The Fall of the Soviet Union and the US’ Role

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Analyzing the Collapse of the Soviet Union
The Collapse of the USSR from a Theoretical Perspective
Other Causes of the Collapse
Conclusion
Bibliography
Footnotes

Introduction

On December 26, 1991, the world woke up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. No one had predicted such an outcome. It was as a result of declaration 142-H, which led to the acknowledgment of the former Soviet republics during the creation of The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The fall was of great significance to the West. It was seen as proof that capitalism was superior to socialism.¹ The country had no social classes. It had achieved a socialist status in the 1930s. The US also felt triumphant as the fall meant the end of the cold war. The disintegration led to significant changes in the world in relation to political, socioeconomic, and military alliances.²

In this paper, the author will analyze some of the factors that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. A critical analysis of the issue reveals that a combination of internal and external factors led to the collapse. The major external forces included the intervention of the US in the affairs of the Union.

Analyzing the Collapse of the Soviet Union

Internal Factors

Poor governance

Mikhail Gorbachev oversaw the dissolution of the Union. During his tenure, the president enacted the Perestroika reforms and Glasnost policy programs. The policies were aimed at positioning the country as a global powerhouse. However, these reforms led to the fall of the Soviet Union. It was mainly because Mikhail developed technical ideas to deal with challenges but failed to justify the solutions. Historians claim that it was easy to manipulate him as most of his reforms benefited few people, especially his advisors.³

Corruption

In spite of the reforms put in place by Gorbachev, corruption was rampant in the Soviet Union. The grass root reforms were meant to counter this problem. Increased corruption led to disappointments and instabilities in the Union.⁴ In August 20^th, 1991, there was an attempted coup d’état. The revolt was based on the desire for a centralized form of government instead. The attempt greatly destabilized the Soviet Union. It led to the death of the Communist Party and later the Union itself.⁵

The American Interference

The Ronald Reagan’s administration played a crucial role in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. For example, the arms race had a negative effect on the USSR economy.⁶ In addition, the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Balkans meant that the Soviet Union lost important trade partners. Yugoslavia was a strong ally, which shared political systems with the Union. The 1989 revolution and the Baltics independence further led to the weakening of the USSR. Other countries in the world overthrew their communist governments, which was a huge loss to the Soviet Union.⁷ Most of these external forces were sponsored by the US.

The Collapse of the USSR from a Theoretical Perspective

The Balance of Power Theory

In international relations, this theory holds that nations protect themselves from a threat arising from other countries. As a result, countries compete with each other to acquire new territories and alliances.⁸ Before the 1900s, the global political arena was characterized by various autonomous balance-of-power structures. They included Europe, the US, and the Chinese. World War II interfered with the balance of power amongst the traditional players in the Western and Central Europe. It gave rise to the US and the Soviet Union. The result was a bipolar balance of power between the two blocs.

The west of Europe sided with the US, while countries from Central and Eastern Europe became allies of the Soviet Union.⁹ The superpowers almost engaged in a nuclear war. They were involved in an arms race as they tried to interfere with the military and political fabrics of the third world countries. The European balance of power became irrelevant as a result of the demise of the Soviet Union. The competitive nature forced the Union to incur huge expenditure on its military, leading to its end. The USSR was unable to manage the region.¹⁰

The Collective Security Theory

The theory holds that a group of nations, usually in the same region, agree on security arrangements based on a given system that they all adhere to. For instance, an attack on one of its members is seen as a threat to the rest.¹¹ The Soviets were already facing challenges during the First World War. The US supported German’s Nazism as they approached Eastern Europe. At the time, the Soviet Union was a superpower. As such, it was expected to uphold the security of the entire region.¹² The Union’s struggling economy and poor leadership could not manage this task. The situation weakened the economic and political influence of the country. The Anglo-French appeasement and domestic opponents further threatened the region’s collective security. The US managed to gain more power and control given that it did not face such challenges in its region of operation. It increased its propaganda against the Soviet Union, leading to its fall.¹³

Other Causes of the Collapse

Economic Stagnation in the 1970s

The Soviet Union was going through tough economic times well before the 1980s. In spite of the ongoing arms race, the government had to scale down its development as a result of the weak economy. A number of treaties were used to regulate the arms race. One of them was the Anti-Ballistic Missile accord. Most of these agreements were signed during the Nixon’s administration.¹⁴

The USSR experienced economic stagnation in the mid 1970s. The government was forced to borrow from West Europe to finance its large military budget.¹⁵ The debt forced it to liquidate some of its gold reserves. In spite of the economic reforms put in place, the Union’s economy failed to pick up. It was characterized by corruption and backward technology. Ronald Reagan observed that the Soviets did not require a foreign enemy to be defeated. The Union was ‘rotting’ from within as a result of the weak economy.¹⁶

Interferences from the West

President Regan was opposed to the Soviet Union. He fueled fears in the world by using a confrontational tone during the Cuban missile crisis. The fears were escalated by his massive military spending. Reagan’s handlers advised him to enforce embargoes against the Soviet Union. However, the US continued to conduct trade with the USSR.¹⁷

Reagan’s interference with the Soviet affairs exposed the weaknesses of the Union. The negative image propagated by the US made the region look weak and unpopular.¹⁸ Military and economic reprisals against the Soviet Union did not have significant effects on the country. However, they accelerated the fall of the Union.

Gorbachev’s Reforms

The reforms were meant to counter the effects of the Brezhnezian era. As a result, the popularity of the leader in the region declined. The reforms faced opposition as people complained that they were too slow. By late 1980s, the leader had managed to implement most of his political policies.¹⁹ However, this led to the creation of political elites in the region.²⁰

The Loss of Eastern Europe

In 1988, Gorbachev made a controversial stand against the Brezhnev doctrine. He claimed that he did not intend to use military force to grow the Communist regime there. In December of that year, the Soviet Union started to withdraw from Eastern Europe. The retreat showed the world that the USSR lacked the military capability to manage the region. People from Eastern Europe were opposed to the dictatorial structure.²¹ During the 1970s, Reagan argued that the Communist governments were bound to fail. The move led to increased rebellion amongst the republics, weakening the control of the USSR over the region.

The Fall of the Soviet Union

The ties between the US and the Union were not always strained. For example, President Reagan had established a working relationship with the Russian government in his early days in office. However, there were protests from some American quarters regarding the treatment of people in Karabakh. The Soviets were made to embark on decentralization.²² In the late 1980s, most regions in the Baltic belt were agitating for secession. The desire for decentralization arose in those republics. In 1990, a declaration of sovereignty increased the opposition against the Communist rule. It was felt that the minorities were being unfairly treated by the supermajorities. Members of the new political classes were the major beneficiaries. They amassed the wealth and influence of the USSR. The various republics were the losers in this game.²³

The Aftermath of the Dissolution

The crumbling of the USSR weakened Russia’s geopolitical and economic power in the region. Its position in the world was also affected. The country controlled most of the assets held by the state. However, in spite of this, it experienced tough economic situations. It suffered from hyperinflation and a 50% loss of its GDP.²⁴ The west emerged victorious as they branded themselves as the ones who had a solution to the economic challenges. The economic woes weakened the Union’s global status and political power. As a result, many countries abandoned the communist rule.²⁵

Conclusion

The American response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union was regarded as a win. It portrayed the superiority of capitalism over socialism. The fall signified that socialism could not efficiently sustain a nation or a region. Even after the fall, the US continues to keep an eye on the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. The country fears that these weapons may be used for malicious actions, such as imposition of power to redeem the communist regime. It is evident that the fall of the Soviet Union was largely as a result of internal factors. However, external factors, such as the US’s intervention, fuelled the collapse. The fall of the USSR ensured that capitalism became an efficient mode of running a nation or a region. However, in spite of these external forces, the fall could have been avoided if there were no internal wrangles in the Union.

Bibliography

Harvey, Miles. The Fall of the Soviet Union. Chicago: Children’s Press, 1995.

Immell, Myra. The Dissolution of the Soviet Union. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010.

Matthews, John. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1999.

Nye, Joseph, and David Welch. Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History. 9th ed. Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2012.

Sakwa, Richard. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union: 1917-1991. London: Routledge, 1999.

Strong, John. The Soviet Union Under Brezhnev And Kosygin: The Transition Years, 1965-68. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1971.

Urban, George. End of Empire: The Demise of the Soviet Union. Washington, D.C.: University Publishing Association, 1992.

Footnotes

Miles Harvey, The Fall of the Soviet Union (Chicago: Children’s Press, 1995), 23.
George Urban, End of Empire: The Demise of the Soviet Union (Washington, D.C.: University Publishing Association, 1992), 212.
Ibid, 122.
John Matthews, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union (San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1999), 21.
Harvey, 34.
Matthews, 43.
Myra Immell, The Dissolution of the Soviet Union (Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010), 100.
Joseph Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History, 9th ed. (Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2012), 122.
Ibid, 56.
Richard Sakwa, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union: 1917-1991 (London: Routledge, 1999), 98.
Nye and Welch, 39.
Ibid.
Sakwa, 49.
Ibid.
Harvey, 51.
Sakwa, 99.
Nye and Welch, 100.
Sakwa, 55.
John Strong, The Soviet Union Under Brezhnev and Kosygin: The Transition Years, 1965-68 (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1971), 44.
Harvey, 12.
Urban, 34.
Ibid.
Sakwa, 33.
Ibid.
Strong, 88.

Click Here To Order Now!