Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics

Between 1990 and 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to recreate the USSR into a democratic and less-centralized confederation. Communism would be abandoned and a multi-party democracy system would be introduced. The New Union Treaty would have made this possible, but the 1991 coup prevented all of this from happening. With the sudden declarations of independence and the failing economy, the USSR collapsed.

But what would happen if this treaty was signed? What if the USSR changed into a democratic country? Would it last long or would it inevitably collapse?
 
This scenario on the Wiki:
 
This scenario on the Wiki:
I saw this link, I really liked it. So you believe it could be possible? One thing I was unsure about was it being a confederation (a weak form of government). So could it be that the confederation could evolve into a federation?
 
Between 1990 and 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to recreate the USSR into a democratic and less-centralized confederation. Communism would be abandoned and a multi-party democracy system would be introduced. The New Union Treaty would have made this possible, but the 1991 coup prevented all of this from happening. With the sudden declarations of independence and the failing economy, the USSR collapsed.

But what would happen if this treaty was signed? What if the USSR changed into a democratic country? Would it last long or would it inevitably collapse?
A lot would depend on the Co-operation between the Union center and the Various republics in general and the relationship between the Russian Federation and the Union government. Because let us be clear, the new USSR would be de facto and de jure a Russian dominated project. A lot of remaining republics would be uncomfortable with that Idea and a lot would depend on how Moscow deals with it's reduced influence.

Another question is would all the republics stick around? Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would surely not opt to be a part of the new Union. Central Asia would happily join the new political Union.

The success or failure would depend of the relationship between Minsk, Moscow and Kiev, the political leaders of these countries would need commit politically to the new union project. This would mean Russian leadership would have to stop acting unilaterally, share sovereignty with its brotherly Slavic countries in actuality not just in slogan, commit to a program of transition to Markets and capitalism (I think a French style Dirigisme is prefect for the three countries), a common program and policy on participation in global trade and investment, a common defense program, common Fiscal and monetary policy, commitment to build democracy is crucial else you might end up a single republic building political power vis a vis other republics and of course a common foreign policy.....like would the Soviet Union still remain a member of the UN, how would Ukraine and Belarus co-ordinate with the union's foreign policy since they were members of the UN, would Russian foreign ministry take over most of the Union's function? What about the Central Asian republics? would they become UN members.

I think the best outcome amongst the three, would be is if Russian leadership actually acknowledge the existence of Ukraine and Belarus as a separate and Independent nation and let it develop its own relationship with rest of the world, while co-operating in spheres of common interests which they have a lot of and those countries remaining committed to the political, social and economic project of the union. If Russia does this....I do not think either of those nations would feel Russian Hegemony over their countries as an imposition which it is right now and who knows some sections of the society in those two countries might start to identify the interest of their country with that of the Russian state, once the chaos settles down and economic prosperity returns

The Union's relationship with central Asian countries is quite easy, since the Union's three republics can easily dominate them in all spheres the relationship between the central Asian republics and the Russia/Union would be one of client and Patron relationship. Russia can use the resources of Central Asia to dominate economically Belarus and Ukraine and use Ukraine and Belarus's human capital to extract resources of central Asia. Consider this as France Afrique but on steroids.

Once Russians establish the terms of relationship with the remaining republics and set it's house in order, how would they establish relationship with the republics that have left. Armenia would rejoin the Union given the hostile neighborhood, Georgia will not rejoin but would enter into series of treaties that would bind it to the Union, economically and militarily so no NATO membership, relationship with Azerbaijan would be cold but Azeris would not do anything to antagonize the Russians but they would not be happy being under the jackboot of Russian domination.

The only countries that remain are the Baltic republics and Moldova. Those countries would be very complicated and the west would think a billion times before admitting them into NATO membership as far as Baltics are concerned, now as far as Moldova is concerned ...... I am at a loss here, what would the Russians do?
 
A lot would depend on the Co-operation between the Union center and the Various republics in general and the relationship between the Russian Federation and the Union government. Because let us be clear, the new USSR would be de facto and de jure a Russian dominated project. A lot of remaining republics would be uncomfortable with that Idea and a lot would depend on how Moscow deals with it's reduced influence.

Another question is would all the republics stick around? Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would surely not opt to be a part of the new Union. Central Asia would happily join the new political Union.

The success or failure would depend of the relationship between Minsk, Moscow and Kiev, the political leaders of these countries would need commit politically to the new union project. This would mean Russian leadership would have to stop acting unilaterally, share sovereignty with its brotherly Slavic countries in actuality not just in slogan, commit to a program of transition to Markets and capitalism (I think a French style Dirigisme is prefect for the three countries), a common program and policy on participation in global trade and investment, a common defense program, common Fiscal and monetary policy, commitment to build democracy is crucial else you might end up a single republic building political power vis a vis other republics and of course a common foreign policy.....like would the Soviet Union still remain a member of the UN, how would Ukraine and Belarus co-ordinate with the union's foreign policy since they were members of the UN, would Russian foreign ministry take over most of the Union's function? What about the Central Asian republics? would they become UN members.

I think the best outcome amongst the three, would be is if Russian leadership actually acknowledge the existence of Ukraine and Belarus as a separate and Independent nation and let it develop its own relationship with rest of the world, while co-operating in spheres of common interests which they have a lot of and those countries remaining committed to the political, social and economic project of the union. If Russia does this....I do not think either of those nations would feel Russian Hegemony over their countries as an imposition which it is right now and who knows some sections of the society in those two countries might start to identify the interest of their country with that of the Russian state, once the chaos settles down and economic prosperity returns

The Union's relationship with central Asian countries is quite easy, since the Union's three republics can easily dominate them in all spheres the relationship between the central Asian republics and the Russia/Union would be one of client and Patron relationship. Russia can use the resources of Central Asia to dominate economically Belarus and Ukraine and use Ukraine and Belarus's human capital to extract resources of central Asia. Consider this as France Afrique but on steroids.

Once Russians establish the terms of relationship with the remaining republics and set it's house in order, how would they establish relationship with the republics that have left. Armenia would rejoin the Union given the hostile neighborhood, Georgia will not rejoin but would enter into series of treaties that would bind it to the Union, economically and militarily so no NATO membership, relationship with Azerbaijan would be cold but Azeris would not do anything to antagonize the Russians but they would not be happy being under the jackboot of Russian domination.

The only countries that remain are the Baltic republics and Moldova. Those countries would be very complicated and the west would think a billion times before admitting them into NATO membership as far as Baltics are concerned, now as far as Moldova is concerned ...... I am at a loss here, what would the Russians do?
The 6 countries you mentioned would definitely not join (they opted out of the treaty discussions).

You're absolutely right about Russia needing to acknowledge Ukraine and Belarus, and I think that was the plan. I read in an article that Gorbachev underestimated the cultural problems with the Union, and I think this would have been addressed after the treaty was signed. And most of the countries (Ukraine and Belarus included) did show interest in creating a confederation. But all of that was put aside in favor of independence after the fears of a second coup came around.

And I believe Ukraine was actually given some leeway before the union broke (it had a separate seat in the UN), so it could have been possible for Ukraine and other countries to be more sovereign.

One thing I am not sure of is how long this union would last. I have read that confederations are usually a weak and unstable form of government, but they can change into federations (this happened when the US abandoned the Articles of Confederation and formed a federation). So would a federation follow for the new Union? Or stay a confederation?
 
The 6 countries you mentioned would definitely not join (they opted out of the treaty discussions).

You're absolutely right about Russia needing to acknowledge Ukraine and Belarus, and I think that was the plan. I read in an article that Gorbachev underestimated the cultural problems with the Union, and I think this would have been addressed after the treaty was signed. And most of the countries (Ukraine and Belarus included) did show interest in creating a confederation. But all of that was put aside in favor of independence after the fears of a second coup came around.

And I believe Ukraine was actually given some leeway before the union broke (it had a separate seat in the UN), so it could have been possible for Ukraine and other countries to be more sovereign.

One thing I am not sure of is how long this union would last. I have read that confederations are usually a weak and unstable form of government, but they can change into federations (this happened when the US abandoned the Articles of Confederation and formed a federation). So would a federation follow for the new Union? Or stay a confederation?
Probably become a NATO-EU hybrid
 
The USSR as a country was destroyed by Gorbachev's policies. The adoption of capitalism led to a skyrocketing rise in homelessness, unemployment, alcoholism, drug abuse, street crime. The economy shrunk, the population stagnated, and even began to shrink. Gang wars tore accross the country. New infrastructure stopped being built. It was a real disaster. All of this remains true, even if some of the republics of the USSR remain united, seeing as all of these effects took place in all of the former Soviet Republics (with the effects having been somewhat mitigated in the Baltics thanks to EU funds). Such a ctountry certainly would not be a democracy. OTL the yanks under Clinton were happy to intervene in the Russian 1996 election to avoid a communist victory, and I see no reason why they would not be involved in this USSR's elections either.
The brutally fast libralisation of the 90s inevitably leads to the creation of obscenely wealthy oligarchs that essentially loot the country for short term gain. This in turn leads to one of two options:
1-The government essentially collapses as the olygarchs sell off the entire country, with the country perhaps even dismembering itself. Think early 20th century China (lots of foreign influence, rebels and warlords, a basically ineffective and nearly non-existant central government)
2-A Bonapartist strongman takes the reign of the country, and tries to balance out national interests with those of the oligarchs, truning the country into a centralised, authoritarian regime (OTL Putin) who is able to keep the oligarchs in power and give them privileges, but whip them into line.

Neither of these options is a democracy.

I guess the biggest difference between this TL and OTL is that, if Ukraine forms part of this USSR, the current war in Ukraine would have been avoided. But, know for certain that this country would be plagued by disturbances and unrests regardless(especially around the caucasus region)
 
Probably become a NATO-EU hybrid
I could see something along the lines of the EU. The New Union Treaty was actually transformed into the Commonwealth of Independent States, but it wasn't exactly what Gorbachev had in mind. So I think the new Union would have been similar to the EU.
 
The USSR as a country was destroyed by Gorbachev's policies. The adoption of capitalism led to a skyrocketing rise in homelessness, unemployment, alcoholism, drug abuse, street crime. The economy shrunk, the population stagnated, and even began to shrink. Gang wars tore accross the country. New infrastructure stopped being built. It was a real disaster. All of this remains true, even if some of the republics of the USSR remain united, seeing as all of these effects took place in all of the former Soviet Republics (with the effects having been somewhat mitigated in the Baltics thanks to EU funds). Such a ctountry certainly would not be a democracy. OTL the yanks under Clinton were happy to intervene in the Russian 1996 election to avoid a communist victory, and I see no reason why they would not be involved in this USSR's elections either.
The brutally fast libralisation of the 90s inevitably leads to the creation of obscenely wealthy oligarchs that essentially loot the country for short term gain. This in turn leads to one of two options:
1-The government essentially collapses as the olygarchs sell off the entire country, with the country perhaps even dismembering itself. Think early 20th century China (lots of foreign influence, rebels and warlords, a basically ineffective and nearly non-existant central government)
2-A Bonapartist strongman takes the reign of the country, and tries to balance out national interests with those of the oligarchs, truning the country into a centralised, authoritarian regime (OTL Putin) who is able to keep the oligarchs in power and give them privileges, but whip them into line.

Neither of these options is a democracy.

I guess the biggest difference between this TL and OTL is that, if Ukraine forms part of this USSR, the current war in Ukraine would have been avoided. But, know for certain that this country would be plagued by disturbances and unrests regardless(especially around the caucasus region)
Gorbachev wasn't Yeltsin. There's a difference between letting in American soft drinks and fast food, and selling off state assets en masse to create an oligarchy.
 
Last edited:
Gorbachev wasn't Yeltsin. There's a difference between letting in American soft drinks and fast food, and selling off state assets en masse to create an oligarchy.
Gorbachevs policies paved the way for Yelstin. He was a scoundrel of the highest degree
 
Liberalization is not the same as shelling the Duma when it disagrees with you.
Wasn't it called congress of people's deputies before the 1993 constitution, in 1993 constitution it's called the Duma, pretty sure yelstin would not shell the Duma given how it's electoral laws are compared to congress of people's deputies.
But on the whole you're right, big difference, it's yelstin who destroyed democracy in Russia and free market capitalism too
 
Last edited:
Liberalization is not the same as shelling the Duma when it disagrees with you.
No, but Yelstins rise to power was only possible because of Gorbachev's policies effectively destroying the USSR. Gelatin is a direct consequence of Gorbachev, I don't see how this is in any way controversial.
 
Would it last long or would it inevitably collapse?
IOTL the USSR as a federation was mortally wounded in March 1991 when Yeltsin finally defeated Gorbachev on issues of Russian sovereignty and union taxes. After that, there were unsuccessful resuscitation attempts and Belovezhye euthanasia. If Russia is ruled by the Unionists, which requires a PoD before June 1990, then the Soviet Union will collapse in 1992-1993 due to problems with Ukraine and Central Asia.

I am just preparing for the publication of the TL, where the issues of preserving the USSR after 1989 will be considered.

Azerbaijan... ...would surely not opt to be a part of the new Union
While the Soviet Army will defend territorial integrity of Azerbaijan from Karabakh separatists Azerbaijan will be part of the USSR

Kiev, the political leaders of these countries
Ukrainaians wanted Union closer to EU (or EEC) than federal system. Just read their 1990 Sovereignity Declaration with national currency and neutral status

Russian leadership actually acknowledge the existence of Ukraine and Belarus as a separate and Independent nation
Russia didn't want stay alone with Muslim republics without Ukraine. De-facto it was Ukraine and its position that determined the form of the Union (CIS) IOTL

The USSR as a country was destroyed by Gorbachev's policies.
There is no alternative for Perestroika in 1980s.

pretty sure yelstin would not shell the Duma
Yeltsin planned to dissolve the Duma several times and in 1996 he also planned to reschedule Presidential elections from 1996 to 1998 with dissolving of the Duma
 
No, but Yelstins rise to power was only possible because of Gorbachev's policies effectively destroying the USSR. Gelatin is a direct consequence of Gorbachev, I don't see how this is in any way controversial.
You're being absurd. It was in no way Gorbachev's fault that Yeltsin decided he'd rather give the presidential office near-dictatorial powers than work with the legislative body of his own government. Did Gorbachev ultimately fail to reform the USSR into an equitable market economy granting regional sovereignty like he wanted? Yes. But it is in part to his credit that the next best thing happened, namely its dissolution rather than an iron-fisted crackdown.
 
Last edited:
Yeltsin planned to dissolve the Duma several times and in 1996 he also planned to reschedule Presidential elections from 1996 to 1998 with dissolving of the Duma
It's still not shelling the parliament with tanks, so yeah he'll not shell the Duma cause President of Russia could dissolve the Duma
 
The big problem that a renewed Union does not at all solve is the question of the economy.

I would suggest that a surviving federation in the post-Soviet space would not solve issues: We did not see, for instance, the larger and more self-sufficient republics like Russia and Ukraine automatically doing better than smaller ones. What we saw instead was that post-Soviet countries with better policies did better than other ones, ignoring complications like the hydrocarbon wealth of Russia and Kazakhstan.

If you have a post-Soviet federation, that will not solve issues. If a central Europe close to the West and with relatively fewer economic distortions saw deep recessions and perhaps a decade of nil economic growth, a post-Soviet federation that inherits rather more distorted economies is not going to do better. The deep collapse of the 1990s is still going to happen in a recognizable form.

Beyond that, a continuing federation will insert new issues. Even in established federations like Canada and Australia, subnational and national governments frequently from that over their respective jurisdictions, different ones claiming more powers. The recent example of newly decentralized Spain, where these jurisdictional disputes in the 2010s helped shift a once-satiated Catalan nationalism towards outright separatism, shows how these can be potent. Indeed, the example of Yugoslavia in the 1970s and 1980s, where disputes over economic policy played a key role in fatally undermining the legitimacy of the federation, shows how this can end things. Is a young and fragile federation in the former Soviet space, founded in the context of a very shallow democracy and deep rivalries between different populations and jurisdictions, really going to do better?
 
It's still not shelling the parliament with tanks, so yeah he'll not shell the Duma cause President of Russia could dissolve the Duma
I think that the cancellation of elections is worse than an extra-constitutional dissolution of parliament followed by free elections.
 
The USSR as a country was destroyed by Gorbachev's policies. The adoption of capitalism led to a skyrocketing rise in homelessness, unemployment, alcoholism, drug abuse, street crime. The economy shrunk, the population stagnated, and even began to shrink. Gang wars tore accross the country. New infrastructure stopped being built. It was a real disaster.

I would argue this would be unavoidable. To a degree that was not understood at the time, the transition from Communism to another economic system. Was bound to be very costly and disruptive. Even the countries that were most successful were so because of sui generis factors (East Germany because of unlimited funding from the West, Czechia on account of its relatively developed economy, Slovenia because of that development as well as a high degree of autonomy beforehand), and all experienced big shocks with lasting implications. Even a Hungary that once could have been ranked alongside these three, with a high degree of prior openness and pluralism, has backslide on political measures.

All of this remains true, even if some of the republics of the USSR remain united, seeing as all of these effects took place in all of the former Soviet Republics (with the effects having been somewhat mitigated in the Baltics thanks to EU funds).

That last is not so much the case. The Baltics were much quicker than larger countries like Russia and Ukraine to opt for West-oriented economies, for (among other reasons) deep-seated issues of national identity. It also helped that major economic sectors hit hard by the transition, like a lot of heavy industry's were not valued.

The brutally fast libralisation of the 90s inevitably leads to the creation of obscenely wealthy oligarchs that essentially loot the country for short term gain.

Against this, a slow liberalization also creates significant problems including a surviving powerful oligarchy. We have seen this in Ukraine, which was a slow reformer that has underperformed very badly on growth, especially relative to Russia. Admittedly Ukraine has remained a relatively equal country, allowing Ukrainian and Russian living standards to remain closely matched, but this oligarch-driven economic underperformance has threatened the viability of the Ukrainian state.

1-The government essentially collapses as the olygarchs sell off the entire country, with the country perhaps even dismembering itself. Think early 20th century China (lots of foreign influence, rebels and warlords, a basically ineffective and nearly non-existant central government)
2-A Bonapartist strongman takes the reign of the country, and tries to balance out national interests with those of the oligarchs, truning the country into a centralised, authoritarian regime (OTL Putin) who is able to keep the oligarchs in power and give them privileges, but whip them into line.

The big problem with the second route, particularly, is that in a multinational federation where federal units are relatively powerful, the only route for a strongman in one of the units necessarily involves conflict with others. Why would Ukraine or Kazakhstan in this setting submit to Russian authoritarianism? Why would they not, as Slovenia and Croatia did in 1980s Yugoslavia, consider independence to be much preferable?

This route leads not to Putin, but to Milosevic.

I guess the biggest difference between this TL and OTL is that, if Ukraine forms part of this USSR, the current war in Ukraine would have been avoided.

If the 2014-2022 war gets avoided, IMHO it would only be because you would have had an earlier Russian-Ukrainian war. In the 1990s, ruled by broadly friendly elites comparably invested in the independence of their new states and in integration with the rules-based system of the West, you avoided this. In this alternate scenario, where the two countries will remain locked together in a novel federation caught in an economic meltdown, with deep-seated issues of national identity synergizing with contemporary issues to create a case for federal breakdowns you will not avoid this. This is especially the case if you have a Russia that tries to force other federal units to submit, on the model of what Serbia tried to do to other Yugoslav units in the late 1980s.
 
Wikipedia has a great map of attitudes towards the "New Union" treaty.

1200px-New_Union_Treaty.svg.png

Black shows states boycotting the referendum from the start (demanding full independence), while bright red shows states who changes stance (to no) after the August coup attempt.
 
Top