The effects of Gorbachev being Assassinated in 1990?

[Time Enough]

@Yokai Man @Meppo and even @neonduke

I found a fascinating if weird POD for the 1990s.

On Revolution Day 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev was nearly assassinated by a democracy activist called Alexander Shmonov. The plan was that Shmonov was to shoot Gorbachev with a hunting rifle, and he nearly managed to do it but a security guard jerked the rifle up at the last minute second and the shots went wild.

Now if the Security person hadn’t been as quick, Gorbachev could have been seriously injured or killed and that leads to an interesting possibility of Nikolai Ryzhkov becoming Premier who was certainly a more Conservative figure within the CPSU so the 1991 August Coup is less likely to happen.

This doesn’t obviously stop the likely eventual collapse of the USSR, which was on the brink, with lack of basic supplies and gangsters. Though having the Soviet Union limp on till the Mid 90s I could see having interesting effects on world affairs (Yugoslavia comes to mind).

 

[Charles EP M.]

And would a Gorbachev who wasn't the last head of the USSR and got assassinated still be seen (as I understand it) as the guy who fucked things up for Russia, or would it be "maybe things could've gone better if he'd lived"?

 

[Time Enough]

And would a Gorbachev who wasn't the last head of the USSR and got assassinated still be seen (as I understand it) as the guy who fucked things up for Russia, or would it be "maybe things could've gone better if he'd lived"?

Well this was just around his approval ratings plummeting off a cliff, so I could see him as being seen as the ‘the head of the USSR who was so bad that he got assassinated’.

I have just realised that Gorbachev being assassinated by a Pro-Democracy activist could be a good brush from which to paint the liberalisers and to crackdown on them if the Conservative segments of the party wanted too.

 

[Yokai Man]

@Yokai Man @Meppo and even @neonduke

I found a fascinating if weird POD for the 1990s.

On Revolution Day 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev was nearly assassinated by a democracy activist called Alexander Shmonov. The plan was that Shmonov was to shoot Gorbachev with a hunting rifle, and he nearly managed to do it but a security guard jerked the rifle up at the last minute second and the shots went wild.

Now if the Security person hadn’t been as quick, Gorbachev could have been seriously injured or killed and that leads to an interesting possibility of Nikolai Ryzhkov becoming Premier who was certainly a more Conservative figure within the CPSU so the 1991 August Coup is less likely to happen.

This doesn’t obviously stop the likely eventual collapse of the USSR, which was on the brink, with lack of basic supplies and gangsters. Though having the Soviet Union limp on till the Mid 90s I could see having interesting effects on world affairs (Yugoslavia comes to mind).

The USSR goes down more violently,to put lightly. No nukes but think of Yugoslavia or Lebanon.

 

[History Learner]

This doesn’t obviously stop the likely eventual collapse of the USSR, which was on the brink, with lack of basic supplies and gangsters. Though having the Soviet Union limp on till the Mid 90s I could see having interesting effects on world affairs (Yugoslavia comes to mind).

This is probably sufficient to stop the collapse of the USSR, in all honesty. In 1991, the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, and all of the Central Asian SSRs voted by overwhelmingly majorities to remain in the USSR, albeit reformed under the New Union Treaty. Without the August Coup, which happened literally the day before the treaty was to come into effect, it's likely the Soviet Union could survive and by the 2000s thrive again.

 

[Time Enough]

The USSR goes down more violently,to put lightly. No nukes but think of Yugoslavia or Lebanon.

I could see that happening in like 95’/96’ as the various ethnicities and nationalist groups manage to gain more ground and control.

This is probably sufficient to stop the collapse of the USSR, in all honesty. In 1991, the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, and all of the Central Asian SSRs voted by overwhelmingly majorities to remain in the USSR, albeit reformed under the New Union Treaty. Without the August Coup, which happened literally the day before the treaty was to come into effect, it's likely the Soviet Union could survive and by the 2000s thrive again.

Eh, the USSR was struggling to feed people in the cities and had to rely on the Army to farm food for them, Mafia groups emerging etc. Portions of the USSR were already in outright Civil War which doesn’t help much.


The New Union treaty would be despised by the Conservatives and Moderates because suddenly Moscow has little say in the affairs of other disparate Republics and all that.

The interesting thing for me is a Union limping on till the Mid to Late 90s, I doubt a figure like Ryzkhov would cut funding to the Afghanistan Government which could mean they limp on and we see some kind of ‘Red-Green Government’ eventually emerge or something similar.

I could see the Union providing more active support to the Yugoslavian Government which could mean it enters one last weird proxy conflict with NATO.

All that said, you maybe eventually see the Union go cap in hand to the IMF at some point which…would be a surreal experience.

 

[History Learner]

Eh, the USSR was struggling to feed people in the cities and had to rely on the Army to farm food for them, Mafia groups emerging etc. Portions of the USSR were already in outright Civil War which doesn’t help much.

The New Union treaty would be despised by the Conservatives and Moderates because suddenly Moscow has little say in the affairs of other disparate Republics and all that.

The interesting thing for me is a Union limping on till the Mid to Late 90s, I doubt a figure like Ryzkhov would cut funding to the Afghanistan Government which could mean they limp on and we see some kind of ‘Red-Green Government’ eventually emerge or something similar.

I could see the Union providing more active support to the Yugoslavian Government which could mean it enters one last weird proxy conflict with NATO.

All that said, you maybe eventually see the Union go cap in hand to the IMF at some point which…would be a surreal experience.

The old USSR, as in an authoritarian federation of 15 Republics lead by the CCCP, was certainly dead by 1990. The new USSR, of nine republics on a confederal basis, was just dawning and it was not foreordained it would fall apart. It's forgotten now, but the participating Republics conducted a referendum in 1991 that saw a turn out of 80% with 77% voting to keep the Soviet Union together; every single Republic, including Russia and Ukraine, voted over 70% to this effect. Central Asia and Azerbaijan voted yes at over 90%, even. It was a fair vote, and shows there was definitely a strong desire to keep the Union together.

What ended up preventing this was the last second August coup attempt, which engendered fear of a hardliner return and empowered Anti-Union forces like Yeltsin to new political heights. With Ryzkhov, I don't see a coup attempt as likely and he would likely be able to use the martyrdom of Gorbachev to strengthen the center, which prevents/solves/lessens a lot of the ongoing economic issues.

 

[Time Enough]

The old USSR, as in an authoritarian federation of 15 Republics lead by the CCCP, was certainly dead by 1990. The new USSR, of nine republics on a confederal basis, was just dawning and it was not foreordained it would fall apart. It's forgotten now, but the participating Republics conducted a referendum in 1991 that saw a turn out of 80% with 77% voting to keep the Soviet Union together; every single Republic, including Russia and Ukraine, voted over 70% to this effect. Central Asia and Azerbaijan voted yes at over 90%, even. It was a fair vote, and shows there was definitely a strong desire to keep the Union together.

What ended up preventing this was the last second August coup attempt, which engendered fear of a hardliner return and empowered Anti-Union forces like Yeltsin to new political heights. With Ryzkhov, I don't see a coup attempt as likely and he would likely be able to use the martyrdom of Gorbachev to strengthen the center, which prevents/solves/lessens a lot of the ongoing economic issues.

I’m pondering, would Ryzkhov support the treaty or just water it down?

The Union could still happen, but it was such a more decentralised system that the centeralisers and Conservatives would likely find it worrying. Additionally it turns out Ryzkhov had a heart attack in December of 90’ so I could see him being increasingly having to appease the Conservative’s to hold power.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I’m pondering, would Ryzkhov support the treaty or just water it down?

That's a good question. USSR2 turns up now and then in AH but on assumption everyone's cool with the deal, if Russia decides it's not then what happens? It's the biggest country and none of the others will have its weight, if it wants to bully change through (or Rexit), what stops it?

 

[History Learner]

I’m pondering, would Ryzkhov support the treaty or just water it down?

Well, from a quick glance at Wikipedia:

Ryzhkov's Plan and The 500 Days Programme were broadly similar, with both supporting price liberalisation, decentralisation and privatisation.[53] The main difference between the two was Ryzhkov's desire to retain much of the social security system, free education for all and the continuance of a strong central government apparatus. The 500 Days Programme did not mention political union with the other Soviet republics, but instead weakened the authority of the central government by establishing a market economy. In other words, they left the question of continuing or dissolving the Soviet Union open.[54] On 17 September in a meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev openly supported the 500 Days Programme, claiming it would not lead to the reestablishment of capitalism, but instead to a mixed economy where private enterprise played an important role.[55]​

The Union could still happen, but it was such a more decentralised system that the centeralisers and Conservatives would likely find it worrying. Additionally it turns out Ryzkhov had a heart attack in December of 90’ so I could see him being increasingly having to appease the Conservative’s to hold power.

I think it's worth remembering that how the New Union Treaty is seen today is different from the contemporary view of it:

The draft of the new Treaty of the Union, obtained by The Washington Post, calls on the existing 15 republics to form a voluntary federation. One crucial ideological change is the country's new name, dropping "socialist" from its present name and substituting "sovereign."​

​

Although the treaty envisions an unprecedented degree of authority for the individual republics, it also retains so much power for Moscow that Yeltsin and their other leaders will probably find it too conservative. Gorbachev warned the republics: "Let them make their proposals and suggestions, but if they merely make ultimatums, then they will further destabilize the situation in the country."​

 

[raharris1973]

Ryzhkov's desire to retain much of the social security system, free education for all

Was free schooling, at least below university level, ever abolished in Soviet successor states?

And wasn't the Soviet social security system largely administered via enterprises and not the central state, thus going along with the winds of privatization?

What was Rykov proposing? Federalizing or Unionizing or Republicizing all Social Security obligations?

 

[napoleon IV]

I think it's worth remembering that how the New Union Treaty is seen today is different from the contemporary view of it:

The draft of the new Treaty of the Union, obtained by The Washington Post, calls on the existing 15 republics to form a voluntary federation. One crucial ideological change is the country's new name, dropping "socialist" from its present name and substituting "sovereign."​

​

Although the treaty envisions an unprecedented degree of authority for the individual republics, it also retains so much power for Moscow that Yeltsin and their other leaders will probably find it too conservative. Gorbachev warned the republics: "Let them make their proposals and suggestions, but if they merely make ultimatums, then they will further destabilize the situation in the country."​

Which does illustrate the central problem: the treaty gives the republics way more power than conservatives and moderates within the Communist Party would like, while also retaining more power for Moscow than the republican leaders would like. Add to that the fact that the economy was imploding and relations between the CPSU leaders in Moscow and republican leaders (particularly Yeltsin) were already dismal and it's a the perfect breeding ground for endless power struggles.

 

[History Learner]

Was free schooling, at least below university level, ever abolished in Soviet successor states?

And wasn't the Soviet social security system largely administered via enterprises and not the central state, thus going along with the winds of privatization?

What was Rykov proposing? Federalizing or Unionizing or Republicizing all Social Security obligations?

I genuinely don't know, could be interesting to look into. This seems like the first strands of discord in Russia that would lead to the 1993 Crisis.

Which does illustrate the central problem: the treaty gives the republics way more power than conservatives and moderates within the Communist Party would like, while also retaining more power for Moscow than the republican leaders would like. Add to that the fact that the economy was imploding and relations between the CPSU leaders in Moscow and republican leaders (particularly Yeltsin) were already dismal and it's a the perfect breeding ground for endless power struggles.

Which explains why Gorbachev went the route he did to a large extent. The CCCP had been largely defanged in 1988 by eliminating their monopoly on power, which is what allowed these Republican leaders to even survive, nevermind rule. Gorbachev then pivoted to doing the popular referendums, which gave him leverage on said Republican leaders and the Conservatives, such as they remained, by unifying the popular will behind his policy to keep the Union together. Specifically on the Conservatives, the fact they didn't coup him in 1988 or in November of 1990 when the New Union proposal was first rolled out speaks volumes; they waited until the last second because they were that politically weak at this point and how ramshackle the plot was is evidenced by how fast it unraveled despite successfully detaining Gorbachev. The hardliners were a spent force, and the Republican leaders could be cowed, given their main source of power was the populace, which was not ready to let go of the Union on the whole.

Specific to the long range future, yeah, I think it's likely further reforms would happen. I'd expect by the end of the 1990s there would be a strengthening of the center again in response to the various issues, for one. As for the economy, the passage of the New Union will do much to fix or mitigate issues we saw in the FSU historically. Gorbachev kneecapping the CCCP in 1988 is what enabled Yeltsin to make the deep budget cuts to agriculture and the military Post-1991 and by 1991, Price Reform being instituted was a foregone conclusion. Keeping the Union, without trade barriers and a center to still oversee things, will also do wonders; after December 1991 the new borders suddenly killed what had up until then been an integrated economy. That doesn't happen here, because that economy remains whole.

 

[Time Enough]

Which does illustrate the central problem: the treaty gives the republics way more power than conservatives and moderates within the Communist Party would like, while also retaining more power for Moscow than the republican leaders would like. Add to that the fact that the economy was imploding and relations between the CPSU leaders in Moscow and republican leaders (particularly Yeltsin) were already dismal and it's a the perfect breeding ground for endless power struggles.

It does seem like the Union would likely just lead have some kind of collapse eventually given that Ukraine and the Baltics would likely not be fond of the situation. What remains probably acts like a more autocratic CIS I guess?

~~~

@History Learner I do think the Union Treaty wasn’t going to be the saving grace for the Soviets. Especially if Ryzhkov is charge, given how he was a moderate and had health problems meaning his base within the party would be less secure.

I do think the most likely outcome of the Union Treaty succeeding is that instead of a Union that weathers the 90s and becomes a world integrated economic power, I think the more likely outcome is the Union just ends up like a Giant Ukraine under Leonid Kravchuk, who’s slow and cautious nature towards reforms lead to near famine and civil war as well as a the creation of oligarchs.

 

[History Learner]

It does seem like the Union would likely just lead have some kind of collapse eventually given that Ukraine and the Baltics would likely not be fond of the situation. What remains probably acts like a more autocratic CIS I guess?

The Baltics had been wrote off by August of 1991 and Ukraine approved the Treaty by over 70%. Given what we know of modern Russian thought and its relations to where the Soviets were in 1990-1991, it is indeed possible the New Union Treaty would see the USSR evolving into a Confederation that operates like a NATO-EU hybrid.

@History Learner I do think the Union Treaty wasn’t going to be the saving grace for the Soviets. Especially if Ryzhkov is charge, given how he was a moderate and had health problems meaning his base within the party would be less secure.

You're greatly over-stating both; not only is he still alive, he returned to political office from 1995 to 2003 and then got sanctioned for his role in Crimea in 2014, so we can infer the heart attack did not set him back all that much. As for his position as leader of the USSR, he was already supported by the KGB and Military by late 1990:

I do think the most likely outcome of the Union Treaty succeeding is that instead of a Union that weathers the 90s and becomes a world integrated economic power, I think the more likely outcome is the Union just ends up like a Giant Ukraine under Leonid Kravchuk, who’s slow and cautious nature towards reforms lead to near famine and civil war as well as a the creation of oligarchs.

I don't find that an applicable comparison here, because there's not much to suggest Ryzhkov would be like that. He was agreed on Price Reform with Gorbachev, and retaining the center (with no rapid privatizations) would avoid the oligarch issue by avoiding the historical power vacuum. The best end result, however, is the retention of a single integrated economic space; Breaking the Unbreakable Union: Nationalism, Disintegration and the Soviet Economic Collapse by Marvin Suesse shows this was the main cause behind the deep economic chaos and pain of the 1990s. What had been an integrated economy for 80 years was almost suddenly destroyed, requiring new trading relationships to be reforged from the ground up while new political and trade barriers cut enterprises off from their supply chains and customers.

 

[Time Enough]

I’ll ask @napoleon IV for his opinion on this given he’s study the Soviet Union and it’s decline and has written about them before.

I’ll start with, could the Sovereign Union treaty saved the Communist Party and the Nomeklature?

 

[History Learner]

I’ll ask @napoleon IV for his opinion on this given he’s study the Soviet Union and it’s decline and has written about them before.

I’ll start with, could the Sovereign Union treaty saved the Communist Party and the Nomeklature?

CCCP was dead in 1988, Gorbachev had killed its monopoly on political power; it's what allowed Nationalists to rise to the fore in several republics.