A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation

Also, the situation in Russia is becoming better, so in next 2 votes, these 4 important topics will go under vote: Russian diaspora outside Russia, mass emigration from Russia, changing demographic in Russia, immigration to Russia.
From what i understand they only wanted formation of Eurasian Economic Union in 1994, but there were never talks about forming union state with Russia and Belarus.
Although you raise a good point, something to consider here is that Russia is doing a good deal better when compared to OTL and has dynamic and much respected leadership. As per post #352, the Kazakhs have a plurality but Russians are only 4% less as part of the total population of Kazakhstan. Although I agree that Russia and Belarus will be good candidates to engage in a Union State, but the Kazakhs here will observe a much more dynamic and economically stronger Russia. So maybe not in the first round of the Union State, but honestly Kazakh opinion might become more favourable toward the idea post '00, especially if Belarus begins to experience some serious growth and prosperity.

Coupling this with investments into Kazakhstan (while making clear that we can't do even more because no Union State) will also convince its population that joining onto the Union State may not be the worst idea in the world. We should also look to encourage the ethnic Russian population to stay in Kazakhstan and become more influential in local politics.

So although OTL never saw such talks, this may not be strictly true for ATL.

my washing machine broke down and flooded the whole kitchen
Hope things are alright! No rush.
Chapter Six: Diplomatic offensive in Asia and question of Russian diaspora (April - June 1994)

(President Fyodorov discussing diplomatic matters with his closest advisors)

President Fyodorov's diplomatic tour across Asia, including states like China, India and Japan, marked a new opening on the international scene in Asia. Since the dissolution of the USSR, Russia has focused almost entirely on internal problems and conflicts in the near abroad. The dissolution of the USSR created a power vacuum in the region, which was quickly used by regional powers including China, India, Turkey or Iran, as well as the European Union and the United States, which wanted to use temporary Russian geopolitical weakness to gain influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Nevertheless, the flexible and effective foreign policy of President Fyodorov secured Russian political and economic control over the Caucasus and Central Asia, though not a direct control like under the Soviet Union. Furthermore, in between 1992 and 1994, Russia had no strategic vision and no defined strategic goals in Asia. Nevertheless, economic and political stabilization in Russia allowed the Russian government to pursue its interests on the Asian continent more actively. Nonetheless, there was ongoing debate in Russia about where the focus of Russia's foreign policy should be: Europe or Asia? Euratlantists together with Prime Minister Yavlinsky, favored close political and economic relations between Russia and the West. Yavlinsky argued that cooperation with the West would provide Russia with increased security and prosperity. On the other hand, Eurasians, including President Fyodorov, perceived Russia as a bridge between Europe and Asia. Supporters of this political idea began to promote the concept of the Russian world and Russian civilization, which belonged neither to Europe nor Asia.


(General Secretary Jiang Zemin supported closer cooperation between Russia and China)

The most important visits by Fyodorov were made to the two most powerful countries in Asia: India and China. Starting with India, President Fyodorov signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and India, which began a new phase of economic, political and military cooperation between both states, including nuclear, mining, farming, and military-technical cooperation. Additionally, Russia agreed to sell the technology of cryogenic engines to India. During his visit to Beijing, President Fyodorov achieved another success, as the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation was signed. The treaty would serve as a basis for peaceful relations, economic cooperation, and diplomatic and geopolitical reliance. Article 9 of the treaty stated, "When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined, its security interests are involved, or it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats." Other articles (A7 and A16) point to increasing military cooperation, including the sharing of "military know-how" (A16), namely, Chinese access to Russian military technology. The treaty also encompassed a mutual, cooperative approach to environmental technology regulations and energy conservation, as well as international finance and trade. The document affirms Russia's stand on Taiwan as "an inalienable part of China" (A5) and highlights the commitment to ensure the "national unity and territorial integrity" of the two countries (A4). The treaty included a no-first-use clause for the two nations against each other. Additionally, a number of trade deals on Russia's export of coal, oil and gas to China were signed. In the meantime, President Fyodorov after hearing advice from Prime Minister Yavlinsky, rejected offers from Ukrainian oligarchs and focused on cooperation with new Ukrainian Prime Minister Petro Symonenko.


(Russian high school in the 90s)

The main points of reform in the Russian education system included:
  • free elementary and high school education until the age of 16;
  • introduction of mandatory English language courses;
  • education funding is set at 6% of GDP, starting in 1996;
  • introduction of vocational training studies and university access courses;
  • Studies in Russia would be covered by the state;
  • all schools would have computer science classes starting in 7th grade that would go all the way to the end of the University, ensuring that the Russian population is properly educated in computing and is ready for the coming of a digital age;
  • all elementary and high schools would be obligated to have clubs and off-school activities to promote student initiatives and collegial behavior, including school events and interschool competitions and events, charity events, etc., and most importantly, school uniforms would be mandatory for students through the elementary and high school years but not in the university;
  • after courses in high school and universities (depending on the student's decision to go further, or otherwise), there would be employment opportunities directly from school where various companies and businesses would get resumes of various students (grades, performances, good behavior) and would send them employment offers so that students could choose which company they would want to work for after graduation. After school, practical schooling would be continued by these companies and businesses, after which students or current workers would be obligated to work for those companies for a certain number of years.


