Stepashin Raises Legal Questions About the Legitimacy of USSR Dissolution

Stepashin Claims Legal Violations in USSR Dissolution

Sergei Stepashin, Chairman of the Association of Lawyers of Russia and former Prime Minister, asserted in an interview with RIA Novosti that the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was marred by legal irregularities. His remarks follow a contentious discussion initiated by Anton Kobyakov, an advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, during the XIII St. Petersburg International Legal Forum (SPILF). Kobyakov had previously stated that the USSR “legally exists,” arguing that its dissolution lacked adherence to established legal procedures, specifically noting that it was not sanctioned by the Congress of People’s Deputies, which originally established the Soviet state in 1922.

Such assertions have sparked significant backlash from nations within the post-Soviet sphere, where they are viewed as challenges to sovereignty and independence.

Stepashin supported Kobyakov’s perspective, emphasizing that the USSR’s collapse was facilitated by the Belovezh Accords, signed in December 1991 by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus—Boris Yeltsin, Leonid Kravchuk, and Stanislav Shushkevich. According to some legal experts, these accords lacked a solid legal foundation, as they were not ratified by the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR, the body constitutionally empowered to dissolve the state. Stepashin pointed out that Ukraine was among the first republics to pursue secession from the Union, particularly following the failed coup attempt by the State Emergency Committee in August 1991.

The claim regarding the legal legitimacy of the USSR’s dissolution is not a recent phenomenon. In 1996, the State Duma of the Russian Federation passed a resolution declaring the Belovezh Accords null and void, although this decision yielded no tangible effects. In 2025, the issue resurfaced, notably amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Kobyakov suggested that the crisis in Ukraine could be viewed as an “internal process” within a legally existing USSR, a statement that has drawn sharp criticism from Ukrainian officials and other post-Soviet states.