resurgence of the cold war: a continuation of the conflict

Running Heading: RESURGENCE OF THE COLD WAR 1

Resurgence of the Cold War: A Continuation of the Conflict Between the

United States and the Russian Federation

Delaney Hollis

Global Studies and Maritime Affairs

California State University Maritime Academy

RESURGENCE OF THE COLD WAR 2

Abstract

For the greater part of the twentieth century the United States and the Union of Soviet Socalist

Republics (USSR) were the two superpowers governing the world’s agenda. Due to vastly

differing political and ideological agendas a war unlike any seen before developed between the

two superpowers. The Cold War was a period of political turmoil and tension between the U.S.

and USSR from 1945 till 1991. Then at the height of it all, due to economic and political

reforms, the USSR collapsed during 1991. Out of the ruin came the newly named Russian

Federation. Despite a new constitution for the government and a privatized economy, the

Russian’s political agenda has not changed and has continued its predecessors aggressive

policies. The Cold War has reemerged with the same key players, causing senseless deaths and

excessive political turmoil.

Figure 1: (A combined flag of the Soviet Union and Russia, 2017).


Resurgence of the Cold War: A Continuation of the Conflict

Between the United States and the Russian Federation

To be able to understand the relationship between the Russian Federation and the United

States, it is vital to understand Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union. The past two decades

there have been accusations of campaign interferences, restrictive tariffs, and violations of

international laws between the United States and Russia. The strained relationship between the

two countries is a deeper relationship than most generations in the United States realize. There is

a poignant background of the Cold War tainting the waters. The Cold War was a period of

indirect conflict through proxy wars and armament competition between the United States and

then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from 1945 till 1991. The countries were allies during

World War II due to necessity to defeat Nazi Germany. The aftermath of the war left two

superpowers, the U.S. and Soviet Union, both with strong ideologies and military strength. The

next four decades would bring proxy wars, vast amounts of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and

fear for national security that would provide great motivation. Then the Soviet Union collapsed

due to economic failure and political reform allowing the Russian Federation to come to be. The

Russian Federation has had two major leaders thus far in its existence, Boris Yeltsin and

Vladimir Putin. Looking closer at present day activities, are the relations between the countries

any better than at the height of the Cold War? A new political leader may be in power, and the

United States may have been the only world superpower for a few years, but proxy wars, large

productions of armaments, breaches of security, and violations of international laws are

occurring at an alarming rate. World politics looks worse than it did at the height of the Cold

War due to Russia’s aggressive foreign policies.


Literature Review

There are many ideas of the origins of the Cold War. Many factors led to the aggression

between the United States and the USSR and these are crucial to understanding the current

relationship between the Russian Federation and the United States today. The factors include

ideological differences, varying political agendas, and threat of security which are all still present

today. Gaddis (2000) highlights the exaggeration of the ideological challenges created by the

Soviet Union by American politicians to create a necessity to act swiftly and strongly against

Communism. Postwar confrontations could have been avoided if the end of WWII was handled

differently and less aggressively to the Soviet Union. Gaddis blames the fear of the differences in

ideology as the most important reason as to why Cold War began. In addition to ideology,

Gaddis argues that much of the Cold War could have been avoided if only the United States had

relinquished its monopoly on the atomic bomb. Gaddis does a thorough job explaining the

motives or fears behind the United States actions of not relinquishing any help to the Soviet

Union in fear of endangering American security. He accuses American leaders of lacking the

foresight to see the danger this would come to cause and sees them as the main source to blame.

Graebner (1969) touches upon the inevitable point of friction that occurs when the world

has two major powers struggling for world leadership. Graebner disagrees that the struggle for

power between the two countries is of modern history and refers to the situation as a historical

confrontation. The tensions began during the United States attempts to intervene with the

Bolshevik revolution. An interesting ideological point for the United States to take offense of as

there could be parallels drawn between the Bolshevik Revolution and the American Revolutions

ideological standings for freedom of the limited wealthy and powerful. The ideology behind the


Bolshevik Revolution was more radical and only set out to protect a limited population of the

country. Hammond (1986) blames the poor relations on the contradictory goals of what was to

become of Eastern Europe after WWII. The Soviet Union was after military security and

economic exploitation while America’s goals were more idealistic and theoretical, having little

threat to American security. The Atlantic Charter and Wilson’s Four Freedoms are examples of

the sentimental notions America held for Easter Europe and yet had no direct effect on American

security. Despite the initial lack of a threat, the United States pushed the Soviets into a corner,

making their already bruised egos burn with hatred. There was no single reason for the Cold

War. It took multiple events and policies to fuel the fire. The United States saw the Bolshevik

Revolution as a detriment to the Soviet people. It took away many freedoms, scattering and

ruining resources all across the country. According to Trani and Davis (2017), the revolution

brought about a total reform of the Russian army and a move toward expansionist foreign policy.

This was seen by Woodrow Wilson as a necessary threat.

Gould-Davies (1999) argues that ideology, and primacy of power and security both

played vital roles in the origins of the Cold War. I disagree with the statement that ideology plays

no role in foreign policy and agree with Gould-Davies that plays just as an important role as the

threat of security and power play in the international theater. Hunt (1996) points out the WWII

alliance of the Soviet Union and the United States upon military necessity, without this to fall

back upon, and both strengthening with opposite ideologies, it was inevitable for tensions to

escalate. Gould-Davies and Hunt have the strongest arguments to explain the origins of the Cold

War. Their arguments support my reasoning as to how these original issues have resurfaced in

contemporary times and help support the argument that the Cold War never ended.


The Cold War is defined by a multiple of events. Most notably, the Soviet Union’s spread

of Communism, mass production of armaments by both superpowers, and multiple violations of

international laws by both countries in attempts to prohibit the others growth. Looking at the past

three decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is evident that the Cold War did not end

when the Russian Federation came to be. Production and distribution of armaments, proxy wars

in the Middle East, violations of international laws like the annexation of Crimea, and aggressive

policy enforced by both countries supports the statement that the Cold War never ended.

The United States and the Soviet Union both had growing economies, full of vast

resources, and growing power. For the purpose of this paper, Russians will refer to those who

inhabited land within the borders of the Soviet Union from 1900 to the Russian Federation, till

present day. Come the dawn of the twentieth century, despite the emancipation reform of 1861,

many Russians were still tied to land and private property of gentry (Seville, 2017). Not until the

fall of the Romanov Empire would real change affect the country. The Bolshevik Revolution

brought about great movements of Russian people, who no longer serfs or low paid workers

forced to stay with their gentry, were free to move about the state (Markevich and Mikhailova,

2012). This freedom would be short lived as the Soviet Union would soon come to power and

take control of all social, political, and economical components. The Soviet Union would resettle

populations to the Siberian and Far East Regions for vast investment programs to harvest

untouched natural resources. The United States did not approve of the Bolshevik Revolution, of

Stalin’s ideals, and the formation of the Soviet Union (Gaddis, 2000). Nor did Woodrow Wilson

expect the new government to last. Wilson chose to ignore the revolution and expected it to

collapse shortly (Davis & Trani, 2017). The United States did not recognize the Soviet Union


until 1933 due to its disapproval of the Bolshevik Revolution and could be arguably one of the

first points of tension between the two growing powers, a lack of validity (Gaddis, 2000).

Relations continued to sour as the new government started its political purges, despite the respect

gained from the Soviet’s economic achievements (Gaddis, 2000). Due to its pacts with Germany

and Japan, invasion of Finland, and purges, the United States view the Soviet Union as a cruel

dictatorship, only slightly less repuslive than Nazi Germany (Gaddis). The two countries differed

greatly in their ideas of the international realm (Bialer, 1980) and after World War II, would

come head to head in the Cold War.

Soviet Union in the Cold War

The Allied powers did not agree on solutions post WWII. Britain did not have the power

to support their ideas, and the other two major powers, the United States and the Soviet Union

differed greatly in their ideas of how to bring about and maintain peace post WWII (Gaddis,

2000). As the Soviet Union promoted the spread of communism, the Western world feared for

the new found peace and freedoms of the world. The United States was left a super power after

the war, due to a thriving war time economy. The country saw it as its duty to protect those who

could not protect themselves, and especially in the case of the Soviet Union spreading

Communism. Relations between the U.S. and Soviet Union comprised of the central axis of

international relations after the end of WWII until the late twentieth century. The Soviet Union

posed the only long-term military and ideological threat to the survival of Western Civilization

(Bialer, 1980). The United States posed as the only threat to Soviet security. Such aggressive

actions were taken against each other because strong ideologues like those of Communism

cannot cooperate with adversaries (Gould-Davies, 2017). The matter of security was one of the


largest most prominent themes of the Cold War. Every action done by either the United States or

the Soviet Union could be explained as a matter of security and need for protection (Fleming,

1961).

