A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation

[Gaúcho Maldito]

Just keep the Union like a regular assymetrical federation. No confederation of sorts. No EU-like organization. It should be a full national state with local autonomy. Destroy the Ukrainian nationalists instead of paying lip service to them, there's no point giving power to our enemies, like Korenizatsiia did. It may be painful in the short term but it will certainly pay dividends.

If integrating some regions in Western Ukraine ends up being ultimately impossible and counterproductive, then just give them independence as a neutral and demilitarized state (no funny bussinnes being in NATO or the EU) or make them join Poland (mainly thinking about Lviv here). Separate wheat from chaff. The rest will come along. Everything in the Donbass and Southern Ukraine will certainly be happy with being part of Russia. Central Ukraine will generally be against it but we can make them accept it if we act quickly and give them prosperity.

The reason why we need to solve this once and for all is to avoid the scenario of a Western led Ukrainian government mobilizing the resources of Southern and Eastern Ukraine against us.

There should be no official Ukrainian state implementing mandatory conscription to fight against us. It's best to fight an insurgency now than a fully consolidated Ukrainian state now or decades down the road, when we would've lost the advantage after the Kiev's government continuous derussification policies.

Look at the Russian government's situation. They basically invaded Donbass in 2014 and have been mobilizing it's population to fight a rebellion against the Kiev's government since them. The problem in doing things in such a limited manner is that the Ukrainian government used resources from the pro-russian regions of Kharkov, Odessa and Zaporozhia to fight an attrition war against Russia.

If Russia had acted more boldly in 2014, they could've snatched away the landbridge earlier and taken a lot of these resouces instead, using them against Kiev. That's why we can't allow Central, Southern and Eastern Ukraine to be in the same state as Western Ukraine, unless this state is the Union State controlled by us. Otherwise, we are risking an ideological influence which may turn the whole Ukrainian entity against us. Regardles of who wins, it's a win-win by the West, because they would be using our resources to fight us.

PS: to be clear, if we are giving Western Ukraine independence it should be a very small part on the border with Poland, a buffer state with part of Lviv and Lutsk region just to contain and separate the most anti-russian regions. Transcarpathia, on the other hand, is fully needed as our bridgehead in the Balkans. From it we can connect with Hungary and then with Serbia and Bulgaria, isolating Romania and making NATO's life a living hell.

 

[Kriss]

Just keep the Union like a regular assymetrical federation. No confederation of sorts. No EU-like organization. It should be a full national state with local autonomy. Destroy the Ukrainian nationalists instead of paying lip service to them, there's no point giving power to our enemies, like Korenizatsiia did. It may be painful in the short term but it will certainly pay dividends.

If integrating some regions in Western Ukraine ends up being ultimately impossible and counterproductive, then just give them independence as a neutral and demilitarized state (no funny bussinnes being in NATO or the EU) or make them join Poland (mainly thinking about Lviv here). Separate wheat from chaff. The rest will come along. Everything in the Donbass and Southern Ukraine will certainly be happy with being part of Russia. Central Ukraine will generally be against it but we can make them accept it if we act quickly and give them prosperity.

The reason why we need to solve this once and for all is to avoid the scenario of a Western led Ukrainian government mobilizing the resources of Southern and Eastern Ukraine against us.

There should be no official Ukrainian state implementing mandatory conscription to fight against us. It's best to fight an insurgency now than a fully consolidated Ukrainian state now or decades down the road, when we would've lost the advantage after the Kiev's government continuous derussification policies.

Look at the Russian government's situation. They basically invaded Donbass in 2014 and have been mobilizing it's population to fight a rebellion against the Kiev's government since them. The problem in doing things in such a limited manner is that the Ukrainian government used resources from the pro-russian regions of Kharkov, Odessa and Zaporozhia to fight an attrition war against Russia.

If Russia had acted more boldly in 2014, they could've snatched away the landbridge earlier and taken a lot of these resouces instead, using them against Kiev. That's why we can't allow Central, Southern and Eastern Ukraine to be in the same state as Western Ukraine, unless this state is the Union State controlled by us. Otherwise, we are risking an ideological influence which may turn the whole Ukrainian entity against us. Regardles of who wins, it's a win-win by the West, because they would be using our resources to fight us.

