1

בירושלים העברית האוניברסיטה

פינה-אבני תכנית

בינלאומיים ליחסים המחלקה

הגלובליזציה בעידן בינלאומיים יחסים – 58360

" כמעצמה ב"ארה של מעמדהו העולמי הכוחות מאזן על מ"ברה נפילת השפיעה כיצד"

“How did the fall of the USSR affect the global balance of power in regards to the USA as a super power”

Dan: מגיש

6.2010

Introduction:

2

In this project I will examine the changes and shifts in the global power structure (and balance of power

between nation states) that resulted in the decade following the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics (USSR) and the end of the cold war in 1991, with a focus on the United States of America (USA).

I will also be focusing on providing evidence for the claim that said shift in the global balance of power resulted

in a shift away from the Bipolar system that existed during the Cold War.

I will approach this issue primarily through the State level analysis vis a vis the USA and it’s increase in power

in the immediate post Cold War era (said era being defined as being between the collapse of the USSR and

the events of 9/11, 1991-2000) due to the shifting power structure caused by the void left by the USSR from

the previous Bipolar system. In other words, nation states as primary actors1.

Brief Historical Background:

During the period following shortly after the end of the Second World War (1945) and the USSR’s acquisition of nuclear capabilities (1948),there existed in the international arena a continuous conflict and competition for power, influence and dominance between the Soviet Union and its satellite states (which included North Ko-

1 “The Actors in International Politics”, “Classic readings and Contemporary debates in International Relations” pages 128-129 “The State as an Actor”. Authors: Phil Williams , Donald M. Goldstein, Jay M. Shafritz

3

rea, Vietnam, The German Democratic Republic and for a time China as an ally, amongst others), and the powers of the Western world, particularly the United States (and its allies & client states – Great Britain, West-ern Germany, South Korea, Israel, etc’) known as the Cold War. (So named for the relative ambiguity of the conflict, as opposed to any direct military conflict between the superpowers).

Although the primary participants' (The USA & The USSR) military forces never officially clashed , they ex-pressed the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive foreign aid (the reconstruction of Germany for example), proxy wars (Korea2, Vietnam3 and Afghanistan among others), espionage, propaganda, a nuclear arms race, and economic and technological competitions, such as the Space Race and the economic development of their allies 4.

After World War 2, Europe was effectively divided between the “West” and the East”.

The Soviet Union created the Eastern Bloc with eastern European countries it occupied, annexing some and maintaining others as satellite states. The US and some western European countries established contain-ment of communism as a defensive policy, establishing alliances such as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organi-zation) to that end in addition to shared military efforts and diplomatic and economic cooperation.

The weakening of the Soviet government5 led to a series of events6 that eventually caused the dissolution of

the Soviet Union, a gradual process that took place from about January 19, 1990, to December 31, 1991.

This process was characterized by many of the Soviet Socialist Republics declaring their independence and

being recognized as sovereign nation-states.

By December 1991, all official Soviet institutions had ceased operations, as individual republics assumed the

central government's role. 7

This was a new paradigm, in that rather than the preexisting Bipolar global system with it’s main powers being

the USA and the USSR respectively, a new Unipolar status quo now existed, with the USA now being the sole

dominant power in the spheres of military power, influence, economic & financial strength as well as immense

“soft” power.

2 http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/korea/oneill.html3 http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=1804 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+gx0079) – Economic development of East Germany5 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html Soviet Economy “As a developed industrial country, the Soviet Union by the 1970s found it increasingly difficult to maintain the high rates of growth in the industrial sector that it had sustained in earlier years. Increasingly large investment and labor inputs were required for growth, but these inputs were becoming more difficult to obtain. Although the planned goals of the five-year plans of the 1970s had been scaled down from previous plans, the targets remained largely unmet.”6 http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1000/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1000/stories/1001_0140.html - Nebraska department of Education7 http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/timeline/end/index.html - The National Museum of American History

4

Theoretical Tools:

My analysis is based on the state level of analysis, namely the examination of whole states as individual

actors in the international global system, with an emphasis on empirical quantitive analysis of the American

economy in absolute terms of growth and in relation to the global GDP changes and an emphasis on its rivals

(The Eastern block/post collapse USSR) and allies (growth, and relative economic growth and dominance).

