WI: If the Soviet Union still existed, would they intervene in Syria?

It is presently rumored that the Russians are potentially preparing to stage an intervention in Syria.

What if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed and had remained communist. Is it likely that they would have sent troops to Syria to fight on the behalf of Assad?
 
It is presently rumored that the Russians are potentially preparing to stage an intervention in Syria.

What if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed and had remained communist. Is it likely that they would have sent troops to Syria to fight on the behalf of Assad?

Please, think of the
butterfly.jpg
 
Would there even be a Syrian Civil War if the Soviets were still around? The balance of power in the world would be so completely different from our timeline that you have to answer that question before you can get to yours.

My own feeling is that assuming the Soviets are still around, Syria will most likely be in their sphere of influence and many of the shenanigans involving arming rebels would be a non-starter. The whole Arab Spring might not happen or be in a far more limited version than what we had. Even taking aside the specter of nuclear war in an open conflict, I think the Soviet Navy would be an effective deterrent from large scale supplying of rebel forces. The Turks are going to be a lot more wary of mucking around in the whole business. Assad's military would be far better supplied in turn, increasing its effectiveness.

So in other words, no the SU would not intervene because as a superpower they would have many other options besides brute intervention. It would take a leader of tremendous ineptitude to have let it get that far.
 
If the Soviets last through to the twenty-first century, there are a lot of scenarios that do not take place. The Americans would not have so much free movement over Iraq and other nations in the Middle East as during the true 1990's. 9/11 still happens because of US support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, but the Russians don't care if the Americans invade Afghanistan in the wake of such an attack.

They will heavily oppose a US intervention in Iraq because of it's appearance of imperialism. This will discourage the West enough not to act by force in the Middle East, but through diplomacy instead. No invasion of Iraq means no global recession and thus in part no Arab Spring.

The availability of social media still makes it possible to start a smaller series of revolutions. Anything in Syria is reinforced by the Russians to protect their free access to the Mediterranean. Thus, they will support the Assad regime in Syria as long as possible from rebellion which it'll probably crush in time. Without Iraq going down there is little reason for ISIS to rise prominence or survive.
 
What do you mean, *Would* the Soviets be in Syria? They *were*: http://www.csmonitor.com/1983/0429/042937.html "The upshot: An outpouring of Soviet arms and advisers into Syria - up from 2, 500 before the war to between 4,000-5,000 today - in a Soviet effort to restore prestige in the Arab world and provide a more active challenge to US attempts to widen its Mideast role. Not only was lost hardware replaced but it was upgraded and expanded. Most important, the Soviets introduced two batteries of long-range ground-to-air SAM-5 missiles, each manned completely by about 900 Soviet experts , as part of a tighter and more sophisticated Syrian air defense system."
 
World with surviving Soviet Union would be so different that there wouldn't be Syrian Civil War. Not even Arab Spring.
 
If the Soviets last through to the twenty-first century, there are a lot of scenarios that do not take place. The Americans would not have so much free movement over Iraq and other nations in the Middle East as during the true 1990's. 9/11 still happens because of US support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, but the Russians don't care if the Americans invade Afghanistan in the wake of such an attack.
Really, the Russian's OTL weren't particularly thrilled to see America messing around in what they saw as their sphere of influence. Do you really think a surviving USSR wouldn't care about US troops stationed on their border?

They will heavily oppose a US intervention in Iraq because of it's appearance of imperialism. This will discourage the West enough not to act by force in the Middle East, but through diplomacy instead. No invasion of Iraq means no global recession and thus in part no Arab Spring.
You're going to need to explain this thought.
 
With the USSR surviving, 9/11 might be in a different form. Afghanistan only fell due to the collapse of aid after the USSR fell. Afghanistan if the USSR still exists might be communist, or if it's Najibullah, it might get the northern part, and Pashtunistan to the south.
 
Last edited:
Why would 9/11 happen?

The Islamist movement would be in a death struggle with the communist regime in Afghanistan for some time and Saddam's calculations might be different in a Cold War environment.
 
Sudan becomes a haven for Bin Laden and his lackeys.

Yes but why would he attack the USA at a time when the Russians are actively oppressing some Muslims and an Atheist regime is waging wars on others and Saddam may have different reasoning.

Bin Laden's organisation cut its teeth fighting the Soviets. He wouldn't have the resources to get pisssed at the West if he's still fighting the Russians at the same time.
 
Top