Twenty years ago, on May 26, 1996, The Ukrainian Weekly ran an analysis by Volodymyr Zviglyanich about Russia’s plans to resurrect the Soviet Union, based on a draft document released by the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, titled “Will the (Soviet) Union Revive by 2005?”
Mr. Zviglyanich explained that these theoretical exercises had resulted in the signing of treaties between Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the Treaty on Creating a Union of Sovereign Republics that was signed by Russia and Belarus.
There were several factors cited in the document that could impede the revival of the USSR. The document also highlighted factors that would accelerate the restoration of the Soviet empire, including: the lasting effects of Russification and Russian as a language of business, the threat of disintegration of the new independent states, as well as the problem of unnatural borders and disputed territories (Crimea, Transdnistria, eastern Ukraine, the Black Sea Fleet, Kaliningrad). It also noted that NATO expansion via Poland would force Belarus as a Russian protectorate.
By the year 2000, the document purported, a new federation would emerge, with the likely participation of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and possibly of Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, and even less likely that Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan would join. The chances of Moldova and Azerbaijan joining were remote. “…And the fate of these states, respectively, will depend on Ukraine and the situation in the Caucasus,” Mr. Zviglyanich said. The Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia at the time were not yet NATO member states, and their membership was seen as “practically unlikely.”
“The new document, having paid lip service to the possibility of preserving the independent status of the CIS countries,” Mr. Zviglyanich added, “openly proclaims the task of restoration by the year 2005. It stresses that economic and cultural means will play the crucial role in Moscow’s forthcoming efforts of ‘gathering lands.’” Crimea, he explained, was seen by Russia as a testing ground for eventual secession based on language and cultural factors. Eastern Ukraine, where the major part of the Ukrainian economic potential is concentrated, is a juicy morsel for rapidly expanding Russian companies and financial-industrial groups.
The document also sought the development of debt-property agreements (as with Russia’s gas monopoly Gazprom and Belarus’s assets), “the establishment of a customs union and the opening of Ukrainian markets to penetration by Russian goods unable to compete internationally.”
“…Ukraine would be compelled to study and implement the experience on decolonization acquired by such countries as Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and even Albania,” Mr. Zviglyanich said. He underscored the need for Ukraine to boost its foreign investments with the aid of financial experts from the Baltic states, who understood the challenges of market reforms in a post-totalitarian state. “Any attempt to replicate the model of Russian economic reform would inevitably lead Ukrainian Communists to power with all consequences to follow. The intensity of efforts by Russian strategic planners regarding restoration of the (Soviet) union by the year 2005 or confederation by 2000 present Ukraine with the necessity of re-evaluating its major strategic priorities in economic and foreign policy.”
Twenty years ago, few took this document seriously, except Ukraine and the former Soviet republics that have joined or plan to join NATO as a measure against the scourge of Russian aggression that continues to threaten Europe. Furthermore, Sweden and Finland, previously non-aligned, have expressed an inclination toward NATO membership in light of Russia’s threatening military maneuvers in the Baltic Sea region.
Source: “Analysis: Russia discusses plans to revive (Soviet) union,” by Volodymyr Zviglyanich, The Ukrainian Weekly, May 26, 1996.