Russian territories.

For the discussion of Russian territories, former, current and future.

What is there to discuss, precisely?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:What is there to discuss, precisely?

Well primarily the schedule for the reclamation of lost territories such as Finland and Alaska aswell as the CIS nations.

I don't think anyone at Kremlin even considers reclaiming Alaska or Finland. Northern Kazakhstan, on the other hand is a different story. If there's a plan for it, it should only consider territories with Russian population which would be easy to incorporate and control. Basically, consolidate nation state after demise of Soviet Union.

Malorossiya is just as much Russia as malopolska is polska.

caveat emptor wrote:I don't think anyone at Kremlin even considers reclaiming Alaska or Finland. Northern Kazakhstan, on the other hand is a different story. If there's a plan for it, it should only consider territories with Russian population which would be easy to incorporate and control. Basically, consolidate nation state after demise of Soviet Union.

Northern Kazakhstan is barely of any strategic value - it's worthless to take it if doing so means a complete alienation of the rest of Kazakhstan. In addition the Russian population there is slowly decreasing regardless.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
As far as Alaska, it would be possible only after a collapse of USA in style of Soviet Union, with dissolution in several countries

Somehow I do not see pindostan coming to a sticky end as unlikely.

caveat emptor wrote:I don't think anyone at Kremlin even considers reclaiming Alaska or Finland. Northern Kazakhstan, on the other hand is a different story. If there's a plan for it, it should only consider territories with Russian population which would be easy to incorporate and control. Basically, consolidate nation state after demise of Soviet Union.

I think reclaiming all of Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan would ensure Russia's status as a superpower, these territories form a substantial part of the former Russian Empire and the Soviet Union

Can Russia annex Belarus?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Can Russia annex Belarus?

Is this a serious question?

Military related "annex" by force or future predicament of events like a succession?

Once Russia has got all the regions on 404 it needs to secure itself from NATO there will be a referendum in Belarus to join the Russian Federation.
Currently, there are to many uncertain aspects in peoples heads. To much foreign involvement of steering up youth against Lukashenko.
Right now we see a very soft phase of informational warfare from the Russian side to change some minds in favor for Russia. It is slow and some blow backs due to goals and trade-in of territory for our boys lifes.

Once it is secured it's goals I think by 2030-2035 we will see th eastern borders little bit closer to what they were before 1991.

The Russia now component does not include Crimea and the new Russian states and nor does it include Kaliningrad...

Kiev is a Russian city. The above is revisionist BS.

The Russia now component does not include Crimea and the new Russian states and nor does it include Kaliningrad...

Nor Sakhalin island or the Kuril islands

Are these the new borders being prepared for Russia by the globalist cabal, I wonder?

This is amusing... I like the new Russia that doesn't take BS anymore...

A 3rd capital, in Siberia, is needed- his arguments: https://www.globalaffairs.ru/articles/sibirizacziya-vtoroj-povorot/

Most likely it would be Novosibirsk or Krasnoyarsk or a new purpose built city nearby/between them, if/when a decision is made in Moscow.

Tsavo Lion wrote:A 3rd capital, in Siberia, is needed- his arguments: https://www.globalaffairs.ru/articles/sibirizacziya-vtoroj-povorot/

Most likely it would be Novosibirsk or Krasnoyarsk or a new purpose built city nearby/between them, if/when a decision is made in Moscow.

Most likely the US will have a 2nd capital in Dallas

If and when Trump makes the decision

Or in the Salt Lake City, UT, if 11 Western States form their own union & secede.
But it has nothing to do with Siberia's role in the new Russia.

Tsavo Lion wrote:A 3rd capital, in Siberia, is needed- his arguments: https://www.globalaffairs.ru/articles/sibirizacziya-vtoroj-povorot/

Most likely it would be Novosibirsk or Krasnoyarsk or a new purpose built city nearby/between them, if/when a decision is made in Moscow.

I wonder which will become the 3rd capital.
Kazan has trademarked the name apparently. But really the new capital is about the pivot to Asia.
Yburg is quite China connected and also not too far from Moscow. Its also a good side already.
Novosib is more China connected and can access China between Kazakstan and Mongolia. It's also already a very respectable size.
Kiev is perhaps one for the future as a historic capital. A large city with many, many cathedrals etc. It could be used to symbolise the Ancient Christian Russia, the rebirth and repair of the nation etc. The defeat of enemies in numerous countries, even in current times. Altho there is a lot of trash to be cleared still which may take 20 yrs or more to truly fix. Personally, I think Kiev should be immensely important for Russia, regardless of some of the vermin that currently reside there (and will thankfully scurry away like rats if not locked up).
Vladivostok has great links to the Koreas, Japan, China etc and sea links. Could be a great, glamourous visitor destination, esp for Asian travellers. There are certain ecological matters that would need to be dealt with professionally, not least because the area surrounding Vladiv. is a tiger capital of Russia.
Khabarovsk is similar to Vladiv. in credentials just without the stunning coastal location.
Finally there is the idea of a brand new 3 to 5 million purpose built city in the Far East.

My guess is that Novosib can become an economic powerhouse like 20th century Chicago.
Vladiv. can become a glamour location much like San Francisco or Miami. Vladiv. might be more cultural and tourist and less huge than say a Novosib 3rd capital.

An all new megapolis is particularly exciting, altho u can argue that Novosib, Vladiv or one of the others could also be dramatically enhanced to become a "new megapolis".

I wonder how long the emergence of a genuine 3rd capital will take?

Is a third capital even needed, or is it something the US and west are suggesting in the hopes of creating separate centres that can later be split away from the whole country?

I don't live in a capital city and most of the people I meet from capital cities seem to think they are the only people worth anything in the entire country and that they provide a pivotal role in keeping everything going, but most of the people in the rest of the country just think they are full of themselves.

Capital cities usually lead to centralisation of businesses and organisations... companies feel the need to be based in the capital so they can do business because every other business has an HQ there. It just bleeds money because most capitals are congested and bloated and more about the appearance of working that actually getting any real work done. They are manager cities. I would describe the UN in the US the same way... a great way for politicians and CEOs to spend money and waste time when a phone call would do most of the time.

Create infrastructure and communication and transport links, and upgrade the airports and shipping ports and rail links, but I would say building a few smaller urban areas around the place would be better than building a single huge city there. Smaller settlements can use smaller power generation systems which will be cheaper.

Russia doesn't need a 3rd capital. Or a 2nd capital.
St. Petersburg is called the 2nd capital because of historical reasons - for a couple hundred years it was the only capital.
But there was never such a thing as a '2nd capital' in Russia. You're either the one and only capital or you aren't.

What Russia does need though is regional capitals, so to speak. Large cities for every major district.
For the Urals this is Yekaterinburg. For Siberia it's Novosibirsk. For the Far East it's Vladivostok. For the North-West it's St. Petersburg. While Moscow is the capital of the Centre as well as the country as a whole.
While the Volga, North Caucasus and South don't have any unanimous capitals yet.

But you can break down districts further, or have capitals according to trade routes. For example the capital of the Northeast Passage would be Murmansk. The capital of the North-East is Yakutsk. The capital of the entire Yenisei river area, or mid-Siberia; is Krasnoyarsk.

And each of these cities should be transferred their share of responsibilities from Moscow, and whatever headquarters of relevant state corporations. Within reason naturally. It has to be kept in mind that as a country stretching over 11 time zones, it does make sense to just keep some things in the same geographic space and time-zone even if they might otherwise be a natural fit for some place else.

|@Garry and Flamming.

Maybe the word "capital" has the wrong connotations.
Capital can suggest somewhere that is self governing. I am absolutely against that with Russia.

Maybe a better phrase would be "top tier cities".

My argument is that numerous successful "top tier", prosperous, attractive cities on a world class level will enhance the cohesion of Russia.

Scotland has talked about independence from London, because London gets everything - money, infrastructure, tourism, power etc etc.

America has LA, NYC and Silicon Valley. With Chicago, Miami, Dallas etc also reasonably high profile cities.

With other capitals for Russia, what I mean is places that won't be drained by Moscow, or struggle.
In other words cities in Eastern Russia that will compete with Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai etc for culture, business location, tourism etc

Artists from all over Russia might flock to St P. Businessmen to Moscow. So how about there being alternatives to those 2?

Not many people outside of Russia know a huge amount about Vladiv, Novosib. or Yekat.
Of course they are very good cities. Far move liveable than Moscow in many ways.
My view is Russia as a great country deserves multiple cities that would be classed as great in their ability to attract tourists, investment, skills etc.

Of course things a re starting eg the failed Expo bids for Yekat. The casinos and leisure in Vladiv.
These things take time. And I didn't realistically see Yekat beating Dubai for the Expo bid.
The point is, big cities need to go beyond just "being liveable". It's happening with impressive cultural clusters being built in numerous Russian cities.

St P was built as a Dubai of it's era to be breathtaking, to inspire, to attract and go far beyond being a "liveable city". It was a massive step in the development of Russia. Just as an Eastern major city would have similar benefits for Russia's success AND internal cohesion.

"Eastern capital" or "3rd capital" are only marketing speak in the end. What I think it's about is Russia's OTHER big cities going beyond "nice" and into "wow I would love to live or set up my business/theatre/research company there"

Yeah I think that's a good definition, I agree

And definitely among Russia's top-tier cities that I see emerging this decade, aside from Moscow & St. Petersburg we have Ekaterinburg, Kazan, Vladivostok, Krasnodar, Sochi, Novosibirsk, Tyumen and Krasnoyarsk. These are all either at 1 million people or will be near that figure by 2030, and will be dynamic high-tech cities with diversified economies to boot.