(Alt History Discussion)What If The USSR Won Afghan?

[Feyrisshire]

Yes, the economy only collapsed after Gorbachev initiated perestroika and glasnost. Average GDP growth rate was lower in 1986-1990, than in the preceding years.

Again the reason for that is much earlier, i.e. during Brezhnev's time. Economic problems as a result of policy have a delay before they manifest themselves, especially so with central planning, with the Brezhnev issues only manifesting in the 1980s.

This is dubious, the brunt of Brezhnev and Kosygin's reform was already done in 1968, with that year 11,000 enterprises have already followed the new profitability model. Followed by more liberalizations in 1973 and 1979. You cannot have simply too long of a delay to the 1980s, considering that the effects of the reform was already felt in 1966-1970 with an uptick in GDP growth.

Gorbachev have also already done tangible changes by 1986-1990 that were immediately felt, such as the relaxation of control on state enterprises which led to inflation and shortage of consumer goods. Going by that logic, the full effect of perestroika and glasnost was felt in 1991-1995, where Russia experienced negative GDP growth every year. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Rusozak]

Republicans would be praising Osama bin Laden as a heroic freedom fighter against evil socialism.

[Aeritai]

Republicans would be praising Osama bin Laden as a heroic freedom fighter against evil socialism.

Wasn't Osama only a minor player during the Soviet invasion?

[The New California Republic]

Again the reason for that is much earlier, i.e. during Brezhnev's time. Economic problems as a result of policy have a delay before they manifest themselves, especially so with central planning, with the Brezhnev issues only manifesting in the 1980s.

This is dubious, the brunt of Brezhnev and Kosygin's reform was already done in 1968, with that year 11,000 enterprises have already followed the new profitability model. Followed by more liberalizations in 1973 and 1979. You cannot have simply too long of a delay to the 1980s, considering that the effects of the reform was already felt in 1966-1970 with an uptick in GDP growth.

Tbh economists like Alec Nove lay the economic problems of the 80s at Brezhnev's feet, as problems that Gorbachev inherited from the Stagnation; not really blaming Gorbachev at all. And rightly so, as they didn't appear de novo ex nihilo as soon as Gorbachev took up the job.

Gorbachev have also already done tangible changes by 1986-1990 that were immediately felt, such as the relaxation of control on state enterprises which led to inflation and shortage of consumer goods.

The USSR was actually already experiencing inflation and shortage of consumer goods prior to Gorbachev, so that's not a problem that can be attributed to him.

Going by that logic, the full effect of perestroika and glasnost was felt in 1991-1995, where Russia experienced negative GDP growth every year. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not really, as the little matter of the collapse of the USSR and subsequent chaos explains it.

[Senkaku]

What does "winning" Afghanistan mean? I mean, has the US "won" Afghanistan just because we haven't retreated?

Well winning in this scenario would mean that the Soviet Union is able to defeat the mujahideen and other Afghani resistance groups.
As well as occupying the entire country to make sure the puppet government remains stable.

Who knows? Maybe Gorbachev would have used whatever magical power he used to accomplish this to prevent Chernobyl, put a Soviet on the Moon, conquer Europe, restore good relations with China, and crush the capitalist pig-dogs under the feet of his synthetic diamond sword wielding army of communist mechas.

The United States doesn't seem to be able to completely defeat all Afghan (Afghani is the currency) guerrillas or occupy the WHOLE country or stabilize its favored regime. I can't imagine any way the Soviet Union could have done so either, speculating on what might've happened if they had feels quite silly as a result.

[Feyrisshire]

Tbh economists like Alec Nove lay the economic problems of the 80s at Brezhnev's feet, as problems that Gorbachev inherited from the Stagnation; not really blaming Gorbachev at all. And rightly so, as they didn't appear de novo ex nihilo as soon as Gorbachev took up the job.

Alev Nove might be only one voice among many. Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle in their book “Brezhnev Reconsidered” reappraised Brezhnev and his role in economy, saying that economy under Brezhnev was just as dynamic under previous periods. Mark Harrison even goes further, saying that Andropov and Chernenko actually improved the USSR economy, and Gorbachev actually inherited a dynamic and vibrant economy that was still growing with low debts.

This is the same sentiments by scholars Brown and Hanson that the Brezhnev era is in many ways stable and successful.

The USSR was actually already experiencing inflation and shortage of consumer goods prior to Gorbachev, so that's not a problem that can be attributed to him.

This is dubious as the severity of the inflation and shortage of consumer goods experienced in 1986-1991 was unprecedented and was incomparable to previous periods. This also ignores the fact that 1980s, just before the collapse of 1989-1991, was actually the period where the USSR produced the highest amount of consumer goods.

Not really, as the little matter of the collapse of the USSR and subsequent chaos explains it.

What then led to its collapse but the immediate things that preceded it, considering that the USSR again, was fairly stable from 1960s-early 1980s.

[Aeritai]

Well winning in this scenario would mean that the Soviet Union is able to defeat the mujahideen and other Afghani resistance groups.
As well as occupying the entire country to make sure the puppet government remains stable.

Who knows? Maybe Gorbachev would have used whatever magical power he used to accomplish this to prevent Chernobyl, put a Soviet on the Moon, conquer Europe, restore good relations with China, and crush the capitalist pig-dogs under the feet of his synthetic diamond sword wielding army of communist mechas.

The United States doesn't seem to be able to completely defeat all Afghan (Afghani is the currency) guerrillas or occupy the WHOLE country or stabilize its favored regime. I can't imagine any way the Soviet Union could have done so either, speculating on what might've happened if they had feels quite silly as a result.

You make good points, we will truly never know what would've happen had the Soviets quote on quote won. But discussing this scenario is interesting even if its unrealistic.

[The New California Republic]

Tbh economists like Alec Nove lay the economic problems of the 80s at Brezhnev's feet, as problems that Gorbachev inherited from the Stagnation; not really blaming Gorbachev at all. And rightly so, as they didn't appear de novo ex nihilo as soon as Gorbachev took up the job.

Alev Nove might be only one voice among many. Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle in their book “Brezhnev Reconsidered” reappraised Brezhnev and his role in economy, saying that economy under Brezhnev was just as dynamic under previous periods. Mark Harrison even goes further, saying that Andropov and Chernenko actually improved the USSR economy, and Gorbachev actually inherited a dynamic and vibrant economy that was still growing with low debts.

This is the same sentiments by scholars Brown and Hanson that the Brezhnev era is in many ways stable and successful.

Sorry but Gorbachev wasn't chasing phantoms, the economic problems that he inherited were very real.

The USSR was actually already experiencing inflation and shortage of consumer goods prior to Gorbachev, so that's not a problem that can be attributed to him.

This is dubious as the severity of the inflation and shortage of consumer goods experienced in 1986-1991 was unprecedented and was incomparable to previous periods. This also ignores the fact that 1980s, just before the collapse of 1989-1991, was actually the period where the USSR produced the highest amount of consumer goods.

The given stats for earlier periods regarding inflation often hid the actual rates of inflation. And the amount of consumer goods produced is not a good measure of goods balance relative to demand, nor is it a good indicator of efficacy of supply chains, which must have still been poor due to the lengthy shop queues that were a constant from the 50s all the way through to the start of the 90s. The USSR was a seller's market: the consumer was generally shit on, "take what you are given and don't complain" was the motto.

EDIT: but anyway, all of this is only tangentially related to Afghanistan, so we should probably stop.

[Feyrisshire]

Sorry but Gorbachev wasn't chasing phantoms, the economic problems that he inherited were very real.

You didn’t reply to the crux of the post above. It also didn’t change the fact that GDP growth was lower in 1986-1991 + 1995 than previous periods. While the economic problems of USSR are indeed very real, Gorbachev took a “stagnating” economy that can still recover into a thing that is entirely wrecked.

The given stats for earlier periods regarding inflation often hid the actual rates of inflation.

But we don’t really rely on Soviet stats all the time, considering that there were ways to measure repressed inflation. It’s also undeniable that the inflation in 1986-1991 period was simply very severe compared to previous ones, as the USSR price index in 1975 was precisely the same for 1955.

And the amount of consumer goods produced is not a good measure of goods balance relative to demand, nor is it a good indicator of efficacy of supply chains, which must have still been poor due to the lengthy shop queues that were a constant from the 50s all the way through to the start of the 90s.

Generally true, but an increasing amount of consumer goods produced would generally mean an increased capacity to fulfill consumer demand, which did consistently rise in the USSR.

And USSR bread lines is just a meme that doesn’t really fit the reality of the Soviet period from 1950s-1980s. The videos showing empty groceries and long line queues only really came from Perestroika. From 1960s-1980s, basic necessities were amply met. Line queues only really existed for luxury goods, and by 1986-1991, even basic necessities were in shortage – something that didn’t happen before.

The USSR was a seller's market: the consumer was generally shit on, "take what you are given and don't complain" was the motto.

Again, this really doesn’t encapsulate the increasing dynamism of the Soviet economy. Unless it is about competition vis-a-vis enterprises vs. state. There was competition in the USSR between state enterprises, a tendency that rose in Perestroika period, 1985-1991 USSR had TV commercials for example.

There were several automotive consortiums in the USSR producing trucks, cars and buses of different models, presumably the consumer would have to choose between each. Even in monopolies such as Elektronika they produce different goods so it was possible to know which model was more profitable and not. This is even reduced more by Gorbachev’s new law on cooperatives.

EDIT: but anyway, all of this is only tangentially related to Afghanistan, so we should probably stop.

I merely said that the USSR’s collapse was not because of economic factors so that whether they withdraw or win the war in Afghanistan it wouldn’t have mattered. You were the one who was so happy to contest me on that point.

[The New California Republic]

Sorry but Gorbachev wasn't chasing phantoms, the economic problems that he inherited were very real.

You didn’t reply to the crux of the post above.

I actually did.

It also didn’t change the fact that GDP growth was lower in 1986-1991 + 1995 than previous periods. While the economic problems of USSR are indeed very real, Gorbachev took a “stagnating” economy that can still recover into a thing that is entirely wrecked.

Again the problems caused by Brezhnev were still emerging during his tenure, the effect of his policies were relatively limited.

The given stats for earlier periods regarding inflation often hid the actual rates of inflation.

But we don’t really rely on Soviet stats all the time, considering that there were ways to measure repressed inflation. It’s also undeniable that the inflation in 1986-1991 period was simply very severe compared to previous ones, as the USSR price index in 1975 was precisely the same for 1955.

The lack of difference between the price index of 1955 and 1975 is actually used as proof that there was some stats fiddling going on, and the prices in the free markets in the USSR jumped considerably during this period which also indicates by comparison that prices were being kept artificially low to fiddle the stats relative to demand, with the shortfall being met by ever increasing subsidies. In fact things like red meat were sold at well below cost in order to fiddle the inflation stats. That phenomenon actually was one of the things that led to shortages of some goods from the 50s onward.

And the amount of consumer goods produced is not a good measure of goods balance relative to demand, nor is it a good indicator of efficacy of supply chains, which must have still been poor due to the lengthy shop queues that were a constant from the 50s all the way through to the start of the 90s.

Generally true, but an increasing amount of consumer goods produced would generally mean an increased capacity to fulfill consumer demand, which did consistently rise in the USSR.

In this case it isn't.

And USSR bread lines is just a meme that doesn’t really fit the reality of the Soviet period from 1950s-1980s. The videos showing empty groceries and long line queues only really came from Perestroika. From 1960s-1980s, basic necessities were amply met. Line queues only really existed for luxury goods, and by 1986-1991, even basic necessities were in shortage – something that didn’t happen before.

Just not true. Shortages of basic goods was a problem that ran right through from the 50s.

The USSR was a seller's market: the consumer was generally shit on, "take what you are given and don't complain" was the motto.

Again, this really doesn’t encapsulate the increasing dynamism of the Soviet economy. Unless it is about competition vis-a-vis enterprises vs. state. There was competition in the USSR between state enterprises, a tendency that rose in Perestroika period, 1985-1991 USSR had TV commercials for example.

Again competition was limited by the lack of adequate feedback mechanisms in regards to prices as well as other factors.

There were several automotive consortiums in the USSR producing trucks, cars and buses of different models, presumably the consumer would have to choose between each. Even in monopolies such as Elektronika they produce different goods so it was possible to know which model was more profitable and not. This is even reduced more by Gorbachev’s new law on cooperatives.

See the post I made earlier regarding ability to innovate etc.

EDIT: but anyway, all of this is only tangentially related to Afghanistan, so we should probably stop.

I merely said that the USSR’s collapse was not because of economic factors so that whether they withdraw or win the war in Afghanistan it wouldn’t have mattered. You were the one who was so happy to contest me on that point.

Sure, but while fun we should prob bring it to a close regardless.

[The New California Republic]

The United States doesn't seem to be able to completely defeat all Afghan (Afghani is the currency) guerrillas or occupy the WHOLE country or stabilize its favored regime. I can't imagine any way the Soviet Union could have done so either, speculating on what might've happened if they had feels quite silly as a result.

It would have likely required far more barbarism vis-à-vis chemical weapons than the Soviets had the stomach for, as well as a covert expansion of the war into Pakistan.

[Feyrisshire]

Again the problems caused by Brezhnev were still emerging during his tenure, the effect of his policies were relatively limited.

The economy under Brezhnev was very different under Gorbachev. The problems they faced was different – Brezhnev dealt with lackluster labor productivity, stagnant GDP growth and corruption. Gorbachev’s Perestroika exacerbated these problems further, and gave new problems that didn’t exist before, such as hyperinflation, severe shortage of basic goods, cutting of social safety net coupled with political unrest. The problems with Brezhnev simply didn’t correlate with Gorbachev.

Considering that the USSR economy also grew impressively at 1965-1970 and per capita consumption grew, coupled with the fact that some programs of successors such as Andropov’s anti-parasitism drive was successful, it’s difficult to correlate what exactly was there in Gorbachev’s Perestroika that can be traced down to Brezhnev and Andropov.

The lack of difference between the price index of 1955 and 1975 is actually used as proof that there was some stats fiddling going on, and the prices in the free markets in the USSR jumped considerably during this period which also indicates by comparison that prices were being kept artificially low to fiddle the stats relative to demand, with the shortfall being met by ever increasing subsidies. In fact things like red meat were sold at well below cost in order to fiddle the inflation stats.

It’s tenuous to assume that the goal of price controls was to fiddle inflation stats, rather than simply ensuring the accessibility of said goods. It’s also dubious to take the prices present in the second economy as an accurate measurement of how close the market is to equilibrium, considering that people in the second economy operate in an illegal context would really have less access to market info and feedback than the central planners do, and considering how big corruption and “blat” there is, the prices there would also be subject to even more distortions. It has also been accepted that one advantage of Soviet planning from a neoclassical model is its ability to avoid inflation.

In this case it isn't.

Simply because the supply chain in state enterprises was crippled by Gorbachev’s ill-planned relaxation of controls on state enterprises.

That phenomenon actually was one of the things that led to shortages of some goods from the 50s onward.

Just not true. Shortages of basic goods was a problem that ran right through from the 50s.

It depends on what kind of good it is. There were no shortages on most basic necessities for 1950s-1980s, such as staple foods like bread and potato, dairy products like milk and cheese and consumer items such as soap. Per capita consumption for goods like sugar, eggs, dairy, vegetable oil actually consistently increased throughout 1950s-1980s. The amount of appliances like TV and refrigerators also consistently increased up to the 1980s.

The meat consumption per capita in the USSR was actually higher than capitalist countries with a similar GDP and the caloric intake in the USSR was higher than the US at some point, which makes no sense have there been frequent shortages of basic goods. The only shortages that run frequent before 1986 are for luxury goods like automobiles, as well as tropical fruits like pineapples.

The only basic necessity that ever was in short supply was toilet paper, but I’d argue you don’t really need that ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Again competition was limited by the lack of adequate feedback mechanisms in regards to prices as well as other factors.

Pricing was returned as an important part of Soviet planning post-Kosygin reforms, so this point is moot. After Kosygin, the two most important parts of Soviet planning are now profit and sales.

See the post I made earlier regarding ability to innovate etc.

The USSR remained innovative up to its collapse in certain fields such as defense industry and space. It was historically innovative in some, Soviet computer technology for example during 1950s-1960s was better than Western European. The Soviet automobile, electronics and computer industries only stagnated due to lack of investment. This also ignores how the private sector is historically bad at innovation, and most innovations are propped up by state investment (Queue iPhone made by Pentagon meme)

Sure, but while fun we should prob bring it to a close regardless.

Okay, but we’re not going to end this if we keep answering each other

[FNU]

I'd say this would give enough life support to keep the Union alive until 92', and then it'd kick it.

Are you sure the Soviets would last until 92'? I'm pretty sure it would still have the problems it had during 91'

Spike in moral. Simular to what the Soviets did with Stalingrad, "Meat grinder? Nyet. Hero's field."

[Rusozak]

Republicans would be praising Osama bin Laden as a heroic freedom fighter against evil socialism.

Wasn't Osama only a minor player during the Soviet invasion?

Maybe, but I'm going with the idea his exploits would have still thrust him to prominence later on but probably would have been targeting communists instead of Americans so the US would be fine with it.

[Freiheit Reich]

9/11 probably wouldn't have happened since bin Laden would have died like a dog in Afghanistan (something we unfortunately prevented).

Also Afghanistan would probably be alot like the other central Asian republics. Not an awesome place to live but more modern and not so into the islamic extremism.

I'm pretty sure there will be some type of 9/11 event that would still happen in some other country. However, it might be a different terrorist organization that does this instead of the Taliban.

No matter the changes of our timeline, we sadly have to worry about terrorist attacks.

We have to worry about terrorist attacks because leaders in many nations want to look politically correct and insist on allowing people from dangerous countries to travel, study, and immigrate to nations that used to be much safer from terrorist attacks. If we know that most terrorists come from 30 nations, why not just restrict people from these nations from entering? We know most Afghans (especially Pashtuns) are terrorist (aka Taliban) supporters but many nations seem to think that once they cross their borders, they will immediately forget all the bad parts of their culture and become peace loving and civilized. For those that disagree, look at how quickly the Taliban took over the country. Without foreign 'help', the Taliban would still be in charge. This means that Afghans like the Taliban being in charge.

Ironically, Saudi Arabians were the main ones behind the 9/11 attacks but the USA chose to focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree a similar attack would have happened and Saudi Arabia could easily find plenty of terrorists in their own nation as well as Pakistan if Afghanistan was not an option.

[Freiheit Reich]

Well winning in this scenario would mean that the Soviet Union is able to defeat the mujahideen and other Afghani resistance groups.
As well as occupying the entire country to make sure the puppet government remains stable.

Who knows? Maybe Gorbachev would have used whatever magical power he used to accomplish this to prevent Chernobyl, put a Soviet on the Moon, conquer Europe, restore good relations with China, and crush the capitalist pig-dogs under the feet of his synthetic diamond sword wielding army of communist mechas.

The United States doesn't seem to be able to completely defeat all Afghan (Afghani is the currency) guerrillas or occupy the WHOLE country or stabilize its favored regime. I can't imagine any way the Soviet Union could have done so either, speculating on what might've happened if they had feels quite silly as a result.

The USA could defeat Afghanistan but the USA plays too nice and doesn't understand that Pashtuns view gentleness and mercy as weaknesses. The Russians were not so gentle (although they were softer in the 1980's than in the 1940's). If the Russians were as tough on the Afghans as they were on the Germans in the 1940's, they could hold the nation. It would require someone tough like Stalin who would not be afraid to force Russian values on the Afghans. Gorbachav was not so tough. To defeat Afghanistan requires destroying their culture similar to what China is doing in Xinjiang (but actually in an even tougher way). This means, forcing them to learn Russian and banning Arabic and Afghan languages, banning the Islam faith (or only allowing government approved imams and mosques to exist), banning firearms, burning any books not approved by the government, imposing birth limits (as China did), transferring Afghans to Siberia, and moving Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians into Afghanistan (using bonuses to entice them to move as Russia did to encourage people to move to Siberia).

However, Afghanistan lacks a coastline and natural resources. It might not be worth it for the USSR to spend so much effort to capture Afghanistan unless they were able to get more out of it. Perhaps the USSR could have used Afghanistan as a drug manufacturing nation (as England used Burma) and then send the drugs to capitalist nations to weaken them and make some money (as England used opium to weaken China). This would be pretty dirty but if England could do it and still be respected by the world, why not have the USSR do it as well?

[Freiheit Reich]

Afghanistan would be a better nation under the Soviet Union. Perhaps it would be as good as Uzbekistan or Tajikistan and women would have more rights and not be heavily pressured to wear burkas and girls would not be getting killed simply for daring to attend schools. The USA fought on the wrong side AGAIN and paid the price for their stupidity. Russian influence helped civilize the barbaric central Asian Islamic nations. Compare Tashkent vs. Kabul or Kandahar and see a corrupt and authoritarian but civilized city vs. a barbaric hellhole. I don't think Afghanistan will get a metro system anytime soon.

24 hours in Tashkent, Uzbekistan

https://www.thetravelmagazine.net/24-ho ... istan.html

This sounds like a white supremacist blog post

It is not about color of skin. Some cultures are more civilized than other cultures though. The Afghans don't want to be civilized because they are too brainwashed by their religion. I am fine with people choosing to lead a religious life as long as they don't force their beliefs on others. The Amish choose to have a simple life but they aren't attacking people who refuse to follow the Amish lifestyle. The Taliban banned people from listening to music, forced men to grow beards, didn't allow girls to go to school, forced women to wear burkas, lacks tolerance of non-Islamic faiths, etc... This is why I call them uncivilized.

[Shofercia]

Since 2020 has been a busy and stressful for us all, I thought it would be a good idea to create a what if history thread and discuss the possibilities of what would happen if history went a different way. This is like my scenario threads that I've done in the past except this time we will explore alt history and discuss what could've happened. For our first scenario we will be talking about the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989). As we all know the Soviet Union lost to the mujahideen insurgency with the Soviets withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan. But what if the Soviet Union somehow managed to win the Soviet-Afghan War and was able to occupy the country?

To start off the discussion here are some questions for us to look at.

1. Would the victory in Afghanistan delay the fall of the Soviet Union?

2. Would the Taliban still rise into power?

3. Would Russia be a target of terrorist attacks or would terror attacks continue against the West?

4. Would the new Soviet puppet government keep Afghanistan stable or it would it become unstable as soon as the USSR fell?

What do you think would happen in this alternate history NSG?

My Opinions
Since I am the OP, I will be giving my answers on what I think will happen had the Soviets won the war.

1. I believe the Soviet Union would've still fallen in 1991, despite a victory in Afghanistan since we still have factors that would cause the USSR to fall in the first place.

2. I believe the Taliban would've still risen into power once the Soviets installed a puppet government.

3. I don't know about this question, but I will assume terror attacks will still continue on the West with Russia being a main target for terror attacks.

4. I believe the new Soviet puppet government will be unstable which would cause the Taliban to rise into power and replace the Soviet government.

To sum up my opinion, nothing much will change had the Soviet Union won the war.

The USSR didn't lose for military reasons; the USSR lost for economic reasons. First, the USSR needlessly wasted resources on keeping large regular armed forces, when having elite special forces, backed up by missile regiments, backed up by local militias would've sufficed; the bureaucracy was corrupt, and gave itself extra funds; the funds utilized to fight religion were wasted, as one cannot fight religion in a country that has a millenia old tradition. And so on.

In order to win in Afghanistan, the USSR had to become something else... the Green Arrow. Joking aside, my hypothesis is based on the USSR adopting to the new economic and military reality of the situation, and thus winning the War in Afghanistan.

1. Would the victory in Afghanistan delay the fall of the Soviet Union?

The victory wouldn't have done much, but the socio-economic reforms would've saved the USSR.

2. Would the Taliban still rise into power?

Not in an Afghanistan controlled by the USSR or the USSR's proxies. You'd have a more moderate version of Islam.

3. Would Russia be a target of terrorist attacks or would terror attacks continue against the West?

This assumes that the majority of terrorist attacks came from Afghanistan, which isn't true.

4. Would the new Soviet puppet government keep Afghanistan stable or it would it become unstable as soon as the USSR fell?

If the USSR fell, then Soviet proxy in Afghanistan would become unstable. The USSR wasn't fighting to free the Northern Alliance; the USSR wanted a Soviet Proxy in Afghanistan, which would've been more beneficial to the Northern Alliance than the Taliban, but it was not about democracy. Interestingly enough, a Soviet Afghanistan would've made drastic progress in improving women's rights in the region.

To go back to the highlighted reforms, they were conducted in the 21st Century by none other than President Vladimir Putin. Russia and the US have the highest ratios of special forces to regular armed forces, Russian missile technology is top notch, and religion flourishes in Russia. The USSR could've taken the slow and steady change of pace, rather than crashing hard, but that didn't happen.

[Shofercia]

I don't think it would have changed much. If the Soviets won a quick victory and annihilated the Mujahideen in a matter of months then maybe they would have gone on longer but if they waged the war for as long as they did in real history and then won, it would have been a pyrrhic victory not really better than losing.

I don't think the Soviets' greatest problem was their economy nor all the money and manpower they wasted in the graveyard of empires but rather that it was extremely difficult to hold together so many ethnic groups, many of whom hated each other.

Now some people would say that means multiculturalism is what took down the USSR but those people would be wrong, because the Soviet Union wasn't really a melting pot, the various cultures didn't merge all that much, they stayed isolated but ruled by one government, and much of that was due to the sheer distance, all the mountains and steppes that kept people apart.

The Romanov Russian Empire had no issues holding numerous ethnicities together for over three centuries. It wasn't ethnic based conflict that spelled doom for the Romanovs.

Not a lot. The USSR would still have collapsed.

Would it have collapsed anywhere near as quickly though?

1. Either Afghanistan was let go early on, or there had been no successful uprising: USSR probably OK
2. With a more hard-line leader than Gorbachev: massively escalate the war, kill most of the Afghans: USSR falls but only much later.
3. Stayed in Afghanistan but continuing to take heavy casualties: USSR falls SOONER, prob in a bloody military coup
4. What actually happened: just enough losses to create military discontent, but not rebellion. No victory to announce, hence popular discontent. USSR falls gracefully.

It's not hard to give Gorbachev credit for engineering the dissolution of the USSR. That he failed to retain power and lead Russia through the difficult transition to social democracy is a sorry end, but barely more than a detail to such a historic change.

He wouldn't have been able to lead Russia through a tough transition, because when pressed, he was a wimp. He's the only leader in Russian History to be couped by a raging drunk.

One of the key aspects of Perestroika was economic reform, because they realised how dire the economic situation was. One of the causes of the collapse was economic, that point is undeniable and non-negotiable.

But economic reform was nothing new in the USSR, nor was Gorbachev the first to realize that they were stagnating. Economic reform has already been done by Brezhnev and Kosygin, through Liberman and Kosygin's reforms. Profitability was introduced into state enterprises to increase output. Brezhnev and Kosygin's liberal reforms didn't create the disastrous consequences that Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost did.

Why did Brezhnev and Kosygin's market liberalization reforms did not lead to the collapse of the USSR but Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost did?

Things improved under Brezhnev, on the overall scale, but deteriorated under Gorbachev. During the later Romanov years, as well as the Civil War, and WWII, housing deteriorated. Khrushchev's ability to house the entire population of the USSR, even in single room apartments, drastically improved the Standard of Living. Brezhnev and Kosygin were able to build on that. Gorbachev wasn't. If you want relative stability, you need constant improvement in the Standard of Living.

Furthermore, nationalism, started by Lenin's interpretation of Marx, and continued by Stalin, certainly played a role. If you look at the Governorates of the Russian Empire, they weren't done based on ethnicity, unlike the SSRs. Reshaping the Russian Empire along ethnic lines and encouraging ethno-nationalism, contributed to creating kindling that was just waiting for a spark. The economic fallout of perestroika, paired with the lunacy of Glasnost, i.e. "and here's how we're fucking up, we don't know what the fuck we're doing, please coup us" created the spark that lit the kindling.

[Shofercia]

"Shallow" might be a subjective term here, as the introduction of profitability in state enterprises and move away from material balance planning was in fact significant.

The point is what exactly changed in the Soviet economy between Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The USSR was fairly stable under Brezhnev, meaning that a lot of the consequences that lead to its downfall would have to be traced to perestroika and glasnost rather than Brezhnev Stagnation and Kosygin and Liberman reforms.

The necessity of Perestroika though was due to failures of Khozraschyot to increase productivity relative to wage rises, as well as distortions caused by it. Brezhnev is just as guilty of the collapse as Gorbachev is.

The massive expenditure on the military, the bureaucracy, and fighting religion was a massive drain. If you removed those issues from the equation, perestroika wouldn't have been necessary.

Perestroika was like putting a band aid on a haemmorhaged wound.

More like infecting a hemorrhaged wound.

Honestly one of the main reasons the USSR fell apart was its sluggish response to Chernobyl. It pretty much told the other republics that Moscow didn’t give a fuck about them

Tbh their response to it wasn't that slow, it was just the optics, caused by the really heavy censorship of it that made it look like they weren't doing much.

Yep.

What does "winning" Afghanistan mean? I mean, has the US "won" Afghanistan just because we haven't retreated?

Well winning in this scenario would mean that the Soviet Union is able to defeat the mujahideen and other Afghani resistance groups. As well as occupying the entire country to make sure the puppet government remains stable.

EDIT: If there are other ways the Soviets could've won, feel free to correct me.

EDIT 2: Actually nevermind, maybe won is the wrong word. Maybe pacify is a better word.

No need to occupy the entire country, just hold the key areas and slowly force the remaining areas to either become a part of the Northern Alliance, or submit to a variation thereof.

[Aeritai]

Ah it's good to see you here Shof, your thoughts on this what if scenario are pretty interesting to read.

No need to occupy the entire country, just hold the key areas and slowly force the remaining areas to either become a part of the Northern Alliance, or submit to a variation thereof.

Good point!

[The New California Republic]

The lack of difference between the price index of 1955 and 1975 is actually used as proof that there was some stats fiddling going on, and the prices in the free markets in the USSR jumped considerably during this period which also indicates by comparison that prices were being kept artificially low to fiddle the stats relative to demand, with the shortfall being met by ever increasing subsidies. In fact things like red meat were sold at well below cost in order to fiddle the inflation stats.

It’s tenuous to assume that the goal of price controls was to fiddle inflation stats, rather than simply ensuring the accessibility of said goods. It’s also dubious to take the prices present in the second economy as an accurate measurement of how close the market is to equilibrium, considering that people in the second economy operate in an illegal context would really have less access to market info and feedback than the central planners do, and considering how big corruption and “blat” there is, the prices there would also be subject to even more distortions. It has also been accepted that one advantage of Soviet planning from a neoclassical model is its ability to avoid inflation.

Small correction here: free markets where people could sell their produce etc did actually exist in the USSR, they weren't illegal. And the prices in the free markets did reflect the relative distortions regarding price via comparative difference, in relation to supply that were present in the planned sector. No price feedback mechanisms existed in the planned sector, so we have to use the free markets and their prices as a window into the actual situation regarding the distortions into inflation and supply.

And again it didn't "ensure accessibility" of goods if the lack of pricing relative to demand caused shortages of goods, and it very much did cause shortages of goods.

[Feyrisshire]

Small correction here: free markets where people could sell their produce etc did actually exist in the USSR, they weren't illegal. And the prices in the free markets did reflect the relative distortions regarding price via comparative difference, in relation to supply that were present in the planned sector.

It depends on what time. In Lenin’s NEP, private enterprise was ofc prevalent. During Stalin, private cooperatives and enterprise remained but were progressively being reduced. Khruschev did away with the last remnants of the artel private cooperative. Household plots existed though but sold produce at fixed prices.

At the time of Khruschev-Brezhnev, what remained of the private enterprise in the USSR was so insignificant and a lot relegated to the second economy that the previous methods to measure inflation in Lenin’s NEP and Stalin era, that is through comparing the prices in the private sector vs. the state-owned sector to measure distortions can no longer be done.

Neoliberal economists basically admit that the USSR had already eliminated inflation in the Currency Reform of 1947 so they invent another category named “repressed inflation”, conveniently only applicable to the USSR where savings is assumed to represent excess demand, despite the fact that a planned economy not reliant on money would have little use for savings in the first place.

No price feedback mechanisms existed in the planned sector, so we have to use the free markets and their prices as a window into the actual situation regarding the distortions into inflation and supply.

It also remains to be said that pricing was already reintroduced in the Kosygin and Liberman’s reforms. Profit and sales was returned back as part of Soviet planning, so enterprise managers would definitely know costing and profitability of each good.

And again it didn't "ensure accessibility" of goods if the lack of pricing relative to demand caused shortages of goods, and it very much did cause shortages of goods.

1. There was no lack of pricing
2. There was no shortage of goods

Again, per capita consumption of goods in the USSR was higher than in the Third World and to other capitalist countries with a similar GDP and GDP per capita. The imagined shortages really only appear if you try to compare per capita consumption of USSR vs. the USA A.K.A the richest country in the world. In such a case, it’s less as “shortages” and more “the problem of not being rich enough”.

[The New California Republic]

Small correction here: free markets where people could sell their produce etc did actually exist in the USSR, they weren't illegal. And the prices in the free markets did reflect the relative distortions regarding price via comparative difference, in relation to supply that were present in the planned sector.

It depends on what time. In Lenin’s NEP, private enterprise was ofc prevalent. During Stalin, private cooperatives and enterprise remained but were progressively being reduced. Khruschev did away with the last remnants of the artel private cooperative. Household plots existed though but sold produce at fixed prices.

At the time of Khruschev-Brezhnev, what remained of the private enterprise in the USSR was so insignificant and a lot relegated to the second economy that the previous methods to measure inflation in Lenin’s NEP and Stalin era, that is through comparing the prices in the private sector vs. the state-owned sector to measure distortions can no longer be done.

Wrong. The free markets existed right up until the fall, and provide a useful comparative of changing price levels over time vis-à-vis supply and demand when compared to the state sector, in the form of tables which compare the state prices with the legal USSR free market prices.

No price feedback mechanisms existed in the planned sector, so we have to use the free markets and their prices as a window into the actual situation regarding the distortions into inflation and supply.

It also remains to be said that pricing was already reintroduced in the Kosygin and Liberman’s reforms. Profit and sales was returned back as part of Soviet planning, so enterprise managers would definitely know costing and profitability of each good.

Different from what I am talking about. I'm talking about price feedback mechanisms: they absolutely didn't exist. The fact they didn't exist was shown by the fact that some Soviet economists were in debates in the 80s regarding whether to introduce them, and what form they should take.

And again it didn't "ensure accessibility" of goods if the lack of pricing relative to demand caused shortages of goods, and it very much did cause shortages of goods.

1. There was no lack of pricing
2. There was no shortage of goods

I didn't say there was lack of pricing, I said there was lack of pricing relative to demand. And yet again there were shortages of goods, in part due to the aforementioned.

[The New California Republic]

The necessity of Perestroika though was due to failures of Khozraschyot to increase productivity relative to wage rises, as well as distortions caused by it. Brezhnev is just as guilty of the collapse as Gorbachev is.

The massive expenditure on the military, the bureaucracy, and fighting religion was a massive drain. If you removed those issues from the equation, perestroika wouldn't have been necessary.

Well yes, the State bloat in those regards were consistent over more of less the entirety of the USSR's existence.