WI USSR survives, with Ukraine in name only?

[Jon0815]

POD: August 19, 1991. Hard-liner coup is much more competent and lucky, Yeltsin is arrested along with Gorby or shot by a sniper, the coup does not unravel.

Mid-portion deleted, due to ASB-ness

Almost 20 years later, the USSR still exists, officially consisting of 12 republics (the Baltics having been granted independence), with a total population of about 275 million, less than half of which is Russian (although because there are no conscripts from Ukraine, Russians are disproportionately represented in the Red Army).

Ukraine has still not been recognized by the USA or any other country, the diplomatic fiction is maintained that it is still part of the USSR. Nonethless, it is actually a de facto independent nation, with a democratically elected government, its own currency, and its own army. Its status is sort of like Taiwan or Iraqi Kurdistan in OTL, if either of those places were able to get away with declaring independence.

 

[LeX]

Yeah, that could happen. But wouldn't the USSR just invade Ukraine right after the situation stabilized? I can't imagine the West not recognizing Ukraine as an independent nation and giving help to it at the same time.

 

[Slacker]

There's also no way to ensure the Russian special forces manage to take control of all the warheads, and after they've tried it once there's no way the Ukrainians aren't going to park a battalion or more on every site they still control.

Which, in my mind, makes the situation even more interesting, if said quasi-nation has a few dozen ICBMs or tacnukes in their inventory. Could be the insurance they need to get independence.

 

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

There's also no way to ensure the Russian special forces manage to take control of all the warheads, and after they've tried it once there's no way the Ukrainians aren't going to park a battalion or more on every site they still control.

Which, in my mind, makes the situation even more interesting, if said quasi-nation has a few dozen ICBMs or tacnukes in their inventory. Could be the insurance they need to get independence.

That's Right World, we're FUCKIN' Insane ...

You Tell those Ruskis to Back The Hell off, Or we're Gonna Light 'em up ...

By The Way, we Also Have The Cobalt-60 Casin's just Waitin' for 'em to Get too Frisky; Long Live The Ukrainian Republic!

 

[Slacker]

My fiancee is from Kiev. Believe me, I know.

 

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

My fiancee is from Kiev. Believe me, I know.

My Condolences ...

Just Kidding, Actually a Good Part of My Family is Originally from The Ukraine as Well ...

That Fabled Temper Comes in Handy sometimes, Don'tcha Think?

 

[Saladan]

So what republics are independent and which ones are still part of the USSR.
The Baltic states and Ukraine are the only independent ones?

 

[CanadianGoose]

This scenario strikes me as extremely ASBish. Ukraine wasn't considered hotbed of Anti-Communist movement in 1985-1991, actually exact opposite. Somewhat of Communist backwater, comparing to bustling popular movements of Moscow, Leningrad and Baltics. Heck, even old industrial regions of Ural and Volga basin harboured more pro-democracy groups then Kiev and Kharkov. In Spring 1991 Ukraine overwhelmingly voted pro-USSR (actually, more overwhelmingly than Russia, if my memory serves me well) and, in all likelyhood, there were no significant irregularities in vote count at this point, believe it or not. Yes, there was nationalistic undercurrent in Galicia, but it had been there since 1945 and everyone learned to live with it. Western Ukrainian "dyadko" (independence-talking redneck figure, speaking with funny accent and possessed with comical hate of "moskals") became popular topic of stand-up comedy and one generally isn't scared of what one is laughing at. It took decade of relentless nationalistic propaganda of 1991-2000 for some "anti-moskal" ideas of dyadkos to reach almost mainstream status in Ukrainian society and affect President elections of 2004. Situation in 1991 is completely different. I've had business dealing with Kievans in 1991 and all of them described stale unmoving communist dictatorship there ("zapovednik of totalitarianism" was the definition they used) comparing with Moscow and Leningrad.

Another ASBish aspect is nationalistic Ukraine establishing control over Soviet Army units stationed there. IOTL Ukraine declared itself multinational democratic state and lawful heir of USSR (and was accepted by Russia as such) and even that did not prevent grumbling among officer corps completely (USSR followed old imperial tradition of not allowing army units in region being of same ethnicity as region's population, so ethnic Ukrainian officers were minority in Soviet Army units stationed in Ukraine). With USSR alive and kicking and declaring Kievan regime bunch of separatists there's no way Soviet Army is going to follow Kiev's orders.

 

[Jon0815]

This scenario strikes me as extremely ASBish. Ukraine wasn't considered hotbed of Anti-Communist movement in 1985-1991, actually exact opposite. Somewhat of Communist backwater, comparing to bustling popular movements of Moscow, Leningrad and Baltics. Heck, even old industrial regions of Ural and Volga basin harboured more pro-democracy groups then Kiev and Kharkov. In Spring 1991 Ukraine overwhelmingly voted pro-USSR (actually, more overwhelmingly than Russia, if my memory serves me well) and, in all likelyhood, there were no significant irregularities in vote count at this point, believe it or not.

