Genolution
Hello there
- Location
- [DATA EXPUNGED]
Plus, a lot of the base technologies involved in all likelihood emerged in countries outside of Russia, like Europe or China or any of the other non-Russian powers.
Victoria Falls Worldbuilding Thread
- Thread starter PoptartProdigy
- Start date
- Worldbuilding
Iraq is like Turkey, Iran and Egypt in being an ancient center of empires. However, in the last 2500 years it's been most often a part of Iranian empires, rather than a center in its own right and going from US invasion to complete collapse of the world system doesn't bode well for an independent Iraq in my view. My guess is that they'd be used as a carrot for Turkey, Iran and Syria. What exactly that means really depends on what those 3 countries want when Russia offers them a free hand in Iraq. Probably no independent Kurdistan, since that would be important for Turkey. Possibly the south of the country up to Baghdad is annexed by Iran. Perhaps it is a seperate country. And perhaps the Sunni Arab north has been taken by Syria, with Kurdistan going to Turkey, or perhaps it is forming a Syrian allied Arab state that may or may not have Iraqi Kurdistan as a part of it. "What Syria wants", since Syria is the closest Russian ally, will count for alot IMO.
The big problem for Kurdistan is Turkey. With Turkey becoming a Russian ally (and I think your reasoning is sound here), I don't see Kurdistan being allowed. At best it's part of Iran now, at worst part of Turkey.
Plus, Kuwait is one of the most enthusiastic US allies in the region. My feeling is that they were made an example of...
What happens after depends on what Iran or whatever state ends up holding power in Shia Iraq want to do with it.
It's worth noting that Cyprus is a major site of Russian overseas banking and that Russia and Greece have pretty good relations for the most part. Giving Cyprus to Turkey seems... extreme and counter productive. I could maybe see Alexander forcing the Greek half of the island to accept the independence/integration into Turkey of the north of the island. More than that seems to be... Dangerous.
On the other hand, Alexander shows zero fear of the nuclear weapons of the US, France, UK and China... I can understand Alexander deciding that destabilizing Israel isn't needed or worthwhile, but this being a major part of his reasoning seems out of character.
Why? I mean... Jordan is one of the poorest and least relevant states in the Middle East, or at least, one of the least relevant to outsiders. I could see Russia helping Syria get some revenge on Jordan for siding with the US during the civil war, but who profits from dismantling Jordan like this? Israel? You already establish that Israel is not a friend of Russia. Syria? Syria would benefit more from a Jordan able to pay reparations or tribute to it. Iraq? The place may not even exist anymore. Saudi Arabia? Definitely not a place that exists.
Also, it is worth noting that the Jordanian royal family is descended from the last Sharif of Mecca, who also claimed to be Caliph for a while. I doubt Russia would want Egypt, Iran or Turkey controlling the holy cities or to be too obvious in their own domination of the holy sites, so Jordan as a willing ally could be quite useful to them for keeping costs down in the Hejaz puppet.
Yemen is also weak enough that they might be a partner in dominating Hejaz with Russia instead of Jordan.
Imagine if you will Russian military bases in the Hejaz, paid for by by a portion of the gifts that pilgrims bring to Mecca and Medina (wars in the middle east used to be fought to get a cut of the money that was paid to the protector(s) of Mecca and Medina - its extremely lucrative) while a Russian ally like Yemen (or less likely Jordan) handles the civilian administration and is marked as controlling the Hejaz on maps, just to ensure that Muslims don't feel something a gauche as actual non-Muslim control of their holiest sites is going on.
I think you are neglecting to consider the Iranian angle here. As well as the influence of other Russian allies. Personally, I am dubious that Russia will be able to do much on its own directly. Sure, they can "encourage" Iran to accept Russian bases and a Russian alliance allowing Russia to launch direct strikes on its Persian Gulf competition to fatally destabilize things. But Russia is going around destabilizing alot of the world in quick succession. There will be a huge demand on Russian military resources, and I think local allies, as Victoria was in North America, will be key. Syria and Yemen are likely participants in such a war against the oil-monarchies of the gulf given recent events in the region. Iran, also a likely member of such a coalition given recent history in OTL, Iranian geography, military power and the fact that there are quite a few oppressed Shia populations on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf. Depending on when Turkey becomes a Russian "friend" and how much Russia trusted the Turks at the time, they could also be allowed to participate. Also, if Russia forges alliances with some of the labour suppliers to the gulf (eg. Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines) it is possible that, as migrant labour would be further mistreated as economies started to decline during the collapse, that some of the sources of these migrants joined Russia in military action in the gulf.
Qatar is close to Iran, and likely is either a Russian ally in this great gulf war or is liberated after being crushed by an invasion of Saudi Arabia and its allies.
The whole west coast of the gulf, while it may be of little interest to Russia so long as it doesn't produce too much oil. will be of interest to Russia's allies. Potentially, the whole region from Southern Iraq to Oman is now a patchwork of Iranian puppet states, with either more equality between the Shia majority of the region and the Sunni populations, or the Shia populations are now dominant. Much depends on whether Russia wanted to bog down Iran in supporting these states against raids by Sunni "revivalist" groups and local Shia groups who just want more independence, or if Russia wanted to make the new states in the region Russian protectorates, containing Iran some at the cost of tying down significant Russian attention in the gulf. Or maybe Russia is trying to maintain a complex balance of power between Iran and the other middle eastern allies in the gulf.
My feeling is that the most likely outcome is that Russia maintains a close watch on the Gulf, protecting a series of small states strung from Southern Iraq to Oman with perhaps the another trusted ally providing supplementary military manpower like Cuba used to do for the Soviet Union. Almost certainly less efficient for Russia than letting Iran wear itself out trying to stay on top of its internal issues and dominate so many wary neighbours, but also avoids the risk of Iran succeeding big and becoming too powerful.
Lebanon sounds reasonable. I think you underestimate how much better Syria would be doing once Turkey is obliged to become a Russian ally and the Gulf monarchies have been flattened in a war. Currently the Assad regimes controls most of the population and the most fertile parts of Syria. The other factions of the civil war are only still going in OTL because of significant outside interference. And the people backing those factions have been flattened by Russia or have become Russian allies so...
Also, what's happening about the Golan heights? I am guessing Russia is telling Syria to shut up and be grateful for getting the rest of their country back.
fasquardon
Like I said, there's very little chance of Israel keeping the Golan in a Russia-controlled world. It's internationally recognized Syrian territory, and while not important to Russia, its important to Syria.
Pretty cheap brownie points for Alexander to twist Tel Aviv's arm until they let go.
And the putative reason why they are holding it, to prevent bombardment of Israeli land, doesn't really hold true in a world where Syria has access to ~200km range Scarabs and ~700km range Scuds. Especially since they can't actually continue to get away with intruding into the airspace of other countries to preemptively bomb their shit like they've been doing for decades.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Dunno.
Note that the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia at all, and therefore even close to the holy cities, was a major stated motivator for Al Qaeda in its early years.
The Russians will want to keep their relationship with whoever is securing Mecca and Medina as distant as feasible, if they're trying to avoid accumulating aggro in the Middle East.
That's true...
True. And letting a local ally handle the whole protection of the holy cities means Russian attention that can be devoted elsewhere.
fasquardon
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
Fixed that for you.
I know what I wrote.
More seriously, no. They have nothing to offer Alexander in this situation, they are critically reliant on imported petroleum at a time that Alexei just blew up the oil markets and killed their largest backer, and that's assuming that the Russian Empire does not still hold a quiet grudge from the Cold War when Israel shot down Soviet-piloted aircraft, killed Soviet generals and exported Soviet equipment to the West for intelligence analysis.
In this situation, Alex is going to be much more interested in keeping his picked allies sweet than in playing footsie with 8 million Israelis.
There's no indication the man himself is anti-Semitic, mind.
But it doesn't cost him very much to make an example of Israel if they should balk him, pour encourageur les autres. And he's already demonstrated the capability to destabilize multiple nuclear states. And Israel got a front seat to the death of Saudi Arabia. Not sure why they'd risk that for the Golan.
IMO, they lose it.
The question is whether it's the hard way or the easy way.
Last edited:
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
I know what I wrote.
We may end up having to disagree on this point.
Leaving aside the the fact that the Golan is over 90% Jewish or Druze and the will of its inhabitants- because Alexander and Syria won't care about that- control over the Golan Heights is essentially to controlling regional water resources. I've been there and I've seen what's left of the old Syrian Headwater Diversion Plan there to divert the Banias and Hisbani water sources. Had they succeeded they would have cut Israel's national water supply substantially, and their attempt to do so was one of the primary causes of the 6-Day War.
No way Jerusalem agrees to cede the Golan to Syria under the circumstances described.
The irony is that Israel has historically offered to return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for Syria recognizing Israel's existence, and permitting Israel retain control over the Sea of Galilee and the Yarmouk River so that it can prevent another HDP, and the Golan being demilitarized. Maybe you could get something like that here? Alexander gets to play peacemaker, Syria gets most of the Golan back and Israel saves face and preserves its water security? But simply handing giving it without preconditions is something Jerusalem would go to war over.
Hey, it happensWe may end up having to disagree on this point.
Point of order:
According to the BBC, most of the Syrian Arab inhabitants of the Golan fled it during the 6-Day War and didn't return.
All the Jews/Israelis there are settlers on occupied territory. Their opinions wouldn't count in international law, let alone in Alexei's plans.
That said, we aren't talking international law.
We're talking balance of force.
This isn't really a negotiation.
More a mugging on a winter evening. The options are whether the victim loses his wallet and shoes, risking frostbite but is otherwise untouched to care for himself, or if he resists and gets his head bashed in the process and left to bleed out in the snow.
The Russian Federation has forces in the region to see to the death of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and alla them.
Skipping over the border into the Golan is barely a skip and jump at this point.And Israel don't have Turkey or Iran's reserves of manpower, or terrain advantages. And they have an occupied Palestinean population.
This really boils down to if you think the Israeli state is willing to risk nation state survival over regional water.
As opposed to keeping their heads down and tightening belts.
And I dont think the Alexei who faced off the PRC during the entire Cascadia affair would blink because Israel demurred.
Literally Alexander has negative reasons to negotiate. Israel has nothing to offer him.
If anything, the Russian population is ~6-7% Muslim, and by the time he eats the Central Asian republics, that percentage goes up to somewhere around 15-20%. No Arabs, but I imagine he'd keep his distance regardless.
Furthermore, he is still on his unbeaten run of foreign policy victories, fresh off destabilizing the United States to death, partitioning Canada and getting France to schism. He had reason to make it look like his allies win everything forever. Makes his next conquests easier by incentivizing opportunists to side with him.
Not to mention that allied control over Israeli fresh water supplies would allow him to yank the leash if necessary.
Israeli exploration for oil in the region just makes things more defined.
Alexander is Legendary Intrigue/Military, not Diplomacy/Stewardship. His default responses are pretty well established.
If Catherine was around, maybe. She's the allegedly Diplo/Science/Stewardship build.
And there are pragmatic reasons for Catherine to build a reputation as a dealmaker, playing Good Cop to Alex's Bad Cop. She might steer clear of the entire region to avoid any association with the atrocities there, but she might not.
But Catherine is only turning 16 or so in the 50s according to @AKuz canonized omakes.
And Alexander rearranged the Middle East sometime starting 2038 according to the GM, so everything would be as good as settled well before her time.
So I ask you: Do you think the Syrian govt would be any more accommodating about their internationally recognized territorial claim to the Golan now they have the global hegemon backing them and using force against their enemies(Saudi Arabia is a major backer of the Syrian resistance), than they were back when the global hegemon was backing Israel?
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
Point of order; this is off topic because;
of this.
Then the Golan stays Israeli.
We've already established that Alexander doesn't think it's worth getting into a shooting war with Israel. Why would he risk that over the Golan?
1) In the Middle East control over reliable sources of water and national survival are the same thing
2) Is Moscow willing to fight a war over this? Because Jerusalem is.
I don't think that you grasp the Israeli mentality. Israel is a country founded by a mix of survivors of genocide, victims of ethnic cleansing, and refugees from persecution united by a desire to never be under anyone else's power ever again. Backing down over the Golan, handing off control of a large chunk of the country's water resources, and caving to demands by a foreign power (which guarantees that there will be more demands in the future) means putting themselves into someone else's power. And not just any someone- Russia, a country with a long history of engaging in Jewish persecution. Most Israelis would regard such circumstances as leading inevitably to Israel being subject either to ethnic cleansing or genocide sooner or later. Because, in the Israeli mindset, that is what always happens eventually when Jews are under the power of non-Jews.
"If Russia can force us to give up the Golan then what's next? The West Bank? East Jerusalem and the Western Wall? Our navy? Our air force? Our nuclear arsenal? No."
Israel views almost everything through a lens of the Holocaust, the ethnic cleansing of the Middle Eastern Jews by the Muslim World, and the Persecution of Soviet Jewry. As a result it regards as threats to its national survival things that outsiders might not see the same way.
Alexander had major things to gain by facing off against the PRC, namely the destruction of a large, stable, American successor state, and the curtailing of Chinese influence outside of Asia. Had he backed down he risked China emerging as a rival superpower to Russia. What does he have to gain from the Golan that so important?
What does Syria have to offer him if he gets them the Golan that they would be freely offering him anyway without the Golan?
I'm unsure what your point is here- a desire not to get too involved in the Middle East would mean an incentive to avoid getting involved in the Israeli-Arab Conflict by creating a confrontation over the Golan.
That's a point in favor of my position.
Scenario 1:
Russia: Give the Golan Heights to Syria
Israel: We'd rather not get in a fight with the global hegemon. How about a deal? We give almost all of the Golan back to Syria, keep the bits we need to secure our water resources, Syria recognizes our existence and signs a peace deal with us, and Syria agrees to keep the Golan demilitarized. Same thing we've been offering since '67.
Russia: Nope! You give back the Golan without any preconditions.
Israel: That's never going to happen.
Russia: *goes to war*
Israel: *fights Russia with a professional, highly motivated army*
Russia: *starts winning because Israel is outnumbered and running low on supplies*
Israel: *drops a tactical nuclear warhead on Russo-Syrian forces*
Now Russia has to decide whether or not to go to a full nuclear exchange with Israel. Israel would seek to exist, but Israel has ICBMs capable of hitting Moscow and St. Petersburg, not to mention other Russian cities. Is it worth trading Moscow for the Golan Heights?
Scenario 2:
Russia: Give the Golan Heights to Syria
Israel: We'd rather not get in a fight with the global hegemon. How about a deal? We give almost all of the Golan back to Syria, keep the bits we need to secure our water resources, Syria recognizes our existence and signs a peace deal with us, and Syria agrees to keep the Golan demilitarized. Same thing we've been offering since '67.
Russia: Counter-offer, you give the Golan minus the bits you need to secure your water resources back to Syria. Syria doesn't recognize you or sign a peace treaty with you, but Israel and Syria restart peace negotiations under Russian auspices. The Golan will be demilitarized and Russia will station soldiers there to make sure it stays that way.
Israel: No recognition of our existence, no peace treaty, and Russian troops in the Golan?
Russia: That's right.
Israel: We don't like this deal.
Russia: Do you really want to say no to the global hegemon that just took out the USA and China?
Israel: Ugh, fine. We'll do it.
Syria just got almost everything it wants in exchange for peace talks that will go nowhere
Scenario 3:
Russia: *Chooses not to stick its dick in the hornets nest that is the Israeli-Arab conflict while subtly trying to undermine Israel and figure out how to take Israel's nuclear arsenal because Alexander doesn't really give a shit about the Golan Heights*
I think scenario three is the most plausible and plays the best to Alexander's intrigue strength, scenario two isn't impossible, and scenario three will not happen. Don't assume that in a world in the grip of economic and political chaos where the United States has been dismembered that Israel is being lead by rational, level-headed people who would blink first in a nuclear confrontation. Assume that Israel at this point is being led by ultra-nationalists, religious zealots, or a military dictatorship.
In order:
-We have more or less established that Israel doesn't have anything Alexei personally wants.
That is not the same thing as saying that he has no reasons to mug an Israel for things that his allies want.
He risked Pakistan to buy India's help after all.
Alexander has not balked at helping his Victorian proxies appropriate the sovereign territory of an EU nuclear power, or India in overthrowing Pakistan. The idea that he'd balk at Israel because it threatens to use nukes is.....not very credible in this AU.
-Modern Israel survived for almost twenty years without control of the Golan or the Sea of Gallilee.
The idea that its an existential issue doesnt really hold (snerk)water.
And frankly, neither is the West Bank.
-The Israeli mentality doesn't really matter here; thankfully, that means we don't have to skirt RL political discussions.
Alexander is rocking plot shields for most of the mid-21st century. This is the universe where he destabilized
Alexander has no reason to tolerate them standing up to him, and the Russian state has institutional reasons to be suspicious of Israel.
If giving up the Golan was a redline for them, they would be as dead as Kuwait or many of the Gulf states.
Alexander does not negotiate, he doubles down.
Catherine negotiates, but she isn't old enough to be involved in politics.
-Syria offers him reliable basing in the Mediterranean and into the Middle East. Unlike Turkey or Iran, which would both prosper on their own without his aid, and are worrisomely independent, or somewhere like Aden which is going to be unstable as fuck, it would be a regime whose dependent relationship is closer to that of Victoria and which reduces his reliance on Turkey and Iran.
And the Golan would be payment to Syria for backing him. Who at the moment aren't being offered anything.
Say what you will about the man, but Alexei tends to visibly, ostentatiously reward his allies. Nevermind if the reward might later turn out to be a poisoned chalice.
-This is a reminder that Israel is a petroleum-dependent economy with no domestic production in a world where Russia controls the oil markets.
And where their EEZ overlaps with that of the Turkish-held half of Cyprus.
And Israel is no more immune to the economic dislocation of the times than the US was.
-Regarding Israel's nuclear capability vis a vis the Russian Empire:
- Israel's longest ranged weapons are land-based Jericho 3 IRBMs. Their position is known and plotted, and launch trajectories carry them over Syria and the Med.
- Israel's second strike capability is 1500km range cruise missiles launched from subs. They don't have the range to reach the Russian heartland, and would be prosecuted with impunity by Russian attack subs in the Med.
- S-500 mobile SAM/ABM systems in Damascus would be able to range across the entirety of Israeli airspace and pop those IRBMs in boost phase as they loft across Syrian airspace. Let alone if they put additional systems in Lebanon and Northern Cyprus. Israel is not getting free launches off at a hostile Russian Empire.
- Moscow has had a nuclear ABM system since at least the 1970s, and it's been upgraded, with the A-135 in the process of being replaced by the A-235.
- The Russians neutralized Colorado Springs in the heart of the US by means still unknown. Zacharia is less than 300km from Latakia, which is maybe three minutes flight for an Iskander-M conventional or nuclear strike package. That is also something to keep in mind.
An arsenal sufficient to maintain deterrence against non-nuclear neighbors is not going to cut it against a superpower that has more missiles than you have warheads. It's not quite impunity, but it's close enough as to make little difference.
Last edited:
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
Agreed.
India is a world power with 1.3 billion people (probably up to 1.5 billion at least by Collapse) and the world's third largest economy after the US and China collapse. India is a more valuable ally than Syria by orders of magnitude, and we haven't established that getting Syria the Golan is either necessary for Russia to recruit Syria as an ally (Syria's already a Russian satellite IOTL) or will noticeably make Syria a better ally.
The idea of Israel surrendering territory unilaterally in response to foreign threats is not very credible in this AU. St. Pierre and Miquelon is an overseas territory of 6,000 people with no real military or economic significance. You can compare giving up that to Israel giving up the Golan.
Twenty years, at which point Syria began trying to turn the water off and Israel had to take control of the area.
I can buy Israel losing the West Bank a lot more easily than I can buy Israel losing the Golan, believe it or not.
We're talking about how Israel would respond to Russia saying "give up the Golan or else". I think the Israeli mentality is very relevant to that discussion.
Alexander has no reason to confront Israel over the Golan in the first place. Why should he care who owns it?
Surrendering integral Israeli territory is a red line for Israel. The fact that Israel exists and seems to have at least a polite relationship with Russia suggests that they haven't been pushed on that issue.
This is an argument in favor of Syria being so reliant on Russian help- because they can't prosper on their own without Russian aid- that Russia doesn't need to give Syria the Golan to keep them happy and obedient.
As you just pointed out above, Russia is giving Syria the aid it needs to prosper. Plus, without Russian help Syria in this scenario becomes a failed state. It's nearly a failed state right now in reality. Without Russian support Syria stops existing as a coherent entity. That's what they're being offered.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Given a choice between "Syria only gets 80-90% of what they want" and "a lucky nuclear shot by the Israelis torches half of Sevastopol," Alexander might sensibly choose the former. Because having to patch up a giant smoldering crater in Sevastopol would be super inconvenient.
The EU nuclear power whose territory was appropriated by Victoria was so marginal and irrelevant that even a nuclear power might not threaten nuclear war. It was nowhere near as important to France as the Golan Heights are to Israel. Secondly, France was likely in pieces and incapable of credibly threatening nuclear war by the time that seizure happened.
That was when the population was lower and they needed less water.
My honest impression is that he does negotiate when he doesn't think he has an angle for doubling down. Whatever the fuck he did to avoid getting nuked, he may or may not have been confident enough that it would be worth rolling the dice on to avoid being moderately inconvenienced by Israel just to make the Syrians that much happier.
Remember that Alexander usually doesn't empower his allies if he can help it. He likes it just fine when his allies are comparatively 'hungry' and still want things he is in a position to give them, and he is actively happy to string them along in fundamentally untenable positions to keep them dependent on him. Why do you think his chosen proxy for North America is Victoria and not, say, the Free City of New York? It's because without Victoria, the FCNY could plausibly become independent of his patronage. The reverse is not true.
True. On the other hand, Alexander has done much less than he could have done to ensure that Victoria would be maximally strong and territorially aggrandized. He likes his puppet states (Turkey and Iran are not puppets in this scenario) strong enough to bully people he wants bullied, but not strong enough to feel like they don't need him. Usually, this involves either making sure they have too many enemies to be safe abandoning him (Victoria). Or making sure that he has something they badly want and can't survive without (oil for India and Japan, and also Victoria).
I don't think Alexander will risk being mildly inconvenienced just to fully screw over Syria. I can imagine a sufficiently bonkers Israeli government getting away with saying "look, we know we can't actually stop you, but if you don't at least let us keep the water, we might as well all commit suicide anyway, so we'll have very little to lose by putting your ABM systems through a quick stress test and are you sure you'll stop all those cruise missiles? Like, all of them? You've got some good shit man, but that good?"
And Alexander is like "you know, Israel gets stroppy and actually does launch a nuclear first strike, they sure as shit won't hit Moscow, but they might hit, like, Sevastopol or something. And if Sevastopol gets nuked it would ruin my whole weekend and people would be bitching at me about it for, like, months. Fuckit, Israel can keep the water. It's probably just as well if the rest of the Islamic world has the continued existence of Israel to scream about anyway, and what I have to gain by making a horrible example of them for defying me doesn't offset what I have to lose if they somehow get a shot off and actually break my track record of effortlessly sticking the landing whenever I crush my enemies."
Israel doesn't have to pose an existential threat to Russia, or to Alexander IV personally, for Israel's nuclear deterrent to have an effect.
In the cases of countries he's brought down that had a nuclear arsenal:
1) Britain and France seem to have largely collapsed economically before Russia moved on them overtly.
2) The China situation has not been explained in sufficient clarity for us to understand what happened, but it is unclear whether Russia ever overtly got involved as opposed to backing and hacking and otherwise causing trouble that wasn't sorted out and identified until later.
3) Pakistan, again, we don't know all the details. It is entirely possible that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal was neutralized through some combination of surprise raids, Indian military first strikes, and Russian agents within the government I suspect Alexander actually spent a lot of time and effort setting that up, and had a very nervous/sweaty moment while it was all going down. Also this would be happening, again, after the country and its organized governance were bodyslammed by, like, COVID-19 through -30 or something.
4) The US likewise, in that Russia mostly restricted themselves to covertly aiding insurgent groups early on. At least until a point at which the US government had collapsed so badly that all they could spare to suppress the proto-Victorians in Maine and ??? was a hastily conscripted and poorly supplied division. I suspect that by that point, the US was no longer keeping effective track of all terrorist and secessionist movements within their territory. It is entirely possible that much of the US nuclear navy had been parked in harbor for lack of funds to keep them operating, or because of COVID-19-like plagues sweeping through the ships and wreaking havoc and it then not being feasible to get them out to sea again.
Early in the Russian-catalyzed breakup of the United States, the president ordering a nuclear attack on Russia would only have made things worse because we'd just get nuked right back and have that to deal with on top of everything else. By the time the Russians overtly began intervening, there was no longer a recognizable US governmental chain of command capable of commanding nuclear launches, and so the US nuclear arsenal was pointless EXCEPT for being a bargaining chip that Alexander could probably actually gain international approval by having secured and decommissioned or removed. Sort of, ironically, like how the old Soviet nuclear arsenal was when the US won the Cold War.
