A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia russian federation
And on that note, keeping Ukraine independent would be a good way to allay the worst suspicions of Eastern European governments and reduce international tensions somewhat.
hey @panpiotr, could you possibly remove every vote-related post in the threadmarks? it looks neater and nicer
Well I wouldn't count on this. Given our growth needs to come from somewhere, I'd expect both China and India (and maybe Vietnam) losing out a tad compared to OTL. Edit: note that doesn't mean no growth or small growth.
As for France, it probably will have to do a tightrope balance act. It also doesn't want to lose EU & US support, so it will have to balance the Russian interest with not stepping to far our of wack with the EU
Last edited:
Problem is that this growth is unlikely to come from China. Heck if we just look at Automotive industry main losers are France (no Renault purchase of Lada shares), potentially USA (Ford was best selling forgein brand in Russia), etc.
Generally Chinese economy generally doesn't have a lot to lose at this point in time and a lot to gain given that Russians probably still buy things that are made in China. Otl 90% of car manufacturing was done in Russia anyway (ITTL number will be somewhat smaller due to higher living standards).
Basically in case of Autoindustry main losers are Western brands, China being factory of the world generally stands to benefit the most as it's least likely to lose on Russian market and is positioned to benefit from it.
In Japan's case it's implied that it's growth is due to tighter connection with USA , so if Japan is growing it's doing so at USA's expense and if it buys energy from Russia that'll be on USA's expense. So i would say that if Japan and Germany are profiting then France, UK and USA are losing out.
In Indian case? It's economy isn't really developed enough to lose , it's more likely that Russia will just take someone's share of Indian market and if it cooperates with Indian companies India stands to gain from it.
But it's still early to speak about this as with rising population that's experiencing economic boom Germany, Japan,Italy, China, S.Korea and Russia can profit from Russian market without anyone else really losing out.
Of course that's based on idea that Economic growth is zero sum game. As we saw with USSR and it's state model burocracy paired with missmanagment more, or less hampered Economic growth. Basically more fair economic environment with more generous state support can contribute to economic growth without anyone losing on it and even creating mlre opportunities for other people's. ITTL Russia opposed to otl Russia in the 90s preserved it's brands via state intervention which helped it to have higher living standards and it avoided lot of missmanagment that happened in 90s, plus it's actively seeking to diversify it's economy and modernize by purchasing Western know how's and with more capital staying in the country it has money to invest in it's economy (that capital was brought aboard in otl and has ended mostly in Tax havens in the West).
Last edited:
Chapter Nineteen: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - or China enters the WTO (October 2001 - April 2002)
(President Lukashenko expressing condemnation against the 9/11 attacks and expressing sympathy to the United States
on the forum of United Nations)
In the aftermath of the heinous terrorist attack orchestrated by Osama bin Laden in New York, the Russian government issued a resolute condemnation, expressing deep condolences to the United States and its citizens. The official statement emphasized unwavering support for the global fight against terrorism. The government recognized the potential diplomatic opportunities stemming from united efforts in the War on Terror. By providing robust rhetorical support to the United States, Russia aimed to foster international cooperation, alleviate geopolitical tensions, and create a common front against the shared threat of terrorism. Moreover, the Russian government strategically acknowledged the necessity of safeguarding its interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia, regions susceptible to extremist influences. The commitment to active participation in the War on Terror was portrayed as more than symbolic; it was a pragmatic move to fortify Russia's geopolitical position and protect areas deemed vulnerable. This nuanced approach demonstrated a delicate balance between global cooperation and the protection of Russia's regional security interests. As the Russian government pledged support to the United States, it did so with a keen awareness of the broader geopolitical landscape, ensuring that its involvement in the fight against terrorism served both international collaboration and domestic security imperatives. In essence, the Russian government's response reflected a strategic and multifaceted approach, leveraging global events to strengthen diplomatic ties, mitigate tensions, and strategically position Russia in the evolving landscape of international relations. In response to the Macedonian crisis, the Russian government advocated for a comprehensive diplomatic solution to de-escalate tensions and find a peaceful resolution. The proposed actions included:
Establishment of Joint Communication:
Russia supported the creation of a direct communication mechanism between the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and NATO. This initiative aimed to enhance transparency and coordination between the two military alliances on the ground.
Special Contact Group for Macedonia:
A Special Contact Group, comprising representatives from both CSTO and NATO, was proposed to actively coordinate joint patrols in the region. The group's primary objective was to prevent any incidents between the peacekeeping missions deployed by the alliances in Macedonia.
Coordinated Timetable for Withdrawal:
The Russian government, in collaboration with Macedonian authorities, proposed a clear and coordinated timetable for the withdrawal of both NATO and Russian forces from Macedonia. This planned retreat aimed to minimize the risk of further confrontations.
CSTO-NATO Cooperation:
Russia emphasized the necessity for CSTO and NATO to cooperate closely, sharing intelligence and collaborating on addressing the root causes of the Albanian insurgency. The goal was to contribute jointly to stability and security in the region.
This diplomatic proposal sought to address the complexities of the Macedonian crisis by promoting dialogue, cooperation, and a phased withdrawal of forces. The ultimate aim was to achieve a peaceful resolution acceptable to all parties involved.
(Members of the infamous Wagner Group in Africa)
In pursuit of expanding influence in Africa, the Russian government implemented a strategic approach with a primary focus on defense industry diplomacy. Recognizing the geopolitical complexities and economic interests in the region, Russia sought to position itself as a key player by actively engaging African nations with enticing alternatives in the defense industry. Central to this strategy was the provision of discounted and competitive defense solutions. By offering reliable and advanced weaponry, Russia aimed to establish itself as a preferred supplier, countering the often restrictive terms associated with Western loans and providing an alternative to Chinese offerings. This approach, rooted in defense industry diplomacy, was designed to not only strengthen military ties but also to establish long-term partnerships, fostering trust and cooperation. Taking a cue from historical examples, such as Egypt's shift during the Cold War, the Russian government acknowledged that reversing geopolitical alignments would be a gradual process. The focus was on offering attractive weapons deals to African nations, signaling to regional leaders that they now had a viable alternative to Western suppliers. This strategic move aimed to relativize Western geopolitical supremacy in the region. Simultaneously, recognizing the interconnected nature of geopolitics and economics, the Russian government directed attention inward.
