WI: USSR Collapses, but keeps Central Asia
- Thread starter Ravenclaw
- Start date
Ultimately it was the poor financial condition of the USSR that led to its breakup. So unless the USSR was able to afford keeping the Central Asian republics, I hardly think it would have been possible.
But contrary to mainstream belief, it wasn't the Russian domination that made the republics want independence as much as it was the dire economic situation that the whole USSR was experiencing. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are two Central Asian republics that can quite easily rejoin a Russian led union, provided the ideology that this union endorses is no longer communism. And that's precisely what's happening today. Central Asia did not benefit from the dissolution of the USSR at all. Kazakhstan is the only Central Asian republic to grow and that's greatly attributed to Russian investment anyway. The upcoming Eurasian Union is an answer to your question.
The republics couldn't have possibly transitioned immediately from communism to something else. But now after more than twenty years since the fall of communism, the whole region is ready to embrace a newer concept of economic and political cooperation, which is exactly what the Eurasian Union was intended for.
But contrary to mainstream belief, it wasn't the Russian domination that made the republics want independence as much as it was the dire economic situation that the whole USSR was experiencing. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are two Central Asian republics that can quite easily rejoin a Russian led union, provided the ideology that this union endorses is no longer communism. And that's precisely what's happening today. Central Asia did not benefit from the dissolution of the USSR at all. Kazakhstan is the only Central Asian republic to grow and that's greatly attributed to Russian investment anyway. The upcoming Eurasian Union is an answer to your question.
The republics couldn't have possibly transitioned immediately from communism to something else. But now after more than twenty years since the fall of communism, the whole region is ready to embrace a newer concept of economic and political cooperation, which is exactly what the Eurasian Union was intended for.
I was aware that Kazakhstan rejoining Russia was in the cards, but Kyrgyzstan as well? Even if Kazakhstan joins, there would be no land border between the two, and granted, this hasn't been a problem for the Kalingrad Oblast, but it may be something more of an issue when your facing Uzbekistan instead of Lithuania.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Places like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan would economically and politically be far better off as a part of some renewed USSR than as independent states.
The problem is both would be pretty much a net drain on Moscow's resources, so like OTL, keeping Central Asia would be a short-term drain for the Russians. The Central Asian republics, for the most part, wanted to remain in association with the union in some way, it was an issue of Russia not wanting to keep them, not them wanting to leave.
We also have to keep in mind that keeping all or even one of the larger parts of Soviet Central Asia like Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan would pretty significantly alter the demographics of a new state. It would still be Russian majority, but the Muslim minority would be less a minority and more of a strong secondary group relative to the Russians. This is the sort of thing that more nationalistic Russians might balk at.