A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation

[Kriss]

So about this:

Japan and Russia have one significant issue that affects the development of bilateral relations, which is, of course, the Kuril Islands dispute. In 1993, a declaration was signed in Tokyo which stated that various treaties between Japan and USSR were recognized by Russian and Japanese governments, and both had an interest in solving the Kurils issue. Japan saw it as a step at regaining control over Northern Territories, but nothing really moved any further. Japan has also entered its Lost Decade era in 1991, with asset price bubble bursting and economy stagnating.

I do agree that Japan has certain expertise in various industries. But we have to solve Kurils issue definitively before any other action can take place. It is alluring to have Russia and Japan balance out each other's respective economic issues (Russia has too little money, Japan has too much), I'll admit.

Problem was that Gorbachev offered two islands to the Japan back then but US objected and advised Japan to as for the whole thing. From then on thing stagnated. And honestly im really in no mood to make further territorial concessions to Japan, instead I would just go for normalization of relations and establishment of economic ties (On interesting note, when Yeltsin mentioned giving up the Islands to Japan it was meet with severe opposition from Media and public in general).

So honestly i would take wait and see approach, as long as our economy grows it's fine and Japan will eventually need to normalize ties with us anyway. Both for economic and geopolitical reasons. Even in otl Japan eventually agreed to normalize ties.

Good relations with Turkey are very possible, even more after Erdogan takes power.

That's true, it's just that we are unlikely to get them out of NATO. But honestly i would be fine with making exception in Turkish case and allow them to partially join our economic institutions as benefits are to great to ignore them. Turkey is relatively developed country in G20 with population of 80 mil. We could benefit from them joining us.


On second hand we may Rename CIS into a Commonwealth of Euroasian Nations (CEN) as CISFTZ is by its definition part of EEU given that economic union is by its definition an agreement between two or more nations to allow goods, services, money and workers to move over borders freely. The countries may also coordinate social and financial policies to support this common market.

With CIS itself being more of a political forum like otl with some common institutions.

 

[panpiotr]

On second hand we may Rename CIS into a Commonwealth of Euroasian Nations (CEN) as CISFTZ is by its definition part of EEU given that economic union is by its definition an agreement between two or more nations to allow goods, services, money and workers to move over borders freely. The countries may also coordinate social and financial policies to support this common market.

This could be done later, when the organization has new members outside of the former USSR.

 

[Kriss]

This could be done later, when the organization has new members outside of the former USSR.

On subject of new members would Bulgaria be an option? I believe Bulgaria should be pro Russian enough and they joined NATO in 2004 and EU in 2007 otl so there's enough time for us to draw them in our sphere

But otherwise do we want more countries to join? Honestly besides some potential status for Turkey and some Balkan countries i don't see the need, or possibility to expand further without creating unnecessary problems. Mongolia is better of being buffer between China and Russia and we don’t really have necessary cloth to change that.

Otherwise most of potential members are other ex Soviet States. Other thing to consider is that mindless expansion isn't necessary good and it may do more harm than good and impose more economic stress on Russia while burdening it with unnecessary economic obligations (and geopolitical conflict). More distant countries like Vietnam are simply to far away and then there's entire opinion of fellow member state's...

Honestly CIS (Euroasian Economic union) seems more like exclusive group that won't expand to much beyond Soviet space (for traditional and pragmatic reasons). Im generally in favor of regionalism and more thight oversight over our institutions than quick expansion at the expense of centralization.

We could Rename it after we centralize it some more though .

 

[Starkforlufe]

Regarding Chechnya just give them independence,like the other minorities,a smaller Russia but a more russian Russia for all.

 

[Empress_Boogalaboo]

Regarding Chechnya just give them independence,like the other minorities,a smaller Russia but a more russian Russia for all.

I think Chechnya should remain part of Russia, 1/4 of the population is Russian after all, but hopefully there can be some sort of reconciliation. OTL Russia painted the Chechens as murderous savages, something not helped by the radical independence activists being a part of a terror group instead of a conventional army (they would have been destroyed even faster if they were, but it still ruined their international image.) Honestly there's some parallels between Chechnya and Algeria and their routes to independence, the only major difference being the Algerians won, so they are known as freedom fighters, and the Chechens lost, so they retain their tarred reputation.

 

[Kriss]

Regarding Chechnya just give them independence,like the other minorities,a smaller Russia but a more russian Russia for all.

Excluding the fact that Chechen rebels weren't exactly most friendly to Russia and the fact that this won't bode well for Russians living there they also have oil.

Not to mention this would harm Russia severely as it could potentially incite other groups to seek independence,or more rights that would be politically sensitive to grant it would also undermine Russia's standing internationally and with their CSTO partners. Not to mention it would potentially put unfriendly country on Russian borders, its enough that we need to deal with Baltics etc, we don't need more problems.

Also Chechnya itself doesn't have a great population, a little over million and half, if anything Russian federation isn't old Soviet Union , it's more homogeneous state where Russians do have secure majority so there's no need to make Russia more Russian.

Basically there are lot of reasons for not granting them independence and weary little reasons for it (that are actually practical abd benefit Russia).

 

[panpiotr]

I know some people generally don't like talking about international relations between nation-states (it can get a thread locked very quickly), but what are the strategic goals we are aligning Russia towards? The unstoppable pursuit of a warm water port that has driven Russian policy since the 1800s? Strategic depth against the Russian heartland blown open by the East European Plain? Broader goals like regaining our place as the world's second strongest power (and hopefully the first), despite the fact this will put us on a collision course with China and the US simultaneously?

What allies should we try to cultivate in this new world? Obviously nations in the CSTO already orbit around Moscow, but should we try to get even more? Does Russia continue to be the traditional backer of Vietnam, despite no longer being ideologically similar in government? Should we aim to rip Turkey from the arms of NATO and gain access to the Mediterranean through the Dardanelles Straits?

These are extremely important questions that I do not know the answer to, and there are very good points on either side of all of these arguments.

One last question that the answer will probably be one sided on, but should we change the capital away from Moscow to signal a new start? There are really only two choices if the answer is yes, St. Petersburg/Petrograd, or Volgograd, and there are convincing arguments to be made about just remaining in Moscow.

For this decade, in my opinion the main goal would be to lay low, rebuild our political, diplomatic, economic and military power under the shadow of American global domination. The eastward expansion of the EU and NATO will happen, so we should focus for now on building up our own bloc within the post-soviet sphere. Also, reaching political and economic consensus with Germany should be our priority, as neither Berlin nor Moscow want to see total American domination in the region, especially in the Central and Eastern Europe. The expansion of NATO to the east by the U.S. would be done to prevent German and Russian control over this strategic region. Furthermore, we should work very closely with China and India, as both states are future superpower and great power in the making. That's all for this decade, for the 2000's we can start expanding our influence across Asia, Africa and South America.

 

[Kriss]

For this decade, in my opinion the main goal would be to lay low, rebuild our political, diplomatic, economic and military power under the shadow of American global domination. The eastward expansion of the EU and NATO will happen, so we should focus for now on building up our own bloc within the post-soviet sphere. Also, reaching political and economic consensus with Germany should be our priority, as neither Berlin nor Moscow want to see total American domination in the region, especially in the Central and Eastern Europe. The expansion of NATO to the east by the U.S. would be done to prevent German and Russian control over this strategic region. Furthermore, we should work very closely with China and India, as both states are future superpower and great power in the making. That's all for this decade, for the 2000's we can start expanding our influence across Asia, Africa and South America.

I would actually say that we should lay low until 2010 and generally avoid conflict with US as long as possible as we'll need more than two decades to rebuild and achieve decent GDP and living standard. Generally at least for me main goal is to overtake Japan, or at least to be in same realm as Germany/Japan economically. Any conflict with US will probably need to take place in accord with China.

So i would say strong control over our sphere and opportunistic expansion if possible. Economic cooperation is possible but we should avoid geopolitical entanglement beyond our immediate sphere and let US police the world.

 

[panpiotr]

I would actually say that we should lay low until 2010 and generally avoid conflict with US as long as possible as we'll need more than two decades to rebuild and achieve decent GDP and living standard. Generally at least for me main goal is to overtake Japan, or at least to be in same realm as Germany/Japan economically. Any conflict with US will probably need to take place in accord with China.

So i would say strong control over our sphere and opportunistic expansion if possible. Economic cooperation is possible but we should avoid geopolitical entanglement beyond our immediate sphere and let US police the world.

Yes, with a good economic development we will overtake Germany and Japan, that's for sure. Then the most important question in the 2010s and 2020s how we will deal with ongoing Sino-American race for global domination, as neither American or Chinese domination would be good for Russia. Personally, I would prefer to create a 3rd global player to counter China and United States, that is alliance between the European Union and Russian led bloc.

 

[Kriss]

I would prefer to create a 3rd global player to counter China and United States, that is alliance between the European Union and Russian led bloc.

Unlikely to happen as EU is to bound to the USA and the later has great influence there, especially in the east. At best we can have coordinal relationship with EU and ensure that they are friendly to us within the framework of EU strattegic autonomy and economic interests.

India in my opinion is far better partner for us, it's the biggest buyer of Russian weapons and there's place for cooperation within civilian sector. It has massive population and massive potential for growth in which Russia can take part in, plus it seeks to install itself as an independent pole in the world, just as us, not to mention geopolitically India cannot allow Russia to fall under Chinese influence which means they'll be open to long term cooperation. In this framework we are natural partners.

Then the most important question in the 2010s and 2020s how we will deal with ongoing Sino-American race for global domination, as neither American or Chinese domination would be good for Russia.

I would say that that's unlikely , while China is strong it alone cannot overthrow collective West in the near future. In a framework with more developed Russia and India catching up no power can achieve full domination and at least in China's case they're more likely to seek to turn current world order to their advantage and install themselves as center of new Multipolar world. US on second hand seeks to maintain current system.

Our goal should be to balance the two to our advantage.Generally if we look at it we just need to be coordinal with everyone and play West and China against each others, or better said we should just look after our own interests and develop internally, as long as we do just that we are good.

 

[panpiotr]

Unlikely to happen as EU is to bound to the USA and the later has great influence there, especially in the east. At best we can have coordinal relationship with EU and ensure that they are friendly to us within the framework of EU strattegic autonomy and economic interests.

I would say yes and not - while the EU is bound to the USA in economic and security spheres, the American pursuit of deglobalization to hamper Chinese economic development will hurt economic interests of Europe and especially Germany. Germany would gladly get rid of American influence within the EU in order to create a federalized european state under german guidance, but the main obstacle to it in my opinion is the presence of American allies in central and eastern Europe like Poland, Romania and the Baltic state, who are drawing the Americans into this part of the world, to prevent German and Russian control over the region.

 

[Kriss]

I would say yes and not - while the EU is bound to the USA in economic and security spheres, the American pursuit of deglobalization to hamper Chinese economic development will hurt economic interests of Europe and especially Germany. Germany would gladly get rid of American influence within the EU in order to create a federalized european state under german guidance, but the main obstacle to it in my opinion is the presence of American allies in central and eastern Europe like Poland, Romania and the Baltic state, who are drawing the Americans into this part of the world, to prevent German and Russian control over the region.

Of course we also need to think about France in all of this, they themselves want more independent EU as well but as you said, due to current problems EU cannot really be Russian ally without prior agreement with USA regarding the East, British potentially going out will help, but otherwise strategically we cannot relay on EU.

Now i do agree about European economic interests and EU itself has shown willingness to oppose USA on this and if we follow the trend that was happening before Ukraine Germany and France were proponents of EU creating its own security system and taking more responsibility for itself. So i do concede that as long as we avoid major conflict of interests with EU and USA and USA itself probably seeking to retreat from Europe to focus on East Asia and China which should give Germany and France some breading ground so that they may fill the vacuum USA leaves. But once again we will still see close relations between the two with EU probably trying to balance things out with Russia and deepen economic cooperation with the East.

But yea long term cooperation with Europe is probably in our interest. Most of our population is in Europe and it will probably remain our biggest trading partner in foreseeable future even with us seeking to integrate further into Asian trade.

Lots of things depends on us successfully integrating Ukraine and post Soviet sphere which is a problem because while they could potentially be allies they are also rival economic organization.

 

[panpiotr]

Of course we also need to think about France in all of this, they themselves want more independent EU as well but as you said, due to current problems EU cannot really be Russian ally without prior agreement with USA regarding the East, British potentially going out will help, but otherwise strategically we cannot relay on EU.

Now i do agree about European economic interests and EU itself has shown willingness to oppose USA on this and if we follow the trend that was happening before Ukraine Germany and France were proponents of EU creating its own security system and taking more responsibility for itself. So i do concede that as long as we avoid major conflict of interests with EU and USA and USA itself probably seeking to retreat from Europe to focus on East Asia and China which should give Germany and France some breading ground so that they may fill the vacuum USA leaves. But once again we will still see close relations between the two with EU probably trying to balance things out with Russia and deepen economic cooperation with the East.

But yea long term cooperation with Europe is probably in our interest. Most of our population is in Europe and it will probably remain our biggest trading partner in foreseeable future even with us seeking to integrate further into Asian trade.

Lots of things depends on us successfully integrating Ukraine and post Soviet sphere which is a problem because while they could potentially be allies they are also rival economic organization.

Yes, the main obstacle on the path on Russian - EU cooperation would be Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the UK if they stay. This countries should be treated as American proxies in the EU. That is why it would be in our best interest to repeat the Brexit, as without the UK in EU, we would be able to dominate the Central European states together with Germany and maybe France.

 

[Empress_Boogalaboo]

Yes, the main obstacle on the path on Russian - EU cooperation would be Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the UK if they stay. This countries should be treated as American proxies in the EU. That is why it would be in our best interest to repeat the Brexit, as without the UK in EU, we would be able to dominate the Central European states together with Germany and maybe France.

France should probably be the main focus, with Germany a close second. France actually withdrew from most NATO institutions in 1966 over disputes in how the unified military command structure would be formed, and did not fully reintegrate until 2009. Now, France would 100% still have been on the American side of any hypothetical war the USSR would have launched on Europe. But, it does show that France has been fiercely against the American system of world order, basically ever since the US didn't back them in the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956.

Germany on the other hand, when reunification happened in 1990, only around 20% of West Germans supported being in NATO. Most were fine with Pan-European institutions that would form the EU as we know it today, however they did not want their NATO membership. Major parties in the Bundestag still campaign against NATO membership to the modern day.

This isn't meant to say that Europe should be subsumed into a new Russian bloc, but that the multipolar world rising after the Soviet collapse could probably have a European faction that is noticeably separate from the US. This European faction, while probably still on friendly terms with the US, could be friends of the new Russia too.

 

[Kriss]

Yes, the main obstacle on the path on Russian - EU cooperation would be Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the UK if they stay. This countries should be treated as American proxies in the EU. That is why it would be in our best interest to repeat the Brexit, as without the UK in EU, we would be able to dominate the Central European states together with Germany and maybe France.

Well i wouldn't say dominate as they would be in EU, but Russian friendly faction within the EU would definitely gain more sway.

France should probably be the main focus, with Germany a close second. France actually withdrew from most NATO institutions in 1966 over disputes in how the unified military command structure would be formed, and did not fully reintegrate until 2009. Now, France would 100% still have been on the American side of any hypothetical war the USSR would have launched on Europe. But, it does show that France has been fiercely against the American system of world order, basically ever since the US didn't back them in the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956.

Germany on the other hand, when reunification happened in 1990, only around 20% of West Germans supported being in NATO. Most were fine with Pan-European institutions that would form the EU as we know it today, however they did not want their NATO membership. Major parties in the Bundestag still campaign against NATO membership to the modern day.

This isn't meant to say that Europe should be subsumed into a new Russian bloc, but that the multipolar world rising after the Soviet collapse could probably have a European faction that is noticeably separate from the US. This European faction, while probably still on friendly terms with the US, could be friends of the new Russia too.

Let's not forget Italy, under Berlusconi they were friendly to Russia, later on Hungary under Orban should also be possible.

But otherwise i believe we need to act in regards to Bulgaria and create a framework for their joining of our economic and later military led institutions. This way we can regain some of our influence within Black Sea and gain connection to Serbia/Yugoslavia from where we gain access to Adriatic and effectively control the land bridge to Turkey/Middle East.

 

[Screwhorn77]

Russia, shall it pursue a more European-oriented strategy, would throw the balance of power in Europe completely off. I won't be advocating for EU membership here, but a Europe that's more distanced from the United States and more independent would go a long way in terms of constructing multipolar order. There's enough ground for Russia to pursue warmer relations with both Germany and France, two leaders of continental Europe. If Britain makes a turn for cooperation with US away from less America-dependent Europe, this could result in a stronger European bloc.

Partnership with India is also worth pursuing. India had traditionally had relatively warm relations with the Soviet Union, and continuing it with Russia as USSR's successor is no brainer. It's unlikely that India would join a Russia-dominated bloc, but maintaining good relations is a good idea anyway.

 

[Empress_Boogalaboo]

Yeah, to be honest, there aren't a lot of places in the world Russia can really bind to itself in a protector/protectee relationship. We have the Middle East (if we want to stick our hand into what I consider the biggest mess of the modern world), Central Asia (we basically already have this), Africa (full civil wars so we will never get anywhere), South East Asia (in China's and India's backyard), and finally South America (if we want to play in the American backyard.) Europe, China, India, and the US all have to be treated as equals, and cannot be counted as "in the Russian Bloc" even if they are friendly/allied states.

But, I agree with @panpiotr that expanding our influence to other states should probably take a back burner to rebuilding our country after the collapse of the Soviet system. Obviously if a country approaches us we shouldn't turn them away, but neither should we seek them out. For now.

 

[Kriss]

Russia, shall it pursue a more European-oriented strategy, would throw the balance of power in Europe completely off. I won't be advocating for EU membership here, but a Europe that's more distanced from the United States and more independent would go a long way in terms of constructing multipolar order. There's enough ground for Russia to pursue warmer relations with both Germany and France, two leaders of continental Europe. If Britain makes a turn for cooperation with US away from less America-dependent Europe, this could result in a stronger European bloc.

I agree with not Pursuing EU membership, but coordinal and cooperative agreement between EU and Russian led bloc is for everyone benefits.

Partnership with India is also worth pursuing. India had traditionally had relatively warm relations with the Soviet Union, and continuing it with Russia as USSR's successor is no brainer. It's unlikely that India would join a Russia-dominated bloc, but maintaining good relations is a good idea anyway.

There's also a matter of us don't wanting them in Russian led bloc as it wouldn't be Russian led anymore.

But, I agree with @panpiotr that expanding our influence to other states should probably take a back burner to rebuilding our country after the collapse of the Soviet system. Obviously if a country approaches us we shouldn't turn them away, but neither should we seek them out. For now.

Here we need to differentiate passive and active diplomacy. Aggressive pursuit is out of the question but soft diplomacy with good enticements should be considered and actively pursued lest we miss a good chance (Bulgaria).

Also bigger diplomatic involvement in Yugoslav wars should go a long way to ending entire thing earlier and in our benefit.

 

[panpiotr]

Next chapter today

 

[panpiotr]

@ArthurS after the update is made, would you made an infobox for new political parties of President Fyodorov, Vicepresident Borovoi and Prime Minister Yavlinsky?