Various investment programs were launched to fortify the domestic economy, channeling funds into natural resources, infrastructure projects, and the acquisition of local companies. This economic bolstering served as a foundation for sustained engagement in Africa and enhanced Russia's credibility as a valuable economic partner. Furthermore, the diplomatic vision extended beyond bilateral engagements to geopolitical restructuring. The Russian government aspired to streamline the entry of African nations into BRICS, leveraging economic partnerships and diplomatic ties. By fostering alliances within this influential coalition, Russia aimed to reshape the geopolitical landscape in a manner that aligned with its strategic interests. In essence, the Russian government's comprehensive strategy, with a spotlight on defense industry diplomacy, sought to establish a strong and multifaceted presence in Africa. By providing viable alternatives, building economic partnerships, and fostering geopolitical realignments, Russia aimed to solidify its influence and play a pivotal role in shaping the continent's future.
(President George W. Bush delivering his "the Steel of American Resolve" speech
Following the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush's approval rating increased to 90%. On September 20, 2001, he addressed the nation and a joint session of Congress regarding the events of September 11 and the subsequent nine days of rescue and recovery efforts, and described his intended response to the attacks. New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani's highly visible role resulted in praise in New York and nationally. Many relief funds were immediately set up to assist the attacks' victims, with the task of providing financial assistance to the survivors of the attacks and to the victims' families. By the deadline for victims' compensation on September 11, 2003, 2,833 applications had been received from the families of those who were killed. Contingency plans for the continuity of government and the evacuation of leaders were implemented soon after the attacks. Congress was not told that the United States had been under a continuity of government status until February 2002. In the largest restructuring of the U.S. government in contemporary history, the United States enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002, creating the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Congress also passed the USA PATRIOT Act, saying it would help detect and prosecute terrorism and other crimes. Civil liberties groups have criticized the PATRIOT Act, saying it allows law enforcement to invade citizens' privacy and that it eliminates judicial oversight of law enforcement and domestic intelligence. In an effort to effectively combat future acts of terrorism, the National Security Agency (NSA) was given broad powers. NSA commenced warrantless surveillance of telecommunications, which was sometimes criticized as permitting the agency "to eavesdrop on telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and people overseas without a warrant". In response to requests by various intelligence agencies, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court permitted an expansion of powers by the U.S. government in seeking, obtaining, and sharing information on U.S. citizens as well as non-U.S. people from around the world.
Six days after the attacks, President Bush made a public appearance at Washington, D.C.'s largest Islamic Center and acknowledged the "incredibly valuable contribution" that millions of American Muslims made to their country and called for them "to be treated with respect". Numerous incidents of harassment and hate crimes against Muslims and South Asians were reported in the days following the attacks. Sikhs were also subject to targeting due to the use of turbans in the Sikh faith, which are stereotypically associated with Muslims. There were reports of attacks on mosques and other religious buildings (including the firebombing of a Hindu temple), and assaults on individuals, including one murder: Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh mistaken for a Muslim, who was fatally shot on September 15, 2001, in Mesa, Arizona. Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's family were urgently evacuated out of the country on a private charter plane under FBI supervision three days after the attacks. According to an academic study, people perceived to be Middle Eastern were as likely to be victims of hate crimes as followers of Islam during this time. The study also found a similar increase in hate crimes against people who may have been perceived as Muslims, Arabs, and others thought to be of Middle Eastern origin. A report by the South Asian American advocacy group known as South Asian Americans Leading Together documented media coverage of 645 bias incidents against Americans of South Asian or Middle Eastern descent between September 11 and 17, 2001. Various crimes such as vandalism, arson, assault, shootings, harassment, and threats in numerous places were documented. Women wearing hijab were also targeted.
The attacks were denounced by mass media and governments worldwide. Across the globe, nations offered pro-American support and solidarity. Leaders in most Middle Eastern countries, as well as Libya and Afghanistan, condemned the attacks. Iraq was a notable exception, with an immediate official statement that, "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity". The government of Saudi Arabia officially condemned the attacks, but privately many Saudis favored bin Laden's cause. Although Palestinian Authority (PA) president Yasser Arafat also condemned the attacks, there were reports of celebrations of disputed size in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Palestinian leaders discredited news broadcasters that justified the attacks or showed celebrations, and the Authority claimed such celebrations do not represent the Palestinians' sentiment, adding that it would not allow "a few kids" to "smear the real face of the Palestinians". Footage by CNN and other news outlets were suggested by a report originating at a Brazilian university to be from 1991; this was later proven to be a false accusation, resulting in a statement being issued by CNN. As in the United States, the aftermath of the attacks saw tensions increase in other countries between Muslims and non-Muslims.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368 condemned the attacks and expressed readiness to take all necessary steps to respond and combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with their Charter. Numerous countries introduced anti-terrorism legislation and froze bank accounts they suspected of al-Qaeda ties. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies in a number of countries arrested alleged terrorists. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain stood "shoulder to shoulder" with the United States. A few days later, Blair flew to Washington, D.C., to affirm British solidarity with the United States. In a speech to Congress nine days after the attacks, which Blair attended as a guest, President Bush declared "America has no truer friend than Great Britain". Subsequently, Prime Minister Blair embarked on two months of diplomacy to rally international support for military action; he held 54 meetings with world leaders and traveled more than 40,000 miles (60,000 km). The U.S. set up the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to hold inmates they defined as "illegal enemy combatants". The legitimacy of these detentions has been questioned by the European Union and human rights organizations. On September 25, 2001, Iran's fifth president, Mohammad Khatami, meeting British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, said: "Iran fully understands the feelings of the Americans about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11". He said although the American administrations had been at best indifferent about terrorist operations in Iran (since 1979), the Iranians felt differently and had expressed their sympathetic feelings with bereaved Americans in the tragic incidents in the two cities. He also stated that "Nations should not be punished in place of terrorists".
According to Radio Farda's website, when the news of the attacks was released, some Iranian citizens gathered in front of the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran, which serves as the protecting power of the United States in Iran (U.S. interests-protecting office in Iran), to express their sympathy, and some of them lit candles as a symbol of mourning. This piece of news at Radio Farda's website also states that in 2011, on the anniversary of the attacks, the United States Department of State published a post at its blog, in which the Department thanked the Iranian people for their sympathy and stated that it would never forget Iranian people's kindness on those harsh days. After the attacks, both the President and the Supreme Leader of Iran, condemned the attacks. The BBC and Time magazine published reports on holding candlelit vigils for the victims by Iranian citizens on their websites. According to Politico Magazine, following the attacks, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, "suspended the usual 'Death to America' chants at Friday prayers" temporarily. In September 2001, shortly after the attacks, some fans of AEK Athens burned an Israeli flag and unsuccessfully tried to burn an American flag. Though the American flag did not catch fire, the fans booed during a moment of silence for victims of the attacks.
(American soldiers in Afghanistan in combat against the Taliban)
Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the United States declared the beginning of the war on terror and subsequently led a multinational invasion of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The stated goal was to dismantle al-Qaeda, which had executed the attacks under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, and to deny Islamist militants a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by toppling the Taliban government. The United Kingdom was a key ally of the United States, offering support for military action from the start of the invasion preparations. The American military presence in Afghanistan greatly bolstered the Northern Alliance, which had been locked in a losing fight with the Taliban during the Afghan Civil War. Prior to the beginning of the United States' war effort, the Taliban had seized around 85% of Afghanistan's territory as well as the capital city of Kabul, effectively confining the Northern Alliance to Badakhshan Province and smaller surrounding areas. The American-led invasion on October 7, 2001, marked the first phase of what would become the 20-year-long War in Afghanistan and was the technical start of the War on Terror. After the September 11 attacks, American president George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban government extradite Osama bin Laden to the United States and also expel al-Qaeda militants from Afghanistan; bin Laden had been active in Afghanistan since the Soviet–Afghan War and was already wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for his role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings. The Taliban declined to extradite bin Laden and further ignored demands to shut down terrorist bases or extradite other suspected terrorists. In response, the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001, alongside the United Kingdom.
In 2001, the Defense Department did not have a pre-existing plan for an invasion of Afghanistan. Therefore, the plan approved by Bush was devised by the CIA, reusing elements of the agency's previous contingency plans for collaboration with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Bush met with his cabinet at Camp David on 15 September for a war planning session. The military presented three options for military action in Afghanistan: The first was a cruise missile strike, the second was a combined cruise missile and bombing campaign lasting 3–10 days, and the third called for cruise missile and bomber strikes as well as ground forces operating inside Afghanistan. The CIA also presented its war plan, which involved inserting paramilitary teams to work with the Northern Alliance and, eventually, American Special Forces units. The planners wanted to minimize the use of American ground forces, to avoid provoking the Afghan population as the British and Russians had done. On 17 September Bush approved the CIA's plan and directed the military to develop a detailed war plan based on the third option from Camp David. Planning efforts were hindered because the Taliban had little physical infrastructure for the military to target. Early plans by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) included poisoning the Afghan food supply and raiding a fertilizer factory that JSOC believed could be used to make chemical weapons. The military completed its war plan by 21 September and called it Operation Infinite Justice. This name was deemed culturally insensitive because Islamic theology only deems God's justice to be infinite, so Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld changed the name to Operation Enduring Freedom. The US aimed to destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban regime from power, but also sought to prevent the Northern Alliance from taking control of Afghanistan, believing the Alliance's rule would alienate the country's Pashtun majority. CIA director George Tenet argued that the US should target al-Qaeda but "hold off on the Taliban," since the Taliban were popular in Pakistan and attacking them could jeopardize relations with Pakistan.
The campaign in Afghanistan started covertly on September 26, with a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) team known as Jawbreaker arriving in the country and, working with anti-Taliban allies, initiating a strategy for overthrowing the regime. U.S. officials hoped that by partnering with the Afghans they could avoid deploying a large force to Afghanistan. Pentagon officials were especially concerned that the United States not be drawn into a protracted occupation of Afghanistan, as had occurred with the Soviets more than two decades prior. The United States relied primarily on the Northern Alliance, which had just lost Massoud but had regrouped under other commanders, including Tajik leader Mohammed Fahim and Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek. The Americans also teamed with anti-Taliban Pashtuns in southern Afghanistan, including a little-known tribal leader named Hamid Karzai. The CIA team was soon joined by U.S. and British special forces contingents, and together they provided arms, equipment, and advice to the Afghans. They also helped coordinate targeting for the air campaign, which began on October 7, 2001, with U.S. and British war planes pounding Taliban targets, thus marking the public start of Operation Enduring Freedom. In late October, Northern Alliance forces began to overtake a series of towns formerly held by the Taliban. The forces worked with U.S. assistance, but they defied U.S. wishes when, on November 13, they marched into Kabul as the Taliban retreated without a fight. Kandahar, the largest city in southern Afghanistan and the Taliban’s spiritual home, fell on December 6, marking the end of Taliban power. It had been besieged by a force led by Karzai that moved in from the north and one commanded by Gul Agha Sherzai that advanced from the south; both operated with heavy assistance from the United States. As the Taliban leadership retreated into Afghanistan’s rural areas and across the border to Pakistan, anti-Taliban figures convened at a United Nations (UN)-sponsored conference in Bonn, Germany. With behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the United States, Karzai was selected to lead the country on an interim basis.
(Foreign Minister Lavrov shaped the Russian response to the American invasion of Afghanistan)
In navigating the complexities surrounding the American invasion of Afghanistan, the Russian government strategically balanced support for the United States with a meticulous focus on safeguarding Russian interests. This multifaceted stance unfolded through various key elements: Russia openly conveyed diplomatic support for the U.S. invasion, a gesture designed to demonstrate solidarity while maintaining a firm stance against direct military involvement. The core principle guiding this approach was the preservation of Russian lives, refraining from committing troops to the conflict. Recognizing the delicacy of the situation, the Union State engaged with the U.S. through discreet backdoor channels. The objective was to convey support and encourage the U.S. to invest significantly in Afghanistan. Intelligence sharing emerged as a key aspect of this strategy, emphasizing Russia's willingness to contribute without deploying its military. Russia's active contribution to the American effort focused on providing intelligence, logistical support, and leveraging longstanding local contacts within the Northern Alliance. This limited engagement strategy aimed to support the U.S. mission effectively without direct military involvement.
A pivotal element of Russia's strategy revolved around leveraging its influence within CSTO-member states – Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. These nations were identified as potential logistical hubs, strategically positioned to offer access points into Afghanistan from the north. The plan was to transform these countries into crucial logistical arteries for the U.S. This approach not only aimed to facilitate American military operations but also sought to secure substantial economic gains for both Russia and the southern CSTO nations. The overarching goal of this nuanced strategy was to solidify Russia's economic interests in the region, fostering positive sentiments within the southern CSTO. By allowing these nations to gain significantly in aid, investment, and economic support, Russia aimed to strengthen its influence and standing among CSTO members. Concurrently, the Russian government sought to use its strategic support as a stepping stone to build amicable relations with the United States. By offering logistical support, facilitating American investment, and fostering cooperative ties, Russia aimed to create a diplomatic atmosphere reminiscent of the collaboration during World War II. In essence, Russia's approach to the American invasion of Afghanistan was a carefully orchestrated dance between support and self-interest. The emphasis on CSTO influence and economic gains showcased a nuanced strategy, allowing Russia to navigate the geopolitical landscape and secure a beneficial position for its geopolitical and economic objectives. In exchange for the Russian assistance during the invasion, President Bush agreed for the Russian entry into the WTO, which happened in year 2002.
The 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff marked a military confrontation initiated by India in response to an attack on the Indian Parliament by militants linked to Pakistan-based groups. This event led to a mass mobilization of military forces along the India-Pakistan border and in the disputed region of Kashmir. Codenamed Operation Parakram, India deployed nearly 800,000 soldiers, prompting a counter-mobilization by Pakistan, with both countries facing the risk of a full-scale war. The standoff was fueled by tensions following the Parliament attack and accusations against Pakistan-based militant outfits. Operation Parakram aimed at pressuring Pakistan to address terrorism concerns. Despite global calls for restraint, both nations engaged in a military buildup, moving ballistic missiles closer to the border. In the diplomatic arena, efforts were made by world leaders, including the U.S., Russia, and the U.N., to defuse tensions. The standoff raised concerns about the potential use of nuclear weapons due to both countries possessing them. Diplomatic interventions by global leaders, including American Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, played a crucial role in preventing a full-scale war. The situation further escalated in July–August 2002 when India used air power to target Pakistani positions. Subsequently, India's Jat Regiment occupied a strategic mountain peak on the Pakistani side, intensifying hostilities. The standoff witnessed artillery duels, missile tests, and significant military mobilization on both sides. Despite the prolonged tension, diplomatic efforts gradually eased the situation, leading to troop demobilization and, ultimately, a cease-fire in November 2003. The standoff resulted in casualties, displacement of civilians, and substantial economic costs for both nations. One critical aspect contributing to the failure of Operation Parakram was the slow mobilization of Indian troops, allowing Pakistan to respond effectively. Former Indian naval chief Admiral Sushil Kumar criticized the operation, stating it lacked clear objectives and might have encouraged cross-border violations by Pakistan and China. In summary, the 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff was a complex and high-stakes geopolitical event characterized by military mobilization, diplomatic efforts, and the risk of nuclear conflict, ultimately concluding with a diplomatic resolution and cease-fire.
(President Bush delivering his infamous speech, which was a directly aimed at Iran, Iraq and North Korea)
The Axis of Evil speech delivered by President George W. Bush was a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy, characterizing three nations—North Korea, Iran, and Iraq—as significant threats to global security. The speech outlined the administration's concerns, laying the groundwork for subsequent policy decisions and military actions.
North Korea:
President Bush expressed deep apprehension about North Korea's nuclear ambitions and aggressive military stance. The inclusion of North Korea in the Axis of Evil reflected the administration's worries about the potential regional destabilization resulting from North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Tensions on the Korean Peninsula escalated in the following years, leading to increased scrutiny of North Korea's nuclear program.
Iran:
Iran was portrayed as a nation actively supporting terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. The speech called for heightened international attention to Iran's actions, emphasizing its role in contributing to global instability. This marked a significant moment in the strained relationship between the U.S. and Iran, setting the stage for future diplomatic challenges.
Iraq:
Iraq featured prominently in the Axis of Evil speech, with President Bush emphasizing its defiance of United Nations resolutions regarding disarmament. The administration accused Saddam Hussein's regime of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and highlighted the perceived threat Iraq posed to regional and global security. These concerns played a pivotal role in justifying the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The aftermath of the Axis of Evil speech saw widespread debate and criticism. The concept of preemptive military intervention, as outlined in the speech, became a focal point of discussions about U.S. foreign policy. The decision to invade Iraq, based in part on the concerns raised in the speech, led to prolonged military engagement and complex diplomatic challenges in the Middle East. Critics argued that the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMDs was flawed, and the invasion had far-reaching consequences, including the destabilization of the region. The speech and its aftermath marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign relations, influencing subsequent administrations' approaches to addressing perceived global threats and shaping the geopolitical landscape in the early 21st century.
(China's entry into the WTO would transform the county into an industrial and economic superpower)
The entry of China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 marked a pivotal moment in global economic history. The extensive negotiations that spanned over a decade were characterized by the ambition to align China's economic practices with international norms, fostering expectations of enhanced transparency, legal frameworks, and a more open economic landscape. Both China and the United States saw this accession as a transformative opportunity, albeit with different expectations. For the United States, China's entry into the WTO was viewed as a mechanism to integrate the emerging economic giant into the international economic order. Leaders anticipated that this move would lead to transformative reforms, moving China towards a more market-oriented economy and increasing its adherence to global trade rules. In contrast, Chinese leaders saw WTO accession as a catalyst for domestic reforms, economic growth, and an elevation of China's status in the global arena. The initial post-accession years did witness significant positive changes in China's economic landscape. Tariffs were reduced, trading restrictions were eased, and there was a notable contraction in the state-owned sector, signaling a commitment to economic liberalization. These developments aligned with the expectations set by the WTO framework, portraying an image of China on the path to becoming a more market-oriented economy.
Beneath the surface, however, China's governance structure revealed inherent complexities. The vast and decentralized nature of China's administrative apparatus, comprising a multitude of provinces, cities, and thousands of counties, contributed to a patchwork of economic policies. While the central government pushed for reforms, powerful industrial ministries and state-owned enterprises resisted foreign competition. This internal divergence became increasingly evident as subnational authorities, armed with significant autonomy, pursued strategies often at odds with Beijing's liberalizing agenda. Some regions embraced market-oriented policies, while others sought protectionist measures and interventions to bolster specific industries. Despite these internal complexities, the central government, driven by the imperatives of WTO rules, initiated substantial legal and institutional reforms. These reforms aimed to align domestic laws with international standards, enhancing intellectual property rights protection, standardizing product quality, and streamlining customs and inspection procedures. Foreign businesses, particularly those from the United States, reported positive outcomes, with around 70% acknowledging improvements in the business climate. However, as China fulfilled its WTO commitments, the initial impetus for reform began to wane. The global economic crisis of 2008 served as a turning point, prompting a substantial fiscal stimulus primarily directed through state-owned enterprises and local governments. This intervention reinforced a more statist approach, halting the decline in the state sector's share of the economy.
Since President Xi Jinping assumed office in 2012, there has been a noticeable trend of increased state intervention and a resurgence of state-owned enterprises. The Belt and Road Initiative, a massive infrastructure and investment program, further expanded China's overseas economic footprint, raising concerns about the global export of its state capitalism model. Understanding China's economic system necessitates acknowledging its diversity. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), overseeing a sprawling and decentralized governance structure, grapples with tensions between central and local interests, pro-market reformers, and statist elements, shaping China's economic trajectory. For policymakers, especially in the United States, a nuanced perspective is crucial. Adopting a strategy of engagement over hostility is imperative. The U.S.-China trade war, marked by unilateral tariffs and threats of decoupling, has proven counterproductive. A multilateral approach, backed by institutions, would provide more legitimacy and potentially influence China's internal dynamics. China's WTO entry did bring about notable reforms, but the trajectory was complex and multifaceted. While China fulfilled a significant portion of its WTO commitments, the subsequent shift towards a more statist economic model calls for a nuanced understanding. Engaging with China requires a recognition of its internal diversity and a strategic approach that encourages positive reforms through diplomatic means rather than punitive measures. China's economic evolution remains a dynamic and contested process that demands ongoing international attention and engagement. The imperatives lie in recognizing the multifaceted nature of China's economic transformation and navigating diplomatic relations with a nuanced understanding of its internal dynamics. The evolving landscape of China's economic policies necessitates a comprehensive and nuanced approach from the international community to encourage positive change and foster a more open global economic order.
(Prime Minister Elvira Nabiullina and her cabinet would steer Russia into the new direction)
In the tumultuous years from 1999 to 2003, Elvira Nabiullina undertook the role of Prime Minister in Russia, steering the nation through a period of profound change. Her tenure was defined by a visionary technocratic program aimed at modernizing the Russian economy and liberating it from the shackles of overreliance on traditional oil and gas revenues. Nabiullina's efforts successfully diversified Russia's economy, reducing its vulnerability to fluctuations in oil and gas prices. The international community took notice of Russia's achievements during Nabiullina's leadership, leading to increased collaboration and investments in the country's burgeoning technology and innovation sectors. The ambitious program elevated Russia's global standing, showcasing the nation as a beacon of technological prowess and sustainable development. Implementing such a comprehensive and transformative program was not without challenges. Nabiullina adeptly navigated through political complexities, garnering support from diverse stakeholders. Fiscal challenges were addressed through strategic budget allocations, with a focus on long-term returns rather than short-term gains. Coordination among government bodies, private industries, research institutions, and the public presented a key challenge, but Nabiullina's leadership ensured a cohesive and collaborative effort. Elvira Nabiullina's ascension to the role of Prime Minister in 1999 marked a departure from traditional political paradigms in Russia. Her leadership, guided by a visionary technocratic program, elicited a range of responses within various segments of society, shaping a nuanced internal perception of her tenure. Within political circles, Nabiullina was initially met with a mix of curiosity and skepticism. Her technocratic approach, emphasizing economic diversification and technological innovation, challenged established norms. Politicians accustomed to conventional power dynamics questioned the feasibility of her ambitious program. However, Nabiullina's pragmatic execution and visible successes gradually earned her respect. Political adversaries who once raised eyebrows began to acknowledge the foresight behind her policies.
For the business community, Nabiullina emerged as a catalyst for change, breaking away from the traditional reliance on oil and gas revenues. Her focus resonated with entrepreneurs and industry leaders, leading to cautious optimism. The administration's engagement with the private sector earned Nabiullina accolades as a leader prioritizing economic dynamism and adaptability. Nabiullina's emphasis on technology and innovation found support within technological and academic circles. Increased investment in research and development created an environment conducive to breakthroughs in various scientific disciplines. Her administration became synonymous with progress and a forward-looking approach to knowledge creation. Environmental advocates applauded Nabiullina's commitment to sustainable practices, with initiatives in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. Collaborative efforts with environmental organizations showcased a commitment to balancing economic development with environmental responsibility, departing from previous administrations. While some opposition figures maintained a critical stance, others recognized the potential for positive change. As successes materialized, even within opposition ranks, there emerged a nuanced appreciation for Nabiullina's ability to navigate complex challenges. Her leadership style, characterized by a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue, opened avenues for cooperation even in traditionally adversarial relationships.
Media coverage played a pivotal role in shaping public perception, contributing significantly to Nabiullina's popularity. In-depth analyses and discussions highlighted the long-term vision and strategic planning behind her policies, reinforcing a positive image within the public sphere. Within the bureaucratic apparatus, Nabiullina encountered a mix of support and resistance. Skepticism about implementing comprehensive reforms existed, rooted in bureaucratic inertia. However, successful execution and strategic restructuring swayed opinions. As efficiency gains became apparent, even among those initially resistant, recognition of Nabiullina's ability to navigate administrative complexities grew. Elvira Nabiullina's internal and global perception during her first term as Prime Minister reflects a tapestry of opinions. From cautious optimism within political circles to enthusiastic support from business and academic communities, her leadership resonated with those seeking a strategic and transformative vision for Russia. The public embraced her as a symbol of positive change, and even opposition forces found aspects of her policies worth acknowledging. As the tangible benefits of her program became evident, Nabiullina's standing solidified, paving the way for a future promising sustained growth, innovation, and resilience. Her tenure left an indelible mark on Russia's collective consciousness, shaping expectations for the nation's trajectory in the years to come.
In the annals of Russian political history, Elvira Nabiullina's tenure as Prime Minister from 1999 to 2003 stood as a pivotal epoch marked by visionary policies and a transformative technocratic agenda. Nabiullina embarked on an ambitious journey during those tumultuous years, steering Russia through a period of profound change. At the core of her leadership was a bold and innovative technocratic program designed to modernize the Russian economy, liberating it from the historical reliance on traditional oil and gas revenues. The impact of Nabiullina's technocratic vision reverberated globally, capturing the attention and admiration of political leaders, businesses, academia, and the general public. On the diplomatic front, Nabiullina's administration prompted a comprehensive reassessment of Russia's role in global affairs. Foreign leaders observed with keen interest her commitment to economic diversification and technological innovation, recognizing it as a strategic move towards a more dynamic and sustainable future. Diplomats foresaw the potential for strengthened bilateral relations and envisioned collaborative initiatives in science, technology, and trade, underlining a new era of Russia's global engagement.
(The government's policies and initiatives led to a industrial and economic boom in the country)
Global business and economic analysts closely scrutinized Nabiullina's policies, recognizing their potential to not only reshape Russia but also influence the broader global economic landscape. The commitment to diversify the Russian economy resonated positively, with potential opportunities for international businesses seeking new markets. Analysts pondered the potential ripple effects on global trade dynamics, acknowledging Russia's emerging role as a key player in innovative industries, thereby contributing to the evolving global economic landscape. Nabiullina's emphasis on technology and innovation found resonance within global technological and academic circles. Researchers and scientists worldwide welcomed Russia's increased investment in research and development as a collaborative opportunity to advance knowledge on a global scale. The administration's commitment to fostering international partnerships in science and technology created an environment conducive to breakthroughs in various scientific disciplines, reflecting a shared progress towards global innovation.
Environmental advocacy groups internationally applauded Nabiullina's commitment to sustainable practices. Her initiatives in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources were perceived as positive steps towards global environmental goals. Collaborations between Russia and international environmental organizations flourished, fostering a sense of shared responsibility for addressing climate challenges. Nabiullina's approach marked a departure from previous administrations, gaining praise globally for balancing economic development with environmental responsibility and advocating for a greener and more sustainable future. Media coverage of Nabiullina's leadership varied across the globe, contributing to a nuanced understanding of Russia's aspirations beyond its traditional economic strengths. Positive narratives surrounding the ambitious technocratic program highlighted the potential positive impact not only for Russia but also for the global community. Media outlets' analyses and discussions underscored the long-term vision and strategic planning behind Nabiullina's policies, reinforcing the positive image cultivated within the international public sphere.
Critics and opposition figures abroad maintained a spectrum of perspectives on Nabiullina's policies. Skepticism about the feasibility of implementing such comprehensive reforms mirrored some domestic sentiments. However, as successes materialized, even within critical circles, there emerged acknowledgment of the administration's ability to navigate challenges and deliver tangible results. This evolving narrative abroad contributed to a more nuanced and informed understanding of Nabiullina's leadership style and the transformative impact of her policies. International institutions, including the United Nations and the World Bank, took note of Nabiullina's transformative agenda. Positive engagements with these organizations signaled Russia's commitment to aligning with global development goals. Collaborative efforts in areas such as healthcare, technology, and environmental sustainability laid the groundwork for future partnerships. These interactions highlighted Russia's willingness to actively contribute to global initiatives and align itself with the broader international community in addressing shared challenges. Nabiullina's policies also sparked discussions about the long-term geopolitical impact of a technologically advanced and economically diversified Russia. Analysts globally pondered the potential shift in global power dynamics, envisioning Russia as a key player in innovative industries. The recalibrations in the geopolitical landscape saw nations adjusting their strategies in response to Russia's evolving role, reflecting the profound impact of Nabiullina's transformative policies on the global stage. In conclusion, the global reception of Elvira Nabiullina's prime ministership reflects a mosaic of international perspectives. From diplomatic recognition of Russia's strategic shift to economic and technological interests, the international community engaged in a complex and dynamic discourse about the implications of Nabiullina's transformative policies. While challenges and criticisms were acknowledged, the overall sentiment was one of cautious optimism, with the world having watched Russia's evolution under Nabiullina's leadership with a keen interest in the promise of a more dynamic, innovative, and technologically advanced nation.
(A true and genuine friendship between Presidents Chavez and Lukashenko would led to a very warm relations between Venezuela and Russia)
Hugo Chávez, born on July 28, 1954, in Sabaneta, Venezuela, rose to prominence as a charismatic and controversial political figure, leaving an indelible mark on the nation's history. His early life in the military and deep-seated resentment towards the existing political order laid the foundation for his transformative leadership. Chávez's political journey gained momentum in 1992 when he led a failed coup attempt against the government of President Carlos Andrés Pérez. Although unsuccessful, the coup catapulted Chávez into the public eye, and his televised speech, where he took responsibility for the rebellion, resonated with many Venezuelans who shared his discontent with the corrupt political establishment. After spending two years in prison, Chávez emerged as a political force, founded the political movement "Movement for the Fifth Republic" (MVR), and ran for the presidency. In 1998, he won the election in a landslide, marking the beginning of his presidency. Chávez's early years in power were characterized by ambitious social and economic reforms, encapsulated by the concept of "Bolivarian socialism."
Bolivarian socialism, inspired by the ideals of Simón Bolívar, the 19th-century South American revolutionary leader, sought to address social inequality, poverty, and economic disparity. Chávez envisioned a form of socialism uniquely tailored to Venezuela's context, emphasizing participatory democracy, social justice, and national sovereignty. Key aspects of Bolivarian socialism included the nationalization of key industries, such as oil, to regain control over the country's resources. Chávez aimed to redirect oil revenue towards social programs, education, and healthcare, with the goal of uplifting the impoverished masses. Land reforms were also implemented to redistribute land to the landless rural poor. Chávez's emphasis on grassroots participation led to the creation of communal councils, empowering local communities to have a direct say in decision-making processes. The government's social programs, known as "Missions," aimed to provide healthcare, education, and housing to marginalized populations. While Bolivarian socialism garnered support for its commitment to social justice, it also faced criticism for its centralization of power and economic mismanagement. The polarization in Venezuelan society deepened as Chávez's government clashed with opposition forces.
By the year 2002, Chávez had weathered a coup attempt that briefly ousted him from power. This event only intensified his commitment to Bolivarian socialism, solidifying its place as a defining feature of his presidency. The years leading up to 2002 set the stage for the complex and tumultuous political landscape that would characterize Venezuela in the following decades. Hugo Chávez's perception of the resurgent Russia led by the United Labor Party of Russia, under the banner of left-wing nationalism, resonated deeply with his own vision for Venezuela. As Chávez observed the transformation of Russia since 1992, he identified ideological parallels that sparked a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose. The Bolivarian socialism championed by Chávez in Venezuela sought to address historical inequalities, empower the working class, and promote national sovereignty. Witnessing a similar commitment in the United Labor Party's governance of Russia, Chávez saw a kindred spirit in their pursuit of a socialism adapted to the unique context of each nation. The ideological connection between Venezuela and Russia became a cornerstone for diplomatic ties and collaborative efforts. Chávez envisioned a departure from established global norms that often marginalized nations striving for alternative paths to development. The resurgent Russia, guided by left-wing nationalism, mirrored Venezuela's aspirations for social justice and equitable economic policies. This shared pursuit of a more just world order formed the foundation for a robust alliance between the two nations. The personal dynamics between Chávez and Lukashenko became emblematic of a genuine friendship founded on mutual admiration and shared values. Their interactions, whether during state visits or behind closed doors, were characterized by candid discussions about the challenges of steering their respective nations through uncharted territories of ideological transformation. This personal bond became the bedrock of a diplomatic relationship between both nations. On the international stage within the game, Chávez and Lukashenko stood shoulder to shoulder, advocating for a multipolar world that celebrated diversity in ideological approaches. Their strategic alliance became a beacon for other nations, showcasing the potency of unity in pursuing alternative paths to development.
Last edited:
1. Please write down, how should further cooperation between Russia and Venezuela look like? Write also, which strategy in regard to the Latin America should be pursued by Russia?
2. Following the invasion of Afghanistan and the Axis of Evil speech by President Bush, more and more intelligence reports coming from Washington suggest that the United States might be really willing to pursue further military actions against Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Please write down, how this issue should be handled by the Russian government?
2. Following the invasion of Afghanistan and the Axis of Evil speech by President Bush, more and more intelligence reports coming from Washington suggest that the United States might be really willing to pursue further military actions against Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Please write down, how this issue should be handled by the Russian government?
I believe that we should approach these separately.
Iran: We shall not give diplomatic support to USA regarding Iran and will strive to be a mediator between Iran and wider West, mainly advancing Iranian cause in Europe and abroad. We shall speak for Iran on diplomatic forums but at this stage we should ultimately respect USA sanctions and won't go against them, but we will also make it clear that military intervention in Iran is out of the question. Our ultimate goal is to position ourselves as diplomatic backer of Iran and to facilitate it's entry into global community.
