thread policyDiscussion of politics that does not directly relate to the Quest or to Quest votes are banned from hereon out. This thread policy will be enforced by the Moderation team. Do not ignore it.
At this point, the pragmatic thing to do is to drop the paper tiger that is Victoria and seek a more suitable proxy - except that decades of brutal Russo-Victorian stomping of the rest of the continent has left him no allies except Victoria. Most would either wait till he dies and cautiously work with Katarina, or work with Europe and/or China instead, especially as Russian power wanes.
His emotional issues, OTOH, are clearly problematic. Even if the USA were to rise up overnight, it would need decades to become the industrial superpower it had once been. And he has bigger problems, MUCH closer to home. The more he obsesses over the phantom of the United States, the more he puts his Russian Empire at risk. At some point, his own men will stop wishing for God to take the Tsar and start taking things into their own hands so a more sane heir takes over.
This should be our strategy as well. We can't go it alone and working with Katarina beyond the basics that we already did leaves us at risk of excessive Russian influence.
This should be our strategy as well. We can't go it alone and working with Katarina beyond the basics that we already did leaves us at risk of excessive Russian influence.
Definitely true, though China we'll have to approach carefully. While China is an enemy of Russia, it's also seen with distrust by several Eastern Asian nations, and while India's hands are far from clean, it's also the most sane of the three dominant powers of the globe, and we don't want to alienate them either (mostly because they don't give a shit about American politics or the Tsar's illogical phobias, and wouldn't mind a few friends abroad). Which means we play this as a literal Third World nation in terms of Cold War geopolitics; we play the sides against each other for maximum benefit, allowing Russia to work with us since they've got the deepest pockets and greatest influence ATM, build up our economy with European help to balance them out, and use Europe to slowly build up our military to acceptable levels, rather than remain dependent on a few elite units with aging hardware and a flood of untrained militias.
That's part of it, but he's still invested in Victoria long after the United States stopped being a threat. If this was just about geopolitics, he'd listen to Katarina and leave the Commonwealth to its own devices while he focuses on more pressing threats.
In his argument with Katarina, Alexander demonstrates a pathological fear of America reuniting, even though we're nowhere near as dangerous as China or Germany. Whenever he considers America, he's flashing back to his younger years when the United States was a superpower and Russia was a third-world country with nukes.
Except, as it turns out, they're not very cost-effective after all. They're ridiculously dependent on Russian aid, as witness the moment the Bear has to attend to internal business, a competitor rises out of the ashes, and not only wrecks their shit but breaks their army so thoroughly it leaves them practically defenseless. And then when they try to fix their internal problems, they explode into a civil war and have no food, no trained troops, and no way to keep things under control for a long time, all while the US remnants are coming out of the woodworks and sharpening their knives.
If Tsar Alex wasn't such a goddamn paranoid nutcase about America, he'd have settled for a bog-standard conservative dictatorship. Instead, he goes for a far-right-wing American Khmer Rouge that leaves the state utterly dependent on a sugar daddy and utterly incapable of handling someone its own size after spending so long stomping minor towns and civil assemblies.
My only regret is that Tsar Alex probably won't live to see his whole dream crumble around his ears with the realization that it's his fault it all went pear-shaped in the end.
Definitely true, though China we'll have to approach carefully. While China is an enemy of Russia, it's also seen with distrust by several Eastern Asian nations, and while India's hands are far from clean, it's also the most sane of the three dominant powers of the globe, and we don't want to alienate them either (mostly because they don't give a shit about American politics or the Tsar's illogical phobias, and wouldn't mind a few friends abroad). Which means we play this as a literal Third World nation in terms of Cold War geopolitics; we play the sides against each other for maximum benefit, allowing Russia to work with us since they've got the deepest pockets and greatest influence ATM, build up our economy with European help to balance them out, and use Europe to slowly build up our military to acceptable levels, rather than remain dependent on a few elite units with aging hardware and a flood of untrained militias.
Im gonna be honest; I get the feeling people overestimate how much of a problem this is in the greater scheme of things.
China has oceanic territorial claims that conflict with a bunch of nations in the South China Sea area; so do most of the other East Asian nations.
But most of the nations involved in those disputes are currently under Japanese occupation.
China has no oceanic territorial conflicts with Australia/NZ or Indonesia or Singapore.
Vietnam is either in civil war or ruled by a Japanese puppet govt. Phillipines is occupied by the Japanese military and has a festering insurgency. Malaysia's precise fate is unclear. Brunei is too small to matter.
Critically, China has no territorial claims on the land of anyone else in East Asia; its disputed land borders are along the India border.
Meanwhile, Japan is literally invading and colonizing nations all over the place, from the west coast of North America to the East coast of Asia, and attempting to destabilize those countries they cant occupy.
I mean, its worth remembering that China-Vietnam hostility dates back into pre-Modern times.
Didnt prevent a defacto military alliance with China during the Vietnam War.
