My child and I watched the opening of the winter Olympics this morning, every now and then (actually, quite often) a country would march in and he would say “where is that?” and I would say “Hmm, I’m pretty sure that was part of the USSR”.
The question is how many “new” countries have been formed in what was the USSR? That was his question.
My question is how many countries came from former communist Eastern Europe countries? Yugoslavia became how many countries? 4? Chechzlovakia (I can’t spell that!)? 2?
The Soviet Union split up into fifteen countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhistan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Takjikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Yugoslavia split into five countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Slovenia. Czechoslovakia split into two countries: the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As a footnote to the above complete answer, two republics within Russia have declared themselves independent: Sakha (formerly known as Yakutia) and Tatarstan.
Sakha is huge in territory and has minerals out the wazoo and oil. Tatarstan has historical ethnic reasons for wanting independence and also has a good location on the Volga waterway.
Their independence from Russia is not actually in effect. They are not pushing it. It seems they issued a declaration and left it at that. Tatarstan’s government web site talks about it like an independent state. No other countries have recognized them, of course. The Ho de no sau nee nation (a.k.a. Iroquois) is in a similar situation vis-à-vis Uncle Sam.
Johanna what is the status of Chechnia (I can’t spell that either), apparently it wants independence. How did those countries with independence get it when Chechnia (I apologise for my repeated misspellings) can’t?
But why won’t the current lot let go? Or is Stalin still the reason (surely not) ? Surely Stalin would be rolling in his grave at all the other countries that have reared their heads since the the demise of the USSR, why would Chechnya be so different?
Aside from possible constitutional differences (too tired to look stuff up much further, and not for each state) but there are apparently important fuel lines coming from Chechnya or through the place that some say Russia doesn’t want endangered. Bound to be other reasons on top of that – but when someone wants to hang onto a country, it’s usually because of resources.
Chechnya is one of 21 federal republics within Russia; in total there are 88 administrative units of various kinds within the Russian Federation. The republics in theory have the right to secede. But actually allowing one of these republics to secede could potentially iniatiate a new round of fragmentation in Russia. (It was allowing the three Baltic Soviet Republics to secede that helped set the precedent that led to the rest of the Soviet Republics gaining their independence and the breakup of the Soviet Union.) Besides any strategic value that Chechnya may have, this fear is another motivation to prevent it from seceding.
Thanks for reminding me of Chechya, calm kiwi. As I posted that Sakha and Tatarstan have declared independence, something nagged me in the back of my mind… wasn’t there one more? I don’t know how I could remember Sakha and Tatarstan while forgetting the really obvious one, Chechnya. Maybe compassion fatigue. Strange how the human brain works sometimes.
I think Sakha and Tatarstan haven’t actually done anything to secede, and continue to acquiesce to Russian rule in practice, so they don’t get invaded. Also, those two republics don’t share any borders with other countries the way Chechya does.
Chechnya’s status as a “republic” wasn’t exactly revoked during WWII in conjunciton with the deportations; it was combined with Ingushetia.
I think part of the confusion here about levels of autonomy/independence of various administrative divisions within the RF is one of terminology - there are several different terms in Russian to describe the status of a given region (or Federation subject, as they are called in the Constitution), but there is little if any consistency re: how they are translated into English. The Wikipedia article on the subject isn’t half-bad - look at the charts of translations/transliterations of terms, in particular. Add to that the fact that the word “natsional’ny” [national] in Russian frequently means “ethnic” rather than having anything to do with statehood or citizenship, and the whole thing becomes a linguistic disaster.
(I certainly wouldn’t discount both the petroleum factor and the territorial integrity factor in teh case of Chechnya, however.) You may find this site interesting, but you will have to transpose Chechnya onto most of the maps, because it’s not shown (which I find interesting in itself). You can see how the Chechen conflict is about the oldest principle of real estate - location, location, location.
