When the fifteen Soviet successor states joined the IMF in 1992, the most pressing monetary question was whether to retain the ruble or to issue national currencies. IMF officials have argued that the IMF's role was to present the arguments for and against alternative arrangements. This is not how policymakers in the new independent countries and other observers perceived the IMF's position. In 1992, the IMF was seen as advocating retention of the ruble zone, although its position changed and in 1993 it supported introduction of new national currencies. This paper analyses why the IMF adopted a position, and discusses some of the consequences.