The Death of Russia - TL

Imagine if Brexit happened during the Eurozone crisis. It causes a near death experience for the bloc which forces reform by taking the Med economies out of the Eurozone.
Wouldn’t Brexit be possibly butterflied since the consequences of the Second Russian Civil War has given a clear warning on why jingoism and division suck? And for why an institution like the EU would be necessary to maintain stability and peace?
 
Wouldn’t Brexit be possibly butterflied since the consequences of the Second Russian Civil War has given a clear warning on why jingoism and division suck? And for why an institution like the EU would be necessary to maintain stability and peace?
It could also be argued that the need to get everyone else's approval meant that the chances of 'doing something about it' were left dead in the water because EU governments were unable to agree.

And that therefore it is much better to act on your own and have the freedom to make decisions for yourself quickly and efficiently.

Without forgetting that TTL the EU did not prove to be a guarantee of protection of anything, on the contrary, they ignored the Baltic States and Ukraine.

The message that comes out of there will not be

"intertwining your economy and politics with other countries is a guarantee of peace and stability"

But instead something more similar to

"intertwining your economy and politics with that of other countries means being tied hand and foot to any crazy that wants to attack you. Without forgetting that acting on your own to defend yourself can also lead to the other idiots deciding to 'sanction' you for 'being too aggressive'."

Considering how much countries like the UK value their freedom to do what they want, without any trace of "accountability", this is a huge anathema to them.
 
Wouldn’t Brexit be possibly butterflied since the consequences of the Second Russian Civil War has given a clear warning on why jingoism and division suck? And for why an institution like the EU would be necessary to maintain stability and peace?

Because the immigration concerns were very present owing to mass Polish and Ukrainian immigration on top of the pre existing Russian refugee population. The social tension between the groups produced conflict that made the population feel the problem was due to EU open borders.
 
This is meant to be facetious, right?
The forum rules requires that I answer yes, but it is worthy to note that while the mentality of the rejection of materialistic/worldly mentality (which the factions of the NSF evolved into various flavors of by their end) has been thoroughly discredited for the present and near future ITTL, the lack of any real challengers to the developed world will lead to its resurrection and rehabilitation by the late 21st century ITTL.

A unipolar world simply won't hold forever, and this world's unipole being one of one of materialism (in the sense of tangible goals over ideological demands) will lead to a anti-materialist opposition when its hegemony wanes.

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.
ITTL 21st century has a lot less major tensions than OTL, and for their foreseeable future there's no true rival to the developed world (first world, western civilization, whatever terms people want to use) democratic nations. Russia's gone obviously, Red China's put in its place (and military intervention discredited for a long time, oh, and not even that red now for that matter), India now has permeant superiority in its local region (because Pakistan will never get the nuke). There's nothing that'll rise to challenge the US & Western/Central Europe...

... which means there's not any real point in European nations banding together in anything as formally organized as EU, and while many of the countries would still remain due to inertia, the reasoning to leave to to do their own thing would amplify in others.
 
Imagine on April 10, 1996, how would the 4/10 events unfold through broadcast as TV shows, sporting events, or others played on the TV got interrupted before jumping to the news coverage or emergency alert?
 
Imagine on April 10, 1996, how would the 4/10 events unfold through broadcast as TV shows, sporting events, or others played on the TV got interrupted before jumping to the news coverage or emergency alert?
In fact we don't even need to imagine it, in many movies of catastrophic events we have seen that kind of situation. In all its variants. Including those in which the broadcast suddenly goes off the air. This doesn't cover particularly over-the-top examples like shows where each episode shows us a different disaster, so they can show all the flavors.
 
In fact we don't even need to imagine it, in many movies of catastrophic events we have seen that kind of situation. In all its variants. Including those in which the broadcast suddenly goes off the air. This doesn't cover particularly over-the-top examples like shows where each episode shows us a different disaster, so they can show all the flavors.

Fictive movies are not best source for actual situations. But probably this is pretty correct. Or then we could check how things have happened in actual life like news about 9/11. Or some national level notable news like recently queen Elizabeth II's death.
 
Fictive movies are not best source for actual situations. But probably this is pretty correct. Or then we could check how things have happened in actual life like news about 9/11. Or some national level notable news like recently queen Elizabeth II's death.
Yeah, but in this case the fiction sources are the best source available because fortunately we have never had to experience the situation of our newscasts covering an actual nuclear civil war.

It's a case of "is not perfect but enough good".

I mean, the closest we've seen OTL is live coverage of conventional conflicts (usually the "America invades someone" variant), but in many cases it was nothing more than black footage with blurs and bursts of light here and there.
 
So to just move on already:
[*]Are the former Uralic and Komi homelands still irradiated by 2023 or is it more due to the mass death of the Zass Plan and the Federation's strict no ethnonationalism rule that keeps a resettlement effort from happening?

My sense is that, by the 2020s, the Uralic and Komi survivors of the Zass Plan are simply settled in their new homes, in Finland and Turkey. The survivors likely have no interest in returning to their homelands with their terrible histories, while the descendants are probably just Finns and Turks with very sad family histories. Without any coethnics in their blighted homelands, the only people there being a scattering of ethnic Russians who may have doubtful pasts, why?
 
Without forgetting that TTL the EU did not prove to be a guarantee of protection of anything, on the contrary, they ignored the Baltic States and Ukraine.

The message that comes out of there will not be

"intertwining your economy and politics with other countries is a guarantee of peace and stability"

But instead something more similar to

"intertwining your economy and politics with that of other countries means being tied hand and foot to any crazy that wants to attack you. Without forgetting that acting on your own to defend yourself can also lead to the other idiots deciding to 'sanction' you for 'being too aggressive'."

It is worth noting that, at the time of the NSF incursions, even the Baltic States were not part of the EU. They were, at most, promising neighbours. Lithuania did very well to have its NATO membership expedited.

It is not obvious to me that the EU as such really had all to do with the outcome of the Russian Civil War. Lacking any security competences and at this time composed but for Ireland of NATO member-states allied and cooperative by with the US, the EU was probably concerned with trying to maintain the new single market and riding out the economic consequences.

We do see a broader EU with Ukrainian and Belarusian membership, which may imply a weaker EU. Then again, we do also see an EU that includes a currency union and other supranational features, with EU regulation of free worker migration being enough to trigger British xenophobia and Brexit, so the EU does not seem much less shallow. A greater focus on a multi speed Europe seems likely given the broad membership.
 
Last edited:
It could also be argued that the need to get everyone else's approval meant that the chances of 'doing something about it' were left dead in the water because EU governments were unable to agree.

And that therefore it is much better to act on your own and have the freedom to make decisions for yourself quickly and efficiently.

Without forgetting that TTL the EU did not prove to be a guarantee of protection of anything, on the contrary, they ignored the Baltic States and Ukraine.

The message that comes out of there will not be

"intertwining your economy and politics with other countries is a guarantee of peace and stability"

But instead something more similar to

"intertwining your economy and politics with that of other countries means being tied hand and foot to any crazy that wants to attack you. Without forgetting that acting on your own to defend yourself can also lead to the other idiots deciding to 'sanction' you for 'being too aggressive'."

Considering how much countries like the UK value their freedom to do what they want, without any trace of "accountability", this is a huge anathema to them.
To be fair when the problem the EU had to deal with was a nuclear armed state that was led by an insane leadership the struggle to respond was somewhat understandable and even then as things got bad later on there were efforts made later on.

Also not to mention OTL Brexit hurt Britain a lot, I expect these similar decisions to backfire as well.
Because the immigration concerns were very present owing to mass Polish and Ukrainian immigration on top of the pre existing Russian refugee population. The social tension between the groups produced conflict that made the population feel the problem was due to EU open borders.
Ok sure I’ll admit that but won’t there be an bigger effort from the US to help give them aid and this alleviate the crisis?
ITTL 21st century has a lot less major tensions than OTL, and for their foreseeable future there's no true rival to the developed world (first world, western civilization, whatever terms people want to use) democratic nations. Russia's gone obviously, Red China's put in its place (and military intervention discredited for a long time, oh, and not even that red now for that matter), India now has permeant superiority in its local region (because Pakistan will never get the nuke). There's nothing that'll rise to challenge the US & Western/Central Europe...

... which means there's not any real point in European nations banding together in anything as formally organized as EU, and while many of the countries would still remain due to inertia, the reasoning to leave to to do their own thing would amplify in others.
Won’t there still be tensions between the US and China and problems to deal with like economic crises and political instability in other countries? I can’t see things being smooth sailing still since we’re going to get analogs to Occupy, 2008 crash, 2020 protests, etc. That alone will give the EU some purpose as to provide peace and stability.
 
It is worth noting that, at the time of the NSF incursions, even the Baltic States were not part of the EU. They were, at most, promising neighbours. Lithuania did very well to have its NATO membership expedited.

It is not obvious to me that the EU as such really had all to do with the outcome of the Russian Civil War. Lacking any security competences and at this time composed but for Ireland of NATO member-states allied and cooperative by with the US, the EU was probably concerned with trying to maintain the new single market and riding out the economic consequences.

We do see a broader EU with Ukrainian and Belarusian membership, which may imply a weaker EU. Then again, we do also see an EU that includes a currency union and other supranational features, with EU regulation of free worker migration being enough to trigger British xenophobia and Brexit, so the EU does not seem much less shallow. A greater focus on a multi speed Europe seems likely given the broad membership.
What did I say that made you think that I was blaming the EU for the outcome of the Russian Civil War?

The argument I made was rather that internal EU politics could be perceived as crippling any possibility for its members (such as the UK) to do more than just hope for the worst/pray that the NSF doesn't decide to attack the West.

And that this could be considered for UK a good reason to get out of it on the grounds that "if I gave up my freedom it was to gain security, and here inside I have not obtained either one or the other".
 
Won’t there still be tensions between the US and China and problems to deal with like economic crises and political instability in other countries? I can’t see things being smooth sailing still since we’re going to get analogs to Occupy, 2008 crash, 2020 protests, etc. That alone will give the EU some purpose as to provide peace and stability.
Reading between the lines the PRC has basically been reduced to a regional power, its military capabilities [while not legally] but in reality effectively neutered. The massive modernization that the PLA went through OTL is not gonna happen here, and attempts to do so (as well as their other shenanigans in OTL) would invite far more scrutiny from the west, who also because of the Russian mess are now far more willing to take a more proactive role at the first sign of anyone acting up (kinda like the post war order in AANW)
 
Reading between the lines the PRC has basically been reduced to a regional power, its military capabilities [while not legally] but in reality effectively neutered. The massive modernization that the PLA went through OTL is not gonna happen here, and attempts to do so (as well as their other shenanigans in OTL) would invite far more scrutiny from the west, who also because of the Russian mess are now far more willing to take a more proactive role at the first sign of anyone acting up (kinda like the post war order in AANW)
Didn’t that same PRC militarily invade Hong Kong? I argue that the lack of a strong Russia is going to force China to act even tougher than OTL since the monopoly of US power is going to be a very real concern here.
 
What did I say that made you think that I was blaming the EU for the outcome of the Russian Civil War?!

I was responding to the in-universe argument.

The argument I made was rather that internal EU politics could be perceived as crippling any possibility for its members (such as the UK) to do more than just hope for the worst/pray that the NSF doesn't decide to attack the West.

That is an argument that could get made and arguably might be made in-universe. Unless I am missing something, all this occurred at a time when the EU did not have anything like a unified security and foreign-policy apparatus, only institutionalized cooperation.

The thing is, no one did anything to intervene immediately when Russia annexed Baltic territories, not NATO or the EU or any of the member-states of those organizations. Singling the EU specifically as a failure in that seems a bit afactual.

More broadly, it is not clear to me how the EU could be fairly said as having hindered a Western or European response to Russia's implosion.

I suppose the argument could be made by someone who is looking for reasons to condemn the EU. Probably they were made in-universe. In-universe to everyone else, these arguments would seem contrived and out of touch with reality.
 
Last edited:
Didn’t that same PRC militarily invade Hong Kong? I argue that the lack of a strong Russia is going to force China to act even tougher than OTL since the monopoly of US power is going to be a very real concern here.

I am not sure that China is a "regional" power. Isn't it instead an explicit stakeholder in the new world order that has been making ventures into Central Asia, for instance?
 
On a completely different topic, an idea came to me a few days regarding ways that Russia's cultural works might have survived...

Ironically it rests upon the Petrograd faction (who had already done the rest of the world a service by evacuating all the artwork and such into a bunker outside of the city before 4/10 leading to their survival unlike with Moscow) utilizing a tactic similar to its far less commendable ethnic slave bartering.

Specifically, bartering the works (art, literature, music, etcetera) created by "non-Russians" (meaning non-Slavic) to foreign governments, and their cultural institutions, for food and medicine, or just private collectors for cash. Much like with the ethnic bartering, it provides Petrograd additional resources AND removes a source of cultural "contamination" from the presence of "true Russians".

I find this idea fascinating as its a situation wherein pieces of Russia's cultural heritage survives due to the actions of the very faction that is the culmination of everything WRONG with Russia (and Humanity) BECAUSE that faction viewed it as worthless beyond what they could trade them for.

Thoughts? If the above is unclear or confusing please let me know.
 
Specifically, bartering the works (art, literature, music, etcetera) created by "non-Russians" (meaning non-Slavic) to foreign governments, and their cultural institutions, for food and medicine, or just private collectors for cash.
Especially as a lot of Tsarist-era art was made by Baltic Germans and all that.
 
Top