How's the Redux?


  • Total voters
    142
Very plausible solution indeed but I think that the Armenians wouldn't like to cede their border with Iran: maybe the Meghri corridor remains in Armenia but the Meghri highway is transformed into a condominium between both parties to connect Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan that however can't be used by the Azerbaijani military. They could also reopen the railway, originally constructed in 1941, that linked Moscow with not only Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nakhchivan, but with the Iranian rail network as well via Julfa in Nakhchivan.
yeah while on the situation of borders, the proposal is a good one, losing Iran's border with Armenia one of their main backers, would stop that proposal me thinks. Either LOC agreement is probably the best that can be reached in the area.
 
Well, you have made a good point as in OTL it was exactly the cession of the Meghri corridor that made Armenia unwilling to sign. In any case, Azerbaijan could always be coerced by Russia into accepting such a deal but not in a too overt way since we have to remember that Baku has the Russian-operated Gabala Radar Station
Russia could coerce Azerbaijan to sign it, however would probably lose all influence in the process. Before 1997, the Azeri government of 1991 - 1997 was already very anti-Russian, that would just cement it permanently, not something Moscow wants.
 
I wonder how the domestically built Post-Soviet Airliner manufactures are going to preform TTL.

Thanks to the OTL economic crash in the 1990s Tupolev and Ilyushin failed to sell their next generation airliners.
Well, everything depends on how relations are between Russia and Ukraine.... the Antonov An-418, the Sukhoi KR-860 and the An-218 are still out of question but we can easily see more Tu-204s, Il-86s and Il-96s being produced. We would also likely see the introductions in the early 2000s of the Tupolev Tu-324 alongside the SSJ 100.
If Russia and Ukraine stay on friendly terms we could also see the Antonov An-70 enter mass production in the early 2000s and the re-engined Antonov An-124-300 enter service in the early 2010s to replace the retiring original An-124s. The Mig 1.44 could also be completed and the Su-37 could enter mass production in the late 1990s to replace the ageing Su-27s. The second Antonov An-225 could also be complete and used by the Russians for their space program. If Russia really wants to keep military spending up they can also complete the Yak -141/Yak-43M to and use it on the Kuznetsov-class carriers or even on a modernized kiev-class aircraft carrier (if relations with India deteriorate like in the previous timeline we could see a revamped Russian Navy opting to modernize the Admiral Gorshkov and keep it as an LHD type amphibious assault ship)
In the mid 1990s at least, after the economy goes away from the negative zone to the slow growth zone, Soviet airliners will be allowed to have greater movement of business ittl than otl, which would be economically beneficial, all things considered.
 
It would be challenging for Russia to keep a hold on Ukraine with such a late POD.
A reunification down the line is not impossible but would require Russia itself to be a very different country from OTL. Additionally, a reunification would require concessions towards Ukrainian nationalism and identity. In effect, it may have to a union of equals with Ukraine and Russian keeping their own laws and separate institutions. Pan-Rus institutions would then be built on the top, with possibly even a new capital built from scratch somewhere in Don/Volga valleys. Note that I am using the term Rus instead of Russian here as I don't believe that subsuming Ukraine into a Greater Russian state and identity was still possible by the 1990s.
The best analogy that I can think of for this "Russish Union" or "New Rus" would be Austria-Hungary but with stronger common institutions.

If there is a monarchic restoration in Russia, it could even mean that the reigning monarch has a different name and numeral in Ukraine, would need to be crowned separately in Ukraine etc.

Such a union could be made to work with compromises, good will etc. The resulting country and eventually nation won't be a new Russian Empire. It would instead be a reincarnation of the Kievan Rus under new auspices.
Unification with Russia and Ukraine is highly unlikely from between 1990 - 2010 when Ukrainian nationalism was at its height, and a good bit more likely from 2010 till 2013 when relationship grew warmer and a nostalgia 'for the good old days' started to take root in Ukraine. Continuing that trend without a Crimean f up could lead to a union in the 2030s or 40s, but yeah its still unlikely. An analogue to the Belarusian-Russian Union State of otl with Ukraine is more likely.
 
@Sārthākā
I still do not understand where was the POD that made the EU a nonentity, or why was making the EU basically disband necessary for there to be a strong Russia. Russia's greatest rival is not the EU. It is NATO and the US. The OTL EU was very willing to work with a geopolitically sane/sane-ish non-reactionary great/super power Russia.

If you wanted a POD that gets rid of Russia's main obstacles...it would be not to disband the EU but getting an isolationist US President into office post Bush (Ross Perot FTW?) combined with OTL scandals about Kohl and the CDU blowing up in Germany and the SPD getting into power ahead of schedule and the French behaving like the French always did to have NATO disband before 1995 rolls around.

