Could the USSR be saved with a POD after 1980?

[Johnrankins]

It was the Soviet Army, not Red, and sorry to tell that your plan is not realistic: all bilateral agreements had been about the nuclear weapons, which indicates priorities and tells that nobody was taking the ground forces too seriously (any serious land conflict between East and West would escalate into a nuclear one turning all these tanks into the piles of a radioactive scrap metal). Control over the troops numbers would be pretty much impossible on both sides. Definitely on the Soviet one but I doubt that the US would agree to the Soviet inspection of all military bases. Then, what you are proposing would mean abolishing the universal conscription in the SU, which proved to be impossible even in post-Soviet Russia, and cutting the number of units tells little about their size and equipment. Who, on both sides, would allow a needed degree of interference and even now the satellite-obtained information or rather its interpretation can generate a lot of crap open to the politically motivated interpretations (as was the case during the peak of the Donbas conflict).

Maybe it is wishful thinking, but it would have helped both sides if it could be done.

 

[alexmilman]

Maybe it is wishful thinking, but it would have helped both sides if it could be done.

Well, a lot of things could help but most of them did not happen due to a justified absence of a mutual trust. And when Yeltsin decided to operate based on the mutual trust notion he was fundamentally screwed. This was a Realpolitik and not a mutual admiration society and politicians on both sides tended to be nasty and not necessarily too intelligent.

 

[Johnrankins]

Well, a lot of things could help but most of them did not happen due to a justified absence of a mutual trust. And when Yeltsin decided to operate based on the mutual trust notion he was fundamentally screwed. This was a Realpolitik and not a mutual admiration society and politicians on both sides tended to be nasty and not necessarily too intelligent.

I wasn't talking "mutual trust" but negotiated reductions. I admit I didn't think of the verification problem.

 

[Workable Goblin]

It was the Soviet Army, not Red, and sorry to tell that your plan is not realistic: all bilateral agreements had been about the nuclear weapons, which indicates priorities and tells that nobody was taking the ground forces too seriously (any serious land conflict between East and West would escalate into a nuclear one turning all these tanks into the piles of a radioactive scrap metal). Control over the troops numbers would be pretty much impossible on both sides. Definitely on the Soviet one but I doubt that the US would agree to the Soviet inspection of all military bases.

It wasn't a bilateral treaty, but the Soviet Union and the United States (mostly) did negotiate the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in a process starting from the early 1970s, which was intended to limit conventional armed forces in Europe. It did, in fact, include inspection protocols, just like the nuclear treaties. People evidently were concerned about conventional forces, didn't think control over numbers was impossible, and were willing to submit to inspections by the opposing parties.

Of course, ultimately the treaty was only signed in 1990 and ratified in 1992, so it was basically overtaken by events (and then abandoned by Russia in 2007, essentially). But I think that you are being far too cavalier in dismissing the possibility of it existing when...well...it did exist!

 

[Johnrankins]

It wasn't a bilateral treaty, but the Soviet Union and the United States (mostly) did negotiate the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in a process starting from the early 1970s, which was intended to limit conventional armed forces in Europe. It did, in fact, include inspection protocols, just like the nuclear treaties. People evidently were concerned about conventional forces, didn't think control over numbers was impossible, and were willing to submit to inspections by the opposing parties.

Of course, ultimately the treaty was only signed in 1990 and ratified in 1992, so it was basically overtaken by events (and then abandoned by Russia in 2007, essentially). But I think that you are being far too cavalier in dismissing the possibility of it existing when...well...it did exist!

If it was signed by Reagan say in 1985 or 1986 and ratified later that same year it could have given the USSR a real boost. That would be particularly true if expanded later.

 

[alexmilman]

It wasn't a bilateral treaty, but the Soviet Union and the United States (mostly) did negotiate the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in a process starting from the early 1970s, which was intended to limit conventional armed forces in Europe. It did, in fact, include inspection protocols, just like the nuclear treaties. People evidently were concerned about conventional forces, didn't think control over numbers was impossible, and were willing to submit to inspections by the opposing parties.

Of course, ultimately the treaty was only signed in 1990 and ratified in 1992, so it was basically overtaken by events (and then abandoned by Russia in 2007, essentially). But I think that you are being far too cavalier in dismissing the possibility of it existing when...well...it did exist!

Conversation was about the 1970s - early 1980s, pre-Gorby era. Situation was fundamentally different from 1989 and your argument does not make too much of a practical sense. It also seems that you are somewhat confused about the issue under discussion. Conversation in the thread was about the general reduction of the army sizes by the SU and US (as in “everywhere”), not about limiting numbers of troops in Europe.

As far as MBFR is involved, talks of 1973 were limited to the exchange of the general proposals and limited to the troops located in Europe.

During the meeting of 1976 the Warsaw Pact countries submitted a proposal that the USSR and the US should reduce manpower by 2 to 3 per cent, and that both the US and the USSR would remove the same number of nuclear warheads, 354 nuclear-capable aircraft, a number of SCUD-B and Pershing I launchers, 300 tanks and a corps headquarters. The NATO and Warsaw Pact could not even agree on the existing numbers of the Warsaw Pact forces in Europe: WP claimed a number of the land troops almost 150K lower than was NATO estimate so it does not look like there were any comprehensive protocols allowing to check the numbers and the WP was mostly interested in the nuclear aspect of the issue. Again, conversation was about Europe and it does not look like there were any realistic provisions for checking the real numbers.

In December 1979 the Soviets held up the talks because of NATO's decision to site new intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Again, nuclear weapons were the main issue.

Only in 1989 conversations about reducing the conventional forces in Europe started seriously because by that time the SU already lost the CW, was in the midst of the economic and political crisis and the Soviet Block was crumbling making the future Soviet military presence abroad quite questionable (so the “goods” sold by the Soviet side already were of a questionable quality): by the time treaty was signed, Germany was already unified and there were revolutions in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria. The SU simply could not maintain its military forces on the earlier level and, in expectation of the economic help from the “West” Gorby agreed to the comprehensive mutual inspections. Even then by 1999 there were still Russian “noncompliance zones” in the Northern Caucasus and Moldova and Azerbaijan continues to significantly violate the treaty.

 

[alexmilman]

I wasn't talking "mutual trust" but negotiated reductions. I admit I didn't think of the verification problem.

The OTL conversations were limited to the troops present in Europe and it does not look like by 1976 the sides could agree even on the estimates of the numbers already present there. By moving the troops East of Ural or to the US territory neither side (I’m talking about two main opponents) was cutting size of its armed forces. Of course, it would be nice if they did but they did not and both sides kept upgrading their nuclear arsenals.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Conversation was about the 1970s - early 1980s, pre-Gorby era. Situation was fundamentally different from 1989. It also seems that you are somewhat confused about the issue under discussion. Conversation in the thread was about the general reduction of the army sizes by the SU and US (as in “everywhere”), not about limiting numbers of troops in Europe.

But Europe was by far the major theater, so reducing troop numbers there would reduce the number of troops needed overall.

Anyway, the point was simply that it was clearly not impossible for the Soviets and the United States to come to some kind of agreement over conventional forces, as seen by the fact that they actually did come to such an agreement, contrary to your argument that there were no such agreements and that they could not possibly figure out how to come up with such an agreement that would be acceptable to all parties.

As far as MBFR is involved, talks of 1973 were limited to the exchange of the general proposals and limited to the troops located in Europe.

Again, obviously. Not only was this the beginning of negotiations (so why would you expect specific details to be discussed?), but Europe was the most important theater, hosting most of the troops on both sides. You yourself have pointed out that the Soviets did not get involved in so many overseas wars that they would actually need to reduce troops in Africa or South America or wherever. It's not like the SALT agreements went straight to retiring all of the nuclear weapons on each side, either.

Again, conversation was about Europe and it does not look like there were any realistic provisions for checking the real numbers.

Well of course not, the treaty hadn't even been written yet and they were in the middle of figuring out just what they actually wanted out of it! It took a long time to agree on inspection and verification protocols for all of the nuclear treaties too, that didn't make them impossible. All this indicates is that in 1976 the treaty was in the middle of negotiation. So what? The point is that they were negotiating, and had some idea that they could come to an agreement at some point.

And again, Europe is the most important theater, with more troops than anywhere else, so that an agreement there is most of a general agreement anyway.

In December 1979 the Soviets held up the talks because of NATO's decision to site new intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Again, nuclear weapons were the main issue.

Well, you could interpret it that way, I guess. But it makes much more sense to me to look at the bigger picture of the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, the American response to that, and the ongoing breakdown in détente than to simply say "nuclear weapons were the main issue". They were really just an excuse because the Soviets were no longer interested in negotiating a treaty limiting armed forces. Not that the United States would have been better, especially under Reagan, of course.

Only in 1989 conversations about reducing the conventional forces in Europe started seriously because by that time the SU already lost the CW and was in the midst of the economic and political crisis. While formally there were numerous participants on both sides the talk was about the US and Soviet troops in Europe.

Why are you telling me things that I already said or alluded to? I already pointed out that it was mostly a treaty between the United States and Soviet Union, even if it was formally multilateral; I specifically pointed out that it was signed in 1990 and was alluding to the evolution of the Soviet Union's situation in a not necessarily favorable way with my comment on how it was "overtaken by events". The fact that it was actually signed, however, shows that such a treaty is not some impossible chimera that could never come into existence.

And yes, I noticed that the treaty was about Europe, considering that it's the Treaty on Conventional Armed Force in Europe, not the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces! You don't need to say that slowly and with emphasis every ten seconds like I'm an idiot child!