Alien Space Bats show Ukrainians living on September 12, 1992 a vision of what their country will look like 30 years later and also how it got there

WolfBear

Well-known member
Alien Space Bats show all Ukrainians (but no one else) living on September 12, 1992 a vision of what their country will look like 30 years later and also just how it got there. All Ukrainians immediately believe in the sincerity of this vision. What do Ukrainians do differently over the next 30 years?
 

stevep

Well-known member
They still have their nukes in September 1992.

Their a lot less likely to give them up, although it would be hard explaining this to the rest of the world. "We're all had this vision of being attacked repeatedly by Russia with a full scale invasion in 2022". Maintaining the arsenal and larger conventional forces are likely but would be costly.

Also probably both government figures and a lot of people are likely to avoid disasters or other problems, especially those specific to Ukraine and to make a killing in terms of possible investments in companies/technologies/etc that are still small at the moment but OTL did become over successful. Or in some cases possibly pre-empt them if they can.

There will of course be some who, especially in 1992, are loyal to the idea of the USSR or a wider pan-east-slavic bloc who might want closer relations with Russia but their likely to be largely outnumbered by the Ukrainian nationalists, especially if they get details of how much death and destruction the invasion has caused.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Alien Space Bats show all Ukrainians (but no one else) living on September 12, 1992 a vision of what their country will look like 30 years later and also just how it got there. All Ukrainians immediately believe in the sincerity of this vision. What do Ukrainians do differently over the next 30 years?

Keep nukes,and all be fine.If USA try push them,answer: OK,we gave nukes,but only if you agree us join NATO,become our ally,and made military bases here.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Their a lot less likely to give them up, although it would be hard explaining this to the rest of the world. "We're all had this vision of being attacked repeatedly by Russia with a full scale invasion in 2022". Maintaining the arsenal and larger conventional forces are likely but would be costly.

Also probably both government figures and a lot of people are likely to avoid disasters or other problems, especially those specific to Ukraine and to make a killing in terms of possible investments in companies/technologies/etc that are still small at the moment but OTL did become over successful. Or in some cases possibly pre-empt them if they can.

There will of course be some who, especially in 1992, are loyal to the idea of the USSR or a wider pan-east-slavic bloc who might want closer relations with Russia but their likely to be largely outnumbered by the Ukrainian nationalists, especially if they get details of how much death and destruction the invasion has caused.

I think that Ukrainians will also be begging Yeltsin not to appoint Putin as his successor, though I doubt that they would actually be successful in this regard. And FWIW, Ukrainians overwhelmingly voted to leave the Soviet Union in 1991, though this did not necessarily preclude some looser association developing later on. Still, even in real life, Ukraine was hostile to deeper CIS integration, and with news of the future, this will be much more the case here.

I also expect Ukrainians to vote much, much more for nationalists like Rukh instead of for Sovoks.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Keep nukes,and all be fine.If USA try push them,answer: OK,we gave nukes,but only if you agree us join NATO,become our ally,and made military bases here.

Yep, absolutely. And having the US welcome Ukraine into NATO would be somewhat easier in this TL since Ukraine might very well be led by someone like Rukh rather than by corrupt Sovoks.
 

xthomas

New member
word of this will get out to the world. Its hard to coverup that many people all at once receiving the same or similarily themed vision (it was not specified if visions are the same for everybody, and really to convince each person its real their vision should be individually tailored)
Psychics are real! It was a miracle! Aliens did it! Secret CIA plot using psychic visions and time travel! Something like that?
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
I think that Ukrainians will also be begging Yeltsin not to appoint Putin as his successor, though I doubt that they would actually be successful in this regard. And FWIW, Ukrainians overwhelmingly voted to leave the Soviet Union in 1991, though this did not necessarily preclude some looser association developing later on. Still, even in real life, Ukraine was hostile to deeper CIS integration, and with news of the future, this will be much more the case here.

I also expect Ukrainians to vote much, much more for nationalists like Rukh instead of for Sovoks.
Ukrainians' new attitude will certainly make the political situation interesting. My at-a-glance speculation is that they'd become something of a mediator between the old Soviet bloc and the West: stern yet compassionate. No, USA, this is a mistake. No, Russia, we are not friends. Please, Russia, please don't do the crazy thing.

Nightmare fuel: smartphones running Windows 95.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Ukrainians' new attitude will certainly make the political situation interesting. My at-a-glance speculation is that they'd become something of a mediator between the old Soviet bloc and the West: stern yet compassionate. No, USA, this is a mistake. No, Russia, we are not friends. Please, Russia, please don't do the crazy thing.

Nightmare fuel: smartphones running Windows 95.

Do you think that they would keep their nukes?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Either that or use them as leverage to push for very concrete mutual defense assurances from the United States. Doesn't have to be NATO, but it has to be something that Ukraine believes will dissuade Russia because it clearly wasn't enough the first time.

