Yet another "Can the USSR survive" question

[NHBL]

If the USSR was dealing with a less hostile USA after May 1980 (Due to a major terrorist attack by Islamic extremists on April 21, leaving over 5000 dead in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a Boomer sunk, and the navy yard just plain GONE) how much would the reduced strain, especially after a Carter win in November, ease strain on the Soviet Union? What would it take for the nation to survive, even if somewhat smaller? Changes are fine, but I want to at least consider having a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics going forward.

There is NO US aid to the Mujaheddin after June of 1980, nor is there any backdoor aid, such as selling weapons to Pakistan knowing that they'll be sent forward to Afghanistan.

When/if Chernobyl happens, it will be disclosed ASAP, and blamed on terrorists. (The terrorists that attacked Portsmouth, and less successfully, Indian Point Nuclear Plant, have it in their heads that nuclear power or weapons are abominations. That idea was put in their heads by oil nations that want the world dependent on Middle Eastern oil--pure cynical use of believers.)

I am working on an ASB timeline, "The Masquerade," but am taking things after the POD as close to real as I can write. What do we need to see the USSR making it to the 21st century?

 

[peeter]

You have to butterfly away Gorbachev and have a more pragmatic/strongman reformer in during or before the 80s. Perhaps Yuri Andropov somehow lives for another decade. The the invasion of Afghanistan and Chernobyl weren’t the reasons for the USSR falling, Political instability and lack of strong leadership was.

 

[NHBL]

You have to butterfly away Gorbachev and have a more pragmatic/strongman reformer in during or before the 80s. Perhaps Yuri Andropov somehow lives for another decade. The the invasion of Afghanistan and Chernobyl weren’t the reasons for the USSR falling, Political instability and lack of strong leadership was.

There's butterflies a-plenty. Afghanistan, Chernobyl, and trying to keep up with Reagan's arms build-up all played at least some role--exactly what can be disputed until the heat death of the universe.

We used to joke, after the USSR went through several leaders in a hurry, that there was "And Drop Off," who dropped off, and "Chair Yank-o" since someone yanked the chair out from under him, followed by "Ge Brush-off," since we expected another leader to ge gone in a hurry. (He didn't get brushed off.) High school humor is not especially refined.

Since my timeline is in August of '81, I do have some time. Chernobyl might (or might not) be butterflied. If it does happen, the Soviet politics around it will be MESSY, but there will be disclosure of the magnitude of the oopsie as soon as it's known.

 

[NHBL]

(Detente is coming back as well, in part due to association of the Mujahideen with the Portsmouth terrorists, and other initiatives.)

 

[Gillan1220]

Have the New Union Treaty get signed.
You can get ideas from this timeline on the wiki.

New Union

With all the recent tensions caused over Russia's reemergence as a global and regional player, it's rather hard to imagine (especially for recent generations) what the world was once like before the collapse of communism in the late 1980s. Though it may come as a shock to learn that the end of...

althistory.fandom.com

 

[Toad Dodd]

Not likely. While outside actors and scapegoats are often blamed for the USSR's collapse(for obvious reasons) the real issue was economic stagnation, driven by a weak consumer industry and an incapability to keep up with the western world in technology due to the nature of the state and the economic conditions it created(unavoidable ones for a centrally planned economy).

Yuri Andropov(the head of the KGB) created a secret department in the KGB to do economic analysis in the 70s, and the KGB knew how bad things were pretty accurately. It was only by 1982 that he managed to convince Brezhnev to go public to other high level government officials with the info. Andropov's proposed solution of crackdowns only expanded the police state and the KGB's powers, while having marginal effects on the real issues.

By that point the only thing keeping the economy afloat was the insanely high oil prices of the early 80s.

Gorbachev(at that time Andropov's protege) recognized the cliff that the soviets were headed towards and while his methods of liberalization caused their own issues, they were also the only thing that kept the Soviet/Russian economy from falling into a rut that would have lasted decades and had permanent repercussions.

Even if they tried to liberalize ala China, it would still mean a loss of the USSR as a state, since the dissent of the other members won't just go away, given that corruption and Russian supremacy will still be at the core of things.

 

[HelloThere]

While outside actors and scapegoats are often blamed for the USSR's collapse(for obvious reasons) the real issue was economic stagnation, driven by a weak consumer industry and an incapability to keep up with the western world in technology due to the nature of the state and the economic conditions it created(unavoidable ones for a centrally planned economy).

The economic "stagnation" of the USSR still meant that it grew a little, just not enough to keep the pace of the Post-WW2 years. It still doesn't mean that it would have killed the USSR - when Gorbachev took over in 1985, nobody saw him as the last chance the Soviets got. Gorbachev's economic reforms actually killed the economy harder than the half-dead Brezhnev could have.

Even if they tried to liberalize ala China, it would still mean a loss of the USSR as a state, since the dissent of the other members won't just go away, given that corruption and Russian supremacy will still be at the core of things.

Why does the USSR have to let go some states? If they aren't liberalizing then there won't be mass movements supporting said liberalization. And it's not like the Soviet Army is unexperienced in dealing with nationalist insurgencies in the Baltics for example.