A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation
- Thread starter panpiotr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia russian federation
So Trump for president for 2016 onward? Or something else?
Even then it feels like we are kinda ignoring the major changes that could happen considering how the US will be different considering they will be dealing with several major differences. From Asia rising to an even larger degree to OTL, to Russia being a major power, to changes just in terms of pop-culture and how they would effect the internet and the greater political zeitgeist. Really it just seems to follow OTL for the sake of following OTL.
I agree, I feel as Trump should be more hostile to Russia as it is certainly as big a threat as China now. Also, Jan 6th shouldn't happen.
Last edited:
Yes, he will be for 1 term then Al Gore takes over, but its not because i simply want to follow OTL , I have structure for the story for 2010s and 2020s in mind, and Trump's 1 term is crucial for it. Also from Trump there will be few suprises to everyone, I wont simply copypaste OTL events.
Let me guess Trump gets more into the far right nonsense that he damages the USA and EU relations forever
Considering how well Russia is doing and the near WW3 would Europe even care if Trump went further right?
Chapter Thirty: Change We Can Believe In (April 2008 - June 2009)
Amidst the escalating competition with China in Africa, the Russian government adopted a strategic approach focused on negotiation and cooperation to navigate the complex dynamics of the region. Recognizing the importance of maintaining stability and avoiding direct confrontation, Russia prioritized diplomatic channels to establish clear boundaries and areas of collaboration with China. At the heart of Russia's approach was the fundamental principle that a bad peace is always preferable to a good war. With this mindset, Russian diplomats engaged in extensive negotiations with their Chinese counterparts to delineate spheres of influence and identify opportunities for joint ventures and cooperation in Africa. Through sustained dialogue and diplomatic efforts, both countries sought to create a framework that would enable them to pursue their interests in the region while minimizing the risk of conflict. Central to Russia's strategy was the concept of strategic patience and long-term thinking. Instead of seeking quick wins or engaging in zero-sum competition with China, Russian policymakers adopted a more measured approach aimed at building trust and fostering mutually beneficial relationships over time. This involved investing in diplomatic relationships, cultivating ties with African leaders, and demonstrating a genuine commitment to the long-term development and prosperity of the continent.
China's agreement to negotiate and cooperate with Russia in Africa was motivated by a strategic calculation aimed at averting the potential consequences of conflict and preserving stability in the region. Understanding the geopolitical dynamics at play and the historical rivalry between Russia and the West, China recognized the risk that a confrontation with Russia in Africa could push Moscow closer to Western powers. Such a scenario could have significant implications for China's own strategic interests and regional influence. China's leaders were keenly aware that any alignment between Russia and the West could undermine China's position in Africa and complicate its efforts to expand its economic and geopolitical footprint on the continent. By avoiding conflict with Russia and instead opting for cooperation and dialogue, China sought to prevent the possibility of a strategic realignment that could diminish its influence and limit its access to African markets and resources. Furthermore, China understood the importance of stability and predictability in its relations with Russia, particularly in the context of its growing ambitions against the West and broader efforts to enhance connectivity and infrastructure development in Africa. Conflict or instability in Africa could disrupt China's investment projects and undermine its long-term economic objectives, posing a significant risk to its strategic interests. In addition to safeguarding its economic investments, China also considered the broader geopolitical implications of its relationship with Russia. By maintaining cordial relations and cooperating with Moscow, China aimed to reinforce its position as a leading global power and promote a multipolar world order in which it plays a central role. A conflict between China and Russia in Africa would have contradicted China's vision of a harmonious and cooperative international system, undermining its efforts to project itself as a responsible global actor committed to peaceful coexistence and mutual respect among nations.
After weeks of intense negotiations and diplomatic wrangling, all interested parties involved in the Caspian Sea dispute finally reached a historic agreement to fairly divide the resources of the Caspian Sea. The agreement, hailed as a significant milestone in regional cooperation and stability, represented a culmination of years of painstaking diplomacy and compromise. Behind closed doors, Russia played a pivotal role in ensuring that Azerbaijan did not gain an upper hand in the negotiations. Leveraging its diplomatic prowess and economic influence, Russia skillfully maneuvered to safeguard its strategic interests while advocating for a fair and equitable division of the Caspian's resources. Through a series of bilateral and multilateral talks, Russia engaged with Azerbaijan and other Caspian littoral states to address key issues such as maritime boundaries, energy resource sharing, and joint management mechanisms. While advocating for transparency and adherence to international law, Russia also worked to prevent any one country from monopolizing the Caspian's wealth. In the negotiations, Russia employed a combination of incentives and concessions to ensure that Azerbaijan's influence was balanced and that all parties had a stake in the final agreement. Russia helped to build consensus among the littoral states and pave the way for a mutually acceptable solution to the Caspian dispute. Each littoral state was allocated a share of the Caspian's resources commensurate with its geographical proximity and economic needs, ensuring that no single country could dominate the region to the detriment of others. Furthermore, the agreement established robust mechanisms for joint management and cooperation in the Caspian Sea, including the creation of multinational task forces and regulatory bodies to oversee resource extraction, environmental protection, and maritime security.
Russia's successful utilization of DST Global as a symbol of national potential went beyond mere gestures of recognition. The government embarked on a comprehensive campaign to highlight Yuri Milner's journey and DST Global's achievements, leveraging them as powerful narratives to inspire and mobilize Russian entrepreneurs and innovators. Through media campaigns, public events, and educational programs, the success story of DST Global was disseminated widely, reaching aspiring entrepreneurs, students, and professionals across the country. Milner himself became a figurehead of Russian entrepreneurship, offering mentorship, guidance, and inspiration to the next generation of innovators. In parallel, the government worked closely with DST Global to establish strategic partnerships with academic institutions, research centers, and innovation hubs. Collaborative research projects, joint initiatives, and technology transfer programs were launched to harness the expertise and resources of both the public and private sectors in driving innovation and economic development. By fostering collaboration between academia and industry, Russia sought to accelerate the pace of technological advancement and enhance its global competitiveness in key sectors.
