Why can't former Soviet states stay together as one country?




 
--
Boots
 
April 8th, 2005  
Red_Army
 
 

Topic: Why can't former Soviet states stay together as one country?


After the fall of the USSR in 1991, every Soviet state wanted independence.

My question is, why can't they stay together as one country? For example, "Republic of Soviet Union."

I think that if former Soviet states stayed together after the fall of communism, they could have a much larger military, a higher population, larger resources, and more GDP. All of this while in a Democratic system.
April 8th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quite simply because they never joined the Soviet Union willingly. They were conquered. Can't blame them for reasserting their national identities.
April 8th, 2005  
Red_Army
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Quite simply because they never joined the Soviet Union willingly. They were conquered. Can't blame them for reasserting their national identities.
I have a question: Didn't Texas or California used to belong to Spain or Mexico? Weren't they conquered by the Americans?
--
Boots
April 8th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Being a loyal Texan I will have you know that Texas gained independence from mexico on her own. We where our own nation for a brief number of years before deciding it was better for us to join up with the United States.
April 8th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Being a loyal Texan I will have you know that Texas gained independence from mexico on her own. We where our own nation for a brief number of years before deciding it was better for us to join up with the United States.
During the time of the "Vicerreinato" some USA citizens were allowed to install in Mexico, with the pass of the time many more came. After a time they were almost more than the mexicans. Then they decided that they wanted the independence, they didn´t want to be ruled by Mexico´s law and mexico´s tax. In 1835 they got the independance.
Texas was Mexican ethnically and territorialy until USA colons installed there.
April 8th, 2005  
Kenty
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Being a loyal Texan I will have you know that Texas gained independence from mexico on her own. We where our own nation for a brief number of years before deciding it was better for us to join up with the United States.

Seriously?!

That'd be cool if Texas was it's own country still 8)
April 8th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
True, Texas was its own country for 10 years. That's a big source of pride for a lot of Texans. Probably worth noting that they applied for Statehood with the USA almost immediately after winning their independence from Mexico. Internal politics of keeping a balance between Slave and Free States (Texas wanted in as a Slave state and there wasn't an extra Free State ready to add at that time) led the US government to tell them no. So Texans decided they'd do their own thing. They still joined up later on of course.

But all of that is anyways. The reason they left is simple: They were given the chance to be free for the first time in ages and took it. I don't think they trusted in the idea of a democratic USSR, simply because of the past history of the USSR. Threre was no indication that things would not suddenly change into the same USSR Communist police state the moment that Gorbachev or Yelsin were no longer in power. So they jumped at the chance to get off the boat. Who's to blame them?

We're talking about the former Soviet Union. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Moldavia are excellent examples of countries that never had much desire to be a part of the USSR to begin with, nor the Russian Empire before it. Chechnia is a pretty clear example of that too, though it is still part of Russia today.

As for the Ukraine, it has its own unique ethnic background that is distinct from Russian ethnicity, so they might well feel that remaining as an independent country is a strong expression of that uniqueness. Also, as stated, they were conquered and not given a choice in the matter. The assassination attempt in the last elelction by the more pro-Russian party trying to kill the more pro-Western candidate, further deepens the divide.

Belarus' current government would probably welcome a reunification with Russia, but that may not be what its people want for themselves. Also, Russia is a very troubled country. Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc ... all are heavily Muslim and they're did their own thing long before Russia showed up and took over. They are likely to remain very friendly, but I doubt they'd want to rejoin Russia.

Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia all have their own disticnt past histories and no real reason to rejoin.

More than anything, what has a new USSR got to offer anybody? A marriage to Russia's economic nightmares and internal mess? The illusion that NATO or the USA is coming to conquer them doesn't work anymore. So banding together to face a common threat doesn't work. Have I missed something that would be a strong incentive to reunite though?
April 8th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: ya...


Good one there. Russia should have worked on its economy to be more influential. Militaristic influence although a very important factor but is not as powerful as the Cold-War period. Too bad, the order of development was messed up for Russia.

Apparently, Goby's democratic move was pragmatic. However, why did Gorby chose political reform over economic reforms knowing Russia got no industries and businesses to back up such movement? Did he do that to reform as well as personal fame in the Russian History?
April 8th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
And Texas is not the only state that was an independent country before it joined the United States. Vermont was the first. For 14 years we were an independant country (1777 - 1791). At the time both New York and New Hampshire claimed us while we asserted we were our own to govern. It took threatening to join Canada for the US to finally acknowledge us and we became the 14th state - the first added to the original colonies.

California was also briefly an independent country (that's why their state flag still says "Republic of California"). That lasted only about a year though and was essentially a mechanism to make it a state.

Hawaii, of course, was an independent nation for many years though it had been controlled by the Spanish, English and the Russians (yep the Russians) before us..
April 9th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 

Topic: Re: ya...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobies
Good one there. Russia should have worked on its economy to be more influential. Militaristic influence although a very important factor but is not as powerful as the Cold-War period. Too bad, the order of development was messed up for Russia.
That is difficult to do with a system and people that is in the bad habits of Communism: General laziness most often.

Quote:
Apparently, Goby's democratic move was pragmatic. However, why did Gorby chose political reform over economic reforms knowing Russia got no industries and businesses to back up such movement? Did he do that to reform as well as personal fame in the Russian History?
In retrospect, Gorbachev would probably have been more likely to achieve the correct type of change, but the Communist Leaders did what they often do: Panic and seize control when things are not going the way you wish. So it could perhaps be argued that the end result was inevitable. I still think that Gorbachev would have been better for the transition than Yeltsin.