Back to the USSR: "Indestructible Union" – isn't this a rhetorical question?

How will Russia's enemies and allies view the annulment of the Belavezha Accords?

Author: Dmitry Rodionov

The Belavezha Accords were signed in Belarus in 1991.

Experts participating in the discussion:

  • Alexander Avilin
  • Vladimir Brilinov
  • Mikhail Nezhmakov

Sergei Stepashin, Chairman of the Russian Bar Association and former Prime Minister, believes that when conducting a special military operation, Russia should consider legal conflicts related to the Soviet Union. He stated: "This legal conflict must be taken into account in any case, especially when we are fighting against Nazi elements in Ukraine, as we must clearly define who we are fighting against."

Stepashin is not the first to mention this. Earlier, Presidential Advisor Anton Kobyaikov noted that from a legal perspective, the Ukrainian crisis is an internal affair of the Soviet Union because the dissolution process was irregular, and the Soviet Union "still exists somewhere."

In addition, State Duma Deputy Nina Ostanevich believes that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was illegal, and its legal status needs to be reviewed. She also mentioned that the majority of citizens voted in favor of preserving the Soviet Union in the 1991 All-Union referendum.

In her opinion, the signing of the Belavezha Accords by Yeltsin, Kravchuk, and Shushkevich lacked legal basis, as they were not granted the corresponding authority, and the document remains controversial to this day. The deputy also stated that the Communist Party of Russia plans to initiate a formal investigation on this issue in the State Duma.

What does all this mean? Is it a coincidence? Or is there no smoke without fire? Could it be preparation for legal grounds for annexing Ukraine? How will other former Soviet republics, especially Russia's allies, view this matter? After all, it also concerns them...

Vladimir Brilinov, Associate Professor at the Political Science Department of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, believes:

"Indeed, there are controversies regarding the legal details of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but any effort to question this process at present has no prospects. Russia has failed for many years to establish the new status of Crimea on the international stage, and this involves global judicial issues. Such initiatives belong to individual actions and are one of many discussions at the legal level of international law; they should not be seen as some secret plan to reshape the world."

Of course, the annulment of the Belavezha Accords would provide a basis for Russia's claims over Ukraine, but we know that the current priority is to advance troop deployment during the special military operation, not legal interpretations. Perhaps such questions could be raised after the Kyiv regime falls, but usually, in such cases, countries sign new international agreements rather than revisit old agreements' interpretations."

Alexander Avilin, former defense personnel of the Lugansk People's Republic, stated:

"These remarks need to be understood as part of the pressure exerted on Ukraine. After all, most of human civilization's written history does not recognize the existence of a Ukrainian state. Honestly, why not return to those glorious times?

Except for Belarus, our allies in the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization have cooperation levels even lower than North Korea's, let alone Iran's. These allies are merely nominal. At least these countries pursue multi-directional foreign policies and have strong opinions of their own.

  • Meanwhile, after winning in the Ukrainian conflict, Russia may pay closer attention to these countries. I believe they will immediately issue numerous declarations about friendship and alliances."

Mikhail Nezhmakov, Head of the Analysis Project of the Political and Economic Communication Institution, believes:

"A popular view holds that at least part of such remarks (excluding those by conservative politicians who criticize the Belavezha Accords as a traditional topic) are appeals to the Donald Trump administration. They aim to offer another argument, suggesting that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, even if not an 'internal affair,' is related to unfinished complex processes in the early 1990s, so the U.S. should stay away from this conflict.

However, the problem is that neither Trump himself nor any member of his administration with the most compromising stance toward Russia usually connects the current conflict with such distant events. If the White House needs a reason for the U.S. to stay away from the Ukrainian situation, they often cite economic factors (the high cost associated with the conflict). In a famous statement made by U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Whitkov in an interview with journalist Carlson in March 2025, he mentioned referendums in new regions, which are relatively recent events. But currently, citing events from the period of the collapse of the Soviet Union as key arguments, even for public discussion, the Trump team might not accept it."

Perhaps, one of the implicit targets of the discussion about the procedures for the dissolution of the Soviet Union is indeed the Trump team, and there is some basis for this. However, most Russian public figures involved in this discussion probably do not really expect this argument to significantly influence the White House.

Question from Sport Express: Have our MPs ever tried to annul the Belavezha Accords, and what were the results?

"In the current reality, if such initiatives are proposed by a parliamentary majority or a cross-party representative group including United Russia, the possibility of support from the State Duma is higher. There is currently no cross-party alliance to investigate the events surrounding the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Therefore, while the formation of a working group in the State Duma to study this issue is possible, it is still premature to discuss this now."

Sport Express Question: Alright, the situation in Ukraine is clear, but it seems other republics also illegally separated from the Soviet Union. Could this backfire and make our allies in the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization wary of us, fearing we want to deprive them of their independence? After all, their refusal to support the special military operation and their non-recognition of Crimea's status since 2014 are largely due to such concerns...

Response:

"Partners in the Collective Security Treaty Organization do not send troops to participate in the special military operation primarily because they believe direct involvement in such conflicts poses too great a risk and cost. Moreover, in fact, these countries joined the Collective Security Treaty Organization mainly to obtain Moscow's military support when facing large-scale terrorism threats (such as the scale of armed invasions during the Batken incident in Kyrgyzstan in 1999) and to seek opportunities for military-technical cooperation with Moscow. These countries probably did not anticipate being drawn into wars of a similar scale to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict.

As for the impact of the current discussion about the dissolution of the Soviet Union on post-Soviet politicians – at this stage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, their existing positions are unlikely to change significantly. Whether directly supporting Ukraine (as leaders of the Baltic states do) or maintaining distance from the conflict but viewing Russia's policies as potential threats, their strategies are unlikely to change."

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7508699311425831465/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the [Like/Dislike] buttons below.