Best case scenario for Post-Soviet Russia

If you ask me for the best scenario? I'd say no 'shock therapy' meaning the economics and reforms must be gradual and not rushed. Crackdown on corruption and organized-crime or at least stop it from spiraling out of control. Enlist some western aid. Even it does not result in democratic Russia, it'll be probably slightly better off than the one in OTL.
 
The collapse of the USSR meant that Russia lost core territories in the Ukraine, Belarus, and Central Asia (particularly Kazakhstan), representing a good chunk of the Soviet industrial base and almost 100 million people. Whatever the short-term economic chaos, the reformers would have done well to retain those areas -- with them Russia would still be comparable to the United States in terms of its potential. Perhaps if Yeltsin wasn't in a position of power in 1991, Gorbachev could have transitioned to the democratic system as planned and reformed the union in a less divisive manner.
 
... Until Putin came to power and Russia had gotten slightly better (tho' at the cost of many political freedoms like dead journalists for example)
You know, it’s not that hard to do your research before posting.

In an eight-year period from 1992 to start of the new millennium when Yeltsin ruled 41 journalists were killed in Russia.

In the 18 years that followed the numbers of journalists killed was... 42.

There were more journalists being killed (both as a per-year average and (until recently) as a total number) in the 1990s under the “democratic” Yeltsin than during Putin’s rule.

Slight edit: fixed the numbers.
 
Last edited:
You know, it’s not that hard to do your research before posting.

In an eight-year period from 1992 to start of the new millennium when Yeltsin ruled 41 journalists were killed in Russia.

In the 18 years that followed the numbers of journalists killed was... 42.

There were more journalists being killed (both as a per-year average and (until recently) as a total number) in the 1990s under the “democratic” Yeltsin than during Putin’s rule.

Slight edit: fixed the numbers.

Also, didn't Yeltsin essentially coup against the parliament in 1993, with the West supporting this "democratic president"?
 
You know, it’s not that hard to do your research before posting.

In an eight-year period from 1992 to start of the new millennium when Yeltsin ruled 41 journalists were killed in Russia.

In the 18 years that followed the numbers of journalists killed was... 42.

There were more journalists being killed (both as a per-year average and (until recently) as a total number) in the 1990s under the “democratic” Yeltsin than during Putin’s rule.

Slight edit: fixed the numbers.
Ah, my mistake on that part. I wasn't well-versed in the 90s Russia period.

Regardless, one thing for certain is the Russians didn't seemed to get the break from tragedies. From Mongol invasions and Tsarist autocracy to the ex-KGB oligarchy who behaves like the mafia.
 
You know, it’s not that hard to do your research before posting.

In an eight-year period from 1992 to start of the new millennium when Yeltsin ruled 41 journalists were killed in Russia.

In the 18 years that followed the numbers of journalists killed was... 42.

There were more journalists being killed (both as a per-year average and (until recently) as a total number) in the 1990s under the “democratic” Yeltsin than during Putin’s rule.

Slight edit: fixed the numbers.

It's pretty simple really. The ruling elites of Russia don't need to kill so many journalists in the 2010s. The journalists already know their place, they don't have similar illusions of a new time of press freedom in Russia people like Anna Politkovskaya might have had in the 1990s and early 00s.
 
Kazakhstan is valuable, though, and the rest aren't that eager to separate. I cant see them breaking ranks prior to the coup.
Indeed. The Baltics were highly valuable and productive, but they were extremely angry still over the whole deporting of a tenth of their populatoin by the Soviets a couple decades back, and stuffing them until they were a third Russian. Speaking of which, by 1989 the Soviet Union was 51% Russian. If any actual elections were held then there would be some issues for the Russian nationalists amongst the Soviets. I expect there would be some issues in the Caucaus, given the Armenians struck back once Armenians in Azerbaijan were attacked. It got pretty messy down there. Something would need to happen many years before the breakup to keep things calm down there, and to make various autonomous areas secure. Actually, it makes me wonder about the ASSRs. The Soviets set up SSRs mainly if any area was on the border, ignoring areas in the interior that had homogenous populations of millions. Maybe they are bumped up to SSRs? Though the Russians might prefer breakup over risking the future loss of so many areas. Might be like IOTL, where the Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, and Moldavans tried to squash autonomy or independence movements.
 
Indeed. The Baltics were highly valuable and productive, but they were extremely angry still over the whole deporting of a tenth of their populatoin by the Soviets a couple decades back, and stuffing them until they were a third Russian. Speaking of which, by 1989 the Soviet Union was 51% Russian. If any actual elections were held then there would be some issues for the Russian nationalists amongst the Soviets. I expect there would be some issues in the Caucaus, given the Armenians struck back once Armenians in Azerbaijan were attacked. It got pretty messy down there. Something would need to happen many years before the breakup to keep things calm down there, and to make various autonomous areas secure. Actually, it makes me wonder about the ASSRs. The Soviets set up SSRs mainly if any area was on the border, ignoring areas in the interior that had homogenous populations of millions. Maybe they are bumped up to SSRs? Though the Russians might prefer breakup over risking the future loss of so many areas. Might be like IOTL, where the Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, and Moldavans tried to squash autonomy or independence movements.
Most of the ASSRs are either right in the middle of Russian-populated regions, Russian majority already, or both. Those that are none of the above are the Caucasus republics and Tuva, of which only Chechnya ever attempted secession IOTL. If the ASSRs were granted SSR status, Russia would easily win the top prize for the most godforsaken border gore ever. And it won't just be aesthetically hideous. Russia's entire infrastructure and economy would be gouged out.

As for the ASSRs in the Caucasus SSRs, it's mainly Stalin's fault for trying to appease the Azeris and Turkish, and giving Nagorno-Karakakh to Azerbaijan. Granted, it's in the middle of Azeri-populated lands, but for a guy who had no qualms arbitrarily moving entire populations, the enclave was purpose-designed as a tripwire to prevent either republics from turning on Russia together. As for the Georgian ASSRs, it doesn't seem as arbitrarily decided, AFAIK.
 
Top