18_Collapse of the Soviet Union

This is the eighteenth #generalhistory note, following 17_Ukraine in the Soviet Union.
Disclaimer: From here on out, I've shifted the focus from primarily Ukrainian developments, to hopping between Ukrainian and Russian history in order to provide all the necessary context for the current war.

Independence drive:

• The Soviet Union's weak spot lay in the territories annexed during World War II as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
• The Baltic states, particularly Estonia and Lithuania, spearheaded the resistance against central Soviet authority.
• Lithuania became the first to declare independence in 1990, during the inaugural session of its newly freely elected parliament. Even the Communist Party seceded from the Soviet 'mothership.'
• Leadership transitioned to alternative elites, mirroring processes seen in Eastern European countries a few years later.
• This momentum sent shockwaves throughout the entire Union, sparking pro-independence "Popular Fronts."
• In response, the Soviet Union initiated "International Fronts", mobilizing Russian minorities within the republics to counteract the independence movements.
• The nationalist wave also extended into Russia itself, with a "Russia first" approach that united nationalists and democrats. This coalition played a key role in elevating Boris Yeltsin, a former protégé of Mikhail Gorbachev (and later his sworn enemy), to the leadership of the Russian Parliament and eventually the presidency of Russia.
• Another group that rallied behind Yeltsin were the workers, who believed that Russian officials might better address their struggles amid the dire economic conditions, as Union officials had failed them.
• However, there was a significant difference between the opposition in Russia and that in the Baltic states. In Russia, the opposition was led by Yeltsin, a former Party boss. This was evident in the fact that, although Yeltsin publicly distanced himself from the Party, and even suspended its activities, he and the new Russian elites never fully severed ties with the country’s communist past, in contrast to their Baltic counterparts.

The Role of Ukraine:

• Ukraine's mobilization gained momentum after Gorbachev removed Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, the head of the Communist Party of Ukraine, who was part of the so-called Dnipropetrovsk mafia and a protégé of Leonid Brezhnev.
• The Ukrainian movement against the Soviet Union was unique, blending elements from both the Baltic and Russian approaches to mobilization. In the western regions, which had been annexed into the USSR under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the movement emphasized history, culture, language, and national sovereignty, similar to the Baltic states. In contrast, the eastern regions relied heavily on worker strikes and, interestingly, received support from the Communist Party itself, which feared Yeltsin's crackdown on the party.
• This broad coalition—comprising democrats, nationalists, striking workers, and even elements of the Communist Party—led to the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence on December 1, 1991. This declaration, coming in the wake of the failed August hardliner coup, was overwhelmingly supported by the populace in a referendum and became the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union.
• By this time, the Baltic states had already seceded, as had Moldova and parts of the Caucasus. However, Belarus, the Central Asian republics, and Kazakhstan were still hesitant to leave. Belarus and the Central Asians were reliant on subsidized oil, while Kazakhstan was concerned about its large Russian and Slavic population.
• For the reasons discussed in the points below, the Soviet Union disbanded either way, regardless of whether the remaining states were ready to leave or not.
  • First of all it's important to keep track of the chronology of the collapse. On the first of September 1991 the Ukrainian public decided to be independent via referendum. One week later Russia, Belarus and Ukraine signed a treaty formally disbanding the Soviet Union. This happened for several reasons:
    • Russia knew it would be outvoted by the Muslim republics, without Ukraine.
    • Ukraine was the second largest soviet republic (in most metrics)
    • Without Ukraine, the continuation of the Soviet project lost its purpose, as it would no longer secure territorial integrity and would be financially unsustainable—a burden Russia could no longer afford.

The CIS debacle:

• After Mikhail Gorbachev's resignation, the disintegration of the Soviet Union continued, entering its most critical phase. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a structure negotiated by the leaders of the former Soviet republics, successfully addressed many issues that arose during the breakup. However, it failed to resolve the most pressing question: What role would Russia play in the post-Soviet space, and how much sovereignty was it willing to allow its former subjects?
• Some members of the Russian elite viewed the CIS as a temporary compromise. Yeltsin remarked, "In today's conditions, only the CIS can ensure the preservation of the political, legal, and economic space built up over centuries but now almost lost." Gennadi Burbulis, Yeltsin's main adviser at Belovezha, envisioned a future where Russia would rebuild itself by monopolizing the proceeds from oil sales without sharing them with other CIS members: "We must save Russia and strengthen our independence, separating ourselves from the rest," he said, later adding, "After that, when it (Russia) is back on its feet, everyone will rally to it, and the question (of the Union) can be resolved again."
• Tensions between the two main successor states, Russia and Ukraine, began immediately after the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union. The primary divide centered on Russia's role, with disagreements over the degrees of sovereignty for the other states. Questions emerged about whether these states would have their own domestic or foreign policies.
• Russia sought to transform the CIS into a Russian-led political, economic, and military union.
• Ukraine, despite being a founding member, never formally joined the alliance and only selectively participated in its programs.
• These tensions persisted over the following decades, leading to a tug of war in the 1990s (which will be explored in the 19_Problematic Divorce) and eventually escalating into outright military conflict in the early 21st century. While the collapse of the Soviet Union itself was bloodless—due to numerous factors that will be discussed later—the tensions between its two largest successor states spiraled into limited conflict in 2014, culminating in full-scale war in 2022. This conflict brought widespread destruction, horror, and pain, resulting in the largest refugee crisis since World War II.

Summary:

• A major reason for the Soviet Union's collapse was Yeltsin's need to rebel against Gorbachev, who sought to preserve the Union. Yeltsin's push for economic, social, and democratic reforms meant that he had to challenge the Soviet structure itself, effectively rebelling against it by proxy.
• In this rebellion, Yeltsin needed allies, which primarily consisted of democratic reformers in the Baltics and pro-status quo elites in Central Asia. The Baltic reformers were strongly nationalist and pro-independence, forcing Yeltsin to make concessions to accommodate their demands.
• Ukraine's role was also crucial. It not only acted as a key driver of the collapse by declaring independence, making the Soviet Union unsustainable for Russia, but also helped ensure a peaceful transition. Ukraine’s tolerance towards its Russian minority (who supported independence) relieved Yeltsin of any pressure to intervene militarily to protect them.
• In the aftermath, Russia and Ukraine embarked on separate paths of political development, setting the stage for divergent futures that would eventually define their relationship. These journeys will be explored in the next chapters.

Deceiving Peace:

• The collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the largest empires in history, was relatively bloodless—a surprising outcome, but one with many underlying reasons.
• To better understand this, we can compare it to the collapse of other empires:
  • The British Empire served as a model for the Commonwealth concept, but its decline was far more gradual, arguably beginning with the American Revolution. This was followed by autonomy movements in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The British were also unable to suppress independence movements in Ireland and South Africa. The empire's final stages saw Britain withdraw from India and its African colonies.
  • The French Empire experienced a much more chaotic and violent collapse. After France was occupied by Nazi Germany in WWII, the Japanese seized control of its colonies in Indochina. Following WWII, France attempted to regain these colonies as a matter of national pride, leading to brutal wars in Vietnam and Algeria. France eventually withdrew, but not without facing significant internal upheaval that nearly toppled the French Republic itself.
  • The Dutch Empire had been in decline for a long time, and its collapse after WWII, which resulted in the independence of Indonesia, Suriname, and the Netherlands Antilles, followed a trajectory similar to that of the British.
  • The Belgian Empire was forced to withdraw from Congo in the 1960s after decades of brutal rule. The withdrawal, prompted by internal challenges, places Belgium’s collapse in the same category as France’s.
  • The Portuguese Empire was the last to relinquish its African colonies in the mid-1970s, following conflicts that left a power vacuum, most notably in Angola, which led to a quarter-century civil war (1977–2002).
  • The Ottoman Empire weakened first among the empires discussed, finally collapsing during WWI, a fate it shared with Austria-Hungary. Its long-lasting consequences, such as the Yugoslav wars during the Soviet collapse, make it somewhat comparable to the Soviet Union’s disintegration.
  • Yugoslavia was a South Slavic federalist state formed in 1918, reborn in 1945, and eventually torn apart in the 1990s when its key republics seceded. Like the Russians in the Soviet Union, the Serbs were the largest ethnic group, leading their republic's leader, Slobodan Milošević, to first try to hold the federation together and then expand Serbia by incorporating majority-Serbian enclaves. This led to a bloody conflict marked by war crimes and genocide, prompting NATO to intervene in 1999. Military actions in Yugoslavia lasted from 1991 to 2001, and the final dissolution occurred after Montenegro declared independence in 2006, with Kosovo following suit in 2008. This ended the imperial legacy of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans.
• Unlike the Serbs, the Russians did not pursue a violent path of holding their empire together, as many feared. Instead, they followed a trajectory more akin to Portugal's. In both cases, relatively peaceful revolutions in the capital sought to implement democratic reforms, and the empire was seen as an obstacle to those reforms.
• In Yeltsin's case, he couldn't push through his democratic and economic reforms due to the sprawling conservative communist elite in the other republics. To gain more leverage for reforms in Russia, he allied with democratic reformers in the Baltics and pro-status quo elites in Central Asia, undermining Gorbachev’s power base, which was locked in a standstill between reformist and anti-reformist groups.
• By doing this, Yeltsin unintentionally weakened the Soviet Union's political institutions, which played a major role in its collapse. Although he did not intend for the Union to disintegrate, he did little to stop the momentum that ultimately swept Gorbachev, his political rival, from power.
• Another reason Russia avoided the path of Serbia was Yeltsin’s need for a cooperative relationship with the United States, which was opposed to military interventions due to the risk of nuclear escalation.
• However, Yeltsin was more than willing to engage in military action against autonomous republics within the Russian Federation, such as Chechnya.
• These conflicts also highlight another reason for the Soviet Union’s relatively bloodless collapse. The disastrous war in Chechnya exposed the Russian military's weakness. Even if they had wanted to engage in larger-scale military campaigns, the Russian army was too poorly equipped and trained to achieve significant victories.

Continuation

Continues in 19_Independence and Divergence.

Sources

The Information here was gathered from "The Russo-Ukrainian War" (Pages 25-33)

Related Notes

• Plokhy Interview_Collapse of the Soviet Union