乐鱼 体育

This year marks the 20^th anniversary of the August 1991 attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.  To reflect on this important anniversary, The Center for Eurasian, Russia, and East European Studies (CERES), Georgetown University, and the Kennan Institute conducted a day-long conference on 16 November 2011 on 鈥渢he road taken.鈥�  The seminar looked backwards to better understand the options that presented themselves at the end of the Soviet period, and also examined the region afresh in light of the road traveled over the past 20 years.

Archie Brown, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Oxford University, began the first panel on 鈥�1991 in Perspective鈥� by outlining Mikhail Gorbachev鈥檚 ideological evolution during his tenure in office.  In 1986, Gorbachev talked about the need for a 鈥渞econsideration of the Communist Party鈥檚 relations with social democracy.鈥�  Gorbachev鈥檚 embrace in 1989 of the language of 鈥渄emocratic socialism鈥� also represented a significant break with the past, as this term had always been rejected in the USSR.   By 1991, Brown argued, Gorbachev had been transformed into a western-oriented social democrat and was seeking a civilized divorce with the Communist Party. 

Jack Matlock, former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Russian Federation, insisted that the U.S. was not surprised by the Soviet Union鈥檚 collapse.  In many ways, he argued, the U.S. was better informed about internal developments within the USSR than Gorbachev himself, who received unreliable information from the KGB.  Matlock added that the U.S., in fact, wanted Gorbachev to succeed鈥攂oth to prevent a dramatic increase in the number of nuclear states, and because the U.S. came to recognize that Gorbachev genuinely wanted democratization.  At the same time鈥攆or various economic reasons as well as the rise of national independence movements in several republics鈥攖he U.S. thought it unlikely that Gorbachev could succeed.  In the final analysis, Matlock concluded, Gorbachev should be credited for the peaceful break-up of the Soviet Union. 

Andrei Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, reflected on why it has taken so long for Russia to 鈥渆mancipate itself from the Soviet legacy.鈥�  Indeed, as Kortunov noted, various aspects of Soviet society, including Brezhnev-era 鈥渟tagnation鈥� appear to be making a comeback.  Kortunov discussed various reasons for this Soviet revival, ranging from genuine nostalgia among older (and some younger) Russians for the Soviet Union, to blunders by Russia鈥檚 liberal reformers to the slow response of the West to embrace the new Russia.  Only with social modernization, argued Kortunov, will Russia finally be able to break the Soviet legacy.  

Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate, Moscow Carnegie Center, delivered the keynote speech on the post-Soviet malaise and Russia鈥檚 failure to find its place in a rapidly changing world.   Shevtsova noted that from a geopolitical standpoint, the Cold War global security architecture has largely remained in place over the past 20 years, with no re-balancing of interests or values among the leading international players.  Shevtsova further described the unsustainability of the Russian political system, and the failure to develop a contingency plan if Russia implodes (which she believes is occurring today).    Finally, Shevtsova emphasized that the world still relies on old policy solutions, such as gradualism and the need for engagement, despite the consistent failure of these policies to address Russia鈥檚 post-Soviet transformation. 

Cynthia Buckley, Program Director, Eurasia, Social Science Research Council, began the second panel on 鈥淗ow the post-Soviet Space is Studied鈥�  by focusing on a 鈥渂ottoms up鈥� approach, that is, by looking at how people function in their everyday lives.  Buckley discussed the social resilience of the region鈥檚 population, and people鈥檚 ability to re-negotiate the 鈥渞ules of the game鈥� over the past 20 years.  Mobility in this region, Buckley emphasized, was stymied, especially in the sphere of education, and only by looking at the behaviors of individual people could one appreciate the possibilities for development in the region. 

Valerie Bunce, Professor of Government, Cornell University, discussed the importance of including the Soviet Union in the study of authoritarianism.  This approach has several advantages; most notably, she argued, it allowed for variation in the types of authoritarian regimes that can be compared.  Bunce closed by discussing the fundamental question of access to information under authoritarian regimes, and how the Soviet Union can be used to better understand how authoritarian leaders have tried to gain the benefits of pluralism, but without its costs.

Stephen Hanson, Professor of Government, College of William and Mary, noted another anniversary looming on the horizon: the 100^th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution.  Hanson then discussed how the Soviet (and post-Soviet) experiment had knocked out three of the four major paradigms that have guided overarching social science research over the past century: Marxist theory, modernization, and the rational choice paradigm. The Soviet experience, for example, discredited Marxist theory, and the belief that a revolution of the proletariat could 鈥減ropel humanity forward.鈥�  Instead, Hanson stressed the need to look at the 鈥渟ubjective orientations of the world, and the environment that they interact with,鈥� so as to best understand the rise and fall of the USSR, and Russia鈥檚 chaotic post-Soviet aftermath. 

Charles King, Professor of International Affairs and Government, Georgetown University, emphasized that the era of macro-level scholarly explanations of change in the post-Soviet region was over.  Indeed, rather than trying to impart a set of certainties about the region, King maintained that we should view the region as 鈥渇ull of puzzles that need explanation.鈥�  Such a mindset, the speaker argued, would influence how scholars approach such issues as regime transition, nationalism, and violence. The puzzles of the region have yet to be solved, King concluded, thereby opening up the research possibilities for the next 20 years. 

By William E. Pomeranz

Blair Ruble, Director, Kennan Institute