5

I will be following many of the ideas from the school(s) of neorealism (For example, Kissinger8, Robert Kagan9

amongst others), namely an approach characterized by the importance of hegemonies (dominant powers

capable of forcing lesser, weaker states/actors to acquiesce = power).

Hegemony being defined as “a state's ability to single-handedly dominate the rules and arrangements… [of]

international political and economic relations."“10. A superpower11 in a system can be said to be equilevent to a

hegemon, according to accepted parlance.

We will also examine the balance of power between the various great powers from a realism centric

approach as voiced by Paul Kennedy. That is, “might/power makes right”12 and the absolute importance of

hard (economic, military) power, as characterized and defined13 as quantitive goalposts by Kennedy in regard

to modern nation-states14 and his emphasis on the importance of relative power 15between states as the

defining characteristic of power in the global system and distribution of power in the aforementioned.

I will also rely on the theoretical concepts of American power (both hard and “soft”16 discussed in the syllabus

article: “Limits of American Power” by Joseph S. Nye, Jr.17

As an offshoot of the discussion of the balance of power in the global system I will argue that the system

shifted from a bipolar one to a unipolar 18one.

This following the concept of multipolar or bipolar systems (depending on the era – Pre WW1 – multipolar19,

8 Diplomacy, Kissinger Henry

9 Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy , CARNEGIE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, JULY/AUGUST 1996, William Kristol and Robert Kagan http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=276 10 Ibid, 83. 11 The Routledge Dictionary of Politics, Third Edition. - Superpower12 JL Ray (1982), Understanding Rummel, Journal of Conflict Resolution

13 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, p 199–203 Kennedy Paul, 1987 14 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, Kennedy Paul, 198715 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, p 438-439 Kennedy Paul, 198716 http://www.wordspy.com/words/softpower.asp “Power based on intangible or indirect influences such as culture, values, and ideology. “17 “Classic readings and Contemporary debates in International Relations” pages 707-716 ““Limits of American Power””. Authors: Phil Williams , Donald M. Goldstein, Jay M. Shafritz18 Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, 1994, chapter 31, page 809 “The end of the cold war has created what some observers have called a “unipolar” or “one-superpower” world.19 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Huntington, Samuel P, page 21 “the nation states of the west… - constituted a multipolar international system”?

6

during the era of the cold war – bipolar20 (USSR/”2d world”, USA/”The West”/1st world), or in other words the

various “poles” of power as embodied in great powers, or coalitions of thereof.

I will also approach the concept of the balance of power under the theory of bandwagoning21, namely that

when one great power appears supreme in it’s power and success (a “super power”), that other states will

frequently attempt to emulate it rather than allying against it to create competing “poles” (as characterized by

the expansion of free market based capitalist policies following the Cold War and the apparent success of

capitalism as exemplified by the West).

Thesis:

The predominant state of affairs for the later half of the 21st century was a so called “Cold War” between the

USSR (Composed of Russia and a number of annexed states in Eastern Europe) and it’s allies (China up until

the 1970’s, Vietnam, Cuba.) and satellite states (Eastern Germany, Romania, Poland and many other central

and eastern European states) on one side, and “The West”, composed primarily of the USA and Western

Europe on the other.

The USSR and USA were the dominant powers in both of these respective coalitions which followed their

leadership and ideology. Capitalism, liberal democracy and free markets in the case of the West/America,

Communism, command economies and Marxist economic policies in the case of the USSR22.

20 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Huntington, Samuel P, page 21 “During the cold war global politics became bipolar.21 Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power, Stephen M. Walt, pages 6-8 Source: International Security, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Spring, 1985), pp. 3-43, The MIT Press.URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2538540

“The more powerful you are and the more clearly this is demonstrated, the more likely states are to ally with you” [page 7].22 Note: This is a very broad brush and is meant solely as a general guideline to the respective political ideologies promoted by the “sides”.

7

Their leadership was due to their exceptionally greater power compared to all other (individual) nation states

in the world save each other, by merit of their prodigious populations, economic power (measured in GDP23),

military forces, operational reach24 and their nuclear arsenals25 (the nuclear and military parity between the

USSR and USA was what forced the Cold War, even as they put their allies under a protective “nuclear

umbrella”). They were competing Super Powers.

