Soviet Union and Russian Federation

[CountofDooku]

Having this idea for a couple of months now, could a Soviet Union that is only missing the Russian SSR turned Russian Federation continue to exist? OTL the last remaining member state was Kazahkstan, but what if more stayed part of the SU? I know that could be tricky as soon as Belaus and Ukraine leave, but either way most SU territories would be split into East/ West seperated by Russia. Could both coexisting work? Would there be to much rivalry between them? What would the main leading nation of this new SU be instead of Russia and how would both nations be viewed from the outside and in the Rest of the world?

 

[Polish Eagle]

Having this idea for a couple of months now, could a Soviet Union that is only missing the Russian SSR turned Russian Federation continue to exist? OTL the last remaining member state was Kazahkstan, but what if more stayed part of the SU? I know that could be tricky as soon as Belaus and Ukraine leave, but either way most SU territories would be split into East/ West seperated by Russia. Could both coexisting work? Would there be to much rivalry between them? What would the main leading nation of this new SU be instead of Russia and how would both nations be viewed from the outside and in the Rest of the world?

I could definitely see Kazakhstan and the other central Asian republics organizing themselves as a Rump USSR to preserve the benefits of a common, integrated economy, though the Balts and Ukraine and Belarus would go their own way.

The issue is, given how much of a dump the RF turned into the 1990s, if the Rump USSR is halfway successful, the communists will push for a reunion by 2000 anyway.

As to rivalry, Chechnya is the sticking point. The largely Muslim central Asian republics will find Chechnya's cause sympathetic--and indeed may support creating a Chechen SSR if Moscow pushes the issue. With that happening in the midst of the TTL Budapest Memorandum negotiations...relations will chill.

 

[Lalli]

Not any chances. Baltics would leave that immediately. In OTL they even left first ones. Probably Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Caucasian SSRs still would declare independence. Central Asian ones might keep some unity but that rump USSR would be ratherly pretty loose economic and defense union and not practise such socialist economy what Soviet Union did.

 

[CountofDooku]

I could definitely see Kazakhstan and the other central Asian republics organizing themselves as a Rump USSR to preserve the benefits of a common, integrated economy, though the Balts and Ukraine and Belarus would go their own way.

The issue is, given how much of a dump the RF turned into the 1990s, if the Rump USSR is halfway successful, the communists will push for a reunion by 2000 anyway.

As to rivalry, Chechnya is the sticking point. The largely Muslim central Asian republics will find Chechnya's cause sympathetic--and indeed may support creating a Chechen SSR if Moscow pushes the issue. With that happening in the midst of the TTL Budapest Memorandum negotiations...relations will chill.

Not any chances. Baltics would leave that immediately. In OTL they even left first ones. Probably Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Caucasian SSRs still would declare independence. Central Asian ones might keep some unity but that rump USSR would be ratherly pretty loose economic and defense union and not practise such socialist economy what Soviet Union did.

So basically more like this:

I assume such a Soviet Union would quickly get away from state atheism and imbrace Islam (even if not as a state religion) again?

I could see such a SU trying to fuse Socialism Communism with rising Islamism/ Socialist Arabism under their own leadership maybe?

 

[LeX]

I think you would need to have Russia in the Union for the USSR to work. The Central Asian republics would only want to stay if they could continue getting financial and material support from the rest of the Union, i.e. Russia.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Having this idea for a couple of months now, could a Soviet Union that is only missing the Russian SSR turned Russian Federation continue to exist? OTL the last remaining member state was Kazahkstan, but what if more stayed part of the SU? I know that could be tricky as soon as Belaus and Ukraine leave, but either way most SU territories would be split into East/ West seperated by Russia. Could both coexisting work? Would there be to much rivalry between them? What would the main leading nation of this new SU be instead of Russia and how would both nations be viewed from the outside and in the Rest of the world?

Impossible, the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused by Gorbachev and his misleaded reforms, there is no way a situation arises where the RSFSR manages to secede while the other ones don't. The core of the USSR is Russia.

So basically more like this:

I assume such a Soviet Union would quickly get away from state atheism and imbrace Islam (even if not as a state religion) again?

I doubt they would all unite, the some of the leaders are eccentric to say the least, the CA Republics were in the USSR because it was advantegeous to them thanks to subdisies from the rest of the Union and it wouldn't be a Soviet Union it would be CA, at that point there is no reason to be called something else.

