Posted at 10.15.2018
The end of the Cool Battle and Collapse of Soviet Union are probably the most serious changes occurred on the planet political stage following the two World Wars. Some creators like Fukuyama called the end of the Cool War-"The finish of History". Even this assumption of Fukuyama was too naive, we can say that the Collapse of Soviet Union was the "end" of the struggle between two ideologies. Or with other wards, Communist eastern ideology lost the challenge against the Traditional western capitalist World. As a result, there have been many monetary and political changes happened in the World, after 1990. And probably most of the people wouldn't normally agree with the assumption that Mikhail Gorbachev was not only the person, who created to the entire world the "New World Order", but with his activities he was the "Trojan Horse" for his own country.
However, Gorbachev was only 1 part of the game. His just had to bring the Soviet Union to his end. Nevertheless, I think that the main reasons for this collapse have formed decades before Gorbachev, probably with the beginning of existence of the Soviet Union. In this article are claim that is more simple, however, not exactly effectively to believe that the failing of the Soviet Union was coasted mainly because economic or social changes. I somewhat feel that although monetary and communal changes shown the Soviet Union, especially the last 10 years, there have been two more circles or moments, that effected negatively, and later smashed the Soviet system. For me personally these circles are: Economical and Political International Situation from the first 1980s; Problems from inside the Soviet Union, and lost of power over the masses; long term ideological and institutional changes: The Russian Top notch and their propaganda.
But before I start my analysis for each group, I'd like to price Jeremi Suri, who says:
"Some observers underestimated the magnitude and implications of Soviet internal decline during the 1980s. In retrospect, however, many concur that domestic weaknesses destabilized Moscow's empire. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Chilly War weren't inescapable, but a conjunction of internal dificulties and external pressures"(Suri, J. , 2002).
2. Economical and Political International Situation from the early 1980s
Probably in this stage I should focus on one of the most crucial reason for the start of new economical time for the Soviet Union in the first 1980s. In my thoughts and opinions that was the olive oil crashed on the market, causal mainly from well performed North american game over Kuwait, that was in those days one of the biggest exporter of olive oil. Many historians said that USA pressed Kuwait to drop all of a sudden the price of oil, to be able to have an impact on one of the main resources of many for the Soviet Union. Certainly, this move from USA plunged into despair one economical, that was already suffering from many other monetary problems. It is obvious that situation cost the Soviet Union independency from the West. Some figures says that following the collapse of the olive oil market, the Soviet Union took billions from Traditional western Banks(including USA), to keep the economic stable. So, from that moment in time the Soviet Union was never again financially in depended from the Capitalist country.
Despite the economic problems from the early 80s of the 20th hundred years, I dispute that the Soviet Union already lost his struggle with the Western world, even before that. The first indication for problems inside was the discord in Czechoslovakia through the so-called period "the tumultuous Prague Spring of 1968". Many historians indicated that, that was the first critical moment between SU and USA. Therefore some argued that the united states insurance policy before and following the conflict was intense and dubious. In his publication Kenneth Skoug(Original Foreign Service Official in Prague at that period) clarifies that In May 1968 National Security Adviser Walt Rostow proposed offering Moscow a "private sign of concern about troop movements near Czechoslovakia"(Skoug 1999). In this case we can suggest that the SU was acting in order to prevent his place from American intervention. But even if this is the circumstance, still this turmoil was main indications for problems outside and inside.
"SOVIET INVASION OF Afghanistan, 1979, BECOMES RUSSIA'S VIETNAM". Many historians use this assumption to clarify the conflict in Afghanistan (1979). For the reason that time the SU invasion in Afghanistan fizzled out, the way the Battle in Vietnam have. Again we can argue that USA used his affect over Pakistan, and helped Muslim Afghan amount of resistance. However, the Russians previous the battle, because they could not predict the results of starting this invasion. Also, they overestimated their potential as a World innovator, and underestimated their competitors, nevertheless the undeniable fact that USA will attempt to try this war. The battle in Afghanistan turned out highly costly and unpopular in the Soviet Union itself and finally the Soviets withdrew, going out of the country embroiled in its civil war. It had been this invasion which would precipitate the fall of the Soviet Union: the inability of the Soviet Army to rely on any but its White Russian soldiers in the discord shown the searing racial and cultural divisions which would later bring about the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Of the many factors which required events in the 1980s, which I already referred to, particular important is also the "Helsinki Last act, occurred in August 1975. Many historians do not even play attention to this act, however in my judgment this action was one of the very most notable accomplishments of "detente". In 1970 SU was still strong inexpensive and political, and this act truly symbolize the most materials political contract between East and Western. In his publication- "The finish of the Chilly War and the reason for Soviet Collapse", Nick Bisley explained that "the importance of the Helsinki is at reality twofold. First, it provided a way with which people could assess Soviet action and discover it wanting. Second, and less evident, was that it displayed an approval, however shallow in the beginning, of key liberal principles of international relationships, principles which got hitherto been anathema to Soviet principles of World politics"(Bisley 2004). Regarding to Bisley's thoughts and opinions, SU showed indications for liberalization on his insurance plan, and even some historians assumed that the Helsinki function was victorious for the East. I believe this arrangement was the first serious indicator for weaknesses inside SU.
3. Problems from inside the Soviet Union, and lost of electricity in the masses
One of the famous Soviet economist Latsis said about the Soviet current economic climate: "the gloomy backdrop of the worsening market situation. . . has a depressing influence on people. " It is true that the last 20 years from his presence, the SU was isolated from the West(especially following the turmoil in Czechoslovakia), so that I explained this is one of the key known reasons for the collapse of the system. However, the historians, such as Latsis, said that the Soviet Union lost his electric power over the masses in the past due 70s and especially 80s, with unpopular serves, like the War in Afghanistan and the undeveloped economical. In fact, during the Stalin's period most of the people in Russia still assumed that they have exactly what they needed at that time. Therefore, the Soviet Federal kept their electricity over the masses mainly with repressions and general population propaganda. However, the previous 15 years of the SU new top notch appeared and which were people, which wanted to bring the Western liberal system above the Eastern communist ideas. Because of these elite, the individuals in the Union started to have new expectations regarding the the West. Folks moving into the Soviet Union nonetheless got highest goals about their "Empire". The Chernobyl atomic electricity flower and the warfare in Afghanistan only put more pressure over the federal government in USSR.
Another factor was having less genuine information, the secrecy and propaganda that is central to the culture of warfare. As contradictions mounted the Soviet people became increasingly more cynical about the propaganda of government-controlled press. It was common to hear the Russian people say that you could find truth anywhere except in Pravda and the news headlines anywhere except in Izvestia.
We should point out also the fact that the SU developed its own military industrial organic. Many years the ordinary people experienced the idea, that the SU must be equal to the USA military electricity, and probably if we must be honest, in a few periods they do well with this(especially between 1960-1970). However, the price for this game was very costly for the folks inside the "Russian Empire". Some economist says that over 70% of the budget was put in for military purpose. That was affordable for capitalist overall economy like USA, but for non open up market like SU, that was one catastrophe, which provoked people even more.
4. Long lasting ideological and institutional changes. The Russian top notch and their propaganda.
After the period of Brezhnev and the fatality of two Soviet leaders just in 3 years, in 1985 the "politburo" appointed the 56 years old Mikhail Gorbachev as General Secretary. Many european historians called Gorbachev "hero", in a few eastern countries his actions are still unpopular. I personally argue that Gorbachev was pressing to the border the Soviet Union, and he was chosen meticulously to do that. In fact, just how that SU collapsed, and the way that the Western world coutries accepted this, for me personally is one shows that they recognized what will took place in 1990. I feel that in 1989, when some of the countries from the Soviet block began their protests, one country that commit more than 70% in armed service forces and weapons, could deal with some of these conflicts. Or unless they could try? In his book Haynes explained and argued that the Gorbachev was accountable for the collapse of the SU along with his "perestroika" and "glasnost":
"Gorbachev's reforms themselves undermined a few of the principle features of socialist guideline in the USSR, e. g. atheism, mono-ideological control, one-party status, monetary monopoly and the suspendability of legislations. Gorbachev's ideology itself - his focus on 'all-human worth' instead of the class struggle, the guideline of regulation, international serenity and proper parliamentary representation have more resonance with John Stuart Mill than Karl Marx 4 - Gorbachev was subconsciously moving the USSR in this ideological path(Haynes 2002)".
Probably, if these reforms experienced started in the first 70s, than individuals, the system and the different ethnic groups could agree to it. However, for Gorbachev it was too past due, and he understood it. These reforms allowed the problems of the USSR to be uncovered and be general population knowledge. "Glasnost" was part of the so-called "democratization" and Gorbachev thought that offering legitimately to the advertising in Russia can make people feeling freer. It really is true that in the Soviet Union previously during the Stalin and Brezhnev periods, the history, radio and magazines were handled from the Government. However, it was foolish for Gorbachev to believe that if he expose the "ugly" truth from days gone by, people will all of the sudden became happy and free. As background showed what took place was the failure of the Soviet Union, and the new World order appeared.
I should also explain how the second area of the so-called "democratization"- 'Perestroika" failed so miserably. First of all Gorbachev never organized to remake the Soviet system he merely wanted to modernise it. I must admit that a fortunate note that he tried out to do was to suppress the creation and sales of liquor, problem that fundamentally affected Soviet people in the past few decades. However, the effect was different from the targets. Whit this function of "perestroika" Gorbachev inadvertently compelled production of liquor underground. Like America during prohibition the Mafia got control and has plagued Russia ever since. Other measures launched under perestroika were renting land to farmers (all land was held by the state of hawaii), allowing loss making factories to move bankrupt and limited amounts of private companies to start. McDonalds even opened up a branch in Moscow although its prices were out of grab the average indivdual.
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union collapse so when I mentioned, Gorbachev was the key reason for that. The failure of "Perestroika" was, because he overestimated the ability of the Soviet people to adopt the European capitalist system. Gorbachev shows himself as an inept planner and of being incapable of making much needed decisions.
One of the biggest errors of Gorbachev was credited to announce a fresh union treaty presenting the Russian elites opportunities to required trend. Some historians claim that the so-called Russian top notch formed during the 60s, when Stalin was no longer able to prevent the formation of people, with Western ideas and plans for revolution. During the Stalin and Brezhnev period, the presence of people with different ideas and different attitude was almost impossible, because the forming of elites was regarded as a huge treat for the wholeness of the Union. However, such top notch was formed and submitted Western Europe and USA in order to look at the ideas of Capitalism and than bring this ideas back again to the Union. Gorbachev completely underestimated this people and their ideas for trend, and on the end that was one of the main known reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. With "Perestroika" and "Glasnost" Gorbachev actually offered more civil to the Elites and the best example with the is Boris Yeltsin, who was simply the first choice of the trend. The role of Yeltsin is most beneficial described by Adam Graham in his publication "The Collapse of the Soviet Union":
"The biggest miscalculation the coup instigators made was failing to arrest Boris Yeltsin. Free he was able to lead resistance up against the Express Committee for the State of Crisis in the USSR, the name the hardliners provided themselves"(Graham 1999).
Certainly, if Yeltsin was arrested before he previously the chance to drive on the Russian visitors to revolution, and when Gorbachev was more radical in his activities giants the Elites, probably the Soviet Union wouldn't normally collapse on that yr. However, I am far from the assumption that, if this possessed occurred, the Soviet Union would survive. Probably, if it had not been Yeltsin someone else could be on fee, because Yeltsin was only one person from many others from the Russian top notch.
For some scholars the collapse of the Soviet Union was result from the inability of the Union to reform his financial and cultural systems. In my own essay I argued that the finish of the Freezing Warfare and the collapse of the Soviet Union were well planed from USA and the traditional western Capitalist countries, that used their economical, public and political propaganda to result over a few of the countries inside the Union. The capitalist came to the realization that the communist system acquired many negatives, especially from economic and social possibility, and their purpose was to show these people, that on earth there was not only communist systems, but also systems that provides people with more monetary and public right. Indeed I think that the Soviet Union collapse not only since it was forced from outside factors, but mainly because the reforms in the communal and financial systems, began from Gorbachev, emerged too overdue, when the individuals didn't want any longer change, but trend. For me personally Gorbachev was the main key for the collapse of the Union. Even, if we assume that hi acquired guidelines, ideas that could changed the Soviet Union from isolated "Empire" to something more, for me personally hi did non have political will and support from his own people, to save and steer clear of the failure of the machine. In his book "Why have the Soviet Union collapse" Robert Strayer details the role of Gorbachev:
"For a few scholars Gorbachev was an instrument as opposed to the way to obtain change. Other argues that Gorbachev was the pretty much inescapable product of interpersonal changes-urbanization, education, that created amazing pressures for democratization"(Strayer 1998).
Even if we disagree with Fukuyama, who says that "the finish of the Chilly War is the end of History", we have to declare that the existence of the Soviet Union was one unique part of our modern record, and even with his down sides, this "Empire" modified forever the International history. Once and for all or bad, only enough time will show.