To Elaborate,

Gross National Product Comparison:26

.

23 Gross Domestic Product24 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm “At least 700 foreign bases”25 The US and USSR nuclear arsenals were vastly superior to those of other nuclear powers, while the vast majority of nations lack nuclear capabilities entirely. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat Arms control website,

“China: About 240 total warheads. “France: Fewer than 300 operational warheads. Russia: Approximately 2,600 operational strategic warheads , approximately 2,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.United Kingdom: Fewer than 160 deployed strategic warheads, total stockpile of up to 225. United States: 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warheads and approximately 4,500 warheads retired and awaiting dismantlement. The 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warhead stockpile includes 1,968 strategic warheads , approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 2,645 inactive warheads.”26 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, p 436 Kennedy Paul, 1987

8

Leading economies GDP as a percentage of global GDP27:

In terms of Military capabilities and expenditure 28, the difference was even more stark:

27 Agnus Maddison, http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/vertical-file_02-2010.xlsComparative data assembled by myself using Microsoft Excel using the basic data provided by Maddison.

28 ? http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/worldreg2010Military expenditure by region in constant US dollars, 1988–2009. 1988 represents the last year of the USSR with Russia

matching it’s proegnitor’s expenditure for that year. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

“In 1988 military spending was a single line item in the Soviet state budget, totaling 21 billion rubles, or about US$33 billion. Given the size of the military establishment, however, the actual figure was at least ten times higher.”

USA

Germany

Italy

UK

France

USSR

9

29

Both the USA and USSR spent much more on defense than the other great powers (Great Britain, France,

Germany, China) combined while possessing huge populations, advanced industrialized economies30, vast

territories31, overseas bases (Especially in Europe [Western Germany ] and the Far east [Japan, South Korea]

by the USA), and massive nuclear arsenals32, including advanced second strike capabilities via secondary

nuclear bases and submarines.

In short, their military dominance was absolute (compared to other nation states), their economies the largest33

and their strength34 the greatest. They were the dominant super powers35 in the international system.

29 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, p 384 Kennedy Paul, 198730 The USSR economy was not as advanced as the West’s per capita, but it’s vast population size compensated, making it the second largest economy in the world.

"1990 CIA World Factbook". Central Intelligence Agency http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact90/world12.txt31 USA: http://www.theodora.com/wfb1989/united_states/united_states_geography.html

USSR Geography: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0006)32 "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy", By Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. March/April 2006 ; http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61508/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-us-nuclear-primacy

“For almost half a century, the world's most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other's retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack…”33 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact90/world12.txt - 1990 CIA world factbook. Central Intelligence Agency34 In terms of hard power (See Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000” 1987 for the specific metrics commonly used upon which I based my analysis. Namely industrial potential, resources, population, and many other factors as extrapolated from Kennedy’s analysis of late 19th-early 20th century powers. Pages 199-202

35 “Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the Post-Cold War Era” Kim Richard Nossal http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm “While the term superpower … it was not until the mid-1940s that it entered common parlance to describe the superordinate position in which both the United States and the Soviet Union found themselves vis-à-vis all other countries in the world at the end of the Second World War…”

10

This manifested itself in the fact that the overall global balance of power reflected a bipolar system between

the East and the West with most36 countries bandwagoning37 behind one or the other.

Examples of the “lesser” powers rallying behind one power or the other include North Vietnam, North Korea

and China adopting the ideology (communism) of the USSR and allying themselves with it militarily, while on

the other hand the various Western European powers liberated by the USA during World War 2 and threatened

by the vast conventional military forces of the USSR as well as it’s nuclear arsenal38 aligned themselves firmly

in the American’s camp (these in addition to the various American “protectorates”, which included South Korea,

South Vietnam before it’s incorporation into the North, etc’).

The collapse of the USSR into the Russian Federation and a number of separate states changed this balance

of power. The resulting successor states (Russian federation39, Ukraine, the newly independent satellite states

such as Poland, East Germany, Romania) entered a period of extreme economic turbulence and were far

weaker than their predecessor. Their economies deteriorated, then veered on collapse when free market

reforms were attempted (inspired by the apparently more successful Capitalistic west [See previous notes on

bandwagoning]) while living standards and health levels deteriorated40. Some sources have the Russian

36 But not all: “3d world” countries, the unaligned block (India), Africa, etc’37 Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power, Stephen M. Walt, pages 6-8 Source: International Security, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Spring, 1985), pp. 3-43, The MIT Press.URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/253854038 Paul, Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000”, page 436 1987

Based on “Strategic Atlas”, Chaliand & Gageau39 Library of Congress Country Studies, Russia: Economic Conditions in Mid-1996 :” As of mid-1996, four and one-half years after the launching of Russia's post-Soviet economic reform, experts found the results promising but mixed. The Russian economy has passed through a long and wrenching depression. Official Russian economic statistics indicate that from 1990 to the end of 1995, Russian GDP declined by roughly 50 percent, far greater than the decline that the United States experienced during the Great Depression…. []other major sectors such as agriculture, energy, and light industry also suffered from the transition. ”. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ru0119) 40 Plunging Russian life expectancy rates: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/2008/demo/osn/05-08.htm

Graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Russian_male_life_expectancy.jpg

11

economy as shrinking by as much as 50%!4142

(*Note on the relevant time period: We are only looking at Russian GDP and GDP (Product Per Capita) up until 2000).

This was also accompanied by a loss of not only military power, but also of prestige and soft power as

communism was no longer seen as a viable ideological alternative to that offered by the West, with many of

the formerly communist nations turning to American sponsored market reforms. (China increased it’s

international trade and led the globalization trend, Russia attempted free market reforms, India opened up to

external markets, etc’).

This economic malaise was (generally speaking) limited to the eastern block . Although some unaligned

nations did suffer from the USSR’s breakdown, in addition to other events such as the Asian financial crisis

and civil wars in Africa). This was during a time of rapid global economic growth, and high US GDP and

productivity growth43.

The various Western block nations (Japan, France, the UK…) maintained or lowered their traditionally low

defense expenditures. The USA also lowered the proportion of it’s GDP spent on military expenditures44, but

41 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ru0119)“Official Russian economic statistics indicate that from 1990 to the end of 1995, Russian GDP declined by roughly 50

percent, far greater than the decline that the United States experienced during the Great Depression.” Library of Congress Country Studies42 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/index.aspx

IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2009. 43 http://www.nationmaster.com/red/time.php?stat=eco_gdp&country=us&b_printable=1

US GDP growth44 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9665.pdf

"Defense Budget for FY2003: Data Summary", document order code RL31349, p.23, Congressional Research Service

12

not by much, a state of affairs that meant that it spent more than the next powers combined45.

The USA then (as today) had highest military expenditure in the world without being on a wartime footing, the

World's largest navy (surpassing the 13 next largest navies combined46), bases all over the world, and one of

the largest nuclear arsenals in the world by far47 with extensive strategic deployment options. It also possessed

one of the largest, best trained and best equipped armies in the world as well as one of the two largest and

certainly the most advanced air forces in the world, in addition to being the prime global source for cutting

edge military technology48.

This state of affairs not only remained present after the fall of the USSR, it did so while it’s opponent collapsed,

taking the eastern block (as an ideology and externally focused military power) with it.

Now, not only does the US have immense power relative to the rest of the world, it has crushing superiority

compared to any other power or even group of powers49.

To quote: “the gap in military capacity between the United States and any (or all) other countries now far exceeds any gap that existed during the Cold War. Because the administrations of both George Bush and Bill Clinton continued to spend on defence during the 1990s, particularly on research and development in new weapons systems, the United States government now has a means of projecting military force on a global basis that no other country (or group of countries) can even begin to rival. Not only does the United States retain the massive nuclear arsenal it developed during the Cold War, but it also remains the only country in the world with a truly global airlift capability. Because of quantum improvements in targetting accuracy, mainly involving GPS (global positioning system) technology, American forces have the ability to engage in highly precise bombing, as the 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 clearly showed.…Moreover, the defence industrial base in the United States is unmatched by any other country in size, sophistication, and complexity. In a similar fashion, the United States dominates access to space, crucial for both civilian and military missions.50

The removal of one of the poles of the bipolar system had opened the way to a unipolar system, with the USA