A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia russian federation
1. B- Elvira Nabiullina.
2. Agree to allow UN inspectors survey the facilities to show the world that this is not a path to the bomb. Aside from that calmly but firmly explain that Washington does not determine Russian policy.
3. Work with Baltic nations to circumvent Poland. If they don't want our oil then they won't have to deal with it anymore.
4. Submit a motion to the UN calling for an immediate call to end the violence and the release of Shalit and the Muamur brothers who have been in Israeli custody for five years without trial.
5. Offer to feed them true stories from Russian intelligence in exchange for them not digging into our affairs.
Something to consider chat, what the Iranians want.
The US we should point out their argument is ignoring Syria, which has been developing a nuclear program for a while with North Korea and been in a decades long ever increasing alliance with Iran and in fact in universe will be raided in a few months. In theory they should have their own nuclear deterrence soon, which will not guaranteed to succeed means this could a test for Russia. To see how much our neutrality is worth or draw us into their camp a bit more, if it fails there is always North Korea and if it goes well a lot of potential gains.
I don't think their are many good options present now, capitulating to the US threats will wipe away so much prestige and risk destabilising our democracy but the alternative has a lot of drawbacks. I must be honest I feel if we are to try and get Ukraine into the Union it should happen sooner than later as I think this will define Russia for a generation of young people and being in a neutral position get's much harder. If that cannot happen then a different solution must thought of and implemented.
That being said chat I don't think we should ignore the Middle East, the UN if nothing else is a tool we can use and helps convince other states like Germany and France Russia is a state with a interest in the status quo for the most part that clashes with the US at times. I don't have much a interest in stopping the conflicts in the Middle East just being on a team that looks to be doing so and strengthening ties is useful.
To be cold we might need to speak with Syria and Libya about increasing the violence in the region soon depending on this goes.
I will try and think over the ideas and form a plan.
The US we should point out their argument is ignoring Syria, which has been developing a nuclear program for a while with North Korea and been in a decades long ever increasing alliance with Iran and in fact in universe will be raided in a few months. In theory they should have their own nuclear deterrence soon, which will not guaranteed to succeed means this could a test for Russia. To see how much our neutrality is worth or draw us into their camp a bit more, if it fails there is always North Korea and if it goes well a lot of potential gains.
I don't think their are many good options present now, capitulating to the US threats will wipe away so much prestige and risk destabilising our democracy but the alternative has a lot of drawbacks. I must be honest I feel if we are to try and get Ukraine into the Union it should happen sooner than later as I think this will define Russia for a generation of young people and being in a neutral position get's much harder. If that cannot happen then a different solution must thought of and implemented.
That being said chat I don't think we should ignore the Middle East, the UN if nothing else is a tool we can use and helps convince other states like Germany and France Russia is a state with a interest in the status quo for the most part that clashes with the US at times. I don't have much a interest in stopping the conflicts in the Middle East just being on a team that looks to be doing so and strengthening ties is useful.
To be cold we might need to speak with Syria and Libya about increasing the violence in the region soon depending on this goes.
I will try and think over the ideas and form a plan.
1 - B
2 - Reject President Bush's accusations, Union companies are only helping to build nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes, their intention not being military use. To this end, clear and strict contractual clauses have been established regarding the use of this energy, inspections will be carried out routinely and unexpectedly by Russian agents, and UN agents will be invited to participate and celebrate theirs.
Finally (and a bit as a mockery towards the president) report that an Iran with nuclear energy could cover not only its energy needs, but also those of neighboring nations, having less dependence on oil, and therefore, reducing its price more than if it were invaded.
3 - With a carrot and stick tactic. Offer Poland a volume of gas and a fixed fixed price for about 10 years, after this period of time, an attempt could be made to negotiate a new agreement beneficial for both parties, while giving in on something of minor importance.
At the same time, negotiate with the EU a greater supply of gas at more attractive prices (not only Germany, also Czechia, Slovakia...) and offer a joint project of gas pipelines built between both, and that as a gesture of good will, We will offer to share its ownership and direction, but the latter will be limited to getting Poland back to the table and negotiating in good faith.
With this offer, I am looking for Poland to come out with the idea that "we have broken Russia" by reaching a gas agreement and at the same time, for the EU, in the hope of achieving a very attractive agreement, to pressure Poland to accept an agreement that will make Poland pay more for Russian gas for a time than the rest of Europe.
