• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Yeltsin dies in 1992

Ricardolindo

Well-known member
Location
Portugal
What if Boris Yeltsin had died in 1992? Vice-President Alexander Rutskoy would have succeeded him. With more competent leaders, could liberal democracy succeed in Russia? Could we eventually get Boris Nemtsov or Gregory Yavlinsky as President of Russia?
 
See, um, Rutskoy was not a liberal or a democrat in any sense of the word. He was a nationalist who openly called for retaking the Crimea (remember, Khrushchev sort of just... gave it to Ukraine, although it obviously had a large Ukrainian population and before Stalin a very large Tatar population, who were butchered and deported in yet another of the monstrous actions of his regime) and rather colorfully called the transfer one of the "harebrained schemes" that Khrushchev is associated with (others being growing corn everywhere, and, you know, Cuba) and stated that the people who signed it must have been drunk or something. Hardly liberal, I'd say, although even some relative liberals like Putin's mentor Anatoly Sobchak said similar things, albeit less vociferously.

Crimean reannexation could, I suppose, go through – Crimea actually had a leader in the early '90s (called Yuri Meshkov) who wanted it, but I doubt the West would stand for it (nor should they have, if I may be allowed to editorialize).

Anyways, my point is that a Rutskoy government is far more neo-Soviet conservative-nationalist than anything liberal. Yeltsin did have a few liberal candidates to choose from for his running mate (I'm thinking of Burbulis and and Galina Starovoytova, if you want a liberal Russia led by a woman (gasp!)) but he chose Rutskoy, an very conservative and dour Afghan vet with an admittedly incredible (like, Sergeant York-level) record; it's always been a bit of mystery (to me at least) as to why he chose Rutskoy, to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Even if Yeltsin picked a liberal as his VP candidate; shock therapy would still be a clusterfuck if Europe and the rest of the free world do not like invest a lot in Russia like in Poland which i doubt bc of the sheer scale of Russia vs Poland, and even if Russia gets said investment look at who's running the show in Poland right now. To be honest any socially and politically liberal Russia by the modern day will be hard to do with a post 1991 POD, not because I think Russians are inherently authoritarian, but rather my view is that you need a earlier POD to accomplish that or a massive systemic shift to a social democratic system rather than changing whoever's at the top.

On Rutskoy, IIRC he was chosen to get Yeltsin the reformist-communist bit of the Russian population to support him, and to burnish his nationalist credentials. I do agree that his government will be basically a giant Belarus, but I don't agree that Rutskoy will grab Crimea ASAP, because well Russia with no mass privatizations it'll be somewhat stronger but Russia would be in a weaker position, unless Euromaidan still happens like OTL which I doubt because of the Mothra-sized butterflies of no Yeltsin in the 90s.
 
Crimean reannexation could, I suppose, go through – Crimea actually had a leader in the early '90s (called Yuri Meshkov) who wanted it, but I doubt the West would stand for it

Though is there much the West could do in '92 versus what it did do when Putin dun it?

(This timeline is probably great for technothriller writers in the early 90s - "I just have to remember it's not the USSR anymore but apart from that...!" Tom Clancy's Net Force Partisans, YA thrillers about Net Force-backed Russian teen hackers fighting the Man!)
 
See, um, Rutskoy was not a liberal or a democrat in any sense of the word. He was a nationalist who openly called for retaking the Crimea (remember, Khrushchev sort of just... gave it to Ukraine, although it obviously had a large Ukrainian population and before Stalin a very large Tatar population, who were butchered and deported in yet another of the monstrous actions of his regime) and rather colorfully called the transfer one of the "harebrained schemes" that Khrushchev is associated with (others being growing corn everywhere, and, you know, Cuba) and stated that the people who signed it must have been drunk or something. Hardly liberal, I'd say, although even some relative liberals like Putin's mentor Anatoly Sobchak said similar things, albeit less vociferously.

Crimean reannexation could, I suppose, go through – Crimea actually had a leader in the early '90s (called Yuri Meshkov) who wanted it, but I doubt the West would stand for it (nor should they have, if I may be allowed to editorialize).

Anyways, my point is that a Rutskoy government is far more neo-Soviet conservative-nationalist than anything liberal. Yeltsin did have a few liberal candidates to choose from for his running mate (I'm thinking of Burbulis and and Galina Starovoytova, if you want a liberal Russia led by a woman (gasp!)) but he chose Rutskoy, an very conservative and dour Afghan vet with an admittedly incredible (like, Sergeant York-level) record; it's always been a bit of mystery (to me at least) as to why he chose Rutskoy, to be honest.

Even if Yeltsin picked a liberal as his VP candidate; shock therapy would still be a clusterfuck if Europe and the rest of the free world do not like invest a lot in Russia like in Poland which i doubt bc of the sheer scale of Russia vs Poland, and even if Russia gets said investment look at who's running the show in Poland right now. To be honest any socially and politically liberal Russia by the modern day will be hard to do with a post 1991 POD, not because I think Russians are inherently authoritarian, but rather my view is that you need a earlier POD to accomplish that or a massive systemic shift to a social democratic system rather than changing whoever's at the top.

On Rutskoy, IIRC he was chosen to get Yeltsin the reformist-communist bit of the Russian population to support him, and to burnish his nationalist credentials. I do agree that his government will be basically a giant Belarus, but I don't agree that Rutskoy will grab Crimea ASAP, because well Russia with no mass privatizations it'll be somewhat stronger but Russia would be in a weaker position, unless Euromaidan still happens like OTL which I doubt because of the Mothra-sized butterflies of no Yeltsin in the 90s.

Though is there much the West could do in '92 versus what it did do when Putin dun it?

(This timeline is probably great for technothriller writers in the early 90s - "I just have to remember it's not the USSR anymore but apart from that...!" Tom Clancy's Net Force Partisans, YA thrillers about Net Force-backed Russian teen hackers fighting the Man!)

Indeed, Rutskoy was not a liberal. However, I don't think he could have established a dictatorship because, at this point, Russians had absolutely no interest in one. If he tried to establish one, he would probably have been impeached. As for shock therapy, I don't think Rutskoy would have pursued it. I think he would have pursued a more moderate economic liberalization.
 
Last edited:
Russians had absolutely no interest in [dictatorship].
Yeah, sorry to burst your bubble, but Zhirinovsky won a plurality of the vote in 1993, albeit with shock treatment. If Rutskoy can make the economy more stable and restore Russia’s international prestige, he will be able to do whatever he wants. If he can personify stability, the world (well, the Baltic) is his oyster.
 
Yeah, sorry to burst your bubble, but Zhirinovsky won a plurality of the vote in 1993, albeit with shock treatment. If Rutskoy can make the economy more stable and restore Russia’s international prestige, he will be able to do whatever he wants. If he can personify stability, the world (well, the Baltic) is his oyster.

Zhirinovsky won a plurality of the vote in 1993 not only because of shock treatment but also because of divided opposition and because it was soon after the constitutional crisis.
 
Zhirinovsky won a plurality of the vote in 1993 not only because of shock treatment but also because of divided opposition and because it was soon after the constitutional crisis.
I'm the last person to deny that Zhirinovsky was a protest vote. Of course he was, but the '93 crisis only brought to the fore pre-existing issues that were continuing until the late '90s and maybe even are still continuing. Zhirinovsky was the only person to offer stability, but he did it in the craziest way possible – which some people liked, but was off-putting to a lot of others, which is why Zhirinovsky never went anywhere. A sane man who offered financial stability, a return to the welfare state in some form or another (that'll get the pensioners onside) anti-Western, pro-Russian nationalism would be the perfect anti-Yeltsin (Zhirinovsky, meanwhile, was a deeply flawed anti-Yeltsin) and Rutskoy is pretty close to that Platonic ideal, which Putin has ended up filling.

Do you get what I mean? Zhirinovsky won because of deep-seated issues, not just because of 1993, and I think that, with or without '93, the same issues exist, and a similar candidate will come to the fore because of these issues, and that this candidate will be a dictator or at least a dictator-lite.

With Rutskoy, by the way, I don't think we can discount the idea of some sort of war breaking out in some form in / over the disintegrating Yugoslavia.
 
Indeed, Rutskoy was not a liberal. However, I don't think he could have established a dictatorship because, at this point, Russians had absolutely no interest in one. If he tried to establish one, he would probably have been impeached. As for shock therapy, I don't think Rutskoy would have pursued it. I think he would have pursued a more moderate economic liberalization.

What the hell do you think Putin is if not a dictator? He came along after the awful situation and political instability of the nineties. Yeltsin wasn't Mr Democratic Norms either. Of course Russia in the nineties is susceptible to dictatorship and strongman politics.
 
What the hell do you think Putin is if not a dictator? He came along after the awful situation and political instability of the nineties. Yeltsin wasn't Mr Democratic Norms either. Of course Russia in the nineties is susceptible to dictatorship and strongman politics.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure what that means either – 1993 was a dictatorial, Yeltsinite, self-coup in the grand tradition of Louis-Napoleon, and I strongly recommend @Ricardolindo to read about the Soskovets strategy, which shows just how nationalist and non-liberal Yeltsin often was.
 
What the hell do you think Putin is if not a dictator? He came along after the awful situation and political instability of the nineties. Yeltsin wasn't Mr Democratic Norms either. Of course Russia in the nineties is susceptible to dictatorship and strongman politics.

Where did you get the impression that I don't think Putin is a dictator? I meant that I don't think that Russians would accept a dictatorship as early as 1992. 1999 when Putin rose to power is a very different matter.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what that means either – 1993 was a dictatorial, Yeltsinite, self-coup in the grand tradition of Louis-Napoleon, and I strongly recommend @Ricardolindo to read about the Soskovets strategy, which shows just how nationalist and non-liberal Yeltsin often was.

I'm not defending Yeltsin. Indeed, this whole thread is about trying to find better leadership that can establish liberal democracy in Russia.
 
Where did you get the impression that I don't think Putin is a dictator? I meant that I don't think that Russians would accept a dictatorship as early as 1992. 1999 when Putin rose to power is a very different matter.
I mean, I'm prepared to debate this point seriously, I just don't think you've presented many facts to prove this – I don't have books on me at the moment, but hopefully the evidence I've laid out offhandedly has made sense?

I think if there had been a snap election in 1994 or so, Yavlinsky, who's sort of a protest candidate as well (I think one analysis I read called him something like a liberal Zhirinovsky, which is an oxymoron but I think the meaning is sort of clear, in that Yavlinsky is a complete rejection of the Yeltsinite order as well, just from the liberal left) is in a good place to win, but I doubt his government paves the path for a liberal Russia – even if he pursues reform more sensibly, Russia is just kind of screwed, sadly?

EDIT: Also, I really don't know why people think Khasbulatov was some sort of great lost leader? Nothing makes him special except for his opposing Yeltsin which is not, like, remarkable.
 
I mean, I'm prepared to debate this point seriously, I just don't think you've presented many facts to prove this – I don't have books on me at the moment, but hopefully the evidence I've laid out offhandedly has made sense?

I think if there had been a snap election in 1994 or so, Yavlinsky, who's sort of a protest candidate as well (I think one analysis I read called him something like a liberal Zhirinovsky, which is an oxymoron but I think the meaning is sort of clear, in that Yavlinsky is a complete rejection of the Yeltsinite order as well, just from the liberal left) is in a good place to win, but I doubt his government paves the path for a liberal Russia – even if he pursues reform more sensibly, Russia is just kind of screwed, sadly?

As late as the summer of 1997, polls showed most Russians wanted Boris Nemtsov, a liberal, to succeed Yeltsin.
 
Where did you get the impression that I don't think Putin is a dictator? I meant that I don't think that Russians would accept a dictatorship as early as 1992. 1999 when Putin rose to power is a very different matter.

My point is that Putin established himself when the economy and politics had actually settled down much more than the period we're discussing. The system was heavily in flux in the nineties and much of the ground for Putinism was already laid and if anything the situation was proably more open to appeals of that kind. It wasn't this Liberal Democratic fantasy you're pretending it was.
 
As late as the summer of 1997, polls showed most Russians wanted Boris Nemtsov, a liberal, to succeed Yeltsin.
This is true, but then there was the really horrific crash of 1998 which discredited the fragile psuedo-liberal consensus which had kind of existed post-1993 - it was of this consensus that Nemtsov was the chief part of.
 
Last edited:
My point is that Putin established himself when the economy and politics had actually settled down much more than the period we're discussing. The system was heavily in flux in the nineties and much of the ground for Putinism was already laid and if anything the situation was proably more open to appeals of that kind. It wasn't this Liberal Democratic fantasy you're pretending it was.

I'm not pretending it was such. As @Beata Beatrix said, it was pseudo-liberal.

This is true, but then there was the really horrific crash of 1998 which discredited the fragile psuedo-liberal consensus which had kind of existed post-1993.

I think that with a more competent leadership, that crash could have been avoided.
 
I think that with a more competent leadership, that crash could have been avoided.

It didn't really have anything to do with government incompetence, it was about enormous structural problems in the economy and world market issues. A huge budget deficit and a pervasive system of optional taxation, failing oil prices, and a consequently untennnable use of bond issues as a way of raising money.

It's not as simple as Put The Good Guys In Charge.
 
Though is there much the West could do in '92 versus what it did do when Putin dun it?

(This timeline is probably great for technothriller writers in the early 90s - "I just have to remember it's not the USSR anymore but apart from that...!" Tom Clancy's Net Force Partisans, YA thrillers about Net Force-backed Russian teen hackers fighting the Man!)

Around this time period they could simply say "kay no hard currency."

Aslo the Russian military was not in a good state in the early nineties. If the Ukranians but up even a semi serious fight things could go helishly wrong.
 
Back
Top