What would happen if russia colapsed like yugoslavia and/or if ALL the ethnicies(even ASSRs) declared Indepedence from russia
Chechnya and Tuva are the only Russian republics with either native majority or a very small Russian plurality.
Beside those two i ain't seeing anyone else declaring independence. The Soviet constitution didn't allow ASSR's to independent, only SSR's were allowed.
On what basis?You could have it happen in stages, first the Soviet Union collapses and then the Russian Federation starts to fall apart a bit later. At points, it seemed like that might happen IOTL during the 90s
On what basis?
All other russian republics are all ethnically russian in majority, or have large russian plurality of have russified ethnic minorities. On what basis do they declare independence? All of them wanted to stay in Russia because they all identified as Russian.
Only Tuba or Chechnya had the population to commit themselves to independence.
Tatarstan declared independence in a way that is seriously illegal. They made a new constitution and held a referendum on the constitution and then after the referendum had passed put a clause in the constitution stating Tatarstan to be independent. The people themselves called for the reintroduction of Russian authority in tatarstan after that. Also the Tatar Independence referendum was not supervised by anyone and had a very low turnout rate. Not passable or legal in that manner either. The 2008 part was the ramblings of a tribal chief.Tatarstan actually declared independence in the early 90's didn't they? OTL it didn't go anywhere, but in some alternate timeline, it might. I could see Karelia trying some independence thing in hopes of getting Finnish support if shit really hits the fan, even though they are majority Russian. Besides those, and other ethnic minority republics, it's not exactly a Yugoslavia scenario, but with a total breakdown of central authority you could see regional warlords popping up, especially in the more far-off regions like the Far East. Not necessarily de jure secessionists, but you'd still have multiple competing local governments.
Tatarstan declared independence in a way that is seriously illegal. They made a new constitution and held a referendum on the constitution and then after the referendum had passed put a clause in the constitution stating Tatarstan to be independent. The people themselves called for the reintroduction of Russian authority in tatarstan after that.
Karelia literally has only 17% ethnic Karelians. All others are Russians. That's not even a plurality. Russia is a nuclear power. Finland would not support such a move unless it wants Helsinki to go up in flames.
This regional warlord trope in regards to Russia has been very very overdone. You aren't getting warlords post 1950 russia unless there is a nuclear war and even that is suspect considering the many nuclear emergency plans Russia made. The Far East is literally chick full of Russians with the indigenous people outnumbered by a huge margin.
You aren't getting any majority support for secession in any place other than Chechnya and Tuva.
A civil war and balkanization into new states is completely different things. As it was 1993 constitutional Crisis almost led to a civil war. However civil wars which see permanent separation of state only happens in non-contiguous nations. One side will topple the other and retake the entire territory. Russia is a contiguous nation to prevent such balkanization.Yeah, secessions, more often than not, are not legal.
I don't think it's debatable that, as bad as the fall of the USSR was, it could've been much worse. The RF of the 1990's was standing on some seriously shaky legs. I don't see it as an impossibility at all that a situation with the absence of an effective central government could arise.
I am not saying that the Far East would try to secede on any ethnic basis. What I am talking about here is de facto secession of a political nature, i.e. the central government becomes effectively paralyzed, and the local authorities decide to no longer pay them any heed. Russianness doesn't come into it... As I am sure you know, disillusionment with the Kremlin in the RFE is nothing new.
As with the Karelia scenario, I am not talking about the Finnish Defence Forces entering Russian territory, I am talking about economic and indirect aid to a de facto independent region after the collapse of the central government. I get that you are speaking from a pro-russian viewpoint, but, again, I don't see how this scenario is so totally beyond the pale. Secession doesn't always depend on ethnic discord, see the US civil war for an example.
A civil war and balkanization into new states is completely different things. As it was 1993 constitutional Crisis almost led to a civil war.
However civil wars which see permanent separation of state only happens in non-contiguous nations. One side will topple the other and retake the entire territory.
One side will topple the other and retake the entire territory. Russia is a contiguous nation to prevent such balkanization.
Humanitarian aid will not see Karelia independent.Perhaps slightly different, however, I am trying to present OP's requested scenario in a plausible manner. The difference is a matter of decrees in a situation such as this.
The US Civil War, again, comes to mind as a counter-example. Or do you mean unitary states? In that case, even though Russia is de facto a unitary state, it was, until recently at least, de jure a federation. A different course of affairs could see that become a reality in the real world as well.
Are you seriously suggesting that Russia would start WW3 over glorified humanitarian aid? I am not talking about military support, but infrastructural aid and the like. I realize that any military option is completely unrealistic.
Humanitarian aid will not see Karelia independent.
And I meant territorial contiguous nations. The example of the American Civil War is simply proof of that.
Contiguous land border. In a civil war. For ownership of the government. No russian civil war will disintegrate into balkanization on that focus, because the goal is to become the *legitimate* government. The American Civil War was more of a war of southern secession than a civil war, however it illustrates how countries sharing a continuous border are at a massive disadvantage to become separated. Both sides will claim to be the legitimate government (in a governmental civil war, the only kind possible in a Russian civil war scenario really), and unlike China and Taiwan, they won't be separated by sea. They will have a common border, and the side that controls European Russia, wins any sort of civil war. 1920s warfare saw Russia unified when both sides claimed to be the legitimate government, then 1990s warfare will see one side unify the region claiming themselves to be the legitimate government of Russia.Okay, just forget about Karelia, it was just an example for regions in the extremities of Russia coming under the influence of neighboring states. You can substitute it for Vladivostok and China if you'd like, point being, the idea was that with a practically non-existent central govern you could see border regions come under foreign influence.
And how exactly is the American Civil War proof of that? It was a war of secession in a contiguous state. Yes, the secession failed, but that doesn't mean that any secession would. the specification of "territorially contiguous" is extra confusing. I'm assuming you didn't mean just that, because I could provide countless examples of territorially contiguous parts of countries seceding, succesfully.