How Soviet Government Worked

Some people are often puzzled over the question of how Soviet government actually worked. In America there is even a special scientific discipline, called Kremlinology, dedicated to studying Soviet government in order to understand how its functions and how decisions are made there. From many typical conclusions about USSR, we can conclude that Kremlinology have failed to discover much, if anything at all.

Soviet government indeed was a clutter of layer upon layer of overlapping bureaucracies. Even some of the insiders hardly understood how any of it worked. However, I can write a simple explanation of everything there is to know.

Nominal Government

First of all, there were two layers of governance in the country. One is the official constitutional governmental institutions, and the other is the party and its committees. I will cover the official government institutions first and the party later.

Informally knows as nomenclature because their power was nominal, official government institutions were prescribed in constitutions of either USSR or its consistent republics. Nominally they held respective power within the jurisdiction they were created for but in reality, they always acted on direction of the party. I will explain what that means later, first is the formal structure.

For them most of its existence USSR was a federation of 15 republics: 14 of these were unitary republics and had a name of xSSR format, where x stands for name of the said republic and SSR for Soviet Socialist Republic. The remaining one (RSFSR) was a federation in itself. 

RSFSR and some other SSRs had a republic within them as well, a sub republic. These states would have Autonomous added to their name and would be abbreviated as xASSR, being part of one of the states of the USSR rather than USSR itself they would be subjects to constitution of their respective states rather than that of USSR itself.

There were also Autonomous Oblasts as well as regular oblasts, who had reduced powers and bureaucracies compared to SSRs or ASSRs

Both federal USSR as well as internal republican governments had all three branches of government. 

Legislative was represented by Supreme Soviet, that was directly elected by the people in one candidate uncontested elections, from 1936 to 1989. Before 1936 USSR used complex multi-tier system of Soviets (councils), from which the country name is delivered and that needs a separate article to explain it. After 1989 Gorbachev made system more complex, by Adding Congress of People's Deputies. People would elect members of the Congress who would then elect members of smaller Supreme Soviet out of their own ranks. Then Congress would only meet occasionally, and Supreme Soviet would function as permanent parliament.

Supreme Soviet would elect Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, consisting of 15 members, who would serve as collective head of state as well as collective speaker of the Supreme Soviet. Later Gorbachev replaced Presidium with a single President of the Supreme Soviet.

Executive would consist of council (cabinet) of ministers chaired by the chairman (prime minister). Each minister would head their own relevant department and run things within it. This was by far the most normal of all structures of government, at least at first glance.

The Party

Finally, there was the party (Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU)) where all the real power was for the most of USSR existence.

Soviet constitution had an article 6 that stated that The Party (CPSU) and a managerial and directing role in the state. That was interpreted as very literary. That is government institutions, listed in the previous section of this article, could not act on their own and should only act on policy advice from The Party. That made all these complex structures nothing more than figureheads (very bloated figureheads) of the party where the real power was.

For the most of USSR existence the party authority and this party rule convention was iron clad. Only after the first free elections in 1989, when many independent MPs were elected to Supreme Soviets, that practice started to erode as independents would not follow directives of the party. Gradually their sifted the real power from the party to the government institutions.

The origins of this system could be traced to when the party was founded during Russian Empire times. There at founding congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour (Workers) Party, Lenin proposed a party rule of the democratic centralism. The Lenin's idea was that once a policy is debated and voted by the party members, it should become binding to all individual members of the party. If an any individual member of the party should win and hold any government office, they should vote and act in accordance with the approved policies, rather than according to their individual judgement. Most of the delegates rejected this as a party rule to which Lenin responded that he would simply form a separate fraction with all those who voted in favor. Lenin dubbed his side of the party Bolsheviks and his opponents Mensheviks. Lenin's fraction ended up functioning as be facto separate party, a be it with the same name as that of his rivals, Russian Social Democratic Labour (Workers) Party (Bolsheviks) or RSDRP(b).

Later party name would be changed to All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (A-RCP(b) or VKP(b)) and eventually to Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU)

Even when Bolsheviks took all power in Russia, outlawed all other political parties and even restructured all the government offices to their liking they did not abandon this policy. Party, not government was the key decision maker.

At its foundation, when the party consisted of a handful of enthusiasts, it was possible to hold regular meetings of all members to debate issues and then vote for them.

However, as party grew and eventually assumed leadership role in the party, that system became woefully inadequate to govern. However, party founders did not want to part with that culture of open discussion so first they created a Central Committee that would continue to debate policy just as before and to which regular members would elect members to debate policy on their behalf. Later when even Central Committee became too large and bloated, they created a smaller political bureau (Polit bureau) within Central Commitee, to which already selected for that purpose Central Commitee members would elect best of the best.

Over time they also realized that individual localities need someone who would focus on local areas so they created local committees that would focus on cities, oblasts and so on. Eventually numerous party committees came to duplicate the official government structure where every oblast council would also have a party oblast commitee (obcom) to formulate policy for them.

In addition to territorial, there were also functional committees tasked with various specific work, much like government department. For example, Emergency Commitee (the original one) eventually became feared and all-powerful KGB.

Even if local party members would simply vote on members of all these obcoms and gorcoms, all these numerous committees needed someone to keep track of what they are doing. There were many other bureaucratic formalities that needed to be handled within ever growing party. To do all this a Party Secretariat was created. The Secretariat kept assuming more and more important roles within the party and would eventually become the most powerful structure within the party. The Secretariat leader: General Secretary, would be considered de facto ruler of the USSR.

All of that would of course require a lot of office space to function, so party was one of the biggest structures within USSR. 

Various party committees together were known as party apparatus and people who were part of these structures were called apparatchiks to distinguish them from nomenklatura who manned government offices.

Even if the initial party culture was that of debate and discussion, that only managed to party survive only in Polit bureau. The rest of the party very soon became laden with cronyism, favoritism, patronage and such. Being pre-approved by secretariat to run for anything would effectively guarantee you the office. Because of that, positions within secretariat became highly thought after.

All that effectively made USSR an oligarchy where a few invisible men deep within party structures effectively controlled everything in the country. Because being on bad terms with secretariat meant losing one's job, political career and sometimes life, people within party would end up mostly loyal to their patrons within the system and indifferent to anything else. That would lead to the country being neglected by such one-party system. Eventually in 75 years this system filtered all but complete bootlickers. Then unqualified bootlickers run the country into the ground and USSR collapced.

How Collapse of USSR Really Happened - Part Seven, the End

 

Coup ended and Gorbachev returned. He though he will still be able to have a conciliatory prize in form of Presidency in USS. They indeed created the Presidential Counsil and held regular meetings to vote on this. Gorbachev also officially recognized independence of Estonia, Lativa and Lithuania, the most hell bent on independence trio, but he still hoped to persuade the rest to stay.

However, after the August coup, mood in the republics was very different from what it was before. Ukraine declared its independence on 24 of August, Moldova on 27, even Central Asian Kirghizstan did so on 31 of August and Uzbekistan on 1 of September. 

That changed calculations even within Yeltsin team. They begin to think that without Ukraine, there is no point in keeping the union at all. Here Yeltsin could have declared independence of RSFSR but there were two reasons not to do it: first is concern that without Yeltsin presence in Presidential Council, Gorbachev would manage to persuade the rest to stay in the union, which would be a problem further down the line. Second is that Yeltsin would rather avoid dubious laurels of destroyer of the USSR. Both of these considerations made him prefer to wait until all other republics would simply declare their independence and then union would be dissolved by default.

While he was waiting, Yeltsin decided to dissolve CPSU: not so much to ban it, so much to liquidate and take possession of the party assets and finances. The party was a ginormous multimillion juggernaut of the organization with not only party owned offices but also residential real estate, vacation homes, resorts and what not. Yeltsin took possession of all party assets on the territory of RSFSR. Gorbachev then swiftly moved to dissolve party union wide and take possession of its assets in the rest of the union, to deny the slower republics all this lucrative property.

Also, among other things, different republics took time to rename themselves with less mouthful wordings. Some did if before august coup and others after. most would simply drop words 'Soviet' and 'Socialist' from their names. Some would drop republic as well, for example Ukraine. RSFSR too became Russian Federation or Russia. 

Waiting game lasted until 27 October, when even backward Turkmenistan finally declared its independence. After that only Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan were left in the union. That created a rather unexpected problem for Yeltsin plan: Kazakhstan's Nursultan Nazarbayev suddenly took Gorbachev's side on union issue. Together they pushed for continuation of what was left of the union.

To make matters worse, Gorbachev and Nazarbayev together has as many votes on Presidential Counsil as remaining pro-independence leaders, Yeltsin and Shushkevich. For a moment it could seem that Yeltsin plan had backfired on him, and the remainder of the USSR would continue to function, albeit with three republics only.

Suddenly it was Yeltsin who had to think of something to beat this sudden gridlock. However, by early December he found a solution.

Early December Ukraine held its independence referendum to confirm its independence with popular vote. Once results were out, they legally confirmed Ukraine's independence.

Yeltsin congratulated Ukraine's Kravchuk with this victory and invited him and Belarus's Shushkevich to Belavezha Forest to discuss the union question. This discussion produced the famous or infamous Belavezha Accords that ended USSR.

Yeltsin's aide Burbulis came up with this rather creative solution to Kazakhstan problem. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Transcaucasian Federation were founding states of the USSR, if the remaining three of these republics would denounce the treaty of creation of the USSR, then they could dissolve the union even against the wishes of Kazakhstan.

The Belavezha Accords itself avoided listing anything or anyone as initiator or dissolver of the USSR, as if it ceased to exist due to force majore. Gorbachev was among them, he refused to accept that union will be no more and wished to save it somehow.

While some legal experts question legality of the manner, in which Belavezha Accords dissolved the USSR, the three leaders present were satisfied with the document and signed. Belarus ratified it on 10 and Russia on 12.

That left only Kazakhstan, however Yeltsin offered to meet him in Almaty together with other leaders of former USSR but without Gorbachev. There on 16 of December they finally agree to Almaty protocol that confirmed Belavezha Accords and dissolved the USSR. Kazakhstan voted it in to put an end to the lengthy USSR saga.

Among other things it regulated various issues that would be result from dissolution of the USSR, such as Soviet property abroad, USSR foreign debt and legal continuity. Ukraine wanted property to be split, but the rest agree that Russia would take it all together with the Soviet debts.

Also, by 21 of December they agreed to create Commonwealth of Independent States, an international organization similar to Commonwealth of Nations, that would keep post-Soviet states culturally connected and smooth over the transition to independence. A number of other international organizations would be created between the post-soviet states.

Post-Soviet future finally took a concrete shape, in which USS or Gorbachev had no place.

On 23 December Soviet representative to the UN announced that he will be representing Russian Federation from now on as USSR cease to exist. The UN accepted that without any debate of objections. USSR lost even international recognition. The world accepted new reality. 

Finally on 25 of December Gorbachev accepted it as well and resign. The following day what was left of USSR parliament also accepted it by voting in favour of motion on dissolution of the USSR.

The last soviet institution to accept new reality and Yeltsin's authority was Soviet Central Bank, who only did it in early 1992. Also, in 1992 some of the remaining MPs of the Soviet parliament wanted to open a new parliamentary session but were prevented from doing so by the police.

After 1992 a few individuals continue to insist that USSR still exists on various legal grounds.

How Collapse of USSR Really Happened - Part Six, The Coup

Here is the most well-known event of the whole collapse of the USSR: the August Coup. The event is well known but details are often confused and misinterpreted. After the fact Gorbachev liked to play victim and claim leaders of the emergency committee arrested him in his vacation house. Leaders of the Emergency Committee insisted they did not start any coups at all and were acquitted in court on that one. Yeltsin and the crew insisted they defended the democracy no matter what Gorbachev and the committee were up to.

I ended last article of the series with the statement that Gorbachev took his time to think things through over the vacation in the same Crimea, that Putin later annexed in 2014. In that article I did make the case why Gorbachev would want coup to succeed and eliminate Yeltsin. 

The initial announcement from the Emergency Committee, that Gorbachev is sick, often interpreted as a lie to cover his arrests, in reality likely merely covers his absence. That was done to avoid miring Gorbachev's hands in potential bloodshed and ruining his reputation in the West. After all they wanted more loans from Americans and there was zero chance, they would give any if Gorbachev would authorize use of force. However, if it was someone else then, Gorbi could later claim the massacre was done in his absence and he would not have allowed it if he was in Moscow at the time.

Another often repeated claim was that Emergency Committee refused to use force. That is misleading, the Emergency Committee wanted military to use force against the White House, but due to a technicality in soviet military law, they did not want to give them a direct order to do so. Emergency Committee, just like Gorbachev, did not want to take responsibility for what they wanted to happen, so they hoped military would be a scapegoat.

Vice President Yanaev, who in absence of President Gorbachev was acting President and a Commander in Chief of the military If Yanaev, would have given military a direct order to assault the White House, he will be liable for the death that occurred during the assault as well as for the nature of the order itself. Authorization to attack a legal and fully lawful governmental institution without legally sound reasons. All that would have likely saw him sentenced to a capital punishment.

Because of that Yanaev gave military a different order: to advance towards the White House and other government structures and guard them from any potential assault as well as to enforce a curfew, the Emergency Commitee have announced the day before. Yanaev calculation was that crowds, that gathered around White House, would not disperse. Then a provocation or an accidental rock thrown by a crowd, too jittery about potential military solution, would cause military to retaliate. The things will escalate into a massacre, possible Yeltsin himself as well as key people of his crew would get killed in it and problem would be solved. Later Gorbachev and Yanaev could even make officers commanding the troops take responsibility for the whole mess. In what way exactly would be up to courts.

Military did not want to be a scapegoat either, in a similar incident in Lithuania, Gorbi and his crew also disowned the military and claimed having no knowledge of the incident. After some deliberation over the orders, they received from the Yanayev and the Emergency Committee and consulting with Yeltsin's crew, military decided that the best course of action is to fulfill the orders in minimal way possible. Military coordinated with Yeltsin's crew to make sure the crowds would understand that soldiers are there not to fire at them and there will be no casualties. Somehow, they nearly managed that. Only three people have died.

Yanaev and Emergency Commitee were unhappy with the results and even called Joint Chiefs of Staff to a 3AM emergency meeting to discuss the issue. However Joint Chiefs of Staff managed to play it well by saying they fulfilled the orders as they were written. They further added that if Yanaev wishes to advise them as to how follow their orders then they would advise them on how to give them, for example he could order troops back to bases, that would be a good order to make. 

By 5 AM Yanaev gave up and indeed ordered troops out. Then Emergency Committee flew to Gorbachev to discuss what to do next. After that Gorbachev returned, announced that he was arrested for several days by the Emergency Commitee, but now he is free and can resume his duties as President of the USSR.

However, after what have happened in these few days in Moscow, how could anyone trust him anymore. Nonetheless Gorbi would not just go, he would fight for his union and office for the next several months.

Retarded and Evil Ideologies

I guess there is no light without shadow. Certain things are better defined by what they oppose then by what they stand for. Some ideologies are not that good, but also not that bad either. However, there are few that are completely retarded So I will list here a few ideologies that I consider to be exceptionally retarded and pointless.

Feminism

That is no surprise considering that I support Patriarchy and manosphere. Feminism makes women unattractive and undesirable. Stuff like body or face shape, make up and clothes are all secondary to this simple question: does she obeys my orders? 

I want obedient docile women who will do as I say, never argue with me or talk back. As simple as that. So, no empowered women.

There are plenty of sub ideologies in feminism, such as matriarchy, that are even more reprehensible that feminism. However, this feminism is a root cause of all these women centered nonsense. 

Totalitarianism

This one is nearly self-exploratory. I believe in individual freedom to do as I see fit. I do want anything to control me. Thus, a totalitarian state is the opposite of things I want in life.

Kraterocracy

Kraterocracy is a system that makes everyone but few powerful people miserable and unhappy. There is always someone stronger than you. Even if by the off chance you will end up on top, you will still have to zealously guard your position of power by mercilessly eliminating all who can threaten you.

Eventually the country under Kraterocracy will become an inversion of itself where only weak and stupid who can never challenge the power of the elite can live. Then it will fall behind in technology and will eventually be conquered by its neighbors.

USSR went through that during Stalin time, then turned into Gerontocracy and eventually emerged as mafia capitalism Russia.

Gerontocracy

Idea that old age or experience somehow makes one smarter is ludicrous. Old people in power would simply bleed the country dry by syphoning its wealth for preservation of their useless lives. The medicine to keep some 80s something idiot alive is not cheap.

Natural Law Theory and Virtue Ethics

Natural Law is nothing more than a hypocrisy and spook designed to take certain rules outside of public debate. Most of the time it simply serves interests of old people at expense of the young.

So called "natural law" does nothing more than rob people of their freedom to act as they see fit.

Virtue ethics are one of the expressions of such "natural law". Most of the "virtues" favor old people and old people's interests at expense of the young.

Conservatism

Theoretical conservatism is an ideology designed around the above mentioned "virtue" ethics, "natural law" and other spooks of Gerontocracy. It does nothing more than stagnates society for the benefit of the old people.

If Capitalism, despite some flaws, at least produces something, then Conservatism is completely useless. Its aim is to waste and sacrifice energies of the young people for the benefit of the old.

Relatively innocent at first glance, its pure evil on the inside.

Paleo Conservatism and Paleo Libertarianism

With Paleo Conservatism it seems simply a logical extension to my opposition to normal conservatism. Paleo Con is reactionary and wants to take society back to 19th century. It's worse than normal conservatism because it actively works to make things worse and recreate illiberal authoritarian society where people's lives were controlled by petty authority figures and eliminate all that liberalism managed to achieve since 19th century.

However, this Paleo plague does not limit itself to just conservatism, but branched out into Paleo Libertarianism and even Anarcho-Capitalism is now plagued with Hoppesian paleo-ism. Paleo Libertarianism is oxymoron and have nothing to do with actual Libertarianism, so are Hoppesian thoughts. They are nothing but henchman of landlords and do nothing to advance freedom.

Christian Theocracy

Christianity is the final spook of the Gerontocracy.

I do not believe in god, but there is more to it than just that. Christianity is a religion that propagates and glorifies misery and pain through preaching of self-denial in the name of god. Everything Christianity teaches is against human nature and will make life miserable. 

One might say why not leave them alone, however there is one reason why. Because of the devout Christians who are willing to put up with any shit, living standards have fallen for the rest of us. If there is a guy who believes that working is his moral obligation and willing to do it for free there is no need to hire a person who wants to be paid. People like that ruin labor market for the rest of us who wants decent pay to afford better things in life.

Collectivism and Communalism

Collectivism and Communalism that places interests of the group above those of the individual is the biggest enemy of freedom. These people would take freedom away, thinking they are doing a good thing.

Many among communists were collectivists, you can see for yourself where it took them. North Korea and Cuba are prime examples of places where "common good" rules and achieved no good for population. Health Care and Education does not replace consumption and hedonism.

The extreme version of their ideology is called hivemind, they literary aim to make people like bees and society like beehive.

Stalinism

Stalinism is a horrendous ideology that managed to combine worst parts Krarerocracy, Social Darwinism, Totalitarism, Theocracy and Communism together. Even other radical communists, such as Trotskyists criticize it. 

Unfortunately, it is this variant that spread across the globe and caused countless atrocities even in places like Cambodia during Pol Pot times.

Churchill once said that he would work even with Soviets to defeat Nazi, I would much rather work with Nazi to defeat this abomination. 

Mediacracy

Letting newsmakers control what people know and think it horrible idea that will eventually corrupt them. Murdoch Press are one such example, however there are many worse than him. Paired with censorship, control over internet and information Mediacracy will turn into literal totalititarianism. Putinism, China and North Korea managed to turn themselves into autocratic hellholes only thanks to Mediacracy.

Extreme Eco-Green

I am not a supporter of various ecological initiative, if they compromise quality of life even slightest. Bans on plastic bags and other form of plastic are completely retarded and should never have occurred.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with electric cars and renewable energy. More cars and energy are always better.

Primitivism

Technology makes life better, period. I do not want to live in some mud hut in some shitty stinky forest surrounded by nature. I want to live in a state of art glass and plastic uber-computerized super-home where I can get anything I want by simply pressing some buttons. 

Ascetism

Ascetism is fundamental enemy of Hedonism and therefore evil. There is nothing worse than to deny yourself pleasure.

Conclusion

There are probably many more retarded ideologies out there, but these are the worst of them all.

Well Organized Young Men in Moscow can Pull Off a Euromaidan Style Revolution.

After Putin yet again won an election with near stellar 87%, some would think that makes internal revolution near impossible in Russia. The reality is that revolution is possible because Putin is unpopular with the most educated, advanced and revolution prone demographic, young men. 

Three million who voted for Davankov may not seem much compared to a total population of Russia, however its three million of young internet savvy men in Moscow, St Petersburg and other key cities. Most of them are in Moscow, where the government is. Out of total Moscow population of 10 to 12 million, 3 million is more than quarter. That is definitely more than what participated in Euromaidan that overthrew Yankovich and turned Ukraine on path to Europe. If you count those who did not participated in election and stayed home, then you might even consider that majority of Moscow is against Putin. Look at composition of Moscow Duma, United Russia cannot have a majority without the help of independents. Sure, the majority of opposition are commies, but they are not with Putin.

Sure, there are those in Moscow who support Putin as well, but they are either elderly or women. Elderly cannot take to the streets to oppose European revolution. Women certainly cannot stand against men in a street fight. They may be like Putin, but they cannot fight to keep him in power. Thus, Putin have no one in Moscow who could prop his rule and keep him in power. 

Revolutions not necessary happen when majority is fed up. Sometimes well organized and capable minority can win. Take October revolution that took down Russian Empire. As elections to Constitutional Assembly shown, majority did not support soviet rule or communists. However, communists and soviet rule was supported by the most important demographic at the time: young men of then capital Petrograd. 

Ultimately young men organized themselves into Red Guards and took down all the opposition to their rule. They were soldiers for Red Army, they also worked on the factories that produced weapons and other important items needed to fight and win the war. If factories and people who work there are in favor, then even if the rest of the country is against then what they can do about it? They cannot make their own weapons without factories, can they?

Russian Civil War have shown that Petrograd Soviet that represented only the key demographic of young men who work on factories, is more important that what the rest of the country then what the rest of the country thinks.

Modern Russia has a similar situation. Putin has broad support, but those who support them do not matter if things come to a revolution. Elderly are too old and frail to fight. Women are too weak to fight. People outside of main cities who live in small villages without sewage, much less internet are also irrelevant.

There are also bureaucrats in various governmental jobs, but they are not numerous enough. Army consists of people conscripted there against their will; they will join the revolution readily.  Few paid thugs, Duginists and other idiots do not have the numbers to go against 3 million. 

The only thing Putin can truly count is police. However, are total police numbers greater than those who voted for Davankov or support Navalnyi, of course not. Besides some from police might want to side with revolution.

So young people with access to internet should just unite, form self-proclaimed Online Consul, agree on some leadership and structure and then go to overthrow the government. Ukraine has shown us that its possible. Lukashenka could only cling to power, because Putin gave him the entire Russian riot police to quell the 2020 revolution there. Putin has no such big friend, who could help him out against the 3 million What are we waiting for?

Once we win, we can rule as internet-o-cracy, with exclusion of all other demographics. Far too long they have exploited young men for their selfish ends, time to put an end to it and create a government by young men for young men.

To quote Lelouch: all conditions for victory has been cleared. At least a path to victory is clear.

How Collapse of USSR Really Happened - Part Five, Novo-Ogoryevo Prosses and First Presidential Elections in RSFSR

After the referendum Gorbachev invited all republican leaders to sign a new union treaty, but things quickly went wrong. Yeltsin claimed that Gorbachev proposal does not satisfy the requirement, set in referendum question: it does not guarantee rights and freedoms of a person of every nationality sufficiently enough. Gorbachev argued back that it does. Most of other republican leaders such as Kravchuk and Shushkevich were with Yeltsin on this one, eventually Gorbachev became isolated. What was meant to be his hour of triumph ended up a trap he did not know how to get out of.

There was also an issue that some republics did not want to participate in the union at all, but at that stage what mattered most is to get at least some of them to agree.

Negotiations continued whole spring and half of the summer. The lengthy and grueling process was dubbed Novo-Ogoryovo process. 

Yeltsin did propose an alternative federal treaty. In revised proposal the country would be called Union of Sovereign States, but most importantly its parliament will work in a manner similar to European Counsil, called Presidential Counsil. Representatives of the union republics would meet in capital and vote in on every proposed federal law. 

Gorbachev could more of less imagine how it will work in practice. Just like republican leaders now agreeing with Yeltsin on this issue, they will likely keep agreeing with him in this new Presidential Counsil. However, then decisions of majority of this Counsil would be legally binding throughout the USSR as a federal law. It would mean he will de-facto lose all the power and become a figurehead.

However, what choice did he had? Gorbachev pre-sign the USS treaty but said that final ceremony of signing the treaty into force will take place one month later, on 20th of August. Having said that he went on vacation. In reality he possibly wanted to give himself some opportunity to think things through and think of something.

While the Novo-Ogoryovo prosses was underway, Yeltsin successfully run for President of RSFSR against the same Ryzhkov he beat for position of speaker a year ago. 

Gorbachev did not participate as, President of RSFSR was technically below that of President of USSR, it like resigning as President of the US to run for Governor of California or Texas instead. However, reality on the ground progressively made Yeltsin's office a more important of two. 

The fact that Yeltsin held first actual elections where people actually got to vote for president further solidified legitimacy of the office he created. Convoluted Soviet bureaucracy made it hard for an average person or even average bureaucrat to figure out who is in charge and why. Direct presidential elections Yeltsin organized, were a good method of achieving just that.

Needless to say, Yeltsin beat Ryzhkov by wide margin, despite Gorbachev endorsing the latter against Yeltsin.

Back in the days there was also an office of Vice President, Rudskoy was on the same ticket with Yeltsin. They will later fall of in 1993 and Rudskoy would try to have Yeltsin impeached and himself declared President.

How Collapse of USSR Really Happened - Part Four, Gorbachev Strikes Back.

By early 1991 Gorbachev and his crew finally found a solution to their problem: the referendum. Soviet constitution had a provision similar to Swiss one: results of public referendum would become legally binding upon official declaration of the results. If a majority of voters approve for a motion that USSR is a federation, that will make laws of the federal government of the USSR binding to the constituent republics. Thus, a successful referendum can override the declaration of sovereignties and assert Gorbachev power over the Yeltsin and other republican leaders. 

Armed with this knowledge Gorbachev immediately announced a referendum to settle the issue. 

However, Gorbachev was reasonably concerned if people would really approve such a motion, should it be put on referendum. Because of that he decided to sweeten the deal and add various promises that would make people more likely to vote yes. The final wording that Gorbachev put to a vote was as follows: "Do you support preservations of the USSR as renovated federation, where rights and freedoms of person of every nationality would be fully guaranteed?" The odd word 'renovated' is equally confusing in Russian version of the text, it could mean both 'rejuvenated' or 'reformed'. Because of that voters were reasonably puzzled if they voted for continuation of USSR or its reform.

Organization of the referendum immediately stumbled into problems. Baltic states, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia downright refused to organize the referendum on their territory, claiming that they opted for independence and will not vote on preservation of the USSR. 

All three Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) also announced that they will be holding their own republican referendums on their independence, before the federal one could be organized, with much less ambiguously worded question. Georgia and Armenia also did so, but only after the federal referendum. Gorbachev counteracted that referendum on preservation of USSR would still be organized for these republics in facilities controlled by federal government, such military bases and encouraged people to attend and vote there. Baltic republics parries by calling people to ignore the Gorbachev's referendum.

Even those republics who agreed to hold the referendum on preservation of USSR, sometimes added extra questions to the ballot. For example, Ukraine and Uzbekistan added the second question on whether their republics should only be part of the union on the basis of their declarations of sovereignties, that is with their republican laws still holding precedence over the federal ones.

Surprisingly enough Yeltsin and RSFSR did not add such a question to their referendum. Instead, Yeltsin added a question of creation of office of President of RSFSR and holding an election if such a motion is approved. That partly mirrored the Gorbachev's move to create office of President of the USSR, however unlike Gorbachev, who gave himself first 5-year term as president for free as part transitional arrangement, Yeltsin did not and instead decide to organize an election.

On referendum day people voted yes on all questions. That could have given a Constitutional Court a lot of a headache on how to interpret these clearly conflicting results, but future events made it irrelevant.

In Baltic states for example many voted in republican independence referendum in favor of independence. Some however visited military bases to vote in federal referendum instead. Independence referendums however attracted a clear majority of voters in these republics, so they could be considered valid. In contrast less that 1 percent of voters voted in federal referendum in Armenia, in places like Estonia and Latvia its attendance was around 20% but still clearly short of what independence referendum attracted.

Gorbachev still announced that all republics have voted to preserve the Union. Some USSR supporters still point to this referendum as ligitimate expression of people's will to stay in USSR.

Afterwards jubilant Gorbachev, confident in his victory, invited all republican leaders to a conference to sign a new union treaty and create the newly renovated and clearly federal Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics with himself as President.

However, the process did not went as planned and later became known as Novo-Ogoryovo process.

How Collapse of USSR Really Happened - Part Three, Parade of Sovereignties.

If Yeltsin winning his office of the speaker (President of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR) was a highly contested affair, then what he did next with his newly found power was surprisingly not.

Declaration of Sovereignty of the RSFSR was a very peculiar document. It did fell short of declaring the RSFSR independence from the USSR as such move would have divided RSFSR's parliament and would likely have been defeated. Instead, the declaration mostly talked about asserting their needs, status and importance of RSFSR inside the USSR. 

However, it had an interesting clause that declared laws of the RSFSR to take precedence over those of the federal government of USSR. This clause suddenly turned Gorbachev from leader of the nuclear superpower into someone whose powers are as insignificant as those of General-Secretary of the UN or British Queen.

Normally in federal government, federal laws have precedence over the state ones. So, if for example a federal government in Washington DC will make abortions legal throughout the US, that federal law would invalidate any individual state laws that prohibit abortions. What Yeltsin did was turning that the other way around and instead gave RSFSR parliament power to invalidate laws of the USSR on territory of the RSFSR if they so wished.  

In most federal states there would be a clause in constitution that would preclude states from doing something like that, however the USSR's constitution lacked such clause. The reason for such a gross oversight was the following: when last Soviet constitution was approved during late Brezhnev's time in 1978, USSR was still a stable one-party state. CPSU would carefully preselect candidates to all important positions based on their loyalty and obedience. Leadership could be sure none of them would try to vote on something the party would not approve. 

Because of that confidence, they could frame Soviet Union as a voluntary association of fully independent nations, who are united by their fully free will with no coercion from the central government. Because of that Soviet constitution had clauses that allowed consistent republics freedom to secede from the union at any time as well as did not specify whether it is federal or republican laws that take precedence, should they be in conflict. After all, if all laws for all levels of government are first drafted in Polit Bureau, then they will never be in conflict with each other. 

By the time Gorbachev became leader and decided on liberalization campaign, he and the rest of the party have long forgotten about these provisions that could have become loopholes for a cunning power grab.

While it is safe to assume that some of the RSFSR MPs did not have full understanding over the implications of the document they just voted in, that was not all there was. 

Sovereignty Declaration was seen as best of both worlds: having benefits of being part of big union, but also freedom to do what they want and do not answer to any higher authority. Such a formula can win many supporters but also placate critics and cautions types by implying they will not lose anything. The deal was seen as so win-win that out of more than thousand strong parliament only 10 people abstained, and no one voted against it.

This formula soon became popular among the rest of the Soviet Republics and very soon Belarus, Ukraine and others begun adopting their own declarations of sovereignties. The whole process was dubbed Parade of sovereignties.

It took Gorbachev a while before he even noticed that. His first reaction was to pass a federal law that asserts that USSR is a federation, and federal laws take precedence over the republican ones.

However, Yeltsin took Gorbachev's new law to Constitutional Court and argued that it should be invalidated on the grounds of contradicting RSFSR Declaration of Sovereignty. Constitutional Court took Yeltsin's side in this one.

If Gorbachev was an American, he would have said that you can't just abolish they would superpower on legal technicality. However Constitutional Court insisted that Gorbachev knows nothing of law and letter of law to be upheld.

The rest of the 1990 Gorbachev and his crew spent studying constitutional law in order to find out if there is some other clause there that would allow them to claw their power back. Spoiler alert, they found one.

How Collapse of USSR Really Happened - Part Two, Republican Level Elections.

As I mentioned before, USSR consisted of 15 Soviet Socialist Republics that like the 50 US States. Just like the US States, each Republic had their own parliament and other governmental structures. Back during the uncontested elections time, the party always preselected only loyal candidates to all positions and could be confident that whoever runs these institutions would just tow the party line without any deviations.

Now that opposition bill has passed federal parliament, a free election to these republics could produce all sorts of unexpected outcomes. Very anti-Soviet republics such as Lithuania or even Georgia might even get nationalist pro-independence majorities. In fact, Lithuania actually held their elections before the bill and achieved just such a majority. Nominally communists won a lot of seats, but the reality was that some officially communist candidates were actually pro-independence. 

In fact, some time before the elections Lithuania Communist Party (Lithuanian branch of CPSU), actually voted by majority of party members to separate from CPSU and adopt course for independence. Ironically enough it was those who disagreed with this decision and wanted to remain loyal to Moscow had to quit the official communist party and form their own separate party. Gorbachev criticized Brazauskas for breaking ties with Moscow but there was nothing he could do about it. Lithuania was the first to declare its independence from USSR, shortly before Gorbachev could assume powers of newly created office of President of USSR.

However, Lithuania, other Baltic Republics and Georgia were exceptions. Most of the remaining Republics were unlikely to produce such a clear pro-independence majority and follow Lithuanian footsteps. Thus, Gorbachev still retained possibility that it all will be nothing more than a minor incident in few small republics and no one of real importance would follow the suit.

However, there was one other loophole that he could not have foreseen, RSFSR. RSFSR (Russian Socialist Federative Socialist Republic) was the core of USSR, much like Prussia was in German Empire and later Weimar Republic. RSFSR held half of USSR total population and around 3/4 of the territory. RSFSR too had its own institutions, but unlike other 14 Republics, it shared capital with the USSR itself. The institutions of both structures were often couple of streets away from each other.

RSFSR too held its first free election in 1990. At first glance they did not produce anything extraordinary, however that solid communist majority was misleading. 

Over the long life of USSR Communist party slowly evolved from a grouping of people with similar ideologies into a gargantuan structure people were joining simply to make career and get somewhere in life. There were still some ideologically loyal communists, but majority were a divorce group of people that had anything from career builders to ambitious opportunists to even dedicated anti-communists.

While these diverse group was unwilling to simply declare their independence or cancel socialism, just like Lithuanians did, they still were open to consider various lucrative proposals. Yeltsin was part of this system and the party long enough to understand its inner workings and know what to say and do to they them support him. At the same time, due to his fall from power due to his falling out with Gorbachev, and then sudden return to it with the help of the opposition and later Interregional group, he had vested interests in defeating Gorbachev together with USSR and CPSU gone.

Unlike federal parliament, RSFSR one did not have Gorbachev's own person to oppose Yeltsin and Interregional opposition personally. Because traditionally RSFSR structures were left to play a second fiddle to USSR's ones, there were no any notable politicians in RSFSR structures. The opposition decided to take advantage of that, get themselves elected to RSFSR parliament and then rally the MPs behind themselves.

So, after winning a seat in parliament of RSFSR, Yeltsin decided to go to run for position of the parliamentary speaker, RSFSR equivalent of the Gorbachev's own office in USSR parliament. To be precise, the office Gorbachev held until in 1990 he created the office of President of USSR, transferred head of the state powers there and left Lukyanov to do purely speaker's job as President of Supreme Soviet.

In both USSR and RSFSR the position actually combined powers of the speaker with that of formal head of the state, kind of speaker and governor-general in one. The title was President of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (of RSFSR in Yeltsin's case). Thus, in a shifting political landscape this was considered a most senior leadership role in their respective bureaucracies.

RSFSR MPs had to choose between plain and boring Gorbi loyalist, Ryzhkov, who would not promise them anything and Yeltsin who had charisma and drive to get them all somewhere.

Vote was hard and contentious, first several attempts did not produce a victory to either candidate. Gorbachev even went on to address the RSFSR parliament to encourage them to vote for Ryzhkov, but to no avail. Eventually Yeltsin narrowly won. 

This was a major victory for Yeltsin; however, it would be his next move that would take USSR to the point of no return and trigger so called Parade of Sovereignties. Why it did so of course require another article to explain.

On Democratic Socialism

Some people who say that real communism have never been tried are delusional idiots, but others actually propose a kind of co-op system. 

Co-op is an organization where employees control the business and elect their own management. Logic is very clear: if in a democracy people elect president and parliament who govern the country, then people who work for the company should be entitled to elect their own managers. That way company will be democratic and fair. 

In contrast private businesses are like authoritarian dictatorships where boss can do whatever he wishes.

Joint stock (public) companies do answer to stakeholders who control businesses and vote on board of directors, just like citizens vote on parliament in a democracy. The difference with co-op however is that shareholders and employees are not the same people. Because of that joint stock company is an organization that exploits employees in the interest of the shareholders.

From a moral to fairness point of view co-op has a clear advantage. However, does a co-op led to best outcomes. 

Reasons for that is that co-op organization does have its flaws. Most notable is its typical resistance to change. Sure, some might argue that co-op can always vote in managers who will implement changes, but in reality, that is highly unlikely. 

Co-op does not guarantee fairness for all either, a dominant group may emerge in the organization who would consistently push for their self-interest at expense of everyone else. A typical example of such would be a group of old employees who would wish to distribute perks and privileges to people based on their experience (time in company or even actual age on birth certificate) rather than ability or any other consideration. Such self-serving criterion such as experience would make working conditions untenable for young people.

That same approach would make company fall behind in technological department as old employees who struggle to learn new technology would simply prevent organization from modernizing. The reason for that is that as people age, they become less and less able to adapt to change and overtime become staunch conservatives who would cling to the way things always were. Such problem did affect Yugoslavia and USSR for example.

Of course, such outcomes are not always the case, sometimes when the right people are in company it would work properly and benefit all employees equally.

In a pre-automation world, I would have advocated for the co-op organization for half of all businesses. However, in the world ripe for total automatization this is unnecessary. Because of automation we need joint stock companies more than ever.

The reason is simple. Robots are expensive so a company needs a lot of money in a bulk sum investment to full automate itself. Joint stock company is just the tool to raise such money for the company as people who want to become a shareholder and benefit from future profits have to give money to the company. The more they will give, they greater their return will be once it becomes profitable.

Once they are paid for, robots are much cheaper than people. People has to be paid salary and other entitlements, while robots work 24/7 and only cost electricity and some occasional maintenance. Thus, once robots are paid for, regular profits would be much higher if company automates everything they can. That fact would incentivize investors to give money to such company.

Once everything is automated there will no longer be any need for employment, and we will finally live a happy utopian life.

How Russian Army Works

As war in Ukraine progressed many begun to speculate on capacity and abilities of the Russian Army. Some videos of soldiers being issued rusty guns that do not work and other such reports. Prigozhin's Wagner Group rebellion managed to get far into Russian territory before he was stopped. Some even speculated that Russian soldiers are demotivated and will all surrender give a chance.

Yet sometimes Russian Military still makes some progress in Ukraine. Russia still holds significant parts of Ukraine and Ukraine cannot take any of it back.

So where is the truth in all that?

The truth is that Russia, just like any other country can only have so many proper soldiers who can and will fight for their country. However, Russia has territory that is too large for so many soldiers to even defend, much less attack into foreign land. 

So how Russia manages to boost its numbers and appear to be powerful and intimidating to its neighbors and global community? The answer is deception. Russia pads their numbers with raw numbers of forcefully drafted soldiers who are unmotivated to fight and will desert or surrender if they get a chance. However not all Russian soldiers are like that, some will fight for the country.

However, Russian command know this fact better than average observer does and so have their tactics and strategies work around this fact.  Russian command does group soldiers in regiments and divisions based on both their loyalty and ability. They themselves do know who-is-who in the confusing roster of their many divisions. Because of that they will never assign a defection prone regiment to hold the line and will have some way of plugging the gap should the sector held by defection prone troops are under attack.

Terminology they use is likely deliberately non-descriptive and misleading to confuse observers.

Here is how they do it:

Their best regiments are VDV, sometimes informally called desantura. Officially an Airborne paratrooper who are part of Airforce in reality they are used like a very mobile stop gap troops who can swiftly relocate to an endangered sector of the front and give a fight to an enemy.

As loyal as Doberman and half as smart, there soldiers are both capable or real firefight and utterly loyal to their country. It is them that Russia likes to showcase to various observers. During these expositions they break bricks with their foreheads and do many other extreme things. Showing all this to foreigners is a cunning way to mislead them into thinking that all Russian soldiers are like that. In reality only VDV is like that, and Russian own command knows it.

Because of all of the above, VDV is both well trained and well equipped. On parades they wear blue berets. They also wear their camouflage jackets partly unbuttoned, so that their distinctive white and blue striped telniashka is visible. 

The rest of the numerous Ground forces regiments have one small element in their names, that divides them into two groups. Some have gvardeiyskaya (guards) in their name and others do not. Normally guards refer to a few ceremonial units, tasked with protecting high government officials. Here however around half of all regiments have it. That raises the question why?

The reason is that loyal recruits are sent to guards' regiments. Recruiters would evaluate how willing a person to fight for the country. Those who do not have physical strength and abilities to be in VDV but have loyalty would be assigned to guards' regiments.

Because of that guards' regiments are both better trained and equipped than their non-guards' counterparts. Russian Generals can trust that they would at least hold the line until VDV can arrive to relieve them and more important sections of the front are given to these troops.

Finally plain non-guards' regiment is where your average unwilling recruits are assigned. People who tried to dodge draft but were drafter regardless and such. They do not want to fight and in most cases cannot even if they wanted. After all they were taken into military against their will and have no reason to fight for their oppressors.

Command regards them poorly and issues them rusted guns that do not fire and no ammunition. Their only purpose is to dig trenches and just be there to mislead the enemy of the numbers Russia can muster. After all soldiers are observed at a distance from a binocular over the ground shaking from shelling. Their opponent would not be able to tell if they have any ammo in their magazines or if they have any military training at all. So long as they hold something that resembles a gun and wear a uniform its good enough to prevent enemy from attempting to take trenches from the march. However, if enemy is well prepared for an assault against trenches, then small arms would not be able to stop them anyway. Either way training or ammunition makes no difference to the outcome. That saves money as well and allows to recruit more low-quality soldiers just like that.

Of course, if enemy by the off chance just attacks them unexpectedly, they will simply collapse as Kharkiv front in Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive in Russia-Ukrainian war. Because of that Russian command needs to make sure they are replaced with guards or VDV if enemy intends to attack in this direction. That is why espionage is essential for Russian military performance.

There are also some irregular regiments such as Kadyrovites or Wagner Group. Unlike other countries where paramilitaries would be the least capable, here they are batter then baseline infantry at least in some way. They too might exist to either mislead the enemy of popular support or to intimidate population.

That is how Russian army works. It's a half paper tiger but its handlers do know who to use its harder parts to stove off enemy. To fight it you need to be able to find and then attack the weak parts before the command would get a change to respond.

How Collapse of USSR Really Happened - Part One, The Accidental Beginning.

There are lots of videos and articles about how USSR collapsed, but all fall short of getting at how it really happened. The real reason lies in intricate system of governance and layers of bureaucracy as well as convention and practice of governance that together made the Soviet system. Eventually these ambiguities and loopholes led to a system crash. At certain point a small nearly unrelated event led to a chain reaction that led to a complete collapse at the only possible outcome. The outcome that sometimes puzzles even people within the system itself.

Social and economic measures of years 87-88 are unrelated to it so I will begin with the first free elections of 1989.

Contrary to popular believe first free election in USSR did not produce a pro-reform anti-communist majority. In contrast commies received 87% of the vote just as Gorbi and the government expected. They were calculative enough to not commit to it if there is a real risk they would lose power.

The elections did conform to their calculations and produced a strong pro-government majority. After holding these free elections Gorbi could get more loans from the US in exchange for his democratization exercise and keep the power too. It was a win-win for him. 

Sure, there is now opposition fraction in parliament, the Interregional Group, but they are minority, outnumbered 10 to 1, there is no way they can beat the majority, can they? Turned out they could.

How did that happen? Due to a difference between the character of the typical pro and anti-government MP. While many in Interregional Group were people with strong opinion and drive to achieve their agenda, the average pro-government MP was not like that at all. Most of pro-government MPs were total tools who hardly cared for policy or even understood what it was about. The most thing they cared for in their job was an opportunity to travel to Moscow and shop better goods there. They did not pay any attention to the process and just reflexively voted 'Yes' for every government proposal with consistency Pavlov's dogs.

The reasons for that were the fact that by convention it was political bureau that formed policy and debated it. Once Political Bureau and General Secretary would approve it, it would be forwarded to a relative government body to rubber stamp approval.

That gave an Interregional Group an idea to table couple of private bills and see if the government majority will vote them in just out of inertia and habit. Gorbi, who was at that time the Speaker of parliament, allowed.it. He saw it as an opportunity to both demonstrate adherence to democratic principles as well as humiliate the opposition by defeating their bills on the floor.

It was the Interregional Group who laughed last as both of their bills were voted in. Gorbachev even took his time to call MPs to vote against the bills, but in a huge building with more than 2250 MP that was a fool's errand.

Gorbachev later responded with creating the post of President of USSR and automatically electing himself to it for the first 5 years. He did it to safeguard himself from Interregional Group tabling the private bill of electing Sakharov to the Gorbi's post of Speaker.

The bills the Interregional Group managed to get through later came to play important role in many further events and eventual dissolution of the USSR as well.

The first one ended up as mostly a moral victory. It abolished CPSU monopoly on power (so called article 6 of Soviet constitution) and allowed formation of different political parties. However, few new parties were formed in the next 2 years, and they did not play major role in the events to come.

The second one called for free elections in the consisted republics of the USSR. USSR had a (con)federal structure and consisted of 15 republics just like USA consist of 50 states. Elections to these republics ended up shaping the future of the country as well as the world. I will cover them in a separate article.

Gorbi was frustrated that they passed but did not try to stop them afterwards. I am not sure if Soviet constitution would have allowed Gorbi or someone else to just blatantly refuse to implement duly voted bills, but he did not try it. Blocking the bills would have ruined his relationship with the US and jeopardized further loans. On the other hand, allowing them to go through did not pose significant threats to the system.

Better Borders for Central Asia and Afghanistan

Now finally we get to the place with the craziest border gore in all post-Soviet space, Central Asia. 

Some of these borders look like they were deliberately created by a malicious person who wished to make life in this area as insufferable as possible. Life in Central Asia indeed insufferable, however borders are not the only reason.

I originally intended to give a historical background section in this article, however the article ended up so large, so I decided to make it its own article and simply link it here.

Issues

Issues with current borders are many. The most obvious are multiple exclaves that pepper the areas. A small island of Tajikistan surrounded by Uzbekistan would always remain a contentious issue between two nations.

That is not all, capitals of many of these nations placed dangerously close to borders and away from most of their country, from Uzbek capital Tashkent or Kirgiz capital Bishkek its much closer to Kazakh border than to any other city in either of these two counties. Turkmen capital borders Iran instead.

Borders are sometimes a very convoluted mess, that is worse than Holy Roman Empire. Both Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have a tentacle that extends into fertile Ferghana valley. In case of Tajikistan its isolated from the rest of the country by a high mountain gorge and nearly inaccessible.

Ostensively borders were made to give each ethnicity its own state, but in reality, there are a lot of ethnic minorities in each country's borders. Before Russia took over Central Asia, a lot of their cities had mixed populations and they managed to co-exist somewhat, so borders for some near 50/50 cities were drawn arbitrarily. 

Solutions

There are two main ways to go about Central Asia: one is to unite them into one single nation, the other is to instead divide them into many more small ones. Each solution has their own pros and cons. A somewhat hybrid solution would be one (con)federal state with 20 or so federal subjects.

One State

That is rather unusual for me as I often propose dividing states into smaller ones. However here it could be justified to unite all 5 states into one.

Advantages

The reasons are that most Central Asian People are Turkic, their languages have some differences but still mostly mutually intelligible. Because of that some commonly acceptable variant can be created, or a couple of dialects chosen as co-official. Tajikistan is an exception here, but it can be either given linguistic autonomy or kept independent.

National identity is rather weak. Governments maybe have their disagreement and elites jealously guard their power and privileges but for an average Central Asian person these concerns are insignificant. Most of them think in pro or anti Russia terms. Despite significant number of ethnic minorities most internal conflicts are over ideology rather than ethnicity. In above mentioned Andijan conflict was not Tajiks who protested ethnic discrimination but Uzbek's own Islamists. 

A lot of local ethnic identities were near artificially constructed by USSR and people have not build strong attachment to them. USSR own policies of creating common "Soviet man" worked much better in Central Asia compared to other parts of the USSR precisely because local identities were not strong enough to begin with. Therefore, it would be easy for them to abandon these identities for a new common one.

Geographically Central Asia makes for a very cohesive geographical unit with common geology and resources. Aral Sea, two main rivers that flow into it as well as Ferghana valley are the core resources that can support life and civilization in these areas. One government can use these resources responsively while 5 different ones can just pull the blanket in their direction at expense of the neighbors. That already dried down Aral Sea and can cause even more damage in the long run.

Finally, a geopolitical reason. Pittet as Uzbekistan vs the remaining 4, Central Asia is weak and divided. This lets Russia and China to easily manipulate and control unviable individual states here like pawns, knowing full well that divided and unsustainable states cannot say no to their big neighbors.

Disadvantages

There are some disadvantages to this solution as well. Many Central Asian leaders are very parachordal and favor their relatives and allies over everyone else. Kurmanbek Bakiyev is a good example of this. One state might end up simply mean one big leader building his big palaces in his capital at expense of everyone else. Original Khans of Central Asia are good example of this behavior: a big prosperous city surrounded by misery and feral existence.

Russia and China might want to destabilize such state internally by playing nationalist card and deliberately fomenting insurgency.

Such state would be big and might have logistical issues to manage and control everything.

Many States Solution

If we will go with many states' solution, then we need to outline what these states will be and where the borders will lie.

Ferghana State

First and foremost is Ferghana valley. It deserves to be reunited as a single state. Uzbek lands east of Boboiob mountain, together with while north Tajikistan tentacle (Khujand Israfshan area) and Osh area of Kirgizstan south of Babash-Ata Mountain - Camp Snerif line (Jalal-Abad region should be part of this state.

Kokand can be capital again. There could be some arrangement to guarantee supply water or such to other parts of Central Asia, but regions should stop being used as donor to the rest of the area. Some provisions can be made to guarantee language rights to Tajiks and Kirgis in the area as Uzbeks likely will be the main ethnicity there.

River States

Both Syr Daria and Amu Daria have a lot of cities clumped to each. Each will make for a good nation. Northern River will unite Tashkent with a lot of cities in modern Kazakhstan. Tashkent can be capital of Syr Daria state and Khiva or Urgench for Amy Daria one. 

Middle line between rivers can be a border between these states. Excluding Samarkand and Bukhara states and their surroundings.

Syr Darya state should get significant part of Kazakhstan and Amu Daria state should get half of Turkmenistan as well as significant parts of Uzbekistan.

Bukhara and Samarkand

The two great cities used to be capitals in the past and can do so again. Samarkand can control east and south, while Bukhara west and north of modern Uzbekistan.

Samarkand can get some parts of Tajikistan as well, but Dushanbe centered Tajikistan should remain its own state and possibly enhanced with parts of Afghanistan instead.

Middle areas of Uzbekistan far from either river should be part of Bukhara state instead.

Kazakhstan

In modern Kazakhstan areas south of lake Balkhash as well as between Caspian and Aral Seas can be made into their own states. Bishkek can be added to Balkhash state, so are some areas immediately north of the lake.

North Kazakhstan can instead be reunited with Russia or local post-Russian successor state. There are a lot of ethnic Russians in the area. Also, Esil and Irtesh Rivers that flow through Russia start there.

South Turkmenistan

South Turkmenistan can be its own state. Currently there are two clusters of inhabitant areas in Turkmenistan, one in the north along the Amu Daria and the other one in the south close to Iranian border. It would make much more sense if border instead went through un-inhabitant areas in the desert, that across the areas of close people's settlements.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan is normally not considered to be part of Central Asia, but Tajiks live both in Tajikistan of Central Asia as well as in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan they have many issues with southern Pashtuns. No matter which ethnicity takes control of Kabul the other one is dissatisfied with their rule. None can govern fair for all Afghanistan and not just for their ethnicity. 

Because of that it would be wise to detach Tajik and other ethnic areas from Afghanistan and give Tajik Areas to Tajikistan and Turkmen ones to Turkmenistan. Faizabad area can join Tajikistan. Dawlat Abad can be Turkmenistan. Areas around Mazar-i-Sharif can join Samarkand state or form their own state.

Finally, Hazaras can become their own state as there are no other Hazara state.

That way Afghanistan can be a country of predominantly Pashtuns.

Such arrangement will make both Afghanistan and neighboring states much more stable and prosperous. 

Fusion

One other alternative is to make a federal Central Asian state, consisting of all the above consistent states. Theoretically it can lead to best of both worlds' outcome. 

However, there could be pitfalls. Creeping authoritarianism could end up taking all real power from the states to the federal center. Such scenario should be avoided. Balance of power between states and the center might have to be propped up artificially from the outside. 

A confederation or an EU style Union is another possibility.

However, all these unions can only work with much more balkanized Central Asia. Current 5 states would not be able to work together meaningfully.

Conclusion

Current Central Asia is ungovernable mess that is half remittance dependent misery and half delusional cult of personality dictators, flushed with fortune from oil exports. Of all creations of USSR this one if the worst overall.

It will take some great effort to change this place into something decent. Hopefully the world will be able to fix it one day.

History of Central Asia

Before Russia

Back before Russia too control of this area in 19th century there were three native states in this area: Khiva (Khorezm), Bukhara and Kokand. All three were ruled by Uzbeks and their former capitals are located in modern Uzbekistan.

The three states were divided in geographically meaningful units. Kokand ruled Ferghana valley. Bukhara an area between Syr Daria and Amu Daria and Khiva areas south of Aral Sea as well as west of the Amu Daria.

Together these three states controlled all the valuable and fertile lands. The Uzbeks pushed all other Central Asian ethnicities to the periphery: Kazakhs to the steppes, Tajiks into mountains and Turkmens into desert.

Around three Uzbek Khanates were 4 other Central Asian people.

Both Tajiks and Turkmens were likely the original Parsi speaking inhabitants of these areas. When Turkic Uzbeks took control of the Transoxiana and expelled original inhabitants from fertile areas into mountains on the east or desert in the west.

Tajiks are those who fled or were pushed into the mountains in the east. There in rather inhospitable mountains, Tajiks managed to retain some of their original culture as well as Parsi language.

 

Turkmens fled south-east  If Tajiks managed to retain their language and some culture, then Turkmens became Turkified. They adopted customs, traditions and way of life from the Turkic people. As Turkic people were originally steppe/desert nomads, many of their skills were useful in the Karakum Desert where, Uzbeks pushed future Turkmens. Turkmens switched to speaking Turkic language, that later partly diverged from the one spoken by Uzbeks.

If Tajiks and Turkmens are descendants of the original inhabitants, then Kazakh and Kirgiz are originally Turkic people who retained their original nomadic way of life. Kirgiz controlled somewhat better lands on the steppe south-east borders. Kazakhs were instead roaming the least prosperous empty steppe. 

Generally, term Kazakh means drifter or nomad. Thus, it's possible to assume that originally it was not an ethnicity but more of an occupation or a way of life. 

In contrast Uzbek means 'the lord' or 'of lord'. This raises the question if they simply named themselves leading or ruling people out of their own arrogance. Or alternatively this term was given to them by their lords. instead meant to be interpreted as if of lord in the meaning the people who serve a lord, servants of Khan.

Kirgiz means one of 40 and its a reference to a Manas epic, where one leader united 40 tribes and led them to some prosperity. Modern Kirgizstan is hardly prosperous, but possibly that land was prosperous once.

Russia and USSR

Situation changed when Russia took control of this area. Russia often had problems with Uzbek rulers of the three states. Russia fully annexed Kokand as well as significant parts of Bukhara into Russia proper.

Eventually USSR decided to redivide the area completely and redistribute the lands in a completely different fashion. For the most part these redistributions involved taking land from Uzbeks and giving it to its neighbors. That left Uzbeks dissatisfied, but make the remaining 4 Central Asians somewhat happy, even if USSR disproportionally favored Kazakhstan over the remaining 3.

To make matters worse, all Uzbek lands were amalgamated into one single Uzbekistan. That led to former elites of their own countries now competing for influence in a joint state. All of that made Uzbeks least pro-Russian state of central Asia. Many likely hold grunges against both Russia as well as their Central Asian neighbors.

Out of the remaining four Central Asians, USSR disproportionately favored Kazakhstan. In fact, USSR favored Kazakhs more that pretty much every other Soviet republic and diverted a lot of development from other parts of USSR into their land. Fertile lands of former Bukhara, Kokand and even Russia proper were transferred to Kazakhstan, giving them these current fat borders, that eclipse the rest of Central Asia. People were relocated to Kazakhstan; a lot of industry and infrastructure was built there. Even the most important space center of the USSR, Baikonur, was built there. 

All these Soviet efforts made Kazakhstan from law-less steppe where people lived much like in primitive tribal societies into a relatively modern, if undemocratic state. 

Because of that Kazakhstan the last Soviet republic to declare independence and the only one who was passionately opposed to dissolution of USSR. Kazakh leader had to be placated by all of the other post-soviet states ones, including Russia. Kazakhs feared that without USSR and their favoritism not only their prosperity, but also security will come to an end. However, Yeltsin likely promised to protect them from potential Uzbek invasion. 

Turkmenistan and Tajikistan did not receive from USSR nearly as much as Kazakhstan did, but still enough to make their life better than it was before. USSR build them their capitals but also gave Tajikistan Khujand and parts of fertile Ferghana valley from former Kokand Khanate. Turkmenistan also got access to parts of Amu Daria River from former Bukhara. That allowed them to somewhat develop.

Post-USSR

After USSR collapsed Uzbekistan tried to become friend with the US in order to take on their neighbors and subjugate them. However huge cultural differences and lack of common understanding prevented them from working together. Americans found it unacceptable to use military and lethal force to suppress the protests, while Uzbeks do not know how to govern without such measures. Details here. Putin did seize the opportunity to restore relationship with Uzbekistan by calling government measures "restoration of constitutional order", Uzbekistan briefly rejoin CSTO but then quit it again.

Uzbekistan is still poor due to lack of many natural recourses and high population. 1.5 as many people live in Uzbekistan compared to much larger Kazakhstan. However, Uzbekistan managed to figure out how to manufacture Korean Daewoo under license and export it into the rest of post-Soviet space.

Favorite son of the USSR, Kazakhstan, in contrast continues to cling to Russia in order to protect themselves from Uzbeks. Kazakhstan is member of CIS, CSTO and Eurasian Union. Kazakhstan has in their vast borders enough oil and gas to lead relatively prosperous life. They build variety of vanity projects and skyscrapers, including new capital city and many other things. The west does not criticize them as what they do is not as cringe as Turkmenistan, but Sacha Baron Kohen still mocked them in his Borat movie, that they banned.

Kirgizstan somehow managed to be most pro-American and very pro-Russian at the same time. It has an American Institute for Central Asia but also a member of Eurasian Union. It's also the only Central Asian country that had multiple revolutions and multiple attempts at democracy. When it comes to democracy Kirghizstan is the most developed Central Asian country. Multiple leaders have come and gone since dissolution of the USSR: Askar Akayev, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, Felix Kulov, Sadir Japarov. They tried both presidential and parliamentary system at different times.

Turkmenistan is flushed in oil and gas. That allows them to prosper and their leaders to indulge themselves in crazy vanity projects. Despite their prosperity the place is compared to North Korea due to abundance of many crazy rules as well as unrestrained cult of personality of its leader. Saparmurat Niyazov dubbed himself Turkmenbashi, build himself a golden statue that turns around to constantly face the sun, wrote a book called Ruhnama, claimed everyone who reads it 3 times will go to heaven and forced local Islamic clergy to endorse these claims, he also builds a giant monument to it also he renamed days and month after himself, his mother and his book.

Tajikistan is poorest of the Cental Asian countries. Most people travel to work in Russia and send remittances. After the collapse of USSR, it survived a civil war and an interference from neighboring Afghanistan. Russia has military bases there to keep Afghanis at bay. This is also the only Parsi speaking country in the area, however it does not border Iran, so they could not help Tajiks even if they wanted to.