A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia russian federation
Chapter Thirty: Wind of Change (July 2009 - March 2010)
(Mir-2 space station in early 2020's)
In 2009, against the backdrop of Russia's enduring commitment to space exploration and its longstanding legacy in human spaceflight, the Russian government made a landmark decision that marked a pivotal moment in the nation's space program: the replacement of the venerable Mir space station, which had been in operation since 1986, with an expanded and modernized version known as Mir-2. This ambitious undertaking represented a bold leap forward in Russia's quest to maintain its leadership in space exploration and propel humanity's journey into the cosmos to new heights. The decision to retire the Mir space station and develop Mir-2 reflected Russia's strategic vision for the future of its space program, as well as its unwavering dedication to advancing the frontiers of human knowledge and exploration. With the original Mir station having served as a symbol of Russian ingenuity and international collaboration in space for over two decades, the introduction of Mir-2 heralded the dawn of a new era in Russia's spacefaring endeavors, one characterized by innovation, progress, and a steadfast commitment to pushing the boundaries of human achievement. Mir-2 represented a bold evolution of the original Mir concept, incorporating cutting-edge technologies, advanced engineering principles, and lessons learned from decades of human spaceflight experience. Designed to build upon the successes of its predecessor while addressing its limitations and shortcomings, Mir-2 was poised to redefine the capabilities and possibilities of orbital space stations in the 21st century. At its core, Mir-2 embodied Russia's commitment to maintaining a robust and versatile platform for scientific research, technology development, and international collaboration in space. With its expanded living quarters, state-of-the-art laboratories, and advanced life support systems, the station offered a conducive environment for conducting a wide range of scientific experiments, technology demonstrations, and educational initiatives, thereby advancing our understanding of the cosmos and benefiting humanity as a whole.
Moreover, Mir-2 served as a testament to Russia's enduring leadership in human spaceflight and its determination to remain at the forefront of space exploration. By investing in the development of a next-generation space station, Russia reaffirmed its status as a key player in the global space arena and underscored its commitment to shaping the future of space exploration in collaboration with international partners. In pursuit of the Mir-2 project, Russia mobilized its extensive network of space industry stakeholders, research institutions, and government agencies to collaborate on the design, development, and construction of the new space station. Drawing upon the nation's rich heritage in space technology and engineering, as well as its experience in operating the Mir station and participating in the International Space Station program, Russia leveraged its collective expertise and resources to realize the vision of Mir-2. Furthermore, the development of Mir-2 represented a strategic investment in Russia's space infrastructure and capabilities, providing a foundation for future missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. With its modular design and adaptable architecture, Mir-2 offered a versatile platform for supporting long-duration human space missions, conducting cutting-edge scientific research, and advancing technologies critical to the future of space exploration.
In July 2009, the Russian government made a landmark announcement that the planned moon landing mission would be a collaborative effort involving not only Russia but also its allies from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This groundbreaking decision marked a significant departure from traditional space exploration practices, as it emphasized the importance of international cooperation and partnership in achieving ambitious scientific goals. The decision to involve allies from the CSTO and EAEU in the moon landing mission underscored Russia's commitment to fostering collaboration and unity among member states in pursuit of common objectives. By leveraging the collective resources, expertise, and capabilities of multiple nations, the mission aimed to maximize the chances of success while also promoting goodwill and solidarity among participating countries. The announcement was met with widespread enthusiasm and support from both domestic and international audiences, as it signaled a new era of cooperation and shared endeavor in the field of space exploration. Collaborative space missions have the potential to foster diplomatic ties, strengthen alliances, and promote scientific advancement on a global scale, making them an attractive prospect for nations seeking to expand their presence in space. Moreover, the decision to involve allies from the CSTO and EAEU in the moon landing mission highlighted Russia's role as a leader and facilitator of international cooperation in space exploration. By spearheading such initiatives, Russia sought to enhance its reputation as a reliable partner and promote its vision of a peaceful and inclusive spacefaring community. The joint moon landing mission represented a significant milestone in Russia's space exploration program and demonstrated the country's commitment to pushing the boundaries of human achievement while fostering collaboration and solidarity among nations. As preparations for the mission continued, anticipation and excitement grew, heralding a new chapter in the history of space exploration.
Moscow's decision to leverage Moldova's presence within the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a strategic tool reflected its broader geopolitical calculus aimed at safeguarding its interests and countering Western influence in the region. By exploiting Moldova's position within these Western institutions, Moscow sought to advance its agenda of thwarting EU federalization efforts and halting NATO's expansion project, while simultaneously sowing discord and divisions among member states. One of Moscow's primary objectives was to block EU federalization initiatives, which it viewed as a threat to its influence in Eastern Europe and a challenge to its vision of a multipolar world order. By utilizing Moldova's presence within the EU, Moscow aimed to obstruct efforts to centralize power within the EU institutions and promote greater integration among member states. Moldova, as a member of the EU, provided Moscow with a platform to voice opposition to EU policies and initiatives that it perceived as detrimental to its interests, such as sanctions, energy policies, and security strategies. Through diplomatic channels, Moscow could amplify dissenting voices within the EU and undermine consensus-building efforts, thereby impeding progress towards deeper political and economic integration.
