As someone who witnessed the collapse of the former Yugoslavia firsthand, I find your three-step approach succinct. However, it doesn't answer the question: Was an alternative path for Yugoslavia possible? And is the 1974 constitution truly ground zero? From its inception, the idea of a country that encompasses the South Slavs, Yugoslavia, has always had a con/federal essence. Fast forwarding to the '70s, I remember being shocked by the mandatory high school reading of Kardelj's writings, in which he predicted the dissolution of Yugoslavia as a logical and unavoidable step in its development. It was wrapped up in, for me at least, an incomprehensible line of argument, but it was there in black and white (as they say in what was then called the Croato-Serbian language). At the same time, Croatian "soft" nationalists were receiving long prison sentences for claiming the same thing. My question is: Was there an alternative for a country like Yugoslavia?
Kravchuk was born in interwar Poland to Ukrainian peasants before the Soviet takeover. Before the takeover, and even after especially in the villages and western Ukraine in general, Russian was not spoken. So I find it hard to believe he 'never' spoke it before. Too often these claims are tossed about loosely about Ukrainian elites as if it was entirely Russified. Even Zelenskyy before being president was dominantly a Russian speaker, but it'd be false, as I've seen some claim, that he never spoke Ukrainian.
Excellent review. There is a point I found important in the book, Yeltsin Kravchuk and Nazarbayev, all understood clearly that large minorities were a huge potential time bomb. That agreement over economy and minorities for two out of the three were less important than grabbing power sooner rather than later. That time bomb in Ukraine eventually detonated, whatever one may think of VVP, he can't be held responsible for that, and reacting to the civil war in the way he has. At least that is how I see it
Sounds like Zubok's book didn't make many value judgements. Did he make any statements about endogenous vs exogenous pressures on the USSR that led to its dissolution?
Regardless of Zubok's POV, what are your thoughts on exogenous pressures on SFR Yugoslavia and/or the USSR?
"Yeltsin, who was always supportive of Baltic secessionism, and in 90 out of 100 occasions, of Ukrainian independence, nevertheless issued, two days after the failed August 1991 coup and his de facto assumption of full powers, a statement that Russia will not accept arbitrary Lenin-drawn borders with Ukraine" Very interesting! Could you please copy citation for that?
I found Collapse fascinating and appreciated the factual approach as a welcome contrast to the normal accounts that are heavily refracted through cold war ideological prisms from one side or the other.
The strongest message for me was the well-meaning but arrogant economic incompetence of Gorbachev. His high standing in international liberal circles reflected his uncritical admiration for Western political systems which he didn’t understand and his complete disengagement from the day-to-day economic experiences of ordinary Soviet people. Not only did he ruin the economy in his political lifetime, his naivety carried forward into even worse suffering under Yeltsin’s free market sharp shock in the 1990s.
In 1964, only 11 years after the death of the untouchable Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union deposed Khrushchev in a constitutional manner for his policy failures and the terrifying near miss of the Cuban missile crisis.
However, during the 6 years of chaos of Gorbachev’s leadership, the most that the CPSU could manage was a bungled attempt at a coup in 1991. So much had clearly changed over that 27 years and I would welcome your comments on why.
My second question is regarding China. If the Communist Party government were to be replaced there, do you think it would follow your three-step sequence and be based on a steady growth of separatism, or do you think China would remain united?
No other republics wanted to rechange thei borders. Only Serbia wage war first with Croatia and three parts of it taken and called Repiblika Srpaka Krajina. After they attakced Bosinia with full support from Serbia, and Bosnan Serbes led Karadzic and Mladic under whose commend the Serbs
commited heavy war crimes. It is big difference in the ways of Yugoslav cases and Soviet Union.
Great work by Zubok (and a great review as well!), but I wonder what you think about the end results? I am inclined to think the collapse of Yugoslavia a tragedy, but am rather ambivalent about the end of the USSR. Can we say that it was ultimately good for democracy and national identity?
I would that here is exactly the spot where foreign meddling can be plugged in into the model of dissolution. To clarify - there is a school of thought that claims that it was all about foreign meddling, which obviously doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and can exist only by ignoring the evidence of general sclerosis in soviet and Yugoslav government structures.
However the opposite school of thought, that claims that foreign meddling wasn’t there or didn’t matter, and which gained currency in the 90s, is also clearly wrong based on evidence that emerged in the 10’s. I am not aware of a single book that brings all those revelations about prominent dissident figures basically working directly, or at least getting support from, CIA and its fronts, but it was coming hard and fast in the newspapers in such quantity that it has become safe to assume that this or that “dissident” was at least approached by the spooks, rather than not.
As for nationalists - it’s most visible in the case of Ukraine where they stopped being shy about it after the first maidan in 2004. Half the government was either related or direct descendants of banderovtsy who fled to USA and Canada in the 40-50s after their defeat. The docs about their organisation being run by the CIA the US after the end of the war were declassified in the 90s. A bunch of them, or their kids, came back after independence and formed a vocal and powerful group in power, and later pretty much took over in the 00’s.
The story is exactly the same for the Baltics, very similar for Georgia , Armenia. I unfortunately just don’t know about Azerbaijan and the stans in Central Asia .
As someone who witnessed the collapse of the former Yugoslavia firsthand, I find your three-step approach succinct. However, it doesn't answer the question: Was an alternative path for Yugoslavia possible? And is the 1974 constitution truly ground zero? From its inception, the idea of a country that encompasses the South Slavs, Yugoslavia, has always had a con/federal essence. Fast forwarding to the '70s, I remember being shocked by the mandatory high school reading of Kardelj's writings, in which he predicted the dissolution of Yugoslavia as a logical and unavoidable step in its development. It was wrapped up in, for me at least, an incomprehensible line of argument, but it was there in black and white (as they say in what was then called the Croato-Serbian language). At the same time, Croatian "soft" nationalists were receiving long prison sentences for claiming the same thing. My question is: Was there an alternative for a country like Yugoslavia?
Kravchuk was born in interwar Poland to Ukrainian peasants before the Soviet takeover. Before the takeover, and even after especially in the villages and western Ukraine in general, Russian was not spoken. So I find it hard to believe he 'never' spoke it before. Too often these claims are tossed about loosely about Ukrainian elites as if it was entirely Russified. Even Zelenskyy before being president was dominantly a Russian speaker, but it'd be false, as I've seen some claim, that he never spoke Ukrainian.
Excellent review. There is a point I found important in the book, Yeltsin Kravchuk and Nazarbayev, all understood clearly that large minorities were a huge potential time bomb. That agreement over economy and minorities for two out of the three were less important than grabbing power sooner rather than later. That time bomb in Ukraine eventually detonated, whatever one may think of VVP, he can't be held responsible for that, and reacting to the civil war in the way he has. At least that is how I see it
Sounds like Zubok's book didn't make many value judgements. Did he make any statements about endogenous vs exogenous pressures on the USSR that led to its dissolution?
Regardless of Zubok's POV, what are your thoughts on exogenous pressures on SFR Yugoslavia and/or the USSR?
"Yeltsin, who was always supportive of Baltic secessionism, and in 90 out of 100 occasions, of Ukrainian independence, nevertheless issued, two days after the failed August 1991 coup and his de facto assumption of full powers, a statement that Russia will not accept arbitrary Lenin-drawn borders with Ukraine" Very interesting! Could you please copy citation for that?
I found Collapse fascinating and appreciated the factual approach as a welcome contrast to the normal accounts that are heavily refracted through cold war ideological prisms from one side or the other.
The strongest message for me was the well-meaning but arrogant economic incompetence of Gorbachev. His high standing in international liberal circles reflected his uncritical admiration for Western political systems which he didn’t understand and his complete disengagement from the day-to-day economic experiences of ordinary Soviet people. Not only did he ruin the economy in his political lifetime, his naivety carried forward into even worse suffering under Yeltsin’s free market sharp shock in the 1990s.
In 1964, only 11 years after the death of the untouchable Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union deposed Khrushchev in a constitutional manner for his policy failures and the terrifying near miss of the Cuban missile crisis.
However, during the 6 years of chaos of Gorbachev’s leadership, the most that the CPSU could manage was a bungled attempt at a coup in 1991. So much had clearly changed over that 27 years and I would welcome your comments on why.
My second question is regarding China. If the Communist Party government were to be replaced there, do you think it would follow your three-step sequence and be based on a steady growth of separatism, or do you think China would remain united?
No other republics wanted to rechange thei borders. Only Serbia wage war first with Croatia and three parts of it taken and called Repiblika Srpaka Krajina. After they attakced Bosinia with full support from Serbia, and Bosnan Serbes led Karadzic and Mladic under whose commend the Serbs
commited heavy war crimes. It is big difference in the ways of Yugoslav cases and Soviet Union.
Great work by Zubok (and a great review as well!), but I wonder what you think about the end results? I am inclined to think the collapse of Yugoslavia a tragedy, but am rather ambivalent about the end of the USSR. Can we say that it was ultimately good for democracy and national identity?
I would that here is exactly the spot where foreign meddling can be plugged in into the model of dissolution. To clarify - there is a school of thought that claims that it was all about foreign meddling, which obviously doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and can exist only by ignoring the evidence of general sclerosis in soviet and Yugoslav government structures.
However the opposite school of thought, that claims that foreign meddling wasn’t there or didn’t matter, and which gained currency in the 90s, is also clearly wrong based on evidence that emerged in the 10’s. I am not aware of a single book that brings all those revelations about prominent dissident figures basically working directly, or at least getting support from, CIA and its fronts, but it was coming hard and fast in the newspapers in such quantity that it has become safe to assume that this or that “dissident” was at least approached by the spooks, rather than not.
As for nationalists - it’s most visible in the case of Ukraine where they stopped being shy about it after the first maidan in 2004. Half the government was either related or direct descendants of banderovtsy who fled to USA and Canada in the 40-50s after their defeat. The docs about their organisation being run by the CIA the US after the end of the war were declassified in the 90s. A bunch of them, or their kids, came back after independence and formed a vocal and powerful group in power, and later pretty much took over in the 00’s.
The story is exactly the same for the Baltics, very similar for Georgia , Armenia. I unfortunately just don’t know about Azerbaijan and the stans in Central Asia .
Interesting insight into how large States can disappear.
Democracy as explained by Burnham is a legitimating symbol for anything bigger than a city State. The people cannot exert sovereignty the way a monarch or an elite can. https://polsci.substack.com/p/the-machiavellians-defenders-of-freedom