On the surface, this might seem like an exercise in legal formalism. In reality, it is a dangerous ideological maneuver aimed at undermining the sovereignty of post-Soviet states and reviving the imperial idea under a new guise. The central irony is this: those who now appeal to “legal grounds” to contest the USSR’s disintegration are defending a state that itself was born of illegality, violence, and coercion.

A Union Founded on Force, Not Law

The Soviet Union was not a voluntary federation of peoples — it was an imperial structure forged in civil war and held together by centralized violence. The Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917 was not a democratic revolution, but a coup d’état that ousted the Provisional Government of Russia, which had begun cautious steps toward a constituent assembly.

Between 1917 and 1922, the Bolsheviks launched a series of military campaigns against the independence movements of Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and others — often under the pretense of “proletarian internationalism.” In truth, these were wars of reconquest aimed at reestablishing control over the imperial periphery under a new ideological banner.

The creation of the USSR in December 1922 was presented as the union of sovereign republics. In practice, it was the consolidation of Moscow’s power over puppet governments installed by force. The so-called Treaty on the Creation of the USSR was never ratified through genuine democratic procedures. Its legitimacy was built on the rubble of suppressed nation-states, not on legal consent.

The Collapse as Decolonization

By contrast, the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was the first genuine act of self-determination for many of its constituent republics. Through referenda, declarations of independence, and negotiated treaties — such as the Belavezha Accords and the Alma-Ata Protocol — the former Soviet republics exercised the very right denied to them in 1922.

The Kremlin’s suggestion that only the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR had the legal authority to dissolve the Union is disingenuous. That body had lost its political relevance by 1991, and many of its members had either defected or were actively undermining the Soviet center. By then, state power had already shifted to the republican level. The international community — through swift recognition and diplomatic relations — validated the sovereignty of the new states, establishing a new post-Soviet legal order.

To question the legality of this process is not only ahistorical — it is an act of political gaslighting. It seeks to recast an act of liberation as a procedural error.

Legal Revisionism as Political Warfare

This resurrection of Soviet legality is not merely academic — it has become a tool of hybrid warfare. By implying that the USSR was never legally dissolved, Moscow lays the groundwork to question the legitimacy of post-Soviet borders, most notably Ukraine’s.

Putin’s oft-repeated claim that Ukraine “was never a real country” and his references to the “historical unity” of Russian lands draw directly from this legal-fictional narrative. The implication is clear: since the USSR was not lawfully dissolved, the sovereignty of Ukraine (and perhaps others) is conditional, reversible, or even fraudulent.

In this context, the Kremlin’s invocation of legality becomes not a defense of international law, but a selective instrument of imperial ambition.

The Danger of Post-Imperial Legal Myths

Empires rarely dissolve without leaving behind myths. In the case of Russia, these myths are being operationalized into state doctrine. The Kremlin’s efforts to resurrect the legal ghost of the USSR represent a unique threat: an imperialism clothed in the language of legal rectitude.

The West must recognize this tactic for what it is: an attempt to destabilize the post-Cold War international order through pseudo-legal narratives. It is not enough to dismiss such claims as irrational nostalgia — they are active elements in Moscow’s strategy to undermine neighboring states, justify territorial aggression, and position itself as the arbiter of historical truth.

Conclusion: No Empire Is Eternal — Nor Is Its Law

Legal systems derive their legitimacy from consent and continuity, not from the inertia of force. The USSR was neither a legal nor a consensual union. It was a geopolitical machine that collapsed under the weight of its contradictions. Its death was not a clerical error — it was a historic correction.

To entertain the notion that its dissolution was “illegal” is to accept the premise that colonized nations require the permission of their colonizer to be free. That premise must be rejected — forcefully, publicly, and repeatedly.

As Ukraine and other post-Soviet states continue to defend their sovereignty, the world must remain vigilant against Kremlin efforts to rewrite history — not with facts, but with fabricated procedures and phantom laws.