Furthermore, Russia implemented targeted policies and incentives to attract investment from DST Global and other venture capital firms. Tax breaks, regulatory reforms, and investment facilitation services were introduced to create a favorable environment for investment and entrepreneurship. The government also launched specialized programs to support startups and SMEs, providing funding, mentorship, and access to markets to help them scale and grow. On the international front, Russia positioned DST Global as a flagship example of Russian excellence in the global investment landscape. Through diplomatic channels, trade missions, and international forums, Russia promoted DST Global as a strategic partner for global investors seeking opportunities in Russia and beyond. By showcasing DST Global's success and its commitment to innovation and entrepreneurship, Russia enhanced its reputation as a dynamic and forward-thinking investment destination. In exchange for its support and recognition, Russia negotiated agreements with DST Global to strategically invest in key sectors of the Russian economy. These investments were carefully targeted to align with national priorities, such as technology, energy, and manufacturing, and aimed to catalyze innovation, job creation, and economic growth. Through strategic partnerships and targeted investments, Russia sought to harness the expertise and resources of DST Global to drive sustainable development and prosperity for years to come.
The global financial crisis that unfolded from March 2008 to July 2009 sent shockwaves through economies worldwide, with devastating consequences felt most acutely in the United States and Europe. The crisis, stemming from the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the United States, quickly spread to other sectors of the economy, triggering a chain reaction of events that culminated in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. In the United States, the crisis was characterized by a collapse in the housing market, widespread foreclosures, and the failure of major financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers. The subprime mortgage crisis, fueled by reckless lending practices and the securitization of high-risk mortgages, led to a wave of defaults and financial contagion that reverberated throughout the banking system. As the crisis deepened, credit markets froze, liquidity dried up, and consumer confidence plummeted, sending the economy into a downward spiral. Europe, too, felt the brunt of the financial crisis, as banks across the continent faced insolvency and sovereign debt crises threatened the stability of the eurozone. Countries such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain experienced severe economic downturns, with soaring unemployment, government austerity measures, and social unrest becoming hallmarks of the crisis. However, amid the turmoil and uncertainty, some countries managed to weather the storm better than others. China, Russia, and India emerged as relative bright spots in an otherwise bleak global economic landscape, thanks to their resilience, robust domestic demand, and proactive policy responses. China, already the world's second-largest economy, continued its remarkable economic growth trajectory, buoyed by strong domestic consumption, robust exports, and massive government stimulus measures.
The Chinese government implemented a series of fiscal and monetary policies aimed at bolstering growth, including infrastructure investment, tax cuts, and monetary easing. As a result, China's economy remained relatively insulated from the worst effects of the global financial crisis, maintaining high levels of growth and employment throughout the downturn. Similarly, Russia, having undergone significant economic reforms and restructuring following the collapse of the Soviet Union, demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of the crisis. Buoyed by financial safety net and robust commodity exports, Russia weathered the storm relatively well, avoiding the worst excesses of the financial crisis. The Russian government implemented measures to stabilize the economy and support key industries, while also taking steps to strengthen financial regulation and oversight. Meanwhile, India's dynamic and fast-growing economy continued to expand, driven by strong domestic consumption, a vibrant services sector, and resilient export performance. The Indian government implemented a range of fiscal and monetary measures to support growth and stimulate investment, helping to mitigate the impact of the global financial crisis on the country's economy. While the global financial crisis inflicted significant damage on the world economy, it also served as a wake-up call for policymakers and regulators worldwide. In the aftermath of the crisis, governments and international institutions implemented a range of reforms aimed at strengthening financial regulation, enhancing transparency, and reducing systemic risk. These reforms, while painful in the short term, were intended to prevent a repeat of the mistakes that led to the crisis and to build a more stable and resilient global financial system for the future.
During the global financial crisis that unfolded from March 2008 to July 2009, Russia, under the leadership of Prime Minister Elvira Nabiullina, demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of unprecedented economic challenges. While many countries around the world grappled with the fallout from the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and the subsequent financial contagion, Russia managed to weather the storm relatively well, thanks to a combination of prudent policies, strategic interventions, and favorable economic conditions. As Prime Minister, Elvira Nabiullina played a central role in steering Russia through the crisis, leveraging her expertise in economics and finance to implement timely and effective measures to stabilize the economy and mitigate the impact of external shocks. Her leadership during this critical period would prove instrumental in guiding Russia through one of the most challenging economic downturns in recent history. One of the key factors contributing to Russia's resilience during the crisis was its robust macroeconomic fundamentals prior to the onset of the downturn. Under the leadership of President Alexander Lukashenko and Prime Minister Nabiullina, Russia had implemented a series of economic reforms aimed at modernizing the economy, diversifying away from dependence on oil and gas exports, and strengthening fiscal discipline. These reforms helped to build a solid foundation for economic stability and resilience, enabling Russia to withstand external shocks with greater resilience than many of its counterparts.
