The fact that the game considers Russian Siberia a colonial region is absurd and r-slurred

[Draky]

It's no different than declaring every american region west of the Appalachians a colonial one.

Actually that's also different. America only moved into those regions through the 19th century, Russia had completed the colonization of siberia in the 17th

[Kåt Tsun]

ION eredeti hozzászólása:

Kåt Tsun eredeti hozzászólása:

last native siberian lol

Im not native, but at first i support natives rights, at second i separate myself from moscow Russians as USA americans separate from Brits

you can be cyber-khan of neo-sibir

gur-khan is techno-king of ural metal mountain republic

ron paul and steven seagall are dual heads of the republic of rocket forces

Paragon eredeti hozzászólása:

Siberia is extremely cold, has a very low population density, very little arable land, and few transport networks due to a lack of demand. Also, when was the last time you heard of Russia investing in Novosibirsk?

The American Midwest is extremely arable, has a temperate climate, favorable terrain (for the most part), and is part of a robust rail and motor network. The entire Siberian federal district of Russia (larger than the Novosibirsk region in-game) has a lower GDP than the state of Colorado in the USA by itself.

No, Siberia should not be a core region. Not by a long shot.

global warming is shaping up to make khrushchev's dreams come true ;~;

[g0815krieger]

Draky eredeti hozzászólása:

Kek. I'm not even russian, I'm Jewish

What a stupid coment when the discussion is about nationality, and colonies.
Jewish is not a nationality its a religion.
Israel is a nation, not the jewish. Many muslim live in israel btw. muslim isn´t a nationality.

As said jewish is a religion and jewish people live in nearly every country in the world, even in germany where antisemits are still very strong.

So what is your point here claiming you are not russian but jewish.
There is also russians with jewish religion, maybe even in siberia, or very likely in siberia because they have been sent there by stalin regime in the past :D

Unbelievable that people still mix up religion with nationality 80 years past WW2.

[LorDC]

koimeiji eredeti hozzászólása:

In fact, the Siberian Agreement (originally formed in 1989) gives significant independent power to leaders in the Siberian region, and even states (paraphrased) that Siberia would pursue autonomy if Russia steps on their coattails.

Hell, as recently as 2014 there was an attempt at protest towards a free Siberia, which was hampered by the Kremlin instituting a media blackout.

You really make it sound much more than it is. Siberian reqional leaders don't have much more autonomy than your average central russian governors. And "free siberia" movements never had any real traction.
On the other hand, "colonial" status has to be treated as a gameplay mechanic, not a political statement. And as a gameplay mechanic it certainly makes sense as population and production density is way lower in Siberia comared to central reqions of Russia. Read, "colony" is about economics, not politics and economically it makes sense.

[Draky]

LorDC eredeti hozzászólása:

koimeiji eredeti hozzászólása:

In fact, the Siberian Agreement (originally formed in 1989) gives significant independent power to leaders in the Siberian region, and even states (paraphrased) that Siberia would pursue autonomy if Russia steps on their coattails.

The what agreement? I have a ba in russian politics and i've never heard of anything sounding remotely like that

[Mistfox]

LorDC eredeti hozzászólása:

On the other hand, "colonial" status has to be treated as a gameplay mechanic, not a political statement. And as a gameplay mechanic it certainly makes sense as population and production density is way lower in Siberia comared to central reqions of Russia. Read, "colony" is about economics, not politics and economically it makes sense.

I agree with this, the effects on gameplay is more in line with an economically low priority region than anything really political.

Draky eredeti hozzászólása:

The what agreement? I have a ba in russian politics and i've never heard of anything sounding remotely like that

It's an internal thing, nothing international so it's not surprising people rarely hear of it. It was a spinoff from their Perestroika craze in the 80s that gave a lot of power to the local authorities. It's IMO less of an agreement of independence and more of an administrative reform and I suspect he overstates the importance of it. That said, like mentioned before, "colony" should not be seen as a political designation but rather an economical one where there is less attention paid to the development of the region for various regions like low population density or lack of infrastructure.

