What Would the Soviet Union Have Done if NATO Invaded in 1990?

Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, the idea of NATO invading the Soviet Union remains a provocative question. Many believe that even in its weakened state, the Soviet Union would have put up a formidable fight, not just relying on its nuclear arsenal but also its strong military and strategic advantages. Let's explore the possibilities.

The Soviet Union's Military Strength

It is often overlooked that, despite economic troubles and internal issues, the Soviet Union was still a powerhouse in terms of military might. By the late 1980s, Russia had managed to acquire some of the latest U.S. aviation technologies, which, combined with its own expertise derived from German aviation technology, ensured Soviet superiority in aviation. This advantage is still evident today.

The START 1 program of 1991 aimed to limit nuclear warheads and specifically intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Imagine the arsenal that the Soviets had stockpiled by 1990. Additionally, the Russian military still maintained six Typhoon 2-class submarines, a force that makes the dinky submarine in The Hunt for Red October seem insignificant. Furthermore, much of WW2-era equipment was still relevant and in service, contributing to the overall military strength.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, many people assumed it made them vulnerable. However, it's more complex than that. While the economy was in dire straits under Western standards, the military infrastructure was still formidable. If NATO had dared to invade the Soviet Union, it would have been a suicidal move.

Strategic Defense Mechanisms

The strategic deterrence provided by the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal would have been a determining factor. The nuclear threat would have made any NATO invasion highly risky and unwieldy. The point of having nuclear weapons is precisely to prevent invasion and ensure mutual destruction, a deterrent that NATO would have taken seriously.

Moreover, the Soviet Union's land area, a significant strategic asset, would have been a formidable barrier to any invading force. The vast geography would have provided numerous opportunities for guerrilla warfare and unexpected attacks. The Byelorussian regions, Central Asian states, and all territories south of Kazakhstan would have united behind Russia, creating a united front against NATO.

The Internal Murauration and External Threat

Much of the West's perception of the Soviet Union is colored by cold war propaganda, leading to assumptions that NATO could easily overpower them. However, the reality is different. The collapse of the Soviet Union was largely due to internal subversion and sabotage, not external military threats.

Instead of an external military invasion, the Soviet Union's internal weaknesses—economic, political, and social—led to its downfall. In contrast, the United States, despite the Vietnam War and its aftermath, survived because it did not have any hostile military forces directly on its borders, as the Soviet Union did.

The concept of identity is also significant. Many Americans today identify more as citizens of their respective states than as Americans as a whole. This divide played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, as regions and ethnic groups sought more autonomy or independence.

In summary, even in 1990, the Soviet Union had the capability to put up a robust fight against NATO. The combination of its nuclear arsenal, advanced military technology, and vast land area, along with strong internal support, would have made any invasion a challenging and potentially disastrous endeavor for NATO. The collapse of the Soviet Union was more about internal strife than external force.