WI Communism ends but the Union remains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Union_Treaty

Suppose the August Coup doesn't go through so Yeltsin doesn't become a hero, leaving Gorbachev powerless. Maybe we could have an uncooperative army as a PoD or the conspiracy is uncovered by loyalists in the KGB. This leaves the Union mostly intact with only the six smaller Republics (the Baltics, Moldavia, Georgia and Armenia) breaking away. Generally, the populace in the nine remaining SSRs favoured this solution as a referendum showed that there was over 76.4% in favour of keeping the USSR intact, giving Gorbachev the time needed for economic reforms, leading to a more market-oriented USSR (not that Gorby had much of a choice, he had to as the economy was breaking down). How would the world look today if Gorbachev had pulled it of.

Map with the nine 'loyal' republics in yellow:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/New_Union_Treaty.svg
 
I read somewhere that some unofficial polls in a couple of the republics that didn't participate also showed a majority in favour of keeping the union - although these polls would obviously have the drawback of probably not getting the views of the whole electorate or even a significant part of it (for instance the polls might only have had responses from Russians and Ukrainians living in Latvia as opposed to Russians, Ukrainians and Latvians).
 
Last edited:
How would the world look today if Gorbachev had pulled it of.
Not that much different from OTL. Economic depression of x-USSR would be less severe than in OTL 1990s (it had been made worse by new borders). Living standards in Ukraine and Central Asia would be somewhat higher at expense of Russia (now Russia spends all oil and gas income by itself, ITTL it would have to share a bounty; besides, higher Russian living standards are partially due to abundant and cheap labour of illegal guest workers from Ukraine and Turkestan). However, Russia wouldn't be too bad too, as, with no OTL Central Asian economic collapse, draw on oil export income to support decent living conditions there would be less. Unreformed Cold Warriors would still be screeching about Red Danger (well, they still do IOTL, with USSR being dead for almost 2 decades). Economically, alt-USSR would have GDP of about $3.5-4 bln (PPP), slightly overtaking Germany.

Yes, and Armenia, in all likelyhood, would be a part of USSR too. IOTL their protests were due to allegedly pro-Azeri position of Moscow in Karabakh, not because they opposed USSR in principle (IOTL Armenia is Russian main ally in the region). I would not be surprised if Georgia would return into a fold too, after initial disastrous flirtation with independence.
 
What would they call themselves? Just the Union of Republics? Or maybe they would use their CIS tag.

I don't really see it happening, not without great changes within Soviet society. Their republics were divided among ethnic lines, with most peoples loathing being under Russian rule for so long. Moscow might be able to keep its hands on Belarus, maybe even the Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia. The Baltic states will certainly split, and if you think Chechnya is a mess, imagine the Central Asian republics. Egads.
 
What would they call themselves? Just the Union of Republics? Or maybe they would use their CIS tag.

I don't really see it happening, not without great changes within Soviet society. Their republics were divided among ethnic lines, with most peoples loathing being under Russian rule for so long. Moscow might be able to keep its hands on Belarus, maybe even the Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia. The Baltic states will certainly split, and if you think Chechnya is a mess, imagine the Central Asian republics. Egads.

Actually the Central Asian republics would be the least troublesome. Even today some 2 decades later a Gallup poll in the area found 40-50% of the respondents supported either a unitary or federal state in place of the CIS:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109894/Support-CIS-Partnerships-Strong-Even-Georgia.aspx
 
What would they call themselves? Just the Union of Republics? Or maybe they would use their CIS tag.
.

According to that new Union treaty the name was supposed to be "Union of Sovereign Soviet Republics" and this was later changed to "Union of Sovereign States".
 
I don't really see it happening, not without great changes within Soviet society. Their republics were divided among ethnic lines, with most peoples loathing being under Russian rule for so long.

Er, no. Neither statement is true. The republics did not have ethnic borders (certainly not as of 1991), and the majority of people in the majority of the republics did not Loathe the Evil Ruskies.

This will certainly have butterflies effecting Yugoslavia.
 
The republics did not have ethnic borders (certainly not as of 1991)
With all due respect, I disagree. USSR went to great lengths trying to align republican borders with areas of ethnic settlements as much as possible (which lead to nightmarish spaghetti in Central Asia, where ethnic self-identification had often been murky and ethnicities had numerous enclaves and exclaves outside and within their core territories). This pretty much remained so as far as farming population is concerned (Northern Kazakhstan with it's influx of Russophone farmers on Virgin Lands being the sole exception), but cities and town were becoming more and more multiethnic (and, by adoption shared cultural and language denominator, Russohone) with every passing year. By 1980, major cities of the USSR became veritable ethnic cauldrons, with peoples of Slavic, Baltic (mostly Moscow and SPb, they were too few to leave lasting impression far from their homelands), Caucasian, Central Asian origin living side by side.
 
With all due respect, I disagree. USSR went to great lengths trying to align republican borders with areas of ethnic settlements as much as possible (which lead to nightmarish spaghetti in Central Asia, where ethnic self-identification had often been murky and ethnicities had numerous enclaves and exclaves outside and within their core territories). This pretty much remained so as far as farming population is concerned (Northern Kazakhstan with it's influx of Russophone farmers on Virgin Lands being the sole exception), but cities and town were becoming more and more multiethnic (and, by adoption shared cultural and language denominator, Russohone) with every passing year. By 1980, major cities of the USSR became veritable ethnic cauldrons, with peoples of Slavic, Baltic (mostly Moscow and SPb, they were too few to leave lasting impression far from their homelands), Caucasian, Central Asian origin living side by side.

Interesting stuff. I'm sure you're right, but I was thinking in particular of the cities and also referring to this fellow's notion of everyone Loathing Russian Rule in relation to Ukraine. I didn't really phrase it well, but I was trying to object to the idea that as soon as you stepped outside the RSSR, everybody was an anti-Russian nationalist.
 
Last edited:

ninebucks

Banned
This'd probably result in a weaker Taliban. In OTL, the Taliban benefited greatly from the chaos in Central Asia during the 1990s, if they still had the Soviets, (or whatever), neighbouring them to the north, they would have to be a lot more cautious.

This'd have knock-on effects on al-Qaeda, butterflying away the WTC attacks, and maybe even the USS Cole attacks.

So far from having few divergences, this TL, would leave us with a radically different geopolitical landscape by the present day, with no wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, and thus, no recession - instead, we'd see two decades of more or less continuous Pax Occidentia.
 
I was thinking in particular of the cities.
Well, Cities vs Countryside conflict did breed Siege of Dushanbe IOTL, when largely secular and Russophone (although overwhelmingly Tajik ethnically) burghers fought Islamist militia entrenched into farming hinterland, and is present in several Ukrainian regions, so it should be taken into account.
referring to this fellow's notion of everyone Loathing Russian Rule in relation to Ukraine.
Well, as far as cities and towns are concerned, this is simply laughable in most of Central and Eastern Ukraine, there're more nationalists in countryside, but even there they don't hold stable majority. As far as Western Ukraine is concerned... Well, Ukraine is at least two countries within one internationally recognized border, but even there there are nationalistic Lvov and more tolerant Uzhgorod.

I was trying to object to the idea that as soon as you stepped outside the RSSR, everybody was an anti-Russian nationalist.
Yes, this idea is a piece of misinformation, but for Baltic countries (I can readily admit that few outside of the Baltic region, within USSR or outside of it, understood the sheer amount of raw nationalism beside Balts' phony push for "democracy" in 1988-1991; ethnically pure states were what they wanted, not democratic rule).
 
Top