Without NATO around for Russia to feel threatened constantly, and a financially unified EU, the Kremlin would get massive amounts of dosh in the form of EU investments (which, unlike the US investments, wouldn't be attached to strings like "Neoliberal Grand Theft Country" policies) that it could, finally, start doing some SERIOUS internal national gardening that had been two centuries overdue.
The EU has not been made a non-entity though...? The Euro is not being adopted by the countries of the Med like it almost happened otl, that's it. Ironically it makes the EU stronger because it allows the countries to mess around with their currencies on their own to manipulate data to create superficially more economically stronger economy.
Though, the EU also did partake in string attached deals with Russia in 1991-1997. The 1994 Anglo-Franco-German Financial Team in Russia did leave with financial strings attached, which included the 1994 Anglo-Russian Agreement of Trade and the Russo-European Agreement on Trading Tariffs which were basically forced on Russia in exchange for the money.
 
In this plan,shusa is with Armenia ?
Yeah, all of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast is to be given to Armenia alongside the Lachin corridor. By the way, I have also found out that the Goble Plan envisioned a transfer of the various exclaves and enclaves between Armenia and Azerbaijan in order to have a contiguous border.
 
Though, the EU also did partake in string attached deals with Russia in 1991-1997. The 1994 Anglo-Franco-German Financial Team in Russia did leave with financial strings attached, which included the 1994 Anglo-Russian Agreement of Trade and the Russo-European Agreement on Trading Tariffs which were basically forced on Russia in exchange for the money.
A lot of that must have been at the behest of Washington and London (the two parties most interested in fucking up central Eaurasia's geopolitics since the 19th century). I mean, get rid of NATO and the US for a decade, and a lot of these treaties that should have happened as in OTL would happen quite differently.
 
Unification with Russia and Ukraine is highly unlikely from between 1990 - 2010 when Ukrainian nationalism was at its height, and a good bit more likely from 2010 till 2013 when relationship grew warmer and a nostalgia 'for the good old days' started to take root in Ukraine. Continuing that trend without a Crimean f up could lead to a union in the 2030s or 40s, but yeah its still unlikely. An analogue to the Belarusian-Russian Union State of otl with Ukraine is more likely.
A successful Union State could possibly accelerate trends towards unification. Especially if coupled towards respects from both sides and generally warm and positive relations.
It's amazing how much OTL Russia cocked-up relations with Ukraine from 2014 and destroyed any possibility for closer relations as a result. So much for Putin's rhetoric of "two nations one people" ...

Even if a unification doesn't take place. Having a single market for goods, services and free movement of labour between Russia and Ukraine would be a good outcome for both nations, especially if trade barriers come down with the West too.

Still the possibility I mooted of reunifying the nations under the guise of a new Kievan Rus is an interesting one, which hasn't really been explored before.

I like what you're doing with TTL European Union as it will probably make it somewhat stronger down the line. The lack of a single currency will probably kill Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom to begin with. So a free-trade treaty between Russia and the EU could be a possibility OTL, as well as perhaps some moves towards integrating Russia within the European Union itself. While I don't foresee Russia as a full member of the EU, there could perhaps be a single Greater European Economic Area from Lisbon to Vladivostok TTL.
 
I'd argue that with a clean, not corrupt, financially growing Russia most of the states that ceded would go back into a federation that is similar to the US. Especially if Russia avoids 2008 (or does substantially better than the norm) vs the former republics. The Baltics are though, but all others are very much on the table.
 
I'd argue that with a clean, not corrupt, financially growing Russia most of the states that ceded would go back into a federation that is similar to the US. Especially if Russia avoids 2008 (or does substantially better than the norm) vs the former republics. The Baltics are though, but all others are very much on the table.
What really killed the Russian economy in the mid-2010s was the 2014-2016 oil glut and didn't recover until recently when the agricultural sector and the armament sector was ramped up significantly. The PRC also helped by buying tons of stuff (from ice cream to oil and SAMs ).
 
I'd argue that with a clean, not corrupt, financially growing Russia most of the states that ceded would go back into a federation that is similar to the US. Especially if Russia avoids 2008 (or does substantially better than the norm) vs the former republics. The Baltics are though, but all others are very much on the table.
Unlikely as there won't be enough of a common identity to bind the former Soviet Union into a coherent federation.
There is a gulf of cultural differences between Russia and Uzbekistan for example. While things were apparently stable during the Soviet Union, tensions were bubbling under the surface. Local communist leaders did everything they could to keep power in the hand of locals and resisted instructions coming from the centre. There is a reason why most Russian, Slavs and Germans left these countries during the 1990s.

Additionally, Central Asia other than Kazakhstan has too little to offer to Russia to make a federation a viable proposition economically. Free trade can achieve just as much. It offers access to the markets of these countries for Russian goods and open them up for investment from Russian companies. Without the drawbacks of subsidising countries with poor infrastructure, poorly educated populations and low prospects for economic developments.

It isn't always size which makes a country great, but what a country does with the assets that it has at its disposal. To become truly resurgent, Russia must look inwards first and seek to make the most of the resources at its disposal.
 
I wonder if Ukraine's continued anti-Russian nationalism and economic stagnation in comparison to a far better-off Russia may result in it becoming an even bigger far-right hotbed than it is in OTL.

A scenario where Ukraine essentially becomes a national conservative kleptocracy in contrast to a fairly functional and democratic Russia would be interesting to see.
 
Chapter 5: New Developments
Russia Resurgent: The Redux!

***

Chapter 5: New Developments


***

Chapter 12 of the The Russian Economy: A History in Analysis

The economy of Russia had been saved from a major depression after the good work of Prime Minister Grigory Yavlinsky and the combined works of the Financial Minister Petr Aven and Minister of Economic Relations as well. However the main fact remained that despite these early actions, and the stabilization of the Russian Ruble, the Russian economy continued to fall into the negative sphere, as the Russian economic system tried to struggle with the fall of the entire former Soviet economic sphere, a system it had been intertwined with for the last seventy years. Any economy would be hit hardly by the breakup of the nation, however the Russian economy, through the actions of Aven and Yavlinsky, proved to be capable of mitigating the storm. Of course this had its own downsides, as the two ministers were forced to cut education funding to stabilize the economy for the moment, however considering the entire education system was in chaos from the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the suspension of the old curriculum meant that, despite the sad reality, cutting funds from education was perhaps the field in which it was most viable. Cutting funds from the transportation or health sector could have seen the Russian economy and nation fall into deep crisis, but the strategic thinking of the coalition cabinet allowed the Russians to stave off such a disaster. [1]


1623546847236.png

a government funded cooking center for the jobless in Russia in the 1990s.

However with inflation rising again slightly due to the war scare in the Caucasus and the continued Chechen terrorist attacks precipitated the Moscow Stock Exchange to lose several points in the stock market, and Yavlinsky with alarm recognized the symptoms of a market crash. “It was there for all to see. If I had been born and lived before 1929 I would not have recognized the signs of calamity approaching, however having lived after 1929 after which time I could look at historical economics with an unbiased eye, I could see what the points falling rapidly meant. We were headed to stock market collapse unless we did something fast.” Yavlinsky wrote later in his diary.

After conferring with Aven and the rest of the Russian cabinet, the Russian government decided to pass pre-emptive economic reforms in a flurry of research and activity in order to stave off an economic meltdown. It had been predicted that after a year or two after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the big countries of the former USSR – Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan – would face an economic meltdown sometime, however for the Russians, trying to mitigate is worst effects would have been an astounding success, as mitigating all of the economic meltdown was impossible economically. A small recession was far better in the minds of the government rather than a full blown depression.

The Economic Acts of 1992 that was passed by the Russian government from September to October 1992 basically passed several new economic reforms that would allow the Russian government to weather the storm.

A totally new updated fiscal policy was implemented by the government, and most importantly, capitalistic financial controls were implemented into the Russian economy for the first time since 1924 after the New Economic Plan had been scrapped by Stalin. These Financial control policies allowed the government to properly utilize their economic resources, and would allow the Russians to maintain operational efficiency at a homegrown level. In order to pass these financial controls, new qualification restrictions were created, and a direct chain of communication among the government’s economic staff was created rather than the previous decentralized system of governance. Monthly financial analysis and evaluations were also conducted as a financial control measure which allowed the Russians to weed out incompetent members of their Economic Ministry fast and replace them with competent bureaucrats who were good in what they did. Using the loans given to the Russians by the IMF and World Bank, the government also partook in cash inflow, by using a stringent credit policy to maintain the stability of the Ruble, which ensured that the currency’s value would not fall during the economic crisis that enveloped Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Turnover taxes were also implemented on company turnovers within Russia, which had huge turnovers but little corporation tax. Turnover Taxes, basically is a tax that is similar to a Value Added Tax, with the difference that it taxes intermediate and possibly capital goods. It is a special example of an indirect tax. This tax would force Russian companies to increase corporate accountability and decrease institutional corruption within their economic apparatus.

The Russians also quickly implemented a land value tax and levied these taxes on unimproved values of lands throughout the country. It was conducted by the Russians with the intention of reducing economic inequality and increasing economic efficiency. A moderate rate of 3% was applied by the Russians in the Land Value Tax, which remains the rate of the LVT in Russia till even today. This allowed the Russians to properly analyze the value of land in their country and their economical worth, which allowed them in the end to appropriate proper resources to lands according to their needs.


1623547071873.png

A Russian nuclear silo

Finally the Russians also reviewed their nuclear arsenal. Their nuclear arsenal was quite frankly at this moment in time, expensive. They held around 43,000 nuclear weapons, which was costing a fortune to hold properly. For Yavlinsky and indeed the entire Russian cabinet, if 500 nuclear weapons were enough to destroy the entire world once over, then 43,000 was just too much. It was no deterrent at that stage, but more like that of an expensive showpiece that had no real value. It was decided that the nuclear funds would be slashed by more than half their amount, and that by 2000, the Russian nuclear arsenal would be limited down to 2200 active and deployed warheads, whilst the total nuclear arsenal of the country would stay constant at 10,000. The rest would be scrapped, and disposed of, the government decided. This was a smart move, as even scrapping nuclear weapons required manpower and labor, and it allowed the Russians to create cheap, but effectual occupations for those in need in the country, allowing greater economic mobility between several occupations in the country.

1623547280971.png

Moscow Stock Market

In the end these acts were successful. On November 5, 1992, the market points fell considerably again, the Russian economy once again entered recession. However it was far less severe than what it might have been. Despite the recession, as Economist Paul Krugman wrote down in his book, The Antithesis of Economics, ‘The Russian economy was poised to fall down into disrepair and there was nothing that the Russian people would be able to do but starve and see their entire economic apparatus fall apart in front of their own eyes. However successful governmental intervention on part of the Russian government allowed the Russians to stave off what would have been an epic economic depression. The Russians had showed their efficiency in matters of economic governance and the financial controls and taxes that were levied by the government allowed the Russians to ease their recession and by mid-1993 the recession was over. The Russians had survived the economic crash. Unfortunately that would not be the case for countries such as Ukraine and Georgia.’

***

Chapter 21 of the European Dream: Economic or Political Union? The Rise of Euroscepticism.

The rejection of the Maastricht Treaty by the French and Danish population was a massive blow to the European project. It put the entire question of a monetary union into the air. The British and Irish also stalled negotiations with the European Union on the basis of these referendums, in fear, that they too would have problems to deal with, as these countries also had massive underlying Eurosceptic populations. The southern European countries were also caught up in this mess of epic proportions.


1623547334475.png

Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti of Italy

On September 17, Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti of Italy declared that Italy would also opt out from the Euro currency. Andreotti was usually favorable to the Euro, however the situation in the north had completely destroyed any credibility that his argument of a deep economic and monetary union for the European Union, and before the proverbial lions could pounce on him, he had to make a decision, and he made it in the form of opting out. The Italians opting out of the Euro forced a chain event throughout the Mediterranean members of the European Union as well. Felipe Gonzalez, the Prime Minister of Spain announced that Spain would be looking into the matters of monetary independence to make sure that competition between currencies would spur the Spanish economy onwards. Portuguese Prime Minister Anibal Cavaco Silva also announced that the Portuguese government would be looking for other monetary measures than the Euro. Finally the Greek Prime Minister, Konstantinos Mutsotakis, who was already looking for a way to revitalize the Greek economy, seized upon this chance, and also announced that the Greek nation would look for an opt-out too. This reduced the European monetary project to be limited to basically Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, and many even in Germany became pessimistic at the massive amount of opt-outs going on in the European Union.

It was obvious for anyone with eyes to look with, that the Euro project had failed, and utterly. The 1992 Danish and 1992 French Referendums had destroyed the Euro project and it was now time for the European Union to find a solution.

On December 18, 1992, the European leaders arrived onto the shores of the United Kingdom, or more specifically in Edinburgh, Scotland, where they would decide the future of the monetary union, and discuss all possible opt-outs for the nations interested in them. The countries involved in the opt-out negotiations were Britain, Ireland, France, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal, and all of them demanded that their countries be excluded from the Economic and Monetary Union, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Union. Britain, Denmark and France also demanded that they also be given an opt-out from the Justice and Home Affairs of the European Union and the Citizenship of the European Union.