4 - Offer the Union as a mediator, while asking the UN to send peacekeepers to the region and to deploy aid for reconstruction and refugees. Likewise, urge both parties to comply with the peace agreements reached between them.
Finally, inform Israel that although it has the right to its safeguard, a disproportionate use of it will not be tolerated.
5 - Try to reach an agreement with them, offer them the ability to carry out their activity on Russian soil (but with limits), guarantee them refuge and asylum in the territory of the Union and in its embassies, put them in contact with some agents with sensitive information... In exchange for not publishing sensitive information about the Union and agreeing to investigate and publish information provided to them by the Russian secret services and/or their allies.
2 - Reject President Bush's accusations, Union companies are only helping to build nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes, their intention not being military use. To this end, clear and strict contractual clauses have been established regarding the use of this energy, inspections will be carried out routinely and unexpectedly by Russian agents, and UN agents will be invited to participate and celebrate theirs.
Finally (and a bit as a mockery towards the president) report that an Iran with nuclear energy could cover not only its energy needs, but also those of neighboring nations, having less dependence on oil, and therefore, reducing its price more than if it were invaded.
3 - With a carrot and stick tactic. Offer Poland a volume of gas and a fixed fixed price for about 10 years, after this period of time, an attempt could be made to negotiate a new agreement beneficial for both parties, while giving in on something of minor importance.
At the same time, negotiate with the EU a greater supply of gas at more attractive prices (not only Germany, also Czechia, Slovakia...) and offer a joint project of gas pipelines built between both, and that as a gesture of good will, We will offer to share its ownership and direction, but the latter will be limited to getting Poland back to the table and negotiating in good faith.
With this offer, I am looking for Poland to come out with the idea that "we have broken Russia" by reaching a gas agreement and at the same time, for the EU, in the hope of achieving a very attractive agreement, to pressure Poland to accept an agreement that will make Poland pay more for Russian gas for a time than the rest of Europe.
4 - Offer the Union as a mediator, while asking the UN to send peacekeepers to the region and to deploy aid for reconstruction and refugees. Likewise, urge both parties to comply with the peace agreements reached between them.
Finally, inform Israel that although it has the right to its safeguard, a disproportionate use of it will not be tolerated.
5 - Try to reach an agreement with them, offer them the ability to carry out their activity on Russian soil (but with limits), guarantee them refuge and asylum in the territory of the Union and in its embassies, put them in contact with some agents with sensitive information... In exchange for not publishing sensitive information about the Union and agreeing to investigate and publish information provided to them by the Russian secret services and/or their allies.
1. Russian legislative elections of 2007, who should become the Prime Minister of Russia
B)Elvira Nabiullina.She would work well together with Lukashenko
Unanswered Questions:Support @ruffino
B)Elvira Nabiullina.She would work well together with Lukashenko
It should,Everything is allowed to achieve our geopolitical goals
Unanswered Questions:Support @ruffino
Last edited:
1) C for Chess
2) Diplomatic talks with the USA above all else, but being firm in the stance that this nuclear use is purely for energy and scientific purposes with the added proposal by @Dude-a-Buck
3) and 4) agree with @ruffino
5) Let’s not overplay our hand here and act too overly friendly towards them, as it might discredit their whistleblowing as backed by us.
2) Diplomatic talks with the USA above all else, but being firm in the stance that this nuclear use is purely for energy and scientific purposes with the added proposal by @Dude-a-Buck
3) and 4) agree with @ruffino
5) Let’s not overplay our hand here and act too overly friendly towards them, as it might discredit their whistleblowing as backed by us.
B) Elvira Nabiullina;
I have made it clear that i want this woman to become our president one day and she was doing a good job .
This is hard question, while refusing is an option we must remember that our companies doing international business is at stake here, something more profitable than our deal with Iran so we must ultimately come to negotiating table, or risk a sanction war for prestige.
So my answer is following. Share the understanding with our American partners and agree to come to negotiating table. We would be willing to agree with stopping our projects within the Iran but we also need to make it clear that we cannot allow USA to dictate our policies, to that end in exchange for putting stop on our nuclear projects we will seek that USA gives our civilian companies exemption from its sanctions when doing business in Iran.
We will also give Iran some low interest loans to help it with modernization to make up for retreat on our deal.
Ultimately we also seek from our American colleagues to engage at least symbolically in dialog with Iran with goal of lowering the tension.
So i believe this should be a good deal, we stop our nuclear projects to appease USA , but our companies get exemption when it comes to doing business in Iran giving us unique chance to capture that market while Iran get favorable loans from us so it can finance its modernization and rise the living standards of its citizens, plus they get access to new technologies needed to modernize their economy. We also advance our role as a mediator between Iran and the West/USA.
This is not carrot and stick as the price we offer isn't guaranteed to exceed the market price and if it doesn't then we are basically offering stable supply to Poland regardless of the market while also making concessions to Europe . This is capitulation. We especially need to take into account that we will seek to diversify our market to East Asia in the future to countries like China, Japan and S.Korea, countries that by all rights don't have as much geopolitical conflicts with us and aren't in NATO and they might expect to get the same treatment like Europe so it's in our interests not to make concessions abd to keep the prices stable.
If Poland wants to diversify its supply chain that's fine, we will allow it as it isn't our main buyer anyway and we cannot control decisions of Polish government anyway. If Poles want to pay more to other suppliers that's fine, we will insist/agree to continue undisturbed supply on market prices, or previously arranged prices with no change. In case of unpaid bills we will make concession and reach some deal with Poland and EU on how to clear these over longer period of time.
At the same time this crisis has made it clear that Poland isn't reliable partner in Europe anymore and that we must seek other routes to Europe bypassing Poland. To that end we would like to enhance our cooperation with Baltic European countries like Estonia, Latvia and Finland as well as with our Balkan partners in EEU and Turkey to create more new routes towards Western Europe diversifying our own abd European supply chain away from Poland, we would also invite our Western European partners to participate in this joint project by offering them share of ownership virtual to their investment in the project (Poland is also invited).
We emphasize that this course of action is justified due to Polish unreasonable stance and just like Polish government retains the right to diversify it's supply chain we also retain the rights to diversify our's in order to avoid coercion and to achieve better deal.
Basically this plan allows Poland to do as it will but it also uses their actions as justification to diversify our own supply chain even further. It brings benefits to our Balkan partners, forges new friendships in Baltic region with countries that have nothing to lose and a profit to gain and that are ready to engage with us, enhances relationship with Turkey while giving us more flexibility on a world market, more pipelines and infrastructure means more investment, but it also offers us more benefits when negotiating a share from transit routes with ceartin countries as we can always redirect the output to different route.
This also discredits anty Russian movement in Poland and Europe as it will show that force and unfriendly rethoric is counter productive and that Europe/World will continue without them . We shouldn't negotiate and make concessions to anty Russian elements in Poland, we should seek to weaken and discredit them in the eye's of the public while also presenting ourselves as reasonable and deescalating party.
Keep the current line and don't get to involved, this isn't our problem as of now and we would like to forge further cooperation with Israel, especially when it comes to IT and semiconductor industry.
Last edited:
In regards to Iran question i would like to agree with the notion @boredviewer1234 pointed out, which is what Iran might want.
We know from otl that nuclear question is sensitive for Iran and its a carrot of sort. If we agree with the USA that we will send our inspectors and allow UN inspectors into newly built Nuclear facilities i fear that Iran might won't even want that deal anymore as with it true winner's are USA and Russia, one gets firm guarantees that Iran won't pursue nuclear weapons while other gets lucrative deals with Iran and its a big assumption that Iran won't pursue nuclear weapons.
This is why such a deal with USA would need to involve Iran and at least some sanction lift on it for it to agree. Otherwise we have situation where Iran pays for nuclear power plants and then others have a right to inspect it despite Iranian ownership and sovereignty.
Generally i don't think that such a deal would fly with Iran and as of now it's unlikely that USA would entertain serious dialog with Iran, nor would Iran make these concessions without concessions from USA and us assuming we can get this deal without them will blow up in our face. This is truly trilateral question.
This leaves us with what we want. We don't want sanctions war with USA and we don't want to bend over to USA, but we want to be a partner to Iran and to preserve face while pursuing our interests, this is why we need to negotiate with USA about our interests and later ease things with Iran while calling for negotiations between two parties. Which is the basis of my plan, when we have two sides that don't see eye to eye correct answer is to pursue our interests.
We know from otl that nuclear question is sensitive for Iran and its a carrot of sort. If we agree with the USA that we will send our inspectors and allow UN inspectors into newly built Nuclear facilities i fear that Iran might won't even want that deal anymore as with it true winner's are USA and Russia, one gets firm guarantees that Iran won't pursue nuclear weapons while other gets lucrative deals with Iran and its a big assumption that Iran won't pursue nuclear weapons.
This is why such a deal with USA would need to involve Iran and at least some sanction lift on it for it to agree. Otherwise we have situation where Iran pays for nuclear power plants and then others have a right to inspect it despite Iranian ownership and sovereignty.
Generally i don't think that such a deal would fly with Iran and as of now it's unlikely that USA would entertain serious dialog with Iran, nor would Iran make these concessions without concessions from USA and us assuming we can get this deal without them will blow up in our face. This is truly trilateral question.
This leaves us with what we want. We don't want sanctions war with USA and we don't want to bend over to USA, but we want to be a partner to Iran and to preserve face while pursuing our interests, this is why we need to negotiate with USA about our interests and later ease things with Iran while calling for negotiations between two parties. Which is the basis of my plan, when we have two sides that don't see eye to eye correct answer is to pursue our interests.
GDP Ranking (2007)
1. United States - $16,074,200M
2. Japan - $6,779,750M
3. China - $6,000,660M
4. Germany - $5,025,980M
5. Union State - $4,393,420M
6. United Kingdom - $3,595,010M
7. France - $3,060,910M
8. Italy - $2,683,360M
9. Brazil - $1,800,110M
10. Canada - $1,786,900M
11. South Korea - $1,682,690M
12. Spain - $1,674,180M
13. India - $1,598,970M
14. Mexico - $1,292,360M
15. Australia - $1,099,528M
16. Netherlands - $1,048,659M
17. Ukraine - $970,110M
18. Turkey - $800,489M
19. Switzerland - $758,265M
20. Indonesia - $692,219M
2. Japan - $6,779,750M
3. China - $6,000,660M
4. Germany - $5,025,980M
5. Union State - $4,393,420M
6. United Kingdom - $3,595,010M
7. France - $3,060,910M
8. Italy - $2,683,360M
9. Brazil - $1,800,110M
10. Canada - $1,786,900M
11. South Korea - $1,682,690M
12. Spain - $1,674,180M
13. India - $1,598,970M
14. Mexico - $1,292,360M
15. Australia - $1,099,528M
16. Netherlands - $1,048,659M
17. Ukraine - $970,110M
18. Turkey - $800,489M
19. Switzerland - $758,265M
20. Indonesia - $692,219M
Last edited:
Wouldn't sanctions against Russia also hurt the world economy as well? I mean we are heavily connected to Japan's, China's, and Germany's economy so wouldn't our economy hurt also transfer to them? I guess we can use the sanctions to effectively use them to push for further anti-American propaganda and in general a greater push to avoid imposing sanctions on us which will cause major international incidents between Germany, Japan, and others and the US.
We can also use this sanctions to our advantage by selling our resources and goods at a lower rate due to the lowering of the value of the ruble which will allow us to sell more goods and resources to the world furthering our economic reach and make us seem as an even greater nation to do business with.
We can also use this sanctions to our advantage by selling our resources and goods at a lower rate due to the lowering of the value of the ruble which will allow us to sell more goods and resources to the world furthering our economic reach and make us seem as an even greater nation to do business with.
I know this is old but I like multiple choice questions like these
Agree whole heartedly...Nemtsov while suitable with TTL style of democracy, the potential clashes with Lukashenko would in a way...actually encourages democracy backsliding....while Kasparov...err...my guts say that the Russian economy would somehow follow the western trend for better or for worse..
Agree....btw, is there any countries other than Iran that also want Russia nuclear energy (like India perhaps?)...perhaps if there is...choose the inspector from those countries so that the inspection team could include personnel's that would be already need to undergoing training to operate nuclear power station...no need for them to travel far into Russia...
Agree...but also explore other options as well...I heard there is a country that is recently became a net oil importer after it became oil exporter after so long...
Agree
Whatever it is...make sure there is a very thorough background check...Assange is still an Australian..and we do not actually know if he is actually an operative from the Australian goverment or a rogue(/s)...and speaking of Australia...isn't that country recently change its opposition leader...and from the looks of it...he could became Prime Minister before the end of 2007...it is a coincidence that Assange suddenly pops up just as this happens (yes it is also /s but I am pretty sure the FSB should at the very least be thorough in its investigation and who knows...perhaps we could find some dirt in Australia...)
I will try to include more multiple choice in the future