The Annexation of Siberia

The Annexation of Siberia

Postby Americalex » Dec 31, 2011 3:29 am

There is actually a movement for the Annexation of Siberia to the USA apparently:

Image

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politic ... sia_usa-0/

You may laugh at it, but the idea finds its followers in the US. US politician Zbigniew Brzezhinski, a well-known politician, put forward an idea during his speech at the Political Forum in Yaroslavl to create a new commonwealth from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

Notice the article is fresh out from the 28th. What if all of Russia, Canada, and Northern Europe including Britain joined the USA? It would be the USA: The United States of the Arctic.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20234
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby cwa1984 » Dec 31, 2011 12:13 pm

Lets assume this isn't bullshit (it reeks of it) the Russian government would have to be desperate or destroyed for this to happen. I did search for this online and everything I found except from one blog from 2004 referred back to this article. Their were only two I found that didn't dismiss it as BS and I'll post them here to see what everyone's view of them are.


http://historysend.blogspot.com/2004/05/retro-colonization.html

Retro-Colonization
My last piece, Colonization, detailed steps taken by the People's Republic of China to colonize Siberia, and eventually wrest it away from Russia's control. Rob, of the blog Crushing Dissent, wondered what steps could be done to thwart the Chinese plan. I had been thinking of that for a while, and have found no good solutions from the Russian side of things. They really can't afford to move enough people over to Siberia to counter-act the problem, and even if they do, it only delays the inevitable.

One possible step to take would be for Russia to sell Siberia to the Chinese. If Russia can't hang onto Siberia anyways, it might as well get some profit off the loss. There is precedent, the Louisiana Purchase being most prominent of all. By selling Siberia to China, Russia can at least make something out of a bad situation. However, China will most likely not agree to such a deal. In the eyes of the Chinese leadership, Siberia is as good as theirs already. Simple numbers dictates that sooner or later they will exercise greater control there than Russia, and annexation is just a matter of time. Why buy now what you will get just a little into the future? China will most likely save the money and let the current plan precede apace.

Russia could do its best to try and get people in Europe or elsewhere to migrate to Siberia, but that is something that will probably achieve little. For one, Siberia isn't exactly the nicest place to live. And neither is Russia proper. The government doesn't have the money to pay for enough people to move there, or to provide the jobs and services necessary to support those people. Insufficient incentives exist. Not now, and by the time it might be able to, it will be too late. Russia's hands are tied. The only way that Russia could possibly prevent China from taking Siberia from the Russian Federation would be to attack and cripple China. However, given Russia's current military state, that could only be accomplished with nuclear weapons. And China has enough nuclear weapons to ensure that Russia would be mortally wounded in such an exchange. A pyrrhic Victory, if you will. Not something I expect to occur.

There is another option that Russia has, one that could possibly prevent China from taking over Siberia, and helping it on its path to super-powerdom. China in possession of Siberia would pose a mortal danger to Russia, and therefore something must be done to prevent China from possessing Siberia. That something is to sell Siberia to the United States of America.

Why, you ask, would Russia be so crazy as to sell Siberia to America? Why not? The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was worth 15 million Dollars US, and the area purchased was 2 million square miles. 15 million dollars worth of gold back then would have bought 300 million dollars today, at roughly 15 dollars per ounce of gold in 1803 and roughly 300 dollars per ounce of gold today (Interestingly, the US dollar was originally pegged against the silver Spanish 8-real peso, more famous as the "piece of 8" ). So the Louisiana Purchase was quite a deal. Alaska, by the way, was sold for 7 million dollars by Russia. So Russia selling Siberia to the USA isn't completely crazy, Russian territory has been sold to the US before. And not all of it has to be sold, only the easternmost parts, in fact. And plenty of precedent already exists. And selling Siberia to the US has a lot of benefits to Russia. First off, it will likely be sold for more than 300 million dollars, or even 3,000 million dollars. Russia could likely get billions for the deal, billions of dollars that it desperately needs to rebuild infrastructure ruined by decades of communist imposed socialism. A deal worth tens of billions of dollars could literally be a G-dsend to the Russians. Also, selling Siberia to America would turn the issue of eventual Chinese control of Siberia from a Russian problem to a US problem. Indeed, Russia could use it as a clever ploy to increase tensions between the US and China. With both focused on each other, Russia could improve its economy, military and world position.

Why would America agree to this? Well, first of all Siberia is full of natural resources, many of which aren't being efficiently used by the Russians. Proper access to Siberian resources, whether lumber, oil or natural ores could provide a nice boost to the US economy, primarily in the long term. People could emigrate from the US to Siberia to benefit from new economic opportunities. Russians would also likely immigrate there as well, as the opportunities present under Siberia as US territory would be far greater. Also, the US controlling Siberia would be a big check against Chinese imperialist ambitions. China's leadership has been encouraging nationalist sentiment inside the nation in order to help cement their hold on power, and part of that nationalism hinges on recovering lost territory. Siberia, in Chinese hands, could provide resources that would help Chinese plans, including military ones. As a matter of strategic interest, the US can't let Siberia fall into Chinese hands. It would result in a massive shift in the current balance of power in China's favor, something that is decidedly not good for the US. In fact, parts of Siberia are very close to Alaska, and would allow the Chinese to possibly make moves against Alaska in a future conflict. The US has the military means of preventing China from taking Siberia from force, whereas Russia most likely doesn't at this point.

Both Russia and the United States have an interest in preventing Siberia from falling into Chinese hands, and the best, and probably, only means of doing so is to sell Siberia to the US. And so the answer to Chinese attempts at colonizing Siberia is simple: Retro-Colonization. The United States of America must colonize Siberia first, before Siberia becomes part and parcel of the People's Republic of China.




http://rafken.hubpages.com/hub/Siberia-the-51st-State

Siberia, the 51st State?

Siberia
Siberia is a large part of North Eastern Russia. It is rich in natural resources and at times its people feel that they live poorly because they have to pay so much to the other territories of the Russian Federation. Although it has never really been thoroughly broached, there has often been talk of becoming a separate state. At times small separatist groups have temporarily formed but never aspired to the formation of a formal political party. Although they do not openly speak of it, most Siberians have probably thought about separatism at some point in their lives.

The idea has not really caught on with Siberians, as in reality Siberia probably would not survive as a sovereign entity. This realization always curtails Siberians brief thoughts of separatism, until now.

Chernobyl, Ukraine
Chernobyl, Ukraine once a nuclear power plant. Since 1986 it had become a disaster site. From 2011 it could become a tourist attraction.

Renewed Thinking
Now though, some have sewn a new seed. This new seed is that Siberia could exist as a sovereign state, if it was annexed to the United States.

Absurd; or is it? Wasn’t Alaska once part of Russia?

Recently the Irkutsk State University held a seminar with the involvement of its fifth year students. The seminar dealt with the possibilities of a US – Siberian link and of a “Regionalistic Alternative to Siberia”.

It discussed the pluses and minuses of a future Siberian State, paying attention firstly to the economic position but also to the risks involved in its creation and existence.

In the summer of this year, a new group appeared on Face book. This group believes that Siberia could successfully survive as a part of the US. The group also believes that being part of the US is the only way a Siberian state could exist.

A new movement has now emerged. One that is urging that a Russian census be held: in which people living in Siberia, are recognized, as Siberians. After the census, a referendum should then be held on separatism.

The United States
The Face book group seems to believe that the referendum could be attained with the assistance of the US administration and that, with the United States past experience of obtaining independence, they could also assist in making Siberia a part of the US.

This however, is not a completely new idea to the United States. Previously, although he did not specifically mention Siberia, a prominent American politician had spoken of a commonwealth stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

Now that this subject is being discussed on the social media, between future graduates of Siberian Universities and American politicians, is it really possible that Siberia could become the 51st State?
User avatar
cwa1984
Supporter
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Feb 05, 2010 6:32 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby pinwheel » Dec 31, 2011 4:18 pm

In my opinion, would never happen. Why? Look at your last sentence- key word Arctic. That area's becoming more and more important and any bit of the northern territory that's given up would probably mean less access, not to mention the resources in those areas. Although, are they talking about what's historically thought of as Siberia (which actually makes up three federal districts) or just the Siberian Federal district?

But if it did happen eventually, holy cow. How many states would that make? Just the Siberian federal district alone has a population of over 19 million. Would we go by the already established oblasts/republics/Krais (almost all of which have well over the minimum population to make a state)? In which case that would be like 12.
User avatar
pinwheel
Observer
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Jun 02, 2011 2:24 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby FreeSlave » Jan 01, 2012 1:32 am

Americalex wrote:There is actually a movement for the Annexation of Siberia to the USA apparently:

Image

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politic ... sia_usa-0/

You may laugh at it, but the idea finds its followers in the US. US politician Zbigniew Brzezhinski, a well-known politician, put forward an idea during his speech at the Political Forum in Yaroslavl to create a new commonwealth from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

Notice the article is fresh out from the 28th. What if all of Russia, Canada, and Northern Europe including Britain joined the USA? It would be the USA: The United States of the Arctic.


i think it would be cool for america to have its own commonwealth.
"With the President holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a Freedom Fighter." - Rand Paul


The Christian Church is like a nail, the harder you hit, the deeper you drive it in. - Joseph Stalin
User avatar
FreeSlave
Supporter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sep 19, 2011 2:49 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby joahob » Jan 02, 2012 6:20 pm

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1814&hilit=siberia

But why stop at Sibertia? Why not all of Russia?
The enclosure in which the citizens were mustered prior to casting their vote was known as the ovile, which literally means "sheep-pen".
User avatar
joahob
Opponent
 
Posts: 3933
Joined: Sep 12, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: Alberta

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby Windwalker » Jan 06, 2012 2:31 pm

I have a hard time believing that Russia would go along with this, considering how much they are willing to stick their necks out for puny little county sized regions like Chechnya and northern Georgia.

Siberia is loaded with (expensive to get to) natural resources. Its like having a safe full of gold: you don't give it away just because you forgot the combination.
User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby joahob » Jan 06, 2012 4:05 pm

The annexation of Siberia might have been a remotely plausible option during the 90s when the Russian economy was reeling from the effects of post-communism, but in the last decade the Russian economy has emerged as a powerhouse thanks to its resource rich geography. Siberia's presently inaccesible resources represent Russia's guarantor of future financial prosperity, so there's no way they're going to sell it off now.
The enclosure in which the citizens were mustered prior to casting their vote was known as the ovile, which literally means "sheep-pen".
User avatar
joahob
Opponent
 
Posts: 3933
Joined: Sep 12, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: Alberta

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby JLinker613 » Jan 11, 2012 1:01 am

According to STRATFOR (a geopolitical intelligence agency that analyzes data and makes future predictions. It works with the CIA, the air force, and the navy) a combination of internal instability, external pressure from the United States, and increasing aggressiveness from Turkey and the Visegrad Group (a military and economic coalition of Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania's trying to join) will cause the Russian Federation to collapse (as opposed to the Russian periphery breaking off in 1991). Various nationalistic regions like Chechnya, Dagestan, Karelia, Tuvan, and Tatarstan will likely break off on their own, and Russia as a whole will likely be without a government for a short time. The US could likely take control over portions of Siberia across the Bering sea at this point.