I'm not sure if anything other than NATO would actually work for this, though.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Either that or use them as leverage to push for very concrete mutual defense assurances from the United States. Doesn't have to be NATO, but it has to be something that Ukraine believes will dissuade Russia because it clearly wasn't enough the first time.
You can't get concrete mutual defense assurances from the United States. Clinton believes in the end of history thesis and will let the capacity to guarantee anyone's defense atrophy. GWB considers Islamic fundamentalism the primary threat and will reorient away from eastern Europe. Obama is a follower of self confessed domestic terrorist and Communist agitator William Ayers and considers America the primary threat and will only intervene if he thinks America will lose. Trump considers China the primary threat and will reorient on it. Biden is Obama 2 corruption boogaloo, but at least he can be bought by giving his son a highly paid sinecure at Burisma.

It's NATO or maintain their own nuclear deterrent. A bilateral treaty with a republic is only good for one administration or maybe as long as the same party is in power, which tops out at 8 years during the proposed period of Ukrainian foreknowledge. If it's NATO all of the Americans except Obama and Biden have someone in NATO they don't want to disappoint. And they know Biden's price.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
You can't get concrete mutual defense assurances from the United States. Clinton believes in the end of history thesis and will let the capacity to guarantee anyone's defense atrophy. GWB considers Islamic fundamentalism the primary threat and will reorient away from eastern Europe. Obama is a follower of self confessed domestic terrorist and Communist agitator William Ayers and considers America the primary threat and will only intervene if he thinks America will lose. Trump considers China the primary threat and will reorient on it. Biden is Obama 2 corruption boogaloo, but at least he can be bought by giving his son a highly paid sinecure at Burisma.

It's NATO or maintain their own nuclear deterrent. A bilateral treaty with a republic is only good for one administration or maybe as long as the same party is in power, which tops out at 8 years during the proposed period of Ukrainian foreknowledge. If it's NATO all of the Americans except Obama and Biden have someone in NATO they don't want to disappoint. And they know Biden's price.
Well, I am not entirely convinced by all that. But I'm not really trying to argue about whether the US would be willing to do what would be necessary to convince Ukraine it had real protection instead of empty promises, or even what "what would be necessary" would entail.

All I'm arguing is that, if Ukraine doesn't get that, it won't be giving up its nukes for less.

Well, I suppose I'm arguing that there exists something other/less than NATO membership that would do the job, while it seems to me that you think nothing less would be convincing. But we have Taiwan/South Korea type situations. Anything that involved American tripwire forces, really, should do the job.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Well, I suppose I'm arguing that there exists something other/less than NATO membership that would do the job, while it seems to me that you think nothing less would be convincing. But we have Taiwan/South Korea type situations. Anything that involved American tripwire forces, really, should do the job.

Tripwire forces can be withdrawn at the discretion of the nation that sent them. That doesn't give Ukraine its nukes back.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Tripwire forces can be withdrawn at the discretion of the nation that sent them. That doesn't give Ukraine its nukes back.
To preface, I'm approaching this from the perspective that the USA is hypothetically changing its mind rather than cynically deceiving Ukraine. So if Ukraine convinces the Clinton administration, and also two thirds of the Senate (required for treaty approval), that it's worth it to have American troops on the ground in Ukraine helping guard that country against invasion, I don't think it's really likely that a complete reversal will take place and troops are withdrawn etc. merely because Republicans gain the White House. It's much more likely that the close cooperation on the ground deepens ties. And besides, Bush was all about expanding NATO. Neoconservative interventionism may be discredited now, but not in 1992 or 2002. So it would be pretty weird if he threw an Eastern European ally in the trash for no reason, especially when they were helping out with the war on terror if such still happens in this AU. (And they would help, in order to stay glued to the USA as they are trying to do. It wouldn't cost too much.)

Or if, in the AU, the future-history warning of "neocons done goofed" is enough to discredit their ideology, surely the same public that found the future history so convincing would be convinced of the need to guard against the future corrupt violent regime in Russia?
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Come to think of it, though, 1992-Russia might well be less bothered by Ukrainian nukes next door than by American nukes next door. So the above scenario merely being a realistic option might be enough to get Russia to push back and say "no, never mind, you keep them, but Americans stay out."
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
I don't think it's really likely that a complete reversal will take place and troops are withdrawn etc. merely because Republicans gain the White House.
The Senate isn't like the Supreme Court. It shifts alignment too on a scale of four to six years, typically starting the shift a bit ahead of presidential shifts. It's theoretical buffering effect mostly relies on the assumption by the framers that there wouldn't be only two significant political parties.

Or if, in the AU, the future-history warning of "neocons done goofed" is enough to discredit their ideology, surely the same public that found the future history so convincing would be convinced of the need to guard against the future corrupt violent regime in Russia?
The need to guard against militant Islam is far more urgent in 1992. Most of the troublemakers there are already in power. Russia is still lead by Boris Yeltsin. With foresight I would expect a stronger and earlier conservative middle east hawk movement not a weaker one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top