Similarly, Moscow sought to exploit Moldova's membership in NATO to hinder the alliance's expansion project and weaken its cohesion. NATO's enlargement into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet space was perceived by Moscow as a direct threat to its security and geopolitical interests. By leveraging Moldova's position within NATO, Moscow aimed to disrupt alliance unity and prevent further eastward expansion. Moldova served as a conduit for Russian influence within NATO decision-making processes, allowing Moscow to undermine consensus on key issues, such as defense spending, collective defense commitments, and strategic deployments. Through diplomatic maneuvering and behind-the-scenes lobbying, Moscow exploited divisions between Western and Eastern European members of NATO, thereby weakening the alliance's effectiveness and credibility. Furthermore, Moscow sought to sow disagreements between Western and Eastern European members of both the EU and NATO, exploiting existing fault lines and historical grievances to undermine unity and solidarity within these institutions. Moldova's presence within the EU and NATO provided Moscow with a strategic foothold to exacerbate divisions and foster mistrust among member states. By playing on regional sensitivities, cultural differences, and geopolitical rivalries, Moscow undermined cooperation and consensus-building efforts, thereby weakening the effectiveness of both organizations.
(Alexey Nechayev - entrepreneur and politician, president of the Russian cosmetics company Faberlic, also co-funder and co-chairman of New People)
From July 2009 to March 2010, the political landscape of Russia witnessed a seismic shift with the emergence of former Prime Minister Elvira Nabiullina's tireless endeavor to establish her own political party, New People. New People, envisioned as a liberal, technocratic, center party, sought to challenge the status quo and usher in a new era of governance centered on the needs and aspirations of the Russian people. At the heart of New People's mission was the bold vision of "reorienting the state" towards serving citizens rather than perpetuating the interests of entrenched officials and bureaucratic elites. This rallying cry resonated deeply with a populace disillusioned by systemic corruption, government inefficiency, and a lack of responsiveness to their needs. Nabiullina and her allies recognized the urgent need for transformative change and positioned New People as the vanguard of a movement dedicated to revitalizing Russia's political institutions and restoring trust in government. Central to New People's platform was a commitment to blending the principles of popular capitalism with a robust social agenda aimed at addressing the pressing needs of society. Embracing the tenets of economic liberalism, the party championed policies that promoted private property rights, fostered a competitive market economy, and reduced the state's footprint in governing the country. This pro-business stance was coupled with a deep commitment to social justice, evidenced by the party's advocacy for disability rights, environmental protection, animal welfare, and other pressing social issues. The party's platform also placed a strong emphasis on modernization and innovation, recognizing the importance of harnessing technology, advancing scientific research, and investing in education to propel Russia forward into the digital age. Nabiullina's background in economics and her expertise in policy formulation informed New People's technocratic approach to governance, which prioritized evidence-based decision-making and the utilization of data-driven solutions to tackle complex societal challenges. By promoting a knowledge-based economy and prioritizing human capital development, New People aimed to position Russia as a global leader in innovation and technology.
Crucially, New People adopted a grassroots approach to political engagement, seeking to empower local communities and amplify the voices of ordinary citizens in the political process. The party's strategy involved recruiting social entrepreneurs and activists from diverse regions across Russia to serve as candidates and representatives, thereby ensuring that the party's agenda reflected the unique needs and priorities of different communities. By focusing on the regional agenda and promoting decentralized governance, New People sought to foster inclusivity and address the specific challenges facing diverse regions throughout the country. Moreover, New People's emergence represented a break from the entrenched power structures of traditional political parties, offering a fresh alternative to the dominant forces that had long dominated Russian politics. Nabiullina's reputation as a capable and principled leader, combined with the party's progressive platform and commitment to reform, attracted widespread attention and support from a diverse array of constituents. As Nabiullina and her allies worked tirelessly to build momentum for their movement, they sought to galvanize support around their vision for a more inclusive, innovative, and responsive political system that truly served the interests of the Russian people.
Alexey Nechaev was born in Moscow on 30 August 1966. He is the only child in the family. His mother Yelena Vasilyevna Binat (Greek by nationality) is a school teacher. Father Gennadiy Nikolaevich Nechayev – an atomic engineer by his first education, a graduate of the MEPhI, worked at the plant as the head of the laboratory for methods of protection and control of reactors; later, through the party line, he was nominated for a second higher education at the Academy of Foreign Trade, mastered several foreign languages, and often traveled abroad. From 1983 to 1988, Alexey Nechaev studied at Moscow State University at the Faculty of Law, was a member of the Komsomol. He was not called up for military service (unlike most students born in the second half of the 1960s). After the first year he worked as a counselor in the pioneer camp of Moscow State University "Youth". In 1985, he passed sailing practice in the pioneer flotilla "Caravella", organized by Vladislav Krapivin. He founded the movement of different-age groups "Dawn", in which extracurricular work with children was carried out. Children went on sailing trips and were engaged in hand-to-hand combat and fencing. In 1990, he started doing business – first selling newspapers and books in the subway passages. Together with partners, he establishes the publishing house of children's literature "Master". The first Russian edition of The Chronicles of Narnia was published by the publishing house. From 1996 to 1997 he worked on the stock market in Ukraine.
In 1997, Nechaev created and headed the company to produce and trade cosmetics "Russian Line". In the same year, Nechaev and his partner Alexander Davankov acquired a patent for the use of aquaftem. This substance became the basis for the products of "Russian Line", and subsequently Faberlic. For the project, work in the format of direct sales was chosen. Since its inception, Nechayev has been and remains the company's sole leader. At the initial stage, he invested $2 million of his own funds in the project and took another $1 million for the company's development from friends. In 2001, in connection with entering the international markets, it was rebranded and the company's name was changed to Faberlic. A little earlier, in 2000, due to entering foreign markets, a new line of products began to be developed on the initiative of partners. Then Alexey Nechaev and Alexander Davankov made a radical restructuring of the distribution system, and a network of single-brand Beauty Cafe stores was launched, and they began to sell Faberlic products. The company is a leader in export and one of the largest Russian manufacturers of hygiene and cosmetics. One of the three market leaders among companies specializing in direct sales in Russia, and one of the five leaders of Russia's perfumery and cosmetic market. The network of distribution partners, Faberlic, is one million people in Russia. In addition to Russia, the company operates in 40 more countries worldwide and is one of the 20 largest global companies specializing in direct sales. Since 2006, Faberlic has been included in the world rating of the largest cosmetic companies of the Women's Wear Daily publication, where it is the only representative of Russia.
From 1998 to 2008 – Member of the Council for Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship under the Government of the Union State. In 2005, after attending the Seliger forum, together with the federal commissioner of the Nashi youth movement Marina Zademidkova, created the "Green movement of Russia "ECA ", becoming the main sponsor of the project. The movement announced and implemented a program to plant 10 million trees in wildfire-affected and ecologically disadvantaged regions. In 2007, Alexey Nechaev founded the Captains educational program, which opened in 13 regions of the country. He then created the Captains Аamily Charitable Foundation. With the support of this fund on the basis of the Institute of Management and Socio-Economic Planning of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, the business faculty "Captains" was created. In 2008, the educational program "Captains" became a laureate of the "Foundation of Growth-2008" award as "The best educational project in the field of entrepreneurship". Also "Captains" were recognized as the 3rd largest student accelerator in the world.
(Garry Kasparov and Alexei Navalny - co-leaders of Right Cause)
In August 2009, the political landscape of Russia witnessed a seismic shift with the merger of two prominent opposition parties, Boris Nemtsov's Union of Right Forces (URF) and the United Civil Front led by Garry Kasparov. This union marked a significant milestone in the quest for a viable alternative to the ruling United Labor Party , signaling a convergence of disparate forces under a common banner of reform and progress. The newly formed entity, dubbed Right Cause, emerged as a formidable contender in Russian politics, drawing strength from its diverse ideological makeup and shared commitment to liberal conservatism, conservative liberalism, economic liberalism, and a national-patriotic orientation. The merger between the Union of Right Forces and the United Civil Front represented a strategic alliance between two influential factions within the opposition movement, each bringing its own distinct strengths and resources to the table. Boris Nemtsov, a seasoned politician and former Prime Minister of Russia, brought to the coalition his extensive political experience and pragmatic approach to governance. As a leading figure in the Union of Right Forces, Nemtsov had long championed liberal values and economic reforms, advocating for greater political freedoms, market competition, and transparency in government. His vision of a modern Russia resonated with a broad spectrum of the electorate, appealing to urban professionals, intellectuals, and disaffected youth disillusioned with the status quo. On the other hand, Garry Kasparov, the renowned chess grandmaster turned political activist, lent his charisma and international stature to the newly formed alliance. As the leader of the United Civil Front, Kasparov brought a fervent commitment to democratic principles and human rights, as well as a bold, confrontational style of opposition politics. His fearless critique of Lukashenko administration and his unyielding advocacy for political reform had earned him both admiration and enmity from supporters and adversaries alike. By joining forces with Nemtsov's Union of Right Forces, Kasparov sought to amplify his message of defiance and resistance, harnessing the collective power of the opposition to challenge the hegemony of United Labor Party and its allies.
The ideological foundation of Right Cause reflected a fusion of liberal and conservative principles, blending a commitment to individual liberty and free-market economics with a sense of national pride and patriotism. This hybrid approach aimed to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters across Russia's diverse political landscape, transcending traditional left-right divides and offering a compelling alternative to the ruling party's statist policies. By embracing a platform of liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism, Right Cause sought to position itself as a pragmatic, centrist force capable of bridging the gap between competing ideological factions and uniting Russians around a common vision of progress and prosperity. Central to Right Cause's agenda was a commitment to economic liberalism and market-oriented reforms aimed at stimulating growth, fostering innovation, and expanding opportunities for entrepreneurship. The party advocated for deregulation, privatization, and fiscal discipline as key drivers of economic development. At the same time, Right Cause emphasized the importance of social cohesion and national unity, promoting a sense of collective identity and shared purpose among Russians of all backgrounds. This national-patriotic orientation sought to channel popular discontent with the ruling elite into constructive avenues for political change, mobilizing support for reform and renewal within the framework of democratic institutions. In August 2009, the inaugural congress of the Right Cause party marked a pivotal moment in Russia's political landscape as Boris Nemtsov, a towering figure in the opposition movement, made the momentous decision to step down as chairman. Nemtsov's resignation, while unexpected, paved the way for a new era of leadership within the party and signaled a strategic realignment aimed at rejuvenating the opposition's electoral prospects. In his place, Garry Kasparov, the renowned chess grandmaster turned political activist, assumed the mantle of leadership, bringing with him a potent combination of charisma, intellect, and unwavering commitment to democratic principles.