I suspect the only reason people like the EU arent throwing in more fully with China at the moment is because of the India economic market factor, and them using potential access to it as political and economic leverage. But that sort of leverage is time-limited as other markets grow.
And as China's economy gets better, I suspect that leverage is going to drop further.
Except, as it turns out, they're not very cost-effective after all. They're ridiculously dependent on Russian aid, as witness the moment the Bear has to attend to internal business, a competitor rises out of the ashes, and not only wrecks their shit but breaks their army so thoroughly it leaves them practically defenseless. And then when they try to fix their internal problems, they explode into a civil war and have no food, no trained troops, and no way to keep things under control for a long time, all while the US remnants are coming out of the woodworks and sharpening their knives.
Alexander wanted a strong leash on his rabid attack dog and instrument of North American policy, and went to some effort to ensure this was so.
This is a consistent pattern that we see among his "allies" and client states, from Romania to the Arctic Conservatiate. The victim nationstate has to go to some effort to negate this, and Victoria didnt want to.
My only regret is that Tsar Alex probably won't live to see his whole dream crumble around his ears with the realization that it's his fault it all went pear-shaped in the end.
Alexander wanted a strong leash on his rabid attack dog and instrument of North American policy, and went to some effort to ensure this was so.
This is a consistent pattern that we see among his "allies" and client states, from Romania to the Arctic Conservatiate. The victim nationstate has to go to some effort to negate this, and Victoria didnt want to.
There's a difference between "dependent on Russian aid" and "too stupid to live". Alexander wants proxies that require continued Russian support, not proxies that are unable to grasp basic concepts such as "artillery good".
The real "leash" on Victoria is the fact that everyone hates them, so they can't reunify America. Their refusal to embrace modern military tactics is a bug, not a feature. Alexander's support for Blackwell is an attempt to create a vicious, widely despised puppet that has some grasp of military reality.
If Tsar Alexander dropped dead tomorrow, his daughter would pull the plug on Victoria. A Russian Empire that focused on Europe and China rather than the slow reunification of a distant Third World nation would be ideal for us.
If Tsar Alexander dropped dead tomorrow, his daughter would pull the plug on Victoria. A Russian Empire that focused on Europe and China rather than the slow reunification of a distant Third World nation would be ideal for us.
True. We'd lose the catharsis of rubbing it in his face, but it would probably be better for everyone involved (well, except maybe Europe and China, though that depends on Katarina becoming as brutal as her grandpa).
True. We'd lose the catharsis of rubbing it in his face, but it would probably be better for everyone involved (well, except maybe Europe and China, though that depends on Katarina becoming as brutal as her grandpa).
It would be better for America, and possibly for Europe; Katarina seems to want to pursue detente with the EU.
She might be worse for the existing Russian Empire, because she would be willing to stop destabilizing the neighbors and focus on consolidating her grip on what she has. If she was successful, the Russian Empire might make the transition from an absurdly aggressive superpower to something more like the British Empire, which was capable of actual bilateral diplomacy.
The Empire has as much as it can hope to hold on to. At this stage, they should probably try to secure meaningful peace with Europe, and perhaps even China, rather than continuing to double down on sabotaging their rivals.
If Tsar Alexander dropped dead tomorrow, his daughter would pull the plug on Victoria. A Russian Empire that focused on Europe and China rather than the slow reunification of a distant Third World nation would be ideal for us.
That leaves her in a position to actually deal with the empire's problems before it's too late. Ideally we would want her to be relatively powerless against the inertia of her father's policies so that she is unable to do so.
There's a difference between "dependent on Russian aid" and "too stupid to live". Alexander wants proxies that require continued Russian support, not proxies that are unable to grasp basic concepts such as "artillery good".
The real "leash" on Victoria is the fact that everyone hates them, so they can't reunify America. Their refusal to embrace modern military tactics is a bug, not a feature. Alexander's support for Blackwell is an attempt to create a vicious, widely despised puppet that has some grasp of military reality.
1) That too is Alexander's fault, and that of his Okhrana.
It bears pointing out that the original Vic military setup in the Gospel According to Rumford was built around the citizen-soldier. Militia. Alex considered that too asinine for his purposes, so when he came in and wiped out the top echelons of Rumford's administration and replaced them with other toadies,he had them alter their military doctrine to encompass professional military.
If it had ever been considered important, theyd have gotten rid of that
He let their prejudices fester. It put a cap on Vic military effectiveness, and coincidentally reduced the chances of an oops in FCNY. Given Vic tendencies, that wasnt entirely unreasonable at the time.
EDIT
To be clear, the Vics have agency here, and they made their own choices. But dude let them do so, even when he intervened physically to change their mind on other issues. Alexander was fine with them operating this way for thirty years. He didnt even say anything when they were going after Chicago. He's only complaining now that they lost.
2)I dont agree.
Russia helped train the three Crusader divisions, and equip them with mid-20th century kit. It just wasnt considered important enough on the prt of the Russians to push to get the other 12x divisions to anything like the same standards.
