Probably a combination of expected emigration (due to the country's destruction) and the death of many young people (which decreases birth rate and causes even more economic destruction).
Unfortunately there isn't. The only decent one I know is the 2003 RTS Rise of Nations, which has a mode that allows you to play a very limited form of grand strategy set during the cold war (you play some cards, take a couple actions, then move your armies to enter into an RTS match with the military of another country)
I've been looking for years for the same kind of game, but it looks like nobody is interested in making it, or everyone thinks it's too hard to implement. There's a couple games that advertise themselves as Cold War simulators, but they usually only focus on a nuclear exchange, or they are really just a click-intensive RTS game happening on the world map (e.g. Supreme Ruler).
There's an upcoming grand strategy game called Espiocracy, set to release sometime in 2025. I hope it's the Cold War grand strategy we've been looking for.
Until then, HoI4 mods are all we get. The good news is you can mod them further if you wish. Changing words in events is not that hard. All you need to do is find the event in the english localization file and change the offending words. It's just a bit time-consuming if you want to do a bunch of changes.
Oh look at that. The Nazis have very little influence on the government of Ukraine, but one guy from Azov Battalion writes a social media post, and the next day Zelenski abides.
https://www.aaronmate.net/p/ukraines-top-negotiator-confirms
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-warns-against-bad-peace-ukraine/
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukraine-russia-war-peace-diplomacy/tnamp/?espv=1
Even though the West denies it, Russia has produced the signed draft agreement with genuine Ukrainian signatures.
Explanation:
The SMO began on February 24. Russia was not aiming to conquer territory but to force Ukraine to accept neutrality, recognize Crimea as Russian and allow autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk. They occupied positions in the 2 regions, took Kherson (outside Crimea) and surrounded major cities like Mariupol and Kharkhov. They also drove straight for Kiev with little regard for securing territory. This led to logistical issues for Russian forces, but despite them, they were clearly beating back the Ukrainian army (which was at its peak).
Within a few days, Russia invited Ukraine to peace talks. They first occured in Belarus. Russia made their demands as mentioned and Ukraine demanded that Russia retreats from Ukraine, including Crimea and publicly denied peace negotiations.
To cover their asses for denying peace in a war they were clearly losing, Ukraine started accusing Russia of warcrimes, specifically that it was kidnapping children and massacring civilians like in Bucha (claims which the Western press was eager to support). The UN did an investigation and preliminary results show there was no case for warcrimes. The ICC (which is different to the ICJ) proclaimed Ukrainian claims were right and that was that.
Meanwhile, the Russians continued advancing. By March 6, Russian forces secured the Kiev airport and established lines of logistical supply for the forces around Kiev. This rattled Zelensky and negotiations resumed in Turkey.
Weird things started happening then like rumours about Ukrainian officials being interrogated by Ukrainian intelligence services (infiltrated and controlled by fascists) and finally one of the negotiators being shot dead and then accused of being a spy. This was accompanied by an intense PR campaign by Right Sector and other Ukrainian fascists to stop negotiations and return to the fight.
Despite this, the Ukrainian and Russian foreign minister met on March 10 and some progress was made. By March 16 leaks from both sides were saying that peace was close. In the meantime, Russian forces retreated from around Kiev, and also completely left the Sumy region. For the first time since the SMO started, no further advances were being made. And Ukraine did not claim this as a victory on the battlefield (not through official channels anyway), indicating this was an agreement reached during negotiations.
Boris Johnson then spoke to the G7 and said that "Ukraine needs to be supported so it is not forced to accept a Russian peace deal".
He then flew to Kiev and met with Zelensky, where as Ukrainian retired officials are telling us now, he convinced Zelensky to walk away from negotiations and he promised the West would "support Ukraine all the way".
So despite peace being so close, Ukraine cancelled the deal by the end of March, and walked away from negotiations. Which is why Ukraine seems so demanding when it comes to aid being provided by the West. Because it was promised to them. Also why Zelensky seems so arrogant when invited to NATO conferences. Because he understood that by declining Russian peace, Ukraine would be protected by NATO. Meanwhile, this is also the time when the fighting started getting more intense, and for the first time in the SMO, the Russian army started advancing with an actual formed frontline.
Last June, when Putin met with African leaders he published the draft of the peace deal which apparently was signed by the Ukrainian foreign minister and other negotiators. . The peace deal said that Russia would retreat from all territory taken after February 23, Ukraine would commit to having further talks regarding Crimea and autonomy of Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine would enshrine neutrality in its constitution. Russia would provide some aid for rebuilding areas damaged by war. This is the most generous peace deal Ukraine could ever hope for. And they walked away from it at the behest of the West, which spent 8 years arming Ukraine and financing the fascists taking over, so this war could happen.
If they actually do rule Ukraine as performing a genocide then holy shit it's going to be amazing watching the liberals loose their fucking minds.
They won't lose their minds really.
If the ICJ rules against Russia, it's because it's brave. If it rules for Russia, it's because it's bribed. (is what the idiots will keep saying)
Spencer's analysis is just an overview of the current symptom.
This is the real disease:
because it sees a new platform it can scale to feed the financial growth demanded by investors.
Investors/shareholders demand infinite growth, but there's finite space to grow (millions of games, few customers). This is why, in the past 2 decades we've been seeing the scummiest of practices being employed again and again, as well as a 300% hike in base prices. Capitalism has eaten gaming.
But we've been observing this trend in AAA and AA publishers/developers mostly. Indie gaming is alive and well and evolving towards being better and better. Why? Because indie developers are not usually beholden to investors.
Once you hear a gaming company you used to like has gone public, say your condolences and then run away.
Some NATO officials should stick to avoiding nuclear holocaust over some theoretical pissing contest.
During break, a colleague today (at a school) brought up Hitler after watching a documentary about it. We started talking, and he admitted he knew very little about Hitler and how he came to lead Germany, and wanted to know more. I analyzed the whole thing. Other colleagues in the area started jumping in and asking questions. They were appreciative of the way I talked about it and praised me for knowing so much about history and politics, while admitting that they also knew very little.
Now, I'm not saying this story to tout my own horn, but to emphasize what happened next. Bear in mind, nobody at the workplace knows I'm a communist. They know, I'm left-leaning, but that's it.
Anyway, someone then jumps in and says communism and fascism are the same thing ("communism is red fascism and you have to be an idiot and not know any history to be either one").
I bite my tongue and laugh inside. Here they are admitting they know very little history and praising me for knowing so much of it, then saying communists don't know history.
At any rate, I don't think I'll reveal my politics any time so. It's really effective injecting them with historical materialism without using the buzzwords.
I don't know much about Nigerien politics (btw Nigerian refers to Nigeria), but I've been trying to read up since the coup. It seems the coup government enjoys a lot of popular support, as opposed to the previously "elected" government. I've seen people claim that the previous elections were a sham, with the winning candidate straight buying up votes with US and French funds, though I don't have proof for this claim (but seems plausible).
As an outsider looking it, it certainly seems to me that a government that wants to oust French economic and political influence from the country will be far better in improving Nigerien people's lives rather than a government that is in favour of maintaining French influence in the country.
Niger is a prime example of Parenti's view "there are no poor countries, there are over-exploited countries". Niger has rich deposits of Uranium, Gold, precious stones, Oil, and rare minerals.
The reason it has become such a headline is that Niger is France's prime supplier of Uranium, and France acquires that Uranium at 20% its regular price. France is the EU's largest producer of electricity from nuclear powerplants. And it sells this electricity at quite a profit. France should have the cheapest electricity in the EU by far, but it actually sells it at the average EU price, which means all that difference is pure profit. It also exports a lot of this electricity, primarily to Belgium and Germany.
Long-story short, if France loses Niger as a Uranium supplier, its economic rating WILL go down from AA to A, which, along with everything else going on, will trigger a major recession. Germany's energy needs will also be directly impacted, especially since they are cut off from Russian gas.
So I don't know much about the Junta in Niger and their intentions, beyond what they've already announced publicly, but I do know that France has a vested interest in exploiting Niger. Therefore, any Nigerien government that France doesn't like, is probably good for the people of Niger.
And lastly, we should remember that what is branded as military coups by the West are sometimes socialist revolutions led by the military. Examples: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Thomas Sankara in (the neighbour of Niger) Burkina Faso.
If the West didn't organize a coup in Ukraine, put Nazis into power, then prod them into slaughtering their countrymen, then the Russians wouldn't have invaded. The Russians didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Ukraine.
I'd love to see how you people will react when Mexico joins BRICS and the US invades it.
Keep hoping. Better yet, go there and fight yourself if you think it's so important. But you won't. You'll just move your outrage to the next target that US propaganda will point you to.
The real salary is the bribes we made along the way