PASOK is still in government in Greece and the KKE is one of the bigger European communist parties. Maybe it involves PASOK ripping itself apart between its right and left wings.
Given that the OFN was a rudderless coalition of Anglosphere has-beens (thanks to Comrade Schlafly), while NATO, however wounded, is still the pre-eminent power bloc, that's to be expected. The UAR has been daring, maybe even brazen, in its geopolitical "dealings" but not hubristic.
The fact that Africa is populated by "independent" African states, many of whom have shown to be cooperative or potentially cooperative towards the UAR, also factors in.
The part about eastern European ostalgists and holdovers from the Cold War leaving for the UAR make me wonder if any of the bigger names ended up going with them like Yegor Ligachyov (a reformist CPSU member who later turned against Gorbachev and was very hostile to Yeltsin) or maybe Nina Andreyeva (leader of a Stalinist Communist Party in Russia IRL).
EDIT: Hell, I wonder if this has caused a re-evaluation of Stalin in at least leftist circles outside of the UAR, as much of the Comintern's members plans were based on Stalinism (I remember at least a few plans were meant to be 'Eco-Stalinist' in character) and maybe inadvertently given anti-revisionist Hoxhaist groups a shot in the arm like the MLKP in Turkey.
I… was going to comment on this and how it could go completely off the rails in the future, but I'm not sure whether it would be banned for mentioning/referencing current (USA) politics.
I… was going to comment on this and how it could go completely off the rails in the future, but I'm not sure whether it would be banned for mentioning/referencing current (USA) politics.
By some definitions, anything post 1900 is modern politics. I feel like calling post-2000s alt-history modern is perfectly valid.
And for the spicy bit, please recall that the USA as seen here is essentially one of the arch villains of the narrative. How spicy can your opinion really be?
That the current events could/will cause the US Right to take a swan dive off the deep end a decade to a decade and a half ahead of OTL?
Or making comparisons between the Russian Fascist Oligarchy and the result of said swan dive made by the US Political Right (not naming parties/people).
The sort of political opinion which could indirectly lead to the thread getting nuked (by staff) due to uncontrollable toxic political discourse.
And I would rather not be the catalyst for getting this thread nuked and/or locked
Well we have the unholy alliance of Russian fascist oligarchy working hand in hand with US conservatives and the owner class. The idea that they will no longer have their privileges and iron grip on the levers of power will have billionaires willing to back anyone.
The part about eastern European ostalgists and holdovers from the Cold War leaving for the UAR make me wonder if any of the bigger names ended up going with them like Yegor Ligachyov (a reformist CPSU member who later turned against Gorbachev and was very hostile to Yeltsin) or maybe Nina Andreyeva (leader of a Stalinist Communist Party in Russia IRL).
EDIT: Hell, I wonder if this has caused a re-evaluation of Stalin in at least leftist circles outside of the UAR, as much of the Comintern's members plans were based on Stalinism (I remember at least a few plans were meant to be 'Eco-Stalinist' in character) and maybe inadvertently given anti-revisionist Hoxhaist groups a shot in the arm like the MLKP in Turkey.
Oh almost all the big names from Russia are either in the UAR, in prison or dead.
And Stalin's reputation is gonna be forever altered on both sides, from the UAR lefties being forced to confront and deal with the fact that while defeating the Nazis is certainly a monumental achievement it doesn't erase Stalin's crimes or his glaring mistakes that ended up dooming socialism ITTL and OTL lefties are gonna be even more divided on the subject. Ironically Stalin's reputation actually improves in liberal historians and in the general western public; being seen as a reasonable conservative leader who kept the other socialist crazies in check and whose rise to power was a net good for the world because the alternative was world communism.
That the current events could/will cause the US Right to take a swan dive off the deep end a decade to a decade and a half ahead of OTL?
Or making comparisons between the Russian Fascist Oligarchy and the result of said swan dive made by the US Political Right (not naming parties/people).
The sort of political opinion which could indirectly lead to the thread getting nuked due to uncontrollable toxic political discourse.
And I would rather not be the catalyst for getting this thread nuked and/or locked
What? Nah dude that's a blatantly obvious outcome, visibly happening based on the US foreign policy decisions seen in previous updates. It'd be spicier if you were saying that wasn't going to happen as a result of the wamda
True, true, but saying that part out loud is just asking for someone to dispute it. Vehemently, violently, and vitriolically. Potentially multiple, or even a group of, someones. Two or three people could just be threadbanned, but if there's like a dozen people dogpiling on it (or one person with a dozen alts), that's when things could get sketchy.
True, true, but saying that part out loud is just asking for someone to dispute it. Vehemently, violently, and vitriolically. Potentially multiple, or even a group of, someones. Two or three people could just be threadbanned, but if there's like a dozen people dogpiling on it (or one person with a dozen alts), that's when things could get sketchy.
Those kind of people are not exactly likely to be reading this quest, and the only one I know of already got thread banned from this thread because they spent a big chunk of the TLM thread disputing the crimes of the British empire.
Sockpuppeting and brigading are both in fact against the rules so if someone is doing either that is not your fault.
