The main Russian problem is not the NATO expansion. They think that Russia us a superpower like the US or the PRC but Russia can't be a superpower after Ukrainian independence.

Russia lost being a Superpower when they gave up the Warsaw Pact. They lose being a Great Power if they lose Belarus or Ukraine.

McCain’s gas station with nukes comment is ugly, but sort of real of a Kremlin that has retrenched that far. Not so real if Ukraine and Belarus are in whatever Eurasian Union that exists.

Bush 41 understood this hense his Chicken Kiev speech. That lulled Moscow into a sense we would still let them be a Great Power. The Bush 43 years ended that understanding.
 
Last edited:
So are you saying saying for a powerful Russia/USSR/CIS/whatever to work, it needs central asian oil and manpower alongside Ukrainian vast food supplies, ports, and its Slavic population to balance out the Turkics in Central Asia?
Ukrainian industries were even more important. Central Asia excluding Kazakhstan was less important for the "Eurasian Union" but it was came up in the set with the Soviet/Eurasian Union/USS/Great Russia until 1991. I can see the Soviet/Eurasian Union even without Ukraine but it would be very unstable construction due the Russian share in the Union and conflicts between RF and the Union


And that grabbing Crimea, though popular, would permanently drive the rest of Ukraine away from Russia and wad therefore not pursued, iut of hope for Ukraine’s return to Russia’s sphere of influence?
There was people like Rutskoi who could prefer a "little victorious war" and the Tricolour over Simferopol more than long-term strategy but Yeltsin didn't let him come to power. He could see that the Russian strategy works: Ukraine agreed with the Russian naval base in Sevastopol and Russian capital had more freedom of action in Ukraine than western one.

And, at risk of going off topic, what policies are those, out of curiosity?
It was in the economic sphere, first of all, like active custom wars and desire to sell gas to Ukraine more expensive than to Germany. Also, there was more military incidents like Tuzla crisis but Ukrainian political class with little exceptions didn't want to see the writing on the wall.
Zhirinovsky is the Russian nationalist candidate right?
Yes. There is a TL about his presidency in the AH.com but based more on the rule of cool than realism.

So you’re saying NATO expansion wasn’t even really desired until they saw serious potential for a Russian expansionist to come to power?
If we talk about the Western powers, yes.


Bush 41 understood this hense his Chicken Kiev speech
Bush's trying to save the Soviet Union was caused by saving the status quo reasons and non-desire to have a deal with a Russian-Ukrainian war like in Yugoslavia and new nuclear powers after the USSR dissolution
 
Ukrainian industries were even more important.
Right I keep forgetting how industrial eastern Ukraine is.

Central Asia excluding Kazakhstan was less important for the "Eurasian Union" but it was came up in the set with the Soviet/Eurasian Union/USS/Great Russia until 1991. I can see the Soviet/Eurasian Union even without Ukraine but it would be very unstable construction due the Russian share in the Union and conflicts between RF and the Union
Right makes sense
There was people like Rutskoi who could prefer a "little victorious war" and the Tricolour over Simferopol more than long-term strategy but Yeltsin didn't let him come to power. He could see that the Russian strategy works: Ukraine agreed with the Russian naval base in Sevastopol and Russian capital had more freedom of action in Ukraine than western one.
Right. Did that get ruined ruined for/by Putin before or after he started annexing stuff?

It was in the economic sphere, first of all, like active custom wars and desire to sell gas to Ukraine more expensive than to Germany. Also, there was more military incidents like Tuzla crisis but Ukrainian political class with little exceptions didn't want to see the writing on the wall.
Ah so Russian economic selfishness & highly publicized military dickwaving had already pissed a lot of people off?

Yes. There is a TL about his presidency in the AH.com but based more on the rule of cool than realism.
Mmm.

If we talk about the Western powers, yes.
Right. Ofc countries bordering Russia with incredibly hostile relationship to it and bad histories with it, like Poland or the Baltic states, would be eager for the security.

Bush's trying to save the Soviet Union was caused by saving the status quo reasons and non-desire to have a deal with a Russian-Ukrainian war like in Yugoslavia and new nuclear powers after the USSR dissolution
What WAS his reaction when things turned out relatively ok in the ex USSR & Ukraine gave up its nukes? He was content to leave it as is?
 
Right. Did that get ruined ruined for/by Putin before or after he started annexing stuff?
Ukraine as a part of the Russian block died in the mid 2000s. Ukraine as a neutral state died in 2014.


That TL calls "Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire". It is a big and interesting thing but as i said it is more rule of cool TL


What WAS his reaction when things turned out relatively ok in the ex USSR & Ukraine gave up its nukes? He was content to leave it as is?
Bush declared himself and the US the winner in the Cold War after the USSR dissolution and forgot that he and Gorbachev declared the CW had ended in the December 1989
 
Ukraine as a part of the Russian block died in the mid 2000s. Ukraine as a neutral state died in 2014.
Mmm. Was the death of Russian alignment mainly down to gas debt disputes?

That TL calls "Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire". It is a big and interesting thing but as i said it is more rule of cool TL
Might give it a look

Bush declared himself and the US the winner in the Cold War after the USSR dissolution and forgot that he and Gorbachev declared the CW had ended in the December 1989
Real smoothe moove there lmao
 
Top