Economic weakness can break even superpowers

The world learned the lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union that economic weakness can tear apart even the largest, strongest and strongest Timuluk.

Economic weakness

If one person can be credited with ending the Cold War, it is former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, who died a few days ago at the age of 91. If it is said that the Cold War ended peacefully, it was Gorbachev’s main role in that the kind of nuclear weapons the Soviet Union and the West had, were enough to wreak havoc around the world. And there is no doubt that the forces that emerged after the Cold War brought down even a superpower like the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was the first power to stand up to communist ideology. Gu Rabachev took power in 1985 and the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991. His agenda consisted of only two elements: “systemic reform and complete independence of the Soviet Union.” , but the agenda was one of restoration, not destruction, of the Soviet Union. Remember, he was the youngest person to reach this position in the Communist Party. The Soviet Union was called the Iron Curtain in the West. The first Afghan war began a few years before Gorbachev came to power. was directly involved in the first Afghan war and all its negative effects directly affected us. Think how much it cost a country with a weak economy and a broken political system to host 77 million refugees, a loss that we are still suffering from today. Consider that America, the beneficiary of this situation, was 6,000 miles away, Europe was 4,000 miles away, and Pakistan, the biggest loser, was right at the door, so what was the strategy, at least in our understanding? After that hostilities, Kalashnikov, Heroine culture came first in the country, then the wave of terrorism, which continues till today in one form or another. Also, has anyone estimated the drug addiction among the youth. The real impact of Gorbachev’s reforms was on Eastern Europe, in the so-called Warsaw Pact countries, the wave of freedom became so strong that everything was washed away. There were no systems, no kingdoms, no ideologies. There were uprisings in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and above all in East Germany, which even a great power like the Soviet Union could not control. Remember, at that time, the Soviet Union had the most atomic and hydrogen bombs in the world. The number of its armies was also the largest, but no one could stand in front of this wave of freedom and even an empire like the Soviet Union. It was uprooted after 60 years of its existence. Obviously, after that the world became bipolar, unipolar and only one superpower remained and that too was America.

In fact, the Soviet Union consisted of Russia and the Central Asian states under its control, but it had different alignments. The Soviet Union was subject to the ruling philosophy of Marx. It had a single-party system and was ruled by the Communist Party. It was called the Rule of Proletariat, that is, the rule of the people, although the real power was in the hands of the powerful elites of the Communist Party. The countries that were the underlings of the Soviet Union also followed the same system of governance. In fact, the Communist Party was the source of power, the founder of which was Karl Marx, after whom big names like Lenin, Stalin and Brezhnev influenced the world. . Before the communist system, Russia had a monarchy and these kings were called tsars and tsars. Two of them, Tsar Peter and Tsarina Catherine, became very famous, being among the great conquerors of their time. Russia, Central Muslim Asia and the Turkish-Ottoman Caliphate had long wars. In the history of our country, the neo-population of Great Britain and Europe is mentioned a lot, but the way Russia defeated and enslaved the Muslims of Central Asia, it is never discussed. After the formation of the Soviet Union, all the Central Muslim states became slaves of Russia, which was part of the Soviet Socialist Republic. In fact, their status was no more than that of the provinces. The communist system, no matter how different it is from the monarchy, has two values ​​in common. On the one hand, there is no scope for Sartabi to be ruled by any order of the Communist Party. Secondly, there is a complete ban on expressing opinions. It is mentioned once that the Soviet Prime Minister Khrushchev invited Western journalists to visit various cities and institutions of Russia. This meeting took place in a very happy atmosphere. However, at the end, a journalist said, “Sir! Everything is great, but very great. Your country is indeed a superpower, but there is only one thing missing.” The Russian Prime Minister asked, “What thing?” The journalist replied, “Freedom. “No, not at all. Any journalist can appreciate the good works of the government. We have given a lot of freedom.” This is the people’s government, so nothing can be done except for the good of the people,” replied the Prime Minister.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we had many opportunities to visit many countries in Central Asia. From where we could hear such stories of oppression and oppression that it was heart-breaking. Therefore, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in Russia, this question has remained unanswered until now. It often circulates in the mind that “Could this whole system have run like this…??” All weapons and power in their place, but the real reality and power of the state is the people, whose opinions and complaints are not ignored. The Soviet Union was based on an ideology, which was in direct conflict with the Western system and whose leadership was with the United States. If the Soviet Union had the Warsaw Pact, then the NATO military alliance of the Western powers. It remained in Europe and the effects of this competition were also felt in other countries. For example, our neighboring country, India, has been a close friend of the Soviet Union since the beginning. Nehru was a great proponent of socialism, even though he established Western democracy in the country. The close friendship can be gauged from the fact that the Soviet Union openly supported India at the time of the fall of Dhaka. It was also a form of military alliance and also a form of international diplomacy. If we look at the Middle East only, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Algeria and many other countries have a similar “single party system”. ” was prevalent. In the name of this there was also talk of popular revolution, which in fact always resulted in such dictatorial governments and dictators. These dictators would rule for 20 years and leave the country economically bankrupt. Egypt’s Jamal Abdul Nasser, Syria’s Haft Assad, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi were all dictators. The system implemented by him was called “socialism” and the socialist party consisting of a few of his loyalists became the ruler. After the defeat in the wars, the influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East began to disappear. Remember, Russian President Putin helped President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war, even the Russian air force bombed the people. And vetoed every resolution in the United Nations, which was against Bashar al-Assad.

After Gorbachev came to power, as the world began to see the end of the Soviet era, so did the effects of socialism. Cuba was the last country in which Fidel Castro ruled for fifteen years. The communist system continued, but after Castro, Cuba also established friendly relations with the United States and now the people of both countries visit each other easily. In fact, after this century, people were fooled in the name of freedom. No one has told how the economy will run after independence, how the people will live, who will manage the country after the dictators. The question is, “What did Gorbachev really want, what was the purpose of his reforms?” The question arises in many minds that perhaps Gorbachev’s reforms created chaos, which eventually broke up the Soviet Union. But Gorbachev’s original The challenge was the declining economy of the Soviet Union. On the one hand, the first Afghan war affected its economy and that’s why, during his rule, he ended the war by withdrawing the Russian troops from Afghanistan. It is different that the Soviet Union, which remained the closest friend of Afghanistan, The same war started the series of civil wars in Afghanistan, which finally ended after the withdrawal of American troops last August. But still, Afghanistan presents more than a country of ruins, with a system that is being built. Take years. Currently, no country even recognizes it. Gorbachev’s goal with the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was to reduce the costs that were rising on the war. But the Eastern European and Central Asian states of the Soviet Union are very bad. Was in condition. Gorbachev is called pro-Western. Of course, he is more revered in the West than in the Soviet Union, having set Eastern Europe and Central Asia on the path to freedom that began with the reunification of Germany, but Go Rabachev did not believe in a free economy. , he wanted good relations with the West, so his most important measures were arms reduction and cease-fire. It was not possible, because the economic disease had reached the roots of the economy of the Soviet Union. In addition, the Soviet Union did not have the capital for the wave of rebellion that came to East Germany and Central Asia after independence, and above all, the satellite era had begun. They were watching.

The world learned the lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union that economic weakness can tear apart even the largest, strongest and strongest Timuluk. Therefore, this new century began with a new way of thinking. Therefore, what the governments of the 21st century emphasized the most was the increase in the standard of living. In principle, this lesson should have been learned by the countries closest to Russia, but it was adopted by China and Southeast Asia. Therefore, this region soon emerged as the most developed region in the world. After thinking about it, the port was not moved to Southeast Asia. Many people are looking at the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in terms of victory or defeat, but from an economic point of view, Central Asia does not meet those expectations. He found that, given the opportunity of Soviet independence, he was at first embroiled in internal politics, and then did not take any substantial steps to improve the economy. It should have happened that a country like Southeast Asia would have found ways for another country to build and develop. Central Asian countries and states had advanced technology left over from the Soviet era, but they were only involved in oil and gas. Now, not a single Central Asian state can be presented as an example of development. The PEC project was launched to provide corridors to these states, but if there is no development there, how will this corridor benefit. Take the second example of Afghanistan that every year America spent seventeen, eighteen billion dollars here, but Afghanistan did not benefit from it. When it was decided that America was going to withdraw, at least then it would have been arranged in a way that would benefit the people. In such a situation, what is the reason for any big investor country to be a part of the development projects here, while in Afghanistan there is no infrastructure and both cold and heat have become a challenge. Arab countries, which last century Once famous for spending petrol and dollars here, Kabul today shuns the name. The Soviet Union has waged yet another protracted Afghanistan-style war. President Putin was very enthusiastic about the invasion of Ukraine, but now he is looking for ways to get out of this quagmire. Also remember, Ukraine is not Afghanistan, it is Europe, what happened that it borders Russia. President Putin dreams of restoring the old Soviet Union, but to what extent Russia will be restored, history is telling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *