WI: Unified Central Asian state post-Soviet Union

Is it possible for a unified Central Asian state, encompassing roughly OTL Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, to emerge from the Soviet Union following its collapse? Points if it also contains Xinjiang (Uyghurstan), Afghanistan and Pakistan, although not all have to be followed hard and fast.
 
Probably not. Even post-USSR they're still Russian satellite states and neither Russia nor China nor Iran would want it to happen. And as far as I'm aware there's never been any sort of movement to unify them.

I think the closest you're likely to get is some kind of pan-Turkic ethnic movement. But too many nations and people would oppose the formation of a huge new central Asian country for it to happen.
 
If the USSR had chosen not to divide Central Asia into multiple SSRs and instead did just one big "Turk SSR" then the national images of Kazakhs, Turkmens, Kirghiz, and Uzbeks might be lessened compared to 1991 OTL. The Tajiks however are going to be a minority related to Afghans and Iranians and will disassociated with the Turkic majority. Either you have a South Ossetia problem or you can have that the SSR has the Tajiks as their own SSR and then the 4 Turkic majority are in the Central Asian SSR.

If that's possible then based on uti possidetis juris, which is the prevailing international legal norm recognized by the UN and US, even China would have no choice but to recognize the national government of a united Central Asia as inviolate, and few if any would ever recognize any subsequent breakaway republics based on tribal allegiances (such as Uzbeks or Kirghiz). They'd be seen as no different than Trans-Dniester, South Ossetia, Chechnya, or the Serbs breaking away from Bosnia et Herzegovina. There's a reason Kosovo has been taking so much longer than the initial breakup of Yugoslavia.

In international relations however I don't see that a united Central Asia would have any different relations with China, Russia, or the US as Kazakhstan has had. China will of course want a sphere of influence on a large state on their western border that has religious, linguistic, ethnic, and cultural ties to a large part of their western region. Russia will want a sphere on a former "colonial territory" that has a large Russian minority, secure their southern border of Siberia, contain China, keep US out of being so close. The US will want to be there to maintain control of the skies of Asia and for transport logistics, and to contain China and Russia.

Afghanistan and Pakistan could never join, other than being Muslim they have nothing in common being Indo-Iranian. Tajikistan probably not for same reason though at least historical and some cultural ties are there. Turkey probably becomes a big supporter with cultural exchanges. I don't see the larger country being any more important or stronger than OTL Kazakhstan is though. Perhaps the Aral Sea ends up being better off environmentally, but it could very well end up being worse or no different than OTL. Central Asian unified won't go up against the PRC and support any breakaway Uygur terrorists or anything like that.
 
I see. However, is there a possibility that Xinjiang could have been incorporated under Soviet control and under this Central Asian SSR prior to the breakup? Say, 1949?

Could the Tajiks simply be given autonomy within the SSR?
 
If the USSR had chosen not to divide Central Asia into multiple SSRs and instead did just one big "Turk SSR" then the national images of Kazakhs, Turkmens, Kirghiz, and Uzbeks might be lessened compared to 1991 OTL. The Tajiks however are going to be a minority related to Afghans and Iranians and will disassociated with the Turkic majority. Either you have a South Ossetia problem or you can have that the SSR has the Tajiks as their own SSR and then the 4 Turkic majority are in the Central Asian SSR.

The problem was how would Stalin create it? He was not into the idea.
 
A potential scenario would be a more violent breakup of the Soviet Union, probably resulting from the SU having a traditionalist in power instead of Gorbachev. In the chaos resulting from the breakup, some sort of local leader emerges and generates a large following across the different Turkic groups (and maybe even among Tajiks and Russians). Once everything cools down, this leader is in a good position to unite all of the Turkic SSRs (or at least the majority of them). His state may hold significant power in Russia if fighting continues there, or if a Taliban-like regime develops in Afghanistan, he would be in a ideal position to fight against it and grab the Uzbek portions of Afghanistan. Alternatively, he could support it if his government leans towards Islamism.
 
A potential scenario would be a more violent breakup of the Soviet Union, probably resulting from the SU having a traditionalist in power instead of Gorbachev. In the chaos resulting from the breakup, some sort of local leader emerges and generates a large following across the different Turkic groups (and maybe even among Tajiks and Russians). Once everything cools down, this leader is in a good position to unite all of the Turkic SSRs (or at least the majority of them). His state may hold significant power in Russia if fighting continues there, or if a Taliban-like regime develops in Afghanistan, he would be in a ideal position to fight against it and grab the Uzbek portions of Afghanistan. Alternatively, he could support it if his government leans towards Islamism.

How do we foster Turkic Nationalism though?
 
How do we foster Turkic Nationalism though?

Maybe have some sort of campaign to forcibly Russify the SU (this could be the cause of the SU's collapse) and make all SU citizens 'Russians'. Of course, the greatest resistance will be in the Baltic SSRs but that does not preclude some sort of charismatic leader taking inspiration from the Balts.

Alternatively, you could have a state based on Islamism, with Islamic leaders coming up from Afghanistan, or a 'big man' style state with a cult of personality around this leader (he would need to be very charismatic then)
 
Could Persia somehow have led some of this? Turkmenistan was a mess after the war and at least some of the population still speaks Faris (official stats from inside the country disagree but are notoriously unreliable) and Faris remains an official language in Tajikistan and Afghanistan.
 
I see. However, is there a possibility that Xinjiang could have been incorporated under Soviet control and under this Central Asian SSR prior to the breakup? Say, 1949?

Could the Tajiks simply be given autonomy within the SSR?