For some reason I'm picturing an anti-migration party that, bafflingly, advocates a turn to Cairo on the grounds that if the uar is successful all the migrants will go there instead of uh (throws dart) Hungary
"Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve."—George W. Bush
Once in another time, the horrifying event of 9/11 would have been a pivotal moment on which the history of the next two decades would be built, even as its prominence in popular consciousness faded as the aftershocks of its consequences rippled through the Middle East. However, the biggest trauma of the United States was quickly overshadowed by the inexplicable and instant Wamda, the chaos and disruption that came in its wake making 9/11 almost seem like a distant and insignificant memory compared to an event on which even time itself would bend to (as many historians and political analysts would come to define events as pre and post-Wamda, the latter coming to describe the period that succeeded the post-Soviet era).
However even in this new timeline of disrupted destined 9/11 would still have an effect in shaping the American geopolitical calculus, as the Bush administration found itself looking for a new target to direct its neoconservative crusading energies even at the height of the unrest and economic downturn of the early to mid-2000s (indeed many within Washington would come to believe that a new war may be just what the economy needed to move past its current depression).
The list of possible targets had been narrowed considerably however: the Arab world was now united under a nuclear superpower, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba were all under Cairo's protection (and even the Neocons were not willing to test the Arabs' patience in the aftermath of the Mediterranean crisis); leaving only one of America's proclaimed enemies available as a reasonable option: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The US had many reasons to wish to try its hand at being the latest conquerer to attempt to bend the Persian heartlands to their will; controlling Iran's oil reserves was the most obvious of course as the US and the global market's loss of many of its biggest suppliers in one fell swoop had wreaked unimaginable havoc on the global economy even as Canada and America worked overtime to increase their oil extraction capacities (and that oil was much more expensive by dent of both nations regulatory, labor and environmental standards laws).
Secondly but less immediately obvious was the US' increasingly insecure position in the neo-cold war, as the UAR not only proved able to shrug off most of the tricks and tactics that worked well against the Soviets but proved equally skilled at firing back and sometimes beating the Americans at their own game; not helped by the latter's seeming inability to discipline the very international monetary systems they created as the austerity and structural adjustment demands of the free market began to clash with the Cold War logic of fostering genuine economic development and prosperity for potential allies.
Thus the Americans were forced to barely contain themselves from suing the UAR for copyright infringement as it implemented its own "socialist reconstruction programs" across its neo-Comintern, which even in its watered-down forms was already producing success stories like Cuba's meteoric rise in prosperity, Sri Lanka's almost overnight recovery from the tsunami, Venezuela's slow but steady crawl, the PRC and Indochina's immediate industrial improvements, and even the DPRK's budding Taedong miracle.
The US had staked much of its ideological legitimacy on the premise that history ended and free market economics were the only way forward for all mankind, and having a socialist superpower succeed in transforming several rotting nations into prosperous societies was an attack on that very foundation more dangerous than any arsenal of weapons.
Thus the US needed a new success story that demonstrated the superiority of its model of the human condition once and for all and to write such a story one needed a clean sheet of paper, and what better way to accomplish that than a war that swept away the old regime and allowed the neoliberal prophets to finally have a clean slate to build their glorious vision without interference or regulation.
That the Iranian regime had proven itself an utter paper tiger in confrontation with the Republic only cemented the Bush administration's belief that a conflict with Iran would likely be another desert storm or Serbia.
A successful occupation of Iran would also lead to the US having a more direct entry point to the UAR, which was also a factor in the decision. The hope was that this could be used as the springboard for future covert operations and/or a nexus for future anti-communist resistance against Cairo's tyranny.
These were of course the main pragmatic reasons for the events to come, as there were other less material factors involved, such as the personality and personal goals of President Bush but such matters are difficult to discuss in an objective matter.
No matter the reason, the US would spend the years from 2004 to 2007 laying the groundwork; from manufacturing consent on the inside and cultivating important foreign relationships on the outside, most notably the Russians (whose support was deemed necessary for allowing an invasion to be more logistically feasible), the Pakistanis and of course the US' historical allies in NATO who were for the most part reluctant to participate at first (especially with their economic woes) but were swayed or cajoled into participating to varying degrees by shared concerns about the UAR's growing power, promises of future economic aid or military cooperation, fears of Iranian agression and assurances that the war would be relatively quick and bloodless (for the invaders of course).
All the maneuvering, politicking, scaremongering about nuclear weapons or other WMDs and war preparations would culminate in the United States, all the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization* along with multiple historic US allies, and Russia declaring war on the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 12th, 2007.
| Less than an hour after the Sankara offensive began and two before Serbia made its move |
*The UK and Italy symbolically declared war but their contribution was limited to logistics and other non-military aid rather than committing any troops to the field
And it looks like NATO isn't the only one who was planning to use Military Force to reshape geopolitics. That must have been embarrassing / amusing to suddenly realize.
Relatedly I dread the horror stories that is going to erupt from Iran once NATO forces it into becoming bascially Ancapistan.
One bit of tension between the UAR and PRC is that the former refuses to hand over its captive Yangztee River Dolphin populations and so the latter has refused to loan any pandas to the UAR.
Alright, how badly will the US bungle post war Iran, place your bets here
As per tradition, the Balkans blow up again. Didn't think we'd see why the pro-UAR Balkan countries would regret not forming a defensive pact with the UAR quite this soon.
Sankara Offensive, hmm. Wonder how the African Front will go, considering just how much more fragmented Africa is here