During the crisis, Prime Minister Nabiullina and her government took swift and decisive action to support the economy and financial system, implementing a range of fiscal and monetary measures to stimulate growth, stabilize markets, and protect vulnerable sectors. One of the key initiatives introduced by Nabiullina was a comprehensive stimulus package aimed at boosting domestic demand, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and preserving jobs. This package included targeted tax cuts, investment incentives, and financial support for struggling industries, providing much-needed relief to businesses and households facing financial hardship. In addition to fiscal stimulus, Prime Minister Nabiullina also implemented a proactive monetary policy response to the crisis, leveraging the central bank's tools to ensure liquidity in the financial system and support credit provision to the real economy. Under her leadership, the Central Bank of Russia implemented measures to ease monetary conditions, including interest rate cuts and liquidity injections, while also adopting unconventional policy tools to address market dislocations and stabilize financial markets. Furthermore, Prime Minister Nabiullina prioritized financial stability and regulatory reform during the crisis, implementing measures to strengthen oversight of the banking sector, enhance transparency, and improve risk management practices. These efforts helped to restore confidence in Russia's financial system and mitigate systemic risks, ensuring that the country's banking sector remained resilient in the face of external pressures. Overall, thanks to Prime Minister Nabiullina's leadership and decisive action, Russia demonstrated remarkable resilience during the global financial crisis, emerging from the downturn with its economy intact and its financial system stable. While challenges remained, Nabiullina's prudent policies and strategic interventions laid the groundwork for sustained economic growth and stability in the years that followed, cementing her legacy as a key architect of Russia's economic resilience in the face of adversity.
The conflict between President Lukashenko and Prime Minister Nabiullina arose as a result of a power struggle fueled by political ambitions, diverging interests, and perceptions of growing independence and popularity on the part of Nabiullina. As Prime Minister of Russia, Nabiullina played a pivotal role in navigating the country through the global financial crisis with remarkable resilience and effectiveness. Her decisive leadership and proactive measures earned her widespread acclaim both domestically and internationally, bolstering her popularity and influence within Russia and beyond. However, Nabiullina's rising prominence and growing power posed a challenge to President Lukashenko's authority and control over the political landscape. As the longtime leader of Russia, Lukashenko had wielded considerable influence and maintained a tight grip on power, relying on a centralized system of governance and a network of loyalists to maintain his rule. Yet, Nabiullina's emergence as a formidable political figure and her independent approach to governance threatened to upset the status quo and diminish Lukashenko's hold on power. The conflict between Lukashenko and Nabiullina was exacerbated by their differing visions for the future direction of Russia and the extent of presidential authority. While Lukashenko sought to maintain a strong presidency and preserve the existing power structure, Nabiullina advocated for greater decentralization, transparency, and accountability in governance, challenging the president's monopoly on power and decision-making. As Nabiullina's popularity and influence continued to grow, Lukashenko grew increasingly wary of her intentions and sought to undermine her authority and influence within the government.
The tension between Lukashenko and Nabiullina came to a head as their diverging interests and ambitions collided, leading to open confrontation and political maneuvering. Lukashenko, fearful of Nabiullina's rising popularity and growing power base, sought to undermine her position within the government and weaken her influence through a series of political tactics and maneuvers. These included attempts to discredit Nabiullina in the eyes of the public, marginalize her within the government, and restrict her authority and decision-making powers. nIn response, Nabiullina fiercely defended her position and pushed back against Lukashenko's attempts to undermine her authority, rallying support from allies within the government and mobilizing popular opinion in her favor. Despite facing resistance and opposition from Lukashenko and his supporters, Nabiullina remained steadfast in her commitment to advancing her agenda and protecting the interests of the Russian people. The conflict between Lukashenko and Nabiullina ultimately underscored broader tensions within the Russian political landscape, highlighting competing visions for the country's future and the struggle for power and influence among key political actors. While Lukashenko sought to maintain his grip on power and preserve the status quo, Nabiullina represented a new generation of leadership committed to reform, modernization, and democratic governance. As the conflict between them played out, its outcome would have far-reaching implications for the future trajectory of Russia and the balance of power within its political elite.
The 2008 United States Presidential election stands out as one of the most significant and transformative in modern American history, marked by a combination of factors that reshaped the political landscape and ushered in a new era of leadership under President Barack Obama and his running mate, Vice President Al Gore. Against the backdrop of two tumultuous terms under President George W. Bush, characterized by controversial policies, international conflict, and economic uncertainty, the 2008 election offered a stark choice between continuity and change, experience and fresh perspective. The early stages of the campaign were dominated by the legacy of the Iraq War and the unpopularity of the Bush administration, which had come under intense scrutiny for its handling of the war and its broader foreign policy agenda. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, faced the daunting task of defending the Bush administration's record while simultaneously distancing himself from its most unpopular policies. McCain's steadfast support for the Iraq War and his advocacy for a troop surge in 2007 positioned him as a stalwart defender of the status quo, a stance that would later come under scrutiny as public opinion turned against the war and its perceived costs. In contrast, Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, emerged as a vocal critic of the Iraq War and a proponent of a new approach to foreign policy and national security. Obama's early opposition to the war, coupled with his calls for change and reform in Washington, resonated with a war-weary electorate eager for a fresh start. Obama's message of hope and unity, encapsulated in his iconic campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In," struck a chord with voters across the country and galvanized a diverse coalition of supporters, including young people, minorities, and disaffected voters disillusioned with the political establishment.
As the campaign progressed, Obama and McCain clashed on a range of issues, from healthcare and the economy to immigration and climate change. McCain sought to highlight his experience and leadership credentials, emphasizing his decades of service in the military and Congress as evidence of his readiness to lead. Meanwhile, Obama campaigned on a platform of change and innovation, promising to break with the politics of the past and forge a new path forward for the country. The dynamics of the race were further complicated by the onset of a major financial crisis in September 2008, which sent shockwaves through the economy and heightened anxiety among voters. McCain's decision to suspend his campaign in response to the crisis was widely criticized as erratic and politically motivated, further eroding his standing with voters who viewed him as out of touch and disconnected from their concerns. In the end, Barack Obama emerged victorious in a decisive electoral and popular vote victory, securing a historic mandate for change and becoming the first African American President in American history. Obama's electoral triumph, which saw him flip nine states that had voted Republican in the previous election, represented a repudiation of the Bush administration's policies and a vote of confidence in Obama's vision for the future. The 2008 Presidential election marked a turning point in American politics, signaling a desire for change and a rejection of the status quo. As Obama and Gore assumed office, they faced the daunting task of addressing the myriad challenges facing the nation, from the economic recession to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, buoyed by the energy and enthusiasm of their supporters, they embarked on a journey to rebuild and renew America, guided by the principles of unity, compassion, and progress.
Throughout the campaign, both candidates sought to differentiate themselves from their opponents and articulate a vision for the future that resonated with voters. McCain emphasized his experience and leadership qualities, positioning himself as a steady hand in uncertain times. He pledged to continue the fight against terrorism, support the troops, and strengthen the economy through tax cuts and deregulation. However, McCain's association with the Bush administration and his support for unpopular policies, such as the Iraq War, made it difficult for him to distance himself from the failures of the past. In contrast, Obama offered a message of change and hope, promising to unite the country and transcend partisan divisions. He campaigned on a platform of progressive policies, including healthcare reform, climate change mitigation, and economic stimulus. Obama's inspirational rhetoric and inclusive message appealed to a broad coalition of voters, including young people, minorities, and independents, who were eager for a break from the politics of the past. By presenting himself as a transformational leader capable of bringing about real change, Obama tapped into a deep well of optimism and enthusiasm that propelled him to victory. The financial crisis that erupted in September 2008 fundamentally altered the course of the campaign, casting a spotlight on the economy and highlighting the need for strong leadership in times of crisis. As the crisis deepened and the stock market plummeted, voters turned to Obama as a symbol of stability and hope in uncertain times. His calm demeanor and measured response to the crisis contrasted sharply with McCain's erratic behavior and perceived lack of understanding of the economy. Obama's promise of change and his commitment to tackling the root causes of the crisis resonated with voters who were disillusioned with the status quo and eager for a new direction.
In the end, Obama's victory in the 2008 Presidential election represented a historic moment in American history, marking the culmination of a long and hard-fought campaign and the beginning of a new era of leadership in Washington. As Obama and Gore assumed office, they faced the daunting task of addressing the myriad challenges facing the nation, from the economic recession to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, despite the immense challenges that lay ahead, Obama remained optimistic about the future and committed to delivering on his promise of change. With the support of the American people and a clear mandate for action, Obama and Gore embarked on a journey to rebuild and renew America. The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency, spanning from January 20 to April 30, 2009, marked a period of intense activity and significant accomplishments as the new administration sought to address pressing challenges facing the nation. Drawing inspiration from the precedent set by Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, Obama embraced the symbolic significance of the first 100 days as a benchmark to measure the early success of his presidency, while also acknowledging that true progress would be measured over a longer timeframe.
One of the central priorities for the Obama administration during its first 100 days was to address the ongoing economic crisis that gripped the nation. In an effort to stimulate economic growth and create jobs, Obama swiftly moved to garner support for his economic stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Despite facing initial resistance, the bill passed both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support, marking a significant legislative victory for the new administration. In addition to economic recovery efforts, Obama prioritized key legislative initiatives aimed at advancing social and healthcare reform. One of the earliest victories came with the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which extended the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits, addressing gender disparities in the workplace. Obama also signed into law the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), ensuring greater access to healthcare for children from low-income families. Furthermore, the Obama administration secured approval for a congressional budget resolution that laid the groundwork for comprehensive healthcare reform legislation, signaling a commitment to addressing the nation's healthcare challenges. This commitment was further underscored by the implementation of new ethics guidelines aimed at reducing the influence of lobbyists on the executive branch, signaling a departure from the policies of the previous administration. In the realm of foreign policy, Obama wasted no time in signaling a break from the policies of his predecessor, particularly in areas such as Guantanamo Bay and stem cell research. He ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, fulfilling a key campaign promise and signaling a shift away from the use of torture and indefinite detention. Additionally, Obama lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, opening the door to scientific advancements in the field of regenerative medicine. Despite these early accomplishments, Obama faced challenges and setbacks during his first 100 days, including ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as resistance to some of his policy initiatives from Congress and special interest groups. However, his decisive actions and commitment to change set the stage for a period of transformative reform and progress in the years to come.
In June 2009, against the backdrop of the ongoing global financial crisis and the pressing need to stimulate the American economy, President Barack Obama and Vice President Al Gore spearheaded the passage of two landmark pieces of legislation: the Federal Economic Funding Initiative and the Public Works Act. These initiatives were pivotal in their efforts to provide a much-needed boost to the economy, create jobs, and lay the foundation for long-term economic recovery and growth. The Federal Economic Funding Initiative, championed by the Obama administration, represented a comprehensive and ambitious strategy to inject liquidity into the economy, support key industries, and provide relief to struggling Americans. At its core, the initiative aimed to channel federal funding into critical sectors of the economy, such as infrastructure, healthcare, education, and renewable energy, thereby stimulating demand, fostering innovation, and revitalizing economic activity. One of the central components of the Federal Economic Funding Initiative was a targeted investment in infrastructure projects across the country. Recognizing the importance of modernizing America's crumbling infrastructure, Obama and Gore allocated significant resources to repair and upgrade roads, bridges, railways, airports, and other vital transportation networks. These investments not only created immediate job opportunities in construction and related industries but also laid the groundwork for enhanced productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness in the long run.
In addition to infrastructure investments, the Federal Economic Funding Initiative included provisions to bolster key sectors of the economy that were particularly hard hit by the financial crisis. This included targeted support for the automotive industry, which was reeling from the effects of the recession and facing widespread layoffs and plant closures. Through a combination of loans, grants, and incentives, the Obama administration provided much-needed assistance to automakers and suppliers, helping to stabilize the industry and preserve millions of jobs. Furthermore, the Federal Economic Funding Initiative allocated resources to expand access to healthcare and education, recognizing the critical role that these sectors play in promoting social mobility, equity, and economic opportunity. Initiatives to increase funding for Medicaid, enhance healthcare coverage for children, and invest in public education were integral parts of the broader economic stimulus package, aiming to improve outcomes for individuals and families while also stimulating demand for goods and services. Complementing the Federal Economic Funding Initiative, the Public Works Act focused specifically on creating employment opportunities and revitalizing local communities through investments in public infrastructure and community development projects. This legislation authorized the allocation of federal funds to state and local governments for the construction of schools, hospitals, parks, and other public facilities, providing a much-needed lifeline to struggling municipalities and stimulating economic activity at the grassroots level. By passing these landmark pieces of legislation, President Obama and Vice President Gore demonstrated bold leadership and a commitment to addressing the urgent economic challenges facing the nation. The Federal Economic Funding Initiative and the Public Works Act laid the foundation for a robust and inclusive recovery, setting the stage for renewed growth, prosperity, and opportunity for all Americans. As the country navigated the complexities of the post-recession era, these initiatives served as a testament to the power of proactive government action in times of crisis and the importance of investing in the nation's future.
In the aftermath of the economic turmoil gripping the United States and Europe, coupled with the remarkable resilience demonstrated by China and Russia during the crisis, President Barack Obama recognized the pressing need to recalibrate America's global economic strategy. Against this backdrop, Obama made the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations a cornerstone of his foreign policy agenda during his first six months in office, underscoring its significance in shaping the future of international trade and economic relations. The TTIP negotiations represented a bold and ambitious initiative aimed at deepening economic ties between the United States and the European Union (EU), which together accounted for a significant portion of global economic output and trade. By forging a comprehensive trade agreement, Obama sought to create a transatlantic economic powerhouse that would drive growth, spur innovation, and enhance competitiveness on both sides of the Atlantic. At its core, the TTIP aimed to eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers, harmonize regulatory standards, and promote greater regulatory cooperation between the United States and the EU. By streamlining regulations and reducing duplicative requirements, the agreement aimed to lower the cost of doing business, facilitate market access, and promote greater efficiency and transparency in cross-border trade and investment.
Furthermore, the TTIP negotiations sought to address emerging challenges in the global economy, such as the rise of digital trade, intellectual property rights, and environmental and labor standards. By establishing modern rules and frameworks that reflected the realities of the 21st-century economy, Obama envisioned a trade agreement that would not only promote economic growth but also uphold high standards of environmental protection, labor rights, and consumer safety. The TTIP negotiations also held the promise of strengthening geopolitical ties between the United States and Europe, at a time when both regions faced common challenges and shared interests on the global stage. By deepening economic integration and fostering closer cooperation, Obama sought to bolster transatlantic unity and solidarity, while also reaffirming the enduring partnership between the United States and its European allies. However, the TTIP negotiations faced numerous challenges and complexities, reflecting the diverse interests and sensitivities on both sides of the Atlantic. Differences in regulatory standards, agricultural policies, and public procurement practices posed significant hurdles to reaching a comprehensive agreement. Moreover, concerns over the potential impact of the TTIP on jobs, wages, and consumer protections fueled opposition from labor unions, environmental groups, and civil society organizations. Despite these challenges, Obama remained committed to advancing the TTIP negotiations as a top priority in his foreign policy agenda. Recognizing the transformative potential of a transatlantic trade agreement, Obama engaged in intensive diplomacy and outreach efforts to build consensus and garner support for the TTIP among key stakeholders. Through bilateral meetings, high-level summits, and public diplomacy initiatives, Obama sought to rally political momentum behind the TTIP and pave the way for a successful outcome.
On February 1, 2009, Kirill ascended to the position of Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' and Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, marking the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and its relationship with the state. As Patriarch, Kirill emerged as a pivotal figure in Russian religious and political affairs, wielding significant influence and playing a central role in shaping the spiritual and social landscape of Russia. From the outset of his patriarchate, Kirill articulated a clear vision for the Russian Orthodox Church, one that emphasized its traditional values, spiritual authority, and close alignment with the Russian state. As a close ally of the Kremlin and President Lukashenko, Kirill sought to strengthen the ties between the church and the state, positioning the ROC as a moral compass and spiritual guide for the Russian people. Central to Kirill's agenda was the goal of bringing the Russian Orthodox Church even closer to the Russian state, forging a symbiotic relationship between church and state that would reinforce traditional values and promote national unity. Kirill viewed the church as a bulwark against secularism and moral decay, advocating for a greater role for religion in public life and policymaking. In pursuit of his vision, Kirill embarked on a series of administrative reforms within the Russian Orthodox Church, aimed at modernizing its structure, improving governance, and enhancing efficiency. These reforms sought to streamline the church's administrative apparatus, empower local clergy, and promote greater accountability and transparency within the hierarchy.
Moreover, Kirill sought to assert the primacy of the Russian Orthodox Church on the global stage, challenging the authority of Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch, for the role of the spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodox Christians worldwide. Kirill envisioned a more assertive and proactive role for the ROC in international affairs, advocating for a greater voice for the Russian Orthodox Church in global forums and institutions. In addition to his efforts to consolidate the church's influence domestically and internationally, Kirill also pursued a policy of rapprochement with the Catholic Church, seeking to heal centuries-old divisions and foster greater unity among Christians. Through dialogue and engagement, Kirill sought to overcome historical animosities and bridge the doctrinal differences that had long separated the Orthodox and Catholic traditions. Furthermore, Kirill prioritized the worldwide expansion of the Russian Orthodox Church, seeking to extend its reach and influence beyond Russia's borders. Through missionary work, cultural outreach, and diplomatic engagement, Kirill sought to promote the Orthodox faith and Russian cultural heritage around the world, fostering closer ties with Orthodox communities and promoting interfaith dialogue and cooperation. In the years that followed his ascension to the patriarchal throne, Kirill emerged as a formidable leader and statesman, wielding significant influence both within Russia and on the global stage. His tenure as Patriarch witnessed significant developments in the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as its relationship with the state and other religious institutions.
In March 2009, North Korea conducted a provocative series of actions that heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula and drew condemnation from the international community. On March 5, North Korea launched the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 (also known as the Taepodong-2) rocket, purportedly for the purpose of placing a satellite into orbit. However, the launch was widely viewed as a cover for testing long-range ballistic missile technology, raising concerns about North Korea's military capabilities and intentions. The launch of the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 was met with swift condemnation from the United States, South Korea, Japan, and other countries, who viewed it as a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions prohibiting North Korea from conducting ballistic missile tests. The launch exacerbated regional tensions and underscored the challenges posed by North Korea's pursuit of advanced missile technology and its defiance of international norms and regulations. Just a few weeks later, on March 25, 2009, North Korea conducted its second nuclear weapons test, further escalating tensions and sparking international outrage. The underground test, which took place at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site in northeastern North Korea, yielded a significantly larger explosion than North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006, indicating advances in the country's nuclear weapons program.
The nuclear test drew condemnation from the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously adopted Resolution 1874 on April 12, 2009, imposing additional sanctions on North Korea in response to its nuclear activities. The resolution called for the tightening of existing sanctions and the imposition of new measures aimed at restricting North Korea's access to nuclear-related materials, technology, and financial resources. The nuclear test and missile launch underscored the persistent challenges posed by North Korea's nuclear ambitions and its defiance of international efforts to curb its proliferation activities. The actions also highlighted the urgent need for a coordinated and multilateral approach to address the North Korean nuclear issue and promote regional stability. In the wake of the nuclear test and missile launch, diplomatic efforts to engage North Korea and address its nuclear program intensified, with the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia participating in six-party talks aimed at denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. Despite sporadic progress and diplomatic overtures, efforts to reach a comprehensive agreement on denuclearization ultimately faltered, as North Korea continued to pursue its nuclear weapons program and engage in provocative behavior. In March 2009, North Korea's provocative actions sent shockwaves through the international community, serving as alarming confirmation of the regime's advancing missile and nuclear capabilities. The launch of the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 rocket, ostensibly for satellite purposes, was widely recognized as a thinly veiled test of long-range ballistic missile technology. This event, coupled with North Korea's subsequent nuclear test, underscored the regime's determination to enhance its military capabilities despite international sanctions and condemnation.
The Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 launch on March 5 was a brazen display of North Korea's missile prowess, showcasing its ability to develop and deploy advanced missile systems capable of reaching distant targets. Although the regime claimed the launch was for peaceful purposes, the international community viewed it as a flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions prohibiting ballistic missile tests. The successful launch of the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 represented a significant milestone for North Korea's missile program, raising concerns about the regime's ability to threaten regional and global security with its expanding arsenal. Just weeks later, North Korea conducted its second nuclear weapons test, further alarming the international community and confirming the regime's determination to advance its nuclear capabilities. The underground test, conducted at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site, yielded a more powerful explosion than North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006, signaling significant progress in the regime's nuclear program. This test provided concrete evidence of North Korea's ability to produce more sophisticated nuclear weapons and demonstrated its disregard for international non-proliferation efforts. The events of March 2009 served as a stark wake-up call for the international community, highlighting the urgent need to address the growing threat posed by North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. The launches of the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 rocket and the subsequent nuclear test underscored the regime's defiance of international norms and its willingness to pursue its military objectives at the expense of regional stability and security. In response to these provocations, the United Nations Security Council imposed additional sanctions on North Korea, aiming to curb its proliferation activities and pressure the regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
The parliamentary elections of 2009 in Moldova marked a significant turning point in the country's political landscape, with the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) emerging victorious amid widespread disillusionment with the previous government's management. The success of the Russophile and Pro-Soviet PCRM was fueled by a stark contrast between Moldova and its former regions of Transnistria and Gagauzia, both of which had experienced development and stability under Moscow's influence compared to the perceived stagnation in the rest of Moldova. The PCRM's victory in the elections reflected deep-seated grievances among Moldovan citizens regarding economic hardships, corruption, and a lack of progress under previous administrations. Many voters saw the PCRM as a symbol of stability and continuity, harkening back to the country's Soviet past when Moldova was part of the larger Soviet Union. The party's platform, which emphasized social welfare policies and closer ties with Russia, resonated with segments of the population disillusioned with the perceived failures of pro-Western governance. The contrast between Moldova and its of Transnistria and Gagauzia, now autonomous regions within the Union State played a crucial role in shaping the electoral outcome. Transnistria and Gaguazia had developed its economy, social infrastructure, presenting a model of stability and prosperity compared to Moldova proper. These disparities between Moldova and now Moscow controlled Transnistria and Gaguazia fueled resentment and frustration among Moldovan voters, who perceived their government's inability to deliver tangible improvements in living standards and economic opportunities. The PCRM capitalized on these sentiments by promising to strengthen ties with Russia, which many saw as a source of stability and support. Additionally, the party's emphasis on social welfare programs and state intervention in the economy appealed to segments of the population seeking protection from the uncertainties of market reforms and globalization.
The victory of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) in the 2009 parliamentary elections sent ripples of concern throughout Washington and Brussels, where policymakers feared that Moldova might shift its geopolitical orientation away from the European Union (EU) and NATO towards closer alignment with the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), led by Russia. Such a move would have significant implications for regional security and geopolitical dynamics in Eastern Europe. The PCRM's historical ties to Russia and its advocacy for closer cooperation with Moscow raised alarms among Western leaders, who viewed Moldova's potential departure from EU and NATO integration as a setback for Euro-Atlantic security and stability. Moldova's strategic location between Ukraine and Romania, made it a focal point in the broader geopolitical competition between Russia and the Western powers. Washington and Brussels feared that a PCRM-led government in Moldova would prioritize strengthening ties with Russia at the expense of its relations with the EU and NATO. Such a realignment could undermine Western efforts in the region. Moreover, Moldova's potential alignment with the CSTO and the EAEU under a PCRM-led government would have implications for regional balance of power between Russia and the West in Moscow's favor. It could further embolden Russia's assertive foreign policy in the region and contribute to the consolidation of Moscow's influence over former Soviet states, exacerbating tensions between Russia and the West. In response to these concerns, Washington and Brussels intensified diplomatic efforts to engage with Moldovan political leaders, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders to reaffirm their commitment to Moldova's European integration path. They offered incentives, including financial assistance, technical support, and political cooperation, to bolster Moldova's democratic institutions, advance economic development, and strengthen its resilience to external pressures.
Additionally, Western powers sought to reinforce Moldova's ties with the EU and NATO and counterbalance Russian influence in the region. They emphasized the importance of upholding democratic principles, respecting human rights, and promoting good governance as essential elements of Moldova's Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Despite these efforts, the specter of Moldova's potential reorientation towards Russia loomed large, posing challenges to Western policymakers seeking to maintain stability and security in Eastern Europe. The outcome of Moldova's internal political dynamics and its foreign policy orientation remained uncertain, underscoring the complexity of geopolitical rivalries and power struggles in the region. The PCRM's decision not to pursue Moldova's exit from the EU and NATO was largely influenced by Moscow's strategic calculus and its desire to utilize Moldova as a proxy within these Western institutions to advance its own geopolitical objectives. By keeping Moldova tethered to the EU and NATO, Russia aimed to wield influence and leverage over key decision-making processes while undermining Western unity and cohesion from within.
From Moscow's perspective, Moldova's continued membership in the EU and NATO provided a valuable opportunity to exert influence and shape outcomes in these organizations to align with Russia's interests. By maintaining a presence through the PCRM-led government, Russia could effectively lobby for policies and initiatives that served its strategic goals while countering Western initiatives that ran counter to its interests. Moscow's strategy of using Moldova as a proxy within the EU and NATO involved a combination of political, economic, and diplomatic measures aimed at securing Moldova's alignment with Russia's interests. This included providing political support to the PCRM-led government, offering economic incentives and investment opportunities, and leveraging energy resources as a means of exerting pressure and influence. Additionally, Russia sought to cultivate close ties with Moldovan political elites and decision-makers, fostering a network of allies and supporters within the country's political establishment. This allowed Moscow to exert influence behind the scenes and shape Moldova's policy direction in line with its own strategic objectives. Overall, Russia's decision to keep Moldova within the EU and NATO fold through the PCRM-led government underscored its strategic priorities and its willingness to use political leverage and proxy actors to advance its geopolitical goals. By retaining Moldova as a pliable ally within these Western institutions, Russia aimed to safeguard its interests, counter Western influence, and maintain its position as a key player in Eastern Europe.
The dismissal of Prime Minister Nabiullina by President Lukashenko in May 2009 marked a significant turning point in the ongoing political conflict between the two leaders, which had been brewing for months. Nabiullina's tenure as Prime Minister since 1999 had seen her rise to prominence as a key political figure in Russia. Her proactive leadership, especially the global financial crisis had earned her widespread admiration and support, both within the government and among the general population. However, her growing popularity and independent stance posed a challenge to Lukashenko's authority and control over the political landscape. Lukashenko's decision to remove Nabiullina from her position was driven by various factors, including concerns over her increasing popularity, perceived independence, and diverging political ambitions. As Prime Minister, Nabiullina had advocated for reform and modernization, earning praise for her proactive approach to governance. However, her rising influence threatened Lukashenko's grip on power, leading him to take decisive action to assert his dominance. In nominating Dmitry Medvedev as Nabiullina's replacement, Lukashenko sought to install a more compliant figure who would align closely with his agenda and priorities. Medvedev, a seasoned politician and longtime ally of Lukashenko, was seen as a suitable candidate to help consolidate power and quell dissent within the government. His appointment signaled Lukashenko's determination to maintain control over the political landscape and neutralize any challenges to his authority. The dismissal of Nabiullina and the appointment of Medvedev triggered a wave of protests and demonstrations across the country, with Nabiullina's supporters rallying behind her and demanding her reinstatement. Many viewed Lukashenko's actions as a blatant power grab aimed at stifling dissent and maintaining his hold on power. The upheaval and uncertainty surrounding the leadership change underscored the deep divisions within Russia's political landscape and raised questions about the country's future direction under Lukashenko's leadership. Despite the challenges, Medvedev assumed the role of Prime Minister and moved swiftly to consolidate his position and assert his authority. He pledged to work closely with Lukashenko to address the country's challenges and pursue a unified agenda focused on economic stability, social development, and national security. However, the shadow of Nabiullina's dismissal continued to loom large, casting a pall over the political landscape and highlighting the ongoing struggle for power and influence within Russia.