Figure 2: Soviet Union Administrative Divisions 1984 (U.S. Central Intelligence

Agency, n.d.).

After WWII, the world order change. Germany was divided into two sectors, colonies

still existed in Southeast Asia, and the United States and Soviet Union were the two superpowers

left in international relations. The two superpowers had drastically different ideologies. The end

of WWII created a power vacuum for the United States and Soviet Union in East and Southeast

Asia. The United States foreign policies were to promote democracy to create international


stability, and free markets through capitalism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics promoted

Communism, a political theory which promoted publicly owned goods by the people.

Communism would evolve into socialism in Cambodia and Vietnam during the 60s and 70s.

Socialism differs from communism, as the government owns all public goods and disperse them

to the people. No one owns anything. The Cold War was a tumultuous time. The United States

and Soviet Union competition constantly in weapon productions, racing to space, and spreading

their different ideologies. The US during this time had a policy of containment, working to keep

Communism confined to the USSR. The international competition for ideological domination

created the Military Industrial Complex. The United States had a physical presence in both the

Korean War and the Vietnam War. There were a few years between the end and start of the two,

during which time a descaling of the Defense Department budget was proposed, but the Vietnam

War created a demand for military equipment (DeConde et al, p. 406, 2002). Not only did

American defense companies provide weapons to the United States military, it also provided

weapons to all of the countries allies as well. Other countries allied with the United States’

policy of containment.

Spreading Communism

The Soviet Union dictated world politics with the United States from 1945 till 1989. The

country’s power and decision making was highly centralized and undemocratic (Cusak & Ward,

p. 3, 1981). The Soviet Union pushed Communism throughout Africa and Asia during its reign.

The country supplied aid and weapons to insurgent groups to over throw governments in favor of

Communism. The Soviet Union was a single unitary state administration. It encompassed

Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorussia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia, to name a


few. All states had establish Communist styles of government or had them forced upon them by

the Soviet Union (Service, 2003). The United States foreign policies during the 1960s and 1970s

were focused on stopping the spread of Communism. The Communist Manifesto condemned

millions of people in Eastern Europe and throughout other reaches of the world to a life without

freedom (Torrey & Kingkade, 1990). The United States saw Communism as “a hostile ideology -

global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method” (Ledbetter,

p. 7, 2011). The Soviet Union stood for ideas vastly different than those of the United States and

the freedoms it granted its citizens. The Soviet Union viewed the United States with the same

contempt and fear for its national security as did the US.

Prior to holding presidential office, Dwight D. Eisenhower was NATO’s Supreme

Commander.Former President Eisenhower was elected into presidential office in 1953. Richard

Nixon would serve as his Vice President for both terms of presidency. Initial objectives of

Eisenhower’s presidency were to bring the Korean War to an end, decrease of nuclear deterrence

to protect the American peoples, and promote an anti-communist Russia policy. Eisenhower

wished to find a peaceful use for nuclear materials instead of exaggerating mutually assured

destruction between Russia and the US. He proposed the idea of disarmament to the Soviets,

after they successfully created and tested a hydrogen bomb in 1955. The disarmament proposal,

Atoms of Peace, proposed using nuclear materials in power generation plants instead of

weapons. A response was never given in return from the Soviets. The United States policy then

took a turn towards arms control rather than disarmament. By this time in history, there was a

fear of the Domino Theory. If one country in Southeast Asia fell to communism many others

were sure to follow. Later in time, the Domino Theory would prove correct. It would be during


the Vietnam war further down the line that would greatly aggravate the Military Industrial

Complex. Another crucial part of Eisenhower’s presidency was the Space Race. America and the

Soviet Union were working diligently to be the first country in space. Eisenhower’s policy

towards space exploration was non-aggressive, working to allow “space-crafts of any state to

overfly all states, a region free of military posturing and launch Earth satellites to explore space”

(Ledbetter, p. 30). Eisenhower’s Open Skies Policy would be rejected by Soviet Union at the

1955 Geneva Convention. He was attempting to create an international institution to help

promote peace and cooperation while working towards space exploration. NASA, a civilian

space agency cooperating with scientists and promoting education, would later be created, in

response to the Open Skies Policy rejection, in 1958. Eisenhower worked diligently throughout

his presidency to promote international peace and cooperation. Yet one man cannot control the

events of the world. He would be successful in bring the Korean War to a close which had

started in 1950. The Korean War gave credibility to the fears of the Cold War, helping to solidify

the need for constant armaments. Though troubles in Asia would not be over. By 1953, France

was at war in Southeast Asia, the First Indochina War. American help was requested. Ground

troops were not sent, but rather bombers and some non combat personnel. An analysis completed

by his Chief of State, showed the exuberant costs if mass military deployment was sent to aid.

States in the region were unstable. By the end of his presidency, Eisenhower warned the next

administration of his fears of the collapse of the region. Eisenhower’s Farewell address, given in

1961, is reminiscent on

“on a single sentence: ‘In the councils of government, we must guard against the

acquisition of unwarranted influences, whether sought or unsought, by the


military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power

exists and will persist” (Ledbetter, p. 2).

For a President, what would have inspired him to give such an ominous warning to America?

Eisenhower had been in either the American military or government. He knew how the world

worked and understood the potential for corruption and abuse of such a system. The MIC is

defined as “a network of public and private forces that combine a profit motive with the planning

and implementation of strategic policy” (Ledbetter, p. 6). Eisenhower was trying to warn the

public of allowing military industries to influence government policy. He stressed the importance

of democracy, that it is the responsibility of the citizens’ of America to keep this from

happening. Despite his heavy warning, the Military Industrial Complex has run rampant

throughout foreign policy since Eisenhower was in office.

Nuclear Arms Race

The nuclear arms race was a major byproduct of the Cold War. The competition between

the U.S. and Soviets led to mass production of weapons and with in the United States, and the

subsequent creation Military Industrial Complex. Former President Eisenhower was elected into

presidential office in 1953. Richard Nixon would serve as his Vice President for both terms of

presidency. Initial objectives of Eisenhower’s presidency were to bring the Korean War to an

end, decrease of nuclear deterrence to protect the American peoples, and promote an

anti-communist Russia policy. Eisenhower wished to find a peaceful use for nuclear materials

instead of exaggerating mutually assured destruction between Russia and the US. He proposed

the idea of disarmament to the Soviets, after they successfully created and tested a hydrogen

bomb in 1955. The disarmament proposal, Atoms of Peace, proposed using nuclear materials in


power generation plants instead of weapons. A response was never given in return from the

Soviets. The United States policy then took a turn towards arms control rather than disarmament.

By this time in history, there was a fear of the Domino Theory. If one country in Southeast Asia

fell to communism many others were sure to follow. Later in time, the Domino Theory would

prove correct. It would be during the Vietnam war further down the line that would greatly

aggravate the Military Industrial Complex. Another crucial part of Eisenhower’s presidency was

the Space Race. America and the Soviet Union were working diligently to be the first country in

space. Eisenhower’s policy towards space exploration was non-aggressive, working to allow

“space-crafts of any state to overfly all states, a region free of military posturing and launch

Earth satellites to explore space” (Ledbetter, p. 30). Eisenhower’s Open Skies Policy would be

rejected by Soviet Union at the 1955 Geneva Convention. He was attempting to create an

international institution to help promote peace and cooperation while working towards space

exploration. NASA, a civilian space agency cooperating with scientists and promoting education,

would later be created, in response to the Open Skies Policy rejection, in 1958. Eisenhower

worked diligently throughout his presidency to promote international peace and cooperation. Yet

one man cannot control the events of the world. He would be successful in bringing the Korean

War to a close which had started in 1950. The Korean War gave credibility to the fears of the

Cold War, helping to solidify the need for constant armaments. Though troubles in Asia would

not be over. By 1953, France was at war in Southeast Asia, the First Indochina War. American

help was requested. Ground troops were not sent, but rather bombers and some non combat

personnel. An analysis completed by his Chief of State, showed the exuberant costs if mass

military deployment was sent to aid. States in the region were unstable. Due to the fear of more


states conforming to Communism, the United States started mass production of arms to better

supply its military and allies. During Eisenhower’s two terms as president, “the American

nuclear stockpile grew from about 1,000 warheads in 1952 to approximately 23,000,” (Ledbetter,

p. 4) by 1961 despite his efforts to redirect nuclear weapons to civil projects. Weapons piled up

until the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred when nuclear war almost occurred. There was deep

suspicion on both sides of one another (Soviet Secrecy, 2012). Soviet politics were full of

deception and deceit, something deeply ingrained in Russians from historical invasions from

Sweden, and Napoleon.

The Soviet Union matched the United States efforts and produce mass amounts of

weapons. Come the 1970s, the two superpowers would agree to limit the growth of their nuclear

arsenals with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (Mendelsohn, 1999). Like its counterpart in

the United States, the Soviet Union dedicated large sectors of revenue to create and expand its

nuclear weapons arsenal. SALT negotiations were difficult due in part to the Soviets’ secrecy.

The Soviets also lacked large media coverage like the U.S. (Soviet Secrecy, 2012). The Soviets

got information regarding missile launches thanks to the media coverage while in turn the U.S.

could get very little information from the Soviets’ controlled and limited media coverage. This

lack of information and openness led to the U.S. creating worse case scenarios than what the

Soviets’ were able to actually commit. Vasts amounts of funding went into projects to build,

engineer, and store armaments like nuclear weapons, all while supplying jobs to those in the

American economy, a slight parallel to those in the Soviet Union.

Vietnam War: A major component of the Cold War was the involvement of the Soviet Union

and the United States in the Vietnam War. The Soviet Union attempted to spread the ideology of


Communism throughout regions it could reach. The Southeast Asian territory at the time was

still a French colony. It would not be until 1945 that Vietnam would become independent. The

spread of Communism was one of the major fears of the United States during the Cold War. It

was one of the major drivers for the United States’ Containment policy and involvement in proxy

wars an involvement in wars like the Vietnam War with the Soviet Union. Containment foreign

policy played a larger role in American politics for decades, even when it was no longer a threat.

Present day knowledge shows that Containment style rhetoric was used by American politicians

to get the general public to initially support entering the Vietnam War (Proctor, 2009). The Cold

War instilled such great fear in the public. The creation of nuclear weapons and the vast surplus

of their production made many Americans no longer feel safe on their own soil. This fear helped

fuel the support of any military efforts made to contain Communism. Again, the theme of a

threat to security reappears and any efforts to protect that security is justified. Tens of thousands

of American soldiers died, the draft was instituted, and public opinion of the American

government severely faltered, and all for what? To establish the political goals of a few

politicians. The situation was exacerbated by politicians to reach their own goals, something not

unlike the characteristics of those in power in the Soviet Union. Though the actions of Soviet

leaders were a lot worse, it was a new phenomenon to occur within home soil for America,

something the country would watch and unfold with the release of classified documents call the

Pentagon Papers.

Afghanistan: The Soviet Union’s interests in Afghanistan were due to the country’s close

proximity to warm water ports via the Mediteranina and the Indian Ocean, a vital resource the

USSR could use to their benefit. Afghanistan’s borders changed with the recognition of the


Durand Line in the nineteenth century, but the Soviet’s interests remain well into the twentieth

century. By the 1950’s the countries were trading Soviet Oil for Afghan wool and cotton, raw

materials the Soviets needed (Riedel, p. 12, 2014). The Soviet Union provided aid to

Afghanistan. By 1979, Afghanistan received more than $1 billion in military aid and $1.25

billion in economic aid. From the Soviets, which pales in comparison to the United States $25

million given for military aid (Reidel, p. 13). The Afghani government played the two nations

against one another, but the Soviets had closer geographical proximity and had no need to

appease Pakistan as well.

Over time, Afghanistan’s government would lose favor with the public and the Soviet

Union would intervene. A coup occurred in April of 1978, but it would not appease the Soviet’s

fears. On Christmas Day in 1979, the Soviets would invade Afghanistan to quelch the uprising

against the government and preserve the communist regime (Reidel, p. 24). The ensuing war

would last for almost ten years and lead to the creation of a Soviet Afghanistan. The Brezhnev

Doctrine was a key piece of Soviet foreign policy that justified the invasion of any Soviet state to

protect communism and capitalism. The Doctrine started with the Invasion of Hungary in 1956

and in the invasions of Cszechoslovakian in 1968, ending Prague Spring. The Soviet Union

separated and marginalized numerous ethnic groups along it 60 year reign and the Russian

Federation has continued that. In 1960s King Mohammad Zahir Shah established free elections,

political rights, and women’s education. By this time the country was of interest of the US and

USSR During the Cold War, any action by the Soviet Union was closely monitored by the

United States. The King’s cousin, Mohammed Daoud Khan would stage a bloodless coup that

would overthrow the king. In an attempt to unify ethnic group, Pashtun people, who were


separated by the pakistani border. Declared himself the new president and Prime Minister of the

new Afghan republic in 1973. His Pashtun nationalism was not appreciated by other ethinc

groups. The new opposition was treated with a strickening of civil liberties. Daoud Khan was not

supported by the left wing and traditionalist groups in the country.

Come April of 1978, a revolution ousted Khan and installing the Communist People’s

Democratic Party of Afghanistan with full Soviet support. (Westermann & Air Univ, p. 2,

1997).

Hafizullah Amin became the new prime minister. He supported new policies in the region like

women’s rights and initiated tax and land reform which were invasive to the self sufficient rural

people. The radical Prime Minister sturred riots. President Nur Muhammad Taraki called in

Soviet aid to combat the riots and were handled with execution and imprisonment. The Prime

Minister had the President killed when he became aware of the President’s plans to outs him

from government. With Taraki killed, Amin took over the role of President. Due to Amin’s

political policies, he swiftly lost legitimacy which led to a weakening of the government. The

Soviet’s decided it was necessary to intervene. They planned to remove Amin and pacify the

anarchy in fear of the spread of Islam to Afhgahinstan and further spread to Soviet controlled

Muslim areas (Dibb, p. 496, 2010). The pretext of the Iranian revolution earlier in history of Iran

turning to Islam made the Soviets fearful of hostory repeating itself in Afghanistan and

revolution spreading further up into other nearby Soviet states. The situation escalated to become

the Soviet Afghan War. In 1979, the Soviet’s Red Army invaded Afghanistan by land and air.

Amin was captured, and replaced with Babrak Karmal. The world viewed the situation as an

invasion, but the Soviet’s perceived the situation differently at home. Tribal warlords were


forced to take shelter in hills. Since the Red Army invaded them, the situation led to the situation

being seen as a Jihad or Holy War as the invaders were atheists or orthodox which added a new

dynamic to add to the situation. The warlords united and became the Mujahideen due to their

shared goal of combating the Soviets.

The U.S. became involved in attempts to contain communism. In 1979, the U.S started to

supply arms to the Mujahideen rebels through Pakistan. The U.S. armed the Mujahideen “along

with other interested countries, among them Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China” (Afghanistan:

Nearly 30 years Ago, 2017).The Mujahideen’s shared goals were to gain independence for

Afghanistan and Islamic beliefs. The leader of the Mujahideen was Ahmad Shah Massoud. Their

tactics of guerilla warfare wore out the Soviets slowly. Then in 1986 the United States armed the

Mujahideen with “Stinger antiaircraft missiles - purportedly the first time American-made

weapons were supplied to kill Soviet troops” (Kuperman, p. 219, 1999). The Stinger missiles

were used to accurately shoot down Soviet helicopters. The possession of these weapons by the

Mujahideen had a crippling effect on the Soviets army’s abilities to scale the high mountains that

provided shelter and coverage to the Mujahideen. Soviet airpower had less impact in an

insurgency environment. The Mujahideen was an “ill-equipped and technologically inferior

opponent,” (Westermann & Air Univ, p. 2, 1997), who was able to force the withdrawl of one of

the world’s most powerful militaries.

The General Secretary of the Soviet Union was Leonid Brezhnev who had strong

interventionist policies to maintain Soviet power at all costs. He used military intervention no

matter the cost. This led to the naming of the Brezhnev Doctrine when Soviet power was used to

maintain its control. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary. His policies


differed greatly from his predecessor and had an anti war sentiment. Gorbachev got rid of

Brezhnev Doctrine and started the collapse of Soviet Union and loss of states. This led to the

withdrawl of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, as it was to costly a venture to continue.

Grobachev ordered the withdrawal of Soviet Troops from, the ‘bleeding wound,’ Afghanistan

(Murphy). Involvement in Afghanistan was “a costly drain on the Soviet economy with no clear

victory in sight” (Afghanistan: Nearly 30 years Ago, 2017). In 1988, Gorbachev signed the

Geneva Accords there by agreeing to and start the beginning of Soviet withdrawal from the

region in addition to a promise of no further intervention from the United States, the Soviets, and

Pakistan. The Soviet occupation “further strained relations with the United States” (Afghanistan:

Nearly 30 years Ago, 2017). In 1989, the last of the Red Army left Afghanistan ending the

Soviet-Afghan War. The war was “eight years of military intervention that cost an estimated

10,000 to 15,000 Soviet soldiers their lives and killed or misplace millions of Afghans”

(Afghanistan: Nearly 30 years Ago, 2017). Soviet involvement did not end with the end of the

war. The Mujahideen continued to resist the government of Najibullah and the Soviet Union

continued to provide aid to the government. It would not be until the collapse of the Soviet

Union that aid would finally stop going to Afghanistan. The Soviet Union’s involvement in

Afghanistan made the superpower realize the extend of its influence and reach did have a limit. It

was the first time socialist internationalism and Soviet national interests were not compatible.

Collapse of the Soviet Union

By 1989, the Soviet Union was coming to an end due to poorly managed economic reforms

and swift political reforms separating Soviet Republics. The Brezhnev Doctrine was a policy of the

Soviet Union to intervene in the region of Germany under Soviet rule to preserve Communist Rule


(Fall of Communism). Gorbachev abandoned the doctrine in favor of gaining popular support for

Communist instead of tyranny. Gorbachev’s change in domestic policies helped to pave the way for

political and economic reform in the last few years of the Soviet Union (Fall of Communism, n.d).

Gorbachev wanted to use diplomacy rather than violence to keep Communism in power, but alas free

elections were held in Poland. The Berlin Wall, a symbol of the Soviet Union’s strength and

aggression was torn apart in 1989 after travel restrictions were lifted between the German

Democratic Republic and West Berlin (Fall of Communism). The revolutionary air spread to the

Soviet Union. Thanks to the abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine political reform was able to

occur and Soviet Republics were able to vote out Communism. In 1991, Gorbachev ceded rule to

Boris Yeltin after a coup attempt (Fall of Communism). The next decade would bring about a new

constitution, privatization of the economy, and attempts to hold onto former Soviet states.

Yeltsin

Boris Yeltsin was the President of the Russian Federation from 1991 till 1999. His

presidency was filled with difficulties. The country was changing it political system and

economy towards democracy and a free open market. During Yeltsin’s presidency the Russian

economy struggled great and the rouble suffered a detrimental crisis. The economy of the Soviet

Union was a command economy. Before its collapse Gorbachev had attempted major reforms

through new economic policies that caused significant damage to the economy, greatly

weakened the public opinion of him, and legitimacy of the government. The command economy

existed in Russia for more than 70 years. Near the end of the Soviet Era, Gorbachev’s

government was printing extra money to help finance the crumbling economy, large subsidies to

factories and bolster the collapsing agricultural system. The command economy which produced

more defense and industrial products had to change towards a consumer-based free market. The


extra money added into the economy caused inflation and a greater reliance on the dollar causing

a ruble crisis.

Economic Reform: The privatization of Russian industries was another major component of

Yeltsin’s economic reforms. A voucher system was developed to, in theory, to allow every

citizen to become a stakeholder in the privatization of Russia’s industries. Few benefited from

the first attempt of privatization and by the end of 1992 few industries became privatized. Then

come 1994, large segments of the Russian economy were sold at extremely low prices to the

friends and family of those in the government, or oligarchs as they are more commonly known.

This caused a great loss of support by average Russian citizens in the concept of capitalism in

Russia due to many oligarchs sold machinery and supplies factories before closing them down,

causing massive job losses.

Former Soviet States were also still using the ruble, creating a ‘ruble zone’ and

exchanging it for credit with the Russian Central Bank. This caused further devaluation of the

ruble and eventually required Rusia to pull out of the ruble zone which further reduced Russia’s

influence over former Soviet States. The second half of the 1990s was riddled with widespread

poverty and unemployment. Social collapse, wages unpaid for months, wage theft.

Yeltsin was finally able to stabilize the country in 1995 with a loan from the

International Monetary Fund and revenue from the sales of oil and natural gas, but the damage

was done. The public no longer had faith in the new president. The wolf would not be far from

the door. In 1998 the ruble collapsed due to an inaccurate exchange rate and continued support of

ailing industries within the country. The Yeltsin administration “poured resources into propping

up the rouble’s value” and promised the IMF that it would not devalue (Wood, p. 2, 2019). A


few months later devaluation was announced including a “default on domestic debts and

moratorium on external debt payments [and the ] rouble lost two-thirds of its value, inflation

spiraled and unemployment and poverty spread still further” (Wood, p. 2). The crash of the

rouble occurred due the poor organization and government held industries. Wage theft was

prominent throughout Russia at this time as well as high sucide rates and increased alcoholism.

Due to the collapse of the rouble it force the economy to grow in different areas. It would lead to

the growth of other industries outside of Moscow like oil (Wood). Even those with excessive

wealth were hit hard by the countries economic issues, “the 1990s tycoons such as Boris

Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorokovsky, VLadimir Gusinksy: (Wood, p. 2), felt the effects of the

crash due to their ownership of banks and “the Russian finance sector never regained the

prominence it once enjoyed” (Wood, p. 2). Oligarchs who’s sources of wealth were elsewhere

like the natural resource sector held their place at the top. These natural resources include oil,

gas, coal and metals. It would take a few years for the Russian economy to rebuild itself and for

social issues to improve. The collapse of the rouble was a detriment to Yeltsin’s presidency.

Chechen War: Another important facet of Yeltin’s presidency and the start of the Russian

Federation was its involvement in Chechnya. Yeltin wanted the country to improve its

relationship with the United States and other regions of the world. During his presidency it did

look like the country was moving away from Soviet era aggression, but external forces changed

its path and so did the future president Vladimir Putin.

Chechnya declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 right before the Soviet

Union collapsed. A failed Russian-organized coup against the secessionist president Dzhihkar

Duayez led President Yeltsin to send in the Russian army. The First Russo-Chechen war


occurred from 1994-1996 and was “part of a long history of Chechen resistance to Russian

colonialism” (Bucior, p. 4, 2018). Yeltsin’s decision to use military force was a crucial point in

his presidency. His decision to send in the Russian army lost a great amount of support from

Russian citizens. Yeltsin’s popularity took a steep decline which negatively impacted his

presidential campaign in 1996. Media coverage of the War in Chechnya showed the Russian

population the extreme and ruthless violence perpetrated against Chechnian citizens. The

Russian Federation prevented evacuations, committed terror bombings and denied access of

humanitarian aid; all actions that the Soviet Union would have committed to keep Communism

in power. Dissent continued among Russian citizens as the brutal actions of the Russian army

was never punished. Even President Yeltsin would later be pardoned by Vladimir Putin as one of

his first acts as president (Woods, p. 4, 2018).

Foreign policies of Yeltsin attempted to improve relations with the United States but this

hope ended with the eastward expansion of NATO. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the

United States was the sole superpower. Russia bolstered itself by improving political and

military relations with China and India.

Russian Power Re-Emerging

In 1999, Putin was selected by Yeltsins to become prime minister. Vladimir Putin was

apart of the KGB during the Soviet years. Yeltsin’s presidency was riddled with bureaucratic

turmoil. Yeltsin would shortly resign after electing Putin to office and Putin would become

acting president in late 1999. One of Putin’s first acts of presidency would be to pardon Yeltsin

of all charges related to war crimes in Chechnya and more.


It was obvious from the crisis created by the collapse of the ruble, the economy needed

“some degree of state oversight, especially in strategically important sectors” (Woods, p. 4).

Other lessons that the rouble crash exposed would be that domestic economic policy needed “a

dash of anti-oligarch rhetoric” (Woods, p. 5). In Foreign policy Russia “a stronger defense of

Russian national interests” (Woods, p. 5). These are all issues that Putin put on the forefront of

his political agenda and swiftly brought to the country. Putin has perpetuated the problem of

oligarchs “their numbers multiplied considerably during his first two terms: the country went

from having no billionaires in 2000 to eighty-two in 2008” (Woods, p. 5). A few of the

billionaires in Forbes’s rankings in the 2000s included oligarchs in Russian Roman Abramovich

who was“originally an oil and aluminum magnate” (Woods, p. 2). Another billionaire on the list

was Vladimir Bogdanov, an “owner of the oil company Surgetneftegev” (Woods, p. 2). Yet

another was Alesksei Mordashov who was an“owner of the steel conglomerate Severstal”

(Woods, p. 2). Oligarchs who did not support Putin were stripped of their power and finances.

They faced the wrath of the Kremlin. Some were convicted of crimes like fraud and tax evasion,

these included “Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorokovsky, Vladimir Gusinksy”(Wood, p. 2).

Putin shows no restraint if any threat is made to Russia’s national interest which includes

supporting him at all costs, without question.

When Putin first came into office, his rhetoric was much more pro-Western orientation…

even expressing an interest in Russia’s joining NATO” (Woods, p. 5). This caused great tension

in Putin’s early governing agenda but all were merely early campaign promises and attempts to

improve public support. Even later in his presidency, Putin makes efforts to appease the Russian

public. Putin’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev would later become president and Putin the


Prime Minister as a show to the world of Russia’s democracy only for Putin to have rewritten the

laws making him, the Prime Minister, the head of state still.

Putin’s Economy

A large source of revenue for Russia is oil. In recent years, it became a large source of

state income and helped the country prop itself up again after its Soviet era economic woes.

Russia will run out of cheap oil in the foreseeable future as its remaining oil reserves are harder

and more expensive to procure. There is money left in the oil industry for Rusian, but unlike the

rest of the growing world economy, Russia is already showing signs of an economic stagnation.

The country lacks growth in manufacturing, unlike the rest of the world. With current high

prices, there is no drive or reason to adapt due to a fortuitous decade. Good times will not last

forever and without opening its markets to manufacturing and adapting to the trends, Russia will

take a fall when its oil reserves become too expensive and too few to refine. This is a trend that

has outlived the Soviet Union. The Soviets also used oil and gas exports as a “means of propping

up their sagging system and avoiding change” (Gustafson, 2012). Russia, just like the Soviet

Union, used its muscle to get economic support. The need for resources and economic stability

is a main driver for the country’s political agenda.

Aggression

Policies of aggression did not end with the fall of the Soviet Union. During the 1990s

Yeltsin pushed for maintaining old Soviet policies in former Soviet states like Chechnya, the

Baltics, and the Middle East. After Yeltsin, the new Russian Federation President Putin promised

Western friendly policies before coming into office, but his foreign policies quickly showed his

true intentions. The difference between Putin’s Russia and Yeltsin’s are the more aggressive


policies to protect Russia’s national interest with all disregard for humanitarian rights,

international law, and democracy. There was a glimmer of hope for democracy and freedoms for

Russia during Yelstin’s presidency, but Putin’s strong hold on the country has trampled all hope,

pushing the country further back. By December of 2018, a lack of communication has lead to

greater tensions between Moscow and Washington (Russia:Lack, 2018). Russia In regards to

incident of Russia in the Kerch Strait violating international laws. In late November three Ukranian

Navy warships violated rules of passage through Russia’s territorial waters while traveling from the

Black Sea to the Azov Sea.

Ukraine: Reasons for Russia’s aggression in Ukraine were NATO enlargement, EU expansion,

and democracy promotion (Mearsheimer, 2014). All three could be viewed as threats to Russia’s

national security. The United States started “laying the groundwork for a major clash with

Russia” (Mearsheimer, 2014) as soon as the Clinton administration started advocation for an

expansion of NATO. The occupation of Crimea happened swiftly as the Russian naval base at

the port of Sevastopol in Crimea was already occupied by the Russian military. Putin’s use of

military force to annex Crimea took Western leaders by surprise. The support of expanding

NATO was not due to fear of Russia’s military force (Mearsheimer, 2014). Putin’s occupation of

Crimea is reminiscent of the United Sates in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Soviet Union in

Afghanistan. Russia does not have the military force or economic ability to annex Eastern

Ukraine, the region with a majority of ethnic Russian’s. Putin’s actions are more defensive than

offensive and are limited to Crimea because of its access to warm water ports, a familiar goal to

those of the Soviet Union. Ukraine is a sore spot for Russia. If NATO members continue to push


for Ukraine membership, more hostility and aggression will be forthcoming. Ukraine needs to

become a neutral point between the West and Russia to allow both to maintain national security.

Russian occupation of Ukraine has had a devastating effect on the population of people

caught between the crossfires. The town of Marinka in Ukraine was requisitioned by the army. It

is the front line of the conflict between Ukranina government forces and separatists backed by

Russia (Sopova, 2019). The war began in 2014 decimating critical infrastructure negatively

impacting the daily lives of those who have chosen to remain behind. Major damages have been

done to homes, displacing a significant number of peoples(Sopova, 2019). The Ukrainian

government has washed their hands of any responsibility, has told the public to direct their

complaints across the border, as Russia is to blame for the war. Elections occurred in the spring

bringing in a new president Volodymyr Zelesnky, but conflict between the separatists and

Ukraine are still rampant. Activists are pushing for more transparency and political reform in

Ukraine, disclosing politicians assets and incomes, protecting reforms, and working on taming

“Ukraine’s notorious oligarchs through a new legislative push” (Haring, 2018). There has been

slow progress made, but the two countries did completed a swap of prisoners. There are also

potential talks of peace negotiations that would be brokered by France and Germany.

The conflict began in 2014, popular uprising forced President Viktor Yanukovych out of

office. With this as a distraction, Russia swooped in, annexing the Crimean Peninsula in the

south and in the east, fuel separatist sentiments. Also helped two breakaway republics proclaim

independence, Donbas, and Luhans (Sopova, 2019). NATO membership was offered to Ukraine

and pushed Russia into action to acquire the area before it was to late. Ukraine’s attempts to


restore sovereignty and control over the provinces turned into “a war between government forces

and separatist militias” (Sopova, 2019). It is estimated that the conflict has killed 13,000 people.

Within the first year, after locals were forced to flee cease-fires were implemented and heavy

artillery were removed from the region. Present day, less gun fire is occuring, but occupants of

the region are suffering from indirect consequences, “damaged infrastructure, authorities neglect

of the forsaken territories, communities arbitrarily divided by the front line” (Sopova, 2019).

Areas like Marinka, suffering from no gas for cooking or heating. In part due to damaged

pipelines and because the distribution center is “stranded in a no man’s land between enemy

positions” (Sopova, 2019). The town of Marinka is also suffering as it is neighboring to Donetsk,

which is occupied by the separatists. Other resources that are suffering are the water pipes.

Marinka shared water pipes with Donestk but due to tensions water no longer runs “through the

front line” (Sopova, 2019).The town has “reconnected to another source,” (Sopova, 2019) but it

lacks filtration. The water running into Marinka’s water pipes, “is green, smells like a river, and

sometimes carries algae and little fish” (Sopova, 2019). Other areas lacking vital infrastructure is

Avdiivka, a suburb of Donesck. Its population is 34,000 (Sopova, 2019). Due to the conflict the

suburb has lost access to its main road that leads into Donesck, a fifteen minute drive away. A

mud road has been created. Medical facilities are only able to provide basic medical services.

Issues reminiscent of the Soviet Era, alcoholism, suicides, heart attacks, and strokes are

becoming more prominent. NATO members need to walk away from Ukraine and allow the

region to become a neutral land between EU and NATO members, and Russia. Ukraine cannot

be forced to suffer any longer. Russia will not pull out of the region without the satisfaction of


securing their national security and interests in the area. This has become a dangerous standoff

and many innocent people are being forced to suffer.

Crimea: Russia’s actions in Crimea are reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s involvement in

Afghanistan. The country still has the same goal, immediate access to warm water ports and

resources vital to their economy (Riedel, p. 9). After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and

Ukraine experienced multiple confrontations over natural gas (Lee, p. 6, 2017). With the lost of

Soviet Republics like Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, Russia lost its access to

warm water ports and natural resources. The eastern regions of Russia are covered in a

permafrost for the majority of the year, greatly limiting the country’s agricultural abilities. The

annexation of Crimea was a major violation of international law. Ukraine was offered

membership into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The prospect of losing Ukraine to

NATO, an international military alliance that has pushed back to Russia since its beginning and

holds significant power, was to much to handle. Russia annexed Crimea before it was to late and

before illegally possessing the land would lead to a bigger conflict if other countries like the

United States or other countries were a military ally to Ukraine through NATO.

Oligarchs: In Russia and former Soviet republics oligarchs are a crucial component of politics

and the economy. Oligarchs have become more prominent throughout Europe and are a legacy of

Soviet Era into the twenty first century (Apuzzo et al., 2019). Present day a vast system of

patronage has emerged and is a threat to democracy. The European Union, a collection of

member states sharing economic interests in Europe, provides crucial subsidies to farmers

throughout numerous countries. It has recently come to light that $65 billion farm subsidies,

meant to support farmers on the Continent, [are]instead going into the pockets of a powerful


few” (Apuzzo et al., 2019). Russia’s oligarchy system is not limited to its geographical

boundaries. This is a major concern for all nation states in the area that “subsidies have

underwritten Mafia-style land grabs in Slovakia and Bulgaria” (Apuzzo et al., 2019). Corruption

and coercion are major threats to democracy and freedom. It is appalling that in the twenty first

century that Europe’s farm programs are suffering from exploitation by antidemocratic forces

(Apuzzo et al., 2019). The EU is a carefully balanced system, change is not wanted even though

new member states are abusing the system. All of those apart of the European Union rely heavily

on subsidies and discretion on how they are spent (Apuzzo et al., 2019). Farmers are supposed to

be paid based off of how much land they farm. The trouble lies in former Soviet bloc countries

because the government used to own the majority of farmland. This allows political leaders to

auction off land to their family members and political alliances. Sadly, the subsidies go with the

farmland, sending farmers’ money into different hands, allowing those at the top to build

political power off of patronage (Apuzzo et al., 2019). These regions are still suffering under

similar political restrain as thirty decades ago when the Soviet Union still existed. Oligarchs are

the politicians in Cezh and the EU is funding them entirely. In Bulgaria. “european agricultural

subsidies” (Apuzzo et al., 2019), go to 100 entities and in Slovakia there exists an agricultural

Mafia where “small farmers have reported being beaten and extorted for land that is valuable for

the subsidies it receives” (Apuzzo et al., 2019). In Hungary, it is a matter of intimidation games.

