Yeltsin Russia's Ataturk

Ok, so howwould Russia turn out if Boris Yeltsin wasnt a corrupt, opportunist drunkard who basically fucked everything up for post-Soviet Russia?

How about he instead jettisons all those half-baked neo-liberal ideas and tells the Chicago boys to stick the ''Washington consensus'' up their Potomac.;)

The idea here is to turn Yeltson into Russia's Ataturk.
 
The Cold War gets revved up even sooner. Russia is probably in a better position this time around, since it hasn't lost its military force or economic unity as much. However Ukraine might not give back its nukes which would be problematic for a Russia looking for power in E. Europe (although maybe this would make Ukraine feel like it doesn't have to join the West, and may even slowly get into an alliance w/Russia, and finally end up as Russia's UK).
 
I'm not sure about a new Cold War with the west part at least not with an Ataturk-like Yetsin. Though he would likely stand up for Russian interests such as preventing the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, the CIS may also be stronger. The other former SSR's would likely stay in Russia's orbit.

Presumably the Russian economy would be booming, political corruption stamped out and strong government intuitions built up.
 

Typo

Banned
Resurgent Russia will be, at best, a weaker version fo tsarist Russia without it's former Republics and Satellites.
 
I would seriously disagree on singling out Yeltsin as the ultimate source of Russia's voes. While it can be safely assumed that he was important in breaking up USSR (I believe that USSR sans Baltics was very plausible as late as Dec. 1991), his role in economic development (or lack of thereof) of newly independent Russia is complicated.
 
I would seriously disagree on singling out Yeltsin as the ultimate source of Russia's voes. While it can be safely assumed that he was important in breaking up USSR (I believe that USSR sans Baltics was very plausible as late as Dec. 1991), his role in economic development (or lack of thereof) of newly independent Russia is complicated.

Not it isnt, he ensued it would be buggered up.

He also seceded Russia from the U.S.S.R which is why I cant laughing whenever I hear the Ukrainians etc talk about how they declared independence from the U.S.S.R. They didn’t abandon Mommy Russia she kicked them out.

You were right about a re-named U.S.S.R or whatever carrying one without the Baltic and maybe Georgia because in face most people at the time wanted to preserve the Union. If that had happened thorough Yeltsin would’ve had to deal with the leaders of the other a Soviet Republics on a more even basis rather than just dictate from Moscow that could be troublesome and wouldn’t allow him to rule like a drunk Tsar. When he broke up the U.S.S.R he ensured his status as top-dog in Russia.

It was one of the most stupid and shot sighted act in human history, the SSR’s were interdependent so the split turned into a disaster all round even in the Baltic’s.

That's why we need an Ataturk-Yeltsin to make sure all the worst stuff dosnt happen and Russia can rise again.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Honesty while the neoliberal policies was a disaster, Russia was in deep shit no matter what. But a less corrupt Yeltsin and no idiotic economical policies could result in a more stable state, and weaker oligarchs and a richer Russian state in the late 90ties, a weaker organised criminality, a more permanent solution to the 1st Chechen War and a improvement to the average Russians life. Russia would still be dirtpoor, but less so than IOTL.
 
A Russian strongman would screw up it. The problem wasn't the drinking, it was a industry that couldn't produce a decent car. I belive they made two-stroke engines and to put that into less technical terms, they made cars using as much gasoline as a 50's US car with as much confort as the most extreme enviromentaly friendly cars today.

I know some would say that they could sell rockets (they did and it didn't help, not big enough industry) or raw material. But that just the problem, it would require a large restructuring of the economy. The economy did to some degree restructure and it was a painful process.

I assume this Russian strongman would avoid it but I don't think he could have fixed the underlying problems in a sensible way.

But the troubles doesn't stop there. The strongman with the cult of personality can't have a free press for example (and the press of the era was something special.) And that is a bad idea.

And I haven't even mentioned the biggest fear, that the strongman taking military action to regain Soviet territory lost in the breakup or going after minorites. That would be a bad thing.

However, the post-communist Soviet did see a similar man stepping up to the plate. Turkmenbashi. I even think the meaning is the same, the father of the country.

Edit: What would Daddy Russia be in Russian? :D
 
Last edited:
That's why we need an Ataturk-Yeltsin to make sure all the worst stuff dosnt happen and Russia can rise again.
IMHO what's needed is someone who could kick CPSU out and re-direct economy toward market, but keep USSR intact. Who could do it in 1991? I dunno. Gorbachev had been involved in Communist sh...t too deep and, not being a born destroyer, he couldn't break his ties with CPSU abruptly. I've heard Nazarbaev's name kicked around a lot, but in hindsight I wouldn't say he had been too successful minding his Kazakh khanate, they (Kazakhstan) did not dive as deep in latrine as Russia did, but they spent more time there.
 
IMHO what's needed is someone who could kick CPSU out and re-direct economy toward market, but keep USSR intact. Who could do it in 1991? I dunno. Gorbachev had been involved in Communist sh...t too deep and, not being a born destroyer, he couldn't break his ties with CPSU abruptly. I've heard Nazarbaev's name kicked around a lot, but in hindsight I wouldn't say he had been too successful minding his Kazakh khanate, they (Kazakhstan) did not dive as deep in latrine as Russia did, but they spent more time there.

Gorbachev tried to do all that at once, that's how the USSR fell apart. Honestly overhauling the economy, the political structure, lessening control over the media, and giving radical nationalists, and blatant opportunists the chance get political power whant going to end well particularly since Gorby loosened state control when it was needed most during hard economic times.

A mixed-economy of mostly state run/directed, and muliti-candidate elections (all members of the CPSU) may have worked better the OTL elctions were badly planned & badly run just like everything else Gorby did.:rolleyes:
 
A Russian strongman would screw up it. The problem wasn't the drinking, it was a industry that couldn't produce a decent car. I belive they made two-stroke engines and to put that into less technical terms, they made cars using as much gasoline as a 50's US car with as much confort as the most extreme enviromentaly friendly cars today.

You're thinking of East Germany. The Trabis used two-stroke engines, the VAZ/Lada Zhigulis used four-stroke engines.
 
I think some of you guys might be underestimating the enormous trauma of making a switch from a communist to a capitalist economy. There was no avoiding a great deal of mess. Maybe a better leader might have handled it better, but there would be no magical strong Russia immediately, or even much earlier. Weak industries had to die, etc. Russia's resurgence isn't because Putin is such a magical leader, it's because the price of oil surged to incredible levels. If oil were to fall to where it was ten years ago, Putin would lose his job and his head so fast it would make your head spin.
 
Didn't the Soviet Union fall because a combination of poor agricultural productivity (caused by Stalin's forced collectivization) and an industry so heavily optimized for war that its products were worthless on the open market?

This meant the Soviets couldn't keep themselves fed except by selling oil and gas in exchange for food, such that when the Saudis ramped up oil production in the 1980s -- causing oil prices to fall through the floor -- the Soviets were trapped with no way out.

(Think of it as the Ummah's revenge for the invasion of Afghanistan...)
 
Last edited:
Didn't the Soviet Union fall because a combination of poor agricultural productivity (caused by Stalin's forced collectivization) and an industry so heavily optimized for war that its products were worthless on the open market?

This meant the Soviets couldn't keep themselves fed except by selling oil and gas in exchange for food, such that when the Saudis ramped up oil production in the 1980s -- causing oil prices to fall through the floor -- the Soviets were trapped with no way out.

(Think of it as the Ummah's revenge for the invasion of Afghanistan...)

I know it’s popular to dis Soviet agriculture, but it wasn’t bad in terms of production growth post-WW2.

The whole ''the Soviets couldn't keep themselves fed except by selling oil and gas in exchange for food'' thing was a distortion. Yeah they imported grain but not for human consumption it was mostly used as feed for livestock. Post-Stalin there was no famine and food shortages were mostly caused by supply bottle-necks not lack of production.
 
Top