Soviets invaded Xinjiang, the home of the Uygurs, in 1934 and got crushed, in part due to Muslim Chinese (Hui). Prior to that the USSR had tried to get the Hui to revolt against the Chinese government. Perhaps if we make a PoD where the Soviets were successful in getting the Hui to be disloyal to the Chinese government then the 36th Division (comprised of Hui) and led by Muslim General Ma can be butterflied away and not there to crush the Soviet invasion.

A Soviet controlled Xinjiang from 1934. Does it get incorporated into the USSR or is just a puppet like Mongolia? Either way it could cause the PRC to not invade Tibet in 1951. Let's first consider if Xinjiang is incorporated into the USSR, you could make an argument for Xinjiang to be incorporated into a Greater Turk SSR and then there is a unified HUGE nation in 1991 that would rival a smaller PRC. In this case I would say that whereas in OTL Kazakhstan became the first country to have nuclear weapons and freely abandon them all that in this ATL that a Central Asian nation of this size would need them. The need to appease China would be gone (Xinjiang has huge natural gas and good sized oil reserves that would be Turkish and not Chinese), no longer would you need to play Russia off China and use the USA as a third pillar of foreign policy to remain independent. Central Asia would not be a super power, but would be a great power in Asia equal to India; only thing that could stop that- instability, tribal wars, breakaway republics, Taliban/al Qaeda coming up from Afghanistan, Iranian inspired and supported terrorism. Disputes with China and India over spheres of influence on Tibet and border disputes with China would also lead to Central Asia not being able to have the open borders, free movement, and trade with China that would be beneficial to economic development.
 
I see. So, controlling Xinjiang will impact economic development in this hypothetical united Turk stage due to worse relations with China.if so, then what sort of foreign policy would it have instead of the above? Clearly, as a result of Chinese tensions, it wouldn't be able to look to China; so, Russia or USA?
 
I see. So, controlling Xinjiang will impact economic development in this hypothetical united Turk stage due to worse relations with China.if so, then what sort of foreign policy would it have instead of the above? Clearly, as a result of Chinese tensions, it wouldn't be able to look to China; so, Russia or USA?

Based just on the fact that most countries tend to trade most with their neighbors and former colonies tend to trade most with their former "mother countries) that Russia would be the biggest trading partner. Problem is Russia doesn't have too much Central Asia wants (their goods aren't that great) and Russia doesn't need the natural gas or oil that Central Asia has other than as a middle man to get even more to Europe. In OTL China is Kazakhstan's biggest trading partner, but if this is a Central Asia that has Xinjiang I don't see that the PRC and Central Asia could have good enough relations for that big of trade; BUT the one thing that could change that is- China needs oil and natural gas badly, badly enough that Central Asia has China by the balls; China sells Central Asia goods and Central Asia sells natural resources. US as far as economic partnership will be small; US will give aid, have military bases, be a friend. Russia may even have some bases in the north perhaps; would make it the first country I know of in history that might have both Russian and US bases at the same time (and probably not a smart move when I think about it in case war does ever break out, you're not getting to be neutral territory).

So politically China has less influence than in Kazakhstan OTL, Russia and USA stronger in the area politically. Central Asia probably does a lot of trade with India and could be a big partner with Iran. Turkey almost certainly with a lot cultural exchange. Balkans and Middle East probably have quite a bit of trade. Tibet if independent (almost certain) would be a big trading partner, Tibet doesn't have much to offer but Kazakhstan would be how tourists flock in, would supply their oil and natural gas needs, and would be the source of a lot of goods. Central Asia will be Tibet's biggest trading partner even more than Nepal, Bhutan, or India.
 
BTW, even the Turkestan ASSR while it existed did not include Kazakhstan (which, confusingly, was then called the Kirgizistan ASSR). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkestan_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

I also do not think that the ethnic demarcation of Turkestan was simply a personal quirk of Stalin's that another Soviet leader would have avoided. The "pan-Turkic" idea was just too dangerous ideologically for the Soviets. (Moreover, it did ignore not only differences among the Turkic languages, but the existence of the non-Turkic Tajiks.)

With regard to Xinjiang, in the unlikely event the Soviets ever incorporated it into the USSR, probably the Three Districts and some other Kazakh-inhabited territory in Dzungaria would be incorporated into the Kazakh SSR, while most of the rest of Xinjiang would become an Uyghur SSR. (There could also be small areas incorporated into the Kirghiz SSR.)
 
Succesful Basmachi revolts perhaps? But I have a feeling they'd just end up as independent Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand i.e. still divided, just differently.
 

Ak-84

Banned
The only realistic way that you can have what's in the OP is to have an EEC type common market and customs union, which in OTL, Pakistan pushed for heavily in the 1990's (and still tries to today to a lesser extent).

So a possible time line.

POD, greater American support for Afghan rebuilding.

Treaty signed 1993

Full Economic and customs Union achieved by 2001 (you probably butterfly away 9/11 here)

New Treaty signed 2003, looking for greater political union.

2005. Border controls abolished

2007. Previously informal collaborations in police, judicial matters is institutionalised. The previously appointed People's Assembly is elected through direct election and gains new legislative powers.

2010. The Appellate Tribunal gains power to review criminal and ordinary civil matters from member state courts in certain circumstances. Separate Union judiciary setup

2013. The third treaty is a roadmap for eventual political union. A common foreign service is setup and the Union has exclusive competence is matters like arms control, Telecommunicatins, Maritime law.

2015. The military's begin the process of integration. The Air Forces setup a joint command HQ. The Pakistan Navy is renamed the Union Navy. Armies begin joint coordination.

Nuclear forces remain under ostensible exclusive Pakistani control.
 
Top