Defining A Failed State Of The Soviet Union

The defining characteristic of the state is the ability to wield power. The use of power, both inside and outside of one’s border, directly speaks to the sovereignty of the nation. If a nation is incapable of disciplining or punishing its citizens it will invariably become a failed state. Moreover if a country isn’t recognized as powerful in the global political arena, that country stands a very good chance of being dominated by a nation who has the capacity to enforce its own will. The use, or at least the perception, of power is so fundamental in nationhood that those who wield the most power can easily dictate world events.

Following military acts of governmental authority or national warfare, a significant worry arises for nations. As stated in the powerpoint, especially when the state is large and diverse, it is much more likely that it is becomes fragile. The question of whether the nation will need national-building, or state-building has to be determined in the case of military acts. State collapse can be due to the failure of the nation to convey favorable diplomatic benefits to the nation. The collapse of a state can be due to a number of reasons, for example the vast amount of governmental goods. Also, the failure of a nation can be caused by the lack of providing protection and safety, a permissible organization that examines

During the era of the Cold War, starting in 1947 and definitively ending in 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union faced off in conflicts with each other through smaller states.

The fall of the Soviet Union gave childless American couples the opportunity to adopt needy, white children. Thousands upon thousands of children from Russia and Eastern Europe were adopted in New York during the 1990’s and 2000’s, and the vast majority of these adoptions produced genuinely happy families. The children were excited to have loving families and the adoptive parents were excited to have a child to love. However, some children had difficulty transitioning to life in the United States while others were victims of abuse. Almost every adoptive case I worked with had a happy ending. Every adoptive case except for one. I hesitate to say that the “child” in question was actually a child. Sometimes I think that I legitimately was dealing with pure evil in human form.

The United States did not have a favorable relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War due to the Soviet’s desire to spread communism. In the midst of the ideological battle between the United States and the Soviets, U.S. sought attention to whole Southeast Asia due to the radical dispersion of Communism. North Vietnam formed an alliance with the Soviet Union, and China to unite the country into a communist regime. As an international peace keeper, the United States decided to fund the French and eventually send military troops to Vietnam to help in combat he North Vietnamese guerillas, and contain the spread of communism before it escalates in full-scale across all of Southeast Asia. The Marshall Plan urged the United States to

What would the History of the world have be if the United States never landed on the moon, but instead the Soviet Union was successful at sending cosmonauts to the moon and were the first humans to ever step foot on a celestial body? This is what I wanted to explore in my research, this is all subjective we cannot go back in time to see what the outcome would have been if it never happened the way it did. The idea has been talked about even with the sceptics who think the whole moon landing in 1969 was a hoax to give the United States the title and make the Soviets stop pursuing the moon landing. In this paper I want to give a little history of actual events and then examine ideas of alternative events.

Seriously, the USSR was not communist or socialist. Conversely, the USSR was actually capitalist since bureaucrats privately owned the means of production. When collectivist societies have existed, they fell from external forces.

The Failure of One, the Fall of Many: Featuring the US and the Soviet Union

The fall of the Soviet Union, rise of democratic capitalism, and the emergence of the Internet are all important attributes that define the year 2000 as the end of one period in history and the beginning of another. The year 2000 proves to be a cut-off date in history because it explicitly shows a shift toward the continuing globalization and integrations of economies, politics, people, and cultures all around the world. This process of globalization leads to increasing interdependence among countries and growing influence of the United States of America, which during this time period was the only superpower left in the world.

The United States has, time after time, gotten involved in foreign affairs that did not initially involve the country. For example, we were not a prominent factor in either World War until the president and congress decided to make the country more involved and chose a side. This wasn’t only for the World Wars, but for the Cold War too. This included the Vietnam War and Korean War; both wars were brutal to the country's military forces and strengthened the idea of total war. Along with being involved in different wars, the United States adopted a policy, also known as the Truman Doctrine, stating we would provide aid to countries that were under brutal dictators or in realm of falling under communism. We provided CIA operations to stop communism and supplied aid in countries such as Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, and many more. American-sponsored “regime change” operations have, in the end, produced an anti-Americanism atmosphere, caused chaos in the country, and made America look weaker, rather than stronger. American-sponsored “regime change” operations have brought more pain than liberation to the countries being provided aid.

The Soviet Union was notorious for the marginal quality of its housing, and the laborious process taken to gain residency. The first thing that would alarm us living in capitalist systems, is that the government determined where you live, and you applied for residency. “The fact that conditions were worse in 1960, when 60% of all families lived communally, is of little comfort to the millions still living in inadequate conditions. The waiting period for a new apartment is indefinite--it may take from a decade to a lifetime unless one has connections.” (Ellison). Chilling was the fact that housing would slowly get worse as the years dragged on. Upon finally gaining your new home, the rent would drain on your already limited funds. The houses

In 1992, the breakup of the Soviet Union, nationalist struggles in the Balkans, the creation of a European community, the emergence of Japan as an economic giant from the 1970s into the 1990s, and the presence of American culture on a global scale all focused attention on the construction and continuity of national identities. Within Great Britain, the loss of empire and receding Protestantism precipitated the re-emergence of Englishness, Scottishness, and Welshness. Historians of Britain began to ask what it meant to be British, on what foundations did a sense of British national identity rest, and “when should [British] history begin?”

- Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, according to which Russia ceded large tracts of land to Germany;

In the winter of 1991, the mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was divided into 15 small countries. After the breakup of the U.S.S.R., many of its former citizens faced tremendous problems. Countries broke out into civil wars; people had no way to make an income and starved. The largest communist nation the world had ever seen banished because of economic and political flaws. There were always those who refused to live under the rules of communism, and the U.S.S.R. forgot that one country would prove to them that capitalism was superior to socialism (“The Cold” para. 1). “The Soviet Union had been held together by one thing: the dream of establishing communism throughout the world. But when the empire died, the dream died, too” (Langley

No global definition exists for states described as “fragile”, “failing”, or failed because they come in all shapes and sizes. Yet, countries that have failed at the basic responsibilities of governance and sovereign authority are generally lumped into this group. Fragile, failing, or failed states share similar characteristics including their inability to control their borders, loss of authority over insurgents, gangs, and warlords, and loss of legitimacy internally/internationally. Examples relevant today of countries that are fragile or failing, and on the path to failed status include Iraq and many of the Middle Eastern countries struggling to maintain their autonomy in the fight against ISIS. Other important indicators of failed states include: