Otherwise hard to prove a negative, how many ops were deterred by presence of USSR conventional forces in country, or by threat of USSR intervening?

With various intervention forces it's really more of a matter of quality rather than quantity. As a superpower with global ambition Soviets needed those. But they were only a small part of Soviet conventional forces. In a focused arms spending scenario these forces might be even expanded.

The exception would be the occupation forces in Eastern Europe where quantity would be also needed. There it's more important to have enough manpower, tanks and APC's to perform an intervention when necessary. Whether the tanks in question would be T-62's or T-80's the crushed demonstrators would not care.
 

Anchises

Banned
Soviet Union needed a large military force for internal purposes - in their propaganda they were always under threat from the West. If there was no threat and thus need for extraordinary measures the subjects of Soviet rule might demand more of the toys the people in degenerate West had.

Thus, instead of simple demobilization to free resources for economy I would suggest they would need a clear division of forces. In practice, Strategic Forces are cut down slightly, the Navy's smaller combatants are cut, larger ones left for gunboat diplomacy, Air Forces (both PVO and VVS) are cut drastically, Airborne Forces might be even built up. Then a small number of high quality divisions to keep Eastern Europe down and arms race with the NATO on going.

Surplus weapons would be donated to various third world clients to keep them happy and to cause chaos.

Most of the Army, though, would be kind of civil works program in which young men are drafted, given rudimentary training and then used for construction and agricultural work etc. They would still march, drill with AK-47's etc. but would not need expensive stuff such as BMP's, T-72's etc. This would keep the indoctrination machinery in place and remind people from the treacherous West while saving a significant portion of military budget for more useful tasks.

That is not going to work.

The West always had forces of a superior quality. If the WP starts to strive for a small high quality force they can only lose. Producing high tech gear in smaller number is where the West excels, the Soviets on the other hand would really struggle to produce high tech gear, the outcome would probably be inferior to Western weapons and would still be inproportionately expensive.

Drastically downsizing the airforce is suicide. In 1984 the Soviets were well aware that guided bombs and missiles where a grave threat, giving up the fight for air superiority is akin to suicide. A large scale reenactment of the Gulf War of OTL would be the result of all wargames, making the Red Army useless.

Turning the Red Army into a glorified "forced labor battalion" with occassional militia practice is also not really helpful. The Soviets already used the Red Army conscripts extensively for stuff like harvesting etc. What the Soviets need is more specialized and well trained workers and clerks available for the Civilian Sector.
 
That is not going to work.

The West always had forces of a superior quality. If the WP starts to strive for a small high quality force they can only lose. Producing high tech gear in smaller number is where the West excels, the Soviets on the other hand would really struggle to produce high tech gear, the outcome would probably be inferior to Western weapons and would still be inproportionately expensive.

Drastically downsizing the airforce is suicide. In 1984 the Soviets were well aware that guided bombs and missiles where a grave threat, giving up the fight for air superiority is akin to suicide. A large scale reenactment of the Gulf War of OTL would be the result of all wargames, making the Red Army useless.

The idea is not to fight a conventional war, but to prepare forces for Cold War interventions. The Soviet gear was adequate for these tasks throughout the Cold War, even being occasionally superior in some respects to Western products. Just produce less of it, and above all, reduce amount of forces for less upkeeping and personnel costs. No amount of air forces will be able to defend Soviet Union against ICBM's and SLBM's anyway.

Turning the Red Army into a glorified "forced labor battalion" with occassional militia practice is also not really helpful. The Soviets already used the Red Army conscripts extensively for stuff like harvesting etc. What the Soviets need is more specialized and well trained workers and clerks available for the Civilian Sector.

Glorified labor battalion is a lot cheaper to train and maintain, and even can work for some of it's upkeep work, compared to motorized rifle divisions which need tanks, apc's, expensive fuel and ammunition for training etc.
 

Anchises

Banned
The idea is not to fight a conventional war, but to prepare forces for Cold War interventions. The Soviet gear was adequate for these tasks throughout the Cold War, even being occasionally superior in some respects to Western products. Just produce less of it, and above all, reduce amount of forces for less upkeeping and personnel costs. No amount of air forces will be able to defend Soviet Union against ICBM's and SLBM's anyway.

But Cold War interventions won't work, if the Soviets don't have the miitary muscle to actually back them up. Just threatening nuclear war ever time the West challenges the Soviet Union isn't a viable long term strategy. Not if you want to be active on the world stage. This strategy runs into a dead end quick, because the enemy is going to call your bluff. Assume that the USA decides to employ a naval blockade to prevent the SU from intervening somwhee because the Soviet Navy is a sclerotic shadow of itself after the cuts. What are the Soviets supposed to do ? Nuke New York? And again, prestige is a thing. Nobody is going to take the Soviets seriously, if they are clearly inferior in all military areas.

And in the gear department: In the 80s the quality of Wester and Soviet gear started rapidly diverging. There is no way that the Soviets start mass producing sophisticated guided bombs, the various computerized systems that the military started employing, stealth bombers and next generation MBTs. The Soviets simply lacked the underlying economy necessary for that. Look how microchip development in the GDR turned out...

Quality is not a field where the Soviets have any change of winning or even keeping up with the West, not with their RnD and their economic modell.


Glorified labor battalion is a lot cheaper to train and maintain, and even can work for some of it's upkeep work, compared to motorized rifle divisions which need tanks, apc's, expensive fuel and ammunition for training etc.

Yeah, sure equipping them with cheap stuff is going to save money. Their labour is still not availabe for the more specialed tasks where it is actually needed though. Building some roads and helping during the harvest is still a giant waste, especially if you have to feed, clothe and house all of the "soldiers".
 
But Cold War interventions won't work, if the Soviets don't have the miitary muscle to actually back them up. Just threatening nuclear war ever time the West challenges the Soviet Union isn't a viable long term strategy. Not if you want to be active on the world stage. This strategy runs into a dead end quick, because the enemy is going to call your bluff. Assume that the USA decides to employ a naval blockade to prevent the SU from intervening somwhee because the Soviet Navy is a sclerotic shadow of itself after the cuts. What are the Soviets supposed to do ? Nuke New York? And again, prestige is a thing. Nobody is going to take the Soviets seriously, if they are clearly inferior in all military areas.

The forces used in actual interventions Soviets did were either very small (as in case of interventions in Africa and Middle East) or did not demand technologically most advanced forces (as in Czechoslovakia). Afganistan was the major one requiring larger forces, but only small figment of Soviet force total. Soviet large scale units usable in Mediterranean and in oceans were small part of the Soviet Navy which included, right into end, massive light and obsolescent forces.

And in the gear department: In the 80s the quality of Wester and Soviet gear started rapidly diverging. There is no way that the Soviets start mass producing sophisticated guided bombs, the various computerized systems that the military started employing, stealth bombers and next generation MBTs. The Soviets simply lacked the underlying economy necessary for that. Look how microchip development in the GDR turned out...

Quality is not a field where the Soviets have any change of winning or even keeping up with the West, not with their RnD and their economic modell.

Once again, no one is fighting a conventional conflict except Tom Clancy. The real need for conventional forces is in proxy wars and limited interventions and in these arenas Soviet equipment, if not training, was sufficient right into end of the Cold War. No one took S-300 (SA-10), SU-27, Smerch, T-80, KH-22M (AS-4) for crappy equipment at the end of the Cold War, just to cite few examples.

With smaller forces the training would be better too.

Yeah, sure equipping them with cheap stuff is going to save money. Their labour is still not availabe for the more specialed tasks where it is actually needed though. Building some roads and helping during the harvest is still a giant waste, especially if you have to feed, clothe and house all of the "soldiers".

Compared to equipping dozens of MRD's sitting on their backsides a labour militia would be vastly cheaper and more useful. Remember, we're trying to discover best possibilities for Soviet Union, not best possibilities in general.
 
Maybe we should take a look at the enemies Neocons had in 2001. Think about Iraq, the Taliban, and the peripheral players. Think about how strong these states were compared to the Soviet Union, how much their ideologies affected global politics, and how the propaganda machine of the Neocons was willing to portray them.

We don't actually know what the bottom looks like, but somewhere between the OTL Soviet Union in the 1980s and the War-on-Terror/Axis of Evil players of the 2000s is all the geopolitical strength a surviving Soviet Union needs to project in order to capture the entire focus of the Neocons.

The one crucial difference that still makes it a Cold War and not a series of super-sized Iraq Wars is the presence of a significant nuclear arsenal in Russia.

You can argue that This or That policy change or funding cut would be a bridge too far to the viability of the Soviet state, but really it comes down to two things:
1) Do enough people participate in society to keep the hammer & sickle flying?
2) Does that government have nukes?

If anyone thinks any combination of economic/doctrinal/military/procurement setbacks really drops the Soviet state below the viability of Iraq circa late 2001, I'm happy to listen to your arguments and we'll draw the line right above that.
 
The Neocons are barely even right wing, they'd probably just be hawkish democrats if the Cold War lasted longer. Most of the neocons were ex-Trotskyists who became liberal democrats. When they entered mainstream politics, they brought a lot of intellectual baggage and leninist habits with them. They still wanted to vanquish the Soviet Union and spread the revolution, but the revolution just became capitalist democracy instead of state socialism. The End of History is built on Hegel's ideas as much as orthodox Marxism is. They're like modern day Jacobins obsessed with spreading democracy and capitalism at any other cost.
 
Top