The Foreign Policy In The USSR During And After The Cold War - Essay Example

Compare and Contrast the Foreign Policy in the USSR during and After the Cold War Origin and Overview of The Cold War The cold war which was a rather very prolonged battle of a myriad of threats, posturing and wills between the Capitalistic United States and the Communist Soviet Union, was seen to follow soon after the World War II. By the year 1943, the eventual outcome of the cold war was clear to all the Germany led countries which happened to form the axis powers were eventually totally isolated and dealt with a lot of severity. The disastrous attempt by Germany to try and invade Russia (Bradley, et al. 2002), the intervention by America into the war effort and the Italian support that was seen to tip in favor of the allies were the main factors that contributed to the Allies getting stronger. With the strengthening of the Allies, both Japan and Germany were seen to be effectively contained in their seemingly mad rush to try and procure as much territories as well as armaments all over Asia and Europe. The end of the war in 1945 was marked by Adolf Hitler’s suicide (Goldstein, 2004). The Russian and Allied forces immediately invaded the country of Germany from the east and west respectively. They gradually advanced in their invasion until they met in Berlin whereby they both demarcated the country into two areas of their own support. At this point of demarcation, they built a wall which was later on was referred to as the Berlin wall (Morgan, 2004). There emerged hushed animosity in various other territories that were held by the USSR and the various allies and the only factor that was seen to attempt to keep the two countries at bay and stop them from going to war was their perpetual fear o precipitating a nuclear war. The gradual build up in tension levels, coupled with the increased aversion to war resulted in the coinage of the term “Cold War” (Morgan, 2004). As the animosity between the Communist Soviet Union and the Capitalist United States spread to various countries all over the world, the eventual result was that both Asia and Europe were divided with almost all countries on the two continents being granted the option of willingly pledging their alliance with either of the two powers or being forced into accepting an alliance. Hitler’s suicide and the subsequent end of the World War II was seen to be a crucial catalyst in the ushering in of a new era marked by wide spread decolonization as well as liberation of most of the countries that had previously been enslaved (McCannon, 2010). These newly liberalized countries were seen to be battling with numerous challenges including widespread territorial divisions as well as the problem of having bankrupt economies, this situation inadvertently lead to the countries experiencing large scale exodus of refugees. The Capitalistic and Communist Nations were quick to utilize this opportunity and started to attempt to influence these newly liberated countries by offering them financial aid (Bulliet, 2009). This move by the two opposing powers was seen to further fuel their ongoing rivalry. The Cold War was seen to be mainly characterized by numerous numbers of both international and domestic military coalitions, espionage developments, wide spread armament race, rampant political propaganda as well as particularly destructive technological developments. Gradually, this Cold War saw the development of nuclear arms as well as a space race between the warring countries of the USSR and United States. It happened to be quite ironic that the newly liberated countries were being forced to essentially become part of a world that happened to now be polarized into two factions that forced these countries to essentially align themselves and support either one of the two superpower blocs. However, not all countries opted to join the two super power blocks with countries such as India and Yugoslavia opting to rally and form a global Non-Aligned Movement (Kullaa, 2010). The Cold War was seen to come to close with the collapse of the weakened Soviet Union. This collapse of the Soviet Union was seen to have been precipitated by the implementation of various reform programs by the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. These programs were seen to essentially lay the basis for the eventual opening up of the entire Soviet Union as well all its Satellite states to the influence of liberal and pro-democratic styles of governance (Ethridge and Handleman, 2012). Although this revolution was seen to be largely peaceful, it eventually resulted in the total collapse of the Soviet Union. At its end, the Cold was seen to have spanned a time period of about four decades in addition to having left a legacy that caused the entire world to experience various horrors that are associated with a nuclear arms race including massive deep divisions and ever increasing levels of animosity between various countries. The Foreign Policy in the USSR During the Cold War At the start of the Cold War, the foreign policies that were being enforced and practiced by the USSR were seen to drastically change as the leaders in the country also changed. Joseph Stalin was seen to effectively remain in power after the end of the World War 2 and continued to govern the USSR for a time period of about 8 years. Stalin was seen to practice very straight forward foreign policies that saw him exercise very tight control over USSR’s satellite nations, these nations had been annexed by the Communist Soviet Union during the World War 2 as the Soviet Union gradually pushed West into Europe in a concerted attempt to try and drive back the surging Nazi forces (Clesse, 1994). However, after the war ended, it happened that the Soviet Union did not leave the countries it had invaded during the war but instead annexed them and caused them to become their constituent satellite nations. The divisions that formed between the USSR and the United States generally towards the end of the World War 2 later came to be commonly referred to as the Iron curtain. The use of the term Iron curtain was later to become widely publicized by the British leader Winston Churchill after the end of the World War (Kesselring, 2013). The foreign policies that were practiced by the USSR were seen to have been enforced by various leaders after the death of Stalin. In the ensuing power struggle in the USSR after Stalin’s death, Nikita Khrushchev eventually won the struggle and became the leader in the USSR. He formulated and implemented various foreign polices that were seen to have been quite extensive in nature. The foreign affairs policies enforced by Khrushchev can essentially be divided into various sub categories: Foreign Policy in Eastern Europe: The USSR under Khrushchev tried to constantly ensure that the Soviet Union’s satellite nationals maintained constant loyalty to the USSR. By promoting a de-Stalinization campaign and allowing the country of Yugoslavia to implement a mostly independent approach toward communism in 1955, Khrushchev essentially created an opening that allowed for unrest to occur in Eastern Europe, where the foreign polices that had been enforced by Stalin had been particularly onerous. There were riots in Poland in relation to a change in the country’s communist part leadership. The Soviet Union was forced to reluctantly recognize this change in 1956. There arose a popular uprising against Soviet control in Hungary. This revolt was led by some of the country’s local communist leaders, these leaders were seen to call for the use of a multiparty system in the country as well as the country’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. To enforce its strict control over this satellite country, the Soviet Army effectively crushed this revolt in 1956 in a move that caused numerous causalities. The manner in which the Soviet Union crushed the Hungarian Revolt demonstrated that the Soviet Union would use force to enforce its foreign policy and effectively maintain control over all its satellite states that happened to be in Eastern Europe (Hansen and Curtis, 2010). Western / Eastern Germany: Immediately after the end of World War II, most of the original borders that were created to separate the Soviet Union held East Berlin as well as East Germany and the Allies held East Germany and East Berlin were essentially open and people were generally allowed to move across the border as they pleased. However, the Soviet Union soon became displeased with what they perceived as being a massive “Brain Drain” of people from East Germany as many of the more brilliant Nazi minds of World War 2 (Westad, 2000), who had been mainly instrumental in the development of the V-2 rockets were seen to move from the soviet control part of Germany into the region controlled by the allies. It was this brain drain as well as different plans by the Allies to rebuild Germany that caused Stalin and the Soviet Union to effectively close the border between the two sides of the country in an attempt to force the Allies out of the country. The cutting off all the land and water access to the regions controlled by the Allies, necessitated the Berlin Airlift which was an 11 month operation to try and provide various supplies to people in West Berlin by essentially airlifting these supplies to them. The persistent and sustained airlift that effectively supplied suppliers for the over 2,000,000 Berliners eventually caused the Soviet Union to give up on its attempts to try and starve the Regions controlled by the Allies. However, the now infamous Berlin wall still remained up to the year 1989 when it was eventually brought down (Miller, 2000). Khrushchev foreign policies in China: During the Soviet Union’s early relations with China immediately after the country had experienced a successful communist revolt that had been led by Mao Zedong, the Soviet Union was seen to actively promote the new communist country by offering to provide them with both political support and arms. Mao Zedong had led the effective communist revolt against Jang-Kai-Shek, a leader who was perceived as being mostly democratic and United States backed. After the successful coup, Jang was seen to flee from China and sought seek refuge in Taiwan. In 1959, the Soviet Union almost gave China an atomic weapon but failed to do so. As a result of this, tensions emerged between the two countries and gradually flared up until the two countries almost became enemies (Gill, Kim and SIF, 1995). USSR Foreign Policies in Cuba: The USSR was forced by the United States under JF Kennedy to uninstall the missiles that it had set up in the Cuba. This move to accept the United State’s commands showed a general willingness by Khrushchev to agree to submit to Western demands if by doing so there would be a resultant effect of saving the world from facing a potential nuclear war (Stein, 2009). After Khrushchev, the next leader to come into power in the USSR was Brezhnev. Brezhnev remained in office for a time period of almost 20 years, and the foreign policies he implemented were seen to greatly affect both the Western powers and the United States. Most of the foreign policies adopted by Brezhnev were seen to be mainly adopted from those practiced by Khrushchev, however, the foreign policies enforced by Brezhnev were seen to generally allow for peace talks as well as Western discussions. It was during Brezhnev’s time in office that the now infamous “Red Phone” was installed in his office and acted as the main communication channel between the Soviet Union’s Kremlin government and the United State’s White House (Stein, 2009). The USSR and the Vietnam War: When America Invaded Communist Vietnam, the Soviet Union provided massive support for Vietnam due to the fact that the two countries happened to share similar communist ideologies. The Soviet Union reportedly sent an estimated 3,000 troops into Vietnam. The USSR had also provided most of the leaders in Vietnam with training and as a result most of these Vietnamese leaders had managed to form manly personal ties with some of their Soviet contemporaries. As a result of this, when the war broke out, the Soviet union was instrumental in providing Vietnam with weapons, financial and political backing. The Soviet Union’s troops never directly met any of the Western troops in any battle (Frost, 1993). After Brezhnev, there came into power Cherenkov and Andropov, both of these two leaders each ruled for a time period of less than 3 years. The two leaders were instrumental in quickly and seriously putting down various uprisings such as the Hungarian Revolution and the Afghanistan invasion. The reigns of these two leaders did not result in a reduction of the tension between the USSR and the United States although they managed to reduce the tension between the Soviet Union and china. The last Soviet leader was Mikhail Gorbachev. The main foreign policies that characterized Gorbachev’s time in power were mainly his Petroiska policy, that attempted to implement widespread economic restructures in the USSR and his Glasnot policy that was seen to try and promote openness in the USSR’s dealings with the West. Gorbachev is seen as having been responsible for essentially setting the stage allowing the USSR to fall back in its ongoing competition with the United States. Gorbachev also allowed some Western influences such as foreign radio signals into the USSR. The hundreds of political prisoners that had been captured during the course of the Cold War were also released during his time in office (history.com, 2013). The eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union was seen to happen rather unexpectedly and quite rapidly and the Soviet Union as well as its influence were seen to essentially vanish. The Foreign Policies in the USSR after the Cold War With the break up of the Soviet union and the end of the Cold War, Russia has at various times followed foreign policies that were quite similar to those that were being used by the allies in their relations with each other while at other times, Russia has opted to implement policies that can essentially be perceived as being quite hostile in nature. After the Cold War, the United States became the leading super power in both Asia and Europe which had previously been under widespread Russian influence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, America managed to largely retain its superpower status and this has allowed it to have relatively unmatched global supremacy in addition to its having retained most of o its allies as well as various armies across both continents (Aneek, 2010). Opposing American Power Early in his term, the Russian President Putin actively opposed the setting up of a National Missile Defense system that was referred to as the “Star Wars” (Donaldson and Nogee, 2005). He was seen to effectively oppose this system by offering the proposal that Russia should be the host of an internal conference in 2001 that would aim to prevent any militarization of space. Russia is also seen to offer strong support for the entire frame work of the Mutually Assured Destruction, and President Putin has been seen to threaten the United States that if it opted to abandon the MAD, Russia would essentially stop perceiving itself as being bond by any of the Russian-US control agreements. Trying to Influence NATO Russia is seen as strongly opting to use various diplomatic niceties as well as negotiation in its approach to dealing with both the EU as well as in its membership to NATO. NATO is seen to having essentially have been established in the late 1940s mainly in opposition to the influence of Russian power. The NATO organization is seen as creating problems for Russia in all its efforts to exert considerable pressure to various European states as well as in its attempts to try and gain global influence. This is mainly because the organization forces Russia to a position where it does not deal with several single weakened military states but it essentially deal with the whole of NATO. This has caused Russia to try and encourage the various European states to opt to take various decisions outside the basic NATO structure. Russia is also seen to actively support various alternative bodies to NATO such as the United Nations. Russia’s critical opposition to NATO’s various expansion efforts saw it propose a structure that was to see Russia and NATO jointly guarantee the security of Easter Europe, this move that was opposed by NATO would have seen Russia generally gain Rival or equal status with NATO as well as actively depriving NATO any special role in Eastern Europe (Oleynik, Alexander and IBP, 2000). President Putin has been seen as having attempted to build relationships with some of the existing EU member states in a manner that is seen to be somewhat contradicting these countries membership in both NATO and the EU. Russia perceives NATO as generally being an American-lead alliance that is essentially intent on attempting to try and ensure that the United States receives most of the available European support in opposition to any of Russia’s national interests or even views. Attempting to Effect and Promote Regional Hegemony When the United States first implemented the “Monroe Doctrine” that saw it actively demand that the rest of the world would in no way intervene in the United State’s sphere of interest that was generally seen to span from South to North America (Meiertöns, 2010) Russia soon followed suit by creating its own “Soviet” ‘Monroe Doctrine’ (Arbatov, 1997). The assertion of the Monroe Doctrine for Russia saw it define the whole area spanning over the region of the former Soviet Union as being essentially of vital interest to the overall Russian National Interest. The Russian President Yeltsin actively appealed to the UN asking the organization to grant Russia special powers allowing it to act as the main guarantor of not only stability, but also of peace in the entire region spanning over the former Soviet Union. This move was successful as the Security Council effectively laid out a new Foreign Policy Concept that saw it declare Russia as the official stability guarantor in the entire region of the Soviet Union (Sakwa, 2008). In its own national Security Concept that it set up in 2000, Russia listed the growing strengthening of various military alliances and especially NATO’s gradual eastward bond expansion as being possible threats for the country (Pouliot, 2010). It was in the same year that Sergei Ivanov was seen to warn that Russia was basically, adequately counter the alliance in response. Bibliography Aneek, C., 2010. International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications. Pearson Education India. Arbatov, G. A., 1997. Managing conflict in the former Soviet Union : Russian and American perspectives. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : MIT Press. Bradley, N. J., Buell, B. T., Dice, W. J., and United States Military Academy. Dept. of History. 2002. The Second World War. [Garden City Park, NY] : Square One Publishers. Bulliet, W. R., et al. 2009. The earth and its peoples : a global history. Boston : Houghton Mifflin. Clesse, A. et al. 1994. The international system after the collapse of the east-west order. Dordrecht ; Boston : M. Nijhoff. Donaldson, H. R., and Nogee, L. J. 2005. The foreign policy of Russia : changing systems, enduring interests. Armonk, N.Y. : M.E. Sharpe. Ethridge, E. M., and Handelman, H., 2012. Politics in a changing world : a comparative introduction to political science. Boston, MA : Cengage Learning. Frost, F., 1993. Vietnam's foreign relations : dynamics of change. Singapore : Inst. of Southeast Asian Studies. Gill, B., Kim, T., and SIF. 1995. China's arms acquisitions from abroad : a quest for 'superb and secret weapons'. Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press ; [Stockholm] : [Almqvist Wiksell International] [[distributör]]. Goldstein, J. M., 2004. World War II. Europe. Minneapolis : Lerner Publications. Hansen, V., and Curtis, R. K., 2010. Voyages in world history. Boston, MA : Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. history.com. 2013. Perestroika and Glasnost. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/perestroika-and-glasnost Kesselring, M., 2013. How to analyze the works of Winston Churchill. Minneapolis, MN : Abdo Publishing Co. Kullaa, R., 2010. Non-alignment and its origins in Cold War Europe : Yugoslavia, Finland and the Soviet challenge. London : Tauris Academic Studies. McCannon, J., 2010. Barron's AP world history. Hauppauge, N.Y. : Barron's. Meiertöns, H., 2010. The doctrines of US security policy : an evaluation under international law. Cambridge [U.K.] ; New York, N.Y. : Cambridge University Press. Miller, G. R., 2000. To save a city : the Berlin airlift, 1948-1949. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press. Morgan, K., 2011. The Cold War. Edina, Minn. : ABDO Pub. Co. Oleynik, I., Alexander, N. and International Business Publications, USA. 2000. Russian economic, political, business & ecological risk atlas. Washington, D.C. : International Business Publications, USA. Pouliot, 2010. International Security in Practice. Cambridge University Press. Sakwa, R. 2008. Russian Politics and Society. Routledge. Stein, C. R., 2009. Cuban Missile Crisis : in the shadow of nuclear war. Berkeley Heights, NJ : Enslow. Westad, A. O., 2000. Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory ; Nobel Symposium 107. Routledge. Read More