All of these opt outs were agreed by the European Union’s government based in and around of Brussels. The next negotiations that took place was in regards to the Euro. A currency encompassing only Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Finland would not be a currency that was envisioned by the European federalists and economists. It basically stopped the Euro from being a proper currency at the French border and the Latin World in Europe basically refused to accept the Euro after the September Crisis. Ireland and Britain were insistent on keeping their respective currencies, the British and Irish Pounds, and the Swedes were threatening to leave the European Union if a pan-European currency was imposed on them. In Germany, Chancellor Helmut Kohl was put into a difficult spot as the German economy was still suffering from the woes of economic unification, and further economic strains would make the German economy untenable. Despite his personal preference for the Euro, the German Chancellor after conferring with the German government, decided that Germany too would not adopt the currency. After Germany bowed out from the proverbial sinking ship, the Euro was dead. Like Thatcher had wanted, the European countries agreed that they would retain their personal currencies, creating a system of competition between their countries to make sure that competition led to innovation and higher efficiencies of their economies. The retention of local currencies allowed the countries to fiddle with their currencies in a more decentralized manner, rather than the mass bureaucratic problems that would arise from a shared currency as well. In hindsight we can say that the non-adoption of the Euro was a good idea, however at the time, there was widespread sadness at the project failing to get off the ground at all.


1623547363938.png

The Edinburgh Agreement of 1992 being signed.

After the Edinburgh Agreement was signed, giving the countries the Opt-Outs they wanted, the European Union went on ahead, and the French and Danes would ratify the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 after a new referendum with the amendments of the Edinburgh Agreement listed in. For former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, this was a colossal victory, as the economic system that she had designed for the European Union had been adopted, and in her biography The Iron Lady, its writer, James Johnson includes a particular anecdote on the series of the events that was the Edinburgh agreement.

Thatcher was pleased to hear of the Edinburgh agreement. She was perhaps one of the few in the dreary and downtrodden atmosphere throughout Europe at the failure of the Euro that was celebrating. She remarked to her aide the day after the news was sent out throughout Europe, that competition in the European economy had survived.’

***

Chapter 48 of The Nagorno-Karabakh Situation

The Summer Offensive undertaken by the Azeris in the summer of 1992 against the Armenians and Armenian separatists was brutal, and efficient. They pushed deep into enemy territory and reclaimed more than half of their lands. However despite diplomatic intervention by the Russian government, the Azeri government became overconfident and dismissed any idea of a peace settlement out of hand. Their nationalistic government and pan-Turkic government had alienated all of the former Soviet republics, and had destroyed any credibility that they had in their eyes. The Russians as a result began supplying the Armenians with truckloads of weapons and equipment. Russian supervisors came from the Russian Army to take command of several ‘independent’ brigades, and the Armenians began preparing for the Autumn Counteroffensive which would turn the war in Nagorno-Karabakh on its head.


1623547400238.png

Armenian troops during the Autumn Counter-Offensive

The 1st Armenian Army Corps commanded by General Yury Kachaturov was ordered on September 2, to take the fight to the Azeri government. Based in and around the Armenian south, the 1st Armenian Army Corps moved into Nagorno-Karabakh and began to take up military positions, much to the glee of the members of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic/Artsakh Republic. Containing 1 brigade, and 5 regiments, this army corps was the cream of Armenia’s professional troops. The Armenians pounced. From Armenia they advanced on towards Hadrud and defeated an Azeri battalion placed in the city. The Armenians had advanced from Qubayali and completely cut of the Azeri defenders in the city, forcing them to surrender and give themselves up to the Armenians as Prisoners of War. The Armenian Airforce, though small, began to provide efficient battle support, as flares and guided missiles were dropped into strategic locations to aid the Armenian army on the ground. Meanwhile Operation Tigranes commenced as well as the Northern Army based at Jermuk invaded Azeri territory as well to liberate the occupied territories of the Artsakh republic. 4 Regiments including 2 armored regiments crossed into Azeri territory and began to attack Azeri positions all across the border.

1623547414450.png

An Azeri trooper during the Battle of Shahumyan

The northern armies of Armenia, the 2nd Army Corps, moved faster than the one in the south. The Azeris had imagined that the Armenians would attack from the south and had defended the area whilst neglecting the north, and as a result, the Armenians did little but walk right in. They advanced all the way upto Shahumyan before encountering any serious resistance.

At the Battle of Shahumyan, the Azeris resisted fiercely, aided by Chechen mercenaries and Islamic mercenaries from throughout the Islamic world. The Armenians however had the higher firepower, with air support and tank regiments colliding into undefended infantry positions. The Azeris were forced into headlong retreat by the Armenian onslaught. The Armenain 2nd Army Corps then moved to the northeast as well, and captured the key strategic town of Martakert, and directly threatened the heart of Azerbaijan. In the south the Azeris were having a hard time as well. Russian equipment and aid to the Armenians showed as the Armenians broke through Azeri lines again and again, and the Armenian guerillas of Nagorno-Karabakh aided the Armenians with irregular warfare behind Azeri communication and transportation lines, which destroyed any capability of a coordinated attack.

By the end of September, the Armenians had recaptured all occupied territory and had freed the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic from its occupation. Now the Armenians were on the verge of invading core Azeri territory itself, which if it did happen would force the Azeris onto the backfoot. The Azeris had been the one to escalate the war with their Summer Offensive and international opinion had soured against Azerbaijan as a result and they could not find international sympathy at all.

A temporary ceasefire was announced on the 12th of October, 1992 with the intention of letting both countries sort their differences out, however the Azeris, enraged at the bungling of the war by their President, Abdulfaz Elchibey, they turned their attention to him. The Azeri army was mutinous, and several members of the Azeri government conspired against Elchibey. The Minister of Interior Affairs of Azerbaijan, Isgander Hamidov was approached by General Surat Huseynov, who plotted a coup against the government led by Elchibey. Hamidov agreed and managed to rope in Rahim Gaziyev, the Defense Minister, who was disgusted at Elchibey’s handling of the war to dethrone Elchibey from his position of power.


1623547431604.png

Isgandar Hamidov

Huseynov led the 3rd Azeri Army away from the front, leaving a gaping hole in the frontlines on the 28th of October, and his army, loyal to him and not the state marched towards Baku. The situation was precipitous. Elchibey conferred with his cabinet for the situation at hand, however the conspirators present in the cabinet stalled the process, and on the 3rd of November, the 3rd Army appeared on the outskirts of Baku’s metropolitan district ready to conduct a coup. Finally Hamidov and Gaziyev showed their true colors and joined the coup and Elchibey’s position declined further. He fled the city at night aboard a ship in the Caspian Sea making for Turkmenistan and the government surrendered without a real fight and Huseynov entered the city without shedding blood. Isgandar Hamidov named himself the new President of the Azeri Republic, whilst Gaziyev was made the Prime Minister. General Surat Huseynov was made the Minister of Defense. The three began to create a new troika, as power in the Azeri republic soon became revolved around these three personalities.

Hamidov was all bluster as President, even going so far as to support a nuclear strike on the Armenians, and Huseynov had to reel the man in. He knew that despite the humiliation Azerbaijan was in no state to seek further hostilities, and decided that now peace was needed. On November 17, he contacted the Russian government and asked for mediation between Armenian and Azerbaijan. The Russian government agreed. On December 2, 1992 the Russians, Armenians and Azeries met each other in the Russian city of Sochi to discuss a peace agreement.

The Text of the Sochi Agreement signed on the 8th of December, 1992 reads out:-

Participants of the meeting held in December in Sochi on the initiative of the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, Parliament of Russian Republic, Federal Congress and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Union: express determination to assist in all possible ways to the cessation of armed conflict in and around Nagorno Karabakh, which does not only cause irretrievable losses to Azerbaijani and Armenian people, but also significantly affects the interests of other countries in the region and seriously complicates the international situation; supporting the December 1992 Statement by the CIS Council of heads of states, express readiness to fully support the efforts by heads and representatives of executive power on cessation of the armed conflict and liquidation of its consequences by reaching an appropriate agreement as soon as possible; advocate a naturally active role of the Commonwealth and InterParliamentary Assembly in cessation of the conflict, in realization of thereupon principles, goals and the UN and OSCE certain decisions; call upon the conflicting sides to come to common senses: cease to fire at the midnight of December 10, guided by the CIS Protocol (including the part on allocating observers), and work intensively to confirm this as soon as possible by signing a reliable, legally binding agreement envisaging a mechanism, ensuring the non-resumption of military and hostile activities, withdrawal of troops from occupied territories and restoration of communication, return of refugees; agree to suggest Parliaments of the CIS member-states to discuss the initiative by Chairman of Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly V. Shumeyko and Head of the Assembly’s Peacemaking Group on Nagorno Karabakh M. Sherimkulov on creating a CIS peacemaking force; consider appropriate to continue such meetings for peaceful resolution of the armed conflict; express gratitude to the people and leadership of Russia for creating excellent working conditions, cordiality and hospitality.”[2]

The conflict had ended as a frozen war. The line of control was seen as the official demarcation of the border, and the Commonwealth of Independent States banded together, and 5,000 Russian, 3,000 Ukrainian, 1,000 Kazakh and 500 Kyrgyz peacekeeper troops were deployed to the region to retain the tentative peace that had been formed. The 1st Nagorno-Karabakh War was over. It had cost the lives of nearly 25,000 people throughout the region and had left millions without a proper home and a proper occupation to feed themselves. The Caucasus would continue to be a big thorn in the side of the Russians and the CIS, especially as the new dictatorship in Azerbaijan licked its wounds for a second round.

