Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 1

Paper : Theories of International Relations and World History

PART II: An Overview of Twentieth Century IR History

Lesson: Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War

Lesson Developer: Dr Akshay Kumar Singh

School of Law, Justice & Governance
Gautam Buddha University

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 2

1. Introduction
2. An Epigrammatic History of the Cold War
3. Antecedents to the End of the Cold War
4. The Causes of the End of the Cold War and the Collapse of Soviet Union
4.1 Belligerence in USSR Policy: Afghan Intervention and Mounting International
Pressure
4.2 US Offensive amidst Changing International Strategic and Political Environment
4.3 European Protest against Cold War
4.4 Structural Causes of the Soviet Society: Economic Frailty and Ethno-nationalistic
Upsurge
4.5 Gorbachev and “the New Thinking”: Glasnost, Perestroika, Demokratizatsiya, and
Sinatra Doctrine
5. Formal End of the Cold War and Disintegration
6. What Changes did the End of the Cold War Bring to the World?
7. Conclusion
8. Short Question and Answer
9. Essay Type Questions
10. End Notes

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 3

Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War

Source http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/images/accueil_cw.png,accessed at
7 January,2016

1. Introduction

In the world history, both the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the USSR are
considered as significant events. These two events were tangled in a way that it is fairly
difficult to say which event started first. The beginning of the termination of the Cold War is
marked with the fall of the infamous Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 which reached to its
culmination in the summer of 1990 when Soviet Union conceded the entry of united
Germany into North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). However, on the other hand, the
developments between August and December 1991 were of the great surprise for political
leaders of the USSR. Historians, policy analysts, scholars of international politics and
journalists were all astounded as the development finally matured on 26 December 1991
setting aside all possible efforts of keeping the Soviets united, ultimately resulting into its
collapse or disintegration. Remarkably, collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 4

represent an end of the era, ensuing an attempt of rewriting the script for a new world
order. The collapse of the USSR did not involve cataclysm within the Soviet society;
however, this led to the great consequences for both within and outside domestic political
realm. The consequences of these developments had impact on the people all over the
world. The end of the Cold War ended bipolar world order, and witnessed the rise of
innumerable newer concerns in the field of international politics, economy and security;
whereas, the collapse of the Soviet Union gave birth to fifteen independent sovereign
nation-states, including Russia.

2. An Epigrammatic History of the Cold War

As the name “Cold War” reflects its meaning itself, it was not an open war, rather a war-like
situation with concealed approach manifested in mutual distrust, aggressive military
posture, entrenched strategic entanglement and brewing hostility. This situation began with
the end of World War II in 1945 and continued till 1990. The hostile environment in post
World War II period crystallised by provocative moves of some powers which emerged as
formidable force such as the United States of America and the Soviet Union. The United
States after demonstration of atomic power in terms of final blow it added to the defeat of
Axis Powers and endurance of the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany causing its defeat
gradually increased latent animosity and rivalry between the two. Setting aside the
bonhomie of the World War II being as Allied Powers, the two powers fell apart amidst
escalated tension over ideological incompatibility, strategic discord, political and diplomatic
differences and indifferent pursuance of economic models of development. The two powers
created two blocs making finally the world order a bipolar one. This situation continued
without breaking off open war till its formal declaration in 1990. Mansbach and Taylor
rightly argue as: “The Cold War was the climactic struggle of the second half of the
twentieth century. In this conflict, the United States and its allies, including
supporters of capitalism, engaged in ideological warfare against the Soviet Union
and its allies, advocates of communism, an alternative and incompatible, economic
and political system.” 1 However, during the entire period of forty-five years the two
superpowers did not embroil physically in spite of the fact that many a times they came
closer to seemingly fierce war which might turn up into another world war. 2

However, there is considerable debate on the issue of the specific date of the
commencement of the Cold War but it is argued that it started fermenting after the end of
the World War II. The US increasingly set itself as unmatched power by demonstrating its

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 5

superior military prowess and growing economic clout. As a sole nuclear power and stable
economic force, the US was invited by rapidly weakening European powers to fill the
vacuum surfacing in the international order following the WW II. The post WW II American
president Harry S. Truman, to guide its foreign policy agenda, divulged what is known as
“Truman Doctrine” which later strengthened by his Secretary of State George C. Marshall a
plan known as “Marshall Plan” for helping war ravaged European nations for their
reconstruction with certain conditionalities. 3

The Marshall Plan was wrapped-up with USA’s long term strategic, economic and political
plans in Europe. It was taken by the Soviet Russia as an offensive directed against it which
was attempted to be countered by a similar plan known as Molotov Plan. 4 The Truman
Doctrine and Marshall Plan both rested upon the premise that the emerging Eurasian giant,
the USSR, had all possible knobs to alter the European politico-strategic environment hence
required to be checked. The USA’s perceived threat of the expansion of antithetical ideology
in terms of communism and hostile political regime based on it coupled with closed
economic system was looming large. Therefore, the effort of containing the expansion was
sought as first-rank strategy. 5 Drawing more light on this view John Lewis Gaddis however
writes as:

“..That the gravest threat to western interests in Europe was not the prospect of
Soviet military intervention, but rather the risk that hunger, poverty, and despair
might cause Europeans to vote their own communists into office, who would then
obediently serve Moscow’s wishes; that American economic assistance would
produce immediate psychological benefits and later material ones that would reverse
this trend; that the Soviet Union would not itself accept such aid or allow its satellites
to, thereby straining its relationship with them; and that the United States could
then seize both the geopolitical and the moral initiative in the emerging Cold War.” 6

Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 6

Source*: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Harry_S._Truman.jpg

With the passage of time the paranoia gradually widened; the hostility increasingly
intensified. When the USSR tested atomic bomb in August 1949, its quest of military parity
with the rival camp was apparently attained. The new phase marked that the two hostile
camps had to acquire certain degree of innovative strategy to breach the parallel.
Meanwhile, in 1949 the US also created a security alliance named as North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO). In subsequent years also other alliances were set up namely SEATO
(1954) and CENTO (1955), realising that the threats unleashed by the USSR were coupled
with a host of critical issues afflicting both Europe and Asia. 7 If in 1947 Greece was in the
midst of civil war, Turkey was under constant threat from the Soviet Union, the year 1948
saw the provocative moves by both sides in terms of Berlin blockade, compelling the West
European countries to give a serious thought on some sort of strategic alliance. This was
followed by the USSR with similar kind of security umbrella for its satellite states known as
Warsaw Pact.

Moreover, the gradual intensification of belligerent posture by two camps brought them in a
perpetual state of war preparedness. The 1950s and 60s witnessed a series of
confrontations beginning from the Korean War (1950), Taiwan strait crisis (1954-55),
Hungarian intervention (1956), Suez Canal crisis (1956-57), to the most dangerous
precipitation of conflict on Cuban missile issue (1962). The Cuban missile crisis took the
world on the brink of another world war; however, the astute diplomatic engagement of the
US and the USSR narrowly saved the world. 8

Period following the Cuban missile crisis witnessed an environment of ease, despite
intermittent scuffle between the two sides. The US’ Vietnam embroilment, Sino-Soviet
confrontation, Sino-American rapprochement, Arab Israel war did not came into way of

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 7

bonhomie generated in post Cuban crisis era. This period is known as détente. This phase
continued till Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979. Afghan crisis resurrected the
indirect but fatal conflict between the US and the USSR. Waning Soviet power under
growing structural discrepancies and rising military burden and at the same time mounting
US offensive under president Regan cumulatively proved to be as the final nail in the coffin
of the USSR ultimately causing its disintegration in 1991.

Value addition :Did you know

What is Détente?

Détente is a French word meaning easing of relations or calming down tension.

Detente in IR symbolises a thaw in hot pursuit of US-USSR relations. The period
of détente began in the late sixties resulting in better understanding of each
other’s position in the context of the East-West conflict for a particular time. The
most vital step for the beginning of detente was the installation of Hot-Line
between White House and Kremlin in post Cuban Missile Crisis period. Several
other initiatives were started by the superpowers. For instance, SALT-I
(Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) was signed in 1972 followed by another arms
control and nuclear weapons control and reduction treaties and strengthened
détente. President Richard Nixon and President Brezhnev were instrumental in
designing and operationalising of détente with Henry Kissinger. Besides, the
period following this was also a period of rapprochement between United States
of America and People’s Republic of China.

3. Antecedents to the End of the Cold War

Kegley and Wittkopf have rightly argued that the Cold War’s one of the characteristics
was that “the periods of intense conflict was alternated with periods of relative
cooperation”. 9 The historical trajectory of the Cold War reveals the fact that the two sides
observed maximum restrains from going to open war. Grasping the reality, had this not
been done, the politics and geography of the world would have altered completely especially
given the fact that two sides had excessively dangerous nuclear arsenals having capacity of

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 8

killing each side many a times. This was described by Max Lerner as the capacity of over
killing. 10 In reality if one goes to examine the various phases of the Cold War it is found
that after vanishing of alarming fear of probable third world war in the wake of Cuban
Missile Crisis in 1962, the two blocs came closer to whiff the danger of Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD). 11 After the crisis averted as a result of robust diplomatic engagement,
the two superpowers attempted to institutionalise the endeavour of easing the tension
between them. This beginning led to a new bonhomie named as detente. The detente did
not endure due to emergence of the Afghanistan crisis in 1979. Nevertheless, the detente
generated a sense of optimism that peace in international system could be introduced and
endured by these two superpowers when take positive steps in that direction which latter in
the late 1980s proved true when with all possible means the US and the USSR arrived to
conclude their long-standing confrontation ending the Cold War.

4. Exploring the Causes of the End of the Cold War and the Collapse
(Disintegration) of Soviet Union

The end of the Cold war caught the world into a great surprise. It occurred so fast that it
defied all wisdom of predictability. As Melvyn P. Lefller argues, “the end of the Cold War
baffles us: almost nobody expected it. Events spiralled out of control engulfing participants
in actions they could not have imagined just a few years before.” 12 There are a number of
causes stemming from both global and regional sources as well as internal sources within
Soviet Union. Global and regional sources which lent much pressure upon the USSR were
mainly the US military offensive in the wake of Soviet interventions, Carter and Regan
doctrines, USA’s unrelenting strategy of waging low intensity wars in Afro-Asian region by
supporting insurgents where communism was facing resistance from their own people,
narrowing economic opportunities for the communist regimes in the international political
economy. While internal sources within Soviet Union constitute rising internal secessionist
movements, staggering economy, elevation of new leadership in Gorbachev armed with new
thinking and expediency of structural reform.

4.1 Belligerence in USSR Policy: Afghan Intervention and Mounting International

Pressure

Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 is regarded as one of the most potent causes of
the end of the Cold War and the collapse (disintegration) of the USSR. This development
caught the world in great surprise as strategic analysts argued that this proved to be
quagmire for the Soviet Union. Intervention aroused sharp reaction internationally because

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 9

of the reason that Afghanistan was regarded as neutral country, which over the decades
abstained from taking side to either superpower overtly in the bloc politics of the Cold War
period. Background of the intervention was chaotic conditions led by assassination of
President Nur Muhammad Taraki in September 1979 by the then Deputy Prime Minister
Hafizullah Amin, toppling down the Soviet-sympathetic government in Kabul. Suspecting
that Amin had developed surreptitious relations with CIA and also he had been failing to
control the chaotic situation, the USSR invoked the Soviet-Afghan Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Good Neighborliness of 1978 which ultimately was termed as Soviet
intervention. 13

By the time when the intervention ended it caused lives of more than one million people
from both sides. The intervention was limited at the beginning as the Soviet leaders were
apprehensive of full-length intervention fearing the precipitating conditions of the
contemporary time that might lead to an unpleasant situation. The year 1979 saw the fall of
Shah of Iran and establishment of Islamic republic under leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini
and Israel-Egypt pact. However, this development was welcomed by the USSR but caused
unease in relation soon because communist ideology is regarded as antithetical to the
theocratic state system. The Sino-Vietnamese War was another tension. China ended “Sino-
Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance” of 1950 with Soviet Union.
Tension further mounted when Chinese Vice-premier Deng Xiaoping visited US and
expressed concerns about the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. When China attacked Vietnam
in early 1979 there was a twenty-five year defence treaty already signed between it and the
USSR, failing to deter China. 14

Moreover, the Afghan intervention was deprecated by the United Nations General Assembly
by a resolution passed in it. There was also sharp reaction in Islamic countries; Islamic
Conference condemned Soviet intervention. The West considered it as punitive step to
revive the great game of the nineteenth century. The USSR however did not want to
implicate itself fully. Considering that limited intervention would curtail the unstable
situation. The Soviets viewed to bolster Afghan army to take control of the situation but
gradually emerging conditions proved to be as quagmire. Within two years the Soviets
involvement grew to a new level. Contrary to Soviets’ presupposition, the intervention
resurrected the instability, in-fights among ethnic groups. Even the socialist government led
by Karmal openly expressed displease the way Soviet army held the operation. Reaction in
society, Afghan army’s immobility, and external influence in terms of aiding and abetting
the insurgents (Mujahedeen) entangled the situation. 15

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 10

In spite of all attempts, more than two-third Afghanistan was beyond the control of Soviet
forces; only urban centres were in seize, rural areas were strategically occupied by the
Mujahedeen. Mujahedeen were supported by the US, the UK, China, Egypt, Turkey, and
Middle East Asian countries. They fought guerrilla warfare. Jihad against Soviets was
launched. This million-year opportunity for the West to take revenge against the USSR to
convert Afghanistan Soviet’s Vietnam was in anvil which was to be exploited. 16 The US
17
indirectly funnelled more than $ 2 billion to the Mujahedeen. This worsened the relation
between the USSR and the West. The USSR continued military embroilment in quest of
honourable exit which did not come till 1988 albeit at the cost of huge economic loss,
shattered morale of military, damaging international image, spontaneous disturbance in
domestic politics, rampant corruption in bureaucratic machinery and weakening faith of
people in their own socialist government. All these factors together proved critical in the
collapse (disintegration) of the USSR.

Soviet Invasion Route and Control on Afghanistan Territory

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War#/media/File:SovietInvasionA
fghanistanMap.png

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 11

Analysts, however, argue that there were four major effects of Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan which led to its disintegration.

These are:

(1) Perception effects;

(2) Military effects;

(3) Legitimacy effects;

(4) Glasnost effects.

“These categories are not equally important,” what analysts say, “in explaining the impact
of the Afghanistan war on Soviet politics and hence on Soviet breakdown. We consider the
Perception and Military effects as being most important followed by Legitimacy effects, and
finally Glasnost effects.” 18 It is argued that:

The Perception and Military effects refer to the discrediting of the Soviet army, perhaps
the most important institution for holding the diverse country together, and to the
changed Soviet leadership’s perception on the efficacy of employing the army to quell
secessionist movements in non-Russian republics. In particular, the Afgantsy played a
key role in discrediting the army. Legitimacy effects describe the weakening of the
army’s and the country’s internal cohesion. Finally, Glasnost effects refer to the impact
of the war on accelerating glasnost by emboldening the media to report non-official
war stories, thereby widening cleavages among various organs of the Soviet state. 19