Who else do you think would be able to take advantage of Russia's breakdown, and how would the "spoils" be divided?
User avatar
JLinker613
Supporter
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Jul 23, 2011 12:14 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby FreeSlave » Jan 11, 2012 1:58 am

i think china would take siberia before we could because it would look to bad politically for us and china does not give a shit. but i do not think russia will collapse but if it did. china will take siberia and the rest will go to the EC (european confederation) which is what i think will come after the collapse of the EU.
"With the President holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a Freedom Fighter." - Rand Paul


The Christian Church is like a nail, the harder you hit, the deeper you drive it in. - Joseph Stalin
User avatar
FreeSlave
Supporter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sep 19, 2011 2:49 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby Clubtender » Jan 11, 2012 11:37 am

FreeSlave wrote:i think china would take siberia before we could because it would look to bad politically for us and china does not give a shit. but i do not think russia will collapse but if it did. china will take siberia and the rest will go to the EC (european confederation) which is what i think will come after the collapse of the EU.

I'm with you on China ending up with Siberia. The growing Chinese economic empire needs oil. Siberia has it. This will not come from a deal with Russia. China will simply move in and say "this is ours now".

With World War 3 brewing in the Middle-East and West Asia, the collapse of the EU with Germany basically purchasing the weaker EU nations (out of necessity) and the US doing everything that it can to neuter it's self through the end of 2012, Siberia and Taiwan will be part of China by the middle of 2013 and no one will be willing or able to do shit thing one to stop it. We will all have too many of our own problems to deal with. The Japanese may want to start practicing how to speak Mandarin.
User avatar
Clubtender
Supporter
 
Posts: 8077
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby FreeSlave » Jan 11, 2012 1:34 pm

Clubtender wrote:
FreeSlave wrote:i think china would take siberia before we could because it would look to bad politically for us and china does not give a shit. but i do not think russia will collapse but if it did. china will take siberia and the rest will go to the EC (european confederation) which is what i think will come after the collapse of the EU.

I'm with you on China ending up with Siberia. The growing Chinese economic empire needs oil. Siberia has it. This will not come from a deal with Russia. China will simply move in and say "this is ours now".

With World War 3 brewing in the Middle-East and West Asia, the collapse of the EU with Germany basically purchasing the weaker EU nations (out of necessity) and the US doing everything that it can to neuter it's self through the end of 2012, Siberia and Taiwan will be part of China by the middle of 2013 and no one will be willing or able to do shit thing one to stop it. We will all have too many of our own problems to deal with. The Japanese may want to start practicing how to speak Mandarin.

russia has built its economy to survive an EU collapse so i do not see them lossing siberia to china. the russians are already building oil piplins to china i think the chinese and russians will be allies in the near future.
"With the President holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a Freedom Fighter." - Rand Paul


The Christian Church is like a nail, the harder you hit, the deeper you drive it in. - Joseph Stalin
User avatar
FreeSlave
Supporter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sep 19, 2011 2:49 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby Clubtender » Jan 11, 2012 2:07 pm

Russia will be China's friend as long as China needs them. After that, all bets are off.
User avatar
Clubtender
Supporter
 
Posts: 8077
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby joahob » Jan 11, 2012 5:27 pm

In the short term, Russia is very strong. Russia's economy is booming, unlike the rest of Europe, and has weathered the global recession better than most. Militarily, a Sino-Russian war would end in China's defeat currently. Russia has a much larger nuclear arsenal, and do not think that it would hesitate to use it if it were invaded by a foreign power. But of course, China will not invade precisely for that reason.

The only situation were an invasion/annexation of Russian territory would be remotely plausible is if Russian suffered an internal collapse. But this is not likely, as the Russian nationhood is strong.

In the long-run, however, Russia's biggest weaknesses is its population decline and dependancy on a natural resources-based economy.

