A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia russian federation
War is not necessary; there are chances we will reach some type of compromise. The thing is that if some things go bad, then an intervention is entirely plausible.
We should not project an effectively complete cultural and geopolitical climate from certain time into a place it will not necessarily fit anyways.
People can have a will of their own and Ukraine is a massive country if we only encounter .05% dedicated opposition that is 22500 people for example given over 45 million live there. That and Nato and various European groups will support them.
The Ukrainian government pretty friendly positive image of Russia does not necessarily mean they yearn to to be apart of it and as such it's a good thing to treat it the government and it's army as potentially hostile than expect them to welcome our forces with open arms if we want to well take it expect the worst and hope for the best.
In the best scenario I think a conflict after Ukraine is joined into the Union would occur and would be fairly large, adding to our counter insurgency operations we already do in the caucasus region. In the worst case this will be one of the biggest wars since 1941.
The fact that we also fairly recently had two major world war 3 scares the last two years might also alienate a few people there who hoped a closer connection with Russia would result in more security. No one from say lviv wants themselves and their family to die for Syria because the Union wants more influence in the Mediterranean.
There also is the question of timing, if the intervention takes place in say 2 years that both gives us both time to shore up our position true but also a lot more crises to negatively affect how they see the Union.
We have half a decade of time and as for crisis scare , well no one in lviv cares but maybe many cares in yalta or kharkiv.
Yea its quite good explained by @boredviewer1234 .
Generally in short Ukrainian people and government have quite a positive picture of Russia but that doesn’t mean that large part, or better said majority of Ukrainians want to become part of Russia, or create a common state. Yes they have a positive and optimistic view but they also believe that this new Russia will help them build a better Ukraine, especially if they follow it's role model and forge a strong alliance.
Problem comes that ceartin circles in Russia believe that Ukraine cannot be it's own state and that it must form common state with Russia despite large majority of Ukrainians (and some Russians) not wanting this. Thus we have a war due to these conflicting opinions.
Only when people accept that Ukraine (just like Baltics, or Central Asia) can have a state will we not need a conflict.
Baltics are even a good example of states regaining their statehood for a short time only to lose it again which many pointed is the case with Ukraine. Generally the point is even if they regained their states for a short period of time Baltics didn't suddenly give up on gaining a state and when next chance came to gain it they took it. This will be same case with Ukraine, we never will be capable to fully absorb them because despite not having a long period of having state Ukraine had its national identity for a long time and national identity generally bequest autonomy, or state.
In case of people pointing out that Ukraine is brotherly/sisterly nation to Russia and some other deep spiritual, cultural bonds etc.
I would point out that Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia also had similar languages and cultures yet that didn't stop these state's from falling, Arabs also have similar culture from region to region yet that doesn't mean that they will suddenly form unified state and some attempts that did happen failed.
Heck events that we see now between Ukraine and Russia generally show that just having similar culture isn't a guarantee that Ukraine would suddenly give up its statehood. People need to understand that Ukraine is it's own nation with its own state that it is privileged to make its own decisions, common culture definitely helps us have good relations but it doesn't give us right to deprive them of their independence, if we follow that line of tough we are taking Russian/Ukrainan common culture and are using it for Imperial means to justify nationalist expansionist ambitions which creates a backcklash in Ukraine itself and the need to distance themselves from Russia who now becomes the main threat to their nationhood .
In Chechnya we at least have legal grounds based on it being part of RSFSR and a right of a state to defend its sovereignty, but there's no law that internationally justifies invasion and annexation of Ukraine.
By invading Ukraine we will validate entire NATO expansion and in realistic setting Central and Eastern Ukraine aren't worth it if in economic, diplomatic and technological sense we would be stronger without them. Plus leaving Western Ukraine independent is terrible idea.
And it's good because it's realistic. Taking a leeway on major decision like this generally spoils entire thing and you must understand that besides people that love realism there's also a good number of people that don't want this to become expansionist wet dream.
Point is that it throws uncertainty on entire TL because now after you allow this one exception people will point out how Kazakhstan also could be absorbed (let's be honest small insurgency there would be only consequence and if we have USA government who will blink on Ukraine we generally cannot miss opportunity to act on Kazakhstan, generally a little leeway tends to become a new realism).
Also if we get all our cakes and eat them victory will generally feel hollow as everyone will know that in realistic setting we would have been sanctioned and wouldn't be as strong.
Last edited:
...so, basically, the Union State would be a...non-Communist revival of the Slavic-majority parts of the Soviet Union, i.e. Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine? I'm guessing the Caucasus and Central Asia would remain independent if bound economically and militarily to Moscow. That said, 'Union State' sounds a bit generic for this new nation.
Gaúcho Maldito
Banned
Absolutely, as long as the war is a quick and mostly bloodless SMO.
If it turn into long attrition warfare like OTL, then we need to partition it inside the Union State.
I think you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar.
While I completely agree with @Kriss on that the Ukrainian people will not give up their state for nothing, nor any of their state responsibilities, I do think that the corruption and lack of opportunities of the post Soviet Ukrainian state allows for opportunities for the Ukrainian people to create a union with the much much better off then OTL Union State. Sure OTL there was no reason to do so, as OTL Russia was an equal mess if not worse then Ukraine, but now after all the reforms we did, the green energy focus, free tuition, better industry, etc etc. Plus most of the elderly in the country have (selective) fond memories about the Soviet Union. Combine that with what the young will think of the previously mentioned employment opportunities, free tuition options and the ecological push in the Union State, I can certainly see them combining to vote for a form of collaboration. Especially if there has been a positive impact on Belarus.
I do agree it will be not a singular country. I see more an EU like structure, or even slightly more of a confederation / federation state (e.g. joint defense, custom union, maybe even foreign policy and/or justice system). I think neither of those are out of the realm of possibilities.
While I completely agree with @Kriss on that the Ukrainian people will not give up their state for nothing, nor any of their state responsibilities, I do think that the corruption and lack of opportunities of the post Soviet Ukrainian state allows for opportunities for the Ukrainian people to create a union with the much much better off then OTL Union State. Sure OTL there was no reason to do so, as OTL Russia was an equal mess if not worse then Ukraine, but now after all the reforms we did, the green energy focus, free tuition, better industry, etc etc. Plus most of the elderly in the country have (selective) fond memories about the Soviet Union. Combine that with what the young will think of the previously mentioned employment opportunities, free tuition options and the ecological push in the Union State, I can certainly see them combining to vote for a form of collaboration. Especially if there has been a positive impact on Belarus.
I do agree it will be not a singular country. I see more an EU like structure, or even slightly more of a confederation / federation state (e.g. joint defense, custom union, maybe even foreign policy and/or justice system). I think neither of those are out of the realm of possibilities.
What if Easter Ukraine (wink wink) willingly wants to become part of the Union state? For example, during Reverse Euro Maidan, the Easter region decides to join Union State, and we annex Crimea, basically OTL 2014. Then what will we do? Will we go all out, or will it turn into civil war, or will we annex some parts and install puppet governments, or will we push for more?
I agree we can't eat the cake without getting the consequences, but we need to understand that our opposition also didn't always make the right decision. Maybe the sanctions by Western Europe are just for show, and we were able to get some deals with the Americans after some years.
As for Kazakhstan, as we all already discussed, it is much more alien to us than Ukraine; it is also not a region that can be used as a dagger against us. China will increase its influence there, but it is not their main focus. Whereas Ukraine can be used, who knows? Currently, we have good relations; maybe in the future, we will not. Ukraine's population, resources, and industry—all those things give us an edge. If it's pure imperialism, then we want that. The union state is basically a non-communist slavic union; it's basically the Russian Empire during a seven-year war on the basis of landmass.
Also, we don't want to annex them by brute force; there will be a civil war situation in their country. We just want them to become an autonomous entity in our federation. A federal entity of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia is entirely plausible. Our union with Belarus is an example of that; there is already a precedent in ITTL, and we can repeat that to some extent.
I agree we can't eat the cake without getting the consequences, but we need to understand that our opposition also didn't always make the right decision. Maybe the sanctions by Western Europe are just for show, and we were able to get some deals with the Americans after some years.
As for Kazakhstan, as we all already discussed, it is much more alien to us than Ukraine; it is also not a region that can be used as a dagger against us. China will increase its influence there, but it is not their main focus. Whereas Ukraine can be used, who knows? Currently, we have good relations; maybe in the future, we will not. Ukraine's population, resources, and industry—all those things give us an edge. If it's pure imperialism, then we want that. The union state is basically a non-communist slavic union; it's basically the Russian Empire during a seven-year war on the basis of landmass.
Also, we don't want to annex them by brute force; there will be a civil war situation in their country. We just want them to become an autonomous entity in our federation. A federal entity of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia is entirely plausible. Our union with Belarus is an example of that; there is already a precedent in ITTL, and we can repeat that to some extent.
I will be honest, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of annexing Ukraine but one issue though I'm struggling with is how to give them a large buy in. By that both to make integration easier and please various Ukraine nationalists/regionalists we need a good argument
One idea I've had might be a puppet with adjustments , given the historical ties between certain regions of Russia give co autonomy to say the Kuban and provinces that are near it's border akin to the Sanjak of Alexandretta. This would give Ukraine both over ten million more pro Russian citizens but by recognising these historical ties by say making Ukrainian a regional tongue hopefully make Ukrainian nationalists interested in a unification. Likewise given how many terrorists attacks have happened either there or nearby Jihadists/separatists build on the shared pain and bloodshed into a real unification.
That said though Russian nationalists would hate the concept of giving away land and efforts to court Ukrainian identity could back fire a lot and create a separatists issue in the Union.
However, if we don't have a massive buy in to try and alter the Ukrainian identity I think we are left with a issue. If we leave things as the way they are...why should Ukrainians not want to go back to the way things were before? Given they could be friendly and have ties with Russia in the past. The social contact of them being more wealthy and stronger is tempting but given we likely will face a lot of issues relying it to solve everything seems to risky specially given the risk of sanctions for armed conquests.
Ultimately though, the Union military exists for a reason and I can't imagine a more imporant battle that's not WW3 for us to try and expand.
One idea I've had might be a puppet with adjustments , given the historical ties between certain regions of Russia give co autonomy to say the Kuban and provinces that are near it's border akin to the Sanjak of Alexandretta. This would give Ukraine both over ten million more pro Russian citizens but by recognising these historical ties by say making Ukrainian a regional tongue hopefully make Ukrainian nationalists interested in a unification. Likewise given how many terrorists attacks have happened either there or nearby Jihadists/separatists build on the shared pain and bloodshed into a real unification.
That said though Russian nationalists would hate the concept of giving away land and efforts to court Ukrainian identity could back fire a lot and create a separatists issue in the Union.
However, if we don't have a massive buy in to try and alter the Ukrainian identity I think we are left with a issue. If we leave things as the way they are...why should Ukrainians not want to go back to the way things were before? Given they could be friendly and have ties with Russia in the past. The social contact of them being more wealthy and stronger is tempting but given we likely will face a lot of issues relying it to solve everything seems to risky specially given the risk of sanctions for armed conquests.
Ultimately though, the Union military exists for a reason and I can't imagine a more imporant battle that's not WW3 for us to try and expand.
Problem with EU like structure is that we may don't even want it as we already have EEU/CIS to serve as a platform to this.
Now it's not like i don't want Ukraine to be a member state of Union State. I do but conditions for that need to be meet and integration should hopefully happen peacefully to avoid sanctions. This is why I'm in favor of gradual integration if it's possible, potentially via puppet pro Russian regime/government (let's be honest we could just have new government do opposite of decommunization laws and ban all pro Western/nationalist parties leaving only a managed pro Russian democracy in power).
As for the state structure? Honestly copy pasting old Soviet state structure isn't bad if you actually apply what is written on the paper with some modifications. We already kinda do that with our constitution.
Idea is that in order to secure equal representation for all Union republics we should have council of the nation's /republics as a part of Parliament where all three republics get to send equal numbers of delegates and Council of citizens based on an popular vote. In exchange for this new deal Belarusia who's the least populous and economically strong members gives up its vice Presidency position in favor of giving this position to Ukraine. Russia of course gets its own separate government and institutions here as having it have common Parliament with other two Union members controlling majority of votes in one part of the Parliament isn't practical. Plus having Union level institutions and government would increase the impression that this is a common state.
Generally idea is that this would secure equal representation for all three members while also securing democratic and equal representation for all citizens. Autonomy of each individual member state could be arranged etc, but generally nothing could get done without votes from other two member state's. We could technically reform Constitutional court as well and have Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian President each appoint three Judges from their respective states to ensure that Court will be fair and just to all member state's.
Last edited:
We don't need to head to war. Economically, it isn't something that does us any good.
Ukrainen opinion about Union will also dependent on economic prosperity of Union. Majority of Ukrainen pre 2013 did not had any problem with Russia they just preferred Eurointegration because wages and standards of living in EU were higher. But if Russia will reach at least Italian or Spanish level of prosperity, majority of Ukrainen will prefer integration with Russia.
How exactly does the Russian-Belarus Union work again? Is it more 'governments unified into a single entity' or more 'shared laws and policy and treasury but separately government'? if it is the first we could add Observer/Prospective Member positions where they have delegates in the Union and can observe and get familiar with the going ons and process of things. A Non-Integrated Member position where they confirm they seek to join but don't fully comply with Union laws and regulations so they retain some Independence while they work on things to become Compliant. And Full Members, like Russia and Belarus are.
Like, I wouldn't mind Ukraine staying partially independent from us if we knew that eventually they would join on their own, and it would also set up a framework and setting where other friendly Post-Soviet states like in Central Asia could set up the process to join us without causing a bunch of world tension.
We have the Government friendly, and we want them to join us, but we also don't want to split them up or force them because it would just piss everybody off and make the West less likely to work with us and more likely to work against us. So personally, I think we should set up a system like I described above for the Union if it doesn't already exist.
Like, I wouldn't mind Ukraine staying partially independent from us if we knew that eventually they would join on their own, and it would also set up a framework and setting where other friendly Post-Soviet states like in Central Asia could set up the process to join us without causing a bunch of world tension.
We have the Government friendly, and we want them to join us, but we also don't want to split them up or force them because it would just piss everybody off and make the West less likely to work with us and more likely to work against us. So personally, I think we should set up a system like I described above for the Union if it doesn't already exist.
Belarus is basically member of Russian federation with some privileges. But otherwise it's like every other member of the federation.
And as you know Russian federation isn't a confederation to allow forgein nations to observe the work of its institutions, nor will it change it's laws to allow any form of independence to its subjects. I believe we have an update on that that speak in more details.
But otherwise no, we shouldn't decentralize Union State and as i repeatedly said we have EEU/CIS fulfilling the functions you just mentioned, in the future those institutions will become more EU like so i would say that confederation you are proposing should be there. But Union State is it's own centralized thing that Russia and Belarus have going. Changing entire structure to accommodate Ukraine is a possible as long as we are still speaking about centralized state, but adding some sort independence clause? Allowing observers into our institutions isn't best idea (do USA, Germany, or other types of federal state's allow observers into their institutions?). If we do that then we basically open the doors to other members like Belarus asking to be relegated to sovereign status if they feel it's more beneficial to them and we get another institution with no inherit purpose.
Generally to join Union State is to accept tighter connection with Russia and Belarus, if a state doesn't want that then it's free to remain EEU/CIS member.
In my opinion we really need to be clear about these sort of things and we need to be able to tell a difference between centralized and decentralized state. By being unclear about that we are just shooting ourselves in the foot and are diminishing achieved progress because you cannot really have Union State functioning as federation and confederation at the same time, it being a sovereign country and some sort of informal forum.
Setting up this system would just erode upon Unions sovereignty and would impede the work of its institutions. Even if we reform Union State to be more federal we should avoid these types of actions as at the end of the day we are state, not an alliance of states.
Last edited: