Imagine an alternative history in which the Soviet Union did not collapse in 1991 but continued actively shaping the global arena.

The Resilient USSR: A World of Dual Confrontations

Imagine an alternative history in which the Soviet Union did not collapse in 1991 but continued actively shaping the global arena. In this dynamic scenario, geopolitics would have turned into a vigorous confrontation where ideological principles and the might of armies intertwined with sharp diplomatic maneuvers. The USSR, driven by the desire to preserve its influence, would have actively conducted military campaigns using every tool available—from open conflicts in Greece and China to covert operations aimed at undermining its opponents through economic measures and propaganda.

Such circumstances would have contributed to the creation of a unique world order where a massive Soviet bloc, protected by a nuclear shield, maintained a stable, albeit tense, balance of power. This endless dualism between Western forces and the Soviet model would have fostered the emergence of two radically different systems: one based on centralized imperial expansion and another striving toward federative and more democratic governance, somewhat akin to the concept of Pax Americana. This situation would not only have fueled persistent rivalry but also defined the nature of social, cultural, and technological changes affecting every aspect of life.

However, alongside the geopolitical intrigue, there would have been a negative societal impact as well. The predominance of authoritarian governance methods could have led to restrictions on freedom and creative potential, resulting in a decline in both spiritual and technical culture. In this alternative world, the ideas of centralized control would have clashed with the necessity of preserving national sovereignty—a constant choice between the strength of a unified center and the value of independence.

What changes could have occurred in the global structure if the USSR had not collapsed in 1991?

If the USSR had not collapsed in 1991, the global system might have taken on very tense and contradictory contours, dominated by a stark ideological and geopolitical dualism. According to one version described in source ( link txt), the continued existence of the USSR would have entailed active military and diplomatic actions—the country would have continued its "war in Greece and in China" and expanded its influence through both direct confrontations and covert struggles through diplomacy, economic measures, and propaganda. Such a policy would have meant sustaining a confrontation between powerful empires, with both sides constantly seeking opportunities to conquer and maintain dominance.

Furthermore, as noted in document ( link txt), the USSR’s influence depended not solely on its military capabilities but also on the formation of a sort of “world system of socialism,” where the presence of a gigantic Soviet bloc with a nuclear shield served as a guarantee of an unshakable balance of power. This, on one hand, would have hindered the rapid redistribution of global influence, and on the other, it would have been a source of concern for the “free world” since the prolonged existence of such a geopolitical center would have obstructed the emergence of a new, unified global order based on supranational institutions.

Additionally, one excerpt ( link txt) predicts the development of a "Moscow World Empire," comparable in solidity to ancient totalitarian regimes. Such a prospect would have implied inevitable changes in the social and cultural spheres: numerous restrictions on freedom and a decline in both spiritual and technical culture would have gradually led to the degradation of progress, as if the very potential for human creativity were being suppressed by authoritarianism.

Finally, it is possible that further confrontation between the USSR and Western powers would have given rise to two alternative models of global organization—one based on principles of imperial conquest and centralized governance, and another, more federative model, similar to Pax Americana. This polarization would have inevitably led to new conflicts, forcing a choice between the unity of a strong center and the risk of losing national sovereignty.

Thus, if the USSR had not collapsed, the global system today would most likely represent an arena of prolonged and contradictory confrontation, where the continual expansion and rigid imperialism of the Soviet model would be counterbalanced by a constant struggle for influence from alternative (and often more democratic) systems. Such a scenario would have inevitably generated a complex of political, economic, and cultural changes, radically different from the path observed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Supporting citation(s):
"While over the ruins and chaos of Europe loom two giants, two victors elevated by global war to unprecedented heights... Currently, the USSR is waging war in Greece and in China, just as it once waged war in Iran..." (source: link txt)
"Khrushchev’s 'thaw' did not bring relief to the West... the formation of a 'world system of socialism,' or more simply—a mighty Soviet geopolitical bloc, reliably shielded by the USSR’s 'nuclear shield'..." (source: link txt)
"To this day, the colors of this picture are taken from the actual experiences of Russia and Eastern Europe... The Moscow World Empire will be as solid as the ancient totalitarian empires—Egypt, China, Byzantium. Of course, the suppression of freedom will lead to a gradual decline not only in spiritual culture but, ultimately, in technical knowledge itself." (source: link txt)