[LorDC]

Okay, so I decided to dive into the whole "Siberian Agreement" stuff. As a russian myself (not siberian though) I was very surprised that I never heard even the term itself.
A short googling/wikisource checking session later I discovered that "Siberian Agreement" is not an agreement at all. As in, it's not some kind of deal or document.
It actually is an organization aiming to promote inter-regional economic integration. It has no special status or rights and isn't actually part of a government. It more or less is just a club where government officials meet and discuss stuff. Yeah, they did some project management and consulting stuff, but nothing really major. Even during its conception people who created it sought to solve Siberian problems within the framework of a larger Russian state.
So, the original claim about "Siberian Agreement (originally formed in 1989) gives significant independent power to leaders in the Siberian region" is an utter ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ that has nothing to do with reality. Even during perestroika times idea of Siberian independence never really had any amount of traction.

https://www.sibacc.ru/
https://books.google.ru/books?id=zqIDAiDgTQMC&q=siberian+republic&pg=PA76&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=siberian%20republic&f=false

[Mistfox]

LorDC eredeti hozzászólása:

Okay, so I decided to dive into the whole "Siberian Agreement" stuff. As a russian myself (not siberian though) I was very surprised that I never heard even the term itself.
A short googling/wikisource checking session later I discovered that "Siberian Agreement" is not an agreement at all. As in, it's not some kind of deal or document.
It actually is an organization aiming to promote inter-regional economic integration. It has no special status or rights and isn't actually part of a government. It more or less is just a club where government officials meet and discuss stuff. Yeah, they did some project management and consulting stuff, but nothing really major. Even during its conception people who created it sought to solve Siberian problems within the framework of a larger Russian state.
So, the original claim about "Siberian Agreement (originally formed in 1989) gives significant independent power to leaders in the Siberian region" is an utter ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ that has nothing to do with reality. Even during perestroika times idea of Siberian independence never really had any amount of traction.

https://www.sibacc.ru/
https://books.google.ru/books?id=zqIDAiDgTQMC&q=siberian+republic&pg=PA76&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=siberian%20republic&f=false

That's the wrong one, that's the Siberian Republic, a short lived independent government in 1918. https://www.jstor.org/stable/153081 The Siberian Agreement is an AGREEMENT, not a movement, I don't even think there was a movement at all, it was all local politicians wanting more power. Which is also why most people probably don't know about it, after all, who is going to admit that "We made an agreement for more power over you" to the public?

[LorDC]

Mistfox eredeti hozzászólása:

That's the wrong one, that's the Siberian Republic, a short lived independent government in 1918. https://www.jstor.org/stable/153081 The Siberian Agreement is an AGREEMENT, not a movement, I don't even think there was a movement at all, it was all local politicians wanting more power. Which is also why most people probably don't know about it, after all, who is going to admit that "We made an agreement for more power over you" to the public?

Did you actually check the links? They don't talk about "Siberian Republic".
The first one is literal site of an organization that is called "Sibirskoye Soglasheniye" = Siberian Agreement.
The second one is a book ("Russia and America: From Rivalry to Reconciliation") and page 76 talks about the same thing.

The source of confusion is probably that wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic
talks about "The idea of an independent Siberia was considered in 1989, during the election of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union, but they reached a compromise with the Siberian Agreement, which gave more regional power to the local leaders." It quotes my second link (book) as a source. But the book itself never states anything like that. Hell, it almost says opposite things. And the Siberian Agreement founding documents explicitly state that its members don't have any more power then what their position in government provides them.

[Mistfox]

LorDC eredeti hozzászólása:

The source of confusion is probably that wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic
talks about "The idea of an independent Siberia was considered in 1989, during the election of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union, but they reached a compromise with the Siberian Agreement, which gave more regional power to the local leaders." It quotes my second link (book) as a source. But the book itself never states anything like that. Hell, it almost says opposite things. And the Siberian Agreement founding documents explicitly state that its members don't have any more power then what their position in government provides them.

Click on page 76, it expands to show the whole page and there are references to it in the paragraphs below.

My opinion, which the author shares, is that Siberian Independence was just a bargaining tool used by the local authorities to get more power for themselves. It really wasn't anything serious. And once again, I've to point out that the "colonial" designation for the game is mostly for economic purposes, not political. Not that there was anything international about the Siberian Agreement, it's all internal local politics. And theatre.