The President promises he is the only one that can keep the subsidiaries coming in and that the

EU wants to get rid of them (Apuzzo et al., 2019). These all posses the same style of fear that

the Soviet Union propogated. The EU rarely interferes with national affairs of its member states,

but it is dangerous to let these abuses of power to continue. A network of powerful oligarchs in


former Soviet Republics is a dangerous reality that needs to be addressed before Russia acts

upon them.

Figure 3: Russian Federation Present Day (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2019).

Syria: Russia has a deeper history for Syrian than just the recent interventions in their civil war

in the past five years. The Soviet Union was Syria’s largest military supported in the 1950s and

continued to provide support up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian Federation

picked right up and has provided support to Syria’s president, Hafez al Assad. Assad received

support from the Soviets and Russia from the 1970s and until his death in 2000. Bashar al Assad

succeeded the presidency after his father’s death. Syria offers a myriad of natural resources that

inticed the Soviet Union and Russia’s partnership. These include vast oil reserves and yet again

close proximity to warm water ports. During the presidency of Hafez al-Assad, the Soviet Union

even established a naval military base in Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea.


In 1944, Syria declared independence from French colonial rule. The country was poorly

prepared and war developed between Israel in 1948-1949. The conflict greatly under weakened

Wester influence allowing the Soviet Union to swoop in. The Soviet Union became Syria’s

largest source for arms when the United States and other nations refused to sell them any arms in

the 1950s (Lund, p. 4, 2019). Communism also came to Syria during the Soviet Unions

existence, but the ideology did not last long due to discontent of Marxism. The two countries

also joined forces through economic agreements in the late 1950s. Syria was viewed then as a

Soviet satellite (Lund, p. 4). During the 1960s there was a short period of time when coups and

radicals were numerous causing relations to sour between the Soviet Union and Syrian. With

these revive relations came a Soviet funded and designed “hydroelectric dam on the Euphrates”

(Lund, p. 5). Arms sales increased and Communist politicians were installed in the government

as independants. Hafez al-Assad was the country’s Defense Minister. In 1970, Assad took over

the government with a ‘corrective movement’ and did away with the far left wing elements of the

previous Baath regime with a successful coup leading to the next thirty years of partnership and

alliance with the Soviet Union (Lund, p. 6). Syria would greatly benefit from this partnership,

but showed great contempt unless offered something in return. Programs of support included

“Soviet aid, loans, student exchange, and military programs” (Lund, p. 6). Syria was not the

Soviets puppet and followed their own political agenda unless the Soviet aid was promised in

return. Assad’s government pursued its own national interests.

Egypt and Syria entered into the 1973 October War with Israel and lost. The Soviets

shipped “enormous quantities of tanks and aircraft to the Middle East to save face” (Lund, p. 7).

Syria’s debt with the Soviet Union grew as the country lacked sufficient funds to pay for the


exercise military arms, but the Soviet Union did not delay delivery. The alliance in the Middle

East was to important to the Soviet Union and they were fearful of Assad turning elsewhere

towards other powerful allies. In 1974, President Ricahrd Nixon visited Syria and was met with a

warm welcome from Assad’s government. Though the friendly terms would be short lived

between the United States and Syria due to differences over Egypt and Israel, the Soviet Union

still proceeded to feed “Assad false information to increase his mistrust of the United States”

(Lund, p. 8). Syria was not the Soviet Union’s puppet and did their own share of meddling and

pushing back. The two countries continued to show an outward presence of unity despite their

differences. In the late 1970s, the Soviet Union “froze Syria’s supply of weapons and Assad

suspended Soviet access to Syrian ports” (Lund, p. 9). Warm water ports are a crucial asset to the

Soviet Union and Russia. Russia’s geography though vast is limited due to permafrost and so is

its economy.

The arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union in 1985

changed the relationship between the Soviet Union and Syria. Gobrachev brought in changes of

political and economic reform. His goals were to “defuse tensions with the United States,

de-ideologise Soviet Policy, and end the Cold War” (Lund, p. 10). These policy reforms would

eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. These policy reforms would also greatly

affect Syria. The Soviet Union was no longer letting Syria receive weapons on credit and

intended to improve diplomatic relations with Israel. To maintain the relationship, Assad allowed

the Soviets to build a naval resupply station in Tartus in 1987. Then to Syria’s chagrin, the

Soviet Union notified Syria it could expect no more military support, that is needed to resolve its

problems with Israel peacefully, and that it should pull out of Lebanon” (Lund, p. 11). The times


had changed. Gorbachev was behind them and soon it would be his work that would undo the

Soviet Union, for better or for worse.

During the 1990s while Russia was preoccupied with domestic political and economic

reform, Syria took a hard hit. Syria suffered greatly financially without outside support. Assad

was forced to align itself with the United States, Europe, and Turkey while Russia was

preoccupied with domestic reform. The days of free handouts from the Soviet Union were over.

Despite Syria’s $11 billion debt to the Soviet Union, Assad refused to repay Russia (Lund, p.

12). Russia was in great need of the credit it was owned and this would soil trade and political

relations for more than a decade. Though Russia maintained its port in Tartous, despite

dismantling the majority of other former Soviet military installations.

In the summer of 2000, President Hafez al-Assad passed away. His youngest son, Bashar

al-Assad would succeed the presidency. The younger Assad promised to maintain his father’s

political fundamentals, rebuild the economy, and help deliver Syria into the twenty first century.

Apart of his economic reforms were to “attract foreign investment and create jobs before Syria’s

limited oil reserves ran dry” (Lund, p. 13). Assad also was more pro-West than his father. After

the terrorist attacks in 2001 by al-Qaeda, improving relations with the West disintegrated and

sanctions were imposed against Syria. Syria and Russia’s relations with the West both soured

from 2001 to 2005.

The two isolated countries would find solace in a strong alliance once again. Debts were

forgiven and their military relationship was soon on the mend in 2006 including a new order of

“billions of dollars worth of modern air defense systems [and] naval missiles” (Lund, p. 15).

Come Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008, Assad offered Syria’s full support to Russia, in true


Cold War fashion. Due to Russia’s modernisation of its military because of the Russo-Georgian

War, the old Soviet port in Tartus came to the forefront. The port would be refortified and

dredged in preparation for Russia’s first venture into the Mediterannean since the Soviet Union

and Cold War had ended (Lund, p. 16). By 2010, Syrian and Russian relations were growing

stronger yet again. This re-alliance did not bode well with the rest of the world. The United

States was putting pressure on certain arms sales of Russian military defense weapons like the

“long-range S-300 anti-aircraft system, even though Syria had reportedly made a down payment

[in 2010]” (Lund, p. 16). Syria offered little in return to Russia due to their poor economy.

Large protests in 2011 broke out showing discontent for Assad and his government.

Assad responded with violent crack downs and a revolt swiftly spread across the country. The

United Nations has attempted outsing President Assad. Suadi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE

“poured money and arms into the Syrian opposition in the hope of ousting Assad and

establishing a friendly regime in Damascus” (Hatahet, 2019). Russia has supported Syria since

2011 with military aid and in 2015 with direct military involvement. Russia has been accused of

bombing hospital and medical facilities which is a violation of international law. This is a

practice that the Soviet Union committed as well. Russia is strongly involved in the Syrian War

because of fear for Russia’s national security due to Western interventionism. Other points of

interest for Russia include arms sales, the port at Tartus, and intelligence cooperation (Lund, p.

18). Russia fears for a post-Assad Syria and how it would affect the investments made into Syria

and its access to Tartus. Their blatant support for Assad has been scrutinized by the West, but

Russia has defended themselves by arguing that they are merely defending Syria’s stability and

sovereignty.


Militia fighters supported by Russia and Turkey have been accused of committing “war

crimes and ethnic cleansing” (Kirkpatrick, 2019). They have taken control of a great area of land

that was formerly kurdish territory in Northern Syria which included oil fields that provided

revenue to the Kurds. Russian influence is growing in Syria despite the United State efforts to

stifle them. The United States has been criticised for abandoning the Syrian Kurds (Kirkpatrick,

2019). Russia is interested in the war to protect oil reserves, a continuation of the toxic Middle

Eastern conspiracy theories. Russia is continuing expansionist policies, acquiring more land and

resources. Russia’s involvement in the Syrian War is not a matter of restating dominance in the

region. Russia already is a key player again in the Middle East and this should make the rest of

the world very nervous. Russia has again and again allied itself with separatists movements,

militias, and revolutionists. The country has one end goal, its prosperity, and the country will

support any movement that will wreak havoc and distract the United States from Russia’s

ulterior motives.

In 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian plane and would face the wrath of Putin. Putin

would install economic sanctions and increase military efforts in Syria. Turkey would soon

apologize publicly and switch to Russia and Assad’s side. Assad has continued to remain in

control of what matters, “state institutions, major cities, and, according to some estimates

three-quarters of the non-refugee population” (Lund, p. 32). Russia’s military power and new

alliance with Turkey is greatly benefiting Assad’s government.

Russia’s involvement in the Syrian War should be no surprise. The two countries have

been partners since the time of the Cold War and are involvement in a system of reciprocal

socialization (Tudoroiu, 2015). Since 1970 their relationship is a classic case of a superpower


and a regional ally. Tudoroiu argues due to Russia’s new stance in International Relations aid

cannot be supplied to Syria as swiftly and easily as the Soviet Union could have. The Soviet

Union and Russia’s support have allowed Syria to become an International Relations actor.

Protecting Syria is crucial to Russia’s national security.

Figure 4: Political Cartoon Depicting Russia’s Foolishness for Becoming so Involved with Syria

(2019, Putin and Syria).

Libya: For the past four years, Russia has support the militia leader Khalifa Hifter with financial

aid and tactical support. In the last few months, Russian mercenaries are involved in Libya’s

civil war and have snipers and “200 Russian fighters [involved]” (Kirkpatrick, 2019) in attempts

to shape the country’s civil war. This is all apart of Russia’s campaign to reassert itself in the

Middle East and Africa. Russia’s intervening has been on the behalf of the militia leader Khalifa

Hifter. Hifter has also had the support of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, and


sometimes France. Hifter is seen at the best route to take to keep political Islam contrained in the

region, control militants, and restore some sort of order, even authoritarian. In 2015, the United

Nations established a government in Tripoli. A coalition of militants are supporting the

government and Hifter has been fighting against them for more than five years (Kirkpatrick,

2019). Russia’s mercenaries are similar to Russia’s involvement in Syria. Their involvement is

partially due to vast oil reserves. Even during the present conflict, Libya has been “pumping out

1.3 million barrels a day” (Kirkpatrick, 2019). The war is on a smaller scale and has been

occuring in deserted areas of Tripoli with only a few hundred militias at a time. Russia stepped

into the forefront of helping Hifter when aid from the United Arab Emirates and Egypt slowed

down their support. The militants are much less technical and Russia’s mercenaries could have a

drastic impact. A global chess board is playing out in International Relations and Russia has the

most players on the board.

Conclusion

The Cold War was a tense period of time from 1945 to 1991. The Soviet Union was

motivated by its ideology and national interests. The state was seen as a tyranny and a violator of

humanitarian rights. Then in 1991 due to a shift in political and economic reforms the Soviet

Union collapsed sending Russia into despair. Wage thefts, increase rates of suicide, and

alcoholism ravaged through Russia. Out of the rubble of the Soviet Union came the Russian

Federation. There was a glimmer of hope that international relations would improve due to

President Yeltsin’s domestic and foreign policies. Yeltsin optimism did not last long. Russia was

hit with humbling economic, issues privatizing its economy and the devaluation of the ruble

causing the ruble crisis. Yeltsin also had to deal with pulling resources out of former Soviet


States and ethnic wars. This included the Chechen War and horrendous violations of

humanitarian rights committed by bombing civilians and critical infrastructure. Yeltsin lost

significant public popularity and elected Vladimir Putin as the Russian Federation’s prime

minister.

Vladimir Putin succeeded the presidency and pardoned Yeltsin of all accusations relating

to ethnic cleansing. Putin started his presidency of promises of democracy and pro-West rhetoric.

Russia’s government is arguably a ‘federal dominant party, semi presidential constitutional

republic’ but with the same head of government for two decades, it still seems

uncharacteristically like a single party system. This was all for show to gain the publics support.

He swiftly veered Russia off course into a more radical, aggressive, and threatening avenue. The

United States has international rivals in China and other countries, but only Russia is acting so

aggressively. Russia is a more threatening rival to the United States. Despite the collapse of the

USSR, the political goals of the country have not changed. The present day aggression seen

world wide supports the concept that the Cold War has re-emerged.

The Russian Federation’s economy is better than that of the Soviet Era and is no longer a

command economy. The country is making its way towards becoming a free market. The only

government owned industries are now gas and oil. This does not account for the number of

oligarchs involvement in the economy nor the number of oligarchs in former Soviet republics.

Oligarchs are an uneasy group and need to watched with a keen eye.

Russia is still deeply involved in the Middle East. Russia’s involvement in Syria is

reminiscent of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Russia in Syria and Libya is much more

successful than the Soviet Union ever was. Russia has provided significant military support to


Syria to protect its national security at all costs just like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Both

countries feared for radicalism to spread into its borders and is working hard to contain the

radicals within their respective areas. Russia is also expanding its reaches by making allies with

leaders of Africa, a continuation of the Soviet Union’s foreign policies. Russia is providing more

foreign aid than the Soviet Union. The country is making allies all throughout the world and

getting away with violating international laws. Small countries do not want to stand up to Russia

especially if they are receiving aid that the United States will not provide them or another

powerful state.

South America has not gone unscathed from the Soviet Union and Russia. In

contemporary politics, Venezuela has been decimated by economic and political turmoil. The

country has suffered economic collapse and has been in a very fragile state. Russia has publicly

announces support to Maduro and the U.S. has publicly supported the opposition. This is the

Syrian Civil War playing out yet again. Russia is backing the oppressive government that has

sworn economic allegiance to Russia. Venezuela has natural resources galore in minerals and oil

that Russia has their eyes on.

The United States needs to be more vigilant than ever in protecting its national interests.

The foe from the Cold War has not disappeared and is more dangerous than ever. The United

States has rivals in the twenty first century. Conflicts with China have been limited to the South

China Sea and trade wars. China does not have an aggressive political agenda to protect its

national security like Russia does. Russia’s actions are extremely aggressive and blatantly violate

international institutions that have been created to protect basic human rights and promote

international cooperation. Russia’s motivation is all a matter of securing national interests and


maintaining national security at all costs. The world needs to prepare for more aggression and

international law violations.


Citations

(2017). Flag of the Soviet Union and Russia [Digital]. Retrieved from http://www.difference

between. net/miscellaneous/ politics/political-institutions/difference-between-soviet-

union-and-russia/

(2019, October 26). The New Regional Powers [Print]. The Economist, 433(9166), pp. Page 7.

(2019, October 26). Putin and Syria [Print]. The Economist, 433(9166), pp. Page 12.

A Timeline of the U.S. War in Afghanistan. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2018, from

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan

Afghanistan: Nearly 30 years Ago, Soviet Union Extricated Itself from Afghan Conflict. (2017,

May 17). Asia News Monitor Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.csum.edu/login?url=

https://search -proquest- com. ezproxy.

csum.edu/docview/1898953389?accountid=10353

Apuzzo, M., Gebrekidan, S., & Novak, B. (2019, November 3). The Money Farmers: How

Oligarchs and Populists Milk the E.U. for Millions. The New York Times. Retrieved on

November 3, 2019 from https://wwwnytimes.com/2019/11/03/world/europe/eu-farm-

subsidy-hungary.html?smid=nightcore-ios-share

Bialer, S. (1980). The Centrality of U.S.-Soviet Relations. In Stalin's Successors: Leadership,

Stability, and Change in the Soviet Union (pp. 233-240). Cambridge [England] ; New

York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from

https://www-fulcrum-org.ezproxy.csum.edu/concern/monographs/f4752h10t

Boycko, M. & Shiller, R. (2016, May) Popular Attitudes Toward Markets and Democracy:

Russia and the United States Compared 25 Years Later. The American Economic Review

(106)5, 224-229. American Economic Association. Retrieved on September 16, 2019


from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43861019

Bucior, C. (2018). Lost Cause-Ism in American Southerners’ News Writing About the First

Russo-Chechen War (1994–1996). Society, 55(3), 262-270. doi:http://dx.doi.org.zproxy.

csum.edu:2048/10.1007/s12115-018-0249-7

Cusack, T. R., & Ward, M. D. (1981). Military Spending in the United States, Soviet Union, and

the People's Republic of China: The Journal of Conflict Resolution (Pre-1986), 25(3),

429. Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.csum.edu/login?url=https://search- proquest-

com.ezproxy.csum.edu/docview/235758164?accountid=10353

David, C., & Lévesque, J. (1999). The Future of NATO: Enlargement, Russia, and European

Security (Foreign Policy, Security, and Strategic Studies). Montreal: Published for the

Centre for Security and Foreign Policy Studies and The Teleglobe Raoul-Dandurand

Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies by McGill-Queen's University Press.

Davis, D., & Trani, E. (2017). Woodrow Wilson and the Origins of the Cold War: A Hundred

Years Later and Still Relevant. World Affairs, 180(4), 25-46.

DeConde, A., Burns, R., Logevall, F., Longevall, A., & Longevall, Fredrik. (2002).

Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy (2nd ed., Gale virtual reference library). New

York: Scribner.

Demidov, N., Semukhina, O., & Wheelock, Dr. (2011, November). Perceived Group Threat and

Punitive Attitudes in Russia and the United States. The British Journal of Criminology

(51),6. Oxford University Press. Retrieved on September 16, 2019 from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23639900

Dibb, P. (2010). The Soviet Experience in Afghanistan: Lessons to be Learned? Australian


Journal of International Affairs, 64(5), 495-509.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (2019). Russia [Digital].Retrieved from https://www.

britannica.com/place/Russia

Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, 1989. (n.d.). U.S. Department of State. Retrieved

October 30, 2019, from https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/rd/17672.htm.

Fleming, D.F., (1961). The Cold War and its Origins: 1917-1960. Vanderbilt University,

Doubleday & Company, Inc.Great Britain.

Gaddis, J. (2000). The Past as Prologue. In The United States and the Origins of the Cold War,

1941-1947. (pp. 1-31) New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from

https://www-fulcrum-org.ezproxy.csum.edu/concern/monographs/xg94hp56z

Gould-Davies, N. (1999). Rethinking the Role of Ideology. In International Politics During the

Cold War. (pp. 90-109). Journal of Cold War Studies. Retrieved from https://muse-jhu-e

du. ezproxy.csum.edu/article/9097

Goldman, E. (2014) Americans Do Not Understand the True Meaning of Bolshevism. In The

Truth About the Bolsheviki (pp 78-88). Greenhaven Press, New York.

Graebner, N. (1969). Cold War Origins and the Continuing Debate. Journal of

Conflict Resolution, 13(1), 123-133.

Gustafson, T. (2012). Putin's Petroleum Problem: How Oil Is Holding Russia Back—and How It

Could Save It. Foreign Affairs, 91(6), 83-96. Retrieved on September 20, 2019 from

https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.csum.edu/stable/41720936?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_con

Tents


Haring, M. (2018, Aug 26). Sure, Ukraine is Still a Mess, but the Fight Rages On. Ukrainian

Weekly Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.csum.edu/ login?url=https://search-

proquest-com.ezproxy.csum.edu/docview/2105002809?accountid=10353

Hammond, T. (1986). Witnesses to the Origins of the Cold War (62-68). Seattle: University of

Washington Press.

Hatahet, S. (2019, March). Russia and Iran: Economic Influence in Syria. Middle East and North

Africa Program, Chatham House. Retrieved on December 8, 2019 from

https://www.chatham

house.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2019-03-08RussiaAndIran Economic

InfluenceInSyria.pdf

Hoeppler, C. (2016). Russian Demographics: The Role of the Collapse of the Soviet Union.

McMaster University: Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences, 10.

Retrieved on October 26, 2019 from https://www.kon.org/urc/v10/hoeppler.html

Howard, H. (1960, January). Review of The Soviet Union and the Middle East by Walter Z.

Lapeur. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 326,

191-192. Retrieved on October 1, 2019 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1034041

Hunt, M. H. (1996). Crises in U.S. Foreign Policy: An International History Reader, 1-54.

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Kirkpatrick, D., (2019, November 5). Russia Dominated Syria’s War: Now It’s Sending

Mercenaires to Libya. The New York Times. Retrieved on November 5, 2019 from

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/world/middleeast/russia-libya-mercenaries.html?s

mid=nytcore-ios-share


Kucherov, S. (1955, June) Communism vs. Peasantry in the Soviet Union. Political Science

Quarterly 70(2), 181-196. The Academy of Political Science. Retrieved on October 1,

2019 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2145221

Kuperman, A. (1999). The Stinger Missile and U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan. Political

Science Quarterly, 114(2), 219-263.

Ledbetter, J. (2011). Unwarranted influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the military-industrial

complex (Icons of America). New Haven: Yale University Press. Retrieved on November

2, 2019 from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npthr

Lee, Y. (2017). Interdependence, Issue Importance, and the 2009 Russia-Ukraine Gas Conflict.

Energy Policy, 102, 199-209.

Long, J., & Stent, Angela E. (2002). A Constructivist View of Post -Soviet Russian Foreign

Policy: Case Studies of the Russia-NATO Relationship and IFOR, ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses. Retrieved on December 8, 2019 from https://search.proquest.com/docview/

305576524/?pq-origsite=primo

Lund, A. (2019, July). From the Cold War to Civil War: 75 Years of Russian-Syrian Relations.

The Swedih Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved on December 8, 2019 from

https://www.ui.se/globalassets/ui.se-eng/publications/ui-publications/2019/ui-paper-no.-7

-2019.pdf

Mastny, V. (1985). Stalin and the Militarization of the Cold War. International Security, 9(3),

109-129. The MIT Press. Retrieved on September 26, 2019 from https:// www.jstor.org/

stable/2538589

Markevich, A. & Mikhailova, T. (2012, February) Economic Geography of Russia. New


Economic School, Moscow. Retrieved on September 30, 2010 from https://ces.hse.

ru/data/2012/09/19/1244835979/Markevich_Mikhailova_final_edit.pdf

Mearsheimer, J. (2014). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That

Provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 77-89. Retrieved on December 8, 2019 from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csum.edu:2048/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=3419f

85a-352d-4417-a43b-ce66e770c071%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Qtb

Gl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=97381275&db=mth

Mendelsohn, P. J. (1999). History and Evaluation of the Role of Nuclear Weapons in the Cold

War. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 31(3), 609. Retrieved on

November 29 from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csum.edu:2048/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=3451954&site=ehost-live

Murphy, D. (2014, April 4). As Election Looms, Afghanistan’s History Offers Lessons - and

Hope. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved on October 20, 2019 from proquest.com

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, (n.d.). Soviet Union Administrative Divisions, 1984 [Digital]. The

University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/

commonwealth/ soviet_ union_ admin_1984.jpg

Proctor, P. E. (2014). The Vietnam War Debate and the Cold War Consensus (Order No.

3680745). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and

Social Sciences Collection. (1654777645). Retrieved on November 29, 2019 from

https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csum.edu/docview/1 6547776 45? Account

Id=10353

Riedel, B. (2014). What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979-89. Retrieved on


November 4, 2019 from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Russia: Lack of Russian-US Dialogue Leads to Growing Tensions - Kremlin Spokesman. (2018).

Asia News Monitor, p. Asia News Monitor, Dec 3, 2018. Retrieved on October 26, 2019

from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csum.edu/docview/2140732092?accountid=

10353&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Service, R. (2003). Russia: Experiment with a people. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Seville, C. (2017) The Russian Revolution. United Kingdom: Netflix.

Sopova, A. (2019, September 16). Where There Are Fish in the Tap Water and Women's

Uteruses Fall Out. New York Times Retrieved September 16, 2019, from https://www

.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/opinion/eastern-ukraine-russia-conflict-.html.

Soviet Secrecy Fuels the Arms Race and Inhibits Verification. (2012). In Spy Satellites and

Other Intelligence Technologies that Changed History (p. 14). Seattle; London:

University of Washington Press.

Torrey, B., & Kingkade, W. (1990). Population Dynamics of the United States and the Soviet

Union. Science, 247(4950), 1548-1552. Retrieved on December 2, 2019 from https://w

ww-jstor-org.ezproxy.csum.edu/stable/2874176?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

Tudoroiu, T. (2015). The Reciprocal Constitutive Features of a Middle Eastern Partnership: The

Russian–Syrian bilateral relations. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 6(2), 143-152.

Umland, A. (2010, March). Stalin’s Russia Centrism in Historical and International Context.

Nationalities Paper, 38(5), 741-748. Institute for Central and East European Studies,

Germany.


Wood, T. (2018, August 30). The Crisis That Created Putin. Jacobin. Retrieved on November

16,

2019 from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/rouble-crash-yeltsin-putin-free-market.

resurgence of the cold war: a continuation of the conflict

Documents