After becoming Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev had plans to “reform” many aspects of communism in Russia as well as its satellite states that jeopardized the Soviet Union 's longevity (Kalashnikov, p.77). Gorbachev would be the first leader of many since Leonid Brezhnev that came before him to critically consider the economic hardships and issues that Russia and its satellite states were facing. It can also be stated that Gorbachev was “unwilling to use military force” to resolve issues as seen in later political conflicts that plagued Russia and its satellite states (Todd, p.198). The consequences that came from Gorbachev’s decisions whether he knew it at the time or not was that they would create more political turmoil for the Soviet Union due to him not using force to maintain his dominance in Russian politics, control satellite states, or display Soviet presence globally similar to previous leaders before him for the self-preservation of the Soviet Union. From the realists’ perspective a connection can be made between Gorbachev’s decisions to not use force over concerns of ethics and morale, and the dismantling of the Soviet Union leaving the USSR vulnerable in various national aspects such as economics, politics, and global influence, along with the global perception of the
Ironically the end of the tsarist regime in Russia ended not with the removal of the tsar in 1917, but rather with the implementation of one in 1894. The tsarist regime in Russia fell due to the combined incompetency of Nicholas II as tsar, and the resentment of the people towards a system unwilling to change for them. Although the First World War was the event which set off all of the building tensions in Russia and that the tsarist regime had been in jeopardy for a while. The First World War only served as the finality to the events which ruined the legitimacy of the tsar and finally allowed the peop... ... middle of paper ... ...ently. However this was not the case.
It was ultimately however the loss of military discipline and loyalty in Petrograd, coupled with liberals' decisions and autocratic choice, which caused the regime to fall, not as a result of previous unrest, but a fear of what rebellion may be still to come. This fear was what dictated the nature of the revolution. It was this combination of long and short - term factors that caused the Russian autocracy to fall. It is pertinent to tackle this issue in a chronological form, beginning in 1915 / '16. One must however bear in mind that unrest in Petrograd, almost irrespective of the rest of Russia, was enough to cause the collapse of autocracy.
West versus East, the age-old battle of capitalism in opposition to communism, was the underlying factor of the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, many former Russian controlled territories created their own countries and governments mirroring that of Russia’s. As the years passed, these countries are now finding themselves pulled between their historical Russian ties and European opportunities. This split had caused a lot of uproar in these countries on their future alliance, and has been the one of the lasting areas of conflict between the Russia and Europe. One conflict in particular, the Russo-Georgian War, rocked global politics for the five days that it lasted and demonstrated that these conflicts are still potentially volatile.
According to experts, in the years prior to this (1991-1992) and during the first month of the war, Russia played a double role, providing military aid both to Georgia and Abkhazia. There was no consensus among the Russian policy-making elites with regard to the conflict. Only after September 1992 did Russia begin to support Abkhazia more actively (Antonenko, 2005). Shevarnadze had no other choice but to sign another ceasefire agreement with Russia, the so-called Moscow Agreement of 1994 on Abkhazia. The Georgian leadership acted under the threat of a further escalation of the conflict and a possible large-scale confrontation with their much stronger neighbour.
It was a vital player in the downfall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991. But six years later, through the newly elected President Viktor Yanukovych, the head of the Party of Regions, it returned to the grips of its powerful oligarchs and Russia. So the people got neither the rule of law nor the democracy they had imagined. Politics of Ukraine take place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic and of a multi-party system. European leaders blamed the Russians for the crisis and even floated the idea of sanctions against Ukraine if more blood is shed.
(3) By the early twentieth century the United States was also concerned with Russia’s power. Although the United States tried to keep out of European disputes, American leaders were concerned about Russia becoming to powerful. They worried that if any nation became powerful enough to dominate the European continent, it would be a threat to the well being of the United States. (4) In the midst of World War I a new element was added to the European and American fear of Russia. In November of 1917 a radical Marxist called the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia overthrowing a democratic government.
Repression in Russian Leadership Repression was used under both Nicholas 2 and the Bolsheviks to control the Russian population. The liberal methods employed preceding both governments (Alexander 2 and the Provisional Government respectively) failed completely and discouraged any other form of liberal or democratic controls. The strict extremist ideologies of both the Tsarist and Bolshevik regimes also necessitated violent repression to ensure total compliance. This was needed due to the major political upheavals taking place - the decline of Tsarism despite Nicholas' determination to continue his autocratic rule and the rise of Bolshevism to replace it meant that both parties needed to take a very harsh line. This was exacerbated by the fact that neither party came to power with the 'legitimate vote' of the public and so faced strong opposition that they wished to eliminate.
Through his accounts, V.V. Shulgin has given us a look in Russia from 1906 to 1917. Although he was more right than left politically, through his memoirs, we can see that he had mixed views about the events that were going around him. As Shulgin begins his memoirs with his plans for raising electors, he focuses on the clergymen, the large landowners and more impor... ... middle of paper ... ...cal power was the downfall of the Tsar, Russian autocracy, and the non-leftist political figures. Just as the Tsar left Russia, Shulgin also left the country for the increasing threat of the Bolsheviks.
The relationship between Russia and the rest of Europe has been extremely precarious throughout its existence. From looking to Europe for guidance to outright opposing the interests of Europe, the stance towards Europe has varied greatly. In the post-Cold War era, Russia’s policies have been formed in an attempt to reclaim control over their former sphere of influence, often clashing with European interests in regards to economic, energy, and security matters facing the world. In the post-Cold War world, Russia has been struggling to reestablish itself as a world power. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia found itself surrounded by hostile nations that feared nationalism and expansionism from Moscow, leading many to seek solace in the form of closer relations to America.