“We want a strong ally in Latin America,” said the Administrator of Affairs. “[Cuban leader Fidel] Castro said he was very willing to spread Communism in the region, and we would be helped with a strong ally.”

However, the Soviets made no mention of increasing freedom of the press or expanding democracy in Argentina. After the South American power suffered under a rightist military dictatorship led by Jorge Videla and Leopoldo Galtieri, the Soviets under Andropov have expressed plans to implement a leftist dictatorship partially financed by Cuba.

Other Soviet ministers have proclaimed that these plans to invade Argentina have been scrapped. “We wanted to focus more on the safety of our constituents,” said the Minister of Defense. “That’s what’s important.”

However, gas prices have risen, according to the Minister of Internal Affairs. Hunger rates have remained high amongst many Russian constituents. Furthermore, the USSR cabinet remained hesitant to assist their hungriest constituents, with the Minister of Defense wondering, “are food banks too democratic?”.

The USSR Cabinet further affirmed its monetary interests to trade with Iran instead of Iraq in their conflict. While the Minister of Defense expressed a desire to stay neutral and the Administrator of Affairs worried that involvement in the Iran-Iraq War would spark tension, others, such as the Minister of Internal Affairs, favored under-the-table deals such as arm sales to keep funding. “I’m just throwing ideas on a dartboard to see what sticks,” he said. Additionally, several ministers described a desire to trade with “puppet states” to build Soviet influence around the world even further.

The USSR reaffirmed total resistance to press freedom, with the Minister of Defense proclaiming that “the Moscow Times is already a wonderful newspaper. We don’t need more than two”. The Moscow Times is currently based in Amsterdam and editorially repudiates all forms of dictatorship and censorship. Meanwhile, Soviet citizens are kept unaware of warfare specifically so they cannot retaliate.

The Soviet Union maintains that its actions are motivated out of goodwill for its people. However, the Cabinet Chair spoke bluntly. “We’re the Soviet Union; nothing is illegal to us,” he said.

In the winter of 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to induct a new regime to solidify Afghanistan as an ally on the southern border, this action did not come without controversy. The United States of America was a main proponent of objecting to this invasion, by supporting a collection of Muslim rebels, the Mujahideen, to rise against the nation. Conflict consumed Afghanistan resulting in numerous civilian deaths and an enormous refugee crisis, and the future remains uncertain.

The USSR Cabinet told reporters explicitly that focusing inward on the USSR is more important than international conflicts. The secretaries said that the cabinet recently passed a directive that emphasizes internal infrastructure. The USSR is highlighting general education, due to the struggles of getting equal access to quality education, as well as emphasizing the multiculturality of the USSR and discussing plans on how to support and preserve these cultures. However, all this talk of bettering the USSR is a lie, the USSR is using this as a disguise to seize the nation of Afghanistan and control their government.

When Le Monde informed the U.S. cabinet of the extreme action taken by the Soviets the cabinet’s response was underwhelming at best. The U.S. Cabinet was consumed with the attempted assassination of President Reagan, who remains in critical condition, and spent their time picking our flowers for the president, instead of the obvious pressing issue, the dominance of communism in the east. The USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan and control of their government secures another communist nation, tipping the scales closer to the USSR’s communist world instead of the U.S.’s democratic fantasy.

The U.S. cabinet is struggling to handle more than one issue at a time, leading to the question is the cabinet competent enough to handle international affairs, especially in regard to the USSR? The blatant power grab by the USSR should not go unnoticed or unpunished, by invalidating the former Afghan government, the Middle East may descend into instability or worse communism. How will the world respond to a sleeping United States and a dominating USSR?

Respectfully,

USSR Cabinet of Ministers

“The entire basis of Communism is that everyone is created equal,” the Minister of Defense said. “Everyone has the same job status and makes the same amount of money.”

In the eyes of the Soviet Union, this is why a free press and democracy do not need to exist.

“We’ve eliminated distinctions between outside groups,” said the Minister of Defense. “That’s why only two newspapers need to exist in Russia.”

The Soviets point to their strong economic numbers as evidence of their success. The nation boasts a 1 percent unemployment rate (by contrast, modern Keynesian economics supports a 3 to 4 percent unemployment rate to curb inflation). And according to the Minister of Finance, “unemployment in the USSR is expected to drop further.”

Their economic goals extend further.

“We aim to spread egalitarianism, raise the GDP, and implement the Brezhnev Doctrine,” said the Administrator of Affairs. The Brezhnev Doctrine believes in military intervention in any country where socialist rule is under threat.

This emphasis on militarism has brought the USSR into public light following their Afghan invasion. To grow Soviet influence, the Minister of Defense hopes to “make as much leeway in Afghanistan.”

When further pressed on spreading Communism through force, the Defense Minister initially stated that invading nearby nations was a possibility. However, she quickly corrected herself.

“I’m not saying we will invade other places,” she explained. “But we need to show other countries the right form of government.”

All of the Cabinet members insisted on invasions and resistance to democracy as a means to protect the USSR.

“Other countries have unfairly invaded our own,” said the Administrator of Affairs. However, when he was asked to give examples, he could not give any. Still, the USSR Cabinet was adamant that their current foreign invasion was the right thing to do.

“We’re using force because we’ve had to,” said the Minister of Defense. “Capitalism has failed for so long, and when other nations see that Communism works, they will go along with us.”

“Let Japan’s pain serve as a lesson to all countries considering nuclear warfare.”

As evidenced by the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no other country is as uniquely positioned to understand the significance of nuclear weapons as Japan. The UNSC Representative of Japan discusses the need for a revision in the globe’s attitude towards nuclear warfare in an exclusive interview. The rapidly growing desire of many nations to increase their nuclear stockpiles is more than enough cause for concern. Instead of addressing how to control the usage of such destructive weaponry, Japan argues that the focus should be on abolishing the use of nuclear weapons entirely.

“Japan has experienced the wrath of atomic warfare firsthand. Turning to nuclear violence is always the worst possible option; all nations, whether they are directly involved in the conflict or not, suffer from the consequences.” To state the issue plainly, Japan believes that no countries should have access to nuclear weaponry at all. The general reason behind nations working to increase their collections of arms is because said nations are seeking ways to defend themselves from other countries with nuclear weapons. As one country’s arsenal increases, another country does the same out of the fear of attack.

If the possibility of nuclear attack is negated entirely, then there would be no need for any state to fear such a large scale attack. The back and forth paranoia would greatly diminish. Some may argue that nations need to have access to nuclear weapons in order to deter others from attacking, but if there are no weapons to attack other countries with, then the threat reduces greatly across the board. Any country who actively stands by nuclear proliferation must have an ulterior motive—what other reason is there to support such violent methods?

The USSR reports that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to support the communist Afghan government during a conflict with anti-communist Muslim guerillas. The guerilla fighters were insurgents trying to disrupt the Afghani government, the USSR invaded Afghanistan to help support the nation’s communist government from violent insurrectionists. Additionally, Afghanistan holds a location of strategic importance to the Soviet Union. During Russia’s past as a Tsarist monarchy, the nation had to fight numerous wars to secure its borders from British invasion through the middle east. Furthermore, the “Soviet Union is facing a financial burden from the conflict” the Minister of Finances in the USSR cabinet reports. However, Russia currently has no plans to retreat from Afghanistan. 

The U.S. directly opposes the Soviet Union’s plan to invade Afghanistan by publicly selling military equipment to the Mujahidin, freezing arms talks with the USSR, cutting wheat sales (a primary crop of the USSR), and even boycotting the 1980 Olympic Games. America provides arms and other assistance to the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan rebelling against the communist Afghan government. However, the USA has a plan to “create a program to help nations join NATO and utilize Article 5 [of NATO] against Afghanistan” a representative of the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council reported. Additionally, President Ronald Reagan of the U.S. labelled Afghanistan as “Russia’s Vietnam” and will counter the Soviet Union at all steps.

This proxy conflict is occurring in Afghanistan, involving the USSR, with forceful opposition from the U.S. The conflict is growing in regional and national importance, leading to the involvement of the Arab League.  The Mujahideen resistance fights see the “Soviets controlling Afghanistan as a defilement of Islam, tradition, and culture” Qatar in the Arab League states. 

Tensions between the USSR and the U.S. are escalating, The world looks on at an ideological battle between democracy and communism. Le Monde will continue its investigation into the conflict.

On Christmas Eve 1979, the Soviets launched an invasion of Afghanistan. It did not take long for the USSR to establish what could be called a puppet regime in their southern neighbor, placing Babrak Karmal at its helm. However, this was not a seamless transition of power. Hostility has been central to the climate in Afghanistan for the last two years, and it does not show many signs of stopping.

One point of interest for the U.N. may be the humanitarian crisis that has sprung from this conflict in the past few years since the original invasion. Scores of refugees have fled Afghanistan, taking shelter in its bordering countries, such as Pakistan and Iran. These countries, forced to take in Afghan refugees, may not have the capacity to take much more. Pakistan, for example, is already receiving aid from the UNHCR, meaning that its internal struggles may be exacerbated by new burdens.

Why did the Soviets do this? Many Americans have speculated on this since the conflict began. One common assertion is that the invasion serves to prop up the Soviet regime; that Brezhnev and the rest of the Soviet government are striving to enforce their doctrines. It is difficult to know for sure – at least, that is, until this week’s UN discussions, where certain things may come to light.