After the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, 25 million ethnic Russians found themselves living outside the Russian Federation, becoming a new Russian diaspora. The status and situation of Russians living abroad became a topic of political debate within Russia. Conservative and right-wing political groups accused the government of inactivity and started to pose as defenders of the national rights of the Russian diaspora. The largest ethnic Russian diasporas existed in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Latvia. As the newly independent states started to recreate their national identities, their Russian and Russian-speaking populations found themselves in a completely new political reality. The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia needing to prove itself a power in the international arena. Russians responded to the subsequent period of economic and political instability with nationalistic sentiment and national integration movements as they sought to construct a new identity for their country. Russia’s predilection for domestic centralization led to the development of a new foreign policy bearing political, military, and economic aspects regarding the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Right-wing Russian political groups viewed this new policy as a means to reverse political trends and reinstall the unitary state in Russia and its near abroad. Their political programs held imperial tones, and they believed the Russian diaspora held an important role in implementing their policies. Right-wing groups in Russia aimed to revive the Russian Empire and were convinced they could benefit from the Russian diaspora like Hitler benefited from the German population in Gdańsk and in the Sudetenland. Moreover, the Red-Brown Alliance also accepted former territories of the Soviet Union as natural borders of Russia, and the statists asserted that Russia should assume a dominant role among other former Soviet states.

As the Eurasianist school began to gain power and influence over Russian foreign policy, the Russian diaspora was beginning to be seen as a factor that could both help Russia exercise influence over the newly founded states in its near abroad and contribute to the development of its national identity. The change in Russian foreign policy from the breakup of the Soviet Union until the end of 1992 was remarkable, as Russia defined its priorities in foreign politics with the foreign policy doctrine of the Russian Federation and turned its eye to the near abroad. The near abroad policy that emphasized Russia’s great power and its influence on the region was formulated as the first foreign policy concept of Russia by Andrei Kozyrev. This doctrine, called “the Fyodorov Doctrine” or “the Russian Monroe Doctrine,” described Russia’s privileged interests and its special role in the former Soviet republics. It also legitimized Russia’s military intervention in the region if necessary to protect its own interests. The near abroad doctrine affected the Russian diaspora by addressing termination of conflicts in Russia’s neighborhood, the protection and human rights of regional Russian-speaking minorities, and the declaration of Russia’s vital interests in the former Soviet territories. Russia sought closer relations and greater influence with the members of the CIS in economic, political, and military fields. The Fyodorov government widened the concept of Russian nation to include the twenty-five million ethnic Russians in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Therefore, Russian doctrine gave the Russian diaspora great importance between 1992 and 1994, since it gave Russia the asserted right to legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of the newly independent states in the interests of ethnic Russians. In an attempt to protect the rights of the Russian minorities in its near abroad, Russia offered dual nationality to those people.

Last edited:
1. Please write down, how should the Russian government deal with 25 million ethnic Russians living in the post-Soviet states?

2. Please write down, how should the Russian government deal with high emigration from Russia to the West?
1. Please write down, how should the Russian government deal with 25 million ethnic Russians living in the post-Soviet states?
Offer dual citizenship. Sponsor their political aims like making Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Estonia and Kyrgyzstan bilingual countries with Russian as an official language. Protesting vocally about any oppression they face particular attention should be paid to derailing the accession of the Baltic States to institutions we oppose our Minorities should not be encouraged to return.
2. Please write down, how should the Russian government deal with high emigration from Russia to the West?
Stopping people from leaving is very difficult unless we resort to Soviet tactics. The best bet is to focus on our economy once capitalism is established and the state apparatus downsized, we will grow faster than Europe as the increase in efficiency alone will drive us forward. When we are back as the fastest growing economy in Europe people would return or stop leaving.
1 - Carry out a double approach: on the one hand, encourage and facilitate the return of those who wish to do so, prioritizing those with studies or beneficial work skills. On the other hand, encourage the organization of parties that defend rapprochement with Russia, the defense of minorities... in order to ensure allies in these new states.

2 - First of all, find out the reason why this population emigrates in order to initiate policies that solve it in the medium - long term.
Secondly, encourage the creation of "Russia Houses" in those nations and cities with a large Russian diaspora. The function of this institution would be to offer help (legal, employment, residence...) to newcomers to be able to settle more easily, and it will also be in charge of keeping Russian traditions, culture, and language alive abroad, thus allowing the nationals of that nation to know Russian culture.
Thirdly, start a campaign to try to avoid the "brain drain" (highly educated and trained population, which emigrates to work in medicine, scientific research...).
Unfortunately the chapter is postponed for tomorrow, because my washing machine broke down and flooded the whole kitchen XD
No problem writer good luck cleaning your house.

Though on the topic of a Union, I will be honest I'm a bit dubious about Kazakhstan, unless it's it's all or nothing otherwise I don't think it's going to happen without realistically and constant pains.

