It isn’t overseasRussia already had a massive colonization project called Siberia. Isen't that big enough?
It isn’t overseasRussia already had a massive colonization project called Siberia. Isen't that big enough?
I would avoid any direct takeover of Balkan lands besides Constantinople. A number of puppets like the Eastern Bloc is probably a better way to handle the Balkans for a Russia power. Or creating and propping up a large Yugoslavia that includes Albania, Bulgaria(including most of European Thrace and Greek coast Bulgaria use to hold), and the Romanian coast. In America they could keep Alaska then expand into Yukon, British Columbia, Washington State, Idaho, and Oregon. In Asia they could gain Afghanstan, Persia, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, Ma, Manchuria, Korea, Japan most north island. Maybe Hawaii and Northern Scandinavia.The entirety of the former USSR area, plus Mongolia, western China, much of the Balkans, Alaska, maybe a bit more of the west coast of North America, possibly Constantinople. Maybe Manchuria as well?
There was Russian settlement in CA (Fort Ross). However, neither this one nor Alaska attracted too many settlers and, as you said, the emphasis was on the areas close to the home (CA and Caucasus).
He has a valid point . And no it isn't . But think about it your nation is uhm large, but 7/9ths useless, filled with nomadic tribes, porous borders etc. Siberia was a project.It isn’t overseas
Cost of living in the bay area is just whack..
Because everyone else is doing it would be the only reason really required: most colonial ventures weren't profitable either. But yes, Russia never had that kind of thing as a focus.
Nothing of that compares to the epic attempts to get the White Sea squadron into the Baltic to reinforce the Baltic fleet for the Hat's War. It didn't manage to get out into the open ocean until the war was basically over.
Russian navy often did the impossible in making the Swedish navy look competent![]()