How USSR’s fall shapes today’s geopolitics

In the previous article The fall of the Soviet Union: A turning point in global geopolitics, internal and external factors driving the collapse of the USSR were discussed. This article analyses the broader consequences of the collapse, shaping the geopolitics more than three decades later. 

The dissolution of the Soviet Union dismantled the ideological “iron curtain” and paved the way for a new global order characterised by the rise of powers like India and China, exerting significant influence in global politics. 

But how did the collapse of the USSR reshape the global balance of power, and what were its immediate political and economic consequences? How does the collapse of the USSR underpin the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and tensions in the wider region? 

“End of history”

The dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in December 1991 gave rise to 15 new republics, but more significantly, marked the end of a critical epoch in history. The socialist framework that held the USSR and the Warsaw Pact allies together had collapsed, and the bipolar world order was replaced by a unipolar world, leaving the United States as the sole superpower of the immediate post-Cold War era. 

American political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously described this moment as the “end of history”, postulating that it would be “the end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy.” The collapse of the USSR signalled the decline of a powerful ideological counterpoint to Western liberalism and market-based economy. Although countries like China, North Korea, and Cuba continued to profess allegiance to communism, they too adjusted to market forces in view of the new global economic realities. 

Globalization and “Shock Therapy” 

The collapse of the Soviet Union was marked by the ideological triumph of capitalism and the integration of Eastern European countries and former Soviet republics into the global economy, accelerating the process of globalization. With Communism discredited and democracy revitalised, most of the former Soviet republics turned to the West and market-based economy, viewing capitalism as a solution to their economic challenges. 

The United States, western European countries and the Bretton Woods Institutions (such as the International Monetary Fund or IMF) extended monetary aid to these transitioning economies. However, this help came on conditions of free trade agreements, market deregulation, and privatisation of state-owned enterprises – values that were antithetical to the socialist policies of the USSR. After a hiatus of indecisions in the early years, these reforms coalesced into the IMF-sponsored “shock therapy” – a strategy that sought a rapid transformation of command economies into market-driven systems.

While “shock therapy” expanded the influence of Western capitalism, it severely affected domestic markets because rapid economic liberalisation resulted in hyperinflation, rising unemployment and deepening inequality. Older generations, particularly those without wealth or savings, lamented the dissolution of the USSR. Although each former Soviet republic charted its own course, the process of globalization and integration into the global economy came out to be far more challenging than initially anticipated.

Politically, the period also saw uneven transitions to democracy. In Eastern Europe, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary transitioned to democracy. In contrast, many Eurasian countries became authoritarian. Although they maintained the semblance of democracy by holding regular elections, power remained heavily centralised. In addition to economic hardships and political contradictions, nationalistic and ethnic tensions were other grievous concerns in the post-Soviet era.  

Nationalistic and ethnic conflicts

The seeds of nationalistic and ethnic tensions were sown in many republics of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s under perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness), which encouraged political expression and self-determination. Following the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia, these tensions escalated into ethnic conflicts and civil wars in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Georgia, Moldova, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya and Tajikistan.

Many of these conflicts stemmed from long-simmering ethnic rivalries, unresolved territorial disputes, and struggles over power and identity in the vacuum left by the collapse of multiethnic states like the USSR and Yugoslavia. In some cases, these ethnic and nationalistic conflicts intersected with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. This was in response to the ruling elites’ attempt to suppress conflicts and rebellions by marginalising and excluding certain groups from power-sharing arrangements (such as in Tajikistan). In Chechnya and Uzbekistan, Muslim rebels were often labeled as “jihadists” or “terrorists” and faced severe crackdowns. These conflicts left deep scars in the affected regions.

Geopolitical consequences

This shift in the global power structure enabled increased interventions by the United States, particularly in West Asia, evident in the Gulf War (1991), the invasion of Afghanistan (2001), and the Iraq War (2003). These interventions reflected Washington’s strategic priorities in a world where it no longer faced a significant ideological or military counterweight.

In fact, the chaos in Afghanistan and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are the byproducts of the Cold War: the former is rooted in the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989) and the Cold War’s proxy dynamics, while the latter resurfaced during the Soviet Union’s collapse. Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine War has apparently revived the Cold War dynamics between Russia and the West. 

After the USSR’s collapse, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) – established to counter Soviet influence – expanded eastward. Russia views the eastward expansion of NATO as a strategic threat. As Russia recovered from the shock of the USSR’s disintegration, it began to consolidate its power and espouse the Soviet era ambitions under Vladimir Putin. The invasion of Georgia (2008), the annexation of Crimea (2014), and the ongoing war in Ukraine reflect Russia’s ambitions to reassert itself as a global power. 

Russia-Ukraine War 

For much of its history, Ukraine remained part of the Russian Empire and later Soviet Union. Ukraine declared independence in December 1991, which had been described as a “civilized divorce”. However, the post-independence years saw Ukraine caught between competing geopolitical interests between Russia and the United States. Ukraine’s shift to the western sphere of influence and hoping to join NATO and the European Union was viewed by Russia as a direct threat to its security and regional dominance. 

In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine and framed it as a “special military operation” to “demilitarize and de-Nazify” the country. The invasion, however, has not only exhausted Russia internally but also tested its geopolitical influence. While Russia has pursued alliances and interventions elsewhere, such as in Syria, its focus on Ukraine has stretched its capabilities, leading to setbacks like the quiet withdrawal of forces from bases in Khmeimim and Tartus in Syria due to Turkish-backed advances.

Multipolar world order  

Thus, the dissolution of the Soviet Union not only dismantled the “iron curtain” but also marked the beginning of a new global era. It brought formerly isolated nations and regions together into the new global economic and political system. However, this change also brought significant uncertainties. The collapse of the USSR created power vacuums, particularly in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, leading to ethnic conflicts, civil wars, and prolonged instability.

Moreover, in the last two decades, Russia has largely reasserted itself as a key player in global politics. The period also witnessed the emergence of a multipolar global order, with countries like China, India, Brazil, and Türkiye exerting their significant influence at the global level. Thus, Russia now operates in a world vastly different from the Cold War era.

The fluid dynamic of the era is evident in conflicts like Syria, where multiple actors, including Russia, the United States, Türkiye, and Iran, have pursued overlapping and competing agendas. It underlines that the modern geopolitical landscape is shaped by a complex interplay of regional and global actors. While this multipolarity offers opportunities for cooperation, it also poses challenges, as competing interests often lead to fragmented and conflict-prone global politics.

Post Read Questions

How did the collapse of the USSR reshape the global balance of power, particularly the role of the United States as the sole superpower?

In what ways did the newly independent states struggle to establish stable political systems after the fall of the USSR?

How did international organizations like the IMF and World Bank influence economic reforms in the post-Soviet states?

How has the collapse of the USSR shaped the factors underlying the Russia-Ukraine war?

How did the collapse of the USSR contribute to conflicts in regions such as Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria?

(Mohammad Reyaz is PhD in International Studies from Jamia Millia Islamia and assistant professor at Aliah University, Kolkata.)

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.