China is more likely to collapse than Russia because right now it has huge internal weaknesses. The disparity between a small 60 million strong middle class along the coast of China, and hundreds of millions of poor rural Chinese farther in the mainland is a tinderbox waiting to ignite. China must keep economic growth high, so that it can absorb these rural workers into a modern economy. The problem, however, is that China's economy has huge structural weaknesses: malinvestment, hundreds of billions in non-performing loands, corrupt state-owned banks and enterprises, and a dependancy on an export-driven growth model that requires capital controls in order to support monetary practices that drive China's exports.

Economicaly, Russia (and Japan) are much stronger right now.
The enclosure in which the citizens were mustered prior to casting their vote was known as the ovile, which literally means "sheep-pen".
User avatar
joahob
Opponent
 
Posts: 3933
Joined: Sep 12, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: Alberta

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby pieman97405 » Jan 11, 2012 11:29 pm

Clubtender wrote:
FreeSlave wrote:i think china would take siberia before we could because it would look to bad politically for us and china does not give a shit. but i do not think russia will collapse but if it did. china will take siberia and the rest will go to the EC (european confederation) which is what i think will come after the collapse of the EU.

I'm with you on China ending up with Siberia. The growing Chinese economic empire needs oil. Siberia has it. This will not come from a deal with Russia. China will simply move in and say "this is ours now".

One word, nukes. Russia could make China glow in the dark, and if their plans for WW3 are anything to go off of, they will do it.
The Constitution and the laws are supreme and the Union indissoluble. -Andrew Jackson
The movement for a modern Mexican Reconquista is disgustingly and shamelessly promoted by bitter atheist fucks who have rejected all sacredness in the world. -Alex
User avatar
pieman97405
Supporter
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Apr 29, 2009 2:45 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby NWDave83 » Feb 18, 2012 12:10 am

FYI- Russias economy is not "booming" its still a mostly impovershed nation, it just has a shit ton of billionairs now, but most of them spend most of their time in the west.


on the topic, It'll never happen, if Russia ever does collapse china will be in there faster than you can say vodka.
User avatar
NWDave83
Supporter
 
Posts: 2336
Joined: Jun 01, 2010 1:52 am
Location: Washington

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby JLinker613 » Feb 24, 2012 5:30 pm

The Russian land between China and the sea will likely become Chinese through demography and immigration. It was Chinese before but Russia won it away from them.
User avatar
JLinker613
Supporter
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Jul 23, 2011 12:14 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby NWDave83 » Mar 01, 2012 8:18 pm

well now that I think of it, the US did occupy Russia before, we just need another Bolshevik revolution and BOOM! we're in!

:lol:
User avatar
NWDave83
Supporter
 
Posts: 2336
Joined: Jun 01, 2010 1:52 am
Location: Washington

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby JLinker613 » Mar 05, 2012 11:08 pm

China is going to take over parts of Russia, the only question is how it will do so: demographically, economically, sphere of influence wise, and/or politically.

The USA is not going to take over any parts of Siberia. It'll (at the very most) take the remainder of the Balearic Islands chain, and that's it.

Japan is going to extend its sphere of influence into Vladivostock, the Kuril Islands, and Sakhalin.

Russia's demography and economic/political/ethnic instability are going to cause a big meltdown politically. Instability and foreign spheres of influence being carved out are going to occur.
User avatar
JLinker613
Supporter
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Jul 23, 2011 12:14 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby NWDave83 » Mar 06, 2012 2:07 am

all of those things you said Jlinker are well within the realm of possibility.
User avatar
NWDave83
Supporter
 
Posts: 2336
Joined: Jun 01, 2010 1:52 am
Location: Washington

Re: The Annexation of Siberia

Postby FreeSlave » Mar 06, 2012 2:56 am

I think all the parts of Siberia near the Bering sea may be taken by the US but that would be it.
"With the President holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a Freedom Fighter." - Rand Paul


The Christian Church is like a nail, the harder you hit, the deeper you drive it in. - Joseph Stalin
User avatar
FreeSlave
Supporter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sep 19, 2011 2:49 am
Location: New Mexico

Next

Return to Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron