The Instigator
karina_kimep
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
henryajevans
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is it good for US that soviet union collapsed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 38000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

karina_kimep

Pro

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am not an expert or a scholar or an activist. I am more of an eye-witness. There are some great historical events where it"s difficult to tell whether their net effect was positive or not. The immediate cause of the Soviet collapse was economic, as the Soviet Union lost the arms race and international competition with the West. The United States was able to profit from its imperialist exploitation of other countries, while socialism could only lose economically in that competition. The fall of the USSR led to the establishment of numerous successful liberal democracies, including Poland, the the Czech Republic, the Baltic States, and others. Some of these were established before the USSR fully collapsed.
In conclusion I would like to say that US is really lucky that the Soviet Union collapsed becouse it now became most powerfull country in the earth , before it was Soviet Union, and now US can do what they want hidden under democracy to invent into Syria and Iraq for their natural recourses.
henryajevans

Con

I disagree with the statement that the dissolution of the USSR was good for the USA. In R1, I shall argue that it led to a decline in US influence overseas, through its inaction in Eastern Europe, that all of its main regional allies outside of the EU and Africa quickly collapsed, since they were surplus to America"s need as a world power, and were quickly superseded by non-aligned rogue states, and that it led to a general decline in overt US military action across the world, since they no longer had the anti-communist casus belli against non-aligned countries.
After the Soviet Union fell, the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as the former SFSRs of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all drifted into the sphere of the German-dominated European Union. Primarily British, French, Dutch, Belgian and German corporations have swooped into the region, and are exploiting the cheap labour there. American influence has declined somewhat in the region, with the regions now finding themselves aligned with the EU rather than the American sphere of influence. In addition to this, the countries in Central Asia that were previously either SFSRs or aligned countries, namely the "istan" countries, are now primarily dominated by Japan and its corporations, since America failed to act. The country of Afghanistan is a unique case. It was, until 1989 when the Soviets withdrew their forces from the region, a Soviet satellite state. NATO (A term by which I mean the USA) intended to create a satellite state like neighbouring Pakistan is now, and how neighbouring Iran was until the revolution, but this backfired. When the US-backed Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they rejected the people who were supposed to be their masters, leading to them being vilified in the press. Until the invasion in 2001, they were not aligned with any major power, though they were known to associate with their anti-west theocratic neighbours Iran. This strengthened the non-aligned bloc of nations in the Middle East, much to the chagrin of the USA. During the Cold War, there were two clear spheres of influence, as marked by treaties such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact, as well as several bilateral treaties between the US and its pet despotisms and the USSR and its own. China had limited influence, and became independent of the Soviet sphere after the schism. This left two clearly-defined superpower structures " the US and the USSR. After the USSR ceased to exist, there started to be power systems taking advantage of the power vacuum left by it in Eastern Europe and Central Asia that led to the rise of powers such as the European Union, Russia as its own nation, the Middle East as an energy producer, Japan and China, which is becoming something of a world power at the moment. None of these powers, which range in their internal unity and in their military prowess, since only the Middle East and the European Union have been truly involved in a combat zone in the last half century. The USA has therefore lost its monopoly on non-Soviet power in the world, and therefore has lost influence on the world stage in favour of the more populous areas of the EU and China, as well as the more technologically advanced nation of Japan and the energy giants of Russia and the Middle East.
Secondly, it has led to a decline in the influence of the USA in other spheres of the world. Pinochet"s regime collapsed in 1990, when he stepped down as dictator; as did the Apartheid Regime in South Africa and Suharto in Indonesia. The collapse also enabled billions of dollars of materiel to be illegally shipped out of the colonies of the USSR and the USA. Prior to this, when a despotism wanted to commit crimes against humanity, they would have to make sure their relationship with their liege country was smooth enough to do it, and after discussions with the US or Soviet ambassador for buying cheap weapons from their latest military engagement, they could kill and maim their populations to their hearts" content. After first the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the Eastern Bloc states in 1989, and then after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the remnants of the occupation were derelict in the regions of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The USSR had armed itself to the teeth in preparing for a war with NATO, and in Eastern Europe, there were enough weapons and materiel to supply millions of Warsaw Pact soldiers in the defence of the territory of Eastern Europe in what was intended to be a repeat of the Great Patriotic War, only one that would never enter Russia. There were entire tank divisions, helicopter squadrons, warehouses full of small arms and ammunition, abandoned by the Red Army when they were disbanded. The illegal arms trade was incredibly lucrative over the course of the next few years, until the situation had calmed down in the mid-1990s. Millions of weapons and materiel found its way into the black market, and was distributed across the world. Soviet arms were used in the Rwandan Genocide, the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict, the Kosovo War and many other wars. In the Kosovo War especially, as American soldiers were killed by these weapons, it was estimated that between two thirds and three quarters of the weapons used by Milosevic"s army were purchased on the black market from Soviet military bases. It is said that one can purchase a nuclear weapon for a few million dollars in one of the "-istans", if one knows where to look, and all over the developing and developed world there are millions of Warsaw Pact armaments floating around, waiting to be bought by warlords, such as Aidid of Somalia, the Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the LRA of Central Africa, all of whom have killed US soldiers in combat. This huge influx of cheap arms has given the most obscure militia groups the ability to be the new Vietcong when fighting regular armies, which has caused huge problems to administration on a local, national and international level. The fall of the USSR undermined US influence overseas and strengthened its enemies.
Thirdly, it caused an unnecessary shock to the system of casus belli generation the USA previously had. Prior to 1989, the USA just had to make up some tosh about the domino effect, and bringing freedom to the most wretched corners of the world, combine it with some apple pie and baseball rhetoric about values, democracy and possibly religion, and they could deploy thousands of combat troops to pretty much any country in the world. After 1989, they had to use much more tenuous excuses for wars, the first of which was Panama in 1990, which they used the excuse of attacks on US soldiers and Noriega"s brutal dictatorship, which apparently gave them justification to kill thousands of Panamanian civilians and replace Noriega with an equally corrupt and brutal dictator. The same could be said for the Gulf War, also of that year, when they used the excuse of one odious dictatorship, that they had been allied with for its lifetime, invaded another odious dictatorship that had good relations with an odious dictatorship that was better allies (a term that means bigger oil exporter) with the USA. After a short, bloody war, they sent Saddam"s forces packing, resuming weapons exports immediately afterward. This has happened since then. The Kosovo War, the Iraq War, the Invasion of Afghanistan, the Somali Civil War and the Bosnian War are all examples of the post-1989 warmongering that has a gossamer veneer of legitimacy behind it. 9/11 provided a limited excuse, but that is now fading into hypocrisy with arming Al Qaeda in Syria, so the excuse of chemical weapons is now being used. In short, the fall of the USSR was bad for the USA because it deprived it of its ability to arbitrarily invade other countries, and it must now be humanitarian in its presentation, rather than just anti-communist.
Debate Round No. 1
karina_kimep

Pro

USSR were the first enemies of the United States. These two powers were rivals throughout including medicine, weapons and new technologies. And in this rivalry is always led by the Soviet Union: they are the first to open space, all new military technology was with them, at that time they were kept in constant fear of the U.S. So I think that at that time the most desirable to the United States was the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is well known that the first president of USSR we're paid by USA make it possible collapse the USSR also did you know that Gorbachev during his tenure as president of the Soviet Union where given a bribe of $ 200,000. And he took it. And then admitted to a secret meeting with President Roh Tae-woo, he received $ 200,000 in checks payable to bearer for the recognition of South Korea.
henryajevans

Con

They were hardly the first enemies of the United States. After Britain, Spain, Mexico, Germany, Italy and Japan, they were quite the latecomers to the anti-US club. The first three countries on that list posed a direct threat to the existence of the United States of America, while the last three killed large numbers of Americans in conflict with them, Germany on more than one occasion. Yes there was a rivalry, but the USSR did not really pose an economic threat to the USA. The USA had a much better infrastructure, a very good standard of living and a huge network of colonies overseas. The USSR had an infrastructure that was mediocre at best in western Russia, and abysmal as one went further east; a poor standard of living and an empire that was only really where its land power extended to. It had a good technological base, with excellent higher education facilities that bred some of the world's finest minds, as well as large public works investment to build space programmes, power plants and weapons factories. But when the chips were down, the only thing that really made the USSR equal to the USA in terms of political stature was its nuclear arsenal. It was still vastly profitable in the 1980s for the USSR to exist, since the US was still undermining it right up until 1989, and financing corrupt despotisms and paramilitary groups both before and after. Your allegations that Gorbachev was bribed are relatively inane. Gorbachev had no interest in the fall of the Soviet Union, only in the reform of it. The idea of communism had somewhat stagnated among the western intellectual community and the left in general, so he invited the Russian intelligentsia in the Glasnost programme to discuss reform into a social democracy. This resulted in Perestroika, which was an attempt to transform the USSR into a social democracy, with limited markets. However, these attempts were exploited by foreign corporations and intelligence services to push themselves into Russia and create a state of chaos. The ensuing chaos destroyed the Soviet Union and caused the rise of the new Russian aristocracy of fuel and land barons in a fragmented and anarchic state under the weak, pro-US leadership of Yeltsin. There is very little evidence to suggest that Gorbachev, who has remained a critic of Russian domestic and foreign policy to this day, accepted bribes of the magnitude that you suggest.
Debate Round No. 2
karina_kimep

Pro

karina_kimep forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.