Kasparov's ascension to the chairmanship of Right Cause injected fresh momentum and energy into the party, galvanizing supporters and signaling a break from the past. As a vocal critic of President Lukashenko and a fearless advocate for political reform, Kasparov embodied the spirit of defiance and resistance that defined the opposition movement. His reputation as a principled and uncompromising leader resonated with many Russians disillusioned with the entrenched corruption and that pervaded the country's political system under President Lukashenko. With Kasparov at the helm, Right Cause sought to capitalize on his international stature and his track record of activism to mobilize support and challenge the ruling party's hegemony. In a strategic move aimed at broadening the party's appeal and strengthening its electoral prospects, Right Cause announced that Garry Kasparov would lead the party in the upcoming legislative elections, slated for the following year. The decision to entrust Kasparov with the party's leadership underscored his status as a unifying figure within the opposition movement and his ability to rally support from diverse constituencies. As the face of Right Cause, Kasparov would be tasked with articulating the party's vision for reform and galvanizing public support behind its agenda of liberal conservatism and economic liberalism. Alongside Kasparov, another figure emerged as a key player within Right Cause: Alexei Navalny, the outspoken activist and mayor of Moscow. Navalny's appointment as deputy chairman of the party signaled his growing influence within the opposition movement and his potential to shape its future direction. As a vocal critic of corruption and a champion of transparency, Navalny brought a populist appeal and a reputation for fearlessness to Right Cause's leadership team. His willingness to challenge the status quo and confront the ruling elite resonated with many Russians disillusioned with the pervasive graft and cronyism that plagued the country's political establishment.
In a bold move that captured the imagination of many Russians, Right Cause announced that Alexei Navalny would be the party's candidate in the next presidential elections, scheduled for 2011. Navalny's candidacy represented a direct challenge to the entrenched power of Alexander Lukashenko and the ruling United Labor Party, signaling a new phase in the struggle for political reform and renewal in Russia. With his reputation as a tireless advocate for change and his ability to mobilize grassroots support, Navalny emerged as a formidable contender for the presidency, promising to shake up the political establishment and give voice to the aspirations of ordinary Russians. As Right Cause embarked on its journey towards the legislative and presidential elections, the party's leadership team, led by Garry Kasparov and Alexei Navalny, articulated a bold vision for Russia's future. With a platform grounded in liberal conservatism, economic liberalism, and a commitment to patriotic and nationalist values, Right Cause sought to offer voters a compelling alternative to the ruling party's corruption and stagnation. Through a combination of grassroots mobilization, strategic alliances, and grassroots campaigning, Right Cause aimed to harness the energy of the opposition movement to propel Russia towards a brighter, more democratic future.
(Grigory Yavlinsky - now former Prime Minister and First Deputy Prime Minister during meeting with Yabloko supporters in Moscow)
In September 2009, the political landscape of Russia witnessed a momentous shift as Grigory Yavlinsky and his party, Yabloko, made the strategic decision to depart from the government coalition, which was now under the leadership of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. This move came in the wake of the dismissal of Prime Minister Nabiullina by President Lukashenko a few months earlier, signaling a recalibration of political alliances and priorities within the country. Yabloko, known for its advocacy of liberal democratic principles and economic reforms, had been a key player in the government coalition since 1999. However, the sudden ousting of Prime Minister Nabiullina by President Lukashenko had created a rupture in the political landscape, prompting Yavlinsky and his party to reassess their position within the government. The decision to leave the government coalition was not taken lightly by Yabloko. For years, the party had been engaged in a delicate balancing act, striving to advance its agenda while operating within the constraints of a political system dominated by the ruling United Labor Party. However, the dismissal of Nabiullina served as a catalyst for Yabloko to reevaluate its role and objectives within the government. Yavlinsky and his colleagues were motivated by a desire to maintain the integrity and independence of Yabloko's political platform. They recognized that remaining in the government coalition under the leadership of Prime Minister Medvedev would require compromises that could undermine the party's core principles and dilute its impact on national policy. Moreover, the departure from the government coalition provided Yabloko with an opportunity to reassert itself as a leading voice of opposition and advocate for meaningful change from outside the corridors of power. By positioning itself as a principled alternative to the ruling party, Yabloko sought to galvanize support among disillusioned voters and mobilize grassroots movements in favor of democratic reform and accountability.
The decision to leave the government coalition was met with mixed reactions from both within and outside the party. Some members of Yabloko viewed it as a necessary step to preserve the party's integrity and credibility in the eyes of the public. Others expressed concerns about the potential consequences of estrangement from the government, including reduced access to resources and influence in shaping national policy. Nevertheless, Yavlinsky remained steadfast in his conviction that Yabloko's departure from the government coalition was in the best interest of the party and the country as a whole. He emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear and principled stance on key issues, even if it meant sacrificing short-term gains in exchange for long-term credibility and effectiveness. As Yabloko embarked on a new chapter in its political journey, questions lingered about the party's future direction and its ability to influence political outcomes in Russia. Some observers speculated that the departure from the government coalition could pave the way for closer collaboration with other opposition forces and civil society groups, leading to a broader coalition for democratic change. In the months and years that followed, Yabloko continued to play a prominent role in Russian politics, advocating for democratic reform, human rights, and the rule of law. Despite the challenges and obstacles it faced, the party remained committed to its founding principles and the pursuit of a more open and democratic society in Russia.
