The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s was unexpected yet unavoidable due to several reasons including its structural weaknesses, the Containment Policy, and national forces. First of all, the very structure of the Soviet Union was fundamentally leading to failure. Regarding the authoritarian nature of the Soviet power, the following issues significantly affected its collapse: the persecution of the Church and dissidents, forced collectivism, the domination of single ideology, the prohibition of communication with other countries, censorship, and the lack of free discussion of alternatives (Brower 240). A series of unsuccessful attempts to reform the Soviet system led to stagnation and then collapse of the economy and political system.
Speaking of the Containment Policy, it was considered as a way to prevent war and was not aimed at inflicting a military defeat of the USSR. This US policy was oriented to the limitation of the spread of communist ideology in the countries of Western Europe and the Soviet-backed communist movements (Brower 241). Also, national forces appeared around the Soviet Union as a result of the USSR’s leadership failure to address developmental challenges manifested in the form of inter-ethnic conflicts and the struggle of individual nations to expand their own culture and economy.
However, the key factor of collapse is the Soviet Union’s structure that led to the discontent of people and the establishment of strong opposition. It is still impossible to affirm whether the world became safer or not yet nowadays it is more open and free. The world became unipolar, and the United States remain a single superpower. Due to expanding globalization processes, the world turned into a single political, informational, and economic system.
According to Friedman, nationalism and the global economy can co-exist yet have to encounter some difficulties (par. 3). The author emphasizes that “nationalism is the belief that your fate is bound up with your nation and your fellow citizens” (Friedman par. 18). Moreover, it is stated that European nationalism is represented not only by people’s feelings towards their own country but also by resentment of others.
In particular, the case of Germany and Greek each of which has corresponding historical events proving the above statement. Without going into details, it is possible to claim that many European countries have a history of social and economic catastrophes that occurred as a result of nationalism. At this point, Friedman states that only the appropriate interpretation of each other can integrate these countries into the effective union (par. 21).
The examples of negative aspects of strong nationalism feelings in connection with the global economy involve such examples as fascist Germany and its regime and the conflict between Greeks and Germans regarding their value systems’ difference. In their turn, the positive aspects contain the inclination towards global trade and economic power. Considering that geopolitical borders are eliminated, countries and their citizens are likely to aspire to unite to achieve better results.
Within the context of a global economy, one can note such advantages of nationalism as great resources, economic prosperity, and unified military power, suggesting collective defense. Also, the organizational capabilities along with intellectual capital seem to be rather significant aspects promoting the successful collaboration of nationalism and the global economy. At the same time, nationalism in the framework of the global economy imposes the following disadvantages: internal psychosis when one country wants to dominate over others, difficulties in establishing free trade zones, and others.
Works Cited
Brower, Daniel R. The World Since 1945: A Brief History. 2nd ed., Pearson, 2005.
Friedman, George. “The Crisis of Europe and European Nationalism.” Stratfor. 2011. Web.