A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia russian federation
For now it seems that no deal is leading, which simply means that oligarchs will turn to West and will support their interest against Russia in Ukraine.
This is genuinely isn't about good timeline. Fall of the USSR never meant some end of history where everyone will suddenly become friends and respect each others. It meant USA dominance across the world and like any state USA and EU have their interests that just conflict with ours, or better said they want to get an advantage over us which of course provokes response from us as their advantage often means supporting groups that are in direct opposition to us.
What we can do is to minimize the possibility of conflict, that means protecting our hard won sphere of influence and our own economic interests while seeking a compromise on a world matter. This can be done by making sure that Ukraine is firmly on our side opposed to turned towards the West and by increasing and promoting positive economic relations. But these are conditioned not on respect of Ukrainian sovereignty, but on the fact that both Ukraine and Russia understand and respect each others core interests and questions. For Ukraine that's territorial integrity and economic growth, plus some sort of strategic autonomy while for Russia that's Ukraine not being a threat to its security and economic interests, access to its ports for Russian black sea fleet and rights of Russian minority in Ukraine and these cannot be achieved with entry into the EU/NATO.
For these to happen we must back and protect politicians that seek closer relations with us lest they simply decide that their future and those things are better achieved via integration with the West which is unacceptable for us due to it undermining our core interests and putting us on back foot in relations to the West which endangers our own economic development in future negotiations.
Regarding Ukraine and Democracy in general, it's important to understand that while Democracy is rule of the people dominant form of Democracy is representative Democracy which is subjected to the beliefs and influence of influential politicians and interests of Oligarchic elites, this is transitioned to the masses through the corporate, or state owned media which influences public opinion.
Basically if we want to avoid the conflict and secure a better future we need to back and protect people that are willing to work with us and show them that we indeed see interest in the fate of their nation and that we will protect them in case some other power undermines them. Only that way can we have productive relationships with USA/EU as through these actions we will minimize the conflict and not give them a weakness to exploit which our response will escalate.
Basically this isn't end of history, but just a new page of history.
Last edited:
So after thinking it through a little i decided to take more neutral stance regarding Ukraine and not influencing the officials, while im in favor of agents on the ground i would also like to point out that option B also isn't without its merits and would like to point out advantages of this option.
As we know otl Ukrainian pro western /anty Russian sentiment died off naturally on its own and passive approach to Ukraine can also be successful. Basically instead of backing the factions we like this approach is more similar to Chinese diplomacy where we will work with Ukrainian State regardless of who is on power as long as our core interests are respected.
We also shouldn't underestimate agency of Ukrainian people and how they perceive things on the ground and i still stand with the fact that as long as we continue our economic development, rise our living standards and are important investor and trading partner for Ukraine we should be able to sway public opinion towards CIS/EEU/Russia quite easily as people are smart enough to understand that EEU offers them the same things like EU and is maybe even better for them and as i said i expect that Ukrainian economy should be better off anyway due to membership in our organizations.
Proof of this is that current Primeminister came to power even without our intervention and he styles himself to be like Fyodorov, also pro Russian factions hold majority in the Parliament atm so we do have upper hand.
Another important thing for us is that it's unlikely that USA/EU will push towards Ukraine, just like in otl they will be busy with Yugoslav wars, spreading US dominance across the globe and integrating the Central Europe and Baltics into the NATO and EU, in Ukraine's case i don't think that current public opinion is to much pro NATO and EU itself needs time to expand while Germany and France have enough agency to know not to provoke Russia, so we can expect that Ukraine will stay with us until it's to late to change that fact. Also Clinton administration probably won't provoke Russia as it seems that their strategy is to integrate it in US led order and as i said they have more immediate things than Ukraine to worry about (plus Fyodorov administration had shown that it's willing to protect its interests).
Ultimately with the line of option B opinion is that as long as we take concrete steps regarding CIS/EEU economic integration and continue our current path Ukraine should easily be pro Russian. USA and EEU don't have magical stick to cause revolutions, they are caused by things on the ground like poverty and in otl Ukraines case solution for many was joining EU as Russia honestly didn't offer alternative and even then they weren't pro NATO until 2014 Crimea crisis. If we manage to achieve growth for CIS region its more likely that Ukrainian political establishment and corporate elites will naturally be inclined towards us as they all will seek to follow majority opinion as even if they go on the streets if they lose elections there's nothing they can do but protest peacefully .
Other important thing regarding this offer is that we don't know weather these politicians represent current Primeminister, it's probably far better for us to lend a hand publicly in official function and there is always a danger of corruption scandal in which we don't want to be caught in. Current Primeminister clearly wants to fight corruption.
Basically in this option we count on passively winning public support, dealing in good faith with Ukraine that shows that we acknowledge it as sovereign state and not as a satellite, the fact that USA/NATO are preoccupied with other things in the world to intervene and that we already have pro Russian government in power and depending on our decisions we could see current coalition winning presidential elections .
So i would say that both options have merit and regardless which option wins i still believe that following the timeline its quite likely we will see pro Russian Ukraine at the end of this. We simply have to much advantages not to most primarily being no collapse of the 90s and the fact that we should achieve economic growth big enough for Ukraine to stay.
These are my thoughts on option B side when in case i would vote for it. But i still prefer to actually guarantee protection for people willing to work with us.
As we know otl Ukrainian pro western /anty Russian sentiment died off naturally on its own and passive approach to Ukraine can also be successful. Basically instead of backing the factions we like this approach is more similar to Chinese diplomacy where we will work with Ukrainian State regardless of who is on power as long as our core interests are respected.
We also shouldn't underestimate agency of Ukrainian people and how they perceive things on the ground and i still stand with the fact that as long as we continue our economic development, rise our living standards and are important investor and trading partner for Ukraine we should be able to sway public opinion towards CIS/EEU/Russia quite easily as people are smart enough to understand that EEU offers them the same things like EU and is maybe even better for them and as i said i expect that Ukrainian economy should be better off anyway due to membership in our organizations.
Proof of this is that current Primeminister came to power even without our intervention and he styles himself to be like Fyodorov, also pro Russian factions hold majority in the Parliament atm so we do have upper hand.
Another important thing for us is that it's unlikely that USA/EU will push towards Ukraine, just like in otl they will be busy with Yugoslav wars, spreading US dominance across the globe and integrating the Central Europe and Baltics into the NATO and EU, in Ukraine's case i don't think that current public opinion is to much pro NATO and EU itself needs time to expand while Germany and France have enough agency to know not to provoke Russia, so we can expect that Ukraine will stay with us until it's to late to change that fact. Also Clinton administration probably won't provoke Russia as it seems that their strategy is to integrate it in US led order and as i said they have more immediate things than Ukraine to worry about (plus Fyodorov administration had shown that it's willing to protect its interests).
Ultimately with the line of option B opinion is that as long as we take concrete steps regarding CIS/EEU economic integration and continue our current path Ukraine should easily be pro Russian. USA and EEU don't have magical stick to cause revolutions, they are caused by things on the ground like poverty and in otl Ukraines case solution for many was joining EU as Russia honestly didn't offer alternative and even then they weren't pro NATO until 2014 Crimea crisis. If we manage to achieve growth for CIS region its more likely that Ukrainian political establishment and corporate elites will naturally be inclined towards us as they all will seek to follow majority opinion as even if they go on the streets if they lose elections there's nothing they can do but protest peacefully .
Other important thing regarding this offer is that we don't know weather these politicians represent current Primeminister, it's probably far better for us to lend a hand publicly in official function and there is always a danger of corruption scandal in which we don't want to be caught in. Current Primeminister clearly wants to fight corruption.
Basically in this option we count on passively winning public support, dealing in good faith with Ukraine that shows that we acknowledge it as sovereign state and not as a satellite, the fact that USA/NATO are preoccupied with other things in the world to intervene and that we already have pro Russian government in power and depending on our decisions we could see current coalition winning presidential elections .
So i would say that both options have merit and regardless which option wins i still believe that following the timeline its quite likely we will see pro Russian Ukraine at the end of this. We simply have to much advantages not to most primarily being no collapse of the 90s and the fact that we should achieve economic growth big enough for Ukraine to stay.
These are my thoughts on option B side when in case i would vote for it. But i still prefer to actually guarantee protection for people willing to work with us.
Last edited:
2). While I am in general agreement of ruffino's position on the oligarchs, Kriss' points actually give me an idea, one in the making but an idea nonetheless:
- Reject the help of the oligarchs, but keep it quiet...
- Wait for the oligarchs to inevitably turn to the west/EU, then let them make some clearly public move (say, a massive business trip to London/Berlin/Washington/wherever or letting western leaders attend a political/economic conference of some sort primarily attended by the oligarchs); perhaps even wait a little longer until one or the other makes an unambiguous affirmation that the two groups will be working together for the foreseeable future.
- Publicly leak the oligarchs' initial offer to Russia.
- The oligarchs' influence and authority collapse quickly as it is clear that they are willing to sell out Ukraine to whatever foreign power is interested in being their "sugar daddy" so to speak
- Russia will gain Ukrainian popular support for refusing to undermine the country's democracy for the sake of government influence.
- The west will be embarrassed and lose Ukrainian popular support for doing the exact opposite.
Members of Russian-led factions (1994)
1. Commonwealth of Independent States - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia, Georgia;
2. Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia, Georgia;
3. Eurasian Economic Union - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia, Georgia;
4. Eurasian Customs Union - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia, Georgia;
5. Collective Security Treaty Organization - Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia;
2. Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia, Georgia;
3. Eurasian Economic Union - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia, Georgia;
4. Eurasian Customs Union - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia, Georgia;
5. Collective Security Treaty Organization - Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria, Gaguazia, Armenia;
Last edited:
Nothing against others, even Armenia can be explained due to it wanting to avoid isolation but why did Georgia join CSTO? Especially since it has unresolved territorial question with Russia and rest of CSTO?
Edit: Also i reread the update and it says that Georgia joined only CIS and EEU.
Last edited:
I like this idea, I’m not fully convinced on how effective it will be, but it is interesting anyway.
Art Vandelay
Banned
I too think Sovyetski17's plan is clever, and may even work, I think we should go ahead with it
I'll add my support to @Sovyetski17's plan, cunning and devious and a good gamble that might just work.