Iraq: In regards to Iraq we shall take Pan European approach and seek to form a consensus with Germany, France and Italy on how to go further and until which measure we want to defend Iraq.
N.Korea: N. Korea is important buffer to our east, but Chinese influence there cannot be ignored. Ultimately we should coordinate our policy on N.Korea with China and support in as far as China is willing to go as we recognize the shared interests we have with China in N.Korea and its purpose as our common buffer.
Generally im acting on otl knowledge here. I don't want us to fight the West over Iran, so we should just support them diplomatically and in occasions where we can avoid sanctions, but our goal is to position ourselves as a mediator between Iran and the West.
I don't think that we can stop USA invasion of Iraq, but otl France and Germany were against while Russia suprisingly took more pro USA view otl. Here i seek to back German position , but also to Work with France and to some level to include Italy in the process. Goal is to form joint European position and to drive a wedge between EU and USA/UK.
In regards to N.Korea? Chinese interest cannot be ignored, so im all for working in tandem with them as its a lot harder to sanction both of us. Not to mention i kinda want to avoid potentially rivalry with China over influence in N.Korea and i find this approach stabilizing for our mutual interests.
We should seek to invest into it's oil and energy industry and offer them finished products, loans and in technological development in exchange for/resources Oil. Our goal is to help fellow left-wing country that shares ideological similarities with us, this help will be expressed through strictly economic cooperation to facilitate Venezuelan growth and to support its scheme to use its Oil for its sozial development. But we should be pragmatic about it and seek to avoid any military engagements within a region, basically no weapons sale, etc.
As of now we don't want to force USA to intervene and to percieve our actions as a new ideological struggle. We just seek to help economic development of Venezuela and to engage in mutually beneficial trade.
In regards to Latin America. Our approach will be our aspirations to invest into Latin American resources, especially mining industry necessary for Semiconductor industry. We shall also seek to invest into Latin American infrastructure and encourage trade by opening their markets to our products , potentially transfering some of our manufacturing into countries like Brazil and Mexico (it has well established automotive industry and productive capacities due to USA involvment) to gain access to Latin American market . We shall put emphasis on cooperation with Brazil as fellow BRICS member and seek to bring much of Latin America closer to our multipolar world view. We shall also seek to facilitate cultural exchanges and try to spread Russian culture among these countries.
We should dedicate spezial attention to Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, basically our old friends , but we should only act diplomatically to protect them and to help them in peaceful way.
Generally economic help/interests , working to rise them up as their own Pole independent from USA and to build friendly diplomatic relations with them.
Last edited:
We should not let Iraq fall instead ask the USA to reopen the department that they had in the Cold War so they can understand and actually get the locals to calm towards them like that department was so important in the Cold War for actually getting Allie’s of other nations on their side
There were two things OTL Russia had going for it in the 90-ties:
- Highly trained skilled dirt cheap people
- Natural resources
Agreed, Japan & Germany are gaining. Not sure how the French and UK will be impacted, I feel e.g. the Fench might go bigger with Dacia / Romania
I don't think so. I think the Union state could birth a competitor to the TCS / Wipro etc of this world. Remember, we're past 2000.
Sure, again, I'm not saying they don't experience booms, I only am arguing that we take some procent points from some of them since we grab some marketshare for us. Especially since we are growing more then OTL China, this immediately means that even with a greater market others will have to give up some growth.
Absolutely. But even if e.g. the world economy grows from 100% to 105% because of the positive impact of the Union state, us passing 9 other countries per the 2001 GDP is coming from somewhere.
All good calls, so I concur.
Last edited:
Will follow Kriss plan with some exceptions.
For North Korea I think we should also try and bring in Japan on the matter as well, Japan's only recently starting recovering economically from the lost decade a large war in the region will endanger that feat, it's fairly obvious the US will rely on their Japanese bases and unlike the United states they have a serious risks of suffering massive casualties from North Korean missiles and the whole weird North Korean community in Japan committing attacks plus Japan can help apply pressure to the US and South Korea.
For Iran, suggests they increase cooperation with Libya, we are fairly safe that the US is unlikely to target them first but are choices are fairly limited for now in confronting a hostile US since we don't actually want to be their enemy but Iran does have a nearby Middle Eastern state who's also a got a weapon's of mass destruction program who would be next in line and a leader who's fairly anti American sometimes.
Kriss plan
By the way chat, on the matter of Iraq, not sure we can stop the invasion but we can try and make it bloodier also it should noted depending on the dice we can get luckier and avoid Daesh, mainly because it will be far easier to champion and support a less radical Iraqi resistance.
By that if you where to write the story of al Zarqawi fiction and his boys becoming the last Sunni group standing in Iraq you would be laughed at for a tale so farcical including getting maybe up to 300 million dollars on the eve of the invasion, being a heavily anti Baathist group that started out largely foreigners/Kurdish in a Baathist society who have contempt for the very concept of Iraq as a state being a major thing is bizarre.
@panpiotr I give you our production ready Black Eagle.
It's basically the best model I could find with a good looking turret, most models use the more tacked on box idea of the prototype.
And the T-72S (basically T-90 hull (upgraded T-72 hull here), but the BE turret above)
It's basically the best model I could find with a good looking turret, most models use the more tacked on box idea of the prototype.
And the T-72S (basically T-90 hull (upgraded T-72 hull here), but the BE turret above)
Last edited:
Matador de Lagartos
Banned
If we want to save Chavez's ass, then we should incentivize him to create a sovereign fund to invest on the Russian-sphere, were his investments would be protected from American sanctions, would serve as a safeguard against oil gluts and would also benefit us with the bonus of spitting the West. Win-win for everyone.
With the benefit of hindsight, advice him to keep his gold in Moscow instead of London.
Last edited:
@panpiotr, would the next interlude/mini-update discuss the reaction of former Eastern Bloc countries to Russia’s resurgence?