Partial soviet collapse/Perestroika successful.

Valamyr

Banned
I'm interested to picture a world where the USSR loses superpower status but doesnt collapse so completely as to break what traditionally was Russia.

So lets say that a slightly earlier (late 70s?) and more successful perestroika brings increased prosperity in Russia itself and the adjacant lands that were traditionally Russian. Eastern Europe gets only fringe benefits however, and things begin to take a different shape than OTL. Under Gobatchev, the Soviet bloc slowly opens up markets in the 80s, ala China. Eastern Europe feels increasingly rebellious however, and in 1990, Moscow makes a drastic move by withdrawing from all countries west of its core lands. Its military leaves rapidly. The wall is shattered within hours.

Gorbatchev encourages moderate, socialist regimes favorable to Moscow in Eastern europe, and offer economic pacts, while accepting that eastern europe withdraws from the Warsaw pact and its military provisions. Simultaneously, the old USSR, with the borders of 1940, including the baltic states, Moldavia, Ukraine, the Caucasus and the central asian republics, holds together. Threats of force, and in some places, force, is employed to break those who'd wish to follow up with independence. The recent rise in quality of life in these regions help quell problems.

Rapidly, changes are seen from OTL. Eastern european governments are more socialist and walk a thin line between freeing themselves from a 50 year domination and accepting the help of a much more friendly giant wishing to cooperate with them. Yugoslavia, always distant from Moscow, is one country that benefits from this change. Moscow's newfound willingness to cooperate rather than dominate brings the two countries closer and prevent the collapse of the country.

In the middle east, butterflies rapidly change the situation we've seen. Trying to exploit the collapse of much of the soviet empire, the US push on with its strategy to strengthen its foothold in the region, leading to the Gulf war in 1991. The Soviet Union morally backs Saddam, a traditional ally, but doesnt wish to test its muscles directly. Quite the opposite, as Gorbatchev is making progress negociating serious nuclear cuts, and he doesnt want to endanger the detente.

However, Soviet mediation shortens the war, Saddam accepts to quit Koweit for good and to pay indemnities to the small country. In exchange, he retains control of his country's airspace and suffers a much lessened embargo, which ends in 1996. Relative stability returns to the region. Meanwhile, the USSR liberalize much of its economy and soften up its communist rethoric, looking like much less of a threat to the world.

The European Union doesnt spread east as easily as in OTL. By 2004, Poland will join it, but not the Balkan countries, which prefers retaining closer ties to the Soviets. Like China, Soviet economy knows substantial growth in the 1994-2004 period.

In parrallel, the continued existance of the US rival changes US policy substantially. It's largely Soviet influence that prevents the US from pursuing a more agressive policy in the middle east; in many ways the 1991 conflict looks like a diplomatic soviet victory in retrospect. The US also never gets engaged in Yugoslavia, where the communist regime holds the country together and grows closer to Moscow.

The nuclear deals signed in 1995 lessen the threat of a nuclear war greatly. Both sides substantially cut their arsenals. The conciliant attitude of the USSR allows it to make gains on the world markets and through trade.

The Taliban regime is still there in Afganhisthan but a shorter and less humiliating Iraqi war lessens slightly the anti US anger that is growing in the middle east. More importantly, though, with the soviet giant still present on the borders of Afganisthan, radical muslims still have an old foe to worry about and dont really need a new one. Several men which supported the 9-11 attacks in OTL are more concerned with strengthening Taliban rule and defenses over Afganisthan and stirring up troubles into the muslim areas of the Soviet Stans. This means that by 2000, the USSR is the country that faces the threat of terrorism the most, in a battle over the southern half of its country.

On the other hand, Moscow remains on good terms with the governments of most muslim countries, and on rather poor terms with their traditional foe, Israel. This leads to further isloation of the radicals, which ultimately prevents altogether the 9-11 attacks. Al-Qaeda's ressources are simply elsewhere. The problems for the USSR are not major; they are also much less mediatized than OTL's Chechenya because the stronger country is obviously not bullied as much as Russia, and its "right" to crush dissidence is not under particular scrutiny. Therefore, aside from a few bombings of buildings in some big cities, noting too big happens. The soviet army is rather effective in punishing the acts while avoiding too much bad press.

This changes the post 2001 world tremendously. There is no invasion of Afganisthan and no second Iraq war. The Bush administration remains more secluded from world affairs, and pursues OTL's policies of economic protectionism and general conservatism. A strong desire to forge a Casus Belli to get a second shot at Iraq exists amongst the hawks, but it is much more difficult, since Iraq has grown much closer to a stronger USSR. Having first effectively killed the embargo in Iraq, the Soviets followed up by establishing military cooperation with Saddam's regime, one of the less religious and moderate in the region. Far from cooperating with terrorists, Saddam was arguably always very wary of these groups and in this TL, he shows largely. In 2004, Saddam looks very close to a nuclear bomb, with heavy soviet backup. Iran-Iraq relations are okish, but the latter is definitely the soviet favorite.

Western goods are starting to largely penetrate the USSR by 2004, like China in OTL, but state control remains over medias and the internet, both heavily monitored to maintain control. Despite this, Moscow makes regular small steps towards more individual freedom.

ITTL, Israel is rather different from OTL's. For one, its missing a million Russian jews which never leave the USSR. After that, it has to keep into account the soviet factor in several things. A stronger Iraq leaves it with less of a free hand in the middle east, and its worsening demographic situation forces it to compromise more. No peace gets concluded nontheless, but a two-state solution on something close to the 1967 borders begins to seem increasingly likely by 2004.

The USA remains a sleeping dragon longer, and without the burning Reichstag that was 911, its much harder for its administration to pursue wars or civil rights restrictions. Though a latent fear/hatred of communism lasts longer, its increasingly difficult to use it to justify huge military expenditures, thanks to a much more relaxed West-Soviet relationship.

In fact, European Union-Soviet relations improves alot by the early 2000s, (A bit like EU-China in OTL) making NATO look increasingly obselete as a defense against the east. With a more peaceful east and a quiet America, Europe seems to regain more of a world-leader status. A shift between American and European views seems to indicate that the world is headed for a three power situation between Europe, America and the USSR. China remains a player on the rise, as well.

What do you think of this scenario? Seems likely? Would you rather live in it than in ours? Is it possible that a surviving USSR can prevent the rise of the form of US militarism that we've withnessed the last few years, or would the US simply adapt to find other targets to show it is the winning superpower?

Also, is it too much of a stretch to assume that a soviet threat to the north would have kept Al-Qaeda and its croonies from turning on the US? If so, what would happen in 2001 if a stroner USSR had no intent of letting the US establish a foothold on its southern border in Afganisthan, terrorism or not?
 
i liked it personally. Plausibility, i think it is, but i'm to old a hand to get invovled in that game.

A couple of minor things.

1. The baltics well leave with Eastern Europe, they long wanted freedom, tasting it for a short period in 1918-1940. If E. Germany and Poland can break away, they well try to. Even with limited economic improvements, they wouldn't stay. They will still be economically depedent on the USSR must likey join in some type of EU style economic and social union (same currency, free movement across the border, etc).

2. About the jews in russia. That was always been a major human rights issue, i don't see why a deal can't be struck. Especially considering the huge jewish lobby within the us. US economic aid for Soviet Jews. Crazy deal really, since the US will probably end up giving aid to the israelis to intake 1.5 million russian jews.

"Also, is it too much of a stretch to assume that a soviet threat to the north would have kept Al-Qaeda and its croonies from turning on the US?"
Why turn on the US when there good ol' god-less atheists just right over the border to destory. And did the Soviet still invade Afghanistan? If the Socialist government could be mainted through economic aid in Afghanistan, a lot would change.

"If so, what would happen in 2001 if a stroner USSR had no intent of letting the US establish a foothold on its southern border in Afganisthan, terrorism or not?" If a atttack still happens on the US, the first people they wil be blaming is the Soviets. Some (very few) were positive it was the Russians on 9/11 in OTL. If Pakistan remains a friend of China and India of the USSR there could be complex problems when the US trys to move on Afghanistan. Soviet and American troops cooperating to root out international terrorists in Afghanistan? Nice idea.
 

Xen

Banned
Coincidentally I was working on a scenario just like this. Except its somewhat different.
 
Valamyr said:
In the middle east, butterflies rapidly change the situation we've seen. Trying to exploit the collapse of much of the soviet empire, the US push on with its strategy to strengthen its foothold in the region, leading to the Gulf war in 1991. The Soviet Union morally backs Saddam, a traditional ally, but doesnt wish to test its muscles directly. Quite the opposite, as Gorbatchev is making progress negociating serious nuclear cuts, and he doesnt want to endanger the detente.

Would SU supply Iraq as in OTL? Without it GW1 might end sooner with smaller Iraqi debt and no need for invasion of Kuwait and GW2.

Valamyr said:
The Taliban regime is still there in Afganhisthan but a shorter and less humiliating Iraqi war lessens slightly the anti US anger that is growing in the middle east. More importantly, though, with the soviet giant still present on the borders of Afganisthan, radical muslims still have an old foe to worry about and dont really need a new one. Several men which supported the 9-11 attacks in OTL are more concerned with strengthening Taliban rule and defenses over Afganisthan and stirring up troubles into the muslim areas of the Soviet Stans. This means that by 2000, the USSR is the country that faces the threat of terrorism the most, in a battle over the southern half of its country.

Not really. Taliban were result of Soviet occupation and civil war. No Soviet occupation-no Taliban. SU backs DRA with military aid and advisors plus specialists (pilots, TBM operators....) but otherwise stay out.

Also no Soviet occupation means no AQ and without US presence in Saudi Arabia OBL lacks both base of orgnisation and main gripe.
 

Xen

Banned
Good points, also what happens in Kosovo? and Somalia? Does the United States get involved there? Maybe they send the 82d Airborne over Rwanda in 1994? Without the collapse of the USSR, even with the relaxed American-Soviet relations who do the Democrats nominate in 1992 and 1996? They can probably go with Tsongas in 1992 but he'd probably lose to George H.W. Bush, depending on who the Democrats put up in 1996 we could have Bob Dole as President or a strong Democratic leader perhaps Dick Gephardt gets the nod in 1996. If Gephardt wins then George W. Bush will either not run in 2000 or will lose, if Bob Dole wins in 1996 hes locked for the 2000 Republican ticket. Dubya is pretty much butterflied out of this. He can go for 2004, but that depends largely on 2000 Republican Nomination (if Dole doesnt win in 96), I think McCain would get the nomination in 2000 and again in 2004 even if he doesnt win in 2000.
 
If this starts in the late 70s then there is no Invasion of Afganistan and no grain boycot. That helps Carter. I also guess if the US and SU are more friendly they would tend to take the same view of Fundamentalist Iran and be more able to cooperate.

I think 80s politics in the West might look rather different
 

Valamyr

Banned
Xen, Kosovo doesnt exist, as Yugoslavia stays in one piece... no war there..

This being said, your points about Afganisthan makes sense, but I had used faulty logic I think. I had assumed the Soviet invasion of Afganisthan had happened on schedule (hence my mention of the Taliban) and failed.

But its mostly because i had the time table wrong on that. Indeed with the corrected dates, the invasion might be avoided altogether, which would mean no Taliban (never rise to fight off the soviets) and no viable Al-Qaeda (never trained by the US to fight off the soviets), end of the line.

Could Gorbatchev gain influence rapidly enough to have power in time to avoid this invasion? I agree it would make the POD more interesting. It would probably even change the viability of terrorism in the minds of the Arab Street.
 
It should be noted that neither the Taliban or Al-Qaeda even existed during the time of the Soviet army's interventions in Afghanistan. The US aided a number of different groups. Some of the individuals who received weapons and other assistance from the US may have later become part of the Taliban, but to say that the "US aided the Taliban against the Soviets" is totally inaccurate.

All in all, this timeline has both benefits and disadvantages. On the one hand, no surge of hatred towards the US and no 9/11 attacks are surely a good thing, as is the avoidance of Bosnia and the long blockade of Iraq. On the other hand, the continuation of the USSR as a great power, now with a more robust economy, is troubling. In OTL China could become both an economic and military superpower, run by a nasty dictatorship that has the potential for causing endless trouble. In this ATL, the USSR is already strong enough to become aggressive and restart the Cold War at any time.
 
Hmm...this TL is very interesting. Maybe instead of using Gorbachev, some other "Great Man" reformer who didn't exist in OTL comes to power in this ATL.

As for Western politics, specifically American, could this mean that Carter could get some credit for warmer relations, leading to a better chance in 1980?
 
Paul Spring said:
In this ATL, the USSR is already strong enough to become aggressive and restart the Cold War at any time.

or maybe the US will become aggressive and restart the Cold War at any time. Russia's growing influence on the Middle East, a Europe that is independent from the US, i forget what else...
 
Xen, Kosovo doesnt exist, as Yugoslavia stays in one piece... no war there..

This being said, your points about Afganisthan makes sense, but I had used faulty logic I think. I had assumed the Soviet invasion of Afganisthan had happened on schedule (hence my mention of the Taliban) and failed.

But its mostly because i had the time table wrong on that. Indeed with the corrected dates, the invasion might be avoided altogether, which would mean no Taliban (never rise to fight off the soviets) and no viable Al-Qaeda (never trained by the US to fight off the soviets), end of the line.

Could Gorbatchev gain influence rapidly enough to have power in time to avoid this invasion? I agree it would make the POD more interesting. It would probably even change the viability of terrorism in the minds of the Arab Street.

Russian Spring is a good novel for anyone to read if you want to read an alternate history where Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika actually succeeded, where the Soviet Union became a First World superpower and joins the EU, while the United States becomes the most heavily militarized Third World Country.
 
Top