A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia russian federation
Ok, presidential term limit is introduced, and term limit for prime minister is removed
The new Russian Constitution is looking good, obviously if made IRL it would be dripping in legalese, but this hits all of the important parts of creating a new democratic state.
One thing I would like to point out is Russia being fourth in production of what are called 'rare earth minerals' worldwide, with the top five being, in order, China, Vietnam, Brazil, Russia, and India. All of these countries, while maybe not ideologically aligned with the new Russian state, should still be our allies in the sense that all of them are hesitant to align with the West. It is possible we may be able to get an OPEC like consortium out of them to help improve our economy by setting prices.
One thing I would like to point out is Russia being fourth in production of what are called 'rare earth minerals' worldwide, with the top five being, in order, China, Vietnam, Brazil, Russia, and India. All of these countries, while maybe not ideologically aligned with the new Russian state, should still be our allies in the sense that all of them are hesitant to align with the West. It is possible we may be able to get an OPEC like consortium out of them to help improve our economy by setting prices.
Last edited:
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.
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.
As for what our goals are we'll my goal personally is to make russia an actual functioning democracy and possibly join the eu
While I'm all for the first one, I do not want the second at all. I would like to have amicable, if not outright friendly relations with the EU, but the past 30-40 years have shown that the future of the world is to be found in Africa and Asia. While Europe and North America are still powerhouses, aligning too heavily with the West will not allow for Russia to capitalize on as many opportunities in these developing areas. Whereas the EU is full of equals, the CSTO very clearly orbits around Russia and giving that up without a fight would be a mistake I feel.
Last edited:
For some time we will be focused more on internal developments, but you are right that we should have long time strategy and goals. For now, we are building our sphere of influence with newly established organizations, but the EU and NATO will push eastwards and we will see how the situation will develop.
Fair enough, I would however like to point out the immediacy of the Kaliningrad Oblast. This is a territory disconnected from the rest of mainland Russia and needs special attention paid to. Belarus is in our sphere, but that still leaves Lithuania or Poland to go through before we can reach the oblast by land. I don't think for a second that we will be able to get either of these countries into the CSTO, getting at least one of them (and I lean towards Lithuania, and perhaps the rest of the Baltic Trio) to not join NATO, is a great first step for Russian foreign policy in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse.
Anyway, these are just ideas, I'm sure you have great stuff planned for us already, you always do.
After decades of the Soviet occupation, Poland and the Baltic States will join the EU and NATO no matter what we do. The issue of Kaliningrad will be adressed in some future updates, but don't know when.
Last edited:
Well our main outlying goal as of now is to gain control of as much of former Soviet space and to keep it. This is realistic goal that should hopefully minimize conflict with other powers.
Long term for me our goal should be building up our economy and rising our standards of living, not to mention achieving technological parity (or even superiority) with other powers. Otherwise we should strive to be third strongest economy and later to always be in top 5. Same with state power.
Regarding wider geopolitical goal, it should be multilateralism in a form that benefits us the most.
Basically CSTO with Ukraine (it's a must to secure our access to the Black Sea), otherwise we can also get Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) into our sphere post Yugoslav wars as it's unlikely that EU will get them. There's potential in Afghanistan but it's an overreach for me as atm it would put a drain on our ressources.
But im of firm opinion that CSTO should remain defense alliance centered around former Soviet space as we don't have power to expand it without inhibition and it would put others members on edge, some exemptions could be made but we need to evaluate the risks and situations. But separate treaties and relations should be possible with Middle Eastern countries like Lybia (depending on how things go, if USA pushes then they had pushed and we will need to back off).
This is question of practicality. Can a nation that had problems with feeding it's own population afford to support Vietnam? Needless to say all economic help programs of USSR need to go, or are gone . We can maintain positiv relations with Vietnam but otherwise we need to balance those in relations with others countries, but support we had in time of Soviet Union is impossible. We need to think about relations with US and China which are economically far more important.
Unlikely to happen, what we can do is build up positive relations with Turkey. But otherwise i don't think we can offer them much , especially vis a vis NATO. Economically we can make some sort of agreement that mutually beneficial but the question is weather we truly want to set a precedent of allowing NATO country to fully join our political and economic institutions.
Not speaking about the fact that we would need to find some sort of power sharing agreement with Turkey. Ultimately as things stand straits are open to us anyway and we have various treaties with Turkey dating from Soviet times.
Unnecessary, Moscow has to much advantages and Symbolical displacement is unnecessary . We have our new start and that's that.
Regarding EU, yea we could have positive relations with them, but that depends on their moves as well , they won't only be partners , but also economic rivals and rivals to our economic institutions. Not to mention we cannot speak about EU without speaking about US. Our relations with EU will be greatly affected by our relations with USA. It's how it is, but EU doesn't have strategic autonomy to make unilateral decisions.
These are generally just my opinions.
Last edited:
Good relations with Turkey are very possible, even more after Erdogan takes power.
So about this:
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.
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.