 

[CountofDooku]

I think you would need to have Russia in the Union for the USSR to work. The Central Asian republics would only want to stay if they could continue getting financial and material support from the rest of the Union, i.e. Russia.

Wouldn't they stay together to oppose any Chinese, Russian, or Persian/ Iranian ambitions in Central Asia and to strenghten their economic and defensive capabilities?

Who would internally dominate such a SU, Kazakhs, Kyrgizistani, Tajiks, Turkmen, Uzbeks, or the large remaining Russians to the North (that could be a point of ethnic and border tension with any Russian Nation State to the North of the SU)?

 

[Polish Eagle]

Wouldn't they stay together to oppose any Chinese, Russian, or Persian/ Iranian ambitions in Central Asia and to strenghten their economic and defensive capabilities?
Who would internally dominate such a SU, Kazakhs, Kyrgizistani, Tajiks, Turkmen, Uzbeks, or the large remaining Russians to the North (that could be a point of ethnic and border tension with any Russian Nation State to the North of the SU)?

My thought is they would also unite to oppose domestic opposition--better to support one another against opposing parties than to stand separately.

Last time a Rump USSR scenario was discussed, it was also proposed that Azerbaijan would be inclined to stay in the union--which would be massively beneficial from an oil perspective.

WI: The Soviet Union survived as a rump state in Central Asia?

In OTL, Kazakhstan was the last of the Soviet republics to secede from the Union, doing so on 16 December 1991, four days after Russia did. In addition, a Gallup poll in 2013 showed that 61% of Kyrgyzstani respondents said the dissolution of the Soviet Union did more harm than good. So what if...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[Cudymcar]

Nonsense. This rump USSR has no government, no army, no means to pay sovereign debt. Nobody would recognize it.

 

[walmart]

It would be Turkistan rather than the USSR

 

[Remitonov]

I'd put better odds on the Soviet government surviving as a rogue state in Kaliningrad Oblast than a Central Asian rump USSR. The Soviet Union is dead the moment its core member and federal capital secedes. If the remaining Central Asian states band together, it won't be a continuation of the USSR, but some Turkic or Islamic federation, like @walmart said.

Side note, a united Turkistan might even be better that way, given the knotty borders, but I doubt it can hold together without everyone bickering over who should be the new 'first among equals'.

 

[Whiteshore]

So basically more like this:

I assume such a Soviet Union would quickly get away from state atheism and imbrace Islam (even if not as a state religion) again?

I could see such a SU trying to fuse Socialism Communism with rising Islamism/ Socialist Arabism under their own leadership maybe?

On that note, such a rump USSR in Central Asia would very much be the Soviet answer to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and how it was just Serbia and Montenegro, as was noted here:

AHC: Ex-Soviet Central Asia significant in pop culture/public consciousness not because of Borat

My idea would be to have this space related. Kazakhstan is home to the Baikonur Cosmodrome. It's where the ISS was launched from. It's currently leased to Russia. However, imagine a scenario whereby the international community decides that it also needs a centralised Earth-based location where...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[CountofDooku]

It would be Turkistan rather than the USSR

So basically a Greater Turkestan?

I'd put better odds on the Soviet government surviving as a rogue state in Kaliningrad Oblast than a Central Asian rump USSR. The Soviet Union is dead the moment its core member and federal capital secedes. If the remaining Central Asian states band together, it won't be a continuation of the USSR, but some Turkic or Islamic federation, like @walmart said.

Side note, a united Turkistan might even be better that way, given the knotty borders, but I doubt it can hold together without everyone bickering over who should be the new 'first among equals'.

I like the Kaliningrad idea, kind of like what happened with the Soviet Forces in East Moldova who formed Transnistria with the region they militay controlled if I remember correctly.

 

[Whiteshore]

So basically a Greater Turkestan?

Well, I could see it being often referred to as ”Soviet Turkestan” the same way the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was often just referred to as Serbia and Montenegro even prior to 2003.

 

[Remitonov]

I like the Kaliningrad idea, kind of like what happened with the Soviet Forces in East Moldova who formed Transnistria with the region they militay controlled if I remember correctly.

Well, it depends on if the Baltic Fleet munity, either joining or forming the rogue government. If Yeltsin loses control the Baltic Fleet, his chances of putting down the renegades would plummet drastically.

Also, it depends on how charitable the Baltic states and Poland would be in allowing the Russian military access through their territories to crush the revolt. Given how the last four decades of Soviet domination went for them, they'll likely attempt to shake down Russia for every concession before they even consider allowing the Red Army through.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Well, it depends on if the Baltic Fleet munity, either joining or forming the rogue government. If Yeltsin loses control the Baltic Fleet, his chances of putting down the renegades would plummet drastically.

Also, it depends on how charitable the Baltic states and Poland would be in allowing the Russian military access through their territories to crush the revolt. Given how the last four decades of Soviet domination went for them, they'll likely attempt to shake down Russia for every concession before they even consider allowing the Red Army through.

They wouldn't be charitable at all to a request from Yeltsin for access by land. But the question is timing--they might not necessarily have a choice, since occupation troops did not fully vacate those countries until 1993, and attempting to stop those troops from moving against Kaliningrad might trigger hostilities. If Kaliningrad and the Baltic Fleet go red after that point, Poland and Lithuania can tell Yeltsin to pound sand, at most not interfering with air strikes against Kaliningrad--though perhaps the US would pressure them to allow Soviet convoys through to help prop Yeltsin up.

Most likely, I think, Poland and the Balts in general (since USSR forces remained in Latvia and Estonia to 1994) would allow Yeltsin to move any troops already in their countries to suppress Kaliningrad, on condition that no more come in--he's got to do the job with what's there. For the Poles and Balts, this is, effectively, evicting the occupiers early.

Which raises the possibility of Kaliningrad in 1993 going about as well as Chechnya--the invading army columns are shot to bits and can't retreat without getting interned...or they outright defect to the Red government.

 

[CountofDooku]

They wouldn't be charitable at all to a request from Yeltsin for access by land. But the question is timing--they might not necessarily have a choice, since occupation troops did not fully vacate those countries until 1993, and attempting to stop those troops from moving against Kaliningrad might trigger hostilities. If Kaliningrad and the Baltic Fleet go red after that point, Poland and Lithuania can tell Yeltsin to pound sand, at most not interfering with air strikes against Kaliningrad--though perhaps the US would pressure them to allow Soviet convoys through to help prop Yeltsin up.

Most likely, I think, Poland and the Balts in general (since USSR forces remained in Latvia and Estonia to 1994) would allow Yeltsin to move any troops already in their countries to suppress Kaliningrad, on condition that no more come in--he's got to do the job with what's there. For the Poles and Balts, this is, effectively, evicting the occupiers early.

Which raises the possibility of Kaliningrad in 1993 going about as well as Chechnya--the invading army columns are shot to bits and can't retreat without getting interned...or they outright defect to the Red government.

Do we know how many troops exactly would be on each sides (assuming Kaliningrad ones all stay Soviet loyal) and those in the Baltics all switch to Yeltsin and the Russian Federation (or the newly independent nation states if some of their troops were recruited from there)?

 

[Polish Eagle]

Do we know how many troops exactly would be on each sides (assuming Kaliningrad ones all stay Soviet loyal) and those in the Baltics all switch to Yeltsin and the Russian Federation (or the newly independent nation states if some of their troops were recruited from there)?

Per Wikipedia, Soviet forces in Poland numbered 58,000 by 1991--though I don't know how many of those were combat troops instead of things like logistics or maintenance personnel. As of 1993, there were only 2,500 Soviet soldiers in Lithuania.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/08/31/russia-agrees-to-total-pullout-of-troops-from-lithuania/c9234f4f-1c07-40ad-9daf-866d8193dac5/

The numbers in Estonia and Latvia were similarly low--2,000 listed for Estonia in 1994.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/27/world/russia-agrees-to-full-withdrawal-of-troops-in-estonia-by-aug-31.html

Interestingly, a lot of them were being kept there to squeeze concessions out of the US--Yeltsin wanted the US congress to pay for housing and retirement funds for demobilized Red Army personnel, if you can believe that.

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PBAAJ423.pdf

Depending on when exactly one proposes Kaliningrad and the Baltic Fleet mutiny, there might not be enough Yeltsin-loyal personnel in the Baltic countries or Poland to do anything about it anyway. Which brings us back to "can the US and Yeltsin pressure them into allowing troops to transit from Yeltsin-controlled territory?"