WI: No Soviet Union breakup AND end of communism

On March 17th, 1991, a referendum was held in several SSR to decide if the USSR was to be broken up in its constituant or if it should be allowed to continue, to which the electorace answered "Yes" to nearly 70%; however, the Baltic, Armenian, Georgian and Moldovan SSR boycotted the vote.

However, in the aftermath of the August Coup, several SSR seceded from the USSR, fearing to be yet enslaved by the CPSU.

So, what would be the future of a Union of Sovereign States consisting of Russia, Central Asia, Belarus, Ukraine and Azerbaijan?
How would it fare, both economically and politically? And how would the president of this community deal with Yeltsin's secessionist tendencies?
 
It'll certainly be much better: Gorbachev still in power means there's a clear leadership, and the transition to a market economy will be much more gradual and efficient, ala China. No breakup means no breakdown in trade between the republics as well, and the Soviets nukes are much safer.

In this case, Bush wins (since the fall of the USSR contributed to Clinton's victory and that he's associated with "Pax Americana"), and since Bush was friends with Gorbachev, the USSR can get aid from the United States, and it is much better economically. Bush can also help Gorbachev curb Yeltsin's and other secessionist people. This happens even with the collapse in oil prices in the 1990s.

Take note that Yeltsin only rose to prominence primarily due to the August coup with that photo of him climbing a tank and addressing the people. ITTL, Gorbachev's still supreme, and the individual republics' presidents will be more keen to follow him, as they're not scare to death because of the coup, which does not happen in the scenario.

We would see this reformed USSR as the third largest economy on Earth, with an HDI of 0.870.

And because the New Union Treaty involves some degree of Communist Party control with much political freedoms, maybe China goes this route as Gorbachev pushes for more democracy. It may also become a fully democratic state: it can go either way.

NATO won't expand to Eastern Europe to avoid infuriating this USSR, which is much stronger than OTL Russia: it's given.

Also, many of the post-Soviet conflicts IOTL will be stymied and end earlier ITTL because the military does fall into disarray ITTL.

With the USSR's collapse averted, it would be much more influential ITTL. For example, Afghanistan will not be the hellhole it is today. The Yugoslav Wars' outcome may be slightly different.
 
Last edited:
It'll certainly be much better: Gorbachev still in power means there's a clear leadership, and the transition to a market economy will be much more gradual and efficient, ala China. No breakup means no breakdown in trade between the republics as well, and the Soviets nukes are much safer.

In this case, Bush wins (since the fall of the USSR contributed to Clinton's victory and that he's associated with "Pax Americana"), and since Bush was friends with Gorbachev, the USSR can get aid from the United States, and it is much better economically. Bush can also help Gorbachev curb Yeltsin's and other secessionist people. This happens even with the collapse in oil prices in the 1990s.

Take note that Yeltsin only rose to prominence primarily due to the August coup with that photo of him climbing a tank and addressing the people. ITTL, Gorbachev's still supreme, and the individual republics' presidents will be more keen to follow him, as they're not scare to death because of the coup, which does not happen in the scenario.

We would see this reformed USSR as the third largest economy on Earth, with an HDI of 0.870.

And because the New Union Treaty involves some degree of Communist Party control with much political freedoms, maybe China goes this route as Gorbachev pushes for more democracy. It may also become a fully democratic state: it can go either way.

NATO won't expand to Eastern Europe to avoid infuriating this USSR, which is much stronger than OTL Russia: it's given.

Also, many of the post-Soviet conflicts IOTL will be stymied and end earlier ITTL because the military does fall into disarray ITTL.

With the USSR's collapse averted, it would be much more influential ITTL. For example, Afghanistan will not be the hellhole it is today. The Yugoslav Wars' outcome may be slightly different.

I think all this well and truly underestimates how much of a trainwreck the USSR was economically and politically by 1990. It seems that you essentially think that a lot of the problems of the Soviet Union could be just erased with the stroke of a pen. But we need to remember that it was not the breakup of the USSR that caused the problems seen in the former SSRs in the 1990s and after it, it was the problems and shortcomings of the Soviet state that caused the breakup of the USSR and the unpleasantness that followed it. The difficulties did not start in the late 80s - they had been piling up since the Brehznev era, since WWII and even since 1917. And the prospect of major Western aid to the former Soviet Union would always be a pipe dream, like has pointed out on the forum many times. It was the "End of History", after all, the final triumph of the free market and liberal democracy. In that hubris, there would not have been any "Marshall Plan for the Former Soviet Union", there would only be the Western politicians and businessmen swooping in to get what choice pieces they could out of the Soviet carcass, or, at best, Western leaders standing at the sidelines, wringing their hands, conflicted and unable to do anything major to help the Soviet people in their time of change.

As for the Union of Sovereign States - if it came into being, I could envision it being something like a glorified version the OTL Commonwealth of Independent States, one that keeps some of the trappings of the Soviet Union but which still in effect will become obsolete as an effective organisation in a couple of decades.

In fact, we could well see the realization of such a successor to the USSR to continue the period of uncertainty in the formerly Soviet areas, as the result would be even less of a clean break with the past the OTL dissolution was. Many problems would be left to fester, and I am not at all convinced about the prospects of a peaceful, controlled transition anyway. The Soviet structure was standing on such a rotten base that attempting to salvage it through merely cosmetic changes and putting on a new coat of paint could only go so far.
 
Last edited:
In fact, we could well see the realization of such a successor to the USSR to continue the period of uncertainty in the formerly Soviet areas, as the result would be even less of a clean break with the past the OTL dissolution was. Many problems would be left to fester, and I am not at all convinced about the prospects of a peaceful, controlled transition anyway. The Soviet structure was standing on such a rotten base that attempting to salvage it through merely cosmetic changes and putting on a new coat of paint could only go so far.

On the other hand, it can be argued the crisis created by the end of communism wouldn't be compounded with the end of the State and customs zone the country was member.

And I agree the Soviet rotten base would be difficult to clean.
 
Top