Yes, it's true that 70% of Ukraine voted "yes" in the March 1991 referendum, in response to a very vague question about preserving some sort of union of "equal sovereign" republics (altho actually of the 9 republics that participated, Ukraine had the lowest percentage voting yes, slightly lower than Russia).

However that does not mean Ukraine wanted to be part of the sort of union the coup plotters wanted to preserve. Most Ukrainians wanted a very loose union on the terms specified by the July 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine.

In fact, in August 1991, Ukraine's leaders refused to sign the new Union Treaty proposed by Gorbachev (presumably reflecting Ukrainian popular opinion). That treaty would have turned the USSR, renamed the Union of Sovereign States, into a confederation with a common currency, military command and foreign policy, but whose members could form their own armies: That is, basically just a slightly stronger version of the EU. But apparently Ukraine felt that did not give them enough sovereignty.

So it appears what Ukraine wanted, was at least as much independence from Moscow, as EU member nations have from Brussels.

Another ASBish aspect is nationalistic Ukraine establishing control over Soviet Army units stationed there.

Ukraine actually did issue an edict claiming to do just that IOTL, on August 22 1991, after the coup had failed, but while there was still a Soviet government in existence.

Whether those units accepted Ukrainian control, or whether they would have done so if the coup plotters were still in charge, I don't know. That would depend on what percentage of those 700,000 troops were Ukrainian, which I can't find any information on. But seems kind of strange for Ukraine to declare itself in charge of all those troops if they weren't mostly Ukrainian.

IOTL Ukraine declared itself multinational democratic state and lawful heir of USSR (and was accepted by Russia as such) and even that did not prevent grumbling among officer corps completely (USSR followed old imperial tradition of not allowing army units in region being of same ethnicity as region's population, so ethnic Ukrainian officers were minority in Soviet Army units stationed in Ukraine). With USSR alive and kicking and declaring Kievan regime bunch of separatists there's no way Soviet Army is going to follow Kiev's orders.

Are you saying that most of the Soviet troops in Ukraine were non-Ukrainian, or just the officers?

If the former, then yes, Ukraine is not going to control those units, and I'll have to rewrite my scenario somewhat. I still think however that the only outcomes of a successful 1991 coup, are either Ukraine being allowed to become at least de facto independent, or a civil war.

 

[abas]

Ukraine actually did issue an edict claiming to do just that IOTL, on August 22 1991, after the coup had failed, but while there was still a Soviet government in existence.

Whether those units accepted Ukrainian control, or whether they would have done so if the coup plotters were still in charge, I don't know. That would depend on what percentage of those 700,000 troops were Ukrainian, which I can't find any information on. But seems kind of strange for Ukraine to declare itself in charge of all those troops if they weren't mostly Ukrainian.

Are you saying that most of the Soviet troops in Ukraine were non-Ukrainian, or just the officers?

If the former, then yes, Ukraine is not going to control those units, and I'll have to rewrite my scenario somewhat. I still think however that the only outcomes of a successful 1991 coup, are either Ukraine being allowed to become at least de facto independent, or a civil war.

Not only officers, but common soldiers also were mostly non-Ukrainians. At best you can expect the same percentage of Ukrainians among them as in general population. This was common Soviet practice to mix all ethnicities in service.

 

[CanadianGoose]

Yes, it's true that 70% of Ukraine voted "yes" in the March 1991 referendum, in response to a very vague question about preserving some sort of union of "equal sovereign" republics (altho actually of the 9 republics that participated, Ukraine had the lowest percentage voting yes, slightly lower than Russia).

I would be interested to see results of this referendum. Do you have a link?

However that does not mean Ukraine wanted to be part of the sort of union the coup plotters wanted to preserve. Most Ukrainians wanted a very loose union on the terms specified by the July 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine.

This is pretty serious statement and in loggerheads with my personal memories (I lived through it all). In my memory Ukraine was more content with Union authorities than Russia herself. "Content" is the keyword. They were not extatic and enthusiastically supportive about keeping it, but weren't as ready to act against it as Russians themselves.

In fact, in August 1991, Ukraine's leaders refused to sign the new Union Treaty proposed by Gorbachev (presumably reflecting Ukrainian popular opinion).

I would be very skeptical about any analysis which assumes that Kravchuk's team adequately represented Ukrainian popular opinion.

Ukraine actually did issue an edict claiming to do just that IOTL, on August 22 1991, after the coup had failed, but while there was still a Soviet government in existence.