(Nabiullina's goal was not only ending Lukashenko's rule over Russia, but also her revenge against him)
In a significant development just a few weeks after Yabloko's departure from the government coalition, Grigory Yavlinsky, the leader of Yabloko, and Elvira Nabiullina, the former Prime Minister and leader of New People, joined forces to announce an electoral alliance between their respective parties. The announcement made during a joint press conference reshaped the calculus of upcoming elections. The alliance between Yabloko and New People represented a convergence of liberal and reformist forces united by a common vision for democratic change and progressive governance in Russia. Yavlinsky and Nabiullina, both prominent figures with a track record of advocating for reform and transparency, emphasized the importance of cooperation and unity in the face of entrenched political elitism and corruption. At the heart of the electoral alliance was a commitment to advancing a bold agenda for political and economic reform, centered on principles of democracy, rule of law, and social justice. Yavlinsky, a seasoned politician known for his unwavering dedication to liberal democratic values, was tapped to lead the coalition in the upcoming legislative elections. With experience and deep understanding of Russian politics, Nabiullina emerged as a unifying figure capable of rallying support from diverse segments of society. As a former Prime Minister credited with navigating Russia with resilience and effectiveness, Nabiullina brought a wealth of experience and expertise to the table. Meanwhile, Yavlinsky's inclusion as the coalition's prime minister candidate underscored his prominence and political acumen
Her leadership of New People, a party espousing liberal, technocratic, and center-right principles, resonated with voters disillusioned with the status quo and hungry for change. The electoral alliance between Yabloko and New People promised to inject new energy and momentum into Russia's political opposition, challenging the dominance of the ruling United Labor Party and offering voters a viable alternative to the entrenched political establishment. By joining forces, Yavlinsky and Nabiullina sought to capitalize on their respective strengths and resources, leveraging their combined appeal to mobilize support and shape the national discourse. The announcement of the electoral alliance was met with enthusiasm and optimism by supporters of democratic reform, who saw it as a watershed moment in Russia's political evolution. Civil society groups, independent media outlets, and grassroots activists hailed the alliance as a significant step towards building a more pluralistic and inclusive political system, where diverse voices could participate and be heard. However, the electoral alliance also faced formidable challenges and obstacles on the road ahead. The ruling United Labor Party, led by President Lukashenko and Prime Minister Medvedev, wielded considerable resources and influence, making it a formidable opponent. Despite these challenges, Yavlinsky and Nabiullina remained undeterred in their quest to bring about meaningful change in Russia. They pledged to campaign tirelessly on behalf of their coalition, crisscrossing the country to engage with voters, promote their platform, and mobilize support for their vision of a more democratic and prosperous future.
In October 2009, President Lukashenko embarked on a significant diplomatic mission to Libya, where he engaged in high-level negotiations with the country's leader, Muammar Gaddafi. The meeting between Lukashenko and Gaddafi marked a pivotal moment in the diplomatic history of both nations and underscored the enduring strength of their bilateral relations. The negotiations between Lukashenko and Gaddafi were rooted in a long history of cordial and mutually beneficial relations between Russia and Libya. Since 1991, Russia had maintained close ties with Libya, cultivating a robust partnership encompassing various sectors, including energy, defense, and trade. Both nations shared a common commitment to promoting regional stability, countering terrorism, and advancing economic development in their respective regions. During their meeting, Lukashenko and Gaddafi discussed a wide range of bilateral and international issues of mutual interest, reaffirming their commitment to deepening cooperation and collaboration across multiple fronts. Central to their discussions were matters pertaining to energy cooperation, with both leaders exploring avenues for expanding bilateral energy projects and enhancing energy security in the region. Libya's vast oil and gas reserves presented lucrative opportunities for Russian energy companies, and Lukashenko expressed Russia's keen interest in furthering cooperation in this critical sector. In addition to energy cooperation, Lukashenko and Gaddafi explored opportunities for enhancing military and defense ties between their nations. Russia had long been a key supplier of military equipment and technology to Libya, and the two leaders discussed the possibility of expanding defense cooperation to address shared security challenges in the region.
Joint military exercises, training programs, and technology transfers were among the initiatives considered to strengthen defense collaboration between Russia and Libya. Beyond bilateral issues, Lukashenko and Gaddafi also exchanged views on regional and international developments, including efforts to promote peace and stability in the Middle East and North Africa. Both leaders emphasized the importance of dialogue, diplomacy, and multilateral cooperation in addressing regional conflicts and advancing the interests of their respective nations on the global stage. The negotiations between Lukashenko and Gaddafi yielded tangible outcomes, including agreements to enhance cooperation in key areas such as energy, defense, and trade. Joint communiqués issued at the conclusion of the meetings highlighted the depth of the bilateral relationship between Russia and Libya and outlined a roadmap for future collaboration. The meeting between Lukashenko and Gaddafi served as a testament to the enduring strength of Russian-Libyan relations and underscored the importance of diplomacy and dialogue in fostering constructive partnerships between nations. As both countries continued to navigate the complexities of the global geopolitical landscape, their commitment to mutual respect, cooperation, and shared interests remained steadfast, laying the foundation for a prosperous and stable future for their peoples and the wider region.
(Obama administation with strong public mandate began reforming USA)
During the second half of 2009 and throughout 2010, the administration of President Barack Obama, alongside Vice President Al Gore, pursued an ambitious agenda aimed at revitalizing the United States following the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the two terms of the Bush administration. Through a series of legislative initiatives and policy reforms, the Obama administration sought to address key economic, social, and environmental challenges facing the nation while promoting sustainable growth and progress.
1. Progressive Tax Reform (2009): In response to growing economic inequality and the need to generate revenue for essential government programs, the Obama administration introduced progressive tax reforms aimed at ensuring that the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share. These reforms included adjustments to income tax rates, capital gains taxes, and corporate tax loopholes, with a focus on promoting fairness and equity in the tax code.
2. Expansion of Environmental Safeguards: Recognizing the urgency of addressing climate change and protecting the nation's natural resources, the Obama administration implemented measures to strengthen environmental safeguards and promote sustainability. This included initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, expand renewable energy production, and preserve critical habitats and ecosystems through conservation efforts and land-use policies.
3. Obamacare (Affordable Care Act): One of the landmark achievements of the Obama administration was the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare. This comprehensive healthcare reform legislation aimed to expand access to affordable health insurance coverage, improve healthcare quality, and reduce healthcare costs for millions of Americans. Key provisions of the ACA included the establishment of health insurance marketplaces, expansion of Medicaid eligibility, and protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions.
4. Targeted Growth Programs: To spur economic recovery and create jobs in sectors poised for growth, the Obama administration launched targeted growth programs focused on industries such as renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, and information technology. These programs provided incentives for investment, research and development, and workforce training to foster innovation and competitiveness in the global economy.
5. The Conservation Act: Building on the legacy of environmental stewardship, the Obama administration championed the Conservation Act, which aimed to protect and preserve America's natural heritage for future generations. This legislation provided funding for the conservation of public lands, national parks, and wildlife habitats, as well as initiatives to promote outdoor recreation and environmental education.
6. Committee on Green Economic Affairs: Recognizing the interdependence of economic prosperity and environmental sustainability, the Obama administration established the Committee on Green Economic Affairs to coordinate policies and initiatives aimed at promoting green growth and job creation. This interagency committee facilitated collaboration between government agencies, businesses, and civil society organizations to advance green technologies, sustainable infrastructure, and clean energy solutions.
7. Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: In response to the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent economic downturn, the Obama administration spearheaded the passage of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This landmark legislation aimed to prevent future financial crises by imposing stricter regulations on the banking and financial sectors, enhancing consumer protections, and increasing transparency and accountability in financial markets.
8. Agricultural Condensing Act: To modernize and streamline agricultural policy, the Obama administration enacted the Agricultural Condensing Act, which aimed to consolidate and reform existing agricultural programs to better serve farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. This legislation sought to promote sustainable agriculture, improve food safety and nutrition, and enhance agricultural competitiveness in domestic and international markets.
The largest victory for the Obama-Gore administration during this period was undoubtedly the passing of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) in June 2009. This landmark piece of legislation represented a significant step forward in the United States' efforts to address climate change, promote clean energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The American Clean Energy and Security Act aimed to establish a comprehensive framework for transitioning to a low-carbon economy while simultaneously fostering economic growth and job creation. The key provisions of the ACES legislation included:
1. Cap and Trade System: One of the central components of the ACES was the implementation of a cap and trade system for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Under this system, a cap would be placed on the total amount of greenhouse gases that could be emitted by covered entities, such as power plants and industrial facilities. These entities would be required to obtain emission allowances, which could be bought, sold, or traded in a regulated market. Over time, the cap would be gradually reduced, incentivizing emission reductions and investments in cleaner technologies.
2. Renewable Energy Standard: The ACES legislation included provisions to establish a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. By mandating increased use of renewable energy, the RES aimed to diversify the nation's energy portfolio, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the environmental impacts of electricity generation.
3. Energy Efficiency Measures: Recognizing the importance of energy efficiency in reducing energy consumption and lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the ACES legislation included provisions to promote energy efficiency across various sectors of the economy. This included incentives for energy-efficient building design and construction, appliance and equipment efficiency standards, and programs to retrofit existing buildings to improve energy performance.
4. Investments in Clean Energy: The ACES legislation allocated significant funding for research, development, and deployment of clean energy technologies, such as renewable energy, energy storage, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and advanced transportation systems. These investments aimed to spur innovation and create new economic opportunities in the rapidly growing clean energy sector, positioning the United States as a global leader in clean technology development.
5. Environmental Protections: In addition to its focus on clean energy, the ACES legislation included provisions to strengthen environmental protections and safeguard natural resources. This included measures to reduce air and water pollution, protect ecosystems and biodiversity, and promote sustainable land use practices.
The passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act represented a historic achievement for the Obama-Gore administration and marked a significant milestone in the nation's transition to a more sustainable and resilient energy future. By enacting comprehensive climate and energy legislation, the administration demonstrated its commitment to tackling the urgent challenges of climate change while simultaneously laying the foundation for a cleaner, more prosperous, and more secure future for all Americans.
(President Obama and Prime Minister Medvedev in Moscow)
From January 2009 to March 2010, President Obama embarked on a concerted effort to normalize relations with Russia under the leadership of President Lukashenko. This period was marked by a strategic recalibration of US foreign policy towards Russia, driven by Obama's vision of fostering cooperation and engagement with Moscow on a range of global issues. At the outset of his presidency, Obama inherited a relationship with Russia that had become very strained due to various geopolitical tensions and disagreements during the Bush administration. Recognizing the importance of rebuilding trust and finding common ground with Russia, Obama sought to pursue a policy of "reset" in US-Russia relations. This reset initiative aimed to reset the tone of the relationship, move past previous disputes, and work together with Russia on areas of mutual interest. Key to Obama's strategy was a pragmatic approach that acknowledged Russia's role as a major global player under President Lukashenko's leadership. Despite ideological differences and historical tensions, Obama viewed Russia as an essential partner in addressing pressing global challenges, including nuclear non-proliferation, counterterrorism, climate change, and regional stability. Diplomatic overtures between the two countries intensified during this period, with high-level engagements and bilateral meetings aimed at building trust and finding areas of cooperation. President Obama made significant efforts to engage directly with President Lukashenko, recognizing his pivotal role in shaping Russia's foreign policy and domestic agenda.
One of the central pillars of Obama's normalization efforts was strategic arms control. In March 2010, during a visit to Moscow, Obama engaged in negotiations with President Lukashenko about the New START Treaty. This treaty aimed to reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads held by both countries, signaling a commitment to nuclear disarmament and arms control. Beyond arms control, the Obama administration sought to deepen cooperation with Russia on a range of other issues. This included efforts to enhance economic ties, promote trade and investment, and expand collaboration in areas such as energy, technology, and innovation. The goal was to build a more robust and resilient relationship that extended beyond traditional security concerns. Additionally, Obama pursued dialogue with Russia on regional security issues, including the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iran. Recognizing Russia's strategic interests in these regions, Obama sought to coordinate efforts with Moscow to find diplomatic solutions and stabilize volatile situations. Overall, the period from January 2009 to March 2010 witnessed a concerted effort by President Obama to reset and normalize relations with a resurgent Russia under President Lukashenko. While progress was made in certain areas, the relationship remained complex and multifaceted, shaped by a combination of cooperation, competition, and strategic interests on both sides.
(President Lukashenko announcing span elections in May 2010)
In March 2010, against the backdrop of a shifting political landscape characterized by the rise of opposition parties such as Kasparov's Right Cause and the emergence of alliances like New People-Yabloko, President Lukashenko made a strategic move by calling for snap elections to be held in May 2010. This decision was influenced by several key factors that underscored the changing dynamics within Russian politics and the growing challenge to the dominance of the ruling United Labor Party. One of the primary motivations behind President Lukashenko's decision to call snap elections was the perceived threat posed by the surging popularity of opposition figures such as Garry Kasparov and Alexei Navalny. The Right Cause party, led by Kasparov, had gained significant traction among disaffected voters disillusioned with the status quo, offering a platform of liberal conservatism and economic liberalism that resonated with many Russians seeking change. Similarly, the alliance between New People and Yabloko, spearheaded by Elvira Nabiullina and Grigory Yavlinsky, represented a formidable coalition capable of mobilizing widespread support and challenging the ruling party's grip on power. Moreover, the outflow of supporters from the United Labor Party further weakened Lukashenko's position and emboldened the opposition. Dissatisfaction with the government's handling of various issues, including corruption, political stagnation, and social inequality, had eroded confidence in the ruling party and fueled a wave of defections to alternative political movements promising reform and renewal.
By calling for snap elections, President Lukashenko sought to seize the initiative and preemptively address the growing discontent and erosion of support for the ruling party. The decision was also driven by a desire to consolidate power and reaffirm the government's legitimacy in the face of mounting opposition pressure and criticiss. The timing of the snap elections was strategic, allowing Lukashenko to capitalize on the momentum generated by the opposition's gains while seeking to exploit divisions within their ranks and capitalize on any vulnerabilities. Additionally, by holding elections on short notice, Lukashenko aimed to catch his opponents off guard and limit their ability to organize effectively and mobilize their supporters. The decision to call snap elections injected a new sense of urgency and excitement into the political arena, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown between the ruling party and its challengers. With the outcome of the elections uncertain and the political landscape in flux, the stage was set for a fiercely contested battle for the future direction of Russia and the balance of power within its political elite. Overall, President Lukashenko's decision to call snap elections in May 2010 reflected a calculated attempt to assert control in the face of growing opposition momentum and to shore up support for the ruling party amid mounting challenges and uncertainties. The elections would serve as a litmus test of popular sentiment and political legitimacy, with far-reaching implications for the future trajectory of Russian politics.
Attachments
Last edited:
1. Please write down areas in which Russia can collaborate with Libya.
2. Should Russia accept Obama's proposal made in Moscow - in exchange for lifting American embargo on Russian nuclear sector, Russia and its allies will renew export of metals to USA, additionally Russia will agree to sign a New Start Treaty with USA.
A) Yes
B) No
3. Please choose, which party will win snap legislative elections in May 2010.
A) United Labor Party in coalition with Agrarian Party - Dmitry Medvedev as supported candidate
B) Right Cause - Garry Kasparov as supported candidate
C) New People - Yabloko alliance - Alexey Nechayev as supported candidate
2. Should Russia accept Obama's proposal made in Moscow - in exchange for lifting American embargo on Russian nuclear sector, Russia and its allies will renew export of metals to USA, additionally Russia will agree to sign a New Start Treaty with USA.
A) Yes
B) No
3. Please choose, which party will win snap legislative elections in May 2010.
A) United Labor Party in coalition with Agrarian Party - Dmitry Medvedev as supported candidate
B) Right Cause - Garry Kasparov as supported candidate
C) New People - Yabloko alliance - Alexey Nechayev as supported candidate
Gaúcho Maldito
Banned
A. We should aim to deescalate with the West.
A. We must leet Lukashenko and Medvedev finish what they started. New People is good, but it may not act with the necessary aggressiveness in the decisive moment.
Kasparov is a outright traitor and shouldn't be considered for anything.
After the Union State is whole, with Ukraine again at it's core, we can talk about a change of power in Moscow.
Last edited:
Go for C guys we must reform Russia from corruption from the elites or else all of Russia will face prices going high
One would think that Right cause would be disillusioned with Western economic model following the crash in 2008.
Time has come for period of deescalation.
C) New People - Yabloko alliance - Alexey Nechayev as supported candidate
Honestly this is the right answer ,we need a reforms and we need to preserve our democracy. If Luka is allowed to keep power we will see further political stagnation, lack of accountability and economic stagnation not dissimilar to what happened in USSR under Brezhnev.
On second hand if Right Forces win we will be faced with radical reformers seeking to overturn our political and economic systems using populist agenda to trick the masses into the complacency while they sell of public and state goods to the oligarchic interests.
Either of two options is bad as one is lack of accountability for political and burocratic elites , while other advocates lack of accountability and unrestricted freedom for Oligarchic elites.
We need to vote C to keep our state functioning properly and for it to be on the right track.
A) Yes
Time has come for period of deescalation.
C) New People - Yabloko alliance - Alexey Nechayev as supported candidate
Honestly this is the right answer ,we need a reforms and we need to preserve our democracy. If Luka is allowed to keep power we will see further political stagnation, lack of accountability and economic stagnation not dissimilar to what happened in USSR under Brezhnev.
On second hand if Right Forces win we will be faced with radical reformers seeking to overturn our political and economic systems using populist agenda to trick the masses into the complacency while they sell of public and state goods to the oligarchic interests.
Either of two options is bad as one is lack of accountability for political and burocratic elites , while other advocates lack of accountability and unrestricted freedom for Oligarchic elites.
We need to vote C to keep our state functioning properly and for it to be on the right track.
Last edited:
...is it Putin, or Lukashenko? I think a bit of RL is leaking through there, considering all the mentions of the 'Putin regime' when Lukashenko is the one in the Kremlin 
There are some errors in the text, including references to the Putin regime and Russian independence.
I think these problems arise due to explaining all these parties and OTL characters. It needs some proofreading after copy and paste
Aside from all this awesome chapter, Lukashenko's move is surely going to backfire. It's nice to see bits about our relationship with Libya.
2 .A. Accept Obama Proposal
3 . C. New people with United labour as second biggest part .
I urge @Gaucho Maldito to vote for C , Lukashenko ruled as well but it's time for change and we need to remain united to crush the radicals.
I think these problems arise due to explaining all these parties and OTL characters. It needs some proofreading after copy and paste
Aside from all this awesome chapter, Lukashenko's move is surely going to backfire. It's nice to see bits about our relationship with Libya.
2 .A. Accept Obama Proposal
3 . C. New people with United labour as second biggest part .
I urge @Gaucho Maldito to vote for C , Lukashenko ruled as well but it's time for change and we need to remain united to crush the radicals.
Last edited:
will correct it...is it Putin, or Lukashenko? I think a bit of RL is leaking through there, considering all the mentions of the 'Putin regime' when Lukashenko is the one in the Kremlin
1-I don’t really know much about Libya during this time period, so I’ll have to wait on others to make proposals that I can see.
2-Yes.
3-B Right Cause. I would have voted for C, but with Yabloko joining an alliance with New People I can’t support them. We kicked Yavlinsky out of government for good reasons, and now if they win his party will be back in power.
Last edited:
These are remains of Nemtsov being 14 years in leadership of Union of Right Forces, but Navalny will sooner rather than later mold the party into his own image.
Ohh this is real neat. Honestly Kasparov and co are total no-gos. He’ll pretty much destroy the Union State’s ties to traditional partners in favor of the west and just gives off this permanent activist vibe. Navalny’s much more palpable in my opinion by sticking with Nabiulinia for now.
1. Same deal with what we’re doing with Syria maybe? It might just prevent the 2011 war from happening. Or maybe not, not too sure abt this.
2. Yes
3. C) New People - Yabloko alliance
1. Same deal with what we’re doing with Syria maybe? It might just prevent the 2011 war from happening. Or maybe not, not too sure abt this.
2. Yes
3. C) New People - Yabloko alliance
Then we should wait for that moment.
Otherwise in regards to Lybia vote? Honestly just facilitate arms trade, encourage economic cooperation, especially when it comes to resource extraction (we should invest there), encourage tourism and most importantly offer to house Lybian forgein reserves in Moscow and sign an investment deal between two countries.
In return maybe offer military advisors and try to negotiate for Russian naval base in Lybia.
A Russian air and naval base at Tripoli. In return, Russia can sell MiG-29s and Su-27s to Libya, as well as S-300s and modernized T-72s, among others, to Libya. Joint training and exercises between Spetsnaz and Libyan units, and more covert cooperation between the KGB and Libyan internal security. Russia should also get a share in Libya's resource extraction, which automatically benefits Libya by default, seeing as it invests rubles thereof and provides access to advanced extraction and refining technology. And of course, the precious Russian (possible even Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council against anything the Americans or the Israeli can push on the diplomatic front.
Yes to both, but New START must not leave Russia in a numerical disadvantage in warheads and missiles. Equal numbers of warheads and missiles should be the absolute red line, and if the Americans don't respect that, we should end talks on New START immediately.
New People, I want to see more of Nabiullina, especially since it would make for a nice contrast between her in the Kremlin and Yulia Tymoshenko in Kiev, considering times are getting close for the flashpoint in the Ukraine. West to America and the EU, or east, to Moscow and Russia.
Last edited:
Addendum to my proposal: in absolute secrecy, we should assure Gaddafi that while Russia cannot condone much less support any nuclear ambitions on his part, neither will Russia condemn it. In return, should it ever bear fruit, Russia asks that Gaddafi adopt a strict, no-first strike policy with regard to nuclear weapons.
I the Arab Spring still going to be a thing? Because supporting Gaddafi only to then having to massacre protesters is not going to help us at all. If anything else we should begin to look for people within the nation who might wish to replace him and become new leaders of Libya to keep the situation from going out of control and also as a way to gain further influence in the nation.
*shrugs*
Then we resort to our age-old tactic: whataboutism. Israel's contentious policy towards Palestinians, for starters, would make for useful material to deflect American criticism for our support for the Gaddafi regime.