The misconceptions of the Soviet collapse: How the USSR's demise made the world more dangerous
By Davis Cousar
web posted December 14, 2015
In 1979, Soviet tanks rolled into dusty desert of Eastern Afghanistan in the USSR's first attempt to expand the influence of communism since the Vietnam War. By carrying out such an operation, the Soviets hoped to demonstrate their power toward the Western world by developing the hegemony of communism in the Middle East. However, their efforts backfired. The actions that the Soviets intended to use to expand their power led to their demise, and in contrast to popular opinion, the dissolution of the Soviet Union made the world a much more dangerous place.
The Soviet offensive toward Afghanistan set off a cycle of economic problems that caused the USSR to drown in the despairs of their command economy. In order to carry out the invasion, the Soviets had to engage in a large military buildup, causing the government to move capital and labor away from food production and toward arms production. This move caused a drop in production of the goods and services most demanded by the Soviet populace (i.e. food), leading to much discontent. Also, the government had to spend incredible large amounts of money in order to fund the military buildup, leading Soviet debt to accumulate. If this lack of food and government debt was not bad enough, the economic warfare that the Soviets faced sent their economy into a tailspin. In retaliation for the Afghan invasion, Saudi Arabian leaders increased the amount of crude oil that they would export. This caused an increase in oil supply, which decreased the cost of crude oil on world markets. The Soviets, who depended on oil for most of their income, were devastated by the drop in oil prices, and the government quickly depleted its funds while Soviet citizens clamored for reform.
In response to these problems, Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev implemented the famous reforms of perestroika and glasnost. These reforms opened Russian civil society and began the process of slowly privatizing Soviet business. Yet these reforms were not enough for those under the dominance of the USSR. Russians and Eastern Europeans were given an inch with these reforms, but they took a mile. Indeed, in just a few years after the implementation of Gorbachev's ideas, the USSR had collapsed and all of Eastern Europe was free from the grasp of communism. In Gorbachev's attempt to bring "openness" to Soviet society, it seems that he opened Pandora's box, and was unable to stop the wave of democratization from knocking down his state's dominance.
So, if the USSR had never rolled into Afghanistan, it would have never collapsed. And if it hadn't collapsed, the Berlin wall wouldn't have come down, and Eastern Europe would not have ever become free. Thus, it seems safe to say that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan helped the whole world become more safe and free as the "iron curtain" of Cold War hostility was torn down, right? WRONG! Actually, the collapse of the USSR has served to make the world much less safe. Why so?
During the Cold War, worldwide conflict was based on ideological differences (communism vs. capitalism/democracy). Yet the end of the cold war led to a vacuum of nation-state power in Eurasia, causing individuals to identify not with their nation but with the overarching civilization of which they are a part. According to the famous political scientist Samuel Huntington, there are about 7 major world civilizations (Western Christian, Islamic, African, Russian/Greek Orthodox, Confucian, Indian, Japanese), and conflicts based on these age-old civilizational rivalries are increasing.
For instance, after the breakup of the USSR, the first of these conflicts occurred in the Balkans with the Croats, Serbs, and Bosnians who are Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim respectively. The bloody massacres between these groups were funded by their respective civilizations with Catholics funding the Croats, Orthodox leaders funding the Serbs, and Muslim leaders funding the Bosnians. This relatively minor crisis, according to Huntington, is just the beginning of the clash of civilizations. Islam is currently involved in conflict with all of these civilizations to some extent. 9/11 and the recent Paris attacks put Muslims in conflict with the West. The actions of Boko Haram in Nigeria, terrorists in North Africa, and Muslim/Christian conflicts in Sudan demonstrate the conflict between Islam and Africa. The ongoing conflict in Chechnya (a Russian province) demonstrates the clash between Russia and Islam, and Pakistani/Indian conflicts shows that Islam is hostile with Indian civilization.
Worst of all, civilizational conflicts are not easily ended since hostilities run through centuries. Thus, it is becoming more and more obvious that if the USSR had not invaded Afghanistan and not collapsed, the world would be much safer. For Americans this might seem strange, since the USSR seemed to be a formidable enemy. However, this quote from CBS's Madame Secretary sums up the difference in the danger we face now.
"When the Russians were our enemies, they were reluctant to pull that trigger. Our enemies now want to pull that trigger." We can only wonder how long it will be until that trigger is pulled if we do not take any precautionary measures to avoid the imminent clash of civilizations. 
This is Davis Cousar's first contribution to Enter Stage Right. © 2015 Davis Cousar