***

From Chapter 27 of The Restoration of the House of Romanov

The issue of the morganatic marriage had consumed the life of Grand Duke Vladimir and the remaining members of the House of Romanov. After all, despite the overthrow of the monarchy, the Pauline Laws were still in effect and demanded that no woman ascend to the throne. However the closest heir to the Romanov title, Nicholas Romanov, a cousin/nephew of Grand Duke Vladimir was extremely angered by the proposal that he would be left out of the line of succession if the Pauline Laws were amended and ever since the 1980s the family had been rocked in bitter dispute with one another regarding the topic.

Finally on the 27th of November, 1992, Grand Duke Vladimir signed the Moscow Protocol of 1992, and as head of the House of Romanov, declared that the Pauline Laws of 1801 were null and void for the House of Romanov. However in order to reach a compromise for the family, he declared that despite the fact that he legitimized morganatic marriages into the line of succession, his own morganatic marriage did not legitimize his children, as his marriage happened before the Protocol of 1992. Therefore, the rights of succession went to his nephew, Prince Nicholas. The succession after Prince Nicholas would be absolute primogeniture which allowed Nicholas’s own daughter, Princess Natalia to become head of the house after Nicholas’s death.

It was a comprehensive protocol, and solved the succession crisis within the House of Romanov. All other claimants from other houses, like the ones in Germany and the Balkans were placed behind the main branch of the house on the condition of being Russian. The Russian Parliament recognized the Protocol as well, and the Pauline Laws which were kept in the Russian Records were amended with the protocol’s new laws being added in.

With the protocol being established, prominent Russian monarchists established the Russian Monarchist League on the 20th of December 1992, with the sole intention of being a pressure group to restore the Russian Monarchy. With Zhanna Bichevskaya as its Chairman and Boris Nemtsov as its Secretary General, the league had huge names to its favor, and prominent politicians such as Nikita Mikhailov, who was also a respected and established film maker and Andrey Savelyev, a prominent politician in his own right, also campaigned into the league in favor of Russian monarchism.

A poll that was created by the Levada Center in Moscow after a collection of information from the past few years since 1988 compiled a poll that showed the rise of monarchism in Russian society during the late 1980s and early 1990s [3] and showed a 10% lead in Russian society at the time for restoring a constitutional monarchy after the failure of the Soviet Union to survive properly.


russian monarchist poll.png

These events would certainly prove to become the prelude to the 2002 Restoration of the Russian Monarchy.

***

From Chapter 27 of Russian Electoral History

The Russian Union was officially a federal republic, and as a result, the federal members of the country with significant autonomy were allowed to have their own elections. The first of these elections would be the 1992 Belarusian Parliamentary Elections, which would be the first platform for the Russian political parties to fight it out with one another. The 1992 Referendum had amended the Belarusian Supreme Soviet into the Belarusian Autonomous Duma with 270 seats reserved for the unicameral autonomous parliament.

The Liberal Democrats, National Salvationists, Uniters (the colloquial term used to describe members of the Unity and Accord Party), Social Democrats and Greens all began to gear up for what was the first partisan election in the history of the Russian Union. Led by Stanislau Bahdankievic, the Liberal Democrats in Belarus were keen on emphasizing the nationalist history of Russia within Belarus and roused the russophilia of the people to coerce them into voting for them. They used violent words, such as war, and destruction and framed the current economic crisis on the government despite the government actually mitigating the economic recession. The National Salvation Front in Belarus led by Sergey Kalyakin was more moderate in its approached and rebranded itself as a Eurocommunist party instead of a typical communist government, and advocated for a stronger interventionist policy, using the successful interventionist policy of Yavlinsky as their basis in argument. They also called for a gradual privatization of the country that would take place in a planned and orderly format with the state still holding a good amount of power. Belarus, a typical leftist stronghold was strongly swayed by the National Salvation Front. The Unity and Accord Party proved itself to be popular among liberals and traditional conservatives, with their liberal-conservative rhetoric and fiery speeches by Mikalaj Kazlou, the leader of the party within Belarus certainly swayed opinions. The Unity and Accord Party was largely in favor of strong free trade agreements with the European nations to strengthen the economy and was seen as a soft pro-European party. The Social Democratic Party, the party of Yavlinsky, was led by Aleh Trusau and the Social Democrats largely drew upon Yavlinsky’s success’s to back up their electoral campaign, with great success, as they continued further economic reforms. The SDP also became the first party to really highlight Belarus’s autonomy with Russia and did promise extra protection to the Belarusian ethnic peoples of the country. The Belarusian Ecological Party did moderately well, with Oleg Gromyko leading the party through with some agrarian and democratic socialist ideals.


1992 belarusian parliamentary elections.png

At the end, the National Salvation Front had earned the victory, taking 86 seats, however they did not hold majority seats within the Belarusian Duma. They would either be forced into a coalition or minority government. The National Salvationists allied with the Social Democratic Party and formed a coalition with them (with over 60% of the seats in the coalition) and formed the first autonomous government of Belarus with the National Salvationist leader, Sergey Kalyakin becoming the Chairman of the Belarusian Duma and the Belarusian First Minister.

***

[1] – Obviously OTL, the Russians cut funds from health and transportation, when Education was being funded in full. However, when the question comes forward about being literate or being alive, being alive is seen as the better answer by the Russians ittl.

[2] – Adapted from the Otl Bishibek Protocol – source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140814055406/http://www.nkr.am/en/document/43/

[3] – this is actually an otl fact. The book I am using, is written in Russian, and states how monarchism became intensely popular during this time.
 
Last edited:
Finally the Russians also reviewed their nuclear arsenal. Their nuclear arsenal was quite frankly at this moment in time, expensive. They held around 43,000 nuclear weapons, which was costing a fortune to hold properly. For Yavlinsky and indeed the entire Russian cabinet, if 500 nuclear weapons were enough to destroy the entire world once over, then 43,000 was just too much. It was no deterrent at that stage, but more like that of an expensive showpiece that had no real value. It was decided that the nuclear funds would be slashed by more than half their amount, and that by 2000, the Russian nuclear arsenal would be limited down to 2200 active and deployed warheads, whilst the total nuclear arsenal of the country would stay constant at 10,000. The rest would be scrapped, and disposed of, the government decided. This was a smart move, as even scrapping nuclear weapons required manpower and labor, and it allowed the Russians to create cheap, but effectual occupations for those in need in the country, allowing greater economic mobility between several occupations in the country.

So what this means in the for the Ballistic Missile Submarine Fleet that the retirement of the remaining Yankee Class Submarines will continue.

The Delta I and II Ballistic Missile submarines are meanwhile placed into reserve, (OTL service life is to end by the year 2000).


These events would certainly prove to become the prelude to the 2002 Restoration of the Russian Monarchy.
Meanwhile the monarchy is coming back (again), let us hope that they don't curse ruin the flag,

I still prefer the historical Flag in use with the Russian Federation, since it has a long history with Russia since 1696 and repeatedly refuses to die no matter how many times its replaced.

Their are two origins from where this flag comes from but both involve the Dutch republic flag and involving the Tsar choosing the flag after seeing and copying the desigin of the Dutch one or the Tsar asking his Butler's opinion on design the flag after the Dutch engineer for Russia first ever sailing ship asked for a flag from the Duma.

The choice of colors is significant as they represent in order of priority, white for God, Blue for king, and Red for people and/or country.

Tsar Alexander II decided to replace the colours of with the Black, Yellow and White flag in 1858 and the first attempt to kill the tricolour flag started.

It failed by 1896 when it was reinstated before the coronation of Nicholas II, meanwhile the Flag had its offspring versions that would mature from their spread across the Balkans and Eastern Europe after the Prague Slavic Congress of 1848, the Slovakia and Slovenia flag still retain the parts of the Tricolour.

The Tricolour would have the Imperial Eagle version removed by the February Revolution, but was shortlived when th October Revolution came and removed it altogether.
And thus the second attempt to to kill the Tricolour began by 1918.

The Flag was briefly brought back from the dead during WW2, being used by the Nazi supported Russian Liberation Party who were made up of troops who saw the Germans as Liberators from the Communist.

But finally it came in an odd blue tint form by 1991 and would be restored to its original glory by 1993.

So for after going from an impressive 300 year history from of being determined and always coming back from death whenever their is a turn of the century upon the horizon.

This flag began its journey by the end of the 17th Century in 1696, by the end of 19th Century in 1896 the Flag would be reinstated as the National Flag of the Nation after being replaced in 1858.

And by the end of 20th Century in 1993 the original flag would make its return from death after being completely restored in the depressing and corrupted, crime ridden Post-Soviet Russia state, still could be worse with the Nazi's celebrating the death of the Flag with the Slavic people by their version of the beginning of the 21st century.

So this flag deserves to live in my book, which is why I always refer to the new flag as the Imposter, Sus Amongus flag, (not to be offensive its a good flag desgin but it doesn't hold the historic old value and history that the old original flag has)

It their was a comparison to compare the TL Russia flag with, then the best winner would be the Greenland Flag which if you've checked your flags will quite handily know whats wrong with the Greenland Flag.

TL;DR I go on a completely unrelated rant about my dislike of the TL Russian flag and why the old one is better, then I start trashing it unnecessarily about how it has no history against the old one and start saying mean names that are directed at the lack of history and not at the actual desgin and designer of it.
 
Top