The USSR in the Context of the Cold War: the Foreign Policy of the United States - Essay Example

The End of Cold War Introduction Cold war began immediately after World War II as the U. S, and the Soviet Union battled to install respectively the capitalist economists in post –war Europe and the entire world.1 Many different ideologies have come up in a bid to contemplate why the cold war ended unpredicted. Many views simply refer Cold war as the ‘war of words’ between various nations and states. From the third world across the countries of Eastern Europe and in reference to the once divided German to the American Midwest the cold war made its presence felt after it inserted itself into the economies of the two protagonists, and shaped political choices of people, as well as, determined the outcomes of the elections. Moreover, it sets parameters on human rights and helps in the promotion of democracy in some countries and authoritarian in others. One side of the scholars argue that ideologies that are conflicting were of no relevance and both sides were in a position to use rhetoric concepts to conceal their real interests and intentions. This was basically placed on the analysis that was last done with regard to the neorealist theory of Kenneth Waltz’s. However, Waltz does not discuss much about the ideology but relies heavily on the two structural features of international politics to expound on the interaction between states in general and the super power in particular.2 In fact, Waltz speaks more of unequal distribution of capabilities with the inclusion of anarchic nature of the international system. According to him, there is the presence of frequent patterns of foreign policy behaviour that flows naturally from the two features although other variants of realism offer related but in difference kind of predictions. Additionally, realist who belong to neoclassical ideology argue that great power behaviour cannot be properly understood without taking into account one or two domestic level factors which include perception of threats that are external or relative power. Never the less, they agree with Waltz that the lawless scenery of the global scheme and the unequal distribution of capabilities which were constrained determined the US and soviet foreign policy decisions.3 Contrary to this, several scholars including John Gaddis argue that conflict took place due to the incompatible ideologies which ended up after the soviet ideology lost its hostile and antagonistic edge. The scholars further refuted claims that in the absence of clashing ideologies, structural conditions would be enough to spark a fierce rivalry between the US and Soviet Union. Scholar like Richard Rosecrance and Arthur Stein argues that any assessments that focused on narrow constituents of realism which include material power was capable of changing in distribution and the threat prevailing externally were radically incomplete, a situation that did not account for what he US and the Soviet Union did way beyond the year 1947.4 Arguing in the same light was John Mueller who contended that the Marxist ideology shaped Soviet foreign policy and that the liberal democratic values were intrinsic to the goals of US. The perspective implied that ideological considerations overdid the two superpower concerns about the balance of power. Criticism is said to have risen in regard to the neo-realism theory which was not in a position to predict the end of the cold war. Additionally, the theory was not able to explain how the war would end up either peaceful or none peacefully. Hence it was regarded as a major fail as it was one of the theories that claimed to be in a position to predict on several war and conflict issues. The binary opposition has limits especially when there is an attempt to understand the complexity of history. With the trials of understanding what the policymakers have done, it is necessary to understand that motives are seldom clear cut. The most hidden documents do not reveal reasons as to why US and Soviet acted during this period. Moreover, it is difficult to understand what the documentary records reflect in relation to the actual decision making process.5 If anything leaders may choose to put their intention on record since they might not be sure why they did certain things at different times. Moreover, policies may be interpreted in various ways. Of importance to note is the possibility that neither structure nor ideology accounts for super power between 1947 and 1989.6 There are also the cognitive responses and mind sets of US and Soviet officials, importance of advisers, culture among other issues. In essence, the greater parts of the cold war was dominated by the concern from many people were concerned with ensuring that the war did not turn out to be harder or ‘hot’ as compared to thinking more about the end of the war. In fact, the cold war continued in spite of the several statements and schemes that made the announcement of it premature end. Initially, the last observation expounded on the great intellectual conundrums of the post period of the cold war. The phenomenon dissected to the nth degree for a while before it showed signs of fatigue which was followed by visible wilt and finally passed away in the late 1980’s, a situation that surprised both the intellectual and the policy making community.7 This was followed by an explanation from the experts on the conclusion of the war. They defended themselves with the issue that their mandate was to explain the end of the cold war but not to predict it. In the United States, the declassification of the materials during the Cold war greatly enriched the ideological study that led to more influence in the foreign policy of the United States although hit was not present in the soviet. Never the less, the analyses of the ideological role that were made in the Soviet foreign policy.8 The emergence of more evidence within the archives of the Soviet –bloc made it possible for further investigation on what the motives in which the Soviet foreign policy played. One main consequence revolved around according ideology greater reputation after being neglected for years due to the notion that ideology was not importance in reference to the Cold war.9 However, in the bid to bring the concept of ideology back, there was a real danger of giving short shifts to the importance of material interests. Even though there was the issue of ideological clash being anticipated to bring a standard great power rivalry of competition in the globe. Certainly, different from anticipating change in the cold war system, most of the observers before 1989 made more assumption to the continuity of the war as opposed to change. In their view, the cold war created an international expression of a profound and incompatible differences between two well established and well defined social systems. If anything the possibility of failure from either of them were beyond normal understanding. Basically, the failure to anticipate the end of cold war was as a result of the generally flawed understanding of the Soviet Union. However, this did not in any way suggest that those who were involved in the analyzition of the USSR were aware of its defects or implied that they could not be able to contemplate the fact that the system was in crisis. Never the less, the majority of the commentators did not foresee the possibility of having the defects and problems which would lead to the end of soviet power. Other reasons that lead to the end of the cold war include the American pressure politics and the purported part that was played by the peace movement which played the role of eroding bloc system in Europe. Thus, the main issues on reasons why the cold war are inadequately described by the neorealist and realist explanations. The crucial event which happen in the year 1989 was spurred basically by the changes in the ideologies that were related to the Soviet Union, a situation that paved way for a new Soviet policy in the eastern side of Europe which gradually ignited the end of the cold war as well as, the reconfiguration of the international system.10 In this light, the greater emphasis that has been given to the ideological role in the foreign policy of the Soviet has clearly been warranted. Often, though scholars have been seen to draw conflicting conclusion on how the war ended form the limited evidences that have been available. Many western analysts have been surprised to discover that the Marxist new formulations in newly declassified materials and transcripts that contain secret discussions. Indeed, some of formulations were peculiar, although most surprising is the large number of archive items that are free. Conclusion The cold war and its coming to an end created discussions and controversy in the world that any other said phenomenon. In fact, the possibility of the war coming to an end was neither on the radar of the scholars, the political era and the military as a whole. Hence, the end of war could have been predicted by the way in which the USSR was understood by the emerging group of new social scientists, and the left thoughts of the about the USSR in the context of the war. Bibliography: Appy, C., Cold war constructions: the political culture of United States imperialism, 1945-1966. (Amherst: Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 2000). Ganske, C., U.S. Foreign policy and the end of the Cold War. (München GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2008). Hogan, M., The end of the Cold War: its meaning and implications. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994). Kramer, M., ‘ideology and the cold war’, review of international studies 25/4 (2004), 539-576. Lebow, R.N., ‘The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism’, International Organization 48/2 (1994) 77. Lebow, R., International relations theory and the end of the Cold War. (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1995) Sheehan, S., The Cold War. (North Mankato, Minn.: Smart Apple Media, 2003). Whitfield, S., The culture of the Cold War. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). Read More