A New Beginning - Our 1992 Russian Federation

Reader mode
Onedotman

Onedotman

1. President Fyodorov is about to travel to Asia and meet with leaders of China and India. The question is which of the Asian giants is more important for Russia - China or India?
A) India has always been our historical ally, so we can show our commitment to them whenever we want. Whereas there's no better time to strengthen ties with China than now, especially when China with its vast market and workforce is becoming more and more integrated in the global economy. Besides, we also need to resolve some long-standing border disputes with China.
2. President Fyodorov was approached by a representative of Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians - who in exchange for money and protection offer their political allegiance and support for Russian interest in Ukraine.
B) Better not helping them in the first place rather than get ourselves embarrassed once the plans are leaked.
3. Please write down, how the reform of the Russian education system should be done?
Ruffino's plan.
 
Last edited:

Kriss

Sovyetski17 said:
2). While I am in general agreement of ruffino's position on the oligarchs, Kriss' points actually give me an idea, one in the making but an idea nonetheless:
  1. Reject the help of the oligarchs, but keep it quiet...
  2. Wait for the oligarchs to inevitably turn to the west/EU, then let them make some clearly public move (say, a massive business trip to London/Berlin/Washington/wherever or letting western leaders attend a political/economic conference of some sort primarily attended by the oligarchs); perhaps even wait a little longer until one or the other makes an unambiguous affirmation that the two groups will be working together for the foreseeable future.
  3. Publicly leak the oligarchs' initial offer to Russia.
The effects here will be three-fold:
  1. The oligarchs' influence and authority collapse quickly as it is clear that they are willing to sell out Ukraine to whatever foreign power is interested in being their "sugar daddy" so to speak
  2. Russia will gain Ukrainian popular support for refusing to undermine the country's democracy for the sake of government influence.
  3. The west will be embarrassed and lose Ukrainian popular support for doing the exact opposite.
I haven't fully developed the idea yet, and I'm certain there's a bunch of folds that need to be ironed out, but it's something I'm very interested in. Thoughts? Suggestions?
Click to expand...

While that seems like fun it's far better if we simply give information further to the Pro Russian Primeminister and let him and Ukraine handle the matters internally without Russian involvement opposed to causing an international incident while not even knowing to who these Oligarchs and politicians serve, or the consequences this would cause in Ukraine.

Also let's not underestimate these people, West in particular has enough cloth to turn this around and say that those Politicians and Oligarchs served Russia before West swindled them at which point it will be our word against theirs creating a confusion and media storm (they won't just take that humiliation lying down abd will start a propaganda and media war with us), not to mention big question of Ukrainian public will ask why we even keep that information for so long? Instead of sharing in right away. Believe me Russia won't come as a hero put if this.

Other flaw with that plan is that politics demand transparency, yes we stir up the Storm that those Oligarchs probably won't survive (but once again this kind of story can easily be spun around like conspiracy theory), but our political credibility will be ruined as no one will want to approach someone that will leak their secrets behind the closed door and many things are done behind the closed door in politics. For example when Clinton was expanding NATO he got a deal with Yeltsin that Russia won't create a problem in exchange for economic help,but that deal was done behind the closed door.

If we plan to make a move best option is to work with Pro Russian part of the Ukrainian government and observe these Oligarchs until we have concrete proofs about their cooperation with the West.
 
Last edited:

Sovyetski17

Kriss said:
While that seems like fun it's far better if we simply give information further to the Pro Russian Primeminister and let him and Ukraine handle the matters internally without Russian involvement opposed to causing an international incident while not even knowing to who these Oligarchs and politicians serve, or the consequences this would cause in Ukraine.

Also let's not underestimate these people, West in particular has enough cloth to turn this around and say that those Politicians and Oligarchs served Russia before West swindled them at which point it will be our word against theirs creating a confusion and media storm (they won't just take that humiliation lying down abd will start a propaganda and media war with us), not to mention big question of Ukrainian public will ask why we even keep that information for so long? Instead of sharing in right away. Believe me Russia won't come as a hero put if this.

Other flaw with that plan is that politics demand transparency, yes we stir up the Storm that those Oligarchs probably won't survive (but once again this kind of story can easily be spun around like conspiracy theory), but our political credibility will be ruined as no one will want to approach someone that will leak their secrets behind the closed door and many things are done behind the closed door in politics. For example when Clinton was expanding NATO he got a deal with Yeltsin that Russia won't create a problem in exchange for economic help,but that deal was done behind the closed door.

If we plan to make a move best option is to work with Pro Russian part of the Ukrainian government and observe these Oligarchs until we have concrete proofs about their cooperation with the West.
Click to expand...
That was actually something that struck me a little while after my post. Actually, your plan is much safer and, honesty, much better; instead of starting, as you say, an international incident, Russia can simply work with the UkraGov instead. The benefits will still pretty much be there (generate some goodwill with Ukraine and, if they openly announce it, the world, and prove that Russia is a trustworthy ally for foreign governments).

My only concern here is that the UkraGov only has Russia's word that there's an oligarch conspiracy against the country. They can believe them at face value or, equally as likely, assume:
  1. Russia was already working with the oligarchs and that this "tipoff" is the result of a falling-out
  2. This is all some bizarre diplomatic shenanigan and the oligarchs are being framed
My amendment to this plan would be to still hold back and do some due diligence, dig up evidence that these oligarchs really are planning on betraying Ukraine, and then let them know. They'll still be a little suspicious that Russia held back on the info, but I think they'll also be more forgiving and willing to believe them if they're presented with sufficient evidence of the conspiracy.

Whatever the case, I still think it's an unsafe idea to work with the oligarchs.
  1. As far as I know, Russia has no leverage over them; sure, if things go sour, they could simply threaten to commit political murder-suicide, but it's a pretty weak knife to their throats. I would be much more amenable to this choice if we can work out some way to ensure that Russia has some sort of control over the oligarchs and that the latter can't simply end the deal if things don't go their way. Preferably, we should frame this as a trap and lure them into a false sense of control over the situation.
  2. We need to remember that it's not just the big governments and oligarchs with agency here. Some snoopy journalist (likely western, but also likely Ukrainian) could discover the deal on their own and blow the whistle. Like with the above point, I would feel safer if we can work out some contingencies to ensure that if the oligarchs go down, it won't be directly or clearly traced to Russia (I'll allow for conspiracy theories to still arise, but that's my limit of comfort).
Whatever the case, thank you for your input, Kriss.
 

Sovyetski17

While I'm here, I suppose I should also say that in the India-China question, I support C). Try to find a balance between the two. I don't see the issue as a zero-sum matter, and frankly, clearly throwing away one for the other seems a bit stupid; it does guarantee an ally, but it also guarantees a definite enemy (and if it's China, will definitely make some officials feel a little deja vu and have them turn to the US as an ally of convenience again).

Having two demographic titans with economic potential be partners (at least for the time being) will definitely be a boon to Russia's international presence, and I think, barring the Kashmir dispute and maybe the Naxalites, it should be easy to maintain pleasant relations between the two powers.
 
The State of Russian Automotive Industry in the 1993
  • Index

    • Kriss

    The State of Russian Automotive Industry in the 1993 .

    After the dissolution of USSR its former Automotive industry which produced 2.1-2.3 million units per year of all types has found itself divided between former republics, bulk of it going to Russia, in fact overall production of 1.8 millions units was located in Russian SFSR, later Russian Federation. The main domestic manufacturers in the early 1990s were AvtoVAZ, AZLK, IzhAvto, GAZ and UAZ.

    To understand Automotive industry of Russian federation in 1993 its important to understand conditions prevailing in USSR, prior to 1988, private buyers were also not allowed to buy commercial vehicles like minibuses, vans, trucks or buses for personal use. Domestic car production satisfied only 45% of the domestic demand; nevertheless, no import of cars was permitted. By the late 1980s,many of these companies, but most notably AvtoVAZ were suffering from the deterioration of its capital goods, such as tools and machinery, resulting from insufficient levels of investment over a long period. Unproductive and antiquated management techniques also contributed to the decline, as did the absence of market competition.

    But following dissolution of USSR and establishment of Russian Federation Automotive industry was in for some major changes. Most Automotive companies were converted into joint-stock companies and were mostly consolidated under leadership of the Management , elected by shareholders of the new companies, in 1992 to respect his pre-election promise President Fyodorov pushed for establishment of independent Union of Unions to represent workers properly, this contributed to raise in the morale of the workers across all sectors, including in Automotive industry as many felt that previous Unions were to close to the Management.

    In order to stimulate some competition into the Automotive market forgein brands were allowed but due to heavy protectionist policies most of these brands were still unavailable outside special economic zones to most of the Russian society ensuring that domestic car makers won't be pushed out of the market, though due to end of planned economy most of these makers were now in direct competition which each others. To further support its Automotive industry Russian Federation subsidized it with generous loans and various concessions in order to help Automotive industry to modernize and to maintain its competitive edge on Euroasian Custom Union market and aboard, one of the main challenges being maintaining competitiveness in European markets and especially Britain where exports of Lada peaked at 30.000 units in late 1980s. Russian government also remained one of the main buyers for domestic Automakers , buying Cars, Buses, limousines etc. in official function for state needs ensuring secure market for the industry.

    In order to secure that products were up to newest standards quality controls were implemented as well as various safety regulations, lack of machinery and tools was overcome by government making an exception in its protectionist policies and allowing companies to aquire machinery and tools from forgein companies until domestic producers are up to standards.

    Otherwise in order to remain competitive on forgein and domestic markets new, more modern designs were adopted.

    For example AZLK , producer of Moskvitch brand

    Logo_ao_moskvich.jpg


    launched design and experimental work to create a new model car (sedan M-2142) and an engine plant.

    5f110aes-960.jpg


    While AvtoVAZ, producer of Lada

    Lada_company_logo.png


    Launched the Lada 110-series in 1993.

    2110.jpeg



    With the demand for cars growing, especially with improving economic situation.

    By the end of the 1990s, overall output increased by 14.2% in comparison with Soviet Times and achieved production of 2,055,600 units, main target being Russian domestic market and EEU/CIS markets which will become one of the most important markets for Russian and by extension Ukrainian producers.
     
    Last edited:
  • Index
    • panpiotr

    panpiotr

    Kriss said:
    The State of Russian Automotive Industry in the 1993 .

    After the dissolution of USSR its former Automotive industry which produced 2.1-2.3 million units per year of all types has found itself divided between former republics, bulk of it going to Russia, in fact overall production of 1.8 millions units was located in Russian SFSR, later Russian Federation. The main domestic manufacturers in the early 1990s were AvtoVAZ, AZLK, IzhAvto, GAZ and UAZ.

    To understand Automotive industry of Russian federation in 1993 its important to understand conditions prevailing in USSR, prior to 1988, private buyers were also not allowed to buy commercial vehicles like minibuses, vans, trucks or buses for personal use. Domestic car production satisfied only 45% of the domestic demand; nevertheless, no import of cars was permitted. By the late 1980s,many of these companies, but most notably AvtoVAZ were suffering from the deterioration of its capital goods, such as tools and machinery, resulting from insufficient levels of investment over a long period. Unproductive and antiquated management techniques also contributed to the decline, as did the absence of market competition.

    But following dissolution of USSR and establishment of Russian Federation Automotive industry was in for some major changes. Most Automotive companies were converted into joint-stock companies and were mostly consolidated under leadership of the Management , elected by shareholders of the new companies, in 1992 to respect his pre-election promise President Fyodorov pushed for establishment of independent Union of Unions to represent workers properly, this contributed to raise in the morale of the workers across all sectors, including in Automotive industry as many felt that previous Unions were to close to the Management.

    In order to stimulate some competition into the Automotive market forgein brands were allowed but due to heavy protectionist policies most of these brands were still unavailable outside special economic zones to most of the Russian society ensuring that domestic car makers won't be pushed out of the market, though due to end of planned economy most of these makers were now in direct competition which each others. To further support its Automotive industry Russian Federation subsidized it with generous loans and various concessions in order to help Automotive industry to modernize and to maintain its competitive edge on Euroasian Custom Union market and aboard, one of the main challenges being maintaining competitiveness in European markets and especially Britain where exports of Lada peaked at 30.000 units in late 1980s. Russian government also remained one of the main buyers for domestic Automakers , buying Cars, Buses, limousines etc. in official function for state needs ensuring secure market for the industry.

    In order to secure that products were up to newest standards quality controls were implemented as well as various safety regulations, lack of machinery and tools was overcome by government making an exception in its protectionist policies and allowing companies to aquire machinery and tools from forgein companies until domestic producers are up to standards.

    Otherwise in order to remain competitive on forgein and domestic markets new, more modern designs were adopted.

    For example AZLK , producer of Moskvitch brand

    View attachment 872142

    launched design and experimental work to create a new model car (sedan M-2142) and an engine plant.

    View attachment 872149

    While AvtoVAZ, producer of Lada

    View attachment 872147

    Launched the Lada 110-series in 1993.

    View attachment 872148


    With the demand for cars growing, especially with improving economic situation.

    In 1993, overall output increased by 14.2% in comparison with Soviet Times and achieved production of 2,055,600 units, main target being Russian domestic market and EEU/CIS markets which will become one of the most important markets for Russian and by extension Ukrainian producers.
    Click to expand...
    Love it! Many thanks for the post!
     
    ThePinkRabbit

    ThePinkRabbit

    Kriss said:
    The State of Russian Automotive Industry in the 1993 .

    After the dissolution of USSR its former Automotive industry which produced 2.1-2.3 million units per year of all types has found itself divided between former republics, bulk of it going to Russia, in fact overall production of 1.8 millions units was located in Russian SFSR, later Russian Federation. The main domestic manufacturers in the early 1990s were AvtoVAZ, AZLK, IzhAvto, GAZ and UAZ.

    To understand Automotive industry of Russian federation in 1993 its important to understand conditions prevailing in USSR, prior to 1988, private buyers were also not allowed to buy commercial vehicles like minibuses, vans, trucks or buses for personal use. Domestic car production satisfied only 45% of the domestic demand; nevertheless, no import of cars was permitted. By the late 1980s,many of these companies, but most notably AvtoVAZ were suffering from the deterioration of its capital goods, such as tools and machinery, resulting from insufficient levels of investment over a long period. Unproductive and antiquated management techniques also contributed to the decline, as did the absence of market competition.

    But following dissolution of USSR and establishment of Russian Federation Automotive industry was in for some major changes. Most Automotive companies were converted into joint-stock companies and were mostly consolidated under leadership of the Management , elected by shareholders of the new companies, in 1992 to respect his pre-election promise President Fyodorov pushed for establishment of independent Union of Unions to represent workers properly, this contributed to raise in the morale of the workers across all sectors, including in Automotive industry as many felt that previous Unions were to close to the Management.

    In order to stimulate some competition into the Automotive market forgein brands were allowed but due to heavy protectionist policies most of these brands were still unavailable outside special economic zones to most of the Russian society ensuring that domestic car makers won't be pushed out of the market, though due to end of planned economy most of these makers were now in direct competition which each others. To further support its Automotive industry Russian Federation subsidized it with generous loans and various concessions in order to help Automotive industry to modernize and to maintain its competitive edge on Euroasian Custom Union market and aboard, one of the main challenges being maintaining competitiveness in European markets and especially Britain where exports of Lada peaked at 30.000 units in late 1980s. Russian government also remained one of the main buyers for domestic Automakers , buying Cars, Buses, limousines etc. in official function for state needs ensuring secure market for the industry.

    In order to secure that products were up to newest standards quality controls were implemented as well as various safety regulations, lack of machinery and tools was overcome by government making an exception in its protectionist policies and allowing companies to aquire machinery and tools from forgein companies until domestic producers are up to standards.

    Otherwise in order to remain competitive on forgein and domestic markets new, more modern designs were adopted.

    For example AZLK , producer of Moskvitch brand

    View attachment 872142

    launched design and experimental work to create a new model car (sedan M-2142) and an engine plant.

    View attachment 872149

    While AvtoVAZ, producer of Lada

    View attachment 872147

    Launched the Lada 110-series in 1993.

    View attachment 872148


    With the demand for cars growing, especially with improving economic situation.

    In 1993, overall output increased by 14.2% in comparison with Soviet Times and achieved production of 2,055,600 units, main target being Russian domestic market and EEU/CIS markets which will become one of the most important markets for Russian and by extension Ukrainian producers.
    Click to expand...
    Nice. I'm pleased.
     

    John Howard

    panpiotr said:
    What is your opinion on establishing a union state between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan
    Click to expand...
    I am in favor of that, because Russia is close with both countries. Also, for economic and geopolitical reasons because Belarus is next to Poland, they have substantial industry. Kazakhstan because it has a large number of Russians, natural resources and the Baikonur cosmodrone. Hopefully, that will be expand to all 5 Central Asian countries.
     

    Kriss

    panpiotr said:
    What is your opinion on establishing a union state between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan
    Click to expand...
    Empress_Boogalaboo said:
    I can see one occurring between Russia and Belarus, though I think Kazakhstan, while initially on board, will actually be far harder to convince.

    Seems like an interesting idea to work towards though.
    Click to expand...

    I generally agree with this sentiment, but i would like to add that Union with Kazakhstan is pretty much impossible.

    Honestly i prefer annexation of Belarus in Russian federation as autonomous unit over any potential new state building. Regarding Kazakhstan itself... It's true that there were proposals about possible union, but from Kazakhstans side their president only wanted formation of Euroasian Economic Union in 1994, not formation of close federation like former USSR, which was something what Belarus and Russia were proposing at the time.

    Idea of Union State was going more along the lines of uniting Belarus and Russia which is honestly more realistic given cultural similarities and could make for a more functioning federal state.
     
    Last edited:

    Sovyetski17

    Admittedly, I'm not very knowledgable of post-Soviet relations history, but I think such a Union State might theoretically work.
    • Belarus will be the easiest; both are Eastern Slavic nations (well, Russia's mostly Eastern Slavic at least), according to Wikipedia, Belarus seemed reluctant to leave the USSR in the first place (apparently the pro-independence party won just 10% of the legislature), and in our timeline, both even managed to get the Union State project off the ground, though if I remember correctly, it quietly faded in the early 2000s and today is de facto on indefinite hiatus.
      • The only problem I can see here would be Lukashenko, who in our timeline won the presidency during the summer of 1994; call me pessimistic, but I don't see him willingly handing over his newly-gained presidency to Russia in any capacity, autonomous or not. It seems that at the moment, we are just a couple months away from that point, so if Russia wants a Union State with Belarus, it better happen quick or Luka will cockblock it hard.
    • I will admit, Kazakhstan is a total blank spot for me. On the one hand, they were, for a few days, the last remaining Soviet republic to not have declared independence, indicating that they may be amiable for a reunification of sorts; it helps that there's a large ethnically-Russian minority in the far north. On the other, Kazakhstan is a central-Asian, ethnically Turkic nation that, to my knowledge, doesn't have much connection with Russia other than recent political history; I'm certain that at least a few pro-independence groups will raise some incidents if the country tries to rejoin what they'd consider a USSR 2.0. The whole thing can go either way, as I can tell, a complete coin toss.
    Those are just my two cents; again, I'm just going off of bits and pieces I've picked up over the years, so if anyone much more knowledgable wants to step in and give their opinion, please feel free to do so.
     

    Kriss

    Sovyetski17 said:
    I will admit, Kazakhstan is a total blank spot for me. On the one hand, they were, for a few days, the last remaining Soviet republic to not have declared independence, indicating that they may be amiable for a reunification of sorts; it helps that there's a large ethnically-Russian minority in the far north. On the other, Kazakhstan is a central-Asian, ethnically Turkic nation that, to my knowledge, doesn't have much connection with Russia other than recent political history; I'm certain that at least a few pro-independence groups will raise some incidents if the country tries to rejoin what they'd consider a USSR 2.0. The whole thing can go either way, as I can tell, a complete coin toss.
    Click to expand...

    From what i understand they only wanted formation of Euroasian Economic Union in 1994, but there were never talks about forming union state with Russia and Belarus.

    As for Lukhashenko , he was actually a proponent of the Union state and had basically bullied Yeltsin into accepting it, opposition was against such union. Rationale was to bind weak Belarus economy to Russia and it should be even stronger in this timeline, what reversed that was Freedom March in Belarus in 1999. So as long as we act quickly enough we could form such union.

    Basically if we act quickly enough we could generally get Belarus to join us by the end of the 90s , though that would probably involve some sort of concession to Lukhashenko. Maybe some official function, or something similar.
     
    panpiotr

    panpiotr

    thanks for your comments, I will go with Union between Russia and Belarus only then. Union state will be established in late 90s
     
    Gigachad3k

    Gigachad3k

    panpiotr said:
    1. President Fyodorov is about to travel to Asia and meet with leaders of China and India. The question is which of the Asian giants is more important for Russia - China or India?
    A) Favor India - they are our historical allies;
    B) Favor China - they have the biggest economic and industrial potential in Asia;
    C) try to find a balance - the best path would be to remain on terms with both powers.

    2. President Fyodorov was approached by a representative of Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians - who in exchange for money and protection offer their political allegiance and support for Russian interest in Ukraine.
    A) Agree to the deal - we could use them as our agents in Ukraine;
    B) Don't agree to the deal - it is a waste of money and time.

    3. Please write down, how should the reform of Russian education system should be done?
    Click to expand...
    1. C)
    2. B)
    3. Russia can take inspiration from the successful education systems of Finland, Germany and Japan during education reform. Each of these countries has unique aspects that can offer insights and improvements for Russia in the education system like Finland's holistic approach to education, Germany's dual education system and Japan's Emphasis on Discipline and Academic Strength.
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top
    Top