By this stage of the story Crimea has been annexed to NSF's Russia.Fix it. Crimea is part of Ukraine.
By this stage of the story Crimea has been annexed to NSF's Russia.Fix it. Crimea is part of Ukraine.
But it doesn't make sense. At that time, Crimea had already been recognized as part of Ukraine after 1991. Without a large-scale war, Crimea could not be annexed voluntarily. Even the division of the Black Sea Fleet in favor of Russia was perceived negatively by the Ukrainian military. Until 2004, the Ukrainian military did not hesitate to threaten to shoot if they saw threatening movements (the incident on Tuzla Island in 2002 is indicative in this respect). There is no logical reason why Crimea could be annexed to Russia without the return of Ukrainian territories to the Bolsheviks annexed to Russia in the early twentieth century. At the same time, the brewing civil war literally makes it impossible for the Crimean residents to join an unstable country.By this stage of the story Crimea has been annexed to NSF's Russia.
But it doesn't make sense. At that time, Crimea had already been recognized as part of Ukraine after 1991. Without a large-scale war, Crimea could not be annexed voluntarily. Even the division of the Black Sea Fleet in favor of Russia was perceived negatively by the Ukrainian military. Until 2004, the Ukrainian military did not hesitate to threaten to shoot if they saw threatening movements (the incident on Tuzla Island in 2002 is indicative in this respect). There is no logical reason why Crimea could be annexed to Russia without the return of Ukrainian territories to the Bolsheviks annexed to Russia in the early twentieth century. At the same time, the brewing civil war literally makes it impossible for the Crimean residents to join an unstable country.
I don't really get what you're complaining about here? The story provides explanation and reasons for why things happen as they do.But it doesn't make sense. At that time, Crimea had already been recognized as part of Ukraine after 1991. Without a large-scale war, Crimea could not be annexed voluntarily. Even the division of the Black Sea Fleet in favor of Russia was perceived negatively by the Ukrainian military. Until 2004, the Ukrainian military did not hesitate to threaten to shoot if they saw threatening movements (the incident on Tuzla Island in 2002 is indicative in this respect). There is no logical reason why Crimea could be annexed to Russia without the return of Ukrainian territories to the Bolsheviks annexed to Russia in the early twentieth century. At the same time, the brewing civil war literally makes it impossible for the Crimean residents to join an unstable country.
Ukraine is in a bad state, but there will be no unexpected annexation.I don't really get what you're complaining about here? The story provides explanation and reasons for why things happen as they do.
The Russians annex Crimea in a sneak attack. Ukraine like the rest of the former Warsaw Pact is in a really bad shape, meaning they don't have a snowballs chance in hell to fight the Russians off, especially since they lack viable nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no reason why the Russians couldn't just take Crimea without having to invade the rest of Ukraine.
Crimea may have been acknowledged as part of Ukraine, but nobody would start a war over it. Again, Russia has nukes.
Overall, within this story Crimea's annexation has been given plenty justification (as in, why it happens) so I really don't see why you'd have an issue with it.
You just described the casus of white for the war and not the reason for the retreat of Ukraine. Ukraine was in the middle of negotiations, but there was literally no reason for Ukraine to succumb to more pressure. It doesn't sound plausible.1994 Crimean referendum - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There was a brewing conflict over Crimea that was backed down on by Yeltsin IOTL which the NSF was guaranteed to push on TTL (they demanded as such OTL) - Ukraine was blindsided TTL because it was in the middle of negotiations and thus why the fighting was moot. Salvation Front Russia is not much more unstable than 1994's Ukraine, it's only major issue is a legitimacy crisis with Kaliningrad and the tense Baltic border after their other annexations.
Just because you don't want to accept the way that the story was told doesn't mean that you should demand it be changed and heckle the author, who was more than reasonable in explaining what happened even though he did it for all to read in an entire chapter already. Aside from that, Crimea is Ukrainian again and likely will be for the rest of this timelines future by the end of the story so you are essentially complaining about a situation that is resolved anyways.You just described the casus of white for the war and not the reason for the retreat of Ukraine. Ukraine was in the middle of negotiations, but there was literally no reason for Ukraine to succumb to more pressure. It doesn't sound plausible.
If you haven’t noticed, this is an alternate history. An imaginary scenario. Something that didn’t happen.Fix it. Crimea is part of Ukraine.
And clearly the size of one's military determines its effectiveness. So a military more than nine times greater than another should definitively beat their smaller competitor. Oh, wait!Ukraine has one of the largest armies in Europe
That very point gets acknowledged in the story. The Ukrainean nukes are designed to hit targets extremely far away, meaning that only the Eastern most parts of Russia would be viable targets. And that's ignoring just how poorly maintained that arsenal is.third largest nuclear arsenal in the world
OTL, yes. But this is an alternate timeline. Here, the NSF regime has plenty of reasons to annex Crimea, not least of which is to maintain internal support.At the same time, the Russians literally have no desire to invade Crimea.
Yekaterinburg is IIRC within Lebed’s Siberia, so it is likely they end up identified, hopefully.The remains of Nicholas II and everyone else killed alongside him were apparently first discovered in 1978 but are they ever positively identified ITTL or are their corpses just lost to time?
And all this was with the Ukrainian armed forces in 1993. The armament was sufficient. Morale was at an acceptable level. Even the training was adequate. About the fact that they do not expect an attack, then Russia has just overthrown the government with which there were any agreements, and the main power was taken by the communists and fascists. In these terms, the words "did not expect an attack" are literally a lie. I don't see a problem with doing an alternate history, but the reasons for this alternate history are too illogical.The size of a military means precious little, if it's ill equipped, ill prepared, has poor morale and generally isn't expecting a fight.
Really? I'm supposed to believe that a former Soviet state has a decent millitary only a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union?And all this was with the Ukrainian armed forces in 1993. The armament was sufficient. Morale was at an acceptable level. Even the training was adequate.
Have you even read the chapter? It is made abundandly clear that the NSF was pretending to be willing to accept Crimea as part of Ukraine, only to suddenly turn around and stab everyone in the back. The fact that they lied so blatantly is explicitely named as part of the reason why the West is so absolutely furious with them.About the fact that they do not expect an attack, then Russia has just overthrown the government with which there were any agreements, and the main power was taken by the communists and fascists. In these terms, the words "did not expect an attack" are literally a lie.
Nukes. That's why. Russia has them, Ukraine has no useful ones, being only able to hit the regions around the Pacific.why Ukraine would allow Russia to seize Crimea in 1993.
And of course, the one dispute that had most enflamed Russian passion was precisely the one that the NSF intended to exploit. Conveniently for them, the locals were arranging a referendum just for the occasion. The time had come, Makashov told his Cabinet, to undo the mistake Khrushchev had made in 1954 and return Crimea to the Russian fold by seizing it from a disheveled Ukraine.
But much to the surprise of Western and Ukrainian diplomats, Makashov would take a surprisingly diplomatic tone by refusing to state whether they would recognise the referendum results as legitimate in favour of seeing it as ‘a basis for negotiations’. The reason for the tension between both sides, of course, was due to one very salient factor: both countries ‘had’ nuclear weapons. The ‘had’ is put in apostrophes because Ukraine, despite having thousands of Soviet missiles on its territory to the extent that it could technically be considered the third largest nuclear power on the planet, had no actual power over the missiles themselves. Kravchuk could not launch an ICBM at Moscow if he wanted to as the codes and directional bearings all came from Moscow. Ukraine had a small number of gravity bombs (which could work but were not a great form of deterrence) and a large number of missiles that could only be blown up on the ground as dirty bombs. The problem was that these missiles had an effective operating range that was made with America in mind, and if they were turned around and faced east, the closest target they could hit would be around Mongolia. More importantly, it would take 12-18 months from scratch to take full operational control of the missiles. Thus, ‘their’ nuclear arsenal was useless.
Indeed, the fact Ukraine was ostensibly a ‘nuclear power’ would be a hindrance rather than a help. The Western public naively assumed that a ‘nuclear power’ would be able to sufficiently defend itself, or that the situation would be too hairy to needlessly involve themselves in if the two nuclear powers went to war.
Indeed, Makashov went as far as to issue a statement the referendum was ‘purely non-binding’ and simply a show of will for the people of Crimea to vent their frustrations with their current status that needed to be addressed in negotiation with ‘an eternal Slavic brother’. Makashov even floated talks with the West about coming to a resolution in the Kaliningrad dispute. Indeed, observers considered whether this was a signal of reform within the NSF and that they had decided to become more moderate to deal with crippling shortages of material and increasingly food.
Then, on March 21st, 1994, Makashov showed the world how stupid anyone who had acted as his apologist was.
At the same time, Judy, the reports we have coming in from Crimea are not encouraging from the Ukrainian perspective. We have reports of most men simply refusing to fight, accepting surrender, very little reports of casualties with the exception at the beginning of this crisis when we heard about security guards being shot at the Crimean airport. It seems that President Kravchuk will have to seriously consider how he will take back Crimea, especially since the Ukrainian army is highly unmotivated and undisciplined.”
At the same time in the West and Ukraine, whose leaders had dismissed scattered reports of a pre-emptive invasion due to how the other reports of serious shortages and economic fears spurred the hypothesis that the NSF really did want to reach Détente, the reaction was one of utter disgust. That the Russians had so straight-facedly, sociopathically been lying to their faces during the whole process burned everyone but the harshest hawks.
This is meant to be facetious, right?The NSF achieved the greatness it did becuase they were hard men who made hard choices while hard in hard times. They did not secure their legacy or salvation becuase they were not hard enough.
Yeah, sure they think this. The ones that still are alive, at least.The NSF achieved the greatness it did becuase they were hard men who made hard choices while hard in hard times. They did not secure their legacy or salvation becuase they were not hard enough.
I’m confused about why Italy and Greece left the Eurozone. I thought that the war in Russia should’ve strengthened pro-EU sentimentality due to the need for European nations to stick together and to avoid conflicts, especially after what happened in Russia.