PS: to be clear, if we are giving Western Ukraine independence it should be a very small part on the border with Poland, a buffer state with part of Lviv and Lutsk region just to contain and separate the most anti-russian regions. Transcarpathia, on the other hand, is fully needed as our bridgehead in the Balkans. From it we can connect with Hungary and then with Serbia and Bulgaria, isolating Romania and making NATO's life a living hell.

Generally it was made pretty if we don't invade much of Central Ukraine will remain pro Russian... So no there won't be anty Russian Ukraine on our borders as even without us setting any form of puppet government pro Russian government I'd Set to appear as reverse Euromaidan will be pro Russian in nature. So you don't have to worry about that outcome. If anything this is the merit of not invading, or doing anything. Because we already have good relations with Ukrainian people and most want to side with us, but they don't want the common state. That's it. This is also why people argue against invasion of the Ukraine, because it is generally unnecessary and it's purpose is to expand Russian territory while betraying the trust Ukrainian people have in us.

As for Western led Ukrainian government mobilizing Ukraine against us being the reason for invasion? That's equivalent as saying that we need preemptively nuke USA to avoid them nuking us. It's not the best metaphor but i believe that it sums entire reasoning quite nicely. Military force and invasions should be last resort in most cases and what you say might happen is quite improbable ITTL and if anything us invading them makes such possibility more probable on top of other problems we will face internationally for invading Ukraine. Just like nuking USA would certainly result in them nuking us.

In my case i said that Union state is more centralized state and yes even if Ukraine joins it would still be dominated by us (not controlled), in case of more gradual and peaceful integration we would generally need to make some concessions. But otherwise a level of oppresion you are advocating isn't even seen in rest of Russian federation as we still allow our minorities to have rights and believe it, or not ITTL Russia is democracy so us doing what you propose would be a little hard as on one side we would have perfectly functioning democracy in most of Russia, on other we would have Special military zone of Ukraine where democratic liberties guaranteed in rest of the country don't really exist. Good way to breed resentment. So no we would need to give Ukraine some concessions and freedoms which is why gradual integration is better than sudden annexation. If gradual integration is possible in a first place as wishes of Ukrainian people count, what is guaranteed is that it would result in less resistance just like sudden annexation would result in mass resistance and consequences (as i said getting Ukraine is useless if in a long run we get rebellious territory and are sanctioned making us weaker with Ukraine opposed to without).


Otherwise just invading and disregarding all consequences won't do us any good and we don’t even know how long said insurgency will even last, plus it isn't guaranteed that West won't do nothing (as some pointed out that's unrealistic). Plus once again leaving West Ukraine alone is terrible idea as you can't really enforce anything on them, they won't accept any signed deal from us out of their own free will which means that any such state would need to be under our occupation. In case of giving it to Poland? Yea Poland won't be doing anything without approval from USA and West Ukraine as heck won't join in peacefully so there's obvious problem there.

To put it simply this invasion at the end of it all isn't really necessary to bring Ukraine on our side, or to separate it from the West as most of Ukrainians already want to be in alliance with us. At the end of the day this is about us expanding Russian territory because of idea that we need Ukrainian territory to be superpower (which we don't need) and in other case some people really want to see Russia invade and absorb Ukraine.

 

[Red Angel]

I pretty much started to lean to a puppet, or at lease a pro-Russian, government with gradual integration but I'm hugely against getting superpower status as that'll cause problems for us later down the line...

 

[daaaamdam]

I agree with Gaúcho, our least goal would be to secure southern regions, but doing that will effectively throw rest of ukraine in arms of west, so imho its either going all in or doing nothing

 

[Gaúcho Maldito]

Generally it was made pretty if we don't invade much of Central Ukraine will remain pro Russian... So no there won't be anty Russian Ukraine on our borders as even without us setting any form of puppet government pro Russian government I'd Set to appear as reverse Euromaidan will be pro Russian in nature. So you don't have to worry about that outcome. If anything this is the merit of not invading, or doing anything. Because we already have good relations with Ukrainian people and most want to side with us, but they don't want the common state. That's it. This is also why people argue against invasion of the Ukraine, because it is generally unnecessary and it's purpose is to expand Russian territory while betraying the trust Ukrainian people have in us.

As for Western led Ukrainian government mobilizing Ukraine against us being the reason for invasion? That's equivalent as saying that we need preemptively nuke USA to avoid them nuking us. It's not the best metaphor but i believe that it sums entire reasoning quite nicely. Military force and invasions should be last resort in most cases and what you say might happen is quite improbable ITTL and if anything us invading them makes such possibility more probable on top of other problems we will face internationally for invading Ukraine. Just like nuking USA would certainly result in them nuking us.

In my case i said that Union state is more centralized state and yes even if Ukraine joins it would still be dominated by us (not controlled), in case of more gradual and peaceful integration we would generally need to make some concessions. But otherwise a level of oppresion you are advocating isn't even seen in rest of Russian federation as we still allow our minorities to have rights and believe it, or not ITTL Russia is democracy so us doing what you propose would be a little hard as on one side we would have perfectly functioning democracy in most of Russia, on other we would have Special military zone of Ukraine where democratic liberties guaranteed in rest of the country don't really exist. Good way to breed resentment. So no we would need to give Ukraine some concessions and freedoms which is why gradual integration is better than sudden annexation. If gradual integration is possible in a first place as wishes of Ukrainian people count, what is guaranteed is that it would result in less resistance just like sudden annexation would result in mass resistance and consequences (as i said getting Ukraine is useless if in a long run we get rebellious territory and are sanctioned making us weaker with Ukraine opposed to without).


Otherwise just invading and disregarding all consequences won't do us any good and we don’t even know how long said insurgency will even last, plus it isn't guaranteed that West won't do nothing (as some pointed out that's unrealistic). Plus once again leaving West Ukraine alone is terrible idea as you can't really enforce anything on them, they won't accept any signed deal from us out of their own free will which means that any such state would need to be under our occupation. In case of giving it to Poland? Yea Poland won't be doing anything without approval from USA and West Ukraine as heck won't join in peacefully so there's obvious problem there.

To put it simply this invasion at the end of it all isn't really necessary to bring Ukraine on our side, or to separate it from the West as most of Ukrainians already want to be in alliance with us. At the end of the day this is about us expanding Russian territory because of idea that we need Ukrainian territory to be superpower (which we don't need) and in other case some people really want to see Russia invade and absorb Ukraine.

The main issue is that as long as Ukraine is an independent state, and not only in spite but possibly due to the overhelming strengthening of the Russia state, it will always look towards creating it's own path and national identity separated from the Russian only (fueled by western services), which can only come as a net loss to us considering the Ukrainian state is in possession of mostly Russian and extremely strategic regions in the Black Sea like Crimea. And if Russia are to take even one of those regions, like it did with Crimea, this would turn the whole Ukrainian state against it, like it ended up happening.

Take a lot at Kazakhstan's regime, it's arguably a puppet nation considering it needed to call in Russian troops to quell protests a couple years ago, and even then it's engaged in a longterm derussification process of the Kazakh society, including a change of alphabet.

We only have to answer a simple question with sincerity: are we ready to let go of Crimea and Southern Ukraine as part of the Russian Nation forever, with all the strategic implications that come with it? If the answer is no, then it's obvious we need to act with force now, when we have the force and Ukraine isn't as consolidated as it could be.

You are basing your prospects on an overly optimistic analysis of the previous political developements in Ukraine, like the reversal of the anti-Russian advances during the Orange Revolution, thinking of it as mainly non-consequential in the long run, which is a very big bet.

All national-states aim towards autonomy, Russia in special is a nation that should know better than to gamble all it's future prospects in a ecossystem of puppet states. It worked so well last time.

 

[ProgressiveIsraelFan]

are we ready to let go of Crimea and Southern Ukraine as part of the Russian Nation forever, with all the strategic implications that come with it?

Honorable Members of the State Duma,
the situation is different from what warhawks and neo-imperialists make it out to be.
Do we even have a existing,legitimate claim on Crimea?
Most of the people there are non russian Tatars.
Perhaps a military base for our Black Sea Fleet is enough.
As for Donezk and Luhansk,I propose taking it since its mineral wealth could benefit us greatly.

 

[Kriss]

Do we even have a existing,legitimate claim on Crimea?
Most of the people there are non russian Tatars.

We have from populations point of view, most of the population (around 80% i believe) are Russians who would (if given the chance) joined Russia.

As for Donezk and Luhansk,I propose taking it since its mineral wealth could benefit us greatly.

Generally most of this discussion is about annexing, or not annexing Ukraine. Just taking small part of it means rest will join the West against us, or will be antagonistic towards us.

If we don't take the whole thing then we are better of not taking anything and maintaining close relations. This is generally big the question , do we take/annex whole Ukraine, or mantain friendly relations paired with close cooperation on all fronts and if we go with the annexation which approach is the best? Immediate annexation, or gradual integration?

 

[ProgressiveIsraelFan]

friendly relations paired with close cooperation on all fronts

This is the way.

most of the population (around 80% i believe) are Russians.

Crimea has belonged to the Ottoman Empire for much longer and only Turkish Tatars used to live there. Turkey would be more entitled to Crimea than Russia. These are the facts.

 

[Red Angel]

Crimea has belonged to the Ottoman Empire for much longer and only Turkish Tatars used to live there. Turkey would be more entitled to Crimea than Russia. These are the facts.

There's very little Tatars living there in Crimea, so it's a pretty much moot choice of giving it to Turkey.

 

[Gaúcho Maldito]

This is the way.

Crimea has belonged to the Ottoman Empire for much longer and only Turkish Tatars used to live there. Turkey would be more entitled to Crimea than Russia. These are the facts.

This is meaningless. The only claim we really need is the will of the people living there.

 

[ProgressiveIsraelFan]

There's very little Tatars living there in Crimea, so it's a pretty much moot choice of giving it to Turkey.

I do not propose giving it to Turkey.
Stop arguing against a strawman.

 

[ProgressiveIsraelFan]

The only claim we really need is the will of the people living there.

And if the people living there decide they would be better off independent or with Ukraine?
We can’t just go around and say „There are Russians living there,therefore it’s fair game and ripe for the taking“

 

[Kriss]

Crimea has belonged to the Ottoman Empire for much longer and only Turkish Tatars used to live there. Turkey would be more entitled to Crimea than Russia. These are the facts.

That's beside the point, population there is mostly Russian and if we take the wishes of the population into the account most want to join Russia. That is the fact.

Most of the Tatars now live in Siberia due to Stalin policies (I believe our Primeminister is from there) and have already made new livelyhood there.

As for Turkey being entitled to Crimea? Generally we don't really have real law to support that and any Turkish claim on Crimea is weaker then Ukrainian sovereignty and right on their territories and on the wishes/rights of people living there on self determination. Also i hope that you understand the problem with the claim you are proposing?

By that logic France, British etc would have the right on quite a big number of their colonies based simply on the fact that they owned these colonies longer than those colonies were independent state's. No one will support that type of claim.

And if the people living there decide they would be better off independent or with Ukraine?
We can’t just go around and say „There are Russians living there,therefore it’s fair game and ripe for the taking“

We would respect that, but the fact really is that the people living there if given the chance would vote to join Russia.

 

[Gaúcho Maldito]

And if the people living there decide they would be better off independent or with Ukraine?

In Crimea? I really doubt it, specially with all the prosperity the Union State is experiencing.

 

[ProgressiveIsraelFan]

We would respect that, but the fact really is that the people living there if given the chance would vote to join Russia.

This claim is based on what exactly?

By that logic France, British etc would have the right on quite a big number of their colonies based simply on the fact that they owned these colonies longer than those colonies were independent state's. No one will support that type of claim.

Newsflash there’s a difference between integral parts of a nation and colonies. Also Mali for example was independent longer than it was a French Colony.

My proposals are based on taking whatever the Nationalists demand then demanding the exact and direct opposite.

 

[TimTurner]

In Crimea? I really doubt it, specially with all the prosperity the Union State is experiencing.

(Avoiding) Bad economic conditions would be the single most important thing for people willingly joining the Union State.

 

[shubham rai]

We have from populations point of view, most of the population (around 80% i believe) are Russians who would (if given the chance) joined Russia.



Generally most of this discussion is about annexing, or not annexing Ukraine. Just taking small part of it means rest will join the West against us, or will be antagonistic towards us.

If we don't take the whole thing then we are better of not taking anything and maintaining close relations. This is generally big the question , do we take/annex whole Ukraine, or mantain friendly relations paired with close cooperation on all fronts and if we go with the annexation which approach is the best? Immediate annexation, or gradual integration?

If this is the case then there is no need for new vote. Members already choosen the full annexation plan.
But I am sure that author has some good expanded options for new voting.

 

[Kriss]

This claim is based on what exactly?

I believe people already elaborated on that (living standards and such). But it's also important to note that for most of it's history Ukraine was part of Russia, either part of Tsarist Russia, or USSR and most of these Russian were part of Russian state for hundreds of years, Ukrainian independence being a recent thing. We don't really need to be geniuses to guess that most of Russian majority regions would join Russia given if given the option.

Especially if you take into consideration that Ukraine has lower living standards and if the follow otl constitutions before war most of the regions cannot even chose their governors. For Crimea to stay in Ukraine Ukraine itself would need to give it significant autonomy and would need to have a lot more higher living standards, plus dedicate itself to either neutrality, or be pro Russians as most Russians see Russia as their motherlan.

Switzerland for example is a success story of multyethnic state but it's so because it's basically a federation with a a common system of governance representing all it's groups, high living standards and long policy of neutrality that prevented German /French/Italian tensions to still across the border.

Not to it had a long history of statehood and independence to validate it's state and create Swiss identity over centuries.

Another instances of this can be seen in Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia. Both state's fell to ethnic tensions and in Yugoslavia especially we can see that most groups prefer their own ethnic states. In some instances West even validated right of these people to self determination.

 

[Kriss]

If this is the case then there is no need for new vote. Members already choosen the full annexation plan.
But I am sure that author has some good expanded options for new voting.

I believe problem was that vote was... how to say it? Narrow and favored one, or other option. There wasn't even option to leave Ukraine to set it's own government and later on a consequences that would come if we annexed Ukraine were diminished rising the question of why did we even had a vote?

It was basically different shades of taking control over Ukraine and annexation was obvious answer because if West won't even react to it then all other options didn't matter. As some pointed why bother to set up a puppet state when you can annex the whole thing and enjoy all advantages , but not suffer any real backlash. Ukrainian insurgency without Western backing isn't even a threat.

Yes we could make a deal with the West (thats completely a valid argument for Western silence), but once again terms of said deal were vague and didn't really have us give anything in return for Western backing. Basically we would pinky swear not to side with China (something most people didn't plan to do anyway) and even not siding with China part was quite vague as we would basically still be allowed to work with China on international scene, in some cases against Western interests abd advocate for Brand of multipolar world that isn't in Western interests.

I believe that expanded options will have us give a real alliance with Ukraine a chance and if we chose annexation consequences will be real, or if we take a deal with the West to avoid those consequences we will need to make a real concessions on international stage that will weaken our unified front with China, or have us forsake some parts of the world in favor of Western interests.

 

[ProgressiveIsraelFan]

I am a full supporter of the right of these people to self determination.
However,we should not pervert this right by instigating conflicts with militias,like we did OTL.
We sadly alerady voted on a reverse Maidan,but
Crimea and Donezk + Lugansk are enough! No to Imperialism,be it American or Russian!
Italics indicate non-RP text