Chapter 63, Part 4
October 21, 1995
Armenia-Azerbaijan
....
As the poll results came in, it became very clear that both SSRs had succeeded. This was largely because, neither side trusted the USR government to remain neutral, with conspiracy theories of Moscow colluding with the other ethnic group running rampant. Within hours of the poll results, ethnic violence escalated to a new level of violence, ....Ultimately the conflict would come to an end in a 1999 ceasefire brought about by international pressure upon both sides, with Armenia accomplishing all of its military objectives....
And so yet again, as has been the case about half the time when some small nation manages to get out from under the Russian/Soviet imperialist yoke, they immediately start knifing each other. And yet some fans of this TL cheer every time a secession happens!
It isn't absolute either way, neither mindless unionism nor mindless ethnic nationalism is automatically a good or a bad thing. But OTL since the fall of the USSR and breakup of Yugoslavia, we've on the whole seen a lot more misery coming from divisiveness than oppressive over centralization. And where we can point to oppressive over centralization, there is no hero handy to break the yoke. And anyone can see that one reason for this is that it is hard to guarantee the cure of liberation won't be worse than the disease.
So I've been reading these endless secessions pretty glumly, and in the one case (really a set of cases) up to now where it was not in the cards, I put in a plea that we not interpret that to mean they (the Central Asians) were just playing for time to leave in good order, but that perhaps unity will last. Unity is not automatically good, but it is not automatically bad either.
I wonder whether the attitudes some express of cheering every time a secession happens relates to the possibility the pendulum might now be swinging back, and some distinctly disreputable and scary regimes (Putin's Russia, and the possibility that ISIS, or if not them another iteration of Islamic fundamentalist imperialism down the road) show signs of reversing the trend. Well, I'd argue that if these unionists are bad and threatening, one reason is that disunionists with bad reasons or bad follow-through after good reasons were too successful in the recent past.
I don't complain to see the Baltics secede. (And I attribute the less than unanimous vote to the fact that lots of non-native Russian people had settled there and put down roots, but fear, with reason perhaps, that they will be very much persona non grata in a newly independent Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia--they, and perhaps a handful ethnically native people were the 30 percent against. And who is to say they won't suffer unjustly just as the majorities of these small nations suffered under Russian rule?)
I was sad to see Czechoslovakia split up. One might hope that their objective achieved, the Slovak extremists who resorted to terrorism and thuggery to get their way are largely mollified, but their success might encourage some to appropriate Slovak nationalism (which surely has reasonable supporters as well) as their own accomplishment and push for more--ethnic cleansing of Czechs and who knows, Moravians? And any other minorities such as Magyars? I would not be in favor of Slovakia remaining under even the perception of Czech misrule and I suppose there must have been enough instances of Czech chauvinism to explain the result--but it was a close election whereas the thumb of violent extremism lay on the scales, pushing in the direction of victory in a fashion that makes me wonder about the legitimacy of the outcome. It surely would not happen if Slovaks and Czechs were generally happy brothers and sisters together in a happy family I guess.
But the replacement of tyranny by big centralized tyrants of the Stalinist or Titoist stamp in the past quarter century by petty little tyrannies that seem to reach no end to the fissiparous tendency to shatter community and then produce petty Stalins or Titos with really narrow aspirations suggests to me that if it is possible, it is better for a big and diverse nation to stay together, and trust that diversity of interests will grant even the smaller and least powerful victims a sympathetic hearing and a chance at mutual reconciliation, than it is to trust to the maxim that the smaller the community, the more just and fair.
So even the more peaceful and clearly well-supported secessions fill me with some misgivings, and the most dubious ones with teeth-gnashing dismay.
Consider that in this case, the Azerbaijanis and Armenians both believed Moscow would conspire to tip the scales against them. This suggests to me that, in both sides regarding the Russian "big brother" with resentment and suspicion, the Russians generally had not in fact favored one over the other and thus a kind of rough justice was done under imposed union that can hardly be looked to now. If the Azerbaijanis had been able to foresee the ultimate outcome, would it not have been more reasonable for them to favor continued union, and if they could not trust to the Russians to favor their interest, why not their fellow Islamic Central Asian co-unionists as their lobby?
Sigh...
November 7, 1995
Kiev, Ukraine
In November of 1995, the Ukrainian people's took to the polls in a referendum on whether or not to succeed from the USR and establish Ukraine as an independent country. ....
Ultimately, Gaidar’s a pledge of increased autonomy would ultimately persuade a slight majority of Ukrainian citizens to vote to remain a part of the USR. In the upcoming months, Ukrainians and citizens of the various other non-Russian parts of the USR would angle to ensure that regionalist politicians get elected to the first democratically elected parliament in Russian/Soviet/USR history....
And so at last, I get to Like a post. Most posts deserve a Like for quality and style and integrity, but Liking one where crappy things, no matter how probable, happen seems to send a mixed message.
In fact, I go beyond Like to say:
"Hooray!'
With Ukraine in USR, there is a strong countervailing force to Great Russian dominance. It is up to Great Russian political leadership now whether the Ukrainians firm up their support for a union they have a strong say in and enjoy autonomy in, and perhaps come to identify with the Great Russians in a truly Great Pan-Russian solidarity, with Ukrainian contributions to the former Tsarist Empire and Soviet Union belatedly recognized along with honesty about the relationships of the peoples--and a future that follows a better course.
Keeping this union, and having remain fairly happy, will sidestep enormous amounts of grief in OTL history since 1990.
So once again--hooray for democratic rationality!
Crap.
But hopefully, this May Revolution of 1995 will free it from Russia.
Fuck that, ethnic divergence in europe needs to be stopped tbh
But still, i don't what Ukraine to be with Russia at all in any way.
These sentiments are both extremist. Mind, I've endorsed SRBO because the general trend of separatism has generally been a mess this past generation. Vice versa I would not endorse Ukraine or the 'Stans remaining in union against their will and being chauvinistically downgraded while being economically exploited either. The flip side of alarm at divergence has often been imperialist disdain for the divergent. The notion that it is better for diverse peoples to be roped into one union only works if that union functions democratically and with equal justice. I favor union over disunion both in reaction to the extreme disintegration of our recent times and because if the union exists, there is anyway the potential that equal justice will gradually emerge as individual cases are advocated; with disunion, it seems most likely that resentments, both between separated peoples and seething within the "united" fragments due to the fractal nature of "divergence" but diverted into patriotic channels by the national machinery, will be "settled" through open warfare. As the Azerbaijanis were "settled" in this TL (looking ahead) by the Armenians--or as Putin now seeks to "settle" issues probably more internal to Russia than in terms of serious conflicts with Ukraine (other than its inconvenient existence). Well, the latter problem doesn't arise if Ukraine never separates in the first place, and even better if Ukrainian and Central Asian influence in the USR helps to prevent extremists such as Putin (who is dead here) or others who are shown very active here from taking the kind of power Putin has done OTL.
I really take exception to the idea that Ukraine has some supernatural and eternal sacredness that means it should never be in union with Russia. If the union is fair and free, why object?
I do have to admit that separation while they have the chance would be an appealing option for many Ukrainians who have reason not to trust the Russians lately. But I say give the USR a chance; if it works it has to be an improvement on the ugly realities of OTL.
. In the age of American hyperpower, there is no major tension in the air.
