I'm not sure the Soviet Union has stopped collapsing. The problems in Russia, Ukraine and Central Asia are breathtaking.
Considering the USSR no longer exists as a political entity they stopped collapsing over a generation ago. That said the problems they caused to those areas linger and will continue to linger probably forever, just like the world wars and their impact on Europe, Asia, and the Middle East (not to mention the US which is where it is today because of all of this).
In any case, if the Soviets hadn't build up the oil and gas industry in Western Siberia, they wouldn't have the petro state crutch. It would have had to make real reforms to the heart of the economy, rather than letting the heart atrophy while allowing oil to support them.
If they didn't have the oil and gas industry there would be no Russia, just a failed state where the USSR used to be. The entire point is you cannot reform what is so badly broken as the East German exampled proved: they tried to reform their economy to become a high tech export based model like their Western cousins, but despite that they are a hollow shell of a region within Germany; I've studied in Berlin and it is still VERY clear where communism ruled. Traveling outside the city shows that other than a few specific areas there is a lot of blight. So I'm not sure what reforms you think they really could have made to actually have a functional competitive industrial heart, as effectively the only 'successful' post-Soviet economies have been states that a effectively European tiny Chinas that thrive on Western European outsourcing to take advantage of their cheap labor and relatively well educated population, while still exporting some raw materials (think Poland and coal and some metals like Copper).
Hm. I'd give them a good chance in industrial semi-products (things like steel and concrete), railway equipment, public transport, selling university educations and cheap knockoffs of Western goods (which the Soviets started doing - witness things like the Lada car - but gave up when they started investing heavily in the oil industry).
Keep in mind, there was a time (the 50s and 60s) when "made in Japan" was a badge of shame. Just because the Soviets can't produce goods equal to those of the West in the 70s doesn't mean they won't be putting out world-class products in the 90s - if they make the right investments.
Though I expect they'd not be efficient at "Japaning" I don't think one can entirely discount the possibility.
Steel was cornered by Japan and later China, which was a lot cheaper and willing to mechanize/use effective slave labor with low safety conditions to make their products. Same thing with concrete, they'd have to compete with a reforming China and just could not compete with their scales of economy and wages. As to their industrial equipment it was substandard and competing with much better US/German/British/French stuff. Same with cars, rail equipment, and so on. Selling university educations? Knock off western goods and outsourced western european cheap manufacturing might work, but they'd be competing with China and all the post-Soviet/late-Soviet era bloc countries that could be much easier leveraged by Western European countries.
And Lada? Not sure that had legs going forward when competing with Toyota and the Japanese economy cars. And yes I know about the history of Japanese industry and it's reputation for cheapness and poor quality (same with Germany way back when and China to a degree now, but that is changing). Perhaps the Soviets could have produced better cars and tractors and the like, we'll never know, but they'd probably have to invest heavily in their own agriculture as a base first to perfect the technology and get pricing where it needed to be, but there was the labor problems in general and overspending on the military that will still hurt the Soviets/Russians badly. You're right, it is possible, but they have a massive hill to climb given international competition which is tough for a national economy not based on that, but rather full employment at all costs and not meeting the needs of consumers.