The Superpowers: Dance of the Dinosaurs
The dance symbolizes the over-militarization of the superpowers, leading to stagnation in the USSR and undermining the USA economically. Notes some political constraints (demonstrated by the dismissal of Yeltsin) on Gorbachev's domestic programme, as well as his conduct of foreign affairs. By 1987, Reagan faced 'new thinking' on the part of the USSR, a Democrat-controlled Senate and the Iran-Contra affair, as well as economic problems, a major cause of which has been military expenditures. These trends led to a cautious improvement in superpower relations in 1987.
Marshall D. Shulman is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, Columbia University.
Mikhail Gorbachev recently expressed to a group of American visitors his hope that the United States and the Soviet Union would not appear to future historians like "two dinosaurs circling each other in the sands of nuclear confrontation." This colorful image well describes recent relations between the two superpowers: even though they are not marked for early decline or extinction, the two nations have shown a manifest inability to conduct their relations with a rational regard for their survival as great powers. Both the Soviet Union and the United States have been so constrained by parochial domestic interests and weighed down by outworn ideologies that they have been unable to summon up a competent and enlightened management of their affairs reasonably proportionate to their respective and common problems.
Both superpowers are heavily overmilitarized. In each country this has created a community with a stake in perceiving the other superpower as a mortal threat. The differences between the two powers are real, as is their competition. But it is a question of proportion. Those who seek to justify disproportionate militarization with a Manichaean ideological orthodoxy, whether out of zealotry or for economic gain, have undermined their countries’ real security and capacity to adapt to the requirements of a rapidly changing world. In the case of the Soviet Union, overmilitarization has deepened the stagnation of an inept system. In the case of the United States, it has undermined the country’s economic competitiveness, its financial solvency and the well-being of its society. This is the dance of the dinosaurs.
True, 1987 ended on a cautiously hopeful note. The atmosphere at the December summit in Washington was positive, and a beginning was made in controlling a marginal aspect of the nuclear military competition. But between shadow and substance is a great gulf. Atmospherics are gossamer, a creation of the manipulative arts; the stubborn reality remains that the military competition continues to spiral upward toward more unstable and complex systems, constrained only minimally by budgetary and resource limitations.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Related
What wise men had promised has not happened. What the damned fools predicted has actually come to pass," exclaimed Lord Melbourne during one of the British politician's fits of exasperation over the situation in Ireland. Well, viewing the post-World War II course of Soviet-American relations, one is tempted to echo the nineteenth-century statesman's sentiments.
We met, as we had to meet," President Reagan told Congress in November on his return from Geneva. A week later General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev said to the Supreme Soviet, "A dialogue of top leaders is always a moment of truth in relations between states." 1985 became the year of the summit, of a faster tempo and a softer tone in U.S.-Soviet relations. The President's invitation to meet, issued in March, had been his very first message to the new Soviet leader and reflected a widespread hope that the passing of the Kremlin's "old men" might permit East-West conciliation. Yet the leaders' more direct involvement and even their apparently amiable personal relationship could hardly resolve the contentious issues between the two sides. For this purpose, the relative strength of their bargaining positions remained decisive. In the course of the year, each side therefore sought to overcome those problems that in the past had weakened it in the superpower competition.
The Chechnya misadventure unmasked what Russia's armed forces have known for awhile: the heir to the once-vaunted Soviet military is in shambles. Years of cutbacks in Russia's military budgets, worsened by rapid inflation, have crippled morale, the development of new weapons, maintenance, and training. At the upper echelons, there is now an exodus of talented and experienced officers; in the lower ranks, desertion and draft evasion are widespread. Nevertheless, the Russian military has largely remained above politics and helped to stabilize the nation amid reform. The United States would do well to press for an honest and open military-to-military relationship with Russia. One day, a grave nuclear threat may require it.
