities across Russia as the Militsiya found itself rapidly losing control of the situation. These units – known as internal troops – were almost as well-equipped as the Armed Forces, and carried not only truncheons and shields but assault rifles too. Lorries carried these soldiers from their barracks, joined by BTR-80 fighting vehicles and mammoth Gaz trucks. Naturally, Moscow and St. Petersburg were the sites of some of the largest deployments of MVD personnel, but paramilitary troops were distributed all around the country to put down the rioting and restore order to the streets of Russia. Joining these troops in Moscow would be members of the 31st Guards Air Assault Brigade. President Medvedev kept the VDV paratroopers back in the shadows, out of sight of the main deployment but ready nonetheless to step in if necessary. Paratroopers also secured Moscow’s Domodedovo International Airport, the largest in Russia, standing guard outside the facility beside BMD airborne fighting vehicles. Here, the paratroopers were visible and it was all for show; elsewhere though, the heavily-armed elite of the Russian Armed Forces waited anxiously, hoping against hope that the call would not come for them to turn their guns on marching civilians.
They wouldn’t be needed in the end, because the MVD would respond to the protests with violence on a scale that had not been seen in Europe since the Balkan Wars.
The protest movements in Russia wanted many different things. There were members of the far-left who called for the imposition of communism once again, and liberals who wanted to see the end of corruption, bribery and Prime Minister Putin’s so-called ‘backseat dictatorship’. People who opposed the occupation of Georgia were also present, albeit in far smaller numbers. The far-right didn’t hesitate to rear its ugly head either, as ultranationalists took to the streets in droves too. Many of them wanted little more than to throw rocks at policemen, and there were a fair number of scuffles between different factions of protestors themselves. There were also pro-LGBT marchers present, bearing the rainbow flag. In itself, this was an act of bravery in a country such as Russia. The best efforts of the Russian media had failed to successfully downplay the protests, and its portrayal of the marchers as nothing more than drunken louts and hooligans only lead to more outrage.
Like they had for weeks prior, people took to the streets on November 26th ready to take their rage out on the police. In Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhniy Novgorod, Volgograd, and countless other cities across Russia’s vast expanse, over half a million people were out in the miserable, chilling drizzle and the cruel wind. By now clashes between policemen and protestors were routine, and where the marchers met resistance, they pushed forwards, scuffling with what they soon noticed were not members of the Militsiya but rather armed paramilitary soldiers of the MVD, as well as locally-stationed OMON special security units. Molotov cocktails were flung, truncheons raised and punches thrown. The protestors, in many cases, expected the MVD troops to react as the police did; violently, but not completely without restraint.
The soldiers had other orders though.
The first of the two massacres took place in St Petersburg, opposite the old St Michaels Castle, about half an hour before the second slaughter. Crowds of protestors advanced on the thin line of camouflage-clad Interior Ministry troops. The wave of civilians pushed on towards the line of soldiers and riot shields. Behind them were several BTR fighting vehicles, many of which had been vandalised by protestors who had managed to sneak through or behind the line of troops. The massacre would take place when one young protestor attempted to wrench a rifle from the hands of an MVD trooper. The protestor was shot dead instantaneously, and after that all hell broke loose. Screaming masses of confused and terrified marchers ran in all directions, with many simply trampling over one another in attempt to escape. Some ran towards the troops, who in turn opened fire. The soldiers went forwards, spraying rounds into anybody who looked as though they might pose a threat. The BTR-80s followed, not firing their cannons, but equally not hesitating to run down many people who stood in their way.
Within minutes, the streets of St Petersburg were clear of resisters. Thirty-one people lay dead in the streets and many more were wounded. Footage of the slaughter had been captured by several news crews, and these tapes would be played across every news channel in the western hemisphere by morning, joined by amateur footage shot by many of the protestors themselves.
Half an hour after this first act of barbarity, a similar incident took place in Moscow. Like they had in St Petersburg, armed MVD troops watched the protests with eagle-eyes, waiting for the first act of violence. Before the protestors could land the first blows, however, the commander on the scene of a large march along a road leading past the Lenin Library, would order his men to surge forwards to break up the unnerving size of the crowd. The soldiers went into the crowd battering people aside with their riot shields and batons. One camera crew filmed a soon-to-be iconic piece when they captured footage of a group of young people holding up the rainbow flag being set upon with batons by MVD soldiers. The protestors were ruthlessly beaten to the ground, and the MVD men continued to attack once their victims were on the ground. A passer-by would then attempt to intervene, grabbing an MVD soldier from behind and pulling him away.
The soldier rapidly threw his assailant to the ground and unleashed a burst of automatic gunfire which killed the protestor instantly. There was less shooting in Moscow itself as the soldiers and policemen instead beat many people to the ground, although four more people were shot dead at various points during the violence. Much of this international outrage had been captured on camera. Protests themselves would briefly die away after this. Many of the marchers were students whose parents would try to stop them from attending after the November 26th massacre, and others would be far too frightened to attend. The FSB went into overdrive over the next few days, arresting hundreds of people on multiple riot-related charges. This was an all-out effort to prevent people from telling more horror stories to the world of what they had witnessed on November 26th. Several protestors were charged even with murder through the backwards logic that in provoking the MVD troops to open fire in St Petersburg they were somehow responsible for those deaths rather than the government.
The protest movement seemed to enter a period of dormant mourning as the names and faces of the forty-five people killed on that fateful autumn day were remembered. The sadness soon gave way to anger though, and thus the Autumn Movement was born.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 8, 2019 18:11:25 GMT
Excellent work!
|
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Jan 8, 2019 19:12:27 GMT
Ok...and by now Russia friends will be very very few in the western circle, this will be basically Tienammen 2.0 in term of reaction and any previous 'friend' of Putin will do like Peter and deny to even know him as it will be political toxic.
Frankly i see China as the only big supporter of Moscow (for obvious reason) but still in a discrete manner and the rest of the international bad boys being the only one to give open support.
The big problem in any military and political confrontation is that EU and USA can outspend military Russia and cripple her economy without even fire a single shot.
Going to Wikipedia, in 2010 there were also the election in Ukrain, in OTL won by a pro-Russian candidate that later was deposed by the euromaidan movement and there were a lot of accusation of fraud...image if ITTL he lose and Putin try to annex Crimea and start a revolt in Ukrain 4 years earlier
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,971
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 8, 2019 19:21:18 GMT
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 8, 2019 19:38:37 GMT
Ok...and by now Russia friends will be very very few in the western circle, this will be basically Tienammen 2.0 in term of reaction and any previous 'friend' of Putin will do like Peter and deny to even know him as it will be political toxic. Frankly i see China as the only big supporter of Moscow (for obvious reason) but still in a discrete manner and the rest of the international bad boys being the only one to give open support. The big problem in any military and political confrontation is that EU and USA can outspend military Russia and cripple her economy without even fire a single shot. Going to Wikipedia, in 2010 there were also the election in Ukrain, in OTL won by a pro-Russian candidate that later was deposed by the euromaidan movement and there were a lot of accusation of fraud...image if ITTL he lose and Putin try to annex Crimea and start a revolt in Ukrain 4 years earlier There will always be certain people who make excuses for what is done but many open friends will fall away. Public pressure will be the biggest issue there. Yep, you're correct on Russia-vs.-NATO. That's why Russia will have to play unfair. Yanukovych will be in power in the summer of 2010. The Kremlin will make sure of that. The title of this story, as in Operation Eagle Guardian should tell you where the fight will start... though certainly not be limited to! |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Jan 8, 2019 20:08:50 GMT
I've finally managed to catch up, and I have to applaud the two of you. It's a truly amazing story so far!
|
|
crackpot
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 89
Likes: 71
|
Post by crackpot on Jan 8, 2019 21:35:01 GMT
Mmm. Radioactive pierogies. Looking forward to those.
|
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Jan 9, 2019 13:02:30 GMT
Thank you! I've finally managed to catch up, and I have to applaud the two of you. It's a truly amazing story so far! Thank you very much, hearing positive comments like this is always encouraging. There is much, much more to come! Mmm. Radioactive pierogies. Looking forward to those. This TL will try to avoid that...or will it? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,971
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 9, 2019 13:37:09 GMT
This TL will try to avoid that...or will it? No spoilers please. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 9, 2019 13:38:19 GMT
This TL will try to avoid that...or will it? No spoilers please. Spoiler: there will be a war. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,971
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 9, 2019 13:40:37 GMT
Spoiler: there will be a war. Well if there would be no war then this would be a short timeline. Also are you going to post a story only in the Timelines and Scenarios Only Hub. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Jan 9, 2019 14:31:14 GMT
Spoiler: there will be a war. Well if there would be no war then this would be a short timeline. Also are you going to post a story only in the Timelines and Scenarios Only Hub. Or a very long one. There is no reason why you can't describe peace in incredible detail... |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 9, 2019 19:43:04 GMT
Spoiler: there will be a war. Well if there would be no war then this would be a short timeline. Also are you going to post a story only in the Timelines and Scenarios Only Hub. That is true. I can do that, sure! Or a very long one. There is no reason why you can't describe peace in incredible detail... You're correct there. I just like war stories. In case you or anyone else hasn't read it, I did a sort-of non-war story here: alternate-timelines.proboards.com/thread/1645/apocalypse-averted-1986-global-scare . In addition, Forcon is also posting his 'Holiday in Tehran' story on this site. It is a great work of war and a very modern. It can be found here: alternate-timelines.proboards.com/thread/2425/holiday-tehran |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 9, 2019 19:45:33 GMT
Seven
Through the very end of November and all throughout December, condemnation came from across the world aimed at Russia’s bloody internal crackdown on the streets of its cities. This didn’t die down. Medvedev and Putin had anticipated a strong reaction – it was worse than what they had feared too – but the belief was that soon enough, other events would draw attention away. That just didn’t happen. The visibility of what had happened made this an issue which wouldn’t just be forgotten about across the globe. Statements by political figures, comments by international campaigners, and debates in national parliaments & international bodies went on and on.
‘11-26’ was a defining moment in so many ways for how much of the world would view Russia afterwards.
There were a few countries whose leader expressed support for the actions taken by the Kremlin and there were those who chose not to condemn Russia too. Certain individuals took their moment to try to muddle the waters as well and claim that there was more context to what had happened. However, these were few and far between. Venezuela’s dictator could say all that it wanted in support of the massacres, China’s regime could make no comment apart from stating that this was a concern for Russia only and Italy’s foreign minister could claim that maybe ‘both sides’ were to blame yet these were voices in the wind. There was a bandwagon to jump on for many. Those who really didn’t give a damn about innocent Russian civilians being beaten or shot to death were given an opportunity to join in. Russia was a punchbag at the minute, a convenient one too.
Alongside all of the statements – political and diplomatic – which came from so many corners there were those which started to take action. The sanctions levelled on Russia following the war with Georgia last year, and the subsequent revelations of that shooting of prisoners plus the failure to withdraw fully from that nation, had never been enough for many. They had been deemed ‘pointless’ at the time in many quarters. Those first sanctions had only partially targeted Russia’s international trade links with the outside world and came with countless caveats which meant that away from the strong words by politicians, they really were pointless in having any effect upon leadership in the Kremlin. The Russian Government was never going to change its behaviour following those. Following 11-26, there were calls made for ‘real’ sanctions this time. If other countries had to take some financial pain, even at this time of great international financial uncertainty, then so be it. It was argued the perceived weakness shown months beforehand had only emboldened Russia and given rise to what it eventually did. True or not, that became the consensus. Many governments, working together, sought to draw up new sanctions. There were still efforts to protect themselves though and this drew things out into the beginning of 2009.
Obama was inaugurated and took office on January 20th. ‘Hope’ and ‘Yes we can’ had won last November. Now that message of change by the pop star who was the new president was inside the White House. There were high hopes for all that the forty-fourth President of the United States could do. The majority of his election campaign had focused on domestic issues – naturally – yet occupying the position vacated by the outgoing Bush meant that foreign affairs were going to be a major part of his presidency. No president could avoid that, not with America in many ways seeing itself (and others agreeing with that) as the leader of the Free World.
Russia was certainly not part of the Free World. It hadn’t been before the Russo-Georgia War nor the killings of so many innocents on the streets of its cities on 11-26. It certainly wasn’t going to be after those massacres which all the world had seen. Had Obama wanted to – which he didn’t anyway – he would have found it impossible to try to ignore the international push for action against Russia in response. Rather than follow, Obama set to lead it. Sarkozy in Paris and Brown in London both had been in contact with the new president since he was elected. All during the transition, where he remained president-elect and thus with no official power, the issue had been there. Bush hadn’t been able to turn the international feeling for something to be done into real action yet Obama was going to.
