What if Romanov, not Gorbachev, had led the USSR?

 Grigory Romanov was Gorbachev's main rival for the post of General Secretary. Unlike Gorby- who was from a farming family and who had held the Agricultural portfolio (with little success) Romanov was from the ship-building industry. Gorby looked back to Lenin's NEP which had given farmers more freedom to produce food for the market but he forgot that there would be a 'Scissors crisis'- the peasants would drink up their surplus rather than exchange it for the worthless shite produced by Russia's crap industries. Romanov however understood that 'residuary control rights' had to remain with the Party- otherwise there would be a Scissors crisis and the industrial economy would collapse. On the other hand, Soviet mathematical economists had realized that Russia could just become an oil exporter and a corrupt nomenklatura could turn into a kleptocracy. The root of the problem was Brezhnev's 'stabilization of the cadres at the beginning of the Sixties. Under the old system, underperforming managers might get Gulaged. Under the new system everybody was striking deals and feathering their own nest- but at least appearances were preserved. Andropov was a reformer who brought in both Gorby and Romanov. Gorby made influential allies and prevailed. But he soon tanked the Soviet Union by surrendering Party control of the economy. The man was as stupid as shit. The Chinese had already shown the way forward. De-collectivize agriculture and privatize industries without giving up 'residuary control rights'.  Business competition is fine. But if you fuck with the Party you get a bullet in the back of your head. This is not to say that, for demographic reasons, Russia's relative decline was not inevitable. But the place did not have to turn to utter shit with a fool being succeeded by a drunken buffoon. 

Could Romanov have prevented the dissolution of the USSR? Gorby's allies portrayed him as a dangerous militarist because of some remark he made during 'Able Archer' a war-game which the West thought might be a dress rehearsal of a Soviet invasion of Europe. The truth was quite different. Romanov wasn't a particularly charismatic or politically astute rival of Gorby. Still, Gorby sacked him unceremoniously. That sort of ruthlessness helped Gorby but the fact remains that unlike Romanov he didn't understand that Russian industry was weak. A scissors crisis would devastate it and destroy the power of the 'proletariat'. Russia had the choice between being a Slavic Sheikhdom and remaining a great European power. Under Putin, it appeared to be able to do both. But we can't be certain Putin will succeed. Still, the fact is, the rise of China as the anchor of a vast Eurasian power-block is an accomplished reality. The Chinese retained 'residuary control rights'. It remains to be seen whether they can out-innovate the West under a more authoritarian style of leadership. The fear is that smart Chinese kids will prefer to become bureaucrats rather than risk becoming the next Jack Ma. But the Chinese have shown a remarkable ability to course correct. If America continues to do 'stupid shit' (as Obama elegantly put it) China will rise and Russia, as its junior partner, too will benefit. 

Returning to the question first posed- would the Soviet Union still exist if Romanov had taken the top job? The answer is- yes, in a modified form. It took exceptional stupidity allied with considerable political skill to destroy that behemoth. Gorby was as stupid as shit. Romanov was merely dull.