WI: Soviet Rump State after Violent Collapse

Let's say that rather than Gorbachev a hardliner takes over (say Ligachyov) who clamps down on liberalism and in a last ditch attempt to avoid instability embraces neo-stalinist totalitarianism. This fails and order completely breaks down into the Second Russian Civil War that lasts until the mid-2000's with 60% of the population dead. Along with otl's secessions Russia also loses Karelia, the North Caucuses, Komi, and Siberia. All that's left of the Union is central Russia, the Volga, and possibly parts of Kazakhstan that while too weak to reinvade their neighbors still has a sizeable nuclear arsenal and control of the population exceeding the Stalin era.

What happens now that the USSR is reduced to a rogue state? What does the US do during the war period? Could the population loss lead to neighboring states annexing the former SSRs? What kinds of crisis could there be in the following decade up to the early 2010's?
 
You're much better off just changing things so that the RSFSR outlasts the Soviet Union.
The title may have been a little misleading. While I was assuming some form of RSFSR, I was really asking about what happens after the USSR loses 2/3rds of it's population in it's collapse. Could the hardliners rule what's left in the ashes of Moscow or would something else happen entirely?
 
Why do you think the surviving state will have a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons? I think that some of the competing factions will start using nukes that they acquire, especially if it looks like they are losing. Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg could end up as wastelands if regional powers see destroying the central authority as a way to gain control. then other groups will decide that the only course of action is to destroy other power centers before they themselves are destroyed. It goes downhill from there.
 
Why do you think the surviving state will have a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons?
If they can get at least 100 missiles under control they could probably stave off UN intervention.

I think that some of the competing factions will start using nukes that they acquire, especially if it looks like they are losing. Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg could end up as wastelands if regional powers see destroying the central authority as a way to gain control. then other groups will decide that the only course of action is to destroy other power centers before they themselves are destroyed. It goes downhill from there.
Any idea what happens after 2005?
 
The title may have been a little misleading. While I was assuming some form of RSFSR, I was really asking about what happens after the USSR loses 2/3rds of it's population in it's collapse. Could the hardliners rule what's left in the ashes of Moscow or would something else happen entirely?
I don't think the autonomies you have breaking away would do so.
 
If they can get at least 100 missiles under control they could probably stave off UN intervention.


Any idea what happens after 2005?
I think they are going to be begging for UN intervention. The other choice is having the civil war continue and the Chinese push into Asiatic Russia to keep the unrest from spilling into their fringe areas. With nuclear exchanges I think 60% casualties would be light. Between destruction of urban areas, disease and radiation sickness from the fallout and mass starvation from the collapse of the food distribution system I think 75-80% depopulation is possible.
 
I think they are going to be begging for UN intervention.
That would require Ligachyov or whoever relinquishing power, something they're very much trying to avoid.

With nuclear exchanges I think 60% casualties would be light. Between destruction of urban areas, disease and radiation sickness from the fallout and mass starvation from the collapse of the food distribution system I think 75-80% depopulation is possible.
I didn't want the number so high it's dismissed as ridiculous so I went with Paraguay numbers, but this is fine long as the rest of the world still exists to react.
 
Along with otl's secessions Russia also loses Karelia, the North Caucuses, Komi, and Siberia. All that's left of the Union is central Russia, the Volga, and possibly parts of Kazakhstan that while too weak to reinvade their neighbors still has a sizeable nuclear arsenal and control of the population exceeding the Stalin era.
The Russia balkanises trope isn't a new one and these days is pretty popular but it tends to need a bit more explaining. Given Komi is today something like 87% Russian and Russians dominate Siberia its a little hard to see where the impetus for succession comes from other than a North Korea South Korea situation where both claim to be the real Russia.
The North Caucasus is more understandable, or at least the non Russian majority areas.
 
What I can think of this scenario:

Or even the rump Soviet Union from @CalBear's Anglo/American - Nazi War.
Why do you think the surviving state will have a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons? I think that some of the competing factions will start using nukes that they acquire, especially if it looks like they are losing. Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg could end up as wastelands if regional powers see destroying the central authority as a way to gain control. then other groups will decide that the only course of action is to destroy other power centers before they themselves are destroyed. It goes downhill from there.
icbm_1.gif

Here's the map of Soviet nuclear bases or sites. Depending where the rump USSR is, it may seized a handful of nukes. 100-200 nukes is enough for the international community to be wary of any provocation against it. I just hope this rump USSR is not a rogue nation like North Korea.
Any idea what happens after 2005?
The world would be somehow unrecognizable from our viewpoint.
I think they are going to be begging for UN intervention. The other choice is having the civil war continue and the Chinese push into Asiatic Russia to keep the unrest from spilling into their fringe areas. With nuclear exchanges I think 60% casualties would be light. Between destruction of urban areas, disease and radiation sickness from the fallout and mass starvation from the collapse of the food distribution system I think 75-80% depopulation is possible.
China might want to "seize" the Soviet Far East for those precious resources. Or maybe overtime, encourage immigration of Chinese people so that the area would be mostly Chinese overtime. China would get many Soviet military equipment and maybe even a handful of nuclear weapons.
 
This is such an apocalyptic scenario that it almost belongs in the ASB forum. Using nuclear weapons in my eyes makes little sense in a civil war since it only destroys but doesnt capture anything for the user. It might make sense in a Chechen like scenario where the Russians are so tired and angry of being bloodied against Chechen insurgents they just bomb the region to pieces. 60% is very difficult unless you include massive emigration somewhere. The worst you can get for is a Yugoslav scenario.
 
Russian here. First of all, I see this exact scenario as pretty ASB for several reasons. First of all, I think there are 3 types of possible early 90s Soviet civil war:

1) One which is just a collection of local "Chechnya-on-steroids" hotspots in Caucasus, Baltics and, maybe Tajikistan and Western parts of Ukraine. For that you would better remove Gorby at all or ensure that leaders of three Soviet Slavic republics remain loyal to the Union's leadership in Moscow.
2) Second is about a more properly "Yugoslav-style" conflict with leaders of Ukraine and Belarus deciding to declare independence of their Republics and Moscow's "Soviet Milosevic" (more likely Anatoly Lukyanov, than Ligachev. Lukyanov was the main proponent of supporting irredentist and separatist entities in unruly Soviet republics in order to keep them in Union) not recognizing it. For that you need august coup or 1990 assassination attempt on Gorby succeed and Yeltsin elliminated.
3)And the third one with Russian republican leadership under Yeltsin or someone else revolting against the "hardline" Union leadership. But, first we should consider that such war is unlikely to end how you described it because independent Siberia/Far East is just ASB- you would rather see pro-Western Russia securing the European part of Russia while Soviet remnants are likely to retreat East of Ural Mountains ndirectly backed by China while Russian republican governement is going to be supported by the West. Although, I rather see the Pro-Western Russian winning it outright with maybe Central Asian republics forming their loose "Neo-Soviet" confederation (the support for New Union treaty here was the highest and the head of Kazakhstan, Nazarbaev had similar ideas IRL).
 
Last edited:
Since the population loss would be massive I would like to ask about the possibility of the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine uniting with Poland to form an Intermarium with a viable population?

Given Komi is today something like 87% Russian and Russians dominate Siberia its a little hard to see where the impetus for succession comes from other than a North Korea South Korea situation where both claim to be the real Russia.
I just noticed this largeish autonomous republic and thought that Komi would be a good place for pro-democracy Russians to hole up with the remnants too weak to reconquer them or anyone else. As for Siberia I figured it'd be taken over by capitalists who trade natural resources to the West and East Asia.

This is such an apocalyptic scenario that it almost belongs in the ASB forum. Using nuclear weapons in my eyes makes little sense in a civil war since it only destroys but doesnt capture anything for the user. It might make sense in a Chechen like scenario where the Russians are so tired and angry of being bloodied against Chechen insurgents they just bomb the region to pieces. 60% is very difficult unless you include massive emigration somewhere. The worst you can get for is a Yugoslav scenario.
I never said anything about nuclear weapons in the op and 60% was the casualty rate of the Paraguayan war so it seemed reasonable enough.

I'd like to combine 2 and 3 and I like the idea of remants in central Asia. I would like to say however that Gorbachev was never in power this tl and I only used Ligachyov as a placeholder for stalinist hardliners.
 
Last edited:
Let's say that rather than Gorbachev a hardliner takes over (say Ligachyov) who clamps down on liberalism and in a last ditch attempt to avoid instability embraces neo-stalinist totalitarianism. This fails and order completely breaks down into the Second Russian Civil War that lasts until the mid-2000's with 60% of the population dead. Along with otl's secessions Russia also loses Karelia, the North Caucuses, Komi, and Siberia. All that's left of the Union is central Russia, the Volga, and possibly parts of Kazakhstan that while too weak to reinvade their neighbors still has a sizeable nuclear arsenal and control of the population exceeding the Stalin era.

What happens now that the USSR is reduced to a rogue state? What does the US do during the war period? Could the population loss lead to neighboring states annexing the former SSRs? What kinds of crisis could there be in the following decade up to the early 2010's?
Jesus Christ 60% of the population dead?! That's brutal
 
I'd like to combine 2 and 3 and I like the idea of remants in central Asia. I would like to say however that Gorbachev was never in power this tl and I only used Ligachyov as a placeholder for stalinist hardliners.
If you have no Gorby taking power in your scenario it's not likely that the late 80s/early 90s Soviet political atmosphere is going to be as unstable as OTL. While Soviet leadesrhip understood that it couldn't hold Eastern Europe by means of direct military interventions like 1956 hungary or 1968 Czecholovakia (which can be illustrated by Suslov's refusal to Jaruzelski's call to help him with Soviet tanks and troops to supress Solidarity protests), it didn't mean that the existence of USSR itslef was doomed. Basically, in OTL we saw not only USSR losing the Cold War (which it did in 1989 when Pro-Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe were overthrown), but it also disintegrating.
 
Interesting thought: If Japan had built its empire in, say, 1910, separate from the axis, would it keep its empire, or start a big waR that it loses

For example, a fictional Indochina war with France or a Japanese-American conflict?
 
Last edited:
Interesting thought: If Japan had built its empire in, say, 1910, separate from the axis, would it keep its empire, or start a big waR that it loses

For example, a fictional Indochina war with France or a Japanese-American conflict?
Since you're a newcomer, I advise you to create a new thread to ask your question instead of using another thread to ask unrelated question.
 
Top