Everyone hates them, sure, but their refusal to embrace modern military tactics placed a hard cap on what territory they could hold.
Which prevented them from growing.
Definitely a feature.
If Tsar Alexander dropped dead tomorrow, his daughter would pull the plug on Victoria. A Russian Empire that focused on Europe and China rather than the slow reunification of a distant Third World nation would be ideal for us.
True. We'd lose the catharsis of rubbing it in his face, but it would probably be better for everyone involved (well, except maybe Europe and China, though that depends on Katarina becoming as brutal as her grandpa).
That's optimistic.
Katarina(or whoever Alexander's replacement is) certainly is unlikely to bear any love for the Vics on general principles, but that doesnt mean that elements of her government wont.
Alexander has forged the Imperial Russian natsec establishment in his own image for over fifty years.
Hard Men Making Hard Decisions While Hard undoubtedly infest the place, and I can certainly see support for the Vics as a proxy weapon against an avowed enemy of the Russian state.
The US, Thailand and China provided support for the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam even after Pol Pot murdered 1.5-2 million people.
The US in particular did it in both Democratic and Republican administrations(Carter and Reagan).
Then there's the business interests.
People making money off Victorian industrial infrastructure right now. Those with plans to make more money with a more cooperative govt.
Corporations hoping to sell the Vics weapons and modern infrastructure.
And thats assuming they dont prospect and find natural resource deposits of something useful on the land or in the EEZ. Osmium, perhaps.
There's precedent for this sort of govt-supported corporate neocolonialism.
Witness the United States fucking around in Central America to protect the profits of the United Fruit Company in the early 20th century.
Or the Gulf states buying influence by patronizing US, UK and other European arms suppliers today.
Basically, I can certainly see Katarina buying internal political support for decisions and policy changes elsewhere by making foreign policy concessions regarding Russian policy in North America. Policy that benefits Victorian warmaking capabilities.
Cold-blooded realpolitik does not necessarily favor us.
Exactly.
1) That too is Alexander's fault, and that of his Okhrana.
It bears pointing out that the original Vic military setup in the Gospel According to Rumford was built around the citizen-soldier. Militia. Alex considered that too asinine for his purposes, so when he came in and wiped out the top echelons of Rumford's administration and replaced them with other toadies,he had them alter their military doctrine to encompass professional military.
If it had ever been considered important, theyd have gotten rid of that
He let their prejudices fester. It put a cap on Vic military effectiveness, and coincidentally reduced the chances of an oops in FCNY. Given Vic tendencies, that wasnt entirely unreasonable at the time.
EDIT
To be clear, the Vics have agency here, and they made their own choices. But dude let them do so, even when he intervened physically to change their mind on other issues. Alexander was fine with them operating this way for thirty years. He didnt even say anything when they were going after Chicago. He's only complaining now that they lost.
2)I dont agree.
Russia helped train the three Crusader divisions, and equip them with mid-20th century kit. It just wasnt considered important enough on the prt of the Russians to push to get the other 12x divisions to anything like the same standards.
Everyone hates them, sure, but their refusal to embrace modern military tactics placed a hard cap on what territory they could hold.
Which prevented them from growing.
Definitely a feature.
That's optimistic.
Katarina(or whoever Alexander's replacement is) certainly is unlikely to bear any love for the Vics on general principles, but that doesnt mean that elements of her government wont.
Alexander has forged the Imperial Russian natsec establishment in his own image for over fifty years.
Hard Men Making Hard Decisions While Hard undoubtedly infest the place, and I can certainly see support for the Vics as a proxy weapon against an avowed enemy of the Russian state.
The US, Thailand and China provided support for the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam even after Pol Pot murdered 1.5-2 million people.
The US in particular did it in both Democratic and Republican administrations(Carter and Reagan).
Then there's the business interests.
People making money off Victorian industrial infrastructure right now. Those with plans to make more money with a more cooperative govt.
Corporations hoping to sell the Vics weapons and modern infrastructure.
And thats assuming they dont prospect and find natural resource deposits of something useful on the land or in the EEZ. Osmium, perhaps.
There's precedent for this sort of govt-supported corporate neocolonialism.
Witness the United States fucking around in Central America to protect the profits of the United Fruit Company in the early 20th century.
Or the Gulf states buying influence by patronizing US, UK and other European arms suppliers today.
Basically, I can certainly see Katarina buying internal political support for decisions and policy changes elsewhere by making foreign policy concessions regarding Russian policy in North America. Policy that benefits Victorian warmaking capabilities.
Cold-blooded realpolitik does not necessarily favor us.
That implies both factions are willing to work with each other, what happens if one side decides they're better off purging the other? Katarina clearly has no love for her father or his policies so what if she decides that ending those policies would be a good way to win favor with other countries, and this runs up against loyalists to Alexander?
That implies both factions are willing to work with each other, what happens if one side decides they're better off purging the other? Katarina clearly has no love for her father or his policies so what if she decides that ending those policies would be a good way to win favor with other countries, and this runs up against loyalists to Alexander?
1) Then they fight.
We have no way of knowing how that would turn out, so there is no point speculating.
2)Who says Katrina has no love for her father? We have only seen them interact in one scene.
Even children raised in controlling environments often have complicated feelings towards their parents, not outright dislike.
That a late 30s-early 40s woman objects to her father attempting to arrange her life does not necessarily mean she dislikes or hates him.
Similarly, do not assume that anything she has done means that she will change Russia's foreign policies when/if she assumes power.
She has said and done nothing to suggest that she approves or disapproves of Alexander's aims; even her only comment on Alex's activities in North America is that they are now counterproductive, not that they were unethical.
There is insufficient information to speculate on Katrina's policies if she became Tsarina.
Think of China recovering Hong Kong from the UK, or Macao from Portugal. Think of India taking Goa away from Portugal, or the Egyptians reclaiming the Suez from the British and French. It wasnt a matter of if, it was a matter of when. A reunified US WILL retake Alaska.
It just wont happen tomorrow.
In forty or fifty years though?
Managed well, a ReUnited States that follows China or South Korea's 20th century trajectory, encompasses the length and breadth of the old United States, retains a Canadian alliance and has built on the foundations of California's nuclear arsenal will be in the position to straight up tell the Russian Empire that they hand it over or its taken away, even as a regional power.
Imperial Russia's industrial and demographic center of gravity is too far away from Alaska for them to hold it in the face of concerted military opposition with ground lines of supply, and they've made no friends with their landgrab. And it was never a place where Russians would relocate to willingly anyway, so the Russian population is going to be low.
Hawaii is likely to happen faster, because Japan is looking to get shanked in an alley by China/Korea/Phillipines/parts of Vietnam sometime in the next couple decades, and its a matter of positioning for the NCR to pick it up without a fight.
The real danger there is China trying a landgrab there, which is unlikely but possible; I dont know enough about their political situation in this AU.
Comparisons to Goa, Hong Kong, or Macau are completely meaningless.
Hong Kong and Macau were tiny peninsular juts at the mouth of China's second most important metropolitan area, the Pearl River Delta and even then it took nearly 50 years from reunification to reclamation.
Goa, while somewhat more substantial in terms of land area, was still a tiny spit of land surrounded by either the sea or India as a whole. Portugal, a country which hadn't really been capable of significant power projection outside of its most basic interests since the Napoleonic wars under a violent unstable dictatorship under Salazar, still held onto Goa for nearly 30 years after Indian Independence.
Alaska forms about 1/6 of the area of the entire United States, to my knowledge there is a single highway that leads into Alaska which is most likely partially controlled by the Arctic Conservationate. Our ability to project power into Alaska is just as bad as that of Russia except we do not have some of the vast accumulated wealth and technological expertise that can partially compensate for that. The Russian Navy will for the foreseeable future outclass us by orders of magnitude. A land campaign is an absurdity.
We don't even know if Canada will still exist in the future that we speak of. A reclamation of Alaska would not be a simple waltz in to take it in an afternoon, paraphrasing a threat by Deng Xiaoping regarding Hong Kong. We must consider that it is likely given past Russian policy and the concentration of the Alaskan population into a small handful of urban centers such as Fairbanks, Juneau, etc, that a great deal of the populace by the time of any potential reclamation would consider itself Russian. Alaska may not be a particularly desirable place to move, but so few Americans would be left after the Collapse that not much would have to be done to displace or assimilate them.
As for Hawaii, it is the key to the Pacific. Whoever controls Hawaii has the commanding heights of the entire Pacific Ocean. Japan would not give it up under any circumstances it is physically capable of preventing by any means, likely including the nuclear option. China would not have interest controlling it despite the potential to stick it to Japan because the geography is to unfavorable to be able to exert uncontested control over the archipelago, namely theFirst and Second island chains by Chinese Terminology.
It would take upwards of a century of development before the United States could seriously attempt to challenge Japanese control over Hawaii by sea, at which point it comes down to the nuclear option and another century of extremely aggressive cultural assimilation and expulsion by the Japanese on the Hawaiian archipelago.
Comparisons with colonial reclamations such as that of Goa, Hong Kong, and Macau are absurd, they ignore the extremely different geopolitical circumstances between then and now, as well as the many cases in which colonized countries have not reclaimed such territories, such as continued Spanish possession of Ceuta and Melilla on the Moroccan coast, continued French possession of French Guiana(in the modern day, not here), American Samoa and Samoa, the Chagos Archipelago, etc.
The bigger point now, is why too. Russia is coming to the table and willing to deal, even if the head of state still seeks to eliminate us. Victoria is still reeling from us and their civil war. It's very good to be prepared, but we have a decent military and they still have to play catch up, even after they rebuild.
The nations of the world are looking at us, and if we manage to look like a stabilizing force in the region that is going to act as another type of shield. Having a citizenship with food, water, power and an education is going to make that a lot easier, and more importantly build more manpower and a means to mechanize in the future if Victoria wants to go for Round 2 in the future
Yes, because it'll be freeing our hands, giving us room to multitask if we want to. A booming Chicago means that we can spend money on not just ammunition, but also textbooks, train engines, factory machines, spare parts, etc, whereas ir we're overly focusing on military spending, now that we have breathing room, is robbing our ability to stand long-term when we are having an influx of people and wanting to show off as the potential successor to the US.
Chicago lighting up the streetlights via solar/hydroelectric/wind power is going to be devastating to the Victorians, Russia, and Japan, while also making us the regional leader due to us having a better quality of life than the nations around us. We already have refugees flocking our way, helping work in our farms and factories, imagine how that will go when we're the city that reintroduces Chicago pizza, flushing toilets, space heaters, and working ceiling fans to refugees.
And yes, it always seem to come down to reintroducing pizza.
Realistically speaking we won't be the ones to reclaim either Hawaii or Alaska anyways for the simple reason that by the time we get there a restorationist faction closer to it like California will have done so already. As such, the most effective and actually doable option for us isn't to try and directly take it back ourselves but to provide support towards the more likely claimants, maybe funnel resources to Alaskan restorationist groups (or create them from scratch if Russian suppression of rebels was that effective).
Comparisons to Goa, Hong Kong, or Macau are completely meaningless.
Hong Kong and Macau were tiny peninsular juts at the mouth of China's second most important metropolitan area, the Pearl River Delta and even then it took nearly 50 years from reunification to reclamation.
Goa, while somewhat more substantial in terms of land area, was still a tiny spit of land surrounded by either the sea or India as a whole. Portugal, a country which hadn't really been capable of significant power projection outside of its most basic interests since the Napoleonic wars under a violent unstable dictatorship under Salazar, still held onto Goa for nearly 30 years after Indian Independence.
Alaska forms about 1/6 of the area of the entire United States, to my knowledge there is a single highway that leads into Alaska which is most likely partially controlled by the Arctic Conservationate. Our ability to project power into Alaska is just as bad as that of Russia except we do not have some of the vast accumulated wealth and technological expertise that can partially compensate for that. The Russian Navy will for the foreseeable future outclass us by orders of magnitude. A land campaign is an absurdity.
We don't even know if Canada will still exist in the future that we speak of. A reclamation of Alaska would not be a simple waltz in to take it in an afternoon, paraphrasing a threat by Deng Xiaoping regarding Hong Kong. We must consider that it is likely given past Russian policy and the concentration of the Alaskan population into a small handful of urban centers such as Fairbanks, Juneau, etc, that a great deal of the populace by the time of any potential reclamation would consider itself Russian. Alaska may not be a particularly desirable place to move, but so few Americans would be left after the Collapse that not much would have to be done to displace or assimilate them.
As for Hawaii, it is the key to the Pacific. Whoever controls Hawaii has the commanding heights of the entire Pacific Ocean. Japan would not give it up under any circumstances it is physically capable of preventing by any means, likely including the nuclear option. China would not have interest controlling it despite the potential to stick it to Japan because the geography is to unfavorable to be able to exert uncontested control over the archipelago, namely theFirst and Second island chains by Chinese Terminology.
It would take upwards of a century of development before the United States could seriously attempt to challenge Japanese control over Hawaii by sea, at which point it comes down to the nuclear option and another century of extremely aggressive cultural assimilation and expulsion by the Japanese on the Hawaiian archipelago.
Comparisons with colonial reclamations such as that of Goa, Hong Kong, and Macau are absurd, they ignore the extremely different geopolitical circumstances between then and now, as well as the many cases in which colonized countries have not reclaimed such territories, such as continued Spanish possession of Ceuta and Melilla on the Moroccan coast, continued French possession of French Guiana(in the modern day, not here), American Samoa and Samoa, the Chagos Archipelago, etc.
I agree that our current ability to project power into Alaska is nonexistent.
In forty or fifty years? That changes radically assuming we are even moderately successful at putting the United States back together.
Look at the map.
Japan held,holds, and exploits, the Northwest US and British Columbia. Direct throughway to Alaska, no Arctic Conservatiate involvement.
Thats not going to be a tenable possession if/when the NCR breaks free; a domestic insurgency already almost kicked them out.
And that falls into the sphere of influence of the NCR or a resurgent US.
As for your arguments, in order:
Canada didnt fall from internal revolt by a disaffected faction. It didnt have its people question its existence.It was deliberately torn apart by Russia and Japan in part using US refugees as a vector, and Victoria has helped keep. Some of its people died.
But Toronto still exists. British Colombia does. Thats a start for rebuilding the state.
Canada is literally within living memory here, as is the United States. I rather doubt its forgotten by its people, any more than the US has been.
Its been only 43 years since the Old Country fell. Nor is it the kind of place where you attract immigrants to. Several hundred years of Russian domination and fifty years of Soviet rule did not make the Baltic states Russian provinces. I fail to see it happening here. The Russian population of Alaska is going to be mainly military personnel at Elmendorf.
One of the recognized mechanical effects of Legitimacy 25 in this universe is internationally recognized claim to the territory of the old United States.
That apparently matters. ===========================
A century to retake Hawaii?
It took the PRC fifty years to get in position to make a credible threat to reclaim Hong Kong mostly intact, and they were starting from a lower position than the Pacific coast of the United States would be. We have it bad, but nowhere as bad as the PRC did.
Hawaii is likely to be a much more difficult proposition if we had to retake it militarily(oceanic invasions are nightmares), but thats not Plan A.
Anyway, the successor states to the Old Country arent the ones fixing to cut Japan off at the knees and cripple it; thats China, occupied South Korea, the occupied Phillipines and literally everyone they pissed off on the West Pacific coastline. The only involvement of the currently dis-United States is likely to be economic, from the shock of losing access to the occupied territories in North America.
And positioning itself to be ready to pick up the pieces when they fall.
A China that has its way with Japan is not going to let them keep Hawaii. Not going to happen.
You made your own point of pointing out how strategic it is, and China is not going to leave a Japanese athwart their sea trade lines across the Pacific to the rest of the world.
Thats why they might want it. And Im well aware that democracies can be startlingly hypocritical about the rights of other nations.
=======================================================
Furthermore, your examples are not at all applicable to this situation.
Ceuta has been held by Spain since 1668, when it was ceded to them by Portugal, which held it for two hundred years before.
Similarly, they have held Melilla since 1497.
France holds French Guiana because there was no nationstate claimant to those territories before them in the sixteenth to eighteenth century.
American Samoa was annexed by the US in 1900 after a diplomatic agreement between the US, Imperial Germany and the UK.
Western Samoa was taken from the Germans after WW1 and held as first a League of Nations Trust, then a UN Trust by New Zealand until they achieved independence in 1962.
In none of these situations has there been a prior claimant.
In none of those situations have the occupiers invaded and occupied territory from another major nation, far from their own heartland.
All of these points were US territory within living memory. A United States that puts itself back together in substantially similar form to today is not going to leave either of those territories in the hands of its tormentors; if nothing else, it will be a cheap rallying cry for the population.
Furthermore, both Russia and Japan are going to have significant issues closer to home as the pendulumn begins to swing.
I dont expect Ukraine or the Baltics are particularly happy right now with Imperial Russia. Let alone the Central Asians.
And Japan managed to aggro China + South Korea + the Phillipines. Not to mention PACS.
Goa, while somewhat more substantial in terms of land area, was still a tiny spit of land surrounded by either the sea or India as a whole. Portugal, a country which hadn't really been capable of significant power projection outside of its most basic interests since the Napoleonic wars under a violent unstable dictatorship under Salazar, still held onto Goa for nearly 30 years after Indian Independence.
India achieved independence in 1947.
Starting in 1950, they attempted negotiations with the Portugese for the return of the territory, which the Portugese government refused; this was around the same time the Portugese were trying to hold on to African colonies as well.
India invaded and retook Goa in 1961. 14 years from independence. 11 years from first mention.
I agree that our current ability to project power into Alaska is nonexistent.
In forty or fifty years? That changes radically assuming we are even moderately successful at putting the United States back together.
Look at the map.
Japan held,holds, and exploits, the Northwest US and British Columbia. Direct throughway to Alaska, no Arctic Conservatiate involvement.
Thats not going to be a tenable possession if/when the NCR breaks free; a domestic insurgency already almost kicked them out.
And that falls into the sphere of influence of the NCR or a resurgent US.
As for your arguments, in order:
Canada didnt fall from internal revolt by a disaffected faction. It didnt have its people question its existence.It was deliberately torn apart by Russia and Japan in part using US refugees as a vector, and Victoria has helped keep. Some of its people died.
But Toronto still exists. British Colombia does. Thats a start for rebuilding the state.
Canada is literally within living memory here, as is the United States. I rather doubt its forgotten by its people, any more than the US has been.
Its been only 43 years since the Old Country fell. Nor is it the kind of place where you attract immigrants to. Several hundred years of Russian domination and fifty years of Soviet rule did not make the Baltic states Russian provinces. I fail to see it happening here. The Russian population of Alaska is going to be mainly military personnel at Elmendorf.
One of the recognized mechanical effects of Legitimacy 25 in this universe is internationally recognized claim to the territory of the old United States.
That apparently matters. ===========================
A century to retake Hawaii?
It took the PRC fifty years to get in position to make a credible threat to reclaim Hong Kong mostly intact, and they were starting from a lower position than the Pacific coast of the United States would be. We have it bad, but nowhere as bad as the PRC did.
Hawaii is likely to be a much more difficult proposition if we had to retake it militarily(oceanic invasions are nightmares), but thats not Plan A.
Anyway, the successor states to the Old Country arent the ones fixing to cut Japan off at the knees and cripple it; thats China, occupied South Korea, the occupied Phillipines and literally everyone they pissed off on the West Pacific coastline. The only involvement of the currently dis-United States is likely to be economic, from the shock of losing access to the occupied territories in North America.
And positioning itself to be ready to pick up the pieces when they fall.
A China that has its way with Japan is not going to let them keep Hawaii. Not going to happen.
You made your own point of pointing out how strategic it is, and China is not going to leave a Japanese athwart their sea trade lines across the Pacific to the rest of the world.
Thats why they might want it. And Im well aware that democracies can be startlingly hypocritical about the rights of other nations.
=======================================================
Furthermore, your examples are not at all applicable to this situation.
Ceuta has been held by Spain since 1668, when it was ceded to them by Portugal, which held it for two hundred years before.
Similarly, they have held Melilla since 1497.
France holds French Guiana because there was no nationstate claimant to those territories before them in the sixteenth to eighteenth century.
American Samoa was annexed by the US in 1900 after a diplomatic agreement between the US, Imperial Germany and the UK.
Western Samoa was taken from the Germans after WW1 and held as first a League of Nations Trust, then a UN Trust by New Zealand until they achieved independence in 1962.
In none of these situations has there been a prior claimant.
In none of those situations have the occupiers invaded and occupied territory from another major nation, far from their own heartland.
All of these points were US territory within living memory. A United States that puts itself back together in substantially similar form to today is not going to leave either of those territories in the hands of its tormentors; if nothing else, it will be a cheap rallying cry for the population.
Furthermore, both Russia and Japan are going to have significant issues closer to home as the pendulumn begins to swing.
I dont expect Ukraine or the Baltics are particularly happy right now with Imperial Russia. Let alone the Central Asians.
And Japan managed to aggro China + South Korea + the Phillipines. Not to mention PACS.
POSTSCRIPT
Your assertion about India and Goa is inaccurate.
India achieved independence in 1947.
Starting in 1950, they attempted negotiations with the Portugese for the return of the territory, which the Portugese government refused; this was around the same time the Portugese were trying to hold on to African colonies as well.
India invaded and retook Goa in 1961. 14 years from independence. 11 years from first mention.
This is not what a direct throughway looks like. There are two, count 'em, two major roads that go where you want to which ultimately link up into one at the end. The terrain is complete ass. One has to move over a thousand kilometers through what used to be Canada to even approach Alaska. As for your certainty regarding the continued existence of Canada, I would like to remind you that we have already consumed Windsor whole. Part of why one of Canada's national nightmares is being consumed culturally by the United States is because as a whole Anglophone Canada and the United States are very similar. We have had no indication that people from Windsor retain a significantly different identity from anybody else in the Commonwealth. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the border. It is legitimately questionable if after 40 years of devastation Canadian remnant polities wouldn't desire to simply unify with a US successor which offers better prospects than toughing it out by themselves even more subject to the demographic weight of Toronto than before.
As for population issues, at the end of the Soviet Union there were more Russians who lived in the Kazakh SSR than Kazakhs. Many Russians in the aftermath of the Union's collapse left to return to Russia, but even now Daugavpils in Latvia is a city where Russians are dominant and in the city of Narva in Estonia, Russians approach a supermajority of the population. Even in the capital of Latvia, Riga Russians make up about 2/5 of the population and Latvians about 2/5. In the timescale of several decades, it is in fact fairly easy to assimilate or displace linguistically or culturally inconvenient populations and given that Alaska as a state has a population that is within spitting distance of Wyoming I fail to see how it is so unreasonable to think that Alexander has made Russians into a core part of the Alaskan population which may as a result be entirely opposed to reclamation by a US successor.
As for legitimacy claims, a claim is just that. A claim. You still have to take it if the occupier doesn't feel like negotiating, and effectively securing control over Alaska is a hellish task. There's not even the comparably more easy victories to be had against the Panhandle since that's owned by Japan which is being handwaved as already kicked into the sea. One would have to push into Alaska Proper and establish effective control over a landmass half the size of India in the Arctic Circle through mountainous terrain.
Regarding Hawaii, a crucial difference between China vis a vis Hong Kong, and a US successor vis a vis Hawaii, is that Hawaii is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean literally thousands of miles away from anywhere one could seriously stage an invasion from, and that Hong Kong is again, right next to China's second most important metropolitan area in one of the most well developed portions of the country in terms of infrastructure.
You say a China that has defeated Japan won't let them keep Hawaii, understandable, but what exactly is China going to do about it? Japan isn't giving it up in any peace that wasn't achieved by leveling Tokyo, and that point we're talking about MAD at which point everything is moot. Who is going to launch an invasion of Hawaii and wrest it from Japanese control?