4.2 US Offensive amidst Changing International Strategic and Political

Environment

The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan took place at a time when Jimmy Carter was
president of the United States. However, after a year Cater was replaced by Ronald Reagan
in a presidential election in 1980. Moreover, Carter himself alarmed by the surprising shifts
of the Soviet Russia appeared to take advantage of US’ geostrategic and geopolitical mess
cropped-up in forms of Vietnam War, resurgent European powers harping on their own
vision such as Ostopolitik, Iranian hostage issues and Persian Gulf crisis had no option than
to beef up the offensive. To deal-with such developments president Carter amplified the US
defence spending considerably up to $1200 billion for next five years which subsequently
increased by the next US President Ronald Reagan to $ 1600 billion. 20 Other factors which
symbolised the US offensive were: “Carter imposed a grain embargo against the Soviet
Union, ordered a symbolic boycott of the 1980 summer Olympics scheduled to be held in

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 12

Moscow, resumed military draft registration, and pronounced a new “Carter Doctrine” that
pledged “to repel any effort by an outside power to gain control over the Persian Gulf by any
means necessary, including military force”. 21

In the next presidential election Reagan emerged as victorious in presidential election upon
the pledge of meeting the challenges of the crises blown up in terms of Soviet Afghan
intervention and Iranian hostage crisis along with a host of domestic issues, including
downsizing the role of state in economic affairs. Reagan expressed in a straightforward
manner that he will not deal with America’s conventional enemies in a conventional route
with conventional means. Reagan did not shy away from castigating USSR for being source
of all evil dubbing it as “evil empire”. According to McMahon, “Reagan was determined to
expand the nation’s nuclear and conventional military capabilities before engaging in any
serious negotiations with the Soviets.” 22 Further to it, “peace through strength became a
favourite catchphrase of the president and his defence planners; that oft-repeated slogan
also served to rationalize the administration’s initially desultory approach to arms control
negotiations.” 23

An apt analysis of Reagan’s offensive has been given by Eric F. Petersen quoting Patrick
Glynn, “who worked in the Reagan administration as Special Assistant to the Director of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.” 24 According to Glynn, “Reagan and his advisors
came into office rejecting the carrot and stick approach toward the Soviet Union that had
been practiced by the Nixon and Carter administrations.” 25 In its place they openly
“challenged the Soviets by building up American arms, by restricting American aid, and by
unleashing a rhetorical and psychological attack to keep the Soviets off balance.” 26 Such
offensive posture increased “tensions between the two countries to the highest level in
twenty years.” 27 The policy finally yielded the favourable result as the “United States
achieved a superior power position....[and] one unforeseen by product of this final shift in
the correlation of forces was the collapse of communism and an end to the Cold War
itself.” 28

Value Addition:
Let us know about various doctrines

The Truman Doctrine:

As the name itself reveals, the doctrine was unveiled by American President Harry S.
Truman in 1947. Truman in order to contain the influence of Soviet Union in Europe
and outside it pledged to support people who were considered to be largely out of

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 13

communist influence required help in state building after devastation of World War II.
The very first support under such pledge was lent by the US to Greece and Turkey. This
doctrine however offended communist bloc and instigated the brewing Cold War
between the two powers of the world.

The Brezhnev Doctrine:

The Brezhnev Doctrine entails a foreign policy instance of the USSR in the Cold War
period which held that wherever in communist bloc a threat to communism by any
forces would take place shall be dealt with strongly by the USSR. Therefore, it was a
policy to maintain the sanctity of communist ideology as guiding principle of governing
the state. The noble duty of preserving the same objective was considered to be vested
with Soviet Union. Under this doctrine, the USSR intervened in its several satellite
states.

The Carter Doctrine:

President Jimmy Carter’s policy posture to arrest the declining clout of the US in the
Persian Gulf. It was in the wake of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan the US in order to
protect its national interest in Persian Gulf stated in clear terms via Carter Doctrine that
any attempt of controlling this region by force would attract the wrath of US military.

The Reagan Doctrine:

The doctrine followed determinedly by the Reagan administration in a most offensive

fashion to strike hard against Soviet support to expand its influence in any part of the
world. The Reagan Doctrine held that the rolling back of the Soviet power in world
necessitated two pronged strategy: Overt retaliation against Soviet offensive by raising
military bar up and covert support to the forces who were fighting against communist
regimes to challenge the very legitimacy and thereby gradually weakening the
communist power.

The Sinatra Doctrine:

The doctrine was used by Gorbachev to setting free the control of Soviet Union against
the Satellite socialist states to decide their course of domestic as well as foreign affairs
in their own ways. It was named by Gorbachev after Frank Sinatra, a musician. The
essence of the doctrine was to allowing communist states who were part of Warsaw
Pact to have more political autonomy and economic freedom.

Reagan revitalized “the expensive B-1 bomber programme; permitted development of the
B-2 (Stealth) bomber, hastened deployment of the controversial MX (Missile Experimental)
and the sophisticated Trident submarine missile system, expanded the Navy from 450 to

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 14

600 ships, and disbursed considerable funds to the CIA to support an enhanced covert
arm.” 29 However, “Reagan termed his military expansion as a drive simply to regain
America’s ‘margin of safety’, it actually represented a bid to re-establish US strategic
superiority– a status that Reagan and many fellow conservatives had never been willing to
surrender in the first place.” 30

Value addition- Surf and know

Cold war and Afghanistan
To understand more dynamics of Afghanistan in cold war era,one may read further from
Sidky, H.. (2007). War, Changing Patterns of Warfare, State Collapse, and Transnational
Violence in Afghanistan: 1978-2001. Modern Asian Studies, 41(4), 849–888. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499803

Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987 Challenging Soviet Union to
Tear down the Wall

Source©: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/ReaganBerlinWall.jpg

Reagan in an attempt to establish credible superiority proposed a comprehensive

antiballistic missile system called the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) popularly dubbed as

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 15

“star wars” to protect America’s homeland from nuclear attack. 31 However, this led to
further escalation of arms race as the USSR deployed mobile intermediate-range missile,
building long-range missile and modernizing its nuclear submarine fleet. 32 Upping the
ante, president Reagan declared not to back away from the first use of atom bomb,
mounting pressure on the Soviet Union. Astutely, Reagan in clever move also opened new
front to engage USSR by lending all kind of support to insurrectionary such as Contras in
Nicargua and Mujahedeen in Afghanistan fighting against communist forces. 33 These tactical
steps of Reagan aggravated the defence predicament. The Soviet economy by now in strain
faced another pressure. When Gorbachev became General Secretary he realised the
situation and in order to normalise relations with USA and arresting the declining political,
security and economic condition of his country followed the policy of Glasnost and
Perestroika. 34 However, there was another remarkable development in Europe which put
substantial pressure on easing the tension between the US and the USSR. Europe witnessed
frequent mass demonstration against Cold War and attempt of nuclearisation during 1980s.

4.3 European Protest against Cold War

Europe was largely considered to be as close partner of the US in economic and strategic
arena. But continued involvement of two superpowers in which one, the USSR, was
neighbour to them and the US was almost omnipresent in the west Europe. Europe prior to
revival of the Cold War that is known as New Cold War in 1979 had attempted to ease the
tension between the two superpowers whose consequence on real security and development
of the world was negative. The Helsinki Process was one of them. Immediately after
Afghanistan intervention, USA’s new activism worried European countries. People of Europe,
civil societies came out in open to protest any attempt of making Europe nuclear war
theatre. Learning that two superpowers had deployed nuclear missiles into their respective
allies and SALT II was not ratified by the US Senate, immediately Europe rallied behind one
slogan: Save the God’s creation. Such wakefulness resulted into an open insolence. Even
two years before getting such situation fully grown amid rising tension, for instance, “on 28
October 1977, the West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt gave an address at the
International Institute for Strategic Studies in London in which he deplored the threat
hanging over Western Europe as a result of the deployment of Soviet SS-20s, which put all
the NATO countries and Western bases at risk.” 35 Drawing light on this development a
report of the Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l’Europe (CVCE) writes as:

The USSR was seeking to establish its regional superiority over Europe. Moreover,
the military consolidation of the Warsaw Pact and its superiority over NATO in terms

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 16

of equipment and manpower raised doubts as to the Atlantic Alliance’s ability to

implement a strong traditional defence. Helmut Schmidt’s address therefore called
for a reassessment of US nuclear involvement in Europe. Once again, the Old
Continent became the focus of the struggle between the two blocs. The Soviet SS-
20s increased the potential of the Warsaw Pact’s nuclear forces and was one element
that led to NATO’s decision on 12 December 1979 to install 572 US missiles (108
Pershing II and 464 cruise missiles) in Europe. The actual deployment of US missiles
in some countries in Western Europe from 1983 onwards (the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and the FRG) led to the failure of the disarmament
negotiations in Geneva, which had been under way since June 1982, following a
decision from Moscow. The Euromissile crisis gave rise to large-scale campaigns by
European pacifists demonstrating against the deployment of nuclear weapons. 36

The general perception of European mass had turned up negative. Their protest was meant
to free the world from the menace of nuclear weapon whose most immediate threat was
looming in close vicinity. As a result, “in October 1981, millions of Europeans joined mass
protest rallies against American – and Soviet – missile deployments. Bonn, London, and
Rome hosted rallies that each attracted over 250,000 demonstrators. The next month,
500,000 marched in Amsterdam in the biggest mass protest in Dutch history.” 37 Further,
“the influential World Council of Churches advocated a halt to the nuclear arms race, as did
the ordinarily apolitical Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States. In a 150-page pastoral
letter of May 1983, the Catholic Bishops stressed: We are the first generation since Genesis
with the power to virtually destroy God’s creation.” 38 This apart, people in USA also rose
against prospective nuclear war. The nuclear freeze movement turned up a big phenomenon
during 1982 and 1984. All these factors collectively were bound to work against swelling
ferociousness between the two superpowers and causing one of reasons of scaling down the
Cold War tension.

4.4 Structural Causes of the Soviet Society: Economic Frailty and Ethno-
nationalistic Upsurge

One of the most potent causes of the end of the Cold War and the collapse or
disintegration of the USSR was long drawn structural discrepancies of the Soviet society. By
the beginning of the 1970s, the USSR’s growth story was reversed. The same country
maintained its economic performance so well in 1950s and 1960s appeared to be plunging
deep after 1975. As compared to its arch-rival USA and its European and Asian allies, Soviet
economic performance was sluggish. Industrial output was declining, demands of consumer
goods were not being fulfilled, agricultural output was stagnant amidst increasing demands,
increasing literacy rate required increment in employment which was on reverse trend.
Contrary to this, heavy budgetary allocation to military expenditure and entrenched Soviet

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 17

expansion all over the world increased strain on already dwindling economy. Afghan
intervention proved to be an Achilles hill. According to Brooks and Wahlforth, in spite of
heavy economic constraints and severe negative trends in macro economics, defence
budget “secured roughly 40 per cent of the Soviet state budget and 15–20 per cent of GDP
(gross domestic product) in the early 1980s, or at least four times the US.” 39 Quoting
Timothy J. Colton, Stoner-Weiss and Michael McFaul write as:

“In the 1970’s annual growth dipped to below about 3% on average, but by 1985 had
declined further to 1.6%. This steady decline in growth rates was driven by declines in
production outputs in previously stellar industries like coal and steel. Further, oil production
was also sliding by the mid-1980’s and agricultural production was “anemic” by 1982,
purportedly dipping below plan levels.” 40

They have succinctly argued that causes of weakness were multiple. Workers productivity
declined, absenteeism crept in, aging capital stock proved to be insufficient, low investment
rates stabilised, economy received heavy jolt to the developments of international political
economy and among them the major factor was declining price of crude oil. Besides,
demographic frame of the country was showing discouraging trend and was one of
multiplying factors to ailing economy. Workforce decreased to a substantial level, which
could be understood by a statistics as in 1960 life expectancy of men in the USSR was 67
which decreased after twenty years in 1980 to 62 years. 41

Value addition- Surf and Know

Collapse of USSR
To read more about the collapse of USSR, one may read further from ,Marples, D. R..
(2011). Revisiting the Collapse of the USSR. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne
Des Slavistes, 53(2/4), 461–473. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4170835

However, the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991 but the background began to be authored
with frequent dissentions in diverse ethno-nationalistic communities of the Soviet
fragments. Albania was the first country to separate it from Warsaw Pact in 1968 after
Czechoslovakia invasion. Among major developments, linguistic issues were the dominant
one in Baltic countries. There were mass protest in Lithuania and Georgia in 1972 and 1978
respectively. In 1980 Polish’s Solidarity movement was symptomatic to the larger malaise;
however, it did not attract military intervention from the USSR. The exposure of ethno-

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 18

nationalism and demand of more political autonomy became more critical with Gorbachev’s
policy of Glasnost and Perestroika in mid 1980s. 42

Beginning of pro-independence movements among various ethno-nationalistic groups in

different Soviet fragments got bolstered after Gorbachev’s decision to have more openness
in Soviet society and more autonomy in economic affairs. Ethno-nationalism in Soviet
society had varied forms. Nationalist consciousness spread throughout Soviet Russia. As
argued by Leokadia Drobizheva: “Perestroika introduced two essentially new factors that
promoted the growth of Russian national consciousness. The first was the extraordinary
growth of national movements and interethnic conflicts throughout the country: in the Baltic
republics, Maldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaizan, Ukraine, and Belarusia. The efforts of
Tatarastan, Bashkiria, Yakutia, and Tuva to separate themselves from Russia and attain
Union republic status also contributed to this process.” 43 “The national movements in the
periphery,” Drobizheva argued, “not only produced psychological chain-reactions among
Russians but provided models of organizational forms for the pursuit of ethnically based
goals.” 44 The second factor, according to Drobizheva, “connected with perestroika that
drastically affected Russian national consciousness was the aggravation of sociopolitical
conflicts within the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation.” 45

The Estonia Popular Front (April 1988), The Latvian Popular Front (June 1988), the Popular
Front of Lithuania (May 1988), the Popular Front of Azerbaijan (September 1988), the
Belarusian Popular Front (1988) organized the large movements on the issues pertaining to
ethno-nationalism. Helsinki-86 galvanized the first anti-communist movement in Latvia.
Helsinki-86 along with Environment Protection Club submitted many protest letters to the
Soviet leadership and the UN Authorities calling to allow Latvia to peacefully separate from
USSR as granted by its constitution. 46 There were huge protests in almost every part of
Soviet Union.

Worst Moment of Ethnic Tension in Baku (Azerbaijan) in January 1990

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 19

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:The_tragedy_of
_January_20.jpg

4.5 Gorbachev and “the New Thinking”: Glasnost, Perestroika, Demokratizatsiya,

and Sinatra Doctrine
McMahon has marked: “The accession, in March 1985, of Mikhail S. Gorbachev to the
position of general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party stands as the most critical
turning point in the Cold War’s final phase – the one factor, above all others, that hastened
the end of the Cold War.” 47 Gorbachev’s way of dealing with both domestic and foreign
affairs earned him repute of being different from those of early Soviet leaders. John Lewis
Gaddis, quoting Anatoly Chernyaev, wrote: “For the first time since the Cold War began the
USSR had a ruler who did not seem sinister, boorish, unresponsive, senile—or dangerous.
Gorbachev was intelligent, well-educated, dynamic, and honest, with ideas and imagination.
Myths and taboos (including ideological ones) are nothing for him. He could flatten any of
them.” 48

Mikhail S. Gorbachev

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 20

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev#/media/File:RIAN_archive_850809_Gener
al_Secretary_of_the_CPSU_CC_M._Gorbachev_(crop).jpg

Gorbachev and his close aide Eduard Shevardnadze, who was replacement of twenty-eight-
year long serving Foreign Affairs Minister, Gromyko, attempted to give a face-lift to Soviet
domestic and foreign policy by injecting the new thinking spanning in the field of economy,
politics and socialist ideology, international outlook, strategic and security issues. Rightly
placed by McMahon, “influenced by a changing intellectual milieu in the Soviet Union,
shaped in part by Soviet scientists and foreign policy experts with broad exposure to the
West and close contact with their Western counterparts, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze
injected ‘new thinking’ into both the staid Kremlin leadership circle and the stalled Soviet–
American dialogue.” 49

Leffler wrote that Gorbachev’s aim was: “To restore the vitality of socialism for humankind
and fulfill its potential inside the Soviet Union. His desire was to shift resources from the
military budget to domestic renewal. His foreign policy was almost totally designed to serve
the needs of his domestic agenda. This was possible because he neither saw great threats
nor great opportunities beyond his borders.” 50 This amounted to his new thinking figured
out effectively in his twin slogan: Perestroika and Glasnost.

By perestroika Gorbachev meant to reconstruct the political and economic system of the
Soviet society. Gradual liberation from central command by allowing competitive elections
within party system to give space for inner democracy and also allowing citizens to
partaking in government was adopted. 51 In 1987 Central Committee Plenum, the policy of

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 21

Demokratizatsiya was declared by Gorbachev proposing to introduce multiple candidates’

choice in Communist Party election with secret ballot voting system. 52 According to Kathryn
Stoner-Weiss and Michael McFaul, “Gorbachev’s Demokratizatsiya policy had been intended
to rejuvenate the party by exposing it to forms of limited competition. In this regard, he
was following in an old Bolshevik tradition of creative destruction – that is, the idea that
stagnating elements should be purged, and that internal criticism was an important vehicle
by which to keep the party responsive and healthy.” 53

While economically, “perestroika called for de-monopolization and some semi-private

businesses to function, ending the price controls established by the government for the past
seven decades. The goal was to create a semi-free market system.” 54 However, “such an
economy took time to thrive, and people found themselves stuck in a worn-out economy,
which led to long-lines, strikes, and civil unrest.” 55 Further, “Gorbachev’s other tentative
economic reforms included the partial trade liberalization of 1986, the 1988 Law on
Enterprises, and the 1988 Law on Cooperatives”. 56

Glasnost referred to openness and transparency. This was an attempt to pull down the
“iron curtain” and allowing people to have access to more freedom and they were invested
with more rights. As it is argued, “Glasnost led to a decreased censoring of the media,
which in effect allowed writers and journalists to expose news of government corruption and
the depressed condition of the Soviet people. It also permitted criticism of government
officials, encouraging more social freedoms like those that Western societies had already
provided.” 57

Nonetheless Eric F. Petersen wrote as: “Perestroika proved impossible to accomplish. The
centralized command economy was impervious to halfway measures, Gorbachev and his
advisors made a series of tactical economic errors, and glasnost let loose an unexpected
flood of anti-Soviet, nationalistic sentiment that eventually led to the dissolution of the
Union.” 58 Taking advantage of autonomy injected in political realm regional nationalist
forces began to take centre stage. Centrifugal forces sought to bolster ethno-nationalistic
sentiment having realized that central control was weakened and internal political
repression and coercion were no more effective mechanism.

On the other, Glasnost instilled the fresh idea of opening the window to let fresh air come
in. This was done by loosening the control of the Party against media censorship. All of
sudden flood of information surged and citizen began to evaluate and compare about what
they have and what they can have after changes if required to be done. People compared

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 22

about the life Europeans had and under what condition they are placed. Gulf of reality and
imagination gathered the voice of dissent among citizens against their political masters.

While on the front of external relations the vestige of the new thinking appeared in form of
“Sinatra Doctrine”. In order to carve-out practicable foreign policy stand, Gorbachev
rejected the “Brezhnev Doctrine” and instead harped on a new idea called Sinatra Doctrine
meaning “doing it my way”. 59 Brezhnev Doctrine rested the obligation with USSR of
intervention for meeting the situation in Communist Bloc if communism would fall under
grave danger. Gorbachev was against such policy and with new thinking freed the USSR
from such obligation and lessened its control over Satellite states.

5. Formal End of the Cold War and Disintegration

The Cold War formally declared to be ended on December 3, 1989 at Malta Summit where
supreme leaders of two superpowers accepted that the hot war was over; and the Cold War
was ended. American President’s exhilaration reflected with this statement as :

“We can realise a lasting peace and transform the East-West relationship to one
of enduring co-operation. That is the future that Chairman Gorbachev and I began
right here in Malta.” 60

In response the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, said: “I assured the President of the
United States that I will never start a hot war against the USA.” 61 However, with fall of 28-
mile-long Berlin wall on November 9, 1989 it was sure for the world that the relations
between the East and West will change which was proved true after 24 days on 3 December
1989. One year later on October 3, 1990 the Germany united. Quoting Brent Scowcroft,
Leffler argued that “the Cold War ended when the Soviets accepted a united Germany in
NATO”. For him, as for many US officials since the early post-war years, the greatest threat
had always been the spectre of a united Germany harnessed to an aggressive communist
alliance spearheaded by the Soviet Union. The Cold War, therefore, appeared to end when
the deideologization of Soviet foreign policy was coupled with the co-option of German
power in a Western coalition. Further to this, Germany became part of NATO and on 01 July
1991 Warsaw Pact ceased to exist. On the other hand, finally succumbing to the
developments internal as external as well, formal declaration of the disintegration of the
Soviet Union into fifteen independent states was made on 26 December 1991. These states
were: Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Georgia.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 23

The Malta Bonhomie (December 1989): President Bush and Secretary Gorbachev
Setting Stage for Announcing the End of Cold War

Sourceµ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_Summit#/media/File:Bush_and_Gorbachev_at_the_Mal
ta_summit_in_1989.gif

6. What Changes did the End of the Cold War Bring to the World?

With the end of the Cold War the world heaved a sigh of relief as the phase of mutual
distrust, strategic discords, super power rivalry, bloc politics and ideological division in
international society was assumed to be ended. The silent demise of the Cold War sprang
to the world a great surprise insofar as without any fierce or open conflict the two blocs
agreed to reconcile their differences. This event was portrayed by many scholars in their
own ways. For instance, William C. Walforth does not consider this event less capable of
transforming the prevalent system than “the French Revolution and the decline and the fall
of Rome”. 62 Francis Fukuyama unveiled a thesis called “the end of history” to characterise
that finally it was the power of liberal capitalist model coupled with democratic spirit finally
triumph over socialist close model, proving enduring strength of the former over latter.

The emerging order of the World was christened as the “New World Order” by George Bush
Sr. in which, what Richard Crockatt argues, “American power, in concert with other
members of Security Council, would serve as a global stabilizer” 63. Crockatt laying down
the map of the post Cold War world order reiterates that “George Bush’s new world order
promised a Wilsonian scheme of internationalism based on the assumption that of strong
American backing for mechanism for setting international disputes, preventing aggression,
and securing international justice.” 64 However, this principle met a fiasco with Gulf war
which broke immediately after such pledge. In the period following 1990 witnessed great

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 24

transformations in international system. American juggernaut swayed for a decade till the
9/11 event. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks of American soil ultimately shattered
the myth that the United States alone in the world was invincible. The period also witnessed
rise in intra-state conflicts instead of inter-state conflicts. The question of ethnonationalism,
identity, cultural insensitivity, widening gulf between various economic classes, trans-
national crimes, rampant misuse of the forces of globalisation and growing concerns of
environmental insecurity compel analysts like Michael T. Klare to term this era an “era of
multiple schisms.” 65 An established scholar of IR has observed rightly about the ongoing
phase of international relations as:

The new evolving epoch is an epoch of multiple contradictions, the international

system is less dominant, but it is still powerful. States are changing, but they are not
disappearing. State’s sovereignty has eroded, but it is still vigorously asserted.
Governments are becoming weaker, but they can still throw their weight around.
Borders still keep out intruders, but they are also more porous. Landscapes are
giving way to ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, and financescapes, but
territoriality is still a central preoccupation for many people. 66

Value Addition – Know it better

New world order

The most widely discussed application of the phrase of recent times came at the end
of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhil Gaorbachov and George H. W. Bush used the term
to try to define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great
power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachov's initial formulation
was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by
the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more
circumscribed and realistic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to
the Gulf War.

Knowing the reasons of the End of the Cold War and Disintegration of the
USSR

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Collapse of the USSR and the End of the Cold War 25

Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan

External
Factors: Scaling up US Offensive against USSR

Carter and Reagan Doctrines

Shrinking USSR’s Zone of Influence all

Over World

Protest of Europeans against

embroiling Europe in Potential Nuclear
War

Burden of Brezhnev Doctrine

Narrowing Base of Economic Resources

Rising Military Burden as Liability of

Internal
Maintaining Soviet Zone of Influence
Factors:
Gorbachev’s “New Thinking”: Policy of
Glasnost and Perestroika

Ethno-nationalistic Upsurge and

Source :Self creation (Author) Struggle for Independence from the
Union
However, this period also provided multiple opportunities to the growing states to author
the story of development. States in South East Asian region, European region and Latin
American region reaped the harvest of regional integration and maintained economic growth
rate satisfactorily. However, few other critical developments of international relations
deserve attention. The embryo of new bipolarity seems to have taken shape between the
United States of America and China; some intractable issues of international relations still
pose challenges to the world such as instability in Middle East, internecine conflict between
India and Pakistan and Israel and Palestine; exponential rise in Islamic fundamentalism led
terrorism by terrorist groups such as ISIIL/ISIS/IS, Boko Haram, Haqqani Network, Al-
Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hezbollah, Hizb-ul-Mujaheedin etc.; stagnant condition of human
deprivation profile in developing states; failing to arrive at consensus over dangerously
evolving concerns of environment; recurrent economic downturn in developed states; and
appearance of fissure in great powers on certain critical international issues are newer
concerns of the contemporary international relations.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi