Love this idea. That sounds like a perfect name for what Gorby aims to achieve.
Love this commentary! Thanks for your thoughts.
Solid analysis here as well. I agree that this is hugely embarrassing for the USSR. They will definitely take a hit to their prestige.
Yeahhhh there are a lot of reasons for the USSR's failure against Sweden here. As mentioned in the chapter, the Soviet system rewards loyalty and orthodoxy over innovation and challenging the status quo. While the Soviets did possess orders of magnitude more men and material than the Swedes, those advantages really only help in a long, or even total war of attrition. In a confined, tactical battle, against an advanced, capable, and highly determined enemy, they fell flat on their faces.
So long as Palme avoids being assassinated I'm pretty sure he'll be happy...
Hopefully, Gorby took power and be able to implement said "renewal" policies fast enough, as the window to implement reforms in the USSR is closing fast. I'm of the opinion that beyond the mid-1980s, reforming the Soviet Union without the entire house collapsing on its own would be, shall we say, very difficult. Some would even say it was virtually impossible. The system is just untenable.
Agreed. Even if he comes to power earlier than OTL here, he will still absolutely have his work cut out for him. According to my research, the biggest hurdles to reforming the USSR in the 80s were: the financial difficulties created by excessive spending (especially on defense) which led to staggering, unsustainable budget deficits; entrenched political and military interests who saw any change as a threat to their personal power (and the gravy train of corruption they'd enjoyed for so long); and the repressed yearnings of various ethnicities and nationalities, some of whom really do want to be free from Russian control and domination.
Cheers!
Glad you enjoyed.What's the timeline on how long he'll have before it's too late.
Exactly this, it wasn't that Gorvachev didn't try hard enough to reform he just ran out of time and some of his decisions just weren't the right one's.
Yes! Yes! to all this. Sure this may be radical for the hardliners but you know what I say, go big or go home. I think Gorby is smart enough to know that by the time he comes to power that things need to change for the Soviet Union and they need to change dramatically even if it pisses off the hardliners.
Those are all great ideas. I don't know how realistic this all is but I think it's crazy enough to work.
Am liking those alternate Gorby ideas.Agreed. Even if he comes to power earlier than OTL here, he will still absolutely have his work cut out for him. According to my research, the biggest hurdles to reforming the USSR in the 80s were: the financial difficulties created by excessive spending (especially on defense) which led to staggering, unsustainable budget deficits; entrenched political and military interests who saw any change as a threat to their personal power (and the gravy train of corruption they'd enjoyed for so long); and the repressed yearnings of various ethnicities and nationalities, some of whom really do want to be free from Russian control and domination.
Here are my broad notes on the USSR going forward. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts, if anyone is interested.
If Gorbachev is going to stand any chance of saving the Union, I think he'll need to introduce aspects of economic liberalization in order to combat the bureaucratic gridlock and stagnation. I'm not an economist, but I believe that this could look like slightly more radical versions of the reforms he attempted IOTL. He could scrap production quotas, reduce government subsidies, and allow state run companies to set their own targets and control their own production and distribution (so long as they can meet direct orders given by the state). In the short term, this will butcher the Soviet economy. Without those subsidies, many of the state-run enterprises will go bankrupt. But, if he combines this policy with suitably massive reductions in government spending on defense (say, by signing Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties with RFK's America), withdrawing from Afghanistan, and ending Soviet support to communist countries and movements around the globe, then he might be able to free up budget to ensure enough social welfare spending to help the Soviet people survive this shock to the system.
The Soviets' greatest geopolitical advantage is their natural resources. From my research, as of 1982, they control roughly 30% of the world's natural gas reserves and massive oil quantities as well. Even as America ITTL covers itself with domestic/western hemisphere production and reduces demand for fossil fuels with renewables, Europe, East Asia, and other markets are still going to be thirsty for cheap energy to fuel their booming economies. If Gorby is wise, he can (at least in the short term) use warmer relations with the West and key investments in the energy sector to turn the USSR into Europe's primary energy supplier. Then, once those oil and gas revenues start pouring in, he can begin to close the USSR's budget deficit, and focus on reforming other aspects of the nation's economy, making new investments in light and heavy industry, etc. The difficult part is making that transition, however.
Cheers!
I think beyond 1987–88 is a point of no return. From there, it's just how long before the entire thing goes tumbling down.
The main reason that Gorby's reforms failed were he fundamentally didn't understand how the Soviet finance system worked. The Soviet economy was incredibly complicated and when he tried to push his reforms through it just failed. Now the main source I'm drawing from for this point is Collapse the Fall of the Soviet Union by Vladislav M. Zubok, and any quotes I use will be from that unless I say otherwise.
Now Gorby's reforms meant that companies were able to transfer beznal into nal. Which was a key factor in the economic collapse of the late 80's. Fundamentally any more radical reform is just going to make things go worse than IOTL, and OTL was hardly rosy. I've seen some claims of Russian excess morality post-USSR reaching 7 million during the 90's. Any hopes of a major ecenomic reform saving the USSR by going towards market reforms immeditaly will fail.
God Almighty, I knew the Soviet economy was unique, but reading your post, I think I may have severely underestimated just how unique and byzantine said economy is. How to straighten such an economy into something sustainable for the future is beyond me.
One critical step Gorbi must take once he gets into power is sending most of the Politburo into retirement. This is authoritarian, but a nation cannot make any important decisions if the decision-makers are dropping dead like dominoes. Maybe he promotes good-performing lower officials to the Politburo, and he introduces a mandatory retirement age, of 65 maybe.Agreed. Even if he comes to power earlier than OTL here, he will still absolutely have his work cut out for him. According to my research, the biggest hurdles to reforming the USSR in the 80s were: the financial difficulties created by excessive spending (especially on defense) which led to staggering, unsustainable budget deficits; entrenched political and military interests who saw any change as a threat to their personal power (and the gravy train of corruption they'd enjoyed for so long); and the repressed yearnings of various ethnicities and nationalities, some of whom really do want to be free from Russian control and domination.
Here are my broad notes on the USSR going forward. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts, if anyone is interested.
If Gorbachev is going to stand any chance of saving the Union, I think he'll need to introduce aspects of economic liberalization in order to combat the bureaucratic gridlock and stagnation. I'm not an economist, but I believe that this could look like slightly more radical versions of the reforms he attempted IOTL. He could scrap production q, uotas, reduce government subsidies, and allow state run companies to set their own targets and control their own production and distribution (so long as they can meet direct orders given by the state). In the short term, this will butcher the Soviet economy. Without those subsidies, many of the state-run enterprises will go bankrupt. But, if he combines this policy with suitably massive reductions in government spending on defense (say, by signing Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties with RFK's America), withdrawing from Afghanistan, and ending Soviet support to communist countries and movements around the globe, then he might be able to free up budget to ensure enough social welfare spending to help the Soviet people survive this shock to the system.
The Soviets' greatest geopolitical advantage is their natural resources. From my research, as of 1982, they control roughly 30% of the world's natural gas reserves and massive oil quantities as well. Even as America ITTL covers itself with domestic/western hemisphere production and reduces demand for fossil fuels with renewables, Europe, East Asia, and other markets are still going to be thirsty for cheap energy to fuel their booming economies. If Gorby is wise, he can (at least in the short term) use warmer relations with the West and key investments in the energy sector to turn the USSR into Europe's primary energy supplier. Then, once those oil and gas revenues start pouring in, he can begin to close the USSR's budget deficit, and focus on reforming other aspects of the nation's economy, making new investments in light and heavy industry, etc. The difficult part is making that transition, however.
Mostly agreed, but I think it's not just that its members are dropping like dominoes but also that the Politburo is one of the primary bastions of the conservative elements of the Soviet government. Those who are more likely to oppose anything that looks like a reform of the system. I think Gorbachev is more likely to promote good-performing lower officials to the Politburo than introduce a mandatory retirement age.
I completely agree on this.
This depends on whether the KGB chairman is an ally of Gorby or not.
I think this direction is the general consensus on reforms, which is nice and well, but while not impossible, it is certainly very difficult to achieve. As Waltzing Brunhilda and the credible sources he used stated, the Soviet economy is unique and very byzantine.
