Romanov Ascendant: What if the Soviet Union survived?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a few questions about weapons.

To this day, the Mig 31 is arguably without match provided it can actually lock onto a target (not a given due to superior western computers, which I presume we have jammers, plus there's stealth technology). It on paper flies faster than any of our guided missiles (which means we cannot shoot it down if its flying away as opposed to towards the one firing at it) and its older, littler sister Mig 25 had rough parity in its Iraqi usage, despite being outnumbers and manned by relatively worse pilots.

And so, is it true the USSR is ahead of the USA when it pertains to air force technology?

And how about the Buran progam? It came out in the late 90s, it came out the Russians had superior rocket booster technology with 25 percent more lift and to this day NASA now uses Russian boosters. Yet, the boosters we are all using are from the early 70s Russian moon rocket. How about the Buran's Energeia rocket? From what I am aware, this has not been put back into service by Russia since 1989, but it has neither been divulged to the West. I presume the Energeia is superior to the 70s rocket boosters and is, to this day, the most powerful rocket in existence...which begs the question, with the USSR continuing, how much further does the USSR advance past the USA in this regard.

Lastly, considering the preceding technologies, what are the ramifications on USSR military doctrine? They can fire guided missiles at the USA without being hit (too fast), they can weaponize space far more easily, and they have a far larger land army. Is the USSR in some respect far more advanced in all honesty? The USA IOTL sort of went all Luftwaffe 46 focusing on big wonder weapons (aircraft carriers, b2 bombers, etcetera) which are amazing as solitary weapons and can smash crap powers, but stealth technology is not a pancea against a larger, more organized power like China or the USSR. Is the superiority in numbers, aircraft radar (the USSR's radar can track targets farther away), and in speed actually put the USSR in a better position in a real war? And, this is without getting into the fact that the Mig 31 can lift off from dirt/ice air fields, which means Russia can project power even after its infrastructure is nuked, unlike wimpy, western aircraft with the exception of the Harrier.

Thoughts?
 

Justinian

Banned
I have a few questions about weapons.

To this day, the Mig 31 is arguably without match provided it can actually lock onto a target (not a given due to superior western computers, which I presume we have jammers, plus there's stealth technology). It on paper flies faster than any of our guided missiles (which means we cannot shoot it down if its flying away as opposed to towards the one firing at it) and its older, littler sister Mig 25 had rough parity in its Iraqi usage, despite being outnumbers and manned by relatively worse pilots.
And again we should emphasize that Soviet computers are generally starting to catch up to western ones, meaning the avionics of the MiG-31 could be upgraded to sub western or western standard. As you mentioned the MiG-25 did generally fairly well in Iraqi service, they managed to speed away from several attempts to use AA missiles against them. The MiG-31 at this point would in fact excel as an interceptor, especially considering damaged AIM-120s were captured by the Soviets in the Gulf War. It would mean that NATO air power could be challenged extensively in an aggressive fashion, allowing more advanced Soviet CAS and strike aircraft to deliver precision munitions on NATO forces. However the problem would be these more advanced MiG-31 variants would be more expensive and harder to maintain, they would probably be kept in reserve for higher value targets like strikes on AWACS aircraft, escorting attacks on large naval vessels, or establishing air superiority at critical moments.
And so, is it true the USSR is ahead of the USA when it pertains to air force technology?
See ultimately, I would still give the edge to the F-15 overall as a multirole fighter on its own, overall 1 for 1, equipped with it's best weapons is more than capable of facing a MiG-29 or SU-27 (To a lesser extent); but it can also operate as a strike aircraft and the US has way more of them. The Soviets and their allied states are in the process of upgrading to the MiG-29 (Polish, Czech, EG, Rom, Middle east) but they still possess wide arrays of MiG-23s which are still inferior, and for the most part equivalent to the American F-4 phantom. I realistically could see the Soviets implementing a SEAD version of the MiG-27 at some point or perhaps they already would have.
And how about the Buran progam? It came out in the late 90s, it came out the Russians had superior rocket booster technology with 25 percent more lift and to this day NASA now uses Russian boosters. Yet, the boosters we are all using are from the early 70s Russian moon rocket. How about the Buran's Energeia rocket? From what I am aware, this has not been put back into service by Russia since 1989, but it has neither been divulged to the West. I presume the Energeia is superior to the 70s rocket boosters and is, to this day, the most powerful rocket in existence...which begs the question, with the USSR continuing, how much further does the USSR advance past the USA in this regard.
This is a great question, I haven't really had a chance to get into much detail about the specifics of the space race as it emerges in the 90s but it is something I intend to do in depth. The Energeia rocket at this point, in either configuration (M or II) are probably the most advanced and capable rocket as of 1994. This I believe would be the crux of their lunar landing plan. President Perot is more willing to throw money at NASA than the military, and the groundwork for a Delta-VI would be put in place, but that could be years or even a decade away. They still of course have the space shuttle, I imagine they may even get one more operational, especially with the militarization of space an ever increasing possibility. Work on both sides is secretly progressing on anti satellite, ABM and space weapons; but is for the most part theoretical. The Soviets at this point have the most realistic edge in implementing an actual space weapons program, but have not crossed that line yet.

Lastly, considering the preceding technologies, what are the ramifications on USSR military doctrine? They can fire guided missiles at the USA without being hit (too fast), they can weaponize space far more easily, and they have a far larger land army. Is the USSR in some respect far more advanced in all honesty? The USA IOTL sort of went all Luftwaffe 46 focusing on big wonder weapons (aircraft carriers, b2 bombers, etcetera) which are amazing as solitary weapons and can smash crap powers, but stealth technology is not a pancea against a larger, more organized power like China or the USSR. Is the superiority in numbers, aircraft radar (the USSR's radar can track targets farther away), and in speed actually put the USSR in a better position in a real war? And, this is without getting into the fact that the Mig 31 can lift off from dirt/ice air fields, which means Russia can project power even after its infrastructure is nuked, unlike wimpy, western aircraft with the exception of the Harrier.

Thoughts?
Overall, the Soviet Doctrine would increasingly emphasize disrupting and damaging NATO command and control, as well as disrupting its ability to deploy operational or tactical air assets. By the 90's in Germany as a result of studying the Gulf War, NATO has already determined that operating aircraft there is at best untenable and at worst unrealistic and suicidal. The increased ubiquity of Soviet short range missiles like the Tochka and soon the Iskander as well as the better capabilities of strike aircraft like the SU-24 or SU-27 employed in a strike role or the SU-34 which is also coming into service would make forward airbases kill zones. Of course another problem NATO had was that in the 80s it always assumed it would be able to maintain the edge in the air, and engage in periods of offensive air superiority that would make up for the quantitative (A Soviet/Eastern corps for every division in Germany) and qualitative (the overall edge in Warsaw Pact tanks over western counterparts, not the advanced ones like the Leopard 2s or M1A1s/M1Ps but the vast array of Leopard Is still in service, that were inferior compared to the T-55AMV or T-62M1.) However European countries are trying to catch up and are spending more on 4.5 Generation fighters and new generation main battle tanks like the Leclerc.

NATO/The United States has generally ceded ground power for air and naval power and that has been the general tendency since WW2, except for France, Germany and to a lesser extent Italy. As you have identified, the Soviets have essentially equalized if not gained a slight edge in the air. The US does not have stealth fighters that would give it the advantage or slight advantage yet. In an actual conventional war, as in the Soviets and Warsaw Pact invading Germany, they definitely would have the offensive advantage, as they would have had in the 80s. But unlike the 80s, it is stronger and it's doubtful that NATO would expect to conduct reforger in West Germany itself because the speed and capability of the Soviet Army has increased to the point that attempting to hold anything east of the Rhine is unlikely; this also means that nearly all of their air assets would have to be concentrated in France and the United Kingdom which would be its own issue. The only advantage NATO would have at that point is utilizing the geography of the Be-Ne-Lux states and making a fighting retreat from the Rhine into France. From a military point of view they could build a defensive line on the Rhine but this would be politically unacceptable to governments and European populations. With this disparity in conventional power, the Soviets may have the capability to invade France, but politically France would either accept terms, neutrality (depending on its government) or threaten nuclear warfare.

So yes you are right in identifying that the Soviets are more powerful in the conventional balance of arms at this point. Better stabilizers for tanks, better optics, better missiles and better communication technology would also extensively benefit them. Of course MAD is still in effect. As you identified the B-2 is a great platform for attacking lower grade countries, but also for the delivery of nuclear weapons. The United States still has complete domination of the Atlantic/Pacific Ocean navally (in a war it's doubtful they could come close to the Soviet Union's shores without suffering serious losses), other than the better, more stealthy Soviet submarines that are being deployed. This is one of the reasons why the US defence establishment is grinding its teeth at Perot, but it is also true that increasing defence expenditures to try and retrieve the advantage NATO had in the air in the 80s would be impossible until Stealth fighters become a thing.

Edit: I would also note that the US wouldn't have had the chance to upgrade it's patriot missile defence system that much because of a lack of operational experience in the gulf war, but the most glaring and obvious issues would have been addressed. So it's not that the patriot is irrelevant, as it is a highly capable operational SAM system but overall it wouldn't be able to decisively prevent Soviet/WP air power from attacking NATO forces. They would have to be constantly moved around, just like the S-300, but the overall flat geography of Germany wouldn't benefit that, neither would placing them in German areas that would be sure to be overrun. In Belgium, the Netherlands and west of the Rhine maybe, but there aren't many forests other than those in France and slightly in Germany that would make for good placement grounds. But these limitations would make me think NATO would generally began taking a "defence in depth" approach to West Germany and the Rhine after 1992-1993.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. Realistically, what are the MIG 31's combat capabilities today as per OTL? How can NATO realistically shoot it down given its range, speed, and altitude. Are Russian air to air missiles good enough to shoot down 4+ Gen US aircraft let alone 5th gen? I ask this as late 90s USSR technology is roughly what Russia has accomplished by this point, being that they lost a decade and the investment since then as still proved to be much less than USSR.
 
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. Realistically, what are the MIG 31's combat capabilities today as per OTL? How can NATO realistically shoot it down given its range, speed, and altitude.
The MiG-31 can act as a platform for launching Anti Satellite missiles and a type of Air Launched Ballistic Missiles. It could bring down AWACS, Tankers and B-1 Bombers from long ranges using the mighty R-33 Missiles and with prepared tactics a pack of 6 MiG-31 could down a SR-71 if they violate Soviet Airspace. It is more maneuverable than the older MiG-25 and maybe more than the F-14 and less than the F-15. The the MiG-31M variant must have entered service by now OTL and has the same maneuverability as the F-15 and can outspeed missiles of the time( Mach3+ speed as the MiG-25 but again with a risk of damaging the engines, in some cases even beyond repair) but the known Mach 2.8 speed was the standard limit for sustained operations without lengthy maintenance. It's phased array radar meant that it's situational awareness was greater than anything before the advent of F-22 and again upgrades to AESA radars can close the gap. It's missile pair the R-37 would hve been the most capable in the world. And furthermore it had an impressive datalink, a flight of 4 aircrafts can cover 1000 kms of airspace.
NATO can bring it down if it doesn't escape the Aim-54 fired from F-14s can bring it down with the same difficulty as the MiG-31s faced against SR-71s but there the more chances of there being mutual kills. Other aircrafts can do so too but it's far more difficult without Aim-54s untill more faster missiles are available.
Are Russian air to air missiles good enough to shoot down 4+ Gen US aircraft let alone 5th gen?
Definitely. Their Air to Air missile technology is as good as the any in the west and even a 10-15 year technology gap dosen't matter much. Even in training F-15 pilots have managed to down F-22 pilots and I remember that once an Emirati pilot had downed one in an exercise. The Su-30MK when it's available would be superior to the F-15s untill the F-15s received AESA radars and downing a F-22 is not an impossible feat. The more advanced variants of the R-77 can effectively down any 4+,5 gen airframes if used properly. R-73s are as good as any Sidewinders so I don't see how Russia is deficient in this field.
 
Last edited:
The MiG-31 ...
Stupid question, how does an enemy with a slower aircraft and slower air to air missile catchu up to a Mig 25 and 31 to shoot it down? In the Persian Gulf War, the only Mig 25s that were shut down were ambushed. It seems, with good awareness, the Mig 25s and 31s were untouchable. Is this accurate? Isn't that embarrassing, to this day, for Western military doctrine? 70s Soviet junk still cannot be touched it seems to me. am I perceiving something wrong?
 
Well South Africa looks to turning into a bitter sectarian quagmire that we all expect, I suspect if the SA faction can rely on western powers, well Britain probably would send some unofficial support and you definitely would have British citizens try to support them with cash, for better or worse the connection and blood will likely see a lot of British people caught up in this.
 

Justinian

Banned
Stupid question, how does an enemy with a slower aircraft and slower air to air missile catchu up to a Mig 25 and 31 to shoot it down? In the Persian Gulf War, the only Mig 25s that were shut down were ambushed. It seems, with good awareness, the Mig 25s and 31s were untouchable. Is this accurate? Isn't that embarrassing, to this day, for Western military doctrine? 70s Soviet junk still cannot be touched it seems to me. am I perceiving something wrong?
A lot of that is based on the overall misconception with a lot of people interested in military history or technology is the notion that anything soviet is 'junk' which is completely not based in reality. It's essentially a giant meme, often reinforced by using the Arabs and Israeli conflicts; which are not representative of anything tangible for a variety of reasons that are easily explainable but require detail, not that I wouldn't explain them if people actually were curious. The F-15 is the product of 1970s design and technology, so is the abrams, bradley and etc.

The MiG-25 and MiG-31 are not invulnerable, they could be attacked and destroyed while in the process of getting into range to make an attack, they could be ambushed as what happened in the gulf war. The AMRAAM like ChadMachine999 said or the AIM-7M could go at Mach 4, however of course taking evasive maneuvers and activating ECM especially in the case of the MiG-31 may or could likely ensure a successful escape. So the Soviets do have a great interceptor, but it's not a wonder weapon that can completely dominate the skies, but rather an equalizer that allows it to prevent NATO air superiority, localized or theater wide.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. Realistically, what are the MIG 31's combat capabilities today as per OTL? How can NATO realistically shoot it down given its range, speed, and altitude. Are Russian air to air missiles good enough to shoot down 4+ Gen US aircraft let alone 5th gen? I ask this as late 90s USSR technology is roughly what Russia has accomplished by this point, being that they lost a decade and the investment since then as still proved to be much less than USSR.
No problem, I appreciate the good questions as they spur interesting and good discussion. Today, with the AMRAAM, THAAD or whatever without having stealth characteristics makes it doubtful the MiG-31 could realistically operate as an interceptor over hostile territory. Rajveer Naha is also right, but it's important to note that the R-77, R-27 are more than capable, as is the R-37 which is just being introduced now and is a hypersonic anti aircraft missile. The R-77 and R-37 could easily shoot down a 5th generation American fighter. It's a much more equal fight with 4+ Gen aircraft, except the US and NATO currently have a lot more of them than Russia has, although Russia's are fairly advanced.
One more question: what about the Iraqi nuclear program? I don't think that the Soviets would allow someone like Saddam to get the bomb.
This is an area of contention, generally the Soviets were anti profiliteration but could also accept Iraq having a nuclear weapon because Israel has them. The problem is that Saddam's erratic leadership, aggressive tendencies and international infamy make him having a nuclear bomb problematic, they would much rather have someone rational like Hafez Al Assad who isn't just randomly going to nuke Tehran or Tel Aviv. While they would probably be at least another 5 years at the minimal away from actually getting anywhere close to where they need to be, the Soviets would know about it.
 
This is a great question, I haven't really had a chance to get into much detail about the specifics of the space race as it emerges in the 90s but it is something I intend to do in depth. The Energeia rocket at this point, in either configuration (M or II) are probably the most advanced and capable rocket as of 1994. This I believe would be the crux of their lunar landing plan. President Perot is more willing to throw money at NASA than the military, and the groundwork for a Delta-VI would be put in place, but that could be years or even a decade away. They still of course have the space shuttle, I imagine they may even get one more operational, especially with the militarization of space an ever increasing possibility. Work on both sides is secretly progressing on anti satellite, ABM and space weapons; but is for the most part theoretical. The Soviets at this point have the most realistic edge in implementing an actual space weapons program, but have not crossed that line yet.

Here, Energia does have one solid advantage over STS. It's its own standalone Superbooster, IIRC a deliberate decision on the part of then Chief Designer Glushko (officially on the grounds that the USSR in the 1970's could never build an SSME-matching engine) which makes it able to handle a wide range of missions with somewhat greater ease. Not that STS can't be adapted, it'll just take a bit more work on NASA's end.

As you said, Energia would be a good way for them to manage a Manned Lunar Landing as things stand atm, 32,000 Kg to TLI isn't something to be sneezed at.

A budget for it though, that's where I see issues, given that there's still a good deal that needs developing, in some places from scratch near-enough.
 
This is an area of contention, generally the Soviets were anti profiliteration but could also accept Iraq having a nuclear weapon because Israel has them. The problem is that Saddam's erratic leadership, aggressive tendencies and international infamy make him having a nuclear bomb problematic, they would much rather have someone rational like Hafez Al Assad who isn't just randomly going to nuke Tehran or Tel Aviv. While they would probably be at least another 5 years at the minimal away from actually getting anywhere close to where they need to be, the Soviets would know about it.
The real question is can Saddam build a nuclear bomb without Soviet aid? As the DPRK IOTL has shown, small nations do not need aid from great powers to build nukes, all they need is for great powers to be unwilling to wage war over proliferation. I don't think the US or USSR would want Saddam to have a nuke, but I don't think either of them would be willing to wage war to prevent it.
 
In terms of space I could definitely see the Soviets adapting the Energia to build space stations. Assuming the Americans don't cancel Space Station Freedom, the Energia could build the Soviet counterpart to that.

With the success of Energia and the continuation of the space race, the US would have more incentive to spend on space and maybe the National Launch System doesn't get cancelled. A new American heavy lift rocket could end up looking like the proposed Jupiter-DIRECT idea from the mid 2000s.

That being said, Perot will have to figure out what he wants to do with the budget. IOTL there was a lot of worry about the spiraling budget deficits under Reagan and Bush and that is what prompted those Presidents to raise taxes on several occasions. IOTL Bill Clinton ran a populist campaign in 1992 and promised to invest in domestic programs and cut middle class taxes but as President he had to break that promise and focus on reining in the deficit due to pressure from his economic advisors and from the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Greenspan is ideologically a monetarist and would probably pressure Perot to focus on the deficit. Getting into a fight with the fed chairman could be disastrous so Perot would need to tread carefully there.
 
The real question is can Saddam build a nuclear bomb without Soviet aid? As the DPRK IOTL has shown, small nations do not need aid from great powers to build nukes, all they need is for great powers to be unwilling to wage war over proliferation. I don't think the US or USSR would want Saddam to have a nuke, but I don't think either of them would be willing to wage war to prevent it.
What also matters is how long he can keep it a secret for/how safe can they keep their facilities, as we saw with Operation Outside the Box, the Israelis aren't afraid of using force to stop some countries from developing nuclear capacity.
 
Last edited:
So I forgot to mention, the Middle East situation for non Arabs is going to far the best than the OTL timeline for various reasons.

Israel for example won't be getting the 1990s post-Soviet aliyah as Mikhail Gorbachev never took over and allowed them to immigrate. Between 1989 and 2006, about 1.6 million Soviet Jews and their non-Jewish relatives and spouses, as defined by the Law of Return, emigrated from the former Soviet Union. That's over a ninth of the population of the country today.

You also have the butterfly effect Meir Kahane noted Jewish extremist and terrorist leader living ironically because of the Soviet Afghan war, as the al Qaeda network is still focused on the war so he won't be killed .

Kahane was a hate preacher who founded the Jewish defense league who late 1971, JDL militants fired a high-powered rifle into the Soviet Mission office in New York that almost killed a diplomat’s child. That prompted US law enforcement to launch a crackdown against JDL activists. Kahane was briefly arrested but did not face prison despite overwhelming evidence against him.

He then fled to Israel in the conservative settlement of Kirayat Araba that he used to preach his doctrine to young people come settle in the west Bank and found his party called Kach advocating the expelling of Palestinians .

Some of his most famous students were Yigal Amir killed Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, two years after he signed the Oslo Accords with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli military officer, gunned down 29 Muslim worshippers in what’s known as the Hebron Massacre which got them banned from Israel as terrorist organization.

Israel's got a lot more problems than the OTL for sure with stronger Arab states and a soviet union allied to them.

The kurds are also not going to do well, though much less because of Arab strongmen than because of the Faustian bargain ''their leaders'' have as besides Iraqi kurdistan you have Syria. Hafez used the PKK for his domestic policy, allowing the PKK to disseminate its ideology and recruit freely among Syrian Kurds. Ocalan denied “the existence of Kurdistan in Syria and the existence of a Kurdish problem in Syria,” contending that “most Syrian Kurds are immigrants” from Turkey, and the PKK’s path was to “return them to their original homeland”.

Assad provided bases, training, weapons and Kurdish recruits in exchange for them policing the local Kurds. Over five thousand Syrian Kurds died fighting Turkey under Ocalan. Here with the backing of the USSR he can stay in Syria without the risk of a Turkish invasion.

Well at least their was no Anfal in Iraq
 
Last edited:
How? The USA will be focused on preventing Congo to fall to the communist because if it falls to the reds the Americans will lose most of their influence in that portion of Africa.
The US abandoned Mobutu because after the fall of the USSR simply arming him (and not abandoning him) and preparing a secessor for him would be enough. But Kabila would still be agitating in the south and would want Soviet support if the first congo war happens.
 
Chapter Five: War and Peace 1994

Justinian

Banned
1994intk.jpg

An Iraqi Republican Guard T-72B proceeding north to Ahvaz, February 2nd 1994.

The Satrap's Hubris: Part One
January 17th 1994. 6:35AM. Safwan Air Base.
As the sun began to hit the desert, there was a flurry of activity at the recently renovated Safwan Air Base, nearing the borders of former Kuwait. It was initially repaired in 1992 after it struck by coalition forces during the Gulf War, but was expanded in mid 1993 as part of Saddam's ambitious plan. Thanks to the support of the Soviets in 1990 and 1991, Iraq now boasted one of the largest, strongest and most experienced air forces in the middle east. Not even Israel would dare attempt another raid on the reactivated Osirak reactor, thanks to two Kasta 2E complexes paid for by the Iraqis and built by the Soviets, the first oriented towards the west and the other towards the Gulf. The lessons of the soviet advisors had helped Iraq build a multi layered air defence system, almost as good as 1992 Warsaw Pact standard. It was with this system as a shield, and the Iraqi Air Force as a sword that Saddam planned to deliver the final blow to Khamenei. There was still a tripwire US presence in Saudi Arabia, and a peacekeeping force between him and the Saudis in Kuwait. There however was no peacekeeping force been him and Kuzenistan.

Beginning in 1993, preparations within the Iraqi General Staff rivaling those of Sadat's for the Yom Kippur War were ordered. Due to the presence of Soviet advisors and training personnel, Saddam knew that he had to keep it vague. There was no set date for an invasion, and the scenario being prepared was 'counter offensive', of course the many agents and spies who reported to the KGB in Iraq were more than capable of discerning this, they couldn't do much other than report that Saddam was interested in further warfare with Iran, which was something that the diplomatic ministry's own analysts were well aware of, and wasn't exactly new information. General Secretary Romanov himself had already visited Iraq to dissuade Saddam from further action, and it seemed to have been somewhat successful. However, this minor victory was only temporary. Saddam and the men he felt he could trust, although some of them moles, but were too tightly watched, were involved in the decision to go to war again with Iran.

The Iraqi Army, Republican Guard and Air Force were a different beast than they were at the height of their power in 1990 OTL, Iraqi aces who had fought American pilots instructed their new pilots, the lessons of modern air combat, the use of precision bombing raids and precision attacks were emphasized. In a swift Blitzkrieg, the Iraqis planned to breach the Al Faw Peninsula while destroying as much of the Iranian Air Force on the ground as possible, while immobilizing it's army and suppressing it's air defences. The Iraqis possessed tanks, IFVs, artillery and helicopters technologically beyond those of the Iranians. The only leverage Iran had was it's support of a Kurdish resistance movement which was faltering. When the offensive was launched on the 17th, surprise struck both the Soviets and Iranians, as the Iraqis had mobilized and deployed their forces under the auspices of training exercises, gave zero warning to the Soviets and attacked with everything they had; using a perpetuated border skirmish as justification.

1994iraqisoldiers.jpg

Iraqi Infantry Fighting in the hills near Al Bowna'im, January 29th 1994.

Iran fought back as best as it could, F-14s, F-4 Phantoms, Hawk Missiles and the desperate fanaticism of religious and nationalistic motivation. But this would prove to not be enough, within about week, the Iranian Air Force was so depleted it was essentially absent from the rest of the war. Iranian anti aircraft weapons were reduced to AA guns defending cities or armed formations from helicopters and low flying planes. Iraq had total air superiority and struck with impunity. Khorramshahr and Abadan were seized within the first two days, and the Republican Guard spearheaded deep penetration into Iran. The Iranians did their best, fought asymmetrically, costing Iraqi forces losses with landmines and rapid RPG attacks, but they couldn't stop the overwhelming offensive power of Saddam's Army. They utilized geography, marshes and high heights to keep the Iraqis from seizing the advantageous position at Al Bowna'im, but otherwise were continually forced out of southern Khuzestan.

As the Iranian Army was mobilized, conscription instituted and hundreds of thousands rallied for the defence of its territory, there was little to be done as the Iraqis took Darkhovin, moved on to Chamian while encircling the city of Bandar, which continued fighting. By the second of February despite massive international protest, at the violation of UN resolutions, the ejection of Iraqi Embassies and widespread criticism, now increasing sanctions; the Iraqis looked ready to begin a major operation to encircle Ahvaz, the regional hub of southern Khuzestan while storming Bandar. The Soviet Reaction was furious, General Secretary Romanov's meeting with President Perot in Zurich was due on the 5th, and this was the backdrop he had to deal with while attempting to preach peace, reconciliation and detente. The Soviet's disavowed Saddam's invasion and announced that they would pull out their military personnel, while other plans were put into place. They did veto the UNSC resolution against Iraq, for the use of "improper diplomatic terminology, and a wild mandate".

iraqiinvasion1.jpg




Zürich.jpg

The Concert of Europe: Part One
Feburary 5th 1994. Zurich
Within the last year, there just as many changes occuring within Western Europe just as much as Eastern Europe; the European Union had taken the first steps out of its infancy and into its progression into a real institution. Across Europe, the groundwork for the introduction of the Euro, a common currency promoted economic speculation and growth based on the latter that helped jumpstart the European economy's recovery from the recessions that gripped the Western World in the early 1990s. Increasing economic links with the Eastern Bloc had also spurred economic growth. Poland in particular had introduced several 'special economic zones' with the consent of the Soviets to allow for western companies to invest in industrial development, to help alleviate the sluggish debt ridden Polish economy. The Europeans also benefited from increased trade with the Soviets for petroleum as well as for their cheap consumer goods. The Schengen agreement, inter European trade arrangements had also began to change the European economic landscape, slowly and surely at first, but beginning to accelerate.

In 1992, one of the prime opponents of European integration, John Major, had been dealt along with the British conservative party a major blow when revelations came to the surface that he had carried on an affair with Edwina Currie, a fact that was conveniently leaked to the Labour Party by an unknown source. The Labour Party had managed to utilize this to win the '92 election, only barely scraping with a majority by one or two seats, very close to a hung parliament. The Labour Party campaigned on mild skepticism towards integration, but also implied that they were open to the adoption of the Euro, as long as some protectionist measures for the working class were maintained. They also campaigned on a pro-detente policy in foreign relations, believing that the best way to meaningfully improve the human rights situation in the Eastern Bloc was diplomacy.

Helmut Kohl had only managed to hold on, but just barely, while Mitterrand also maneuvered and finessed their positions. However the former was becoming weaker and weaker, while the West German Economic sector was staunchly pro integration and generally liberal, the increasing radicalism of the left in the form of the urban terrorism of the Red Army Faction, spurred on by the Stasi resulted in firefights in Frankfurt, armoured car robberies, riots and the assassination of police and corporate elites. This sparked a feeling with a certain element in West Germany that felt like the Christian Democrats were too soft and too weak to deal with communists who were now running amok. Not only was the RAF committing terrorism wantonly, but the large left wing student associations and Antifa engaged in political violence and battles with West German police. Günter Deckert recently rising to power within the National Democratic Party of Germany seized on an ample political opportunity by swinging the party towards a more moderate tone. The previously the NDP in West Germany was regarded at worst as a neo-nazi organization, however Deckert instead promoted a program of 'Stop the Violence' and 'Standing against Communist Aggression' that had begun to appeal to harder right wing and nationalist elements in the CPU and CDU. This of course required him to officially renounce Hitler, the Third Reich and Holocaust denial, which resulted in a departure of the hardline extremists, which Deckert highly publicized. While many alleged that Deckert was simply trying to hide his truly fascist beliefs, he argued vehemently that this was political slander.

In Italy, relations between the Italian Communist Party and Soviet Union were generally mended, allowing for their covert support in twisting the massive public corruption scandal in their favor against the Christian Democrats. During the 1992 Elections, the Italian Communist Party had managed to win a slim majority in the election capitalizing on the self destruction of both the Socialist and Christian Democrat parties. This upset victory resulted in political chaos, mafia violence and massive controversy as the Communists set themselves to rebuilding Italy in their image, Achille Occhetto even began threatening to leave NATO. The Communist Party was somewhat tapered by it's coalition with the weakened Socialist Party, but found widespread support for some of their grandstanding positions.

All of these nations and more would be represented at the grand summit between the Soviet Union and United States, the first meeting of Romanov and Perot and the first meeting of the heads of the superpowers in almost a decade. As their mutual planes landed and the arrangements and itineraries put into action, would diplomacy work as the world was becoming increasingly destabilized? Detente was on the minds of both leaders so they could focus on domestic affairs but would the Zurich Summit create a framework for cooperation and mutual deescalation, or would the cold war continue to escalate?

Can the superpowers reach a consensus?​

 
Last edited:
I feel so bad for Romanov, he gives such a great talk to Saddam about war, and then he goes and invades Iran. I don't know about you guys, but it's starting to look like Saddam isn't the most reliable ally
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top