Imperador Pedro III
Banned
I rather go with the Eurasian thing than something as sterile as Eastern European.
A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia russian federation
And what's really the flaw in this? Russians are ultimately the majority of Russian Federation and we and the state accepted that, it is a pragmatic decision that reflects the facts on the ground including demographics,history and population composition of our state, this type of decision making had helped us to build greater cohesion then we would have been able if we adopted some pseudo identity and with our concept of Left Wing nationalism and citizen state we have left enough space for minorities to integrate while maintaining their identity. I wouldn't even say that they are unhappy opposed to few fringe groups being unhappy. Most people are probably quite fine with the arrangement.
I generally prefer to lean in on the numbers we have and actual facts opposed to trying to draw on decisions based on some theories that won't even work. Fact is that majority of our population are Slavs/Eastern Slavs with common culture and tradition, with addition of Ukraine this will be even greater truth. It makes sense for us to take that identity which already exists and is accepted and backed by statistics and facts on the ground, make it a new mainstream to accommodate Ukraine while not alienating Russians and then just copy paste current system we have with our minorities that already works for us and integrate it into the new identity.
I'm saying that based on real life experience, Soviet identity as niche identity hardly survived despite Soviets government having far more resources to impose said identity on the people. It's a proven fact that if you give people identity that has some connection to their culture , tradition and history and is locally and internationally accepted as such you will have people having easier time accepting. Good example is Germany. They didn't try to build Middle European identity opposed to going for their national identity. East Slavic identity, or Rus identity are already well established among majority of our population.
This also builds up to our own identity and it makes integration of new arrival easier without us trying to fabricate entirely new identity.
Problem with that wiggle room is that we don't need it, maybe besides Kazakhstan it's quite unlikely that we will truly absorb any other state and even Kazakhstan is questionable. We aren't speaking about Civilizational influence here, but about state building and our future national identity. Other than Ukraine we are basically unlikely to pick anymore identity groups overall and because of that it's far better to give people established identity with established traditions to which majority of our population can relate to and which can serve as a base and unifying identity to unite majority of our population while adopting already proven formula of ITTL Russian federation and leaving enough space for minority groups to integrate.
I prefer faster integration of around 90% of our population at the expense of 10 % integrating somewhat slower.
And what is Euroasian identity really? You will basically attempt to create a blend of Asian and European identity that 90% precent of our population will find hard to accept and will simply choose to stick to their own national identity first like in Soviet Union. We saw how fringe ideas work in Soviet Union and that's hardly what we want to replicate. Take the identity that already works with established traditions with who people/majority on the ground already identify, opposed to trying to artificially create a new one and show it down everyone's throat as that won't work.
You cannot really change the fact that for East Slavic groups being Slavs, or East Slavs in this case is already second, or third identity. Somewhere together with being European and Ortodox. We shouldn't go away from identity of clear majority just because we want to appease minority that doesn't even need to be appeased and is fine with current arrangement.
And in case of Yugoslav identity it was based on the fact that most of the participants were South Slavs on which identity was founded. Hardly a lukewarm like Eurasian identity which was historically represented by fringe groups and Soviet identity which didn't catch on. In case of Yugoslav identity it survives even today as regional identity of sorts.
Most of our population are hardly immigrants seeking to leave their life's behind and go to a New World opposed to the groups that lived in these regions for quite a time.
Generally if we adopt Eurasian identity only thing we will get is identity that doesn't resonate with most of our population and lessons people will take from that will be that it was like Soviet identity, a way for Russians to impose their dominance over other groups and justify their rule, which modern concept of Euroasian identity is, it's a identity created to create Russia as its own civilization and justify its dominion over its former Empire. Such identity will hardly be accepted as modern unifying identity opposed to superficial identity based on Russian dominion over other groups of its former Empire.
East Slavic identity on second hand is based on fact that Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are Eastern slavs with common culture, tradition, history and religion. It also has a lot of wiggle room for us to manurver to truly harmonize those three nations.
Eurasia is quite large land mass so we can give hints there as well. No matter which identity we take East Europe, especially Poland abd Baltics will accuse us of Imperialism.
But in our case we are taking East Slavic identity which is weary specific towards which groups, in which region this identity is oriented and not based on greater imperialist goals.
Russian Empire was Imperial project and it as heck didn't attempt to create common identity as much as it tried to absorb other groups in Russian identity (in this case East Slavs like Ukrainans).
And despite the Pan Slavinism it had double standards where it supported independence of some groups (in the Balkans) while also oppressing other Slavic groups like Poles.
But generally we aren't speaking about Pan Slavism as much as we are talking about new identity that can resonate with actual majority on the ground opposed to being showed down by intellectual and political circles from top to bottom.
Russian Empire was hardly trying to create new identity for it's Empire.
Otherwise we already voted on Pan Slavinism and adopted it , but we focused it on Ortodox Slavs and generally promotion of Shared Slavic culture.
We have a lot of room here if we focus on broader East Slavic culture, tradition and history opposed to focusing on who's slav and who's not. Basically we just build upon already established Left Leaning nationalism based on citizen state and respect for other cultures of union state while adopting mainstream identity for mainstream groups. Opposed to going Soviet way and just trying to be as neutral as we can to appease everyone while in reality not appeasing anyone. This way we will just get empty state arrangement with no greater identity to lean into which will fall appart the moment hard times come around as majority on the ground won't really bother to preserve it.
East Slavic identity is hardly Russian alone, it's identity shared by Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians, main groups of any future Union State and groups we will want to absorb into this new identity.
Last edited:
1. A - Elvira Nabiullina (New People); Fellow members of Duma, it's time we put our democratic advocate and fierce fighter, Mrs. Nabiulilna as our President.
2. A - We shall promote Russian innovation in the energy sector and also we must advocate for the use of nuclear energy as a method to reduce global carbon emissions. Start implementing an energy mix law consisting of 55% Nuclear, 25% Fossil, and 20% Renewables by 2025.
3. Keep calm and promote third-party dialog between the Korea Republic and DPRK governments. We should prepare our humanitarian packages in case war breaks out so we can help the people of Korea swiftly.
4&5: I support @Kriss
2. A - We shall promote Russian innovation in the energy sector and also we must advocate for the use of nuclear energy as a method to reduce global carbon emissions. Start implementing an energy mix law consisting of 55% Nuclear, 25% Fossil, and 20% Renewables by 2025.
3. Keep calm and promote third-party dialog between the Korea Republic and DPRK governments. We should prepare our humanitarian packages in case war breaks out so we can help the people of Korea swiftly.
4&5: I support @Kriss
Imperador Pedro III
Banned
I fully agree. Absorbing Ukraine takes precedence and East Slavic identity would be helpful in it.
Eurasia is literally something out of 1984, the perfect enemy against which Europe can galvanize, while pan-slavism helps us set our influence claim over a large part of Eastern Europe.
Some people said this would affect our relation with Poland and its true. Poland will always be there, we aren't going to annex or destroy Poland, so we need to normalize relations with them.
What do you think will help more with it: an artificial identity inspired in the asiatic horde trope or one that plays into our similarities?
The same logic also applies to Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia.
We can fuck NATO and the EU hard if we play this card right.
Last edited:
That's really the point we need to lean in in East Slavic origin as it's majority of our population abd it will make easier integration possible. Really Rus Confederation, or Union of Rus is a great name as it plays in historic narrative and shared indetity of three people.
I suppose people feel that we need to appease 10 to 9% of our nonRussian/Slavic population (that will be the precentage of all groups once Ukraine joins, maybe even smaller).
Generally once Ukraine joins Slavic proportion will be even greater than otl so i don't see why we should distance ourselves from Slavic/Rus identity opposed to embracing common Russian and Ukrainian roots.
Last edited:
Imperador Pedro III
Banned
No. We may want to annex Kazakhstan, and even this is questionable, but annexing the other Stans would be a major blunder. Our enemies would mass weaponise turkic nationalism and islamic extremism against us.
I disagree. The Stans have extremely valuable resources for both regular industry and IT / Semi-conductor / solar pannel industry, which are mainstays of our economy now. Now we could do the American thing and base them and suck their resources out with money, but the OTL Russians are the reason they can do that. So I don't think that will work the same way.
I also don't think Turkic nationalism is a big problem, most of them hate corruption and poverty and love free education and decently priced healthcare as much as a Belarussian or Ukrainian. So their young & desparate already will come in large numbers. If they can't because we won't allow it, it will create resentment, which leads to my next point.
And yes, some of them will be terrorist. Just like there are Christian terrorist and other domestic terrorists, there will be Muslim terrorists. As can be seen OTL, the fact that this Russia hasn't captured / annexed / federated the Stans isn't saving them from it either. I'd argue a joint state with ITTL Union State that will make them richer, reduces corruption and provides healthcare and education would actually sway a lot of people to defend the state. And like it did in most European states, the more the Socialist welfare state worked, the less religion was a large part of people's decisions.
So TLDR; I think the resources (for industry), the people (to work and grow) and the buffer of their land is worth annexing them into the Union.