How could Russian Colonization/Eastern Expansion be halted or a complete Russian collapse occur?

Russia is a major geopolitical force in the modern world, and has been for centuries.

They are also the largest nation in the world, and famous for many things (The most famous presumably being communism.)

However, I believe that if Russian expansion into Asia had been halted they would be demoted to a regional power, if that.

Could somehow the Hordes unite to conquer Russia?

Or perhaps their colonial ventures prove fruitless and so they don't bother continuing?

Maybe someone else colonizes Siberia first?

Also, considering this would cause Russia not to expand what would happen to Alaska? I would assume British colonization would merely continue and it would be incorporated to Canada, but I'm interested in everyone else's views.

So, how could Russian expansion be prevented?
 
Russia is a major geopolitical force in the modern world, and has been for centuries.

Not too many centuries: it became the European (as opposite to strictly regional) power only after the 7YW.


They are also the largest nation in the world, and famous for many things (The most famous presumably being communism.)

They are largest only in the terms of a territory big part of which is practically uninhabitable due to the climate conditions. "Communism" was not invented in Russia, their communist party was not the only one in the world and, strictly speaking, the Soviet Union never was a "communist state": officially, it was passing though the different stages of the socialism with "communism" being something delayed until the unidentified future.


However, I believe that if Russian expansion into Asia had been halted they would be demoted to a regional power, if that.

Beliefs are a good thing but they are not substitute for a knowledge. At the time Russian Empire became one of the leading European powers (the 7YW) it did not have possessions in the Central Asia and its possessions in Asia in general were neither seriously populated nor even easily reachable: it was faster and cheaper to sail to the Russian Pacific coast than to get here by land. So how exactly these territories were critical for the empire's status?

Could somehow the Hordes unite to conquer Russia?

They did conquer Russia in the XIII century. Where did you find the "hordes" capable of conquering Russia in the XVIII century?

Or perhaps their colonial ventures prove fruitless and so they don't bother continuing?

For this you have to exterminate a lot of valuable fauna inhabiting areas East of Ural. :confused: But even smaller territory would change little in the situation.

Maybe someone else colonizes Siberia first?

Various parts of it had been "colonized" by different powers in some other times. The important thing is who ended with its possession.

So, how could Russian expansion be prevented?

Almost impossible short of almost complete extermination of the Russian state somewhere in the XVI - XVII centuries.

However, due to the fact that your premise is extremely questionable (as in "does not stand up to a criticism") the whole exercise seems to be rather pointless. :openedeyewink:
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
Great Northern War. IOTL Charles XII, after whupping Peter the not-so-Great's ass, just sat on his own ass until the next summer when he went and took care of Augustus II's siege of Riga.

Instead, have C12 chase after PtG. He'd probably catch up somewhere around Veliky Novgorod and PtG gets killed bu canon-fire since his army had lost all of theirs and the Swedes could get what they had in close for devastating effect. Not to mention that this was a highly skilled efficient army, probably the best at the time, who won numerous winter battles across eastern Europe and Western Russian OTL. Chasing after PtG woudl have been a cakewalk.

The Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich is only 10 at this time so Russia becomes ruled by a regency set up by the higher nobles and courtly powers. The Boyars by this time had been reduced to peons of the Tsar. They were put in charge of areas by the Tsar to rule and produce taxes and raise armies from and din't have hereditary dukedoms or baronies or counties like we see in Western Europe. But with their remnants in charge and hell-bent on rolling back all of the despised reforms of Peter and his predecessors, boyar feudalism probably makes a comeback. Without a Tsar in power to hold them down, they use the regency to gain power set up their own little fiefdoms.

Bashkir Uprising, Bulavin Rebellion, they turn out very differently because the Boyar-infighting means the regency can't do much more than watch as no Boyar is going to want to sacrifice his troops to send for the regency and thus be prey to the others.

The Cossacks fall back into the Polish orbit as the Russians can't control or adequately support them against the Crimean Khanate any more. Everything east of the Urals probably reverts to independence.

Unless somebody strong comes along early to keep them unified, those competing interests and fiefdoms coudl easily end up plunging All the Russias into civil war and probably takes Russia of the major players list for a long time to come.
 
@alexmilman

The use of emojis doesn't make your post funny, just kinda harsh. Even if your points were valid, that would be fine, but you didn't have to be rude about it.

Still, I'll go through what you said:

""Not too many centuries" - The 7Y War was fought in the 1700s. Therefore, plural centuries. I fail to see the point of that correction.

"Largest only in the terms of a territory" - Ignoring grammatical errors, I still fail to understand why you're nitpicking a valid statement - I never implied it was useful, merely stated a fact. You're projecting a mistake to nitpick.

"Their communist party was not the only one in the world, and they were socialist anyway." - That's true. It's also irrelevant. Russia was the first communist state, the strongest communist state and the most common nation the vast majority of people would identify with communism. It's ridiculous to state that Russia and Communism aren't strongly associated.

"Where do you find hordes capable of conquering Russia in the 18th Century?" - What? I never stated it was the 18th Century. All of your critcisms regarding this post so far seem to be irrelevant and you extrapolating and inferring nonexistent points that I have not mentioned *anywhere.* I merely asked how could Russian expansionism be prevented, and since that began in the 1500s where hordes and nomads were still actively present as powers this whole notion of impossibility has no logical foundation.

"The land was worth a lot so Russia would almost certainly colonize it." - I'll concede that, but perhaps Eastern natives are extremely resistant? While this is extremely unlikely, for a power inexperienced with colonization it might scare them off from future expansionist ambitions in favour of moving westward.

"Other powers had colonized it." - Partially, however none of these colonies had enough dedication invested into them. Perhaps China places more focus on Siberia, or the Mongol Empire attempts to reform Northern Asia into more usable land prior to their collapse.

"Russian expansionism being prevented is impossible." - Eh? Even in your literal criticism you listed two times which could absolutely prevent Russia from expanding. Despite that, the exercise at hand doesn't focus on it. Regardless, the notion that Russian expansionism's ceasure being impossible indicates a narrow-mindedness regarding alternate possibilities.

"Doesn't stand up to a single criticism" - Apparently neither does your post.
 
Great Northern War. IOTL Charles XII, after whupping Peter the not-so-Great's ass, just sat on his own ass until the next summer when he went and took care of Augustus II's siege of Riga.

Instead, have C12 chase after PtG. He'd probably catch up somewhere around Veliky Novgorod and PtG gets killed bu canon-fire since his army had lost all of theirs and the Swedes could get what they had in close for devastating effect. Not to mention that this was a highly skilled efficient army, probably the best at the time, who won numerous winter battles across eastern Europe and Western Russian OTL. Chasing after PtG woudl have been a cakewalk.

The Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich is only 10 at this time so Russia becomes ruled by a regency set up by the higher nobles and courtly powers. The Boyars by this time had been reduced to peons of the Tsar. They were put in charge of areas by the Tsar to rule and produce taxes and raise armies from and din't have hereditary dukedoms or baronies or counties like we see in Western Europe. But with their remnants in charge and hell-bent on rolling back all of the despised reforms of Peter and his predecessors, boyar feudalism probably makes a comeback. Without a Tsar in power to hold them down, they use the regency to gain power set up their own little fiefdoms.

Bashkir Uprising, Bulavin Rebellion, they turn out very differently because the Boyar-infighting means the regency can't do much more than watch as no Boyar is going to want to sacrifice his troops to send for the regency and thus be prey to the others.

The Cossacks fall back into the Polish orbit as the Russians can't control or adequately support them against the Crimean Khanate any more. Everything east of the Urals probably reverts to independence.

Unless somebody strong comes along early to keep them unified, those competing interests and fiefdoms coudl easily end up plunging All the Russias into civil war and probably takes Russia of the major players list for a long time to come.

With a lack of Russian power, could another Eastern (European or otherwise) nation gain Great Power status?
 
@alexmilman

The use of emojis doesn't make your post funny, just kinda harsh. Even if your points were valid, that would be fine, but you didn't have to be rude about it.

It is not ruddiness. Just being ironic.

Still, I'll go through what you said:

""Not too many centuries" - The 7Y War was fought in the 1700s. Therefore, plural centuries. I fail to see the point of that correction.

Just to point out that there were not too many "centuries", that's it.

"Largest only in the terms of a territory" - Ignoring grammatical errors, I still fail to understand why you're nitpicking a valid statement - I never implied it was useful, merely stated a fact. You're projecting a mistake to nitpick.

My grammatical errors, whatever they are, are understandable. But presumably everybody should understand the difference between "nation" (as a large aggregate of people) and "country" (as a nation occupying certain territory). Your statement "They are also the largest nation in the world" is invalid: there are and always were nations with the much bigger population.

"Where do you find hordes capable of conquering Russia in the 18th Century?" - What? I never stated it was the 18th Century.

And I explained to you that the "hordes" (actually a single "horde") did conquer Russia in the XIII century.


All of your critcisms regarding this post so far seem to be irrelevant and you extrapolating and inferring nonexistent points that I have not mentioned *anywhere.* I merely asked how could Russian expansionism be prevented, and since that began in the 1500s where hordes and nomads were still actively present as powers this whole notion of impossibility has no logical foundation.

"The land was worth a lot so Russia would almost certainly colonize it." - I'll concede that,

If you are putting something in "", you have to use a precise quotation. Statement above is yours, not mine.

but perhaps Eastern natives are extremely resistant?

Some of them had been quite resistant and the process took a while: Geok Tepe had been taken in 1881, the Treaty of St. Petersburg finalizing Russian-Chinese border had been signed in 1881, Russian - Afghan border had been finalized in 1887.

While this is extremely unlikely, for a power inexperienced with colonization it might scare them off from future expansionist ambitions in favour of moving westward.

Experience of colonization comes with ...er... experience. BTW, by the time colonization beyond the Ural started Muscovite State had a considerable experience of colonization: it conquered territories from Volga to Ural which belonged to the successor states of the GH.

The ambitions of moving westward never had been abandoned: expansion in that direction started during the reign of Ivan III, continued during the reign of Ivan IV (with the disastrous results) and had been renewed under the 1st Romanovs.

"Other powers had colonized it." - Partially, however none of these colonies had enough dedication invested into them. Perhaps China places more focus on Siberia, or the Mongol Empire attempts to reform Northern Asia into more usable land prior to their collapse.

Both had been "investing" as much as they could and as much as they considered meaningful. Making taiga of the Northern Asia into something more usable proved to be an extremely difficult and mostly failed task even in the XX century (and even with the GULAG resources) and zone of the permanent freeze even less so.

"Russian expansionism being prevented is impossible." - Eh?

Are you talking to yourself? Did anybody teach you how to quote?

Even in your literal criticism you listed two times which could absolutely prevent Russia from expanding.

I wrote: "Almost impossible short of almost complete extermination of the Russian state somewhere in the XVI - XVII centuries." If you have problems with understanding what this means, you should ask for the explanation instead of misquoting.

Despite that, the exercise at hand doesn't focus on it. Regardless, the notion that Russian expansionism's ceasure being impossible indicates a narrow-mindedness regarding alternate possibilities.

It seems that in your case "open-mindedness" is too close to not knowing the subject.
 
The Boyars by this time had been reduced to peons of the Tsar. They were put in charge of areas by the Tsar to rule and produce taxes and raise armies from and din't have hereditary dukedoms or baronies or counties like we see in Western Europe. But with their remnants in charge and hell-bent on rolling back all of the despised reforms of Peter and his predecessors, boyar feudalism probably makes a comeback. Without a Tsar in power to hold them down, they use the regency to gain power set up their own little fiefdoms.

The Boyar Duma did not exist in 1700 and the term lost its meaning. As for the rest, members of the most prominent "boyar" families had been among the top-ranking Peter's associates. Of course an idea that Sheremetiev, Repnin or Apraxin (not to mention Golitsins, Dolgoruki, etc.) had been producing taxes for Peter's armies is an important historic discovery because they actually had been in charge of these armies. :)

The same goes for them itching to roll things back, despising Peter's reforms, setting their own fiefdoms (which they did not have since the Time of the Troubles) etc.
 
Russia is a major geopolitical force in the modern world, and has been for centuries.

They are also the largest nation in the world, and famous for many things (The most famous presumably being communism.)

However, I believe that if Russian expansion into Asia had been halted they would be demoted to a regional power, if that.

Could somehow the Hordes unite to conquer Russia?

Or perhaps their colonial ventures prove fruitless and so they don't bother continuing?

Maybe someone else colonizes Siberia first?

Also, considering this would cause Russia not to expand what would happen to Alaska? I would assume British colonization would merely continue and it would be incorporated to Canada, but I'm interested in everyone else's views.

So, how could Russian expansion be prevented?

No, Russia lands in Asia, where not all that valuable, Russia would still have control over the valuable Volga River trade, and the opportunities to go westward are still there.

Destroying the Muscovite/Russian outside of outright extermination or conquest is impossible if you talking about a late 1400's and beyond POD. The age of various Grand Principalities, that a Muscovite state could be balkanized into ended after Muscovite consolidation. The hordes were largely content with raiding, and they were disorganized to boot.
 
With a lack of Russian power, could another Eastern (European or otherwise) nation gain Great Power status?

Depending on the POD, you could see PL centeralize it's political structure to the point they can effectively project power abroad without having to face constant domestic troubles if the pressure on the eastern front is removed (After all, you don't need to make constant concessions to the nobility to get them to fund and suppliment military campaigns if you're not having to fight them, and the Steppes/Cossaks and Tatars and Carpathians forming a southern boundry you can limit conflicts with the Turks). Otherwise, the Ottomans are the big beneficiaries, as well as the Chinese, as the Khans of Centeral Asia fall into their orbits.
 
First, the Chinese continue their early development of gunpowder and are able to take and keep large portions of Siberia, the eastern steppes, etc. before Russia expands. Second, the Byzantine Empire remains strong and continues its alliance with the Khazars, who continue to occupy another large area in which the Russians would expand OTL. Third Lithuania remains strong and the Polish state becomes sufficiently strong to not be conquered. Taken all together, probably ASB.
 
So, how could Russian expansion be prevented?

Russia's expansion can be stopped if the other two major powers in the region do better in their wars with Russia in the 1700s and 1800s:

1. The Ottoman Empire
2. Safavid Persia

In the late 17th century, the Ottomans controlled the area north of the Black Sea, including places like Azov, which was garissoned by a Turkish army. The Russians did not have access to the sea. Russia gained a foothold in the sea of Azov at the end of the 17th century but the Ottomans continued to hold the straights of Kerch, blocking access to the Black Sea. The balance of power did not shift away from the Ottomans until after 1750, and they began losing wars to Russia towards the end of the 18th century. But if the start of Ottoman decline can be averted, Russia will have a hard time.

Meanwhile in the Caucasus region, Persia controlled territory extending north all the way to Derbent, which is on the west side of the Caspian sea. The Persian Empire was one of the mightiest in the world up to about 1747, when the great Persian conqueror Nader Shah was assassinated. But civil war and decline followed, and these lands were lost to Russia with the humiliating treaty of Golestan in 1813.

To the east of the Caspian, in central Asia, various Persian and Muslim empires had flourished for thousands of years. Russia did not conquer the lands south of the Aral sea until the second half of the 19th century. But a stronger Persian Empire would likely not have allowed Russian efforts here to succeed.
 
It is not ruddiness. Just being ironic.
. . .
It seems that in your case "open-mindedness" is too close to not knowing the subject.
I don't think you are being "ironic".

So, how could Russian expansion be prevented?
I think a powerful central asian state could oppose Russian expansion, but it would require some first millennia AD differences that might also preclude the development of Russia as we know it. Personally, I'm fond of a very moral Tocharian Greek Buddhist Christian syncretic Bactrian state quickly developing a proficiency in firearms and metal working, but that's a stretch of the imagination. Perhaps a state in Crimea, and/or the Caucuses could exert power on the southern Urals and Siberia. A very prosperous Timurid or Safavid Empire could also exert opposing influence to the north. Keeping a division between Novgorod and Muscovy could also assist in your goal.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you are being "ironic".


I think a powerful central asian state could oppose Russian expansion, but it would require some first millennia AD differences that might also preclude the development of Russia as we know it. Personally, I'm fond of a very moral Tocharian Greek Buddhist Christian syncretic Bactrian state quickly developing a proficiency in firearms and metal working, but that's a stretch of the imagination. Perhaps a state in Crimea, and/or the Caucuses could exert power on the southern Urals and Siberia. A very prosperous Timurid or Safavid Empire could also exert opposing influence to the north. Keeping a division between Novgorod and Muscovy could also assist in your goal.

I agree that stopping the development of a giant Russian state requires a POD going way, way back, maybe to Roman times.
 
I don't think you are being "ironic".

After I was accused in narrow-mindedness I was not. Statement about being ironic belonged to a different part of a post and something can be said about you quoting out of context.

I think a powerful central asian state could oppose Russian expansion, but it would require some first millennia AD differences that might also preclude the development of Russia as we know it.

Which is pretty much what I wrote. Of course, the "Russian state" was not created in a meaningful form until late XV so there would be few options after the 1st millenium: either sustainable Mongolian Empire or surviving GH (preferably uniting White and Blue Hordes). But after these candidates were gone there was no realistic alternative capable of preventing the Muscovite/Russian expansion to the East. It is an open question if the surviving GH is a realistic option.


Personally, I'm fond of a very moral Tocharian Greek Buddhist Christian syncretic Bactrian state quickly developing a proficiency in firearms and metal working, but that's a stretch of the imagination.

Even this hardly would help (unless this imaginable state is extremely strong and sustainable in a long run). 1st, as I understand the Tokharian state belongs to a much earlier period (so, no firearms and no Russian state). 2nd, how would it prevent expansion into Siberia? 3rd, if this state is created early enough, you'd have to re-write history of the Mongolian conquests with the obvious consequences all over Eurasia (which can be fun but too far removed from OTL).

Perhaps a state in Crimea, and/or the Caucuses could exert power on the southern Urals and Siberia.

If we stick to some semblance of the OTL, the Crimean option is not going to work: the Khanate (prior to which, IIRC, there was no meaningful state in the Crimea since the Goths ) was not powerful enough to extend its sphere of influence beyond Caspian sea (Nogay Horde being its vassal) and as far as Caucasus is involved, at its greatest expansion Kingdom of Georgia was capable to unite most of the region but not too much beyond it. For Iran Ural and Siberia were not a realistic sustainable conquest and for the Ottomans even less so: a conqueror would have to conquer and hold a big chunk of the modern Kazakhstan and then Bashkirian lands.


A very prosperous Timurid or Safavid Empire could also exert opposing influence to the north. Keeping a division between Novgorod and Muscovy could also assist in your goal.

Timur successfully raided Western Siberia (part of the GH) and looted the GH Volga cities. But he did not stay in the area. An idea of his state being sustainable is an interesting one but I'm not sure if it could be more sustainable than the Mongolian Empire: he was too much into the looting and good plain destruction and it does not look like he was creating meaningful administrative structures outside his "native" area. Of course, at his realistic best he could do little or nothing to keep division "between Novgorod and Muscovy": 1st, he was too early for that and 2nd he was too far away and too busy pretty much everywhere else. His empire would have to exist for at least an extra century and incorporate the European territory of the GH to be able to get involved into the Russian affairs. As a side note, Timur (perhaps following the Mongolian tradition) did consider himself ruler of the world. For example, in his diplomatic exchange with Henry III of Castile Timur declared that he regards Henry "as his very own son" which in the regional diplomatic lingo meant "vassal" (Genghis did the same toward Khwaresmshah Mohammed when they exchanged the embassies). However, there is a big distance between wishing something and having it occurred.

The problem is that it is anything but clear how the Timurid empire could be sustainable in a long run short of having an uninterrupted line of the military geniuses as its rulers: it did not have any natural "ethnic center" strong enough to keep it together and we have to assume rather untypical for OTL technological development of the Central Asia.

But getting back to where it started, premise that Russia became European/World power only thanks to its possession of the territories in Asia is highly questionable. As I pointed out, Russian Empire became European power as a result of the 7YW by which time most of its Asiatic possessions and especially Siberia & Far East had been contributing nothing noticeable to that status (no economy worthy of mentioning, no population to talk about, no communications, expenses) and this situation prevailed until at least mid-XIX when Russia was one of the Great Powers for quite a while: real exploration of Siberia started only in 1826 when the Crown started granting licences to the private enterprises searching for gold.
 
Last edited:
Russia's expansion can be stopped if the other two major powers in the region do better in their wars with Russia in the 1700s and 1800s:

1. The Ottoman Empire
2. Safavid Persia

In the late 17th century, the Ottomans controlled the area north of the Black Sea, including places like Azov, which was garissoned by a Turkish army. The Russians did not have access to the sea. Russia gained a foothold in the sea of Azov at the end of the 17th century but the Ottomans continued to hold the straights of Kerch, blocking access to the Black Sea. The balance of power did not shift away from the Ottomans until after 1750, and they began losing wars to Russia towards the end of the 18th century. But if the start of Ottoman decline can be averted, Russia will have a hard time.

How exactly all of the above prevents Russian expansion to the East which started in the XVI century and by the late XVII already got all the way to the Pacific coast?


Meanwhile in the Caucasus region, Persia controlled territory extending north all the way to Derbent, which is on the west side of the Caspian sea. The Persian Empire was one of the mightiest in the world up to about 1747, when the great Persian conqueror Nader Shah was assassinated.

Territory you are talking about had been annexed during Peter's reign (chaos in Persia) and was considered such a burden (soldiers had been dying en mass due to the bad climate and there was almost nothing of value) that as soon as situation in Persia more or less normalized government of Empress Anna returned it to the initial owner.

But civil war and decline followed, and these lands were lost to Russia with the humiliating treaty of Golestan in 1813.

By which time Persia was not a military match to Russia. Not that it has anything to do with Siberia. :)

To the east of the Caspian, in central Asia, various Persian and Muslim empires had flourished for thousands of years. Russia did not conquer the lands south of the Aral sea until the second half of the 19th century. But a stronger Persian Empire would likely not have allowed Russian efforts here to succeed.

If we are excluding intervention of the pro-Iranian ASBs there was a snowball in a Hell chance for Persia to do so: by the early XIX it was technologically/militarily lagging behind Russia (and even the Ottomans) and had been defeated on a regular basis by the reasonably average Russian generals.
 
Okay, here are my thoughts on the best way to get a purely Cis-Ural Russia:

1) Foreign aggression in the late 1580s precludes any more Russian expeditions after the failure of Yermak's invasion of the Khanate of Sibir.

2) The Ottomans retain a presence in Southern Ukraine. This would have to be within the context of a continued period of expansion for the Ottomans until they reach defensible borders. The Turks seize Vienna, and form a string of fortifications from the Austrian alps, along the Carpathians to the Black Sea. They also maintain their presence in the Crimea, and continue to meddle in the affairs of the Cossacks and Caucasians. The Turks also give support to Protestants in Poland, and attempt to forment unrest amongst the Tatars and Bashkirs. Whilst such attempts will likely be largely unsuccessful, they will concern the Russians enough that they continue to be too focused South for expansion to occur to the East.

3) Khanate of Sibir reorients its economy to elicit furs as tribute (yasak) from native Siberians, and acting as commercial middlemen between Russia and Transoxiana. Some of the Ural passes are fortified by Sibir.

After a time, this particular situation may solidify itself. Sibir will always be at a marked military disadvantage vis-a-vis Russia, but with powerful allies, or with Russia's attention fixated on Turkey and Poland (and even Sweden), they may never go east of Ufa.
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
The Boyar Duma did not exist in 1700 and the term lost its meaning.

I know, that why I said what I did. You didn't really say anything here other than repeat what I already said. What I wrote about was how that could possibly change. The Tsarevich is 10 and the nobles (call them "boyars" or whatever you want) now no longer have a strong central power to keep them in line and remove them from their commands that they had been appointed to when they would get out of line. They now *are* that centralist power as the regency so they surely aren't going to unappoint themselves from those territories. Recognising that allowing one unappointing to happen if they did it as a solid group to one member of the regency means it could happen to themselves, so every one of them would work to prevent any unappointings.

Bucket o' crabs time.
 
I know, that why I said what I did. You didn't really say anything here other than repeat what I already said.

Except that I found what you wrote somewhat removed from the realities of Russia circa 1700.

What I wrote about was how that could possibly change. The Tsarevich is 10 and the nobles (call them "boyars" or whatever you want) now no longer have a strong central power to keep them in line and remove them from their commands that they had been appointed to when they would get out of line. They now *are* that centralist power as the regency so they surely aren't going to unappoint themselves from those territories.

Which "territories"? An assumption that by 1700 the old Russian aristocracy had been sitting all over the Tsardom as "voyevodas" has little traction with a reality. AFAIK, this was not the case even during couple of previous reigns: center of power was in Moscow and those who mattered had been there or in the fighting army. In Peter's absence government had been led by Fyodor Romodanovsky who was not a type to mess with and there was a considerable support of Peter's policies among the top Russian aristocracy. Even after his death (and death of his widow) the government (mostly members of Dolgoruki and Golitsin families, top Russian aristocrats) of Peter II was quite "centristic" with no challenge from any regional "power".
 
Okay, here are my thoughts on the best way to get a purely Cis-Ural Russia:

(1) Foreign aggression in the late 1580s precludes any more Russian expeditions after the failure of Yermak's invasion of the Khanate of Sibir.

Not happening. The Livonian War just ended in 1582, So Sweden, Denmark-Norway, and Poland-Lithuania are not going for an invasion of any sort. Sweden and Denmark-Norway have problems with each other, and Poland-Lithuania has recently formed the Commonwealth. They never even bothered to stir up trouble until the Time of Troubles in the late 1590's

(2) The Ottomans retain a presence in Southern Ukraine. This would have to be within the context of a continued period of expansion for the Ottomans until they reach defensible borders. The Turks seize Vienna, and form a string of fortifications from the Austrian alps, along the Carpathians to the Black Sea. They also maintain their presence in the Crimea, and continue to meddle in the affairs of the Cossacks and Caucasians. The Turks also give support to Protestants in Poland, and attempt to forment unrest amongst the Tatars and Bashkirs. Whilst such attempts will likely be largely unsuccessful, they will concern the Russians enough that they continue to be too focused South for expansion to occur to the East.

Very difficult if not impossible, The Ottomans tended to overreach enough, this would be painful for them. Places like Egypt had to deal with murdered governors and disloyal Pashas, they were basically driven out of Yemen at one point. the Crimeans were always wary of the Ottomans and even hindered a Volga canal. Conquering Vienna and being able then to build a series of fortifications seems unlikely without a stable empire and a willing Sultan which seems unlikely, as the Ottomans have enough to deal with, especially since their plans for a puppet Hungary fell through. Yermak's invasion happened just 11 after Moscow was sacked by Crimean Tatars, and Russian managed to defeat the Crimean Tatars one year afterward, so I do not see Russia bothering to focus Southward to the detriment to the East

(3) Khanate of Sibir reorients its economy to elicit furs as tribute (yasak) from native Siberians, and acting as commercial middlemen between Russia and Transoxiana. Some of the Ural passes are fortified by Sibir.

After a time, this particular situation may solidify itself. Sibir will always be at a marked military disadvantage vis-a-vis Russia, but with powerful allies, or with Russia's attention fixated on Turkey and Poland (and even Sweden), they may never go east of Ufa.[/QUOTE]

Considering the above, that is unlikely as well.
 
Top