Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire

Now that's rich. I have never heard of anything much like the "free market fascism" you came up with, and it actually seems scarily plausible, like many other parts of this TL. So the "Palestine Plan" is pretty much to spam Russians into non-Russian areas?

Yes and no. What happens here after Dushanbe is that Zhirinovsky pulls back and focuses on the Republics that border Russia, and tries to tilt the balance of power in favor of Russians. In OTL Kazakhstan was 37% Russian in 1989, and 42% Slavic (including Ukranians). In OTL most Russians left after independence, what he does is create the opposite effect, with Russians moving in. Zhirinovsky decides to try and tilt the balance to Russians. He won't be trying a "Palestine Plan" in Armenia or Uzbekistan or anywhere where Russians are a tiny minority. I remember reading about how Serbian refugees from Croatia were being taken on a bus to Kosovo to settle there in 1997 and they refused, even pulling a gun on the bus driver and forcing him to take them back to Belgrade. It would be no different here, IMO, if the Russians tried to move Russian refugees from Tajikistan into Azerbaijan or Uzbekistan. But a nearly all Russian city in an all Russian portion of Kazakhstan is a different story. I also remember reading about how homes in the settlements in the West Bank were much nicer and much cheaper than those in Israel proper, and Zhirinovsky tries to duplicate that effect by making Kazhakhstan like the West Bank settlements, where you have nicer houses, more jobs (mostly in construction) and a lower cost of living. Does it work? Well, we will see...

As for Moldova, we will see how Moldova and Romania come to play in the coming posts.
 
Would it be bad taste to have an event analogous to the Pussy Riot trial happen in alt-Russia? Not necessarily taking place in alt-2012, but perhaps under similar circumstances?

I was actually thinking the same thing. Although I am sure Pussy Riot would be butterflied out of this TL, I think another similar situation is hardly out of the question...
 
You know when Jimmy Carter denounces an election as unfair that's it. Do over or lose worldwide respect.

I feel sad for Kazakhstan. Independence may mean losing the whole northern half of the former SSR in order to half an ethnic majority in their state. And I imagine tiny Moldova is even worse. Like Kalingrad now.

How is Ukraine handling the UDR? It has a huge population and developed economy, making it the most capable of acting independent of Russia by far. Though Z's novo gorods in Moldova and the large Russian minority in it's eastern half dangerously box it in...

I was just listening to an NPR story on the close relationship between the Russian state and the Orthodox Church patriarch. ITTL it'll be interesting to see that dynamic play out with Mad Vlad.


What we will see in the coming posts is that the UDR/UIS treats some of the republics differently than others. We already see that Armenia is given almost total autonomy, while Azerbaijan is a quasi-colony. And Tajikistan is a virtual Somaliland, an unrecognized independent state within the UDR that doesn't even pretend to be part of the UDR (how long this will last is the question). In OTL the years of 1991-1993 were years of turmoil in the former USSR, and we see that is the case here, but as the central government gets its footing under it, things will start to change. Right now, Ukraine is treated, much like Armenia, as a friendly Republic who can be trusted to run their own affairs. In fact, the Ukraine is all but independent, excpet (like with Armenia) they don't declare independence and accept a common currency, military, and foreign policy. This is where the story line comes in regarding Zhirinovksy signing seperate union agreements with Armenia, Belarus and the Ukraine. They see Zhirinovksy will let them handle their own affairs, and they don't trust Alksnis. But when Russia gets control of these other Republics like Moldova and Kazakhstan, what happens then? :confused:
 
I am wondering more about other policies in the new UDR, namely crime and punishment, social security etc that kind of thing, as i doubt Zhirinkovsky's just going to focus on creating Greater Russia.

You know, I was thinking about how to adress this very issue too. The problem right now is that so much happened in OTL in late 1991 and early 1992 and I am trying to juggle so many different areas at once. (I still need to discuss his intervention in Romania and Yugoslavia). But Zhirinovksy is in charge of a country right now where, thanks to the disfuntional power sharing agreement, much of the government is just not working. Crime is up, and lawlessness is growing (much like in OTL). He is slowly consolidating power though, and as we can tell, he will soon have full control of the government and military. We also see that this FPF-ATU national police force will become a major player in the future. But for right now, Russia is looking a lot like Serbia in the mid-90s, or Venezuela today. High crime, and corruption on the rise. The main question is "for how long?"
 

Incognito

Banned
Interesting. I will follow this TL.

Question about the last update: why is there a city called Kalashnikovgrad? I get the post-Communist government naming cities after Yeltsin and anti-communist leaders/forces, but why name a city after a Soviet weapons-designer (who is still alive at the time (still alive now BTW))?

...............................................................................................................................................​

Say, with Zhirinovsky using religious rhetoric to stir up trouble and nationalism, might we see Leonid Simonovich-Niksic (I talked about him here) or someone like him play a role in this timeline?
 

FDW

Banned
Interesting. I will follow this TL.

Question about the last update: why is there a city called Kalashnikovgrad? I get the post-Communist government naming cities after Yeltsin and anti-communist leaders/forces, but why name a city after a Soviet weapons-designer (who is still alive at the time (still alive now BTW))?

I don't know, because he's awesome? (Or maybe they were going through the phone book and happened to choose it at random…)
 
Interesting. I will follow this TL.

Question about the last update: why is there a city called Kalashnikovgrad? I get the post-Communist government naming cities after Yeltsin and anti-communist leaders/forces, but why name a city after a Soviet weapons-designer (who is still alive at the time (still alive now BTW))?

...............................................................................................................................................​

Say, with Zhirinovsky using religious rhetoric to stir up trouble and nationalism, might we see Leonid Simonovich-Niksic (I talked about him here) or someone like him play a role in this timeline?


I think that the AK-47 is such an iconic weapon, and it does fit with a theme of Russian military dominance that Zhirinovsky is pushing. I think that Zhirinovsky would treat Kalashnikov as such a Russian icon that he would be willing to look past the Communist background. Funny thing is I was almost debating the UDR creating a Bushgrad, as a "thank you" to George Bush as part of the "Baker Plan", and that Bushgrad becomes a major PR disaster for the President in the 1992 election. But I figured that would be a bit too crazy. :D However, the novo gorods are not just named after famous dead Russians, but a few who are still living (Stalin was still alive when Stalingrad was named). But don't worry, there won't be a Zhirinovskygrad...yet! :eek:

I don't know much about Leonid Simonovich-Niksic, but I am going to research him, it sounds like a very interesting addition to this TL, thanks for the link!
 
PART EIGHTEEN: A SECOND CHANCE TO MAKE A FIRST IMPRESSION
PART EIGHTEEN: A SECOND CHANCE TO MAKE A FIRST IMPRESSION






“My Russia- An Autobiography by former Russian Prime Minister Gennady Burbulis”


Published by Interbook, © 1998


CHAPTER THIRTY

Zhirinovsky was adamant against going to the United States and meeting with Bush. He held a deep-seated distrust of the West, and he was fearful that going to the United States could impact his credibility at home with the Russian people. But with privatization just implemented, coupled with the growing power struggle between Luzhkov and Alksnis, many of the reformers in the Russian government saw this as a golden opportunity to develop stronger ties with the United States.

However, the question quickly became who to send? Luzhkov was unwilling to leave the country, afraid of a possible coup in his absence that would consolidate power behind Alksnis. And quite frankly, he didn’t trust Zhirinovsky. None of us did. If he left the country he feared Zhirinovsky might just switch gears and suddenly back Alksnis. He was already showing a talent for that. Backing hardliners one moment and then reformers the next. He was like a butterfly, floating from camp to camp. But I was more concerned about letting him loose in America. I was afraid he would do more damage to Russian interests if we let him go than if he stayed put. I suppose secretly I was hoping that he wouldn’t go. So much so that when he screamed and pouted like a child when it was suggested to him I actually smiled. I was glad he was making such a scene! Maybe this would convince Prime Minister Ivan Silayev to abandon this dangerous plan.

“We don’t need the West to recapture Dushanbe,” Zhirinovsky screamed at the cabinet. “All we need are 10,000 loyal Russians willing to quash this Turkish rebellion!”

“Mr. President,” Silayev countered angrily, “the United Nations is already preparing to admit Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan in February. We need to take steps to delay that vote. If we can woo the United States they can pressure the UN not to admit those nations.”

“A nuclear bomb will convince them just as effectively,” Zhirinovsky shot back, “and a reminder that we have enough of them to turn all of New York City into a desert of glass.”

“Well, us having a nuclear bomb didn’t stop them from admitting Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania,” Silayev said mockingly.

I stood up to separate the two, it was clear Zhirinovsky was not going to go to the United States. That was fine. We would send someone else, someone less volatile. Perhaps Silayev would go. Suddenly a deep voice interrupted me. I saw Zhirinovsky freeze like a deer caught in the lights of a truck.

“You will go to America,” General Victor Ivanenko said as he walked into the room and dropped a black folder in front of Zhirinovsky, “or you run the risk of losing the support of the KGB and the military. And with all due respect Mr. President, you should remember where you would be right now had it not been for the KGB.”



UIS Presidential Candidate Vladimir Putin in an interview with the BBC on August 1, 2011.


Putin: If there was any questions as to whether or not Lebed and Ivanenko were really in control of the country or if Zhirinovsky was the real leader, then the cabinet meeting of January 21st, 1991 should have extinguished any doubt. General Ivanenko interrupted the meeting, walked right in, and told Zhirinovsky to do exactly as instructed! Like a puppet! He handed Zhirinovsky a script and told him to read these statements to the western media and to give these documents to President Bush when they met. And Zhirinovsky said nothing! He didn’t complain, he didn’t protest! He just took the documents in the black folder and meekly sat down, like a timid rabbit!



60 Minutes on CBS News - “Lebed: The man behind the mask?” from April 23, 2008

Portions of a Mike Wallace interview with Andrei Zavidiya, former Vice President of Russia.

Courtesy of CBS




Mike Wallace: Mr. Zavidiya, let me ask you, did President Zhirinovsky go to the United States in January of 1992 on his own free will, or was he ordered to go by General Ivanenko as Vladimir Putin alleges?

Andrei Zavidiya (long pause): I really don’t know-

Mike Wallace: Wouldn’t the fact that you are not sure indicate that many of you recognized that General Ivanenko and General Lebed were the ones really in charge?

Zavidiya: Not necessarily. Ivanenko was still head of the KGB, and it was still a fully functional agency, despite the growing lawlessness throughout the country. Zhirinovsky didn’t want to cross Ivanenko because he saw what Ivanenko had in the black folder. And I think he went to the United States to prevent Ivanenko from being able to use it against him. By releasing it to the world first he was able to rob Ivanenko of that one, last weapon that the KGB had against him.

Wallace: I’m sorry, what was in the black folder? It was alleged by Putin and former Secretary of State Gennady Burbulis that it was a script that Zhirinovsky was supposed to follow.

Zavidiya: No. I assure you if Zhirinovsky was on a script he certainly wouldn’t have made his “Israeli threat” statement in New York. They didn’t need a script for Zhirinovsky. That was why Burbulis was forced to go with him as well. To control what he said and who he said it to.

Wallace: So what is the black folder?

Zavidiya: The black folder was the file that the KGB had on Zhirinovsky, and more importantly, his father.


Barbara Walters/ABC Interview with Vladimir Zhirinovsky
(January 30th, 1992)




ABC's Barbara Walters: Mr. President, thank you for taking this opportunity to speak with the American people. I would like to start with what your impressions of the United States are?

Russian President Vladimir Zhirinovsky: Very positive. I have been warmly received in America and I am very impressed with your country.

Walters: You have nonetheless made a few statements that have raised eyebrows since going on this world tour-

Zhirinovsky: There are many enemies of democracy who want nothing more than to embarrass me. But I did err in my choice of words. I should be much more careful in the future and not say things that can be misinterpreted. I want to say here and not, I am not an enemy of the Jewish people.

Walters: Many people feel that your statement in New York City on the 13th, where you said “Russia must be on guard against the threat from Israel” was bordering on anti-Semitic. What did you mean by that statement?

Zhirinovsky: I chose a terrible way to say that. I wanted to stress that we cannot let ourselves be dictated by foreign policy. We must focus on Russia first, and at times, Russian interests may be different that those of other countries. When that happens we must respectfully put foreign policy aside and do what is best for Russia.

Walters: So you reject those accusations that you are anti-Semitic?

Zhirinovsky: Absolutely. I have very warm feelings towards Israel and the Jewish people. Israel is not our enemy; in fact, it is a close, close friend to the UDR. Many Israelis come from Russia; we share a common bond, a common blood. In fact, I myself am half Jewish.

Walters: What?

Zhirinovsky: Yes. My father is Jewish. I hope someday to visit Israel, not as a Russian, but as the son of a Jewish man who is visiting his heritage.



BUSH AND ZHIRINOVSKY DECLARE FORMAL END TO COLD WAR; AGREE TO EXCHANGE VISITS

By MICHAEL WAXMAN
Published: February 01, 1992




President Bush and President Vladimir Zhirinovsky of Russia today proclaimed a new era of "friendship and solidarity" as they declared a formal end to over seven decades of tension, declaring the “Cold War is over.” Both Presidents then agreed to exchange visits in Moscow and Washington in April of this year.


Meeting in casual winter attire at the Presidential retreat at Camp David, the two leaders discussed the recently enacted economic reforms implemented in the UDR and in Russia, as well as the status of Russia and the other republics that make up the successor state to the Soviet Union.


President Bush also discussed growing concerns that both the United States and the international community have over the status of the Central Asian Republics, where UDR control is tenuous, and the status of the nuclear warheads currently deployed there.


“Both President Zhirinovsky and I are deeply concerned with the situation in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan,” Bush said, “and we implore President Alksnis to implement real reform and to work with the Central Asian Republics so that peace can be realized throughout the former Soviet Union.”


President Zhirinovsky also became the first Russian politician to confirm the number of Soviet nuclear weapons, and to confirm that a small handful of these weapons were stationed in Uzbekistan and are now in control of rebel Islamism. He expressed deep concern over the lack of federal control over the nuclear arsenal in Uzbekistan and called on the UN to withhold recognition until the nuclear weapons are accounted for.


“The United Nations is to consider admitting Uzbekistan as a member in two days,” Zhirinovsky said, “but we call on the UN and the international community to withhold recognition until all nuclear weapons have been accounted for and disarmed. Although we still seek a negotiated settlement with the loyal Uzbek citizenry, if independence is unavoidable, so be it. But we cannot have a country which is already establishing dangerous ties to terrorist groups in Afghanistan, and to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, to have over 200 nuclear weapons.”


CNN interview with Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the USSR

August 18, 2000



CNN: How was Zhirinovsky able to win over the West so effectively in January of 1992 with his first visit to the United States?

Matlock: After Azerbaijan, he was vilified in the West, but privatization gave him a second chance to make a first impression. He really came off as someone we could reason with, someone we could work with. He was humble, soft spoken, polite, and even proud of his Jewish heritage. He just won over everyone. And he threw in just enough scare tactics to get what he really wanted: time to crush the Uzbeks and Tajiks.

CNN: Was his infamous “Camp David Speech” by itself the major reason the UN decided against admitting Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan as members in February of 1992?

Matlock: Absolutely. You know, when I was ambassador to the USSR, we really didn’t know a whole lot about our Cold War enemy. We didn’t know how many nuclear weapons they had and exactly where they were located. So when he said that over 150 were stationed in Uzbekistan, America didn’t really question it. And when he started implying that they were looking to sell the weapons to Saddam Hussein, well, it sounded far-fetched, but better to err on the side of caution, right? We thought a little time to let Russia round up its rogue nukes was a good thing, but Zhirinovsky was looking at it in a much different way. At that point all he wanted was time to shore up the military, and he successfully accomplished that. By the time Russian troops marched into Tashkent in 1995, the world realized what his real plan had been all along.





 
Last edited:
On the other hand, is there a map of a Greater Russia that Zhirinovsky fantasizes? I mean, he would want a big load of territories if his insane rhetoric matched with his actions.
 
Zhirinovsky wins over the Americans?:eek:

I know that he would crush the Uzbeks and Tajiks, but what would the policy be towards Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia? I doubt he is going to let them slide.



Also, great and suspensful update.
 
On the other hand, is there a map of a Greater Russia that Zhirinovsky fantasizes? I mean, he would want a big load of territories if his insane rhetoric matched with his actions.

The greater Russia map I think would always be changing, as in OTL. He use to claim Alaska and Finland before easing up on those claims (and giving up the Alaska claim entirely) and even claimed to want to have Russian boots in the Indian Ocean. But a lot of his rhetoric is ever changing. In TTL the borders to his Greater Russia will also not be so clear. As of yet He is speaking more about former Soviet republics than expansion so the world gives him a bit of a pass. But we know in 1992 Croatia and Bosnia declare independence, so things are going to change very quickly and the world will look at him much differently in the coming posts. Also, we are still seeing that there are checks and balances in the new Russia. He may push Alknis, but when he does so he needs the support of Luzkov. And Lebed and Ivanenko almost appear above the law right now. Much of the confusion over power sharing will be settled in 1992, and when that happens, we might see Zhirinovsky less inclined to bite his tounge...unless Putin is right and Lebed and Ivanenko are pulling his strings! :eek:
 
Zhirinovsky wins over the Americans?:eek:

I know that he would crush the Uzbeks and Tajiks, but what would the policy be towards Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia? I doubt he is going to let them slide.



Also, great and suspensful update.

I won't give up too much, the Baltics will be addressed in coming posts, but I think that is a very, very safe assumption.
 
Man, that's one creepy TL! :eek:

Definitely watching this, as it might be just as interesting as La Larga y Oscura Noche.

Thanks! I just started reading that LA Larga TL as well, great TL.

And I hate to say this, but things will still be creepy for awhile in this AH. :eek:
 
I just found this and spent the last few hours catching up. Can I say this is absoltely terrifying but completely gripping!
 
Zhirinovsky's father was Jewish, and Ivanenko might have figured Zhirinovsky would do anything to keep that quiet since Zhirinovsky is such a extreme nationinalist.

But then he goes to New York and reveals it to the world himself? I don't get it. Is that a sign that Big Zhi doesn't give a fuck about Ivanenko's threats? Hypothetically, if that was what the black folder contained.
 
Top