Certainly not China, just to get to Hawaii they would have to cross the aforementioned First and Second Island chains which are already effectively uncrossable by merchant traffic in times of war and if not China, what other opponent both has the naval strength to challenge Japan, a leading naval power, on the seas and the interest to not only take Hawaii in a truly brutal land slog but then to return it to the United States? China does not care about Hawaii in this context because that is the stretch goal predicated on the stretch goal predicated on the stretch goal. China would very much like to break the First Island Chain if it can which it has partially done as a result of Taiwan being a part of Chinese reunification. If that is complete, they would very much like to break the Second Island Chain, but that's predicated on breaking the first. Hawaii is part of what Chinese thinkers would consider the Third Island Chain. This is approximately equivalent to America having lost the entire Oregon territory to Britain and the Mexican-American war in the 1840s, and still being concerned about Hawaii. It is beyond the pale of Chinese interests.
You are the one who brought Macau and Hong Kong into the situation in the first place, I felt obligated to provide counterexamples to the best of my abilities while also noting that direct comparison are impractical and absurd. None of these examples fit perfectly with one another as can be seen by your own individual refutations of each provided example. You are the one who insists on colonial reclamation parallels instead of analyzing the situation by its own merits which by all means imply extreme difficult in any possible reclamation of either territory.
I feel like people are assuming that we have to get this stuff done super quick when we don't. It is entirely possible that by the time we get within distance of Alaska and Hawaii we will not have the ability to actually demand them back, and that's perfectly fine. We can simply spend some time building up and retake them at a later date when doing so is more convenient for us. Would probably be easier to do it that way too if the rumors of those two empires not doing so well are to be believed.
I feel like people are assuming that we have to get this stuff done super quick when we don't. It is entirely possible that by the time we get within distance of Alaska and Hawaii we will not have the ability to actually demand them back, and that's perfectly fine. We can simply spend some time building up and retake them at a later date when doing so is more convenient for us. Would probably be easier to do it that way too if the rumors of those two empires not doing so well are to be believed.
Remember people: it's only been four years, almost five, since the Commonwealth was founded. The only reason it seems longer is because our war with the Vicks took up a large part of the quest (not that I'm complaining).
Our reincorporation of Alaska, Hawaii, and our outlying territories will come at a later time. For now, California can deal with the Pacific Northwest.
Yes. If conquering Alaska is possible at all, it will be a very, very difficult task. Some people have suggested that Alaska is far from Russia's "center of power", which is true, but Alaska is just as far from our own "center of power".
Regarding Hawaii, a crucial difference between China vis a vis Hong Kong, and a US successor vis a vis Hawaii, is that Hawaii is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean literally thousands of miles away from anywhere one could seriously stage an invasion from, and that Hong Kong is again, right next to China's second most important metropolitan area in one of the most well developed portions of the country in terms of infrastructure.
You say a China that has defeated Japan won't let them keep Hawaii, understandable, but what exactly is China going to do about it? Japan isn't giving it up in any peace that wasn't achieved by leveling Tokyo, and that point we're talking about MAD at which point everything is moot. Who is going to launch an invasion of Hawaii and wrest it from Japanese control?
Japan has to hold on to South Korea and the Phillipines and Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest and all of the other stuff they've taken. And they've conquered a lot, because the Japanese Empire 2.0 has no common sense.
If China invades South Korea at the same time that there is a major uprising in the Phillippines and an uprising in Hawaii, what are they going to do? It's entirely possible for China to sink a large portion of the Japanese Navy, at which point they won't be as capable of projecting power all the way out to Hawaii. They can say that they won't give it up, but actually holding Hawaii requires an intact Japanese Navy with lines of supply, and there's no guarantee that they'll actually have that.
In contrast to Alaska, which is relatively close to Russia, Hawaii is pretty far away from Japan, and it's only accessible by sea.
Japan's position in the Pacific Northwest is almost impossibly insecure, because they have to project power across the Pacific while the NCR is right next door. Unless they want to park a Japanese fleet permanently in the Pacific Northwest- which would provide more opportunities to the Chinese- they can't really hope to hold on if the NCR becomes hostile.
Alaska at the very least will eventually get retaken either by us or by another revivalist at some point imo, even if it happens beyond the ending of this quest.
Alaska at the very least will eventually get retaken either by us or by another revivalist at some point imo, even if it happens beyond the ending of this quest.
If the Collapse killed or exiled a substantial portion of the Alaskan population, which is entirely possible, most of the people currently living in Alaska could actually be Russian settlers with no emotional ties to the United States.
There's nothing sacred about the current boundaries of the United States. They are the product of historical circumstance. If there are enough Russian colonists in Alaska, Alaska may end up remaining Russian.
Hawaii could end up remaining Japanese, but they started with a larger population and a more survivable climate. Also, Japan is much further away from Hawaii than Russia is from Alaska.
In the long term, we could end up with an independent Hawaii that chooses not to rejoin the United States. Once we move away from the idea of sacred soil, we can recognize that our future boundaries are not set in stone. We could end up picking up pieces of what used to be Canada, as Victoria's influence collapses; we could discover that some parts of America don't want to join the Commonwealth. It is possible that there will be another Revivalist state that calls themselves the "United States of America" and doesn't join with us, and we should just accept that.
