Who Destroyed The USSR And Why?

By: Silas Mwaudasheni Nande

Over months, I have been approached by many individuals who developed love and interest in my writing and are intrigued by the dramatic collapse of the Soviet Union and its enduring impact on global politics. Among the most persistent questions are: Who truly destroyed the USSR? and Is Vladimir Putin seeking to reestablish the Soviet Union through his aggressive policies, particularly the invasion of Ukraine? These inquiries reflect not only a curiosity about one of the 20th century’s most pivotal events but also a desire to understand the motivations driving contemporary geopolitics. In response to these recurring questions, I have decided to delve into this complex topic, exploring the factors behind the Soviet Union’s dissolution and analyzing whether Putin’s actions signal an attempt to resurrect its legacy or something entirely different.

The dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991 marked the end of an era, leaving behind questions that have fueled debates among historians, economists, and political scientists. The Soviet Union’s collapse was not a result of a single event or person, but rather a confluence of internal contradictions, systemic failures, and external pressures. This article analyzes the key players and underlying reasons behind the destruction of the USSR.

1. The Role of Leadership: Gorbachev and Yeltsin

Leadership played a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of the USSR during its final years. Two figures stand out:

Mikhail Gorbachev

Gorbachev’s introduction of Perestroika (economic restructuring) and Glasnost (openness) aimed to revitalize the Soviet system. However, these reforms inadvertently accelerated its demise. While Glasnost exposed long-suppressed grievances, corruption, and inefficiencies, Perestroika failed to produce immediate economic improvements. Instead, it destabilized the planned economy, leading to shortages, inflation, and growing public dissatisfaction. Critics argue that Gorbachev’s reforms were too ambitious, poorly executed, and lacked the support of entrenched bureaucratic elites.

Boris Yeltsin

Yeltsin, a political rival of Gorbachev, leveraged the growing dissatisfaction to position himself as a champion of democracy and Russian sovereignty. His defiance during the 1991 coup attempt, where he stood atop a tank outside the Russian parliament, made him a symbol of resistance. However, Yeltsin’s actions also hastened the disintegration of the USSR by prioritizing Russian independence over Soviet unity. His promotion of the Belavezha Accords with leaders of Ukraine and Belarus formalized the dissolution of the union.

2. Economic Decline: The Achilles’ Heel

The Soviet economy was plagued by systemic inefficiencies long before Gorbachev’s tenure. The command economy, while effective during rapid industrialization and wartime, was ill-suited for the demands of a modern, globalized world. Key issues included:

Stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s: Central planning created inefficiencies, resource misallocation, and a lack of innovation.

Military Spending: The arms race with the United States drained resources that could have been used for domestic development.

Oil Dependency: The USSR relied heavily on oil exports. The drop in oil prices during the 1980s significantly reduced revenue, exacerbating economic woes.

These economic difficulties eroded public confidence in the Soviet system and fueled nationalist movements within the republics.

3. Nationalism: The Rise of the Republics

The USSR was a multi-ethnic empire held together by ideology and force. As Glasnost allowed greater freedom of expression, suppressed nationalist sentiments resurfaced across the republics. Key examples include:

Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania): These nations were among the first to demand independence, driven by a strong sense of cultural identity and historical grievances against Soviet domination.

Ukraine and Belarus: The push for sovereignty in these Slavic republics dealt a critical blow to Soviet unity.

Central Asia and the Caucasus: Ethnic and religious tensions further strained the union.

Nationalism was both a symptom of the USSR’s decline and a catalyst for its ultimate collapse.

4. Ideological Erosion

The ideological foundation of the USSR; Marxism-Leninism; lost its appeal over time. The discrepancy between the ideals of socialism and the reality of life in the Soviet Union became increasingly apparent. Corruption, privilege for the elite, and the suppression of dissent disillusioned the population, especially the younger generation.

The collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 further undermined the legitimacy of Soviet ideology. The Warsaw Pact’s disintegration symbolized the failure of the broader communist project.

5. External Pressures: The Role of the West

The Cold War rivalry with the United States and its allies played a significant role in the USSR’s decline:

Economic Competition: The U.S. and its allies implemented policies designed to weaken the Soviet economy, such as promoting low oil prices and restricting access to Western technology.

Ideological Containment: Western democracies provided moral and material support to dissidents and nationalist movements within the USSR

Military Pressure: The Reagan administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), while never fully realized, pressured the USSR to allocate more resources to defense, further straining its economy.

While external pressures exacerbated existing problems, the Soviet collapse was ultimately driven by internal factors.

6. The Bureaucratic and Structural Crisis

The USSR was built on a centralized, highly bureaucratic system that struggled to adapt to changing realities. Decision-making was slow and inefficient, and corruption was rampant. Attempts at reform often encountered resistance from entrenched elites who benefited from the status quo.

Conclusion: A Multifaceted Collapse

The destruction of the USSR was the result of a complex interplay of factors: reformist yet flawed leadership, economic stagnation, rising nationalism, ideological disillusionment, and external pressures. It is overly simplistic to blame any one person or event for the collapse. Rather, it was the culmination of decades of systemic issues that finally reached a breaking point in the late 20th century.

The legacy of the USSR’s collapse continues to shape global politics. It serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of rigidity in governance, economic mismanagement, and the failure to address the aspirations of diverse populations.

Is Vladimir Putin resurrecting the Soviet Union?

The idea that Vladimir Putin is attempting to bring back the USSR through his invasion of Ukraine is a popular narrative in some global media and academic circles, but it oversimplifies a complex geopolitical strategy. While there are elements of Putin’s policies that evoke Soviet-era ambitions, his motivations and goals differ significantly from those of the USSR. The following is an analysis of whether Putin’s actions in Ukraine represent an attempt to resurrect the Soviet Union.

1. Putin’s Motivations: Beyond Soviet Nostalgia

Putin has often lamented the collapse of the USSR, famously calling it the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. However, his statements suggest more concern about the loss of Russian geopolitical influence and security, rather than a desire to restore the Soviet Union’s communist ideology or its exact territorial boundaries.

Nationalist Agenda: Putin’s vision is more aligned with Russian nationalism and imperialism than with Soviet communism. He seeks to consolidate what he views as the historic Russian world (Russkiy Mir), which includes areas with significant cultural, historical, or linguistic ties to Russia, such as Ukraine and Belarus.

Security Concerns: A key motivation for invading Ukraine is NATO’s eastward expansion. Putin has expressed concerns that Ukraine’s potential NATO membership poses a direct threat to Russia’s security. The invasion can be seen as an effort to create a buffer zone and prevent further Western influence in Russia’s backyard and territory.

2. The Soviet Comparison: Key Differences

While Putin’s actions echo some aspects of Soviet-era policies, such as dominance over neighboring states, the context and ideology differ:

Economic and Ideological Differences: The USSR was founded on Marxist-Leninist ideology and operated as a planned economy. Modern Russia is a capitalist state with a kleptocratic oligarchy at its core. Putin’s actions lack the ideological framework of communism and are more focused on consolidating Russian power and wealth.

Territorial Ambitions: Unlike the USSR, Putin does not appear intent on directly annexing large swathes of territory. Crimea’s annexation in 2014 and the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine suggest a strategy of destabilization and influence rather than outright territorial integration on a Soviet scale.

3. Why Specifically Ukraine?

Ukraine occupies a central place in Putin’s vision for Russia’s resurgence for the following reasons:

Historical and Cultural Ties: Putin views Ukraine as an inseparable part of Russian history and culture. He has argued that Ukrainians and Russians are one people, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and nationhood.

Strategic Importance: Ukraine’s geographic location is critical. It serves as a gateway to Europe and provides access to critical resources and infrastructure, including gas pipelines.

Democratic Threat: Ukraine’s pivot toward democracy and the West threatens Putin’s governance model. A successful, Western-aligned Ukraine could inspire opposition within Russia, challenging and putting his government risk and making it vulnerable to the West.

4. The Influence of the USSR Legacy

While Putin may not be trying to restore the USSR, his policies are shaped by its legacy:

Sphere of Influence: Like the USSR, Putin seeks to maintain dominance over former Soviet republics. This is evident in Russia’s involvement in Belarus, Georgia, and Central Asia, as well as its military presence in regions like Transnistria.

Soviet-Era Narratives: The Kremlin often uses Soviet history to justify its actions, portraying Russia as a defender against Western aggression and a protector of Slavic unity.

5. Implications for the West and Ukraine

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine reflects broader geopolitical goals rather than a specific desire to recreate the USSR. However, his actions have significant implications as follows:

Global Polarization: The invasion has heightened tensions between Russia and the West, evoking Cold War-era dynamics.

Ukrainian Sovereignty: Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s independence mirrors Soviet imperialism, leading to fears of further aggression toward other former Soviet states.

Russian Domestic Politics: The war reinforces Putin’s narrative of a besieged Russia, rallying domestic support despite economic sanctions and international condemnation, of which Russia doesn’t care much.

Conclusion: A New Empire, Not the USSR

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is less about restoring the USSR and more about reshaping Russia’s sphere of influence and security. His vision is rooted in nationalism, security concerns, and a desire to cement Russia’s status as a global power. While he draws on Soviet nostalgia to bolster his domestic image and justify foreign policy, his actions lack the ideological and systemic ambitions of the Soviet Union. Instead, they represent a 21st-century form of Russian imperialism that reflects both the legacy of the USSR and the realities of contemporary geopolitics.