Soviet Union collapses in 2001

[Shadow1080]

I had this thought and wondered, if Soviet Union didn't collapse in 1991 as it did in my timeline but instead it survives a bit longer in the 1990's and maybe instead collapses around 2001, which is 10 years later. How would a delayed decade Soviet Union collapse affect our history? You guys might think this is an usual, odd and unnecessary question but a lot of things happened through 1991-2001 like the Digital Age, rise of the Internet, 9/11, etc. So how would things change if Soviet Union still exists in the 1990's? How would it need to sustain itself in order to survive for 10 more years starting from early 90's? What would've happened right after it collapsed in early 2000's in this alternate timeline and what would our present day world be like? Would a tough figure like Putin or a leader that's similar rose up in this alternate Russia as it did in our timeline?

 

[chankljp]

I honestly don't see how it will even be possible for the world to NOT be radically different if the USSR managed to last for 10 more years. The impact on Central and Eastern Europe alone will ensure that by the time that the USSR does fall in 2001, almost nothing will be the same.

 

[trurle]

I had this thought and wondered, if Soviet Union didn't collapse in 1991 as it did in my timeline but instead it survives a bit longer in the 1990's and maybe instead collapses around 2001, which is 10 years later. How would a delayed decade Soviet Union collapse affect our history? You guys might think this is an usual, odd and unnecessary question but a lot of things happened through 1991-2001 like the Digital Age, rise of the Internet, 9/11, etc. So how would things change if Soviet Union still exists in the 1990's? How would it need to sustain itself in order to survive for 10 more years starting from early 90's? What would've happened right after it collapsed in early 2000's in this alternate timeline and what would our present day world be like? Would a tough figure like Putin or a leader that's similar rose up in this alternate Russia as it did in our timeline?

You should look on Somalia to imagine future of Soviet Union in such delayed-failure case. Fission on several small states (i remember the calls for independence of Siberia in 1992, and it would be taken much more seriously after ten more years of rot). Anarchy on all levels beyond local, combined with sprawling cellular network. Russian pirates in the Pacific may be?

 

[Augenis]

We would have HD footage of Soviet tanks crushing protesters.

You should look on Somalia to imagine future of Soviet Union in such delayed-failure case. Fission on several small states (i remember the calls for independence of Siberia in 1992, and it would be taken much more seriously after ten more years of rot). Anarchy on all levels beyond local, combined with sprawling cellular network. Russian pirates in the Pacific may be?

I personally can't see any more viable states be formed from the USSR even with a delayed explosion. Siberia just doesn't seem viable as an independent state to me. The absolute majority of the population is ethnically Russian (even if some of them have thoughts about independence, but that's what distance from the capital does to you, after all, even the US has a bunch of arbitrary independence movements), and the region was never developed with independence in mind, either - it has no obvious center of power which you could call a capital, and it's dependent on European Russia economically.

It would be an artificial state to put all other artificial states to shame.

 

[trurle]

We would have HD footage of Soviet tanks crushing protesters.


I personally can't see any more viable states be formed from the USSR even with a delayed explosion. Siberia just doesn't seem viable as an independent state to me. The absolute majority of the population is ethnically Russian (even if some of them have thoughts about independence, but that's what distance from the capital does to you, after all, even the US has a bunch of arbitrary independence movements), and the region was never developed with independence in mind, either - it has no obvious center of power which you could call a capital, and it's dependent on European Russia economically.

It would be an artificial state to put all other artificial states to shame.

Same applies to Somaliland. It exist yet.
Independence driver in Soviet Union collapse was simply to avoid shipment of resources to Moscow which was perceived as a huge resource drain on periphery. I still remember travelling to Moscow about 1200km, just to buy smoked ham. How independent states (Siberia or another) will prosper in long term, is the another question. Likely you correct, nothing good will happen.

 

[Teejay]

I watched a video of the likely scenario if the Chernobyl disaster not occurring. That POD would have bought the Soviet Union a few more years before it collapsed. The Iron Curtain and the communist regimes in Eastern Europe would have fallen at the same time as IOTL although.

 

[Xbadger]

I think if the uss rcollapsed whenever you would have still had oligarchs. Youd have corruption and troubles as a rsult of an essentially non-competitive market (imahine how much more uncompetitive if the ussr had missed the PC and internet revolution), the rise of criminals, breadlines, a brief honeymoon with the west that wouldnt amount to much whether it were clinton, gore, bush, or kerry (i mean clinton only gave them like $2.5bln and hes probably the best bet they had....which is just a drop in a bucket for a country that big and corrupt). I think NATO and/or the EU would have still pushed west stoking nationalist tensions. MAYBE MAYBE russia wouldnt have gone in so hard in chetchnya. But thats kinda small

Regardless this dissapoint would have necessarily been followed by a typically russian return to nationalism and authoritarianism.......

I mean either way we would have ended up with what we have now in OTL a russia that has sham elections, ruled by a leader who was an old kgb man, causing trouble in eastern europe and the middle east, poisoning spies in nato allies, shutting down our consullates and vice versa, attempting to influence domestic elections, views its former republics as its natural sphere of inflience, that backs up assad family to keep its single overseas naval base, a leader who tries to create a cult of personality, which all the while russia having a horrendiously corrupt economy that is massively overreliant on oil and facing a demographic crisis

That could have been said about the soviet union since the the 70s, putins russia, and i cant imagine if the soviets had muddled a long for a decade it be much different 20 years after the collapse occurred

 

[Orcbuster]

The economical situation in russia would be worse. Continued high levels of military spending (only viable way to maintain control would be to maintain military control) would lead to further extreme degradation with an even worse period in the noughties than the 90s IOTL. Main question here is if you get someone better or worse than Boris Yeltsin (Hard to imagine I know but a lesson with russia is that it can always get worse).

Central and eastern europe would be perceived as neutral for longer out of a western need to maintain a stable relationship with the USSR still wary of a strong soviet military but integrated quicker when the fall first happens since every former east block state will have watched how much resources was used to rebuild east germany (who will likely remain the only former east block country officially a part of the west by the time the USSR collapse).

Main differing points would be balkan wars which would remain very uncertain and likely lead to soviet intervention rather than NATO but otherwise it does not change the overall flow of political tendencies in europe, merely delay them. War on terror would be supported more by russia due to a desperate need to form stable bonds with the west.

 

[chankljp]

We would have HD footage of Soviet tanks crushing protesters.

There is this myth here in Hong Kong that, to quote my parents, 'The blood for the cause of liberty was shed on Tiananmen Square, yet the flowers of democracy blossomed in Europe'. I used to buy into that narrative, but now, I respond to my parents by telling them that the people of Central and Eastern European have shed their share of blood as well... Lots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution#Timișoara_uprising, and lots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956), and lots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_states_under_Soviet_rule_(1944–91)#Resistance_and_deportations) of it.

Perhaps with a TL in which both the USSR and the PRC survived the 1990s, the popular narrative in the West will not be 'The end of history', but instead, the idea that with communism, change cannot come from within, since they will sooner starve and massacre their own people in order to hold onto power instead of opening up, as such, there will be a much more pessimistic outlook for the decade.

 

[Expat]

It's possible the Afghan civil war lasts a lot longer. A Soviet withdrawal still seems likely, barring specific AH triggers, but they continued to lend support to the regime until Yeltsin came along. With the battle in Afghanistan still raging, does Al Qaeda still turn its focus globally?

There's a lot of money going into these radical movements, so they'll definitely still be there, and conflict with the West seems inevitable. But would it kick off with the Soviets still around?

Wouldn't the CIA, with this new set of regional operatives and the Great Enemy still around, try to make some contacts in Chechnya/the Caucasus, maybe Soviet Central Asia?

As for the USSR sticking around but the Eastern Bloc falling apart, how do you stop it at the border? Are we seeing brutal repression in the Baltics? How do you hold onto them when all the things that triggered them to try to leave exist ITTL?

 

[Livius wannabe]

Is China developing and opening as OTL? How does that resonate with the Soviet ruling class?

Also, could it be that Andropov (who knew perfectly well how bad things actually were and was former KGB chairman) lives longer and manages to have a more gradual change and not the near-implosion Gorbachev triggered?