Kazakhstan is one of the largest nations in the world and being a Union with it will come with costs, and one of the biggest will be the Kazakhs who thinks of themselves as very close if not the same people as the people of Kyrgyzstan, which means we should expect political instability and trends to cross over the border when it happens like the Tulip revolution.

Due to this, the fact that the Russian population is so big currently I feel if we try slow integration it would cause a rise of ethno nationalists in the nation, parties trying to repeal or slow it down and requires us to keep a closer eye on central Asia. We should also expect the same in Russia so would recommended if we do it a fast integration should be sought after as time passes it will be harder and less likely to ever happen.

Belarus by contrast though I don't mind slow integration given it's size, it's possible to show the benefits of the Union by increasing it's development and think will receive a lot of investment by the Russian private sector given it's so close to the EU.
I support the plan proposed by @Rajveer Naha

The only amendment I would make, is that in the Baltic countries specifically, we should ensure a pillar of national thought is erected in favor of Russians. In 1989 34% of all people living in Latvia were Russian, 30% in Estonia, and 10% in Lithuania (lower than I thought). While I’m sure this number dropped as a result of Soviet dissolution, it shouldn’t be by too much, and these people could be the backbone of Pro-Russia political parties that make it extremely difficult to integrate with the West. We should try and make sure these parties have all the tools they need to succeed in their respective countries, and stymie an Anti-Russian policy push.
1) discourage migration of ethnic Russian population, help organize and aid pro-Russian political forces in the relevant countries

2) increase economy to remove incentives for leaving, ban well educated & trained from leaving to prevent brain drain
First and foremost i must say that i like the update and I'm generally supportive towards the Euroasian strategy. My reasoning is that while Integration into the Euroatlantic seems alliance appealing its quite unlikely that we will become full members of those alliances and would lose on our influence in the process.

Other rationale is that economically speaking we know that with rise of China, later India and ASEAN Asia is set to become economically most important region in the world and from our own perspective just rise of China justifies Russian goal of becoming a bridge between Europe and Asia.

Other thing to consider is nature of our alliance and territory, while most of our population lies in Europe, most of our territory is in Asia and while Europe may be important for Ukraine Central Asia will find China to be more important partner for them. Not speaking about the fact that trade with China will help to develop our far Eastern/Eastern territories. We also need to consider security in all of this, by fully joining Western alliance may offer security it will also make us bulwark in any future conflict, its far better for us to negotiate our security interests on our own. Strategic independence honestly makes more sense from both economic and security reasons.

So while good relations with EU (and hopefully US) are important and should be nurtured our main goals should be nurturing of our own sphere of influence and pushing for greater economic integration of Euroasian landmass as a whole.

Regarding presidential candidates for 2001. Honestly i prefer Lukhashenko. While Yavlinsky was preferred candidate his Eurocentric views could potentially harm our geopolitical interests and I'm weary much against further liberalization of our economy in 2000s and prefer to maintain thight control on our capital and our socialist mixed economic model.

From all three candidates Lukhashenko seems like a candidate that's most likely to keep status quo and will generally follow the footsteps of his predecessor in politics. Also it would be a good commemoration of formation of Union State by choosing candidate from Belarus. Basically between nationalist, liberal and medicore I'll chose medicore.

Now regarding the vote. I'll support @Rajveer Naha in first vote.

For emigration? I'm off similar opinion to @Rajveer Naha once again, emigration is happening due to bad economic situation and once that improves we should see the trend drops, or even reverse itself. But i would like to point out that emigration from Russia in the 90s was caused by economic depression in the 90s and that ended in 2000s. So honestly mass emigration isn't really a pressing issue for me since economic depression in Russia isn't as severe as it was in otl and its actively improving so we shouldn't really be having notable mass emigration problems in the first place. What we could be having is brain drain of talented workforce and highly educated people for a time, so we should make changes in those sectors . So i propose a following:

Offer extra state funding, cheaper interest rates in the banks and better conditions to the people in relevant fields like IT, or science so that they may stay in Russia and start their business there. We should do everything in our might to keep our brightest minds at home and help them succeed. This is also beneficial to development of these sectors.

Offer state support in increasing wages for highly skilled workers in relevant fields as well as employment benefits.

Other thing we want to prevent is immigration young people, so we should make conditions in country better for them. First and foremost i would expand the concept of public housing to allow for newly married young people from more financially endangered backgrounds to get a public apartment from the state, having a cheap and comfortable place to live is half a way towards solving the some of the life problems. This in turn will also encourage young people to stay and potentially maybe even have more kids as i for many people first steps in finding a place to live are one of the greatest obstacles in starting a family.

Encourage Russian diaspora in the West to return. It's important to understand that not all people that are going to the west will be successful, nor will they have their own homes for that matter, once economic situation gets better we should take measures to encourage people to come back by offering stable employment and place to return to.

Make emigration process to Western countries burocratically more challenging and don't take any Visa free deals

I would also like to point out that oureducational reforms and direct recruitment of workers from schools is partially resolving unemployment/emigrationissue, not to mention is contractually/legally binding people to their workplace for a time... Enough time for economy to catch up.

Otherwise our demographic problem and lower birthrates are more pressing matter for me.
Last edited: