Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire
- Thread starter Pellegrino
- Start date
As they stand now, they are absolutly devestating. But as we see in Cuba, a country can tough it out for quite along time under sanctions. But the UIS will continue to try and chip away at them while at the same time using them as an excuse for all of their problems (much like with Cuba in OTL)
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Well OTL Iran has to adjust their economy to a sanctions-resistant one, so why can't Zhirinovsky's UIS do the same? It's not like they're a very small country that is isolated from the rest of the world. And what is this about Volodya agreeing to a referendum?
In OTL Yeltsin agreed to a referendum (a yes/no confidence vote) in april of 1993. Now keep in mind, a referendum is not the same as an election. If Zhirinovsky wins this vote of confidence, he gets to hold the results up as proof that the Russian people back him. If he loses it doesn't mean he steps down (although it creates a lot of momentum to get rid of him). It is a gamble, but if it is played perfectly, it could end the sanctions, and Zhirinovsky may be crazy enough to think everyone in the country loves him and he'll win this hands down.
As for trying to work within the sanctions, well, they can do it, yes. And they are taking steps to adjust the economy. Keep in mind, in OTL Russia in 1993 wasn't as tied into the international economy as they are now. That is one thing that is working in their favor. But the economy is in a free fall and the hope is if they can just break the sanctions a bit they can overcome the hard times that they are facing.
But it is funny you mention Iran, because like Iran, there is a very real possibility that the "president" doesn't control much. Ahmadinejad is controversial and unpopular in the West, and the funny thing is he is often talked about on the American media as if he really is in control of the country. But insiders know, the real power in Iran is held by the "Supreme Leader" (Ali Khamenei). In the UIS here it may be no different, which means even if Zhirinovsky lost the election, it doesn't really change anything excpet maybe the charade. And if that is the case, maybe the junta would be willing to throw Zhirinovsky to the wolves if thats what it takes. If the junta is really in control, then its goal is not to preserve Zhirinovsky, but to end the sanctions while also keeping the UIS intact.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Let's hope Zhirinovsky won't have to make the same economical mistakes as Yeltsin did.
Moving on from Yugoslavia, what is UIS doing in other parts of the world to stir up trouble?
Also, I thought there was to be a month without a update. Thank god I am wrong!
We are seeing right now that the UIS is on "good behavior" to a degree, trying to win friends and show the world that they are not nearly as bad as they are made out to be by the West. But as we can see already, it is failing miserably (pro fascist riots the previous year in your country tend to have that impact), and we know by the mid-1990s they are back to causing pure havoc. But at least in the short term we won't see as much from the UIS to "stir up trouble".
India is another one which the UIS will work hard to mend relations with. Both are anti-Pakistan and pro-Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. And despite Zhirinovsky's radical anti-Muslim rhetoric, look for him to try and mend fences with Iraq, Syria, Libya, and some of the other rouge nations in the middle east. China is going to emerge as something of a "love-hate" relationship in the coming years. On one side of the coin, China wants to take advantage of the economic opportunities in Central Asia and they both have problems with the Turkmen minorities inside their borders. But there is a long history of tension between the two nations, and China doesn't want to get too close to the UIS and alienate the Americans (who they are also making money with) or the rest of the world. Plus, it is not easy to be allies with the Inidans and the Chinese at the same time.
RousseauX
Donor
Iran's currency has also devalued by 50% since the sanctions began, so hardly a country which has braved the sanctions very well.
The thing is trade and doing businesses with other countries generates wealth for the countries in question (that's why they happen), sanctions, even if you restructure your economy, still lead to the loss of trade and therefore loss of real wealth. Therefore it's inevitable for a lower standard of living relative to pre-sanction times to result.
Incognito
Banned
So will Zhirinovsky support the various nationalist and quasi-militant Hindutva organizations in India like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Bajrang Dal, Vishva Hindu Parishad, etc. as well as politicians like Bal Thackeray or will he try to suck up to the mainstream Indian government?
Also, I was wondering if Zhirinovsky would support far-right groups like French Unité Radicale and if he will become popular with various right-wingers and xenophobes in the West. "See, that guy in Russia knows how to properly deal with Muslims/Jews/disliked minorities!"
PART FORTY: THE PERFECT BOOGIEMAN
PART FORTY: THE PERFECT BOOGIEMAN
PART FORTY: THE PERFECT BOOGIEMAN
Well, just as in OTL, we have a referendum vote on April 25th, which "may" be part of General Lebed's plan to get rid of Zhirinovsky and keep the UIS together while getting the UN to end sanctions. But while I doubt Zhirinovsky could win an election in OTL, there is sort of a perfect storm here that gets Zhiri through this election despite evidence that the military is now fed up with him and is willing to cut him lose...
UIS Presidential Candidate Vladimir Putin in an interview with the BBC on August 1, 2011.
Discussing the April 25th Russian Government Referendum and the subsequent Constitutional Crisis that followed the Zhirinovsky victory.
BBC: If, as you claim, a military junta secretly controlled the country, why did they allow the referendum to occur on April 25th, 1993? Wouldn’t that be a threat to their power?
Putin: In a way yes, but the Russian people wanted these elections and we ran a greater risk ignoring the will of the people. Besides, we saw with our allies in Serbia that we didn’t necessarily need to fear elections.
BBC: So you knew that President Zhirinovsky would win?
Putin: No we did not. In fact, we were counting on him losing the election. It would have made things considerably easier.
BBC: What do you mean?
Putin: He won by such a close margin that his critics naturally claimed he rigged the election. Plus, with the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia boycotting the election, we needed a clear result, be it a victory or a defeat for Zhirinovsky. But in the end, we had a legitimately free election that was tainted by the boycott. As a result we were unable to get the sanctions lifted. General Lebed was counting on Zhirinovsky losing the vote of confidence.
BBC: So you are saying General Lebed actually supported the removal of Zhirinovsky?
BBC: Yes. He knew that a coup was not an option, at least not at that point. But if Zhirinovsky lost the referendum then the West might agree to lift sanctions and support the democratic forces that, at least on paper, were now in control of the country. These forces would be under threat from the fascists and the West might just swallow the bitter pill of a partitioned Croatia and an intact UIS if it meant keeping the fascists at bay against the democrats. That was what Lebed really cared about: keeping the Union together. He allowed the election as a way of testing the waters; of seeing if getting rid of Zhirinovsky would appease the West and the UN. Quite frankly, Vladimir Zhirinovsky had served his purpose. He had been the perfect boogieman, and the West would do anything if it meant getting rid of him. Anything.
BBC: What went wrong with the plan? How did Zhirinovsky win the referendum?
Putin: Well, first of all, we underestimated how effective a campaigner he was, and how difficult elections really were. We also underestimated his popularity and the impact of the boycott by the opposition. But the biggest factor had to be the Americans. They made a critical mistake that ruined everything.
BBC: How did the Americans ruin Lebed’s master plan?
Putin: By funneling money in to support the opposition.
Russian President Zhirinovsky calls snap elections; opposition party calls for general boycott
The Scotsman
April 07, 1992
Vladimir Zhirinovsky in front of a Liberal Democratic Party Banner calls for a referendum later in the month
(MOSCOW) In a stunning concession, Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky has agreed to hold elections in less than one month, calling it “a step towards a new and democratic Russia.” The move is seen as a concession to the United Nations, which earlier this month had made free and democratic elections a prerequisite for the lifting of sanctions.
“We are not afraid of elections!” Zhirinovsky said in front of a political banner which featured a Russia which encompasses Alaska and Poland. The banner, a clear provocation, did little to ease the nerves of those in the West.
“We in fact welcome elections,” Zhirinovsky added, “because we are not afraid of the Russian people! It is the Americans and the Turks who should be afraid of the Russian people!”
Zhirinovsky indicated that the country will hold a confidence vote on April 25th, giving the Russian people the opportunity to vote on three questions: a yes/no vote on if they support President Zhirinovsky, a yes/no vote on if they wish to remain as part of the UIS, and a yes/no vote on if they wish to hold early presidential elections at the end of the year.
However, it is unclear that this election will appease the West or be enough to put a dent in the sanctions. Serious questions remain as to how fair these elections can be in the current environment in Russia, and in the Russian Republic of Chechnya, there is already an indication that the entire republic plans to boycott the election. Opposition leader Mikhail Arutyunov has called on supporters to boycott the referendum.
“This is just a sick attempt to trick the United Nations into believing that he has implemented reform,” Arutyunov told Le Monde, “and I call on all Russians to reject this farce!”
Republicans bash White House over attempts to violate Russian sanctions
NEW YORK TIMES
By JIM ZIMMERMAN
April 19, 1993
In what it turning into a major embarrassment for the Kerrey administration, Republican lawmakers have condemned the President over his unilateral decision to funnel money to Russian opposition groups. Most feel that Kerrey’s attempt to influence the upcoming referendum in the Russian republic on April 25th has actually strengthened the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Russian president Vladimir Zhirinovsky condemned the American President, calling his action “a blatant attempt to bribe the Russian people into selling out our country for 30 pieces of American silver.” The Kerrey administration has reportedly funneled nearly eighty million dollars to the offices of The Free and Democratic Russia in Paris and the Russian Democratic Alliance in Bonn, but as of yet it is unclear if any of the money has been able to enter Russia.
“To send this money to Paris knowing it will not influence what is certain to be a sham election is deeply troubling,” commented Republican Senator John McCain, “and it shows a lack of any concrete strategy in regards to the former Soviet Union other than to try and throw money at the problem.”
Russian television reported that former Prime Minister Ivan Silayev, who formed the Russian Democratic Alliance Party while in exile in Bonn, had purchased a 5.6 million dollar home in Western Germany three days ago. The Russian government has condemned the move and cited it as proof that the opposition is ill qualified to lead the country, citing concerns over corruption.
Excerpts from the book: “The Short Life and Violent Death of the UDR”
By Sampson Weiss.
Published by University of California Press, © 2005.
CHAPTER XXIV
Many assumed that the UDR, which had voted itself out of existence just one year prior, might be given a second life when Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky called on snap elections in April of 1993. The unpopular Russian President grossly underestimated his support, and with no answer to the rapidly declining economy, most assumed that the Russian Republic would quickly vote him out of office.
“People tend to forget that until April 25, 1993, Vladimir Zhirinovsky never won an election,” commented former American ambassador Jack Matlock, “the best he ever did was to capture around 8%. To expect him to garner more than 50% seemed impossible in a fair election.”
However, problems emerged almost immediately. Lacking any unified opposition, Vladimir Zhirinovsky quickly began to gain traction as he went on a cross country campaign that stressed his uncompromising stance against the United States and NATO.
“People tended to underestimate how much the Russian people wanted to see the UIS survive,” Matlock added, “the fact that the USSR morphed into a less centralized UDR which in turn morphed into an even weaker UIS troubled many ordinary Russians and gave Zhirinovsky a great deal more support than he probably would have earned had that issue not been on the ballot as well.”
Even more problematic was the refusal of the opposition in presenting a unified front. As the Communist Party, the largest legal opposition party, denounced The Party for a Free and Democratic Russia (the pro-reform opposition party that was virtually driven underground after the Revolution in 1992) neither party could decide how to proceed with the referendum. The Communists initially called on its supporters to vote “no” on supporting Zhirinovsky before switching gears and calling on supporters to turn in a “blank ballot”. However, the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia made a calculated risk in calling on all of its supporters to boycott the election entirely.
“The belief was that if turnout was low enough, under 30%, that it would create an inflated sign of strength for the Party,” Matlock added, “but they ended up blowing an key opportunity. Nobody was expecting a fair election, most assumed it would be comparable to elections in Iraq or Syria, but to the shock of everyone, including Mikhail Arutyunov, it was a relatively fair election under the circumstances. Had the Communists and the reformists joined forces and come out in force with a “no” campaign, and had they convinced the Chechens to actually vote, Zhirinovsky would have been creamed.”
The final nail in the coffin for the opposition came when, just one week before the election, it was revealed in the American press that the United States was violating UN sanctions by funneling money to the opposition. For the Russian people, the idea of the Americans trying to buy the election was distasteful, but what was even more offensive to them was where the money was going.
“These anti-Zhirinovsky organizers who received millions of dollars weren’t using the money to campaign,” Matlock added, “they were funneling the money into foreign bank accounts and buying goods to sell on the black market. According to the western media nearly one hundred million dollars had been funneled into the opposition in the weeks leading up to the election and less that one million actually went to campaigning. You couldn’t have handed Zhirinovsky a bigger PR victory.”
Zhirinovsky survives referendum, but opposition emboldened as Russians vote to have early election later in the year
By Richard Roundtree
Economist
April 26, 1993
In what the UN has conceded was “a generally fair election”, Russian president Vladimir Zhirinovsky has survived a no confidence vote by the slimmest of margins. However, the narrow margin of his victory coupled with the clear momentum of opposition groups have given many opposition leaders hope that his reign may come to an end in September. With 99% of the votes counted, Russian voters have given President Vladimir Zhirinovsky the slimmest of victories, as 50.4% voted in support of the controversial Russian President. 49.6% of voters opposed the Russian president. But what was perhaps most telling were the abstentions and low voter turnout. Despite being the first democratic election in modern Russian history, less than 28% of voters showed up to the polls, indicating that over 70% of Russians chose to support the position of the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia and boycott the election entirely. Of those who did vote, nearly 36% of ballots reflected no vote on the Zhirinovsky question at all. Leaders of the Communist Party called on their supporters to vote for the preservation of the UIS while leaving question one (the Zhirinovsky question) “blank.”
Zhirinovsky slim victory was coupled with strong support for the remaining questions on the ballot. Nearly 89% of voters supported remaining part of the UIS while 71% of voters indicated a desire to hold early presidential elections in September, a scenario Zhirinovsky was clearly hoping to avoid. Many observers now wonder if Zhirinovsky can survive a general election later in the year.
“What looks clear is that Zhirinovsky does not have the support he thought he had,” commented German ambassador to Poland Hans Weber, “already the opposition is mounting a concerted effort to unseat him in September, recognizing that the country is fed up with his mismanagement of the economy and his abysmal record on human rights.”
Opposition leader Mikhail Arutyunov has indicated that he will return to Russia and compete in the general elections to be held in September.
“I have spoken to General Alexander Lebed on the telephone this morning,” Arutyunov said in a press release after the results were announced, “and he has assured me that neither I, nor my supporters, will be harassed if we return to Russia to challenge the President in the upcoming election. I am proud of the work that the Russian military has done in these difficult times, and I want to assure the Russian people that I will continue to work closely with General Lebed and the military after September to ensure that we remain a strong and powerful nation.”
In a sign of the growing strenth of the opposition, an anti-Zhirinovsky newspaper published an anti-LDP comic following the election
PART FORTY: THE PERFECT BOOGIEMAN
Well, just as in OTL, we have a referendum vote on April 25th, which "may" be part of General Lebed's plan to get rid of Zhirinovsky and keep the UIS together while getting the UN to end sanctions. But while I doubt Zhirinovsky could win an election in OTL, there is sort of a perfect storm here that gets Zhiri through this election despite evidence that the military is now fed up with him and is willing to cut him lose...
UIS Presidential Candidate Vladimir Putin in an interview with the BBC on August 1, 2011.
Discussing the April 25th Russian Government Referendum and the subsequent Constitutional Crisis that followed the Zhirinovsky victory.
BBC: If, as you claim, a military junta secretly controlled the country, why did they allow the referendum to occur on April 25th, 1993? Wouldn’t that be a threat to their power?
Putin: In a way yes, but the Russian people wanted these elections and we ran a greater risk ignoring the will of the people. Besides, we saw with our allies in Serbia that we didn’t necessarily need to fear elections.
BBC: So you knew that President Zhirinovsky would win?
Putin: No we did not. In fact, we were counting on him losing the election. It would have made things considerably easier.
BBC: What do you mean?
Putin: He won by such a close margin that his critics naturally claimed he rigged the election. Plus, with the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia boycotting the election, we needed a clear result, be it a victory or a defeat for Zhirinovsky. But in the end, we had a legitimately free election that was tainted by the boycott. As a result we were unable to get the sanctions lifted. General Lebed was counting on Zhirinovsky losing the vote of confidence.
BBC: So you are saying General Lebed actually supported the removal of Zhirinovsky?
BBC: Yes. He knew that a coup was not an option, at least not at that point. But if Zhirinovsky lost the referendum then the West might agree to lift sanctions and support the democratic forces that, at least on paper, were now in control of the country. These forces would be under threat from the fascists and the West might just swallow the bitter pill of a partitioned Croatia and an intact UIS if it meant keeping the fascists at bay against the democrats. That was what Lebed really cared about: keeping the Union together. He allowed the election as a way of testing the waters; of seeing if getting rid of Zhirinovsky would appease the West and the UN. Quite frankly, Vladimir Zhirinovsky had served his purpose. He had been the perfect boogieman, and the West would do anything if it meant getting rid of him. Anything.
BBC: What went wrong with the plan? How did Zhirinovsky win the referendum?
Putin: Well, first of all, we underestimated how effective a campaigner he was, and how difficult elections really were. We also underestimated his popularity and the impact of the boycott by the opposition. But the biggest factor had to be the Americans. They made a critical mistake that ruined everything.
BBC: How did the Americans ruin Lebed’s master plan?
Putin: By funneling money in to support the opposition.
Russian President Zhirinovsky calls snap elections; opposition party calls for general boycott
The Scotsman
April 07, 1992
Vladimir Zhirinovsky in front of a Liberal Democratic Party Banner calls for a referendum later in the month
(MOSCOW) In a stunning concession, Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky has agreed to hold elections in less than one month, calling it “a step towards a new and democratic Russia.” The move is seen as a concession to the United Nations, which earlier this month had made free and democratic elections a prerequisite for the lifting of sanctions.
“We are not afraid of elections!” Zhirinovsky said in front of a political banner which featured a Russia which encompasses Alaska and Poland. The banner, a clear provocation, did little to ease the nerves of those in the West.
“We in fact welcome elections,” Zhirinovsky added, “because we are not afraid of the Russian people! It is the Americans and the Turks who should be afraid of the Russian people!”
Zhirinovsky indicated that the country will hold a confidence vote on April 25th, giving the Russian people the opportunity to vote on three questions: a yes/no vote on if they support President Zhirinovsky, a yes/no vote on if they wish to remain as part of the UIS, and a yes/no vote on if they wish to hold early presidential elections at the end of the year.
However, it is unclear that this election will appease the West or be enough to put a dent in the sanctions. Serious questions remain as to how fair these elections can be in the current environment in Russia, and in the Russian Republic of Chechnya, there is already an indication that the entire republic plans to boycott the election. Opposition leader Mikhail Arutyunov has called on supporters to boycott the referendum.
“This is just a sick attempt to trick the United Nations into believing that he has implemented reform,” Arutyunov told Le Monde, “and I call on all Russians to reject this farce!”
Republicans bash White House over attempts to violate Russian sanctions
NEW YORK TIMES
By JIM ZIMMERMAN
April 19, 1993
In what it turning into a major embarrassment for the Kerrey administration, Republican lawmakers have condemned the President over his unilateral decision to funnel money to Russian opposition groups. Most feel that Kerrey’s attempt to influence the upcoming referendum in the Russian republic on April 25th has actually strengthened the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Russian president Vladimir Zhirinovsky condemned the American President, calling his action “a blatant attempt to bribe the Russian people into selling out our country for 30 pieces of American silver.” The Kerrey administration has reportedly funneled nearly eighty million dollars to the offices of The Free and Democratic Russia in Paris and the Russian Democratic Alliance in Bonn, but as of yet it is unclear if any of the money has been able to enter Russia.
“To send this money to Paris knowing it will not influence what is certain to be a sham election is deeply troubling,” commented Republican Senator John McCain, “and it shows a lack of any concrete strategy in regards to the former Soviet Union other than to try and throw money at the problem.”
Russian television reported that former Prime Minister Ivan Silayev, who formed the Russian Democratic Alliance Party while in exile in Bonn, had purchased a 5.6 million dollar home in Western Germany three days ago. The Russian government has condemned the move and cited it as proof that the opposition is ill qualified to lead the country, citing concerns over corruption.
Excerpts from the book: “The Short Life and Violent Death of the UDR”
By Sampson Weiss.
Published by University of California Press, © 2005.
CHAPTER XXIV
Many assumed that the UDR, which had voted itself out of existence just one year prior, might be given a second life when Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky called on snap elections in April of 1993. The unpopular Russian President grossly underestimated his support, and with no answer to the rapidly declining economy, most assumed that the Russian Republic would quickly vote him out of office.
“People tend to forget that until April 25, 1993, Vladimir Zhirinovsky never won an election,” commented former American ambassador Jack Matlock, “the best he ever did was to capture around 8%. To expect him to garner more than 50% seemed impossible in a fair election.”
However, problems emerged almost immediately. Lacking any unified opposition, Vladimir Zhirinovsky quickly began to gain traction as he went on a cross country campaign that stressed his uncompromising stance against the United States and NATO.
“People tended to underestimate how much the Russian people wanted to see the UIS survive,” Matlock added, “the fact that the USSR morphed into a less centralized UDR which in turn morphed into an even weaker UIS troubled many ordinary Russians and gave Zhirinovsky a great deal more support than he probably would have earned had that issue not been on the ballot as well.”
Even more problematic was the refusal of the opposition in presenting a unified front. As the Communist Party, the largest legal opposition party, denounced The Party for a Free and Democratic Russia (the pro-reform opposition party that was virtually driven underground after the Revolution in 1992) neither party could decide how to proceed with the referendum. The Communists initially called on its supporters to vote “no” on supporting Zhirinovsky before switching gears and calling on supporters to turn in a “blank ballot”. However, the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia made a calculated risk in calling on all of its supporters to boycott the election entirely.
“The belief was that if turnout was low enough, under 30%, that it would create an inflated sign of strength for the Party,” Matlock added, “but they ended up blowing an key opportunity. Nobody was expecting a fair election, most assumed it would be comparable to elections in Iraq or Syria, but to the shock of everyone, including Mikhail Arutyunov, it was a relatively fair election under the circumstances. Had the Communists and the reformists joined forces and come out in force with a “no” campaign, and had they convinced the Chechens to actually vote, Zhirinovsky would have been creamed.”
The final nail in the coffin for the opposition came when, just one week before the election, it was revealed in the American press that the United States was violating UN sanctions by funneling money to the opposition. For the Russian people, the idea of the Americans trying to buy the election was distasteful, but what was even more offensive to them was where the money was going.
“These anti-Zhirinovsky organizers who received millions of dollars weren’t using the money to campaign,” Matlock added, “they were funneling the money into foreign bank accounts and buying goods to sell on the black market. According to the western media nearly one hundred million dollars had been funneled into the opposition in the weeks leading up to the election and less that one million actually went to campaigning. You couldn’t have handed Zhirinovsky a bigger PR victory.”
Zhirinovsky survives referendum, but opposition emboldened as Russians vote to have early election later in the year
By Richard Roundtree
Economist
April 26, 1993
In what the UN has conceded was “a generally fair election”, Russian president Vladimir Zhirinovsky has survived a no confidence vote by the slimmest of margins. However, the narrow margin of his victory coupled with the clear momentum of opposition groups have given many opposition leaders hope that his reign may come to an end in September. With 99% of the votes counted, Russian voters have given President Vladimir Zhirinovsky the slimmest of victories, as 50.4% voted in support of the controversial Russian President. 49.6% of voters opposed the Russian president. But what was perhaps most telling were the abstentions and low voter turnout. Despite being the first democratic election in modern Russian history, less than 28% of voters showed up to the polls, indicating that over 70% of Russians chose to support the position of the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia and boycott the election entirely. Of those who did vote, nearly 36% of ballots reflected no vote on the Zhirinovsky question at all. Leaders of the Communist Party called on their supporters to vote for the preservation of the UIS while leaving question one (the Zhirinovsky question) “blank.”
Zhirinovsky slim victory was coupled with strong support for the remaining questions on the ballot. Nearly 89% of voters supported remaining part of the UIS while 71% of voters indicated a desire to hold early presidential elections in September, a scenario Zhirinovsky was clearly hoping to avoid. Many observers now wonder if Zhirinovsky can survive a general election later in the year.
“What looks clear is that Zhirinovsky does not have the support he thought he had,” commented German ambassador to Poland Hans Weber, “already the opposition is mounting a concerted effort to unseat him in September, recognizing that the country is fed up with his mismanagement of the economy and his abysmal record on human rights.”
Opposition leader Mikhail Arutyunov has indicated that he will return to Russia and compete in the general elections to be held in September.
“I have spoken to General Alexander Lebed on the telephone this morning,” Arutyunov said in a press release after the results were announced, “and he has assured me that neither I, nor my supporters, will be harassed if we return to Russia to challenge the President in the upcoming election. I am proud of the work that the Russian military has done in these difficult times, and I want to assure the Russian people that I will continue to work closely with General Lebed and the military after September to ensure that we remain a strong and powerful nation.”
In a sign of the growing strenth of the opposition, an anti-Zhirinovsky newspaper published an anti-LDP comic following the election
Last edited:
An update!!!!!
Love it.
Just one question, how hard are the sanctions biting now?
Still very difficult, but we are seeing the UIS chip away at them slowly. We can see where, after this election which the UN calls "fair" (if not perfect) some nations are going to ease up on the sanctions. Especially if they might be in the crosshairs of UIS intervention. And we see the opposition might have accepted that the junta is who will really be in control and be willing to make a deal with Lebed. It will not be an easy year for Zhirinovsky, or the UIS, but as we know...both are going to survive the hard times ahead...
The next five months will see Zhirinovsky faced with a new problem: getting ousted and losing the support of his major backer in the military. we see that the military is ready to get rid of him and it looks like Lebed and the reformers have reached an agreement of sorts.
Buuuuut, we also see that the Chechens are starting to rock the boat, which lends itself to the question: what could get the military back on board with Zhirinovsky in Spetember? Despite his crazy rants, in TTL he does have a winning record in wars which garners him a lot of support. Especially when and if we start looking at a potential conflict in September. And especially one that a large percentage of Russians see as absolutly necessary to preserve the country.