Union government did NOT exist on August 22 (it sorta came back August 23). This declaration was nothing more than statement "don't worry, boys, there're still higher authorities in this world who will take care of the army" directed toward Soviet Army units in Ukraine.

Whether those units accepted Ukrainian control, or whether they would have done so if the coup plotters were still in charge, I don't know. That would depend on what percentage of those 700,000 troops were Ukrainian, which I can't find any information on. But seems kind of strange for Ukraine to declare itself in charge of all those troops if they weren't mostly Ukrainian.

As I said, Kiev relied on sort of "USSR by proxy" authority. Something like all those sci-fi books where Martians destroy Washington and local authorities assume leadership as "central government by proxy". It wasn't "Ukrainian government declaring itself in charge", it was "local civil authorities declaring themsleves in charge".

Are you saying that most of the Soviet troops in Ukraine were non-Ukrainian, or just the officers?

Conscripts? I would think that majority of them were. Officers? Probably majority, but you also have to bear in mind that majority of ethnic Ukrainian officers were from Southern and Eastern Ukraine (areas which IOTL consistently vote to be as close to Russia as possible). So there was real minority of independence-leaning officers. I would suspect that fair number (may be even majority) of NCOs were Ukrainians, but NCOs don't command armies.

 

[Midgard]

As someone who WAS in Ukraine in 1991, when USSR was breaking apart, I'll just say that violent Ukrainian nationalism in 1991 on large enough scale as described here is more or less ASB. People were more concerned with the falling standards of living and economy, and the whole independence was not much of a popular movement as it was a power grab by Kravchuk (who, ironically, was later usurped by Kuchma, who in turn was usurped by "orange revolution", who in turn will be usurped by... you get the idea). There is an old Ukrainian saying that even when you get only two Ukrainians together, there will be at least three "hetmans" in the group, and it more or less describes Ukrainian politics very well.

Also, consider that people like Kravchuk, Kuchma, and most of the other would-be leaders of Ukraine are so Russified in 1991 that frankly, they will have a very hard time playing the nationalist card. One has only to hear Kuchma trying to speak Ukrainian (which, if you speak both Russian and Ukrainian, can be very... ahem... educational), and Kravchuk was not much better. Besides, any attempt at military action by this Ukraine would pretty much result in a civil war - the Eastern half of the country is very Russophile, uses Russian as a primary language, and generally is not too enthusiastic about the idea of Ukrainian independence. In fact, the way the Eastern Ukraine viewed Ukrainian independence at the time would be somewhat like the hicks from the worst backwoods of the deepest, darkest stereotypical Southern state taking over the government of your state, and declaring independence would be viewed in the US.

So basically, IMO in 1991, this scenario would be almost completely ASB. In 1993-1994, I could see that, but the big problem would be to get it from 1991 to there, with all the nationalistic propaganda and overt foreign interference in Ukrainian politics and society in between. If the hardliners take power in USSR in 1991, Ukrainian nationalism does not get to the point where the active military action will be realistic. And hardliners taking power in 1991 pretty much precludes Ukraine getting 2-3 year respite to build up nationalism.

 

[Jon0815]

I would be interested to see results of this referendum. Do you have a link?

I found several sources online, which stated that Ukraine supported it just over 70% and Russia just over 71%, with the other republics (minus Baltics, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia) supporting it by much larger majorities.

Here's a couple (the first is in footnotes on page 8)

http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/System_Change_ and_State_Dis_01.pdf

http://www.answers.com/topic/referendum-of-march-1991

The 70% figure for Ukraine is also mentioned in Ukraine Weekly articles such as here

http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2001/340119.shtml

in a quick search can't find any others that give the 71% figure for Russia

This is pretty serious statement and in loggerheads with my personal memories (I lived through it all). In my memory Ukraine was more content with Union authorities than Russia herself. "Content" is the keyword. They were not extatic and enthusiastically supportive about keeping it, but weren't as ready to act against it as Russians themselves.

I would be very skeptical about any analysis which assumes that Kravchuk's team adequately represented Ukrainian popular opinion.

In Ukraine, the March 17 referendum also asked the question whether the union should be based on principles in the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine. The Declaration (passed by elected representatives) required a loose union, specifying that Ukraine should have its own army, its own foreign policy and "if necessary" its own currency.

link to Declaration text here:

http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/site/...tion_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine_rev1.htm

Most Ukrainians voted yes on that question as well. So Kravchuk doesn't appear to have been much out of line with Ukrainian popular opinion.

Union government did NOT exist on August 22 (it sorta came back August 23). This declaration was nothing more than statement "don't worry, boys, there're still higher authorities in this world who will take care of the army" directed toward Soviet Army units in Ukraine.

Maybe, but this was the same day that Ukraine formally declared it's independence, if there was no Soviet authority then what were they declaring independence from?