Syria gets military security from having chunks bitten off of it by Turkey and Iran, gets cheap military equipment and probable favorable economic deals that will benefit them in a thousand ways, and gets to not be turned into a refugee-swept wasteland yet again for the second time in under thirty years.
Now THAT is a fair point.
I'm avoiding replying to individual paragraphs to avoid getting dinged for spaghetti posting again.
My apologies for any confusion that may ensue.
Pakistan was also a much more dangerous target by orders of magnitude; a population of >200 million, a GDP of 1.2 trillion PPP, an indigenous nuclear arsenal, the means to deploy it, and the territory to hide it in. Not to mention the chances of
Israel is a much smaller target.
-You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.The prospect of being hanged concentrates attentions wonderfully.
I find that holds true for both people and nation-states. In this case, having a hostile superpower on your border demanding the return of conquered territory promotes rapid reassessment of just what you can actually live without.
-The Israeli mentality you describe here is no more different or unique in this AU than standard nuclear power deterrent policy.
It's not special. They are not special in threatening to nuke people for invading things they consider vital interests.
The Israeli military is quite capable, but it is way out of it's league here.
-He cares because his client cares.
And because his prospects for success are reliant on self-interested factions believing that they will make out like bandits by joining the winning side.
Not just survival, but prosperity.
-It isn't integral Israeli territory. Never has been, has never been recognized as such by anyone.
Literally the only government that has recognized Israeli occupation of the Golan is the US administration of Donald Trump. The EU would not support their control of it, even if they didn't have domestic problems. They may have a legitimate interest in it's disposition, but it's not theirs. Any more than the headwaters of the Niger river belong to Nigeria.
-See again Victoria for how Alexei rewards client states that do his bidding.
He fed them sufficient resources and infrastructure to maintain a Second or First World-level economy, even with Russian corporate profiteering.
Ideology crippling the Vics is something he can't actually be blamed for.
-Oh, you don't have to take my word for it; talk to people who actually do this sort of thing for a living
armscontrolcenter.org
Publicly available information places the Israeli arsenal at anywhere from 60-400 warheads of all types, with reasonable estimates being in the 80 warhead range.
Their primary strategic missile arsenal is emplaced on Jericho II/III IRBMs based in underground caves in the Zacharia area, with estimates ranging from 24-100, and settling around 24. Second strike capability is in their 6x Dolphin 1/2-class SSKs, which may be capable of deploying a small number of SLCMs. Miscellaneous tactical warheads are on aircraft based out of airbases, plus an unknown number of alleged SADMs.
This is public information. Alexander has access to better estimates in-story, and better surveillance.
Ambiguity being part of Israeli nuclear doctrine allows for wild estimates to be bandied about and spread through the media, which is probably part of Israeli military posturing vs its neighbors. But there are hard limits to how many nuclear weapons a country the size of Israel can support while maintaining conventional military capability as well against it's neighbors, and you cant hide that shit from a superpower.
The more so when the fall of the United States costs their defense budget billions of dollars in yearly subsidies and loan guarantees; the US is committed to giving the Israelis 38 billion dollars in direct defense aid between 2019 and 2028, constituing up to 20-some percent of their yearly defence budget. Add that to the ongoing economic damage of the Collapse.
Israel cannot afford this confrontation.
My apologies for any confusion that may ensue.
-India is a more valuable ally to Russia.
Pakistan was also a much more dangerous target by orders of magnitude; a population of >200 million, a GDP of 1.2 trillion PPP, an indigenous nuclear arsenal, the means to deploy it, and the territory to hide it in. Not to mention the chances of
Israel is a much smaller target.
-You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.The prospect of being hanged concentrates attentions wonderfully.
I find that holds true for both people and nation-states. In this case, having a hostile superpower on your border demanding the return of conquered territory promotes rapid reassessment of just what you can actually live without.
-The Israeli mentality you describe here is no more different or unique in this AU than standard nuclear power deterrent policy.
It's not special. They are not special in threatening to nuke people for invading things they consider vital interests.
The Israeli military is quite capable, but it is way out of it's league here.
-He cares because his client cares.
And because his prospects for success are reliant on self-interested factions believing that they will make out like bandits by joining the winning side.
Not just survival, but prosperity.
-It isn't integral Israeli territory. Never has been, has never been recognized as such by anyone.
Literally the only government that has recognized Israeli occupation of the Golan is the US administration of Donald Trump. The EU would not support their control of it, even if they didn't have domestic problems. They may have a legitimate interest in it's disposition, but it's not theirs. Any more than the headwaters of the Niger river belong to Nigeria.
-See again Victoria for how Alexei rewards client states that do his bidding.
He fed them sufficient resources and infrastructure to maintain a Second or First World-level economy, even with Russian corporate profiteering.
Ideology crippling the Vics is something he can't actually be blamed for.
-Oh, you don't have to take my word for it; talk to people who actually do this sort of thing for a living
Fact Sheet: Israel's Nuclear Inventory - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Israel’s assumed nuclear weapons program, and the history surrounding it, is characterized by ambiguity. Thus far, that ambiguity has been effectively tolerated. Any formal recognition or acknowledgement of Israel’s weapons program could upset the current uneasy balance in the region...
armscontrolcenter.org
Their primary strategic missile arsenal is emplaced on Jericho II/III IRBMs based in underground caves in the Zacharia area, with estimates ranging from 24-100, and settling around 24. Second strike capability is in their 6x Dolphin 1/2-class SSKs, which may be capable of deploying a small number of SLCMs. Miscellaneous tactical warheads are on aircraft based out of airbases, plus an unknown number of alleged SADMs.
This is public information. Alexander has access to better estimates in-story, and better surveillance.
Ambiguity being part of Israeli nuclear doctrine allows for wild estimates to be bandied about and spread through the media, which is probably part of Israeli military posturing vs its neighbors. But there are hard limits to how many nuclear weapons a country the size of Israel can support while maintaining conventional military capability as well against it's neighbors, and you cant hide that shit from a superpower.
The more so when the fall of the United States costs their defense budget billions of dollars in yearly subsidies and loan guarantees; the US is committed to giving the Israelis 38 billion dollars in direct defense aid between 2019 and 2028, constituing up to 20-some percent of their yearly defence budget. Add that to the ongoing economic damage of the Collapse.
Israel cannot afford this confrontation.
Last edited:
-Or he might not choose the former.
You are looking at the guy who allegedly threatened nuclear war against the PRC if the Chinese declared conventional war on Japan for Rumford's bomb threat. Those are not the bona fides of a man you threaten from an inferior geopolitical position.
-Said EU nuclear power's arsenal is now splintered into multiple parts, and the reaction of individual French military and civilian commanders to being tweaked by a bush league Third World nation would have been....unpredictable. But he helped them do it anyway.
Not really the reasonable move IMO.
-Neither Turkey nor Iran have any territorial aspirations in Syria; Turkey's main concerns is to keep the Kurds down and prevent them from using Syria as a base, and Iran is a Syrian ally. The resistance would have died with the Collapse, when Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Qatar were suddenly more engaged with keeping their countries alive through the treacherous times than with funding resistance groups in Syria.
So getting Syria involved in this involves paying them off. Visibly.
-That was also when Israel didn't have desalination projects going on. As of 2016, Israel pulled 55% of it's domestic water from desalination. It plans on going to 100% of it's drinking water, from 80% today. Israel exports citrus as a cash crop, a tree that requires the equivalent of 60 inches of water per year. The headwaters of the Galilee are important, but they are by no means the existential issue they are being presented as. For either state.
For Syria it's a matter of national pride and internal governmental legitimacy, and for Israel it's convenience. National security was a factor once upon a time, but with the proliferation of theater ballistic missiles and surveillance drone, it's military value has waned.
-I think I pointed out upthread that the Russian command staff is already predisposed to be uncharitable towards a linchpin of US Middle East policy for the last fifty years.
-Sure, he doesn't empower them to be independent. But he does at least reward them enough to give the initial impression that they profited mightily. Syria in particular would remain dependent on Russia vis a vis Turkey, say, in most eventualities. While both Turkey and Iran can go their own way if given half a chance.
Like I pointed out earlier on either this thread or the other thread, the resources he handed over to the Vics from Canada's bleeding corpse are enough to support a First World standard of living even with generous Russian corporate profiteering, and the Blackwell interlude suggests he has repeatedly attempted to get them to upgrade their way of life, if only because it makes them more effective.
But you can't fix stupid.
-I'm looking at the Alex that has been thus portrayed in this AU. I dont see any sign of a man given to compromise, or indeed in folding the cards, at anytime prior to the 2050s. He's doubled down at every opportunity, from knocking over the US to murdering Canada to the New South to the NCR to threatening nuclear war with China if they attacked Japan conventionally.
Just the Pacific War, with Russian-backed and -supplied forces performing atrocities on PacRep soil, involved risking getting hit by nuke-tipped TLAMs out of a Los Angeles or Virginia-class attack sub homeported at Point Loma Naval Base in San Diego. Those things carry at least 12x dedicated VLS tube-equivalents for Tomahawks or Tomahawk-successors, and there were at least six homeported in San Diego.
That is not really the behavior of someone willing to back down in the face of threats of smaller nations.
Much as he pours oppobrium on Rumford's risk-taking, he seems to be very much the same. Just much more competent(or lucky). And that was with Cali, which he could only reach by proxy using Vics and mercs since trans-Pacific invasions are...not cheap or easy to justify.By comparison, the Med is his backyard once he's done expanding his borders.He actually had to put troops in Syria for the fuck Saudi Arabia ops.
Millenial middle-age crisis on full display.
Normal people marry trophy wives half their age and buy flashy sports cars, Alexei adopts a cause and knocks over nuclear powers.
-The economic bit is to point out just how fucked Israel is to even a legit economic pressure campaign with no underhanded sabotage in the absence of the US and the paralysis of the EU. I mean, if the Russian Empire choked the Pacific Republic into submission, despite it's access to a wealth of resources, Israel would have frankly been destabilized along with most of the Gulf nations.
They aren't a monocrop economy like the Saudis, but it's major trade partners include the US, China, UK, and Hong Kong.
It's not like fighting Arab regimes more interested in using them as an external boogeyman than in building up their nation's economic and military power. They can't afford this confrontation, militarily or economically.
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
I'm avoiding replying to individual paragraphs to avoid getting dinged for spaghetti posting again.
My apologies for any confusion that may ensue.
-India is a more valuable ally to Russia.
Pakistan was also a much more dangerous target by orders of magnitude; a population of >200 million, a GDP of 1.2 trillion PPP, an indigenous nuclear arsenal, the means to deploy it, and the territory to hide it in. Not to mention the chances of
Israel is a much smaller target.
-You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.The prospect of being hanged concentrates attentions wonderfully.
I find that holds true for both people and nation-states. In this case, having a hostile superpower on your border demanding the return of conquered territory promotes rapid reassessment of just what you can actually live without.
-The Israeli mentality you describe here is no more different or unique in this AU than standard nuclear power deterrent policy.
It's not special. They are not special in threatening to nuke people for invading things they consider vital interests.
The Israeli military is quite capable, but it is way out of it's league here.
-He cares because his client cares.
And because his prospects for success are reliant on self-interested factions believing that they will make out like bandits by joining the winning side.
Not just survival, but prosperity.
-It isn't integral Israeli territory. Never has been, has never been recognized as such by anyone.
Literally the only government that has recognized Israeli occupation of the Golan is the US administration of Donald Trump. The EU would not support their control of it, even if they didn't have domestic problems. They may have a legitimate interest in it's disposition, but it's not theirs. Any more than the headwaters of the Niger river belong to Nigeria.
-See again Victoria for how Alexei rewards client states that do his bidding.
He fed them sufficient resources and infrastructure to maintain a Second or First World-level economy, even with Russian corporate profiteering.
Ideology crippling the Vics is something he can't actually be blamed for.
-Oh, you don't have to take my word for it; talk to people who actually do this sort of thing for a living
Publicly available information places the Israeli arsenal at anywhere from 60-400 warheads of all types, with reasonable estimates being in the 80 warhead range.Fact Sheet: Israel's Nuclear Inventory - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Israel’s assumed nuclear weapons program, and the history surrounding it, is characterized by ambiguity. Thus far, that ambiguity has been effectively tolerated. Any formal recognition or acknowledgement of Israel’s weapons program could upset the current uneasy balance in the region...
Their primary strategic missile arsenal is emplaced on Jericho II/III IRBMs based in underground caves in the Zacharia area, with estimates ranging from 24-100, and settling around 24. Second strike capability is in their 6x Dolphin 1/2-class SSKs, which may be capable of deploying a small number of SLCMs. Miscellaneous tactical warheads are on aircraft based out of airbases, plus an unknown number of alleged SADMs.
This is public information. Alexander has access to better estimates in-story, and better surveillance.
Ambiguity being part of Israeli nuclear doctrine allows for wild estimates to be bandied about and spread through the media, which is probably part of Israeli military posturing vs its neighbors. But there are hard limits to how many nuclear weapons a country the size of Israel can support while maintaining conventional military capability as well against it's neighbors, and you cant hide that shit from a superpower.
The more so when the fall of the United States costs their defense budget billions of dollars in yearly subsidies and loan guarantees; the US is committed to giving the Israelis 38 billion dollars in direct defense aid between 2019 and 2028, constituing up to 20-some percent of their yearly defence budget. Add that to the ongoing economic damage of the Collapse.
Israel cannot afford this confrontation.
Oh, I didn't know that we weren't allowed to spaghetti post. I'll do more to avoid that.
Look, you've made your argument and I've made mine. I think it's pretty clear that Russia has no reason to confront Israel over the Golan, and that risking losing Moscow to get the Golan isn't worth it. Even if your assessment of Israel's nuclear capabilities were correct, there would still be nothing Russia could do to protect Damascus and the Syrians themselves would say "Stop, it's not worth it. We don't care enough about getting the Golan to risk our capital."
Also, really? The Golan's not integral Israeli territory? Dude, we're talking about what Israel would do if Russia tried to force it to surrender the Golan. The fact that Israel regards the Heights as integral Israeli territory is the only relevant fact to whether or not Israel treats the Heights as integral Israeli territory.
I think we've expressed out positions, and it's time for the QM to rule on this.
1) It's inconsistently enforced, but yes, it's a thing, especially when you reply to sentences. I've been dinged for it before.
You're generally safe if you quote whole paragraphs, though. I think.
2) I think it's pretty clear that the Empire that went out of it's way to fuck over the Pacific Republic even at the risk of significant potential blowback from the remnants of the US arsenal does not share your definition of reasonable. A reasonable person would not have risked finding out how many W80s Cali could put back on Tomahawks and JASSMs and AGM-129s, or how many SADMs they could stuff in a backpack, by having proxies committing atrocities on PacRep soil.
California currently produces around half a million barrels of domestic petroleum a day, most of it out of Kern County, had access to US nuclear infrastructure, the remnant of the US military, and continental resources. And Alexei still managed to choke them out.
Israel has none of the Pacific Republic's advantages, is nowhere as resilient, and is much closer to Russian Imperial borders.
Even in the event that he declined direct military intervention, Alexei could choke Israel to death in less than a year simply by controlling oil flows.
Israel draws much of it's oil from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, both on Alexei's menu.
And allegedly some under the table from Kurdish-controlled territory, also on Alexei's menu.
Can't field SSKs if you don't have diesel to run your navy. Can't fly F35s and F15s if no one will sell JP-8 to you. Can't run an economy in the 2030s without petroleum and petrochemicals. And none of that requires Alexei getting inspired and sabotaging the Tamar gas field overtly by pushing Lebanon or Turkish Cyprus to dispute ownership, or covertly by deploying frogmen and UUVs to make the natural gas wells go boom.
There is literally negative upside for Israel to get into this with Alex in the middle of the Collapse hitting the Israeli economy, and it's ability to sustain a military defense like a wrecking ball in the aftermath of the collapse of the US. They'd either give it up and be thankful that he isn't actually attempting to extort more. Or die, whether fast or slow being at the discretion of Alex and his allies.
There is a time for belligerence. This aint it.
3) External perception matters. Other nation-states opinions matter. Ask Texas. Ask New York.
California drew support, what support people could spare, in the middle of the Collapse because of perception.
There are going to be fewer volunteers attempting to spend their resources in the middle of an economic collapse to support Israel when the cause is to keep internationally recognized sovereign territory of another nation, as opposed to if someone was trying to wipe them out.
And even indigenous Israeli reaction is going to be less emotive when Alexei and his Syrian allies demand the Golan when they could be demanding the return of the territories Israel seized from Jordan in 1967.
4) You mean the Syrians who joined Egypt and others in the Yom Kippur War against Israel in 1973, well after rumors of Israeli nukes were about, in part because of Israeli occupation of this exact territory? The same ones who went balls-in in Lebanon in 1982? The ones who built the world's third largest chemical weapons stockpile at one point? Who have never stopped supporting Hezbollah or various Palestinean groups?
I'm not sure why you expect the Syrians to be more risk-averse than the Israelis have been.
Especially in a position where their ally holds the whip hand for once.
Because they could demand enforcement of the United Nations partition plan for the Israeli-Palestinean territories, just for starters.
3) It's up to the GM, sure. But arguing this is still fun. In moderation
Last edited:
(I hope this is the right place to post this and that I didn't screw up.)
I wanted to write an omake on what happened to Belgium and Brussels, the capital of the EU but for that I want you to tell me if these facts are true or false. @PoptartProdigy
1. Shortly after the collapse, flemish separatists took advantage of the ensuing chaos to declare the independence of the Flemish Region
2. Belgium ended up breaking into three parts : one was the Flemish Region now called Flanders, the second was Wallonia which ended up absorbing the Luxembourg for protection as the number of Walloons is less than half the number of Flemish. And the last one was Brussels which became an independent state and the center of the EU.
3. Flanders is right-leaning contrary to Wallonia which is left-leaning.
4. The rising of far-right and fascists was largely prevented thanks to the ''cordon sanitaire'', a real-life measure taken by flemish parties during the nineties to ensure that no far-right party would ever gets the majority.
5. Flanders ended up electing a new king while Wallonia inherited the belgian royal family which ended up becoming the Walloon royal family.
I want to know if any of these are wrong for the omake I will write if you don't mind. Thank you !
I wanted to write an omake on what happened to Belgium and Brussels, the capital of the EU but for that I want you to tell me if these facts are true or false. @PoptartProdigy
1. Shortly after the collapse, flemish separatists took advantage of the ensuing chaos to declare the independence of the Flemish Region
2. Belgium ended up breaking into three parts : one was the Flemish Region now called Flanders, the second was Wallonia which ended up absorbing the Luxembourg for protection as the number of Walloons is less than half the number of Flemish. And the last one was Brussels which became an independent state and the center of the EU.
3. Flanders is right-leaning contrary to Wallonia which is left-leaning.
4. The rising of far-right and fascists was largely prevented thanks to the ''cordon sanitaire'', a real-life measure taken by flemish parties during the nineties to ensure that no far-right party would ever gets the majority.
5. Flanders ended up electing a new king while Wallonia inherited the belgian royal family which ended up becoming the Walloon royal family.
I want to know if any of these are wrong for the omake I will write if you don't mind. Thank you !
- Location
- Rockford, USA
- Pronouns
- They/Them
We actually have other Belgian citizens who participate; I'll give them a bit to chime in on the verisimilitude, as I truthfully know little of Belgium.
Not a Belgian, so I'll defer to the actual Belgians. But none of this scenario makes sense.
There is an economic crisis, their neighbor of France is in actual schism, Russia is eating countries, and that is supposed to be the time to secede? Only if you are trying to discredit it completely. Note what happened to Catalonia in this universe with its brief independence. Right before it imploded economically and was reabsorbed by Spain.
And Catalonia has roughly 7.5 million people, a million more people than there are Belgian Flemings, and only 4 million less than the entirety of Belgium.
Accession to the EU is not automatic for secessionist states, and the Belgian economy is intimately entangled in the rest of the EU. Choosing the middle of the Collapse to secede would fuck the economy bad enough to discredit even separatists to other separatists.
France schismed into multiple states all claiming to be France, which was a distinctly different situation as I understand it.
25% of the Belgian population are naturalized immigrants or the children of immigrants. You actually do have to account for them as well.
And why would Luxembourg's ~600,000 people have any interest in getting involved in a union with Walloon ethnic separatists?
40-50% of their population are immigrants from places like Portugal and Italy. It doesn't even make sense from the PoV of an ethnic nationalist; native Luxembourgers are Germanic-speakers, not French.
Should probably go here:
Iran put a military satellite in orbit today.
And they apparently launched it from a mobile TEL, not a fixed launch site.
Which does help benchmark the whole "Middle Eastern powers" thing.
And, incidentally, establishes how fast a well-educated nationstate with the will *cough*California*cough* can re-establish satellite launch capability even if under sanctions.
Iran put a military satellite in orbit today.
And they apparently launched it from a mobile TEL, not a fixed launch site.
Which does help benchmark the whole "Middle Eastern powers" thing.
And, incidentally, establishes how fast a well-educated nationstate with the will *cough*California*cough* can re-establish satellite launch capability even if under sanctions.
SneakyWalrus
Is the Water Free?
You know, speaking of PACS, I'm surprised they're not currently a massive, massive, massive thorn in the side of Japanese and Russian interests in the Pacific. Not to mention that PACS is probably the only real counterweight to Russian relations with India. After all, Australia and New Zealand's economies are massively based around trade with China, and following the Collapse and general rebuilding, those economies would have become even more heavily intertwined with China's own, especially now that China no longer has the counterweight of the USA to pull Aus/NZ interests away from their orbits and instead has the (for once in their relationships with the rest of Pacifica nations) benefit of not being the 'aggressive' superpower looking for friends.
If anything, I would say that China is probably entirely willing to play buddy buddy with PACS as the closest thing to a friendly power in the east asian region, especially because they simply don't have as bad a history with the leading nations inside PACS compared to the rest of their surrounding neighbors.
Depends on the members.
Indonesia should very well be the heavyweight of that alliance, unless Australia seriously stepped up it's game.
I expect Australia did, out of self-preservation if nothing else; it would already be dealing with refugee problems from the US and UK, and doesnt need more from it's neighbors.
But whether they did so early enough to matter, instead of hiding under the covers and waving a nuclear bangstick till things got bad, remains to be seen.
Why in the world would Indonesia go after Malaysian Borneo?
When they already have problems with pacifying West Papua/Irian Jaya? Why give Imperial Japan or India casus belli to intervene in the region?
Why antagonize Australia, which is probably looking to the area and East Timor for its local petroleum reserves in the middle of the Collapse?
There are a bunch of decisions that don't seem geopolitically plausible once you open a map and look at the local geography.
In general, I'd wait to hash that entire thing out when the GM opens up that area of the world to discussion.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
You're expecting far-right Flemish separatists to act in a smart and sane way.
They don't like the EU anyway, and I doubt they'll care about the economic effects.If Alex gives them support, which I think is likely, see Vlaams Belang's ties with today's Russia, I can see them try to use the chaos to their advantage and attempt to form a Flemish Republic (can't see them elect a new king as @DanganMachin suggested, Flemish separatists really tend towards republicanism). And then reality hits them, they get beaten up by the rest of Belgium and friends and eventually reabsorbed.
Just another pawn in Alex's plan to sow chaos.
Disclaimer: I'm not Belgian. I am not European.You're expecting far-right Flemish separatists to act in a smart and sane way.
But I cannot help but notice that all the Euroskeptic parties and sentiment suddenly lost popularity on seeing the actual reality of Brexit play out.
I don't see how a secessionist party is going to gain popularity among Flemings in the face of the shitshow that is the US Collapse, or the French schism right next door with it's disruptions.
Or watching Brexit bring the UK to collapse and disintegration, with millions of it's people seeking shelter as refugees on the continent.
You actually need popular support to secede, and can't just play martial music on the radio one morning.
They are living in a world where Russia profers diplomatic and military patronage to a group that livestreamed a massacre of university professors on live TV while wearing Templar cosplay and set to music. Where Canada was murdered with Russian connivance, and the Victorians are doing their best to murder Quebecois identity. Where ethnic cleansing of Hispanics was carried out.
Any party that is associated with Russian influence here is likely to suffer a precipitous loss of popularity.
People will not generally vote for their own destruction without a previous, prolonged period of indoctrination.
And Belgium is neither one of the big guns of Europe like France or Italy or Germany, nor is it strategically located like Greece.
It plain isn't worth the effort for Alex to devote his Legendary spec spies to destabilize the place when he has more important places to worry about. Even he has limited resources.
Not to mention that after the US and France, the counterintelligence apparatus of European nations will be on pretty high alert.