Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire
- Thread starter Pellegrino
- Start date
Fascinating premise. Fantastic prelude. Subscribed.
I quite like Alexander Ivanovich Lebed. May he succeed against Zirinovsky's angry fans and western whininer and die peacefully.
By maintaining morale and crushing corruption, of course.
Speaking of Slobo, will he end up in The Hague like his pal or will his fate in this TL be different (I hope not)?
Nah, if the NATO's eastern expansions are inevitable, they should better be justified.
I quite like Alexander Ivanovich Lebed. May he succeed against Zirinovsky's angry fans and western whininer and die peacefully.
By maintaining morale and crushing corruption, of course.
Speaking of Slobo, will he end up in The Hague like his pal or will his fate in this TL be different (I hope not)?
Nah, if the NATO's eastern expansions are inevitable, they should better be justified.
Vey interesting, please continue.
I would expect Finland to join the NATO in this scenario or at least to deepen cooperation with other Nordic countries, if it is possible. Zhirinovsky has actually a nickname a "Finland eater" here. He may have even caused that Finns voted "Yes" in the 1995 EU referendum. (You can blame tabloids that he was taken much more seriously than he should have been.) OTOH if Zhirinovsky has very interventionist foreign policy but otherwise lets Finns to live in peace, Finland can be a surprisingly good neighbor. We are used to follow realpolitik in our relationship with our big neighbor.
I would expect Finland to join the NATO in this scenario or at least to deepen cooperation with other Nordic countries, if it is possible. Zhirinovsky has actually a nickname a "Finland eater" here.
He may have even caused that Finns voted "Yes" in the 1995 EU referendum. (You can blame tabloids that he was taken much more seriously than he should have been.) OTOH if Zhirinovsky has very interventionist foreign policy but otherwise lets Finns to live in peace, Finland can be a surprisingly good neighbor. We are used to follow realpolitik in our relationship with our big neighbor.Belarus was a country that I think could very have easily stayed in the Union. IIRC The pro independence party only won 10% of the vote in the election prior ot the coup, although they did declare sovereignty later in 1990. Now right now in TTL, many of the republics are in a wait and see mode. They want to see what Zhirinovsky is going to do with Lithuania and the Baltics before any major decisions. And also keep in mind, the central government here is a bit stronger than in OTL.
Although Lukashenko is not yet president of Belarus, the prime minister is head of the republic, I do think that even in TTL he will play an important role. The question is will he be willing to deal with Zhirinovsky or will he push for an independent Belarus...
I am interested in that as well, along with the situation in the Baltic, Ukraine and Central Asia. Would the Union stay together or will it eventually split?
Well, in the prelude we hear about anti-Zhirinovsky protest in Odessa, and we know that Georgia is still in the Union, although it doesn't seem that they are happy about it. So without giving away to much, the UIS will include at least some of the former Soviet republics. But we also know that Tajikistan is independent, so some are not. In the next week or two we will see how Zhirinovsky deals with these restive republics all over the Union, and how he manages to keep some in the Union...
Vey interesting, please continue.
I would expect Finland to join the NATO in this scenario or at least to deepen cooperation with other Nordic countries, if it is possible. Zhirinovsky has actually a nickname a "Finland eater" here.
Thanks! As for Finland, well Cylon is correct, Zhirinovsky won't go so overboard as to try and invade Finland or take Alaska by force or anything like that. What we are seeing here is that although he is emerging as dictator, there are "checks and balances" on his authority, like General Lebed and General Ivanenko. He will also have his hands full with the former Soviet republics and his intervention in Yugoslavia. But that doesn't mean he won't be saying things and making threats that give the rest of the world pause. It wouldn't be Zhirinovsky if he didn't...
In 2003. The status of Ukraine as a member state of the UIS after Zhirinovsky's fall is not quite clear.
It is? The most recent part seemed to indicate that Shevardnadze would lead Georgia into independence.
I thought that the military intervention mentioned in the prelude was just another conflict between independent former Soviet republics and was expecting and kinda hoping that the UIS is a Slavs-only club.
Bit of a spoiler alert here, but the Ukraine will remain in the UIS into the Lebed presidency. As for Georgia, well, in the next two post we will see that the Caucasus and the three republcis there will play a very, very important role in the shaping of the new country.
PART TEN: THE END OF AN ERA
PART TEN: THE END OF AN ERA
Some new names come into play in this chapter...
In OTL Yuri Luzhkov becomes mayor of Russia and a billionare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Luzhkov
Gorbachev aid Vladimir Ivashko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Ivashko
And the new President of the UDR is...
Latvian Viktor Alksnis!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Alksnis
PART TEN: THE END OF AN ERA
__________________________________
THE END OF THE USSR! GORBACHEV QUITS; UNION SCRAPPED!
Newsweek
Published: August 26, 1991
(MOSCOW) In a scene reminiscent of the resignation of former US President Richard Nixon, Soviet Premiere Mikhail Gorbachev appeared on national television and quit his post moments after the Soviet Parliament voted to hold an impeachment hearing on the Communist Party leader. Mr. Gorbachev found himself in a government that was now dominated by non-communists for the first time in over seventy years, and his impeachment looked to be unavoidable after he refused to renounce the Communist Party and join the surging ranks of the Liberal Democratic Party this weekend. Almost immediately after his resignation, the federal government moved to radically restructure the government, and fill the numerous vacancies in leadership. After voting almost unanimously to whittle down the power of the President, the Soviet parliament named Viktor Alksnis, an ethic Latvian, as new President of the Soviet Union. The move was seen as an attempt to appease both the breakaway Baltic republics and some of the hardliners who are still concerned about the promises made by LPD leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky to privatize the Communist Party holdings that are now firmly in control of the opposition. In an attempt to balance the leadership of the federal government, reformist Yuri Luzhkov was named Prime Minister, replacing Valentin Pavlov, a hardliner who was arrested for his role in last weeks failed coup. Mr. Gorbachev’s former aid, and one time close friend, Anatoly Lukyanov, retained his position as Chairman of the Soviet Parliament. In a unique form of power sharing, all three now possess nearly equal authority in the federal government. Named to replace former Vice President Gennady Yanayev, who also was arrested for his role in the coup, was another Gorbachev ally who has subsequently joined the LDP; Vladimir Ivashko. Lithuanian Sergey Pirozhkov was named new Soviet of Nationalities chairman, replacing Rafiq Nishonov, while reformist Arkadi Volsky was named Supreme Soviet Chairman, replacing Ivan Laptev who was arrested yesterday.
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev resigns on National Television upon learning that is about to be impeached by the Soviet Parliament.
CNN interview with Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the USSR
August 18, 2000
CNN: Initially it appeared that the makeup of the new Soviet and Russian government was extremely balanced and provided a check on the powers of Vladimir Zhirinovsky. How did he so effectively circumvent that?
Matlock: In two ways. In an attempt to placate both the “reformed” communists and the pro-democratic liberals he created a federal government in which no faction had total control. By placing the extremely conservative Latvian Viktor Alksnis as new President of the Union to replace Gorbachev, it appeared that he was siding with the hardliners. But the powers of the president were seriously limited in the new federal structure, and balanced out with those of the Prime Minister. There he replaced the hardliner Valentin Pavlov with the extremely pro-reformist Yuri Luzhkov. Conservative Lithuanian Sergey Pirozhkov was named Chairman of the Soviet of Nationalities, whose power was countered by moderate Yeltsin supporter Arkadi Volsky as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Union. He then placed two former Gorbachev supporters to balance out the fragile coalition, placing Vladimir Ivashko from the Ukraine as Vice President and keeping Anatoly Lukyanov as Chairman of the Soviet Parliament. Everything was perfectly balanced, and the curious thing was with so many non-Russians in the government now, the foreign press mistakenly saw that as a token of goodwill to the other republics.
CNN: So why didn’t it work?
Matlock: Because nobody wanted to work with each other, which made the Soviet federal government hopelessly deadlocked. Zhirinovsky then emerged as the only man who could get the federal government to do anything by using the one weapon at his disposal. And as for the other republics, well, Alksnis may have been an ethnic Latvian, but he was certainly no friend to the Latvian Republic.
CNN: What was the weapon?
Matlock: The Liberal Democratic Party was now in control of almost all of the property of the former Communist Party. And Zhirinovsky was in complete control of the LDP. He could threaten the communist-leaning politicians with privatization, or threaten a Yeltsinite with the opposite. It might not have appeared that he controlled the federal government, but make no mistake, he was in control.
THE END OF THE USSR; NEW SOVIET PARLIAMENT RENAMES COUNTRY UNION OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS; SICKLE AND HAMMER REPLACED
August 26, 1991
By Bill England
Moscow Bureau of The Denver Post
MOSCOW – In one of the first acts of the first post-communist Soviet government in over seventy years, the parliament voted nearly unanimously to rename the country. Abandoning the ‘Soviet’ title and replacing ‘socialist’ with ‘democratic’, the newly named Union of Democratic Republics recognized its greatest challenge now is to somehow to keep the fractured Union together. In the Baltic republics, supporters of the Liberal Democratic Party and local authorities clashed over who retained control of former Communist Party property. Pro-independence protesters seized the Communist Party headquarters in Tallinn, Estonia today, driving out the small contingent of LDP loyalist who had initially taken control of the facility. After naming a new government that is headed by three Russians and three non-Russians, newly appointed UDR president Viktor Alksnis called on the breakaway republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to “come to the table” and discuss a workable union treaty that all can live with. However, many of the protesters are adamant that they want no part of what they see as a “Greater Russia in the making”.
In Moscow and across the Russian republic, the sickle and hammer was taken down for the last time and replaced with the new flag of the UDR, a yellow, black and white tri-color flag that many protesters in the breakaway republics see as a symbol of Russian expansion. The Russian Parliament, which also radically restructured its government structure, also replaced the Soviet Russian Republic flag with the historic white, blue and red tri-color of the pre-communist Russian Republic.
The Flag of the Union of Democratic Republics, Courtesy of Wikipedia.com
Zhirinovsky named president of Russian Democratic Republic
Newsweek
Published: August 26, 1991
(MOSCOW) Vladimir Zhirinovsky was sworn in today as President of Russia after the Russian parliament voted unanimously not to swear in Vice President Alexander Rutskoy and to have him impeached. Rutskoy, who failed to establish himself as a viable alternative to the untested Zhirinovsky, struggled to win over hard-line former communists and pro-Yeltsin reformists. Both groups shunned his overtures and voted overwhelmingly to replace him. Prime Minister Ivan Silayev, an independent, retained his position despite his refusal to join the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. However, many of his fellow reformists such as Secretary of State Gennady Burbulis have joined the now dominant LDP. Businessman Andrei Zavidiya, who was Zhirinovsky’s running mate in the presidential elections earlier this year, was named Vice President.
OPPOSITION LEADER MIKHAIL ARUTYUNOV CONDEMNS NEW SOVIET GOVERNMENT, FORMS OPPOSITION PARTY
USA TODAY
Published: August 26, 1991
Popular lawmaker Mikhail Arutyunov, who electrified protesters during the failed hard line coup last week, condemned the new Soviet and Russian governments and announced that he would form an opposition party to challenge the now dominant Liberal Democratic Party of the Union of Democratic Republics. Arutyunov’s new party, the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia, has succeeded in wooing several dozen former Yeltsin aids, and is seen as particularly strong with many of the younger Russians who opposed the coup.
“Anyone who heard the garbage that came out of Zhirinovsky’s mouth when he ran for president knows he’s not a democrat,” Arutyunov said, “and selecting Alksnis as president of the Soviet Union shows that he is not committed to reform.”
Arutyunov pointed to Alksnis’ membership in the ultra-conservative Soyuz block, a group of deputies under the old regime committed to opposing any sort of reform, as proof that he was ill-qualified to run the country.
“Soyuz opposed glasnost as being too radical,” Arutyunov said, “now we are to believe they will implement true reforms? It is clear that Mr. Zhirinovsky is not interested in changing anything.”
However, the Russian president shot back with a harsh reply.
“If he means I want to see a united country that is not torn apart, then yes, I am a hardliner,” Zhirinovsky said when told of Arutyunov’s statement.
Russian Prime Minister Ivan Silayev has yet to announce which, if any party he plans on supporting.
The Flag of the Russia Republic (1991-present)
Courtesy of Wikipedia.com
“My Russia- An Autobiography by former Russian Prime Minister Gennady Burbulis”
Published by Interbook, © 1998
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
My decision to join the Liberal Democratic Party was a difficult one as I was still emotional. I was so frustrated with Mikhail Arutyunov that I knew I couldn’t support his Party. And as much as I wanted to entertain another moderate alternative to both Arutyunov’s party and the LDP, I also recognized that there needed to be reformers in the new LDP. Zhirinovsky’s olive branch created a flood; communist, liberals, everyone. All were rushing to join the Party once they realized it would be in charge. If I didn’t join, if I helped create a third alternative, then I feared all I would be doing is weakening my cause. I feared it would lead to the LDP being controlled by the communists. So I called Zhirinovsky and he gladly accepted me. He even asked if I was interested in remaining Secretary of State of Russia or if I wanted more. I told him I wasn’t joining him for political gain, I was doing it for my country, and that all I wanted was for him to be willing to listen to the reformers. He assured me he would, and that he had an exciting plan for privatization that he had been considering for some time. I didn’t ask him details at the time, if I had, if I knew about his Palestine Plan I would have run. I would have swallowed my pride and called Arutyunov immediately. But I was just glad to hear that he was planning to implement many of the reforms that Yeltsin and Prime Minister Ivan Silayev had been considering. When he asked that I remain Secretary of State I felt relieved. Not because I wanted power, but I realized that he didn’t want to shun us out of the new government. It was the end of an era in Russia, and the birth of a new country. I wanted to be part of it.
….
When he introduced me to Andrei Zavidiya, many of my fears began to ease. Zavidiya was considerably less boisterous than Zhirinovsky, and he seemed to carry a great deal of sway with him. I got the sense that this would be a President who listened to those people around him. How wrong I would end up being.
….
After President Zhirinovsky was sworn in, we held a joint Russian and Federal cabinet meeting. Almost immediately I saw how broken the new federal structure was. Nothing was getting accomplished; Alksnis and Luzhkov were bickering like old women! And Lukyanov looked like a puppy that had just been rescued from the street. He just kept looking at Zhirinovsky, thankful that he gave him this second chance and afraid to displease his new master. I immediately interjected to discuss the economic reforms that I, and the other liberals, felt were most pressing. Zhirinovsky just sat there, listening to all of us. Finally Russian Prime Minister Ivan Silayev asked Zhirinovsky what he thought. That was what he was waiting for! He knew that as long as he didn’t interject he could create an image that he was the final authority! By waiting for all of us to become exhausted he created the image that he was the final authority on all decisions.
“I agree with you Mr. Silayev, we do need reforms,” Mr. Zhirinovsky said as he stood up, “but we have a more pressing matter that needs our attention right now. A snake is choking this new Russian nation, and we must act now to stop it before it is too late.”
“What sort of snake?” I asked.
“A snake called Greater Turkestan.”
Some new names come into play in this chapter...
In OTL Yuri Luzhkov becomes mayor of Russia and a billionare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Luzhkov
Gorbachev aid Vladimir Ivashko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Ivashko
And the new President of the UDR is...
Latvian Viktor Alksnis!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Alksnis
PART TEN: THE END OF AN ERA
__________________________________
THE END OF THE USSR! GORBACHEV QUITS; UNION SCRAPPED!
Newsweek
Published: August 26, 1991
(MOSCOW) In a scene reminiscent of the resignation of former US President Richard Nixon, Soviet Premiere Mikhail Gorbachev appeared on national television and quit his post moments after the Soviet Parliament voted to hold an impeachment hearing on the Communist Party leader. Mr. Gorbachev found himself in a government that was now dominated by non-communists for the first time in over seventy years, and his impeachment looked to be unavoidable after he refused to renounce the Communist Party and join the surging ranks of the Liberal Democratic Party this weekend. Almost immediately after his resignation, the federal government moved to radically restructure the government, and fill the numerous vacancies in leadership. After voting almost unanimously to whittle down the power of the President, the Soviet parliament named Viktor Alksnis, an ethic Latvian, as new President of the Soviet Union. The move was seen as an attempt to appease both the breakaway Baltic republics and some of the hardliners who are still concerned about the promises made by LPD leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky to privatize the Communist Party holdings that are now firmly in control of the opposition. In an attempt to balance the leadership of the federal government, reformist Yuri Luzhkov was named Prime Minister, replacing Valentin Pavlov, a hardliner who was arrested for his role in last weeks failed coup. Mr. Gorbachev’s former aid, and one time close friend, Anatoly Lukyanov, retained his position as Chairman of the Soviet Parliament. In a unique form of power sharing, all three now possess nearly equal authority in the federal government. Named to replace former Vice President Gennady Yanayev, who also was arrested for his role in the coup, was another Gorbachev ally who has subsequently joined the LDP; Vladimir Ivashko. Lithuanian Sergey Pirozhkov was named new Soviet of Nationalities chairman, replacing Rafiq Nishonov, while reformist Arkadi Volsky was named Supreme Soviet Chairman, replacing Ivan Laptev who was arrested yesterday.
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev resigns on National Television upon learning that is about to be impeached by the Soviet Parliament.
CNN interview with Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the USSR
August 18, 2000
CNN: Initially it appeared that the makeup of the new Soviet and Russian government was extremely balanced and provided a check on the powers of Vladimir Zhirinovsky. How did he so effectively circumvent that?
Matlock: In two ways. In an attempt to placate both the “reformed” communists and the pro-democratic liberals he created a federal government in which no faction had total control. By placing the extremely conservative Latvian Viktor Alksnis as new President of the Union to replace Gorbachev, it appeared that he was siding with the hardliners. But the powers of the president were seriously limited in the new federal structure, and balanced out with those of the Prime Minister. There he replaced the hardliner Valentin Pavlov with the extremely pro-reformist Yuri Luzhkov. Conservative Lithuanian Sergey Pirozhkov was named Chairman of the Soviet of Nationalities, whose power was countered by moderate Yeltsin supporter Arkadi Volsky as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Union. He then placed two former Gorbachev supporters to balance out the fragile coalition, placing Vladimir Ivashko from the Ukraine as Vice President and keeping Anatoly Lukyanov as Chairman of the Soviet Parliament. Everything was perfectly balanced, and the curious thing was with so many non-Russians in the government now, the foreign press mistakenly saw that as a token of goodwill to the other republics.
CNN: So why didn’t it work?
Matlock: Because nobody wanted to work with each other, which made the Soviet federal government hopelessly deadlocked. Zhirinovsky then emerged as the only man who could get the federal government to do anything by using the one weapon at his disposal. And as for the other republics, well, Alksnis may have been an ethnic Latvian, but he was certainly no friend to the Latvian Republic.
CNN: What was the weapon?
Matlock: The Liberal Democratic Party was now in control of almost all of the property of the former Communist Party. And Zhirinovsky was in complete control of the LDP. He could threaten the communist-leaning politicians with privatization, or threaten a Yeltsinite with the opposite. It might not have appeared that he controlled the federal government, but make no mistake, he was in control.
THE END OF THE USSR; NEW SOVIET PARLIAMENT RENAMES COUNTRY UNION OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS; SICKLE AND HAMMER REPLACED
August 26, 1991
By Bill England
Moscow Bureau of The Denver Post
MOSCOW – In one of the first acts of the first post-communist Soviet government in over seventy years, the parliament voted nearly unanimously to rename the country. Abandoning the ‘Soviet’ title and replacing ‘socialist’ with ‘democratic’, the newly named Union of Democratic Republics recognized its greatest challenge now is to somehow to keep the fractured Union together. In the Baltic republics, supporters of the Liberal Democratic Party and local authorities clashed over who retained control of former Communist Party property. Pro-independence protesters seized the Communist Party headquarters in Tallinn, Estonia today, driving out the small contingent of LDP loyalist who had initially taken control of the facility. After naming a new government that is headed by three Russians and three non-Russians, newly appointed UDR president Viktor Alksnis called on the breakaway republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to “come to the table” and discuss a workable union treaty that all can live with. However, many of the protesters are adamant that they want no part of what they see as a “Greater Russia in the making”.
In Moscow and across the Russian republic, the sickle and hammer was taken down for the last time and replaced with the new flag of the UDR, a yellow, black and white tri-color flag that many protesters in the breakaway republics see as a symbol of Russian expansion. The Russian Parliament, which also radically restructured its government structure, also replaced the Soviet Russian Republic flag with the historic white, blue and red tri-color of the pre-communist Russian Republic.
The Flag of the Union of Democratic Republics, Courtesy of Wikipedia.com
Zhirinovsky named president of Russian Democratic Republic
Newsweek
Published: August 26, 1991
(MOSCOW) Vladimir Zhirinovsky was sworn in today as President of Russia after the Russian parliament voted unanimously not to swear in Vice President Alexander Rutskoy and to have him impeached. Rutskoy, who failed to establish himself as a viable alternative to the untested Zhirinovsky, struggled to win over hard-line former communists and pro-Yeltsin reformists. Both groups shunned his overtures and voted overwhelmingly to replace him. Prime Minister Ivan Silayev, an independent, retained his position despite his refusal to join the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. However, many of his fellow reformists such as Secretary of State Gennady Burbulis have joined the now dominant LDP. Businessman Andrei Zavidiya, who was Zhirinovsky’s running mate in the presidential elections earlier this year, was named Vice President.
OPPOSITION LEADER MIKHAIL ARUTYUNOV CONDEMNS NEW SOVIET GOVERNMENT, FORMS OPPOSITION PARTY
USA TODAY
Published: August 26, 1991
Popular lawmaker Mikhail Arutyunov, who electrified protesters during the failed hard line coup last week, condemned the new Soviet and Russian governments and announced that he would form an opposition party to challenge the now dominant Liberal Democratic Party of the Union of Democratic Republics. Arutyunov’s new party, the Party for a Free and Democratic Russia, has succeeded in wooing several dozen former Yeltsin aids, and is seen as particularly strong with many of the younger Russians who opposed the coup.
“Anyone who heard the garbage that came out of Zhirinovsky’s mouth when he ran for president knows he’s not a democrat,” Arutyunov said, “and selecting Alksnis as president of the Soviet Union shows that he is not committed to reform.”
Arutyunov pointed to Alksnis’ membership in the ultra-conservative Soyuz block, a group of deputies under the old regime committed to opposing any sort of reform, as proof that he was ill-qualified to run the country.
“Soyuz opposed glasnost as being too radical,” Arutyunov said, “now we are to believe they will implement true reforms? It is clear that Mr. Zhirinovsky is not interested in changing anything.”
However, the Russian president shot back with a harsh reply.
“If he means I want to see a united country that is not torn apart, then yes, I am a hardliner,” Zhirinovsky said when told of Arutyunov’s statement.
Russian Prime Minister Ivan Silayev has yet to announce which, if any party he plans on supporting.
The Flag of the Russia Republic (1991-present)
Courtesy of Wikipedia.com
“My Russia- An Autobiography by former Russian Prime Minister Gennady Burbulis”
Published by Interbook, © 1998
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
My decision to join the Liberal Democratic Party was a difficult one as I was still emotional. I was so frustrated with Mikhail Arutyunov that I knew I couldn’t support his Party. And as much as I wanted to entertain another moderate alternative to both Arutyunov’s party and the LDP, I also recognized that there needed to be reformers in the new LDP. Zhirinovsky’s olive branch created a flood; communist, liberals, everyone. All were rushing to join the Party once they realized it would be in charge. If I didn’t join, if I helped create a third alternative, then I feared all I would be doing is weakening my cause. I feared it would lead to the LDP being controlled by the communists. So I called Zhirinovsky and he gladly accepted me. He even asked if I was interested in remaining Secretary of State of Russia or if I wanted more. I told him I wasn’t joining him for political gain, I was doing it for my country, and that all I wanted was for him to be willing to listen to the reformers. He assured me he would, and that he had an exciting plan for privatization that he had been considering for some time. I didn’t ask him details at the time, if I had, if I knew about his Palestine Plan I would have run. I would have swallowed my pride and called Arutyunov immediately. But I was just glad to hear that he was planning to implement many of the reforms that Yeltsin and Prime Minister Ivan Silayev had been considering. When he asked that I remain Secretary of State I felt relieved. Not because I wanted power, but I realized that he didn’t want to shun us out of the new government. It was the end of an era in Russia, and the birth of a new country. I wanted to be part of it.
….
When he introduced me to Andrei Zavidiya, many of my fears began to ease. Zavidiya was considerably less boisterous than Zhirinovsky, and he seemed to carry a great deal of sway with him. I got the sense that this would be a President who listened to those people around him. How wrong I would end up being.
….
After President Zhirinovsky was sworn in, we held a joint Russian and Federal cabinet meeting. Almost immediately I saw how broken the new federal structure was. Nothing was getting accomplished; Alksnis and Luzhkov were bickering like old women! And Lukyanov looked like a puppy that had just been rescued from the street. He just kept looking at Zhirinovsky, thankful that he gave him this second chance and afraid to displease his new master. I immediately interjected to discuss the economic reforms that I, and the other liberals, felt were most pressing. Zhirinovsky just sat there, listening to all of us. Finally Russian Prime Minister Ivan Silayev asked Zhirinovsky what he thought. That was what he was waiting for! He knew that as long as he didn’t interject he could create an image that he was the final authority! By waiting for all of us to become exhausted he created the image that he was the final authority on all decisions.
“I agree with you Mr. Silayev, we do need reforms,” Mr. Zhirinovsky said as he stood up, “but we have a more pressing matter that needs our attention right now. A snake is choking this new Russian nation, and we must act now to stop it before it is too late.”
“What sort of snake?” I asked.
“A snake called Greater Turkestan.”
Last edited:
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Basically, Zhirinovsky's aiming to crush the Greater Turkestan movement. On the other hand, how is the UDS going to deal with a shattered economy, now that the LDPR is in charge?
Just curious, how will this affect the U.S. presidential elections in 1992?
Man, Zhirinovsky is not going to have a good reputation.
(Although he isn't the worst leader of the Soviet Union or Russia in a TL. That dubious honor would go to either Ogarkov in the Protest and Survive universe (if you've read those timelines set in that universe, you know why) or Andrei Chikatilo in For All Time (1).)
(1) I'm not making that up, Pellegrino Shots.
Man, Zhirinovsky is not going to have a good reputation.
(Although he isn't the worst leader of the Soviet Union or Russia in a TL. That dubious honor would go to either Ogarkov in the Protest and Survive universe (if you've read those timelines set in that universe, you know why) or Andrei Chikatilo in For All Time (1).)
(1) I'm not making that up, Pellegrino Shots.
Interestingly enough, some of the Western media will give him a pass for a few month, but for how long before he becomes seen as a threat and not a potential ally? And keep in mind, in the 1992 primary Bush was shown to first be a "beatable" candidate when Pat Buchanan won 38% of the republican vote in the NH primary. Bush never recovered from that "win". But a google search on Zhirinovsky and Pat Buchanan shows why Zhirinovsky can become a major issue in the 1992 race, and how it can change the makeup of the race.
BTW, thanks for pointing me to those other timelines, i will have to check them out!
PART ELEVEN: THE FINGER IN THE DAM
PART ELEVEN: THE FINGER IN THE DAM
Russian President becomes first to attend Sunday mass in over 70 years
USA TODAY
Published: September 1, 1991
In a stunning sign of the radical changes sweeping through the former Soviet Union, Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky became the first Russian leader since the 1917 Revolution to attend church services.
Sitting prominently in the front row at St. Basil’s Cathedral, Zhirinovsky’s presence electrified the nation.
Zhirinovsky described himself as a “practicing orthodox” after the service before adding that he “recognized the important and special relationship that the Russian people and the Orthodox Church shared.” He then called on Russians to reestablish ties to their “Christian roots.”
Partial transcript of comments from the
September 02, 1991 telecast of The 700 Club
JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has never abandoned the prayers of the Russian people and those brothers in Christ who, for nearly eighty years prayed for this day to come. Calling on the Lord to give them a brave, honest Russian leader, who was courageous enough to stand forward and proclaim his faith in Christ and to call on other Russians to do the same.
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the start of a new era of cooperation between America and the former Soviet Union-
JERRY FALWELL: The Democratic Union-
PAT ROBERTSON: Yes Jerry. For so long the Christian was in fear of persecution in Russia. But then to see that image of President Zhirinovsky kissing the cross and calling on his fellow Russian to embrace their “Christian roots” was a wonderful, wonderful moment.
JERRY FALWELL: I truly believe that this is one of the greatest days in my life; I am so blessed to have been alive to see this happen.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Vladimir Zhirinovsky becomes the first Russian President in nearly seventy-five years to attend Sunday mass (AP)
Russian Secretary of State downplays “disturbing” statements made by Russian president at St. Basil’s Cathedral
Haaretz Israeli News
Published: September 02, 1991
(HELSINKI) The Israeli embassy in Finland condemned what it referred to as “disturbing” comments made by president Vladimir Zhirinovsky at a church service at St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow yesterday.
“We are deeply troubled by the statements made by President Zhirinovsky,” the Israeli embassy said in a press release, “and call on the Russian government to condemn these disturbing statements made by the President. We also call on the Russian government to refrain from statements that can be interpreted as hateful or discriminatory by more radical elements of society.”
Russian Secretary of State Gennady Burbulis attempted to defuse the situation, downplaying the incident as the result of “an overenthusiastic President whose statements were misinterpreted and incorrectly translated by the foreign press.”
“President Zhirinovsky is a friend to the Israeli people,” Burbulis added, “and is eager to reestablish diplomatic relations with Israel.”
The Israeli embassy in Moscow has been closed since 1967, shortly after the 6-Day war between Israel and her Arab neighbors.
Zhirinovsky created a firestorm in one of his first speeches as president shortly after the Sunday mass when he called on Russians to reestablish ties to their “Christian roots”. He then added that “as Christians, our true enemy is not the Russian who is a communist, or the Russian who is a democrat. Our true enemy is the Zionist who seeks to destroy our nation and give it to his Turkish dog.”
“My Russia- An Autobiography by former Russian Prime Minister Gennady Burbulis”
Published by Interbook, © 1998
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Listening to Zhirinovsky give his bizarre “Greater Turkestan” speech I secretly thought that perhaps I should speak up. But I could see in the eyes of my comrades, both conservative and reformist, that they all were thinking the same thing. Can he be serious? This is madness! Just moments ago we were unable to agree on anything, but now we had something we could agree upon.
“I have received clear and convincing evidence that the Turks, along side NATO and their Zionist overlords, have plans to finally accomplish their long sought after dream of a “Greater Turkestan,” Zhirinovsky said as he displayed a map that featured a fictional account of what he perceived as the borders of this new Turkish empire, “if we do not act now, this Turkish empire will run from Istanbul, through Crimea, all the way to the Kamchatka peninsula.”
I sat speechless as Zhirinovsky spoke, looking over at Federal Union president Viktor Alksnis. I was somewhat comforted by the appalled look on his face. He couldn’t hide his disdain for the idiocy he was being presented with as he sat there incredulous with his mouth wide open.
“This seems highly suspect,” Alksnis said dismissively, “what evidence is there that Turkey is planning to invade the Soviet Union-
“The Democratic Union,” Zhirinovsky said curtly.
“-Of course. What sort of evidence do you have that Turkey would dare invade us.”
“I have received reports that there has been a great deal of NATO military activity on the Georgian border,” Zhirinovsky replied, “and I feel that if we do not act soon, NATO can and will expand into Azerbaijan and from there create a Turkish Union with the Central Asian Republics. If we don’t act now, we will end up fighting a world wide nuclear war with NATO to keep our country from being overrun by the barbarians.”
“This country nearly descended into civil war last week,” Vice President Vladimir Ivashko countered, “increased military action from NATO hardly seems unusual considering the circumstances.”
Zhirinovsky dismissively waved his hand at Ivashko while reminding everyone that he was somehow keenly aware of the unique threat faced by the Turks because he was born in the Kazakh Republic and he once studied in Turkey for a few months as a youth. I wanted to remind him that his negative experience by being unceremoniously thrown out of the country might be clouding his vision, but I bit my tongue.
“So how do you propose we stop them,” Yuri Luzhkov said sarcastically.
“There is one thing that stands in their way, one thing that prevents them from achieving their dream of Turkish domination. A finger in the dam, if you will. A finger that holds back this Turkish onslaught. It is all that protects us from the coming flood of Islamic domination.”
“And what might that be,” Luzhkov retorted.
“Armenia.”
"Greater Turkestan" - From Vladimir Zhirinovsky's website (circa 2002)
Exhibit 1,338 (Hague War Crimes Tribunal v. Vladimir Zhirinovsky)
Excerpts from the book: “Enemy of my Enemy: The unlikely alliance of Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Monte Melkonian” by Mary Kerr.
Published by University of California Press, © 2006.
Chapter II: “Operation Ring revisited”
What became abundantly clear during that first cabinet meeting was that President Zhirinovsky had a radically different approach to his predecessor in dealing with the growing lawlessness and violence in the Caucasus.
“Under President Gorbachev, the Soviet government was clearly siding with Azerbaijan in regards to its growing conflict with its neighbor Armenia and the breakaway province of Nagorno-Karabakh,” commented former Soviet Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov. “In fact, the Soviet government had just completed ‘Operation Ring’ in May of 1991.”
Operation Ring was the code name for a series of military operations conducted by Soviet Internal Security Forces and OMON units of the USSR. Taking place in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, the operation was an attempt to disarm the growing Armenian militias that were harassing both the Soviet and Azerbaijani government officials. The operation failed to curb the violence and by most accounts exasperated tensions between Armenians and the Soviet government.
“Most Soviet officials considered the Armenians to be troublesome,” commented Anatoly Lukyanov, a former Soviet Parliamentary chairman under Gorbachev, “they were the most irascible republic, always causing the central government headaches.”
Many other Soviet officials pointed to the declaration of sovereignty from Armenia in August of 1990 as one of the major reasons that the Soviet government was so determined to crush Armenian resistance in Nagorno-Karabakh. Citing concerns about security, the Soviet government did attempt to assist Azerbaijan in quelling the growing restlessness, often with tragic results. The incident which would become known as “Black January” in 1990, where Armenians in Baku were victimized by a pogrom at the hands of local Azerbaijanis (while Soviet troops looked on) became a constant sore spot between Armenia and the federal government. Even under Zhirinovsky, the memory of Black January proved problematic for both Republics. Also present was the fear that by allowing Armenia to break away, and allowing another “Oblast” to split off, it would so badly destroy the myth of Soviet hegemony (and perhaps inspire other regions such as Chechnya and Dagestan to follow suit) that it would prove to be a fatal blow to the nation.
With the ascension of Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russia, the initial reaction in Armenia was one of deep concern. Mr. Zhirinovsky was regarded as a man with deep racial prejudices by many Armenians, and in August of 1991 Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Armenia (and future President of Armenia) Levon Ter-Petrosyan, initially called Mr. Zhirinovsky “a dangerous enemy to all ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union.” However, Zhirinovsky would soon win over a small, but powerful faction within the Armenian nation: the Arsakhis.
Armenians continue to clash over the future of Zhirinovsky statue in Kapan
Toronto Globe and Mail
Published: January 13, 2012
(SYUNIK PROVINCE, ARMENIA) - For the fifth straight day protesters in the small city of Kapan clashed over the planned demolition of a statue of former Russian president Vladimir Zhirinovsky near Tumanyan Street in the southwest region of the city.
“Zhirinovsky is a monster and a genocidal maniac,” yelled one anti-Zhirinovsky protester, “and this statue is an insult to our nation!”
The Kapan city council voted nearly unanimously to remove the statue, citing Mr. Zhirinovsky’s role in what the UN has recognized as genocide in Chechnya, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Kazakhstan.
“The Armenian people have a special obligation, due to our history, not to turn a blind eye to genocide, or to excuse those who would perpetrate it” the city council said in a joint statement. “We cannot in good conscience continue to disregard not only the suffering of the Bosnian, Kazak, Afghan, and Chechen people but also the memory of our forefathers who suffered tremendously under the orders of men just like Vladimir Zhirinovsky.”
However, nearly three hundred protesters have come in from the eastern provinces of the Republic of Armenia y Artsakh to oppose the demolition of the statute.
“All across our country, from the Kura River in the east to Yerevan in the west, this is all that we have left to commemorate the man who helped unify our country,” yelled one protester from Bardha’a, “without him over half our country would still be occupied by the Azeris!”
Vladimir Zhirinovsky role in assisting the Armenian Sovereign Republic during the Nagorno-Karabakh War from 1988-1991 remains a subject of controversy in much of the country, with many Armenians embarrassed at the partnership that their government made with the noted war criminal. For many Armenians seeking to establish ties with the international community after unilaterally leaving the Union of Independent States in 2005, Zhirinovsky is seen as an obstacle to integration.
“We need to stop remaining silent,” commented a student in Yerevan, “we know what he did in Nagorno-Karabakh was evil. But we are all so afraid of offending the small number of fanatics in Artsakh that we won’t say what the international community already knows: that the man is a war criminal.”
In a recent poll, over 53% of Armenians feel that Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a war criminal and nearly 65% feel that the statue should be torn down. The poll also found that nearly 70% of Armenians felt that Zhirinovsky was “racist against Armenians”. Even in the Eastern Republic of Artsakh, in what use to be Nagorno-Karabakh and western Azerbaijan, support for the statue is under 50% and over 65% of those polled felt that Zhirinovsky was “racist against Armenians”.
“I don’t deny that he dislikes Armenians,” commented a protester at Kapan, “but what was important was that he hated Azeris.”
CNN interview with Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the USSR
August 18, 2000
CNN: What was Zhirinovsky’s actual role in the conflict between Armenian separatists in the self proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Azerbaijan?
Matlock: He was the single most important factor in that war ending the way it did. By completely doing a 180-degree with the federal government he changed the entire dynamic of the Caucasus overnight. Now you had a staunch, pro-Armenian federal government that was determined to crush what was up until that point a close ally inside the Union.
CNN: Why did he support the Armenians?
Matlock: It’s hard to say. Many observers felt that General Viktor Dubynin, who had just been appointed Chief of the General Staff of the UDR, was the one who recognized that the Operation Ring was a colossal failure and that the Armenians were strengthened by the failed operation in 1990. They felt that he saw an opportunity for the government to switch to a winning side without losing face. Also, it did tell a powerful message to the other republics: get with the program and you will be rewarded. Resist us and we will not only destroy your country, but we will redraw your borders in a way that even your worst enemy wouldn’t have dreamed of. When the Russian military and the Armenian militias launched joint operations on October 17, 1991, the day before Azerbaijan was set to adopt a declaration of independence; it clearly frightened the other republics into submission.
CNN: Did the war restore the prestige of the Russian military in a sense?
Matlock: It depends on what you mean by ‘prestige’. If you mean it created fear, then absolutely. To completely level Baku and crush Azeri resistance in thirteen days was clearly unexpected. But much of the success of the operation had to be given to the Armenians. They were surprisingly better armed and equipped than even their Russian allies expected. They received a lot of weapons and money from the Armenian diaspora community overseas, and actually had more experience than even their Russian counterparts. Also they were clearly motivated.
CNN: But the question remains, how did Zhirinovsky so successfully convince the Armenians to abandon independence and form what would become the foundation of the UIS?
Matlock: There were a lot of reasons, but the biggest one was the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, or what we now refer to as the Artsakh region of the Republic of Armenia. President Levon Ter-Petrosyan knew that independence in 1991 would mean entering the international community without Nagorno-Karabakh. And he knew once that happened, well the international community would never recognize a change in borders between two independent countries. The only way he could get Nagorno-Karabakh was to wait it out, and let the UDR redraw the border internally. Clearly it backfired on them in the sense that they are still looking to break free from Zhirinovsky and the UIS, but at the time it seemed perfectly reasonable.
CNN: So why did General Dubynin and President Zhirinovsky go overboard in regards to the new border? Why did they give them so much more than just Nagorno-Karabakh?
Matlock: I honestly believe Dubynin had nothing to do with that. Zhirinovsky did hold the insane idea that the Republic of Turkey was seeking to create a “Greater Turkistan”. He also saw the tiny, 16-mile wide Syunik province in southern Armenia as the “finger in the dam” as he once famously called it. He wanted to create as much distance between Turkey and Azerbaijan as possible because he honestly believed that otherwise the Turks would annex the Nakhchivan exclave and then invade Armenia and create this “Greater Turkestan.”
Russian President becomes first to attend Sunday mass in over 70 years
USA TODAY
Published: September 1, 1991
In a stunning sign of the radical changes sweeping through the former Soviet Union, Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky became the first Russian leader since the 1917 Revolution to attend church services.
Sitting prominently in the front row at St. Basil’s Cathedral, Zhirinovsky’s presence electrified the nation.
Zhirinovsky described himself as a “practicing orthodox” after the service before adding that he “recognized the important and special relationship that the Russian people and the Orthodox Church shared.” He then called on Russians to reestablish ties to their “Christian roots.”
Partial transcript of comments from the
September 02, 1991 telecast of The 700 Club
JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has never abandoned the prayers of the Russian people and those brothers in Christ who, for nearly eighty years prayed for this day to come. Calling on the Lord to give them a brave, honest Russian leader, who was courageous enough to stand forward and proclaim his faith in Christ and to call on other Russians to do the same.
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the start of a new era of cooperation between America and the former Soviet Union-
JERRY FALWELL: The Democratic Union-
PAT ROBERTSON: Yes Jerry. For so long the Christian was in fear of persecution in Russia. But then to see that image of President Zhirinovsky kissing the cross and calling on his fellow Russian to embrace their “Christian roots” was a wonderful, wonderful moment.
JERRY FALWELL: I truly believe that this is one of the greatest days in my life; I am so blessed to have been alive to see this happen.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Vladimir Zhirinovsky becomes the first Russian President in nearly seventy-five years to attend Sunday mass (AP)
Russian Secretary of State downplays “disturbing” statements made by Russian president at St. Basil’s Cathedral
Haaretz Israeli News
Published: September 02, 1991
(HELSINKI) The Israeli embassy in Finland condemned what it referred to as “disturbing” comments made by president Vladimir Zhirinovsky at a church service at St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow yesterday.
“We are deeply troubled by the statements made by President Zhirinovsky,” the Israeli embassy said in a press release, “and call on the Russian government to condemn these disturbing statements made by the President. We also call on the Russian government to refrain from statements that can be interpreted as hateful or discriminatory by more radical elements of society.”
Russian Secretary of State Gennady Burbulis attempted to defuse the situation, downplaying the incident as the result of “an overenthusiastic President whose statements were misinterpreted and incorrectly translated by the foreign press.”
“President Zhirinovsky is a friend to the Israeli people,” Burbulis added, “and is eager to reestablish diplomatic relations with Israel.”
The Israeli embassy in Moscow has been closed since 1967, shortly after the 6-Day war between Israel and her Arab neighbors.
Zhirinovsky created a firestorm in one of his first speeches as president shortly after the Sunday mass when he called on Russians to reestablish ties to their “Christian roots”. He then added that “as Christians, our true enemy is not the Russian who is a communist, or the Russian who is a democrat. Our true enemy is the Zionist who seeks to destroy our nation and give it to his Turkish dog.”
“My Russia- An Autobiography by former Russian Prime Minister Gennady Burbulis”
Published by Interbook, © 1998
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Listening to Zhirinovsky give his bizarre “Greater Turkestan” speech I secretly thought that perhaps I should speak up. But I could see in the eyes of my comrades, both conservative and reformist, that they all were thinking the same thing. Can he be serious? This is madness! Just moments ago we were unable to agree on anything, but now we had something we could agree upon.
“I have received clear and convincing evidence that the Turks, along side NATO and their Zionist overlords, have plans to finally accomplish their long sought after dream of a “Greater Turkestan,” Zhirinovsky said as he displayed a map that featured a fictional account of what he perceived as the borders of this new Turkish empire, “if we do not act now, this Turkish empire will run from Istanbul, through Crimea, all the way to the Kamchatka peninsula.”
I sat speechless as Zhirinovsky spoke, looking over at Federal Union president Viktor Alksnis. I was somewhat comforted by the appalled look on his face. He couldn’t hide his disdain for the idiocy he was being presented with as he sat there incredulous with his mouth wide open.
“This seems highly suspect,” Alksnis said dismissively, “what evidence is there that Turkey is planning to invade the Soviet Union-
“The Democratic Union,” Zhirinovsky said curtly.
“-Of course. What sort of evidence do you have that Turkey would dare invade us.”
“I have received reports that there has been a great deal of NATO military activity on the Georgian border,” Zhirinovsky replied, “and I feel that if we do not act soon, NATO can and will expand into Azerbaijan and from there create a Turkish Union with the Central Asian Republics. If we don’t act now, we will end up fighting a world wide nuclear war with NATO to keep our country from being overrun by the barbarians.”
“This country nearly descended into civil war last week,” Vice President Vladimir Ivashko countered, “increased military action from NATO hardly seems unusual considering the circumstances.”
Zhirinovsky dismissively waved his hand at Ivashko while reminding everyone that he was somehow keenly aware of the unique threat faced by the Turks because he was born in the Kazakh Republic and he once studied in Turkey for a few months as a youth. I wanted to remind him that his negative experience by being unceremoniously thrown out of the country might be clouding his vision, but I bit my tongue.
“So how do you propose we stop them,” Yuri Luzhkov said sarcastically.
“There is one thing that stands in their way, one thing that prevents them from achieving their dream of Turkish domination. A finger in the dam, if you will. A finger that holds back this Turkish onslaught. It is all that protects us from the coming flood of Islamic domination.”
“And what might that be,” Luzhkov retorted.
“Armenia.”
"Greater Turkestan" - From Vladimir Zhirinovsky's website (circa 2002)
Exhibit 1,338 (Hague War Crimes Tribunal v. Vladimir Zhirinovsky)
Excerpts from the book: “Enemy of my Enemy: The unlikely alliance of Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Monte Melkonian” by Mary Kerr.
Published by University of California Press, © 2006.
Chapter II: “Operation Ring revisited”
What became abundantly clear during that first cabinet meeting was that President Zhirinovsky had a radically different approach to his predecessor in dealing with the growing lawlessness and violence in the Caucasus.
“Under President Gorbachev, the Soviet government was clearly siding with Azerbaijan in regards to its growing conflict with its neighbor Armenia and the breakaway province of Nagorno-Karabakh,” commented former Soviet Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov. “In fact, the Soviet government had just completed ‘Operation Ring’ in May of 1991.”
Operation Ring was the code name for a series of military operations conducted by Soviet Internal Security Forces and OMON units of the USSR. Taking place in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, the operation was an attempt to disarm the growing Armenian militias that were harassing both the Soviet and Azerbaijani government officials. The operation failed to curb the violence and by most accounts exasperated tensions between Armenians and the Soviet government.
“Most Soviet officials considered the Armenians to be troublesome,” commented Anatoly Lukyanov, a former Soviet Parliamentary chairman under Gorbachev, “they were the most irascible republic, always causing the central government headaches.”
Many other Soviet officials pointed to the declaration of sovereignty from Armenia in August of 1990 as one of the major reasons that the Soviet government was so determined to crush Armenian resistance in Nagorno-Karabakh. Citing concerns about security, the Soviet government did attempt to assist Azerbaijan in quelling the growing restlessness, often with tragic results. The incident which would become known as “Black January” in 1990, where Armenians in Baku were victimized by a pogrom at the hands of local Azerbaijanis (while Soviet troops looked on) became a constant sore spot between Armenia and the federal government. Even under Zhirinovsky, the memory of Black January proved problematic for both Republics. Also present was the fear that by allowing Armenia to break away, and allowing another “Oblast” to split off, it would so badly destroy the myth of Soviet hegemony (and perhaps inspire other regions such as Chechnya and Dagestan to follow suit) that it would prove to be a fatal blow to the nation.
With the ascension of Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russia, the initial reaction in Armenia was one of deep concern. Mr. Zhirinovsky was regarded as a man with deep racial prejudices by many Armenians, and in August of 1991 Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Armenia (and future President of Armenia) Levon Ter-Petrosyan, initially called Mr. Zhirinovsky “a dangerous enemy to all ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union.” However, Zhirinovsky would soon win over a small, but powerful faction within the Armenian nation: the Arsakhis.
Armenians continue to clash over the future of Zhirinovsky statue in Kapan
Toronto Globe and Mail
Published: January 13, 2012
(SYUNIK PROVINCE, ARMENIA) - For the fifth straight day protesters in the small city of Kapan clashed over the planned demolition of a statue of former Russian president Vladimir Zhirinovsky near Tumanyan Street in the southwest region of the city.
“Zhirinovsky is a monster and a genocidal maniac,” yelled one anti-Zhirinovsky protester, “and this statue is an insult to our nation!”
The Kapan city council voted nearly unanimously to remove the statue, citing Mr. Zhirinovsky’s role in what the UN has recognized as genocide in Chechnya, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Kazakhstan.
“The Armenian people have a special obligation, due to our history, not to turn a blind eye to genocide, or to excuse those who would perpetrate it” the city council said in a joint statement. “We cannot in good conscience continue to disregard not only the suffering of the Bosnian, Kazak, Afghan, and Chechen people but also the memory of our forefathers who suffered tremendously under the orders of men just like Vladimir Zhirinovsky.”
However, nearly three hundred protesters have come in from the eastern provinces of the Republic of Armenia y Artsakh to oppose the demolition of the statute.
“All across our country, from the Kura River in the east to Yerevan in the west, this is all that we have left to commemorate the man who helped unify our country,” yelled one protester from Bardha’a, “without him over half our country would still be occupied by the Azeris!”
Vladimir Zhirinovsky role in assisting the Armenian Sovereign Republic during the Nagorno-Karabakh War from 1988-1991 remains a subject of controversy in much of the country, with many Armenians embarrassed at the partnership that their government made with the noted war criminal. For many Armenians seeking to establish ties with the international community after unilaterally leaving the Union of Independent States in 2005, Zhirinovsky is seen as an obstacle to integration.
“We need to stop remaining silent,” commented a student in Yerevan, “we know what he did in Nagorno-Karabakh was evil. But we are all so afraid of offending the small number of fanatics in Artsakh that we won’t say what the international community already knows: that the man is a war criminal.”
In a recent poll, over 53% of Armenians feel that Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a war criminal and nearly 65% feel that the statue should be torn down. The poll also found that nearly 70% of Armenians felt that Zhirinovsky was “racist against Armenians”. Even in the Eastern Republic of Artsakh, in what use to be Nagorno-Karabakh and western Azerbaijan, support for the statue is under 50% and over 65% of those polled felt that Zhirinovsky was “racist against Armenians”.
“I don’t deny that he dislikes Armenians,” commented a protester at Kapan, “but what was important was that he hated Azeris.”
CNN interview with Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the USSR
August 18, 2000
CNN: What was Zhirinovsky’s actual role in the conflict between Armenian separatists in the self proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Azerbaijan?
Matlock: He was the single most important factor in that war ending the way it did. By completely doing a 180-degree with the federal government he changed the entire dynamic of the Caucasus overnight. Now you had a staunch, pro-Armenian federal government that was determined to crush what was up until that point a close ally inside the Union.
CNN: Why did he support the Armenians?
Matlock: It’s hard to say. Many observers felt that General Viktor Dubynin, who had just been appointed Chief of the General Staff of the UDR, was the one who recognized that the Operation Ring was a colossal failure and that the Armenians were strengthened by the failed operation in 1990. They felt that he saw an opportunity for the government to switch to a winning side without losing face. Also, it did tell a powerful message to the other republics: get with the program and you will be rewarded. Resist us and we will not only destroy your country, but we will redraw your borders in a way that even your worst enemy wouldn’t have dreamed of. When the Russian military and the Armenian militias launched joint operations on October 17, 1991, the day before Azerbaijan was set to adopt a declaration of independence; it clearly frightened the other republics into submission.
CNN: Did the war restore the prestige of the Russian military in a sense?
Matlock: It depends on what you mean by ‘prestige’. If you mean it created fear, then absolutely. To completely level Baku and crush Azeri resistance in thirteen days was clearly unexpected. But much of the success of the operation had to be given to the Armenians. They were surprisingly better armed and equipped than even their Russian allies expected. They received a lot of weapons and money from the Armenian diaspora community overseas, and actually had more experience than even their Russian counterparts. Also they were clearly motivated.
CNN: But the question remains, how did Zhirinovsky so successfully convince the Armenians to abandon independence and form what would become the foundation of the UIS?
Matlock: There were a lot of reasons, but the biggest one was the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, or what we now refer to as the Artsakh region of the Republic of Armenia. President Levon Ter-Petrosyan knew that independence in 1991 would mean entering the international community without Nagorno-Karabakh. And he knew once that happened, well the international community would never recognize a change in borders between two independent countries. The only way he could get Nagorno-Karabakh was to wait it out, and let the UDR redraw the border internally. Clearly it backfired on them in the sense that they are still looking to break free from Zhirinovsky and the UIS, but at the time it seemed perfectly reasonable.
CNN: So why did General Dubynin and President Zhirinovsky go overboard in regards to the new border? Why did they give them so much more than just Nagorno-Karabakh?
Matlock: I honestly believe Dubynin had nothing to do with that. Zhirinovsky did hold the insane idea that the Republic of Turkey was seeking to create a “Greater Turkistan”. He also saw the tiny, 16-mile wide Syunik province in southern Armenia as the “finger in the dam” as he once famously called it. He wanted to create as much distance between Turkey and Azerbaijan as possible because he honestly believed that otherwise the Turks would annex the Nakhchivan exclave and then invade Armenia and create this “Greater Turkestan.”
Last edited:
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
With Zhirinovsky and his constant references to a Greater Turkestan, wouldn't it be more logical for him to side with say, the Persians, Afghans, and Tajiks since they're not Turkic? On the other hand, why would Manchuria be considered Turkic if they're Tungusic?
Zhirinovsky does ally with the Tajiks in later conflicts, but he holds a special grudge agaisnt the Afghans that we will see in later posts. As for the Persians, due to their close ties to the Azeris, who clearly are not fans of Zhirinovsky, relations will remain sour.
As for Manchuria, perhaps it is more political than relaistic. An attempt to convince China to support his actions in Central Asia and Georgia. Not only will Turkey steal Eastern Turkestan from you, but also Manchuria. Clearly it is not a realistic threat to China, or Tajikistan or Greece, or Finland, as the map seems to imply. But Zhirinovsky may truly believe that "Greater Turkestan" is a true threat, perhaps a Turkey-Azerbaijan-Turkmenistan union at the very least. but clearly nobody else takes the idea of Greater Turkestan seriously, even in his own cabinet. The question one must ask is, does Lebed use this idea of Zhirinovsky's Greater Turkestan to create the war with Azerbaijan? I do believe that Lebed, love him or hate him, was a tremendous general who could clearly assess how to conduct a military operation with maximum efficiency. He might have seen that Armenia was going to win, and by making Azerbaijan the whipping boy of the Russian military it would create a aura of fear again in the other republics. Although the Russian military was weaker at this point, they (or pro-Russian units) still had numerous sucessful operations across the former USSR (such as in Georgia and Transnistria).
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
How would India be affected by Zhirinovsky's anti-Greater Turkestan rhetoric, especially if they might be affected by Xinjiang's Uyghur minority and the fact that India share a border with Chinese Turkestan. On the other hand, where in Asia could Zhirinovsky find allies besides China and India? I'm not sure if Greater Turkestan does include Korea and Japan. After all, they claim to belong to the same Turanic ethnic family as the Turks.