PC/WI: US tries to Balkanize Russia in 1991-92

What if the Bush administration in the immediate years following the Soviet Collapse tries through either public or back/covert channels (what ever is more plausible) to ferment the balkanization of Russia-proper?

Could we possibly see additional nations created from the demise? (Siberian, trans-Caucasian, etc)?

Might such an effort backfire and cause a nuclear stand off?
 
Last edited:
Not going to happen. First of all, most of Russia doesn't have a reason to secede. Outside of the Caucuses ethnic Russians are the majority (in many cases the vast majority), so the US trying to get Siberia or the St. Petersburg to split off is as likely to succeed as Russia trying to get Wyoming to split off.

Also there's really no point. The US had already won the Cold War. By 1992 Russia was a has-been nation with massive economic problems and political instability. Plus, a bunch of new states means a bunch of new nuclear powers, and the US has no interest in nuclear proliferation.
 
Remember that the USA is a comparatively recent player in Eastern European politics.
STRATFOR recently published an excellent e-book about Russian strategies just this past week. The e-book explains that - over the centuries - Russia/Moskovy has been invaded or influenced by: France, Germany, Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, Sweden, Turks, Mongols, Cossacks, etc.
Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, Russia allowed most of those troublesome "stans" to quietly seperate. Only "stans" containing oil were worth fighting over (e.g. Chechnya.)
Along the Balkan Coast, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania also quickly gained their independence from Russia.

Most of the "buffer" states (Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania, etc. applied to join NATO and the European a economic Union.

So OTL Russia list a lot of territory after the USSR broke up.
 
Soviet Union already balkanized itself OTL.

Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin sought good terms with West and sought to reform to western models. Warsaw pact has disbanded. Bush administration supported continued existence of Soviet Union, fearful of possible nationalist civil wars and whatever would happen with nuclear and other weapons. A stabile Russia is the devil you know and devil that wants to deal with you.

Encouraging Russia to fall apart to warlord states would not only be a futile idea with no fertile ground but could massively backfire into a civil war between factions with access to nuclear weapons.
 
Not going to happen. First of all, most of Russia doesn't have a reason to secede. Outside of the Caucuses ethnic Russians are the majority (in many cases the vast majority), so the US trying to get Siberia or the St. Petersburg to split off is as likely to succeed as Russia trying to get Wyoming to split off.

Also there's really no point. The US had already won the Cold War. By 1992 Russia was a has-been nation with massive economic problems and political instability. Plus, a bunch of new states means a bunch of new nuclear powers, and the US has no interest in nuclear proliferation.

Yeah, there's no way the US could try to force Russia to disintegrate further than it actually had. The only way Russia falls into civil war is by itself, likely a worse handling of the August Coup that degenerates into a free-for-all as per the previous Russian Civil War. Besides which, the only part of the RSFSR that truly tried to break away is Chechnya. The rest are either too swarmed by ethnic Russians, too Russified, too deep inside ethnic Russian lands or are too economically tied to Russia. Whatever parts of the Soviet Union that broke away did already, and legal under the Soviet constitution (which ironically still had the clause allowing SSRs to secede, though not expected to be put in practice).
 
Remember that the USA is a comparatively recent player in Eastern European politics.
STRATFOR recently published an excellent e-book about Russian strategies just this past week. The e-book explains that - over the centuries - Russia/Moskovy has been invaded or influenced by: France, Germany, Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, Sweden, Turks, Mongols, Cossacks, etc.
Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, Russia allowed most of those troublesome "stans" to quietly seperate. Only "stans" containing oil were worth fighting over (e.g. Chechnya.)
Along the Balkan Coast, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania also quickly gained their independence from Russia.

Most of the "buffer" states (Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania, etc. applied to join NATO and the European a economic Union.

So OTL Russia list a lot of territory after the USSR broke up.

1. Most of the "stans" actually have really significant deposits of natural resources. Kazakhstan has uranium as well as absurdly-large fields of natural gas. They were allowed to secede. And yes, Chechnya has important oil infrastructure, but if oil was the only reason they fought over it then the Russians would've fought to keep hold of Azerbaijan as well.

2. It's the Baltic coast, not the Balkan coast.
 
Maybe a much earlier POD is needed. Was there ever any consideration in Moscow when the republic borders were being drawn of splitting the core Russian republic into multiple different republics? I can see two possible reasons for doing that:

1)The desire to not emphasize ethnic division- so they set up the republic borders to not correspond with ethnic groups. The kingdom of Yugoslavia tried a similar strategy with it's banovinas.

2)A fear that a singular massive Russian substate might potentially compromise the Soviet suprastate. Kind of strange really that a rather paranoid and authoritarian government, presumably setting up the republics with an expectation that they'd be deferential to Soviet authority, would consolidate so much practical and symbolic leverge in the hands of just one.
 
There are no viable separatist movements in Siberia - it's mostly inhabited by Russians and even among the minorities, separatism has never been particularly strong. The only options for "Balkanization" would be Chechnya and maybe 2-3 other equally tiny Caucasian autonomies.
 
Maybe a much earlier POD is needed. Was there ever any consideration in Moscow when the republic borders were being drawn of splitting the core Russian republic into multiple different republics?

Russia is complex, and to some extent already Balkanised

In 1993, when the Constitution was adopted, there were eighty-nine federal subjects listed, but later some of them were merged. These subjects have equal representation—two delegates each—in the Federation Council.[148] However, they differ in the degree of autonomy they enjoy.
46 oblasts (provinces): most common type of federal subjects, with locally elected governor and legislature.[149]
22 republics: nominally autonomous; each is tasked with drafting its own constitution, direct-elected[149] head of republic[150] or a similar post, and parliament. Republics are allowed to establish their own official language alongside Russian but are represented by the federal government in international affairs. Republics are meant to be home to specific ethnic minorities.
9 krais (territories): essentially the same as oblasts. The "territory" designation is historic, originally given to frontier regions and later also to the administrative divisions that comprised autonomous okrugs or autonomous oblasts.
4 autonomous okrugs (autonomous districts): originally autonomous entities within oblasts and krais created for ethnic minorities, their status was elevated to that of federal subjects in the 1990s. With the exception of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, all autonomous okrugs are still administratively subordinated to a krai or an oblast of which they are a part.
1 autonomous oblast (the Jewish Autonomous Oblast): historically, autonomous oblasts were administrative units subordinated to krais. In 1990, all of them except for the Jewish AO were elevated in status to that of a republic.
3 federal cities (Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and Sevastopol): major cities that function as separate regions.

From memory it was only Chechnya and Tartarstan of the republics who negotiated improved positions post 1991.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_of_Russia
 
I often wonder if Balkanization would be better in the long run for many of the world's problems.

Example Ukraine kept nuclear weapons (stopped Crimea crisis?), Iraq was Balkanized after the Iraq invasion (assuming the invasion was a fixed point of course) and so on.

I remain unconvinced that redrawing borders leads to instability... other than preventing imperialism, which isn't much of a threat these days since globalization + money > nationalism, there's no reason to keep the world's borders the way they are if they are causing trouble. Who is doing the redrawing of course matters and better to let sleeping dogs lie, but if for example the Korean War reignited there's no reason why there can't be a separate South and North Korea (with the border suitably north of course). If Iraq proves anything integration is a tough painful slog and if nobody is willing to pay the price better to break it up and make everyone happy with their own little cliques (or force everyone to pay the price, but being half-arsed about it is the worst way as Iraq proves).
 
Top