The Collapse Of The Soviet Union

Twenty-five years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed taking by surprise therewith not only the international community, but also its own leaders. What brought the superpower down? Its authoritarian and corrupt political system, failure of the planned economy and stagnation, or consistent celebration of national diversity throughout the whole history of the Soviet Union? If the question is why the USSR disintegrated into 15 independent states, then the answer lies in the republican lines which were drawn around ethnicity. In this essay, I argue the primacy of the ethnofederal system and Soviet nation-building policy to the fall of “the last European empire”. First, I will address the main tenets of and motifs behind the Soviet approach to the “nationality question” and how it backfired on the Communist Party and Russian democrats, who strived to preserve the union, seven decades later; then I will discuss political and economic structural flaws of the Soviet system and give reasons for why they could not solely account for the actual break up when examined from a broader perspective; lastly I will analyze mechanisms, predetermined by ethnofederal system and Soviet ethno-cultural policies, that facilitated an avalanche of secessions from the USSR, and sum up my arguments.

As with many important historical events throughout history the dissolution of the Soviet Union had many contributing forces. However, most historians agree that the main contributor was Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and the many radical reforms he implemented during the six years he was the leader of the USSR. Even though the official dissolution took place in December 1991, the Soviet Union’s demise began to take form in the 1980s. In order to understand why the Soviet Union dissolved it is important to have a clear picture of its history and political climate.

We often overlook the real causes of the downfall of the Soviet empire and its hegemony, and simply tie it to the fact that they were communist, dictatorial regimes. However, this is not entirely true. There were many factors that resulted in the demise of this socialist conglomerate, and East Germany in particular. The GDR was a special case in that it was racked by some of the worst economic circumstances that any of the Eastern bloc faced, and as result, became the first to fall. Such assumptions compel us to draw equivalencies between the GDR and other communist countries like Yugoslavia, even though East Germany was at a much more disadvantageous position. The East German military also had to provide the bulk of the non-Soviet forces in all Warsaw Pact military plans. This forced the GDR government to forcibly conscript large numbers of their population and spend vast quantities of their funds on military hardware. These elements combined to start the GDR on a slippery slope towards default, and economic turmoil.

There are many different political theories that try to explain the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Two prominent political theories which I will explore throughout this essay are the Realist and Idealist theory. No one theory is completely correct, as many different factors must be considered regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War. For example, one essential influence to the end of the Cold War was the role of nuclear weapons and how they were used.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had ended the communist hold on Eastern Europe and surrounding former communist states. The year 1990 had also marked the beginning of rapid economic and social transition from a communist state to a democratic market based economy. Milton Friedman coined the term shock policy, also referred to as economic liberalism, to describe the abrupt release of currency and price controls, the extraction of state subsidies, large scale privatization of former public owned assets, and immediate trade liberalization. Jeffrey Sachs further evolved Friedman’s notion to create his own coined concept, shock therapy. The first occurrence of the liberal economic concept of shock policy centred on the ideals of the University of Chicago, transpired in Chile in 1975, carried out by the military coup lead by Augusto Pinochet to initiate neoliberal pro-market reforms. Shock therapy, economic liberalism, grew in popularity in the 1970’s, becoming the common answer to battle economic crisis. This paper will examine the use of shock therapy in the transition of post- communist states, comparing and contrasting the benefits and consequences of initializing such a rapid reform. This paper will examine the state of Poland that has successfully transitioned through shock therapy to open market democracies and those who had failed to transition because of it, investigating the obstacles and drawbacks.

On November 9, 1989, the most iconic symbol of communism and the USSR fell. The Berlin Wall symbolically represented the division of Europe as a result of the Cold War ; it divided the West and East of Europe. Originally, after the end of World War II, the Allied powers disarmed and broke Berlin into four zones of occupations: American, Soviet, British, and French. Slowly, the Soviet Union started to gain control of Eastern Europe post-war. The Yalta Agreement in February, 1945, gave the Soviet Union complete power to extend its control beyond its borders into the Eastern European Countries under the Red Army, and eventually, Eastern Germany was swallowed into the Communist Regime. Until, the 1980s, the German Democratic

The third scenario is probably the most traumatic. It is a chaotic collapse of the Eurozone, starting in Greece but spreading to Spain and Italy. The core countries will be more disconnected from the current crisis and will not feel responsibility for the consequences of unsuitable decisions made in the European Commission. Countries suffering the crisis will come to the conclusion that the core countries have achieved competitiveness and success at the expenses of other European countries. The danger of this scenario is that the breakup can be violent, similar to the disintegration of Yugoslavia where the core countries will try to hold the peripheral ones. There is also the possibility that politicians at the core countries may considerate a peaceful dissolution due to the cost of carrying the periphery countries is greater than maintaining the Union and will decide in the end that the dissolution will be the best option (similar to the disintegration of the Soviet Union). In the case the disintegration of the Union will be peacefully, the core and northern counties of the European Union will form a new “selected club” of countries with tight economic measures and a very restricted right of admission.

This paper aims at discussing the short biography of Mikhail Gorbachev and how he reformed Soviet Union. The paper also discusses the reasons why Mikhail Gorbachev reformed Soviet Union. The questions to be answered are, what are the policies implemented by Gorbachev, what are the effects of such policies, and was the collapse of the Soviet Union an achievement or Gorbachev failure?

In the 1970’s and 1980’s The Soviet Union was very stable. It seemingly was strong politically and was acquiring even greater power and influence. But in reality there were many economic problems for the Soviet Empire. The central pillar of Soviet Economy was central planning and subsequent lack of individual creativity, lack of incentives for increased productivity. According to Soviet worker, the government pretended that they paid people and people pretended that they worked. The system was based on lies, it seemingly was successful but in reality it was failing.

The end of the Cold War meant change around the world, mainly in Europe. We have since seen the unification of Germany, the work of unity within other countries and possibly a balance of power. Our relations with other nations may have continued to develop or diminish but the Cold War had changed Europe’s future. Many had questioned what role the EU would have in international politics, whether the formation would succeed and what this meant for the transatlantic relationship? The US and EU relationship is a complicated one. The EU has always been seen as a loyal ally of the US but it has also been seen as one of the US’s many competitors. Witnessing the relationship change

Despite the hope for democracy and political stability in the last two decades, crises and armed conflicts remain a serious impediment to development in many countries. Moreover, if some specialists say that the end of the Cold War at the beginning of the 1990s spelled the end of conflicts created through the East-West confrontation, the following years have shown the predominance of intra-state crises, thus forcing the United Nations (UN) to review its strategies for peace and security. In extremely complex internal conflicts, the peacekeeping operations seem unable to reach their objectives. The failure is a shared responsibility between the major powers, the peacekeepers and the UN.

At the end of the Cold War, a more widespread interest in post conflict reconstruction was becoming more prevalent. The main components of this interest during the post reconciliation period were accountability and reconciliation. To facilitate this in two different post conflict environments, two respective tribunals were established. These tribunals were known as the ICTY (The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, est.1993) and ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, est.1994) . The ICTY was formed to address the conflict in former Yugoslavia. The situation started when two of the six republics of Yugoslavia, Slovenia and Croatia, declared their independence after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This sparked a lengthy and lethal conflict within the territory. The atrocities that allegedly had been committed included but were not limited to, genocide, rape, and enslavement. Many of the victims were civilians. Because of this the ICTY was created during the war as an international criminal court that applied humanitarian law. It’s purpose was to gather information, create an account of events, and prosecute those responsible for committing crimes .

The end of the Cold War marks more than just the end of the arms race, between the Soviet Union and the United States, it also marks the weakening of communism. Communism, the greatest enemy to the west during the Cold War had to be put down at any cost, this meant supporting militaristic dictatorships that were against communism. The weakening of communism, however, ignited Global Democratic Revolutions in which the people sought to gain the power back from the government. These revolutions were mostly centered on the year 1989, and demonstrated the will of the people to stop the oppression of these dictators or communist parties. The Philippines were no different, independent organizations such as JAJA and NAMFREL rallied against the militaristic dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. Additionally, the intervention of the church proved to be a powerful uniting tool for the revolution, in a catholic predominant society. Women played no small role, Corazon Aquino challenged Marcos politically, and many were involved in public rallies. As a result, the Philippines peacefully defeated the oppressive rule of Marcos and entered a state of Democratic stability.

In a dramatic and memorable end to the reign of the Soviet Union, the so-called worker's paradise, on December 25th, 1991, the Soviet flag was mournfully lowered from the Kremlin walls for the last time. Finally the reforms and decentralization of the Soviet state that had started in 1980's had met its climax with the destruction of the state itself. The last president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, declared on national TV the formal end of the Union and handed over full powers of the Russian Federation to Russian president Boris Yeltsin. Within a day, the Supreme Soviet also disbanded itself and Soviet institutions gradually faded out or became transformed into democratic institutions. From this

This essay will analyse how much of a role did changes internal to the Soviet Union had in its collapse. By doing so, the paper will argue that, although American and other external actions influenced the end of the cold war, it was internal factors which deeply affected the workings of the communist bloc and ultimately caused its’ sudden and unexpected fall. In order to do so, the paper will first present the internal changes experienced in the Soviet Union and will analyse what was the impact on its stability. Secondly, external factors for the breakdown of the USSR will be analysed and compared with those that were