President Lukashenko's announcement in late June 2009 that Russia would put cosmonauts on the Moon by the year 2016 garnered attention of the global space community and captured the imagination of people around the world. The declaration marked a bold and ambitious leap forward in Russia's space exploration efforts, signaling the country's intention to reclaim its position as a leader in space exploration and innovation. Lukashenko's announcement came at a time of renewed interest and investment in space exploration, as nations around the world sought to push the boundaries of human achievement and unlock the mysteries of the cosmos. Russia, with its rich history and tradition of space exploration, was well-positioned to spearhead such an ambitious endeavor and reaffirm its status as a pioneer in space exploration. The announcement sparked widespread excitement and anticipation, as scientists, engineers, and space enthusiasts eagerly awaited further details about Russia's plans to return humans to the Moon. The prospect of cosmonauts once again setting foot on the lunar surface captivated the public imagination and reignited dreams of interstellar exploration and discovery. Lukashenko's announcement also underscored Russia's commitment to advancing scientific knowledge and pushing the boundaries of human exploration. By setting a bold goal to land cosmonauts on the Moon within a relatively short timeframe, Russia demonstrated its determination to achieve greatness in the field of space exploration and cement its place as a global leader in science and technology. The announcement was met with both enthusiasm and skepticism, as some questioned the feasibility of such an ambitious timeline and the practical challenges involved in sending humans back to the Moon. However, many experts and observers applauded Russia's bold vision and expressed optimism about the potential scientific and technological breakthroughs that could result from such a monumental endeavor.
Last edited:
1. Please write down, how Russian Moon landing should be handled - alone or in cooperation with countries like Ukraine, China and India?
2. Should Russia continue to participate in the International Space Station (ISS) or build its own space station?
A) Russia should continue to participate in the ISS
B) Russia should build its own space station
3. Please write down how should presence of de-facto Russian puppet state of Moldova in EU and NATO be utilized by Moscow?
2. Should Russia continue to participate in the International Space Station (ISS) or build its own space station?
A) Russia should continue to participate in the ISS
B) Russia should build its own space station
3. Please write down how should presence of de-facto Russian puppet state of Moldova in EU and NATO be utilized by Moscow?
Last edited:
It's sad to see Trump lose such a close vote, although he may return in 24 in RL and in our TL.
It is good to see that we are doing awesome in manufacturing. But the GDP figures are once again too bloated; they didn't look affected by the financial crisis. Is every nation growing at 10+ speed, and what are China and America doing? They are growing almost too fast. There is a need for a 5% cut to every nation's GDP.
It is good to see that we are doing awesome in manufacturing. But the GDP figures are once again too bloated; they didn't look affected by the financial crisis. Is every nation growing at 10+ speed, and what are China and America doing? They are growing almost too fast. There is a need for a 5% cut to every nation's GDP.
So gimme me proposition how it should look like for each contry in the list
Gaúcho Maldito
Banned
We should bring an Ukrainian in. But a Russian should be the one to set foot first.
Let China and India out of it, but postpone the mission if needed to guarantee safety.
Last edited:
1-The Moon landing should be done with cooperation from our CSTO and EAEU allies only. While China, India, and others are strategic partners of the Union State, if we allow them to be on board the project, we will not be the leaders and instead be partners. While cooperating in space is fine, we should at least prove to the world we can get there by ourselves first.
2-A. There’s no reason to not continue working on the ISS while it exists. We should plan to make our own station in the future, or a possible ISS2, but for now working on the ISS is fine.
3-I want to see what others think.
Gaúcho Maldito
Banned
Russia should work with India and China to build a shared-space station, all while inviting third world nations with strong economies like Indonesia and Vietnam to contribute. This would decrease the costs while giving us geopolitical clout and prestige worldwide.
Remember that Space Stations are mainly vanity projects today. We ought not to spend too much money in it. Let's take the path of less resistance.
We should utilize Moldova to push against the federalization agenda of the Brussels' elite, as well as vetoing any eventual NATO expansion project. Think of Orban's Hungary, but more reliable for us. Use anti-woke agendas to galvanize the Eastern European countries against the Western European ones.
Last edited:
Gaúcho Maldito
Banned
Thinking about it, if we are going to land on the moon by 2016, this should be placed as the galvanizing moment for the unification of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, considering it will happen just a few years after our intervention in Ukraine. The landing should happen just after the entry of Ukraine into the Union State. This would send a strong message to the world and a hopeful message to the Slavs. It means the Union State is succedding where the USSR failed, and that it's making up for it's failures in more ways than one.
Last edited:
Gaúcho Maldito
Banned
A Federated EU is naturally bad for Russia. The Union State's interests inherently lie in a divided Europe with which Moscow can negotiate in a one-to-one basis. Trump is our friend. We should comemorate his crazyness, not be afraid of it. Only western jornalists fear some misplaced words on interviews.
Last edited: