A member made a comment in another discussion that “Soviet Union had a horrible Navy” and thats the reason (presumably) of their fall.
So how much of an impact do you think their Navy (pathetic or otherwise) had in the fall of the great Soviet Union? If its closer to zero in your opinion, than what was the real reason (or reasons)?
^Zero...Reason=Poor centralising economy.....Navy didn't had any chance what so ever to prevent it from crumbling down...
Copied and pasted from my reply to him in the other thread :
The Soviet Union had one of the world's most powerful navies all the way up to its collapse. In fact, by 1982 there was great concern within NATO that Soviet naval power was greater than what NATO possessed.
They had an immensely powerful submarine force, as well as a surface navy that was trained for and capable of launching amphibious assaults anywhere in Northern Europe. Their Typhoon-class submarines were the largest and most powerful submarines of the 80s, with each individual sub carrying more than enough firepower to decimate the population of the USA.
The defeat of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with its navy - and everything to do with its economy. It could not bear the economic (and political) cost of the defeat the Afghan Mujahideen inflicted on it in the 1980s, and the cost of the arms race with the USA, being torpedoed by unrealistic communist economic policies. Gorbachov recognised that continuing down the Soviet path would bring untold suffering to its people and hence the Union dissolved.
PS: It wasn't a Soviet Empire (which would imply there was an Emperor). It was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Communism? An economic system that couldn’t sustain their social ambitions?
p.s: Don’t you dare say DUH!
Yup. I agree. I think it was their economic system that collapsed. They were not producing enough to sustain their huge military and consequently, they just ran out of resources to sustain the Union.
The other factor could be that it was an unnatural union to begin with. The speed with which many CAR broke away suggests that they were never entirely happy in the Union.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Yup. I agree. I think it was their economic system that collapsed. They were not producing enough to sustain their huge military and consequently, they just ran out of resources to sustain the Union.
The other factor could be that it was an unnatural union to begin with. The speed with which many CAR broke away suggests that they were never entirely happy in the Union.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the CAR were the most displeased with the break-up of the Soviet union - they had the most to lose, since they were economically dependent on subsidies from other states within the USSR. They were instrumental in backing Russia's creation of the CIS that followed, since they hoped it would help alleviate their economic problems.
CARS were the unhappy of the lot and to this day their love/hate realtionship with Russia creates problem when they try to move on or sign new agreements. Their dependence (particulary economic) didn't end with the disintegeration of Societ Union. Also CARS ( apart from I believe Turkeministan) supported the formation of CIS (CommonWealth of Independent States) where Russia still had sway over many issues concerning their politico- economic status.
Democracy and Free Markets are systems that work best with human tendencies. Anything else is just … 
oops. sorry Mads, didn't know you 'd already mentioned CIS in your post.
Well yes...the economic system collapsed. But you are not focusing on the cause of the economic collapse. During the 1980's, most experts believe that the Soviet Union spent between 15 to 17 percent of GNP on the military spending. This compares with military spending of 4 to 5% of GNP in the US during the same period.
The economy was destined to crack. Our own economy was subjected to huge budget deficits by Reagan's military buildup and we were spending significantly less as a percentage of GNP than were the Soviets.
Whatever else Reagan did, he convinced the Soviets that they would not win the Cold War by attrition. In fact, recent accounts from the old Soviet Union indicate that the hardliners in the Soviet Union thought Reagan was building toward a hot war rather than a cold one. Thankfully, there were some moderate enough forward thinking leaders in the Soviet Union who basically gave up the fight.
The Russians had an excellent Navy.
Ultimately they could not AFFORD their Navy, and they had so many alcoholics that judgement was frequently impaired. This was ignored, because in the end, most Russian soldiers and sailors were not paid, or were paid in Vodka. Their Submarine Corps was as good if not better than the US. They could certainly defend thier territory. Corruption and ruinous central planning erroded the economy to the point where it collapsed.