A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation

Btw could you write what would be outcome of our hypothetical war against A) NATO in Europe B) China in Asia. I am really curious about conventional potential of our armed forces in 2010
  1. Nuclear is MAD, both as mad and as M.A.D.
  2. Conventionally defence we can give the USA, but even NATO a run for it's money. The training and equipment is there. It's motivation, luck and experience that gives either the edge.
  3. Conventionally offensive, forget defeating the USA. While we could seriously hurt them, we can't get to them with conventional weapons except planes, where we are roughly even with them soon. Add NATO and we lose. We can probably get to the Oder conventionally against the EU, but the logistics power of the USA isn't there for the Union State. You'd need a supportive Eastern Europe to get to Western Europe.
  4. China.... well China is special. First: how do we surprise them given they are close. Secondly: What angle of attack do we chose, only where we border eachother? If so, they can support more forces in Manchuria then we can in Far East Russia. If we go through the Stans or Mongolia, the terrain is horrible. So for me the answer is: Nuclear? See 1. Conventional Defensive: we win, China has the same issue we have with the attack path and force projection. Conventionally Offensive: we might defeat a lot, but China has people to throw at the problem and semi-decent equipment. It has the same benefit that we have defensively. I'd say this would be a case of us winning the battle, but a tie in the war.

We may even start low-level production of Su57.
We will, it's targeted for a 2010 prototype (see update II). The subs you mentioned are in update III, production might start in 2010. Both are faster then OTL.
 
  1. Nuclear is MAD, both as mad and as M.A.D.
  2. Conventionally defence we can give the USA, but even NATO a run for it's money. The training and equipment is there. It's motivation, luck and experience that gives either the edge.
  3. Conventionally offensive, forget defeating the USA. While we could seriously hurt them, we can't get to them with conventional weapons except planes, where we are roughly even with them soon. Add NATO and we lose. We can probably get to the Oder conventionally against the EU, but the logistics power of the USA isn't there for the Union State. You'd need a supportive Eastern Europe to get to Western Europe.
  4. China.... well China is special. First: how do we surprise them given they are close. Secondly: What angle of attack do we chose, only where we border eachother? If so, they can support more forces in Manchuria then we can in Far East Russia. If we go through the Stans or Mongolia, the terrain is horrible. So for me the answer is: Nuclear? See 1. Conventional Defensive: we win, China has the same issue we have with the attack path and force projection. Conventionally Offensive: we might defeat a lot, but China has people to throw at the problem and semi-decent equipment. It has the same benefit that we have defensively. I'd say this would be a case of us winning the battle, but a tie in the war.


We will, it's targeted for a 2010 prototype (see update II). The subs you mentioned are in update III, production might start in 2010. Both are faster then OTL.
Thanks for it, now the picture is clear what Russian Armed forces are capable of.
 
So we grow naturally better then expected, we have less death by virtue of our fight against addictive substances including tobacco and alcohol, plus much much better healthcare. And let's not underestimate the lessened stress due to a much better education system, job availability and geopolitical status.
Precisely this. My death rates that I have taken are significantly less than OTL as I stated in the first post on population how simple straightforward changes was going to mean a reduction in around 12 million people dying! The greatest example for this I found was in 2003 when OTL 2.37 million people died but I took 1.69 million. I've kept the death rate pretty constant at around 1.65 million with a rise to around 1.71 million in 2009 because eventually we will see a bit of a rise as the longer lived folk eventually pass away. One thing which would be interesting to talk about is the major cultural impact Russian men not dying (significantly) early is going to have. Generally I think there will be a much greater level of optimism and the nihilism so prevalent in Russian culture will likely be seeing significant challenging. No doubt a new wave of films and media is going to raise questions on this and likely portray a much more optimistic vision of things.

And we really need to talk about tea lolololol. In my mind the Russian consumption of tea has skyrocketed and you'll see a lot of early memes talking about rejecting booze and drinking tea instead.

In contrast, Central Asia should be much more straightforward, between sheer geographic proximity, and preexisting economic and infrastructural ties dating back to the Soviet era.
Perhaps a significant Canadification of the region? Treated as valuable partners and neighbours with significant cultural links and commonalities but with enough differences that reincorporating them into Russia/Union State is seen as not worth it.

Perhaps even go beyond simply freeing our children and their children from the scourge of congenital defects, short lifespans, and genetic disorders, but unlock their full potential, stronger, smarter, and more endurance, through the power of genetic engineering.
I like this, but I would think going slowly and steadily is the best way. I'd say the Orthodox Church would make a massive fuss if we try to go for the full potential angle and I think both Russia and humanity aren't quite ready for that. But working toward the eradication of things like genetic disorders is a noble goal.

Sitting in the background probably won't be an option for us as we will be viable rival weary soon and we are more confrontational and openly expansionist.
Definitely agree with this. But I think reducing our per capita from ~$80,000 to like $55-60,000 by incorporating Ukraine won't be a massive hit tbh. Our PPP per capita at that point is likely superior to the US and I think that would matter more. I think, however, that by that point we are going to see a real multipolar world. Note according to @dunHozzie's calculations, that by 2028 Russia, China and America will be in the same ballpark, but India too is going to be a $12T economy and definitely able to compete with these economies on PPP terms. And Russia and India both want a multi-polar world. The politicking taking place in this world is going to be insane lol, especially with a democratic Russia that provides a genuine democratic alternative, and dare I say a more desirable one for countries that want to be democracies but still develop quickly.

I do wonder what people in thinking of the near wars between Russia and the West after the fall of the SU. This Russia is a democratic one after all, albeit not a liberal one, so much more difficult to tar with the authoritarian brush. Well, to some extent at least, there’ll always be a sizable strain of authoritarianism in Russia so maybe people are simply taking the old pre-cold war Great Power rivalries as coming back into play.
I think we are definitely going to see this Russia bunched up with India in the sense these are more authoritarian democracies where the government has a greater say in the lives of ordinary citizens when compared with Western democracy.

Please choose budget for the Russian Armed Forces for the 2010s:
A)
 
Resources buddy. Afghanistan was for resources essential in chips, Uzbekistan gold and other strategic minerals, Tadjikistan has aluminum, Kyrgyzstan has minerals, Kazakhstan oil and uranium, Turkmenistan has oil and gas. Honestly the latter is the least valuable to the Union, but the first 4 (5 if you include Afghanistan) are very very valuable.
 
C-We should increase the budget just by a minor amount due to the close war scares that have just come in quick succession.
I can see your point, but neither the Chinese nor USA will allow us to get closer then we are (or they will increase spending too), and that the the same race to the bottom as the cold war one.

2% however is the NATO norm, and no one can complain about that. Between that and our nuclear capacity no-one van bully us around.
 
Top