The defeated challenger to Obama in the Democratic party primaries, Hilary Clinton, took office as Secretary of State the day after her victorious rival’s inauguration. Confirmation hearings had started early and behind the scenes manoeuvring had been done to assure that the former First Lady was quickly in office at the State Department. Instead of Obama directly, it was quickly her who attracted the ire of the Kremlin… very much so in the same vein as her predecessor Condi Rice had too which was quite something as both were very different characters. Clinton promised a ‘reset’ with Russia. Obama wanted a complete change in US-Russia ties in response to what had occurred on 11-26. The president considered the Bush had twiddled his thumbs too much in acting and that wouldn’t be the same with his administration. Clinton set about following the agenda which Obama wanted following when it came to Russia, one which had considerable bi-partisan support in Washington as well.
The United States took the global lead in punishing the Kremlin for what it had done. The actions taken were meant to force the Russian leadership to change course in its behaviour or suffer the consequences of the ire it had raised through the West. Russia would be hit where it would hurt – in the pocket – and the weapon employed would be oil.
Global oil prices had come down during the preceding Autumn. Turmoil on the international money markets had been the main cause of this. Speculation from those in the know in the business was that they would rise again through early 2009. Prices went up and down: that was the natural order of things. Oil exports came from all over the globe and mainly went to the energy-hungry West. China was a new buyer in the market and the West’s share was decreasing due to that yet still dominant overall. Oil prices were manipulated as the key element of the West’s weaponization of oil against the Kremlin. Working with Middle Eastern oil producers – who were getting something out of this soon enough – the price from much of the Arab world for their oil exports was going to stay low. A lack of any sign of American nor European tension with Iran, as previously thought likely, aided this effort.
Russia’s prices were higher. They hadn’t come down late in 2008 and there was no intention to lower them in 2009 either. Customers for Russian oil were mainly in Europe and it was always convenient for them to buy from Russia despite all of the negative issues surrounding transporting that oil – plus natural gas too; Western Europe was near-addicted to that other hydrocarbon – through Eastern Europe. Fast getting win of what was going on where the West had acted in concert with much of the Middle East, the Kremlin sought to play the game back on them. Both Libya and Venezuela had expressed solidarity with Moscow in the face of recent Western hostility and each was a major oil exporter. The Kremlin turned on the charm to get them both to stick with the Moscow approach of standing firm in keeping prices higher than elsewhere. The West would blink in the end and buy from them too as the international oil markets were full of ups and downs. Tripoli was more keen on this than Caracas but both Gaddafi and Chavez were willing to follow this course of action. Sticking a finger in the eye of Washington was what the former wanted; the latter would be getting something more meaningful.
Furthermore, where the West had acted behind the scenes with their plan to use the price of oil as a weapon against Russia, they had acted openly in a whole range of economic and trade sanctions as well. These were a big deal and the face of the ‘reset’ which was spearheaded by Washington. However, from the Kremlin there came a response here too. Medvedev and Putin (the latter especially) weren’t going to accept all which was being done with those sanctions that the Obama Administration made a big deal out of alongside Paris and London. They applied their own and targeted Western businesses which did business with Russia. Lobbying efforts had been made by corporations based in the West who had a global reach to limit some of what had been done with those sanctions against Russia. This had come with varying degrees of success for them. Moscow’s response was to target those corporations directly and let their boards & shareholders put the pressure on Western governments – to make it their problem – at a time when the West was entering a recession. Deals were blocked and there came nationalisation of certain assets. Some big joint oil projects between American oil companies and Russia were hit as well as a BP project in the Russian Far East.
Then there was Nord Stream.
This was a highly-contentious multi-national project to lay a pipeline under the Baltic Sea to send gas direct to Germany from Russia. Work was due to start next year on laying that pipeline – which would bypass Eastern Europe – and the first deliveries were due to start in late 2010. Cancelling Nord Stream would cost Russia too much as a nation and hit the bank accounts of many oligarchs… one of those rumoured to be Putin himself. However, delays were imposed and these were of a bureaucratic nature and not very well disguised for the punitive form that they were. The intention behind this was to cause political and economic consequences in Western Europe, in Germany especially. Berlin had been publicly on the same page as Washington, Paris and London when it came to sanctions against Russia but that wasn’t the case behind the scenes. Nord Stream mattered to Germany as much as it mattered to Russia.
The Kremlin waited for the response, confident that Germany’s economic concerns would pull the rug out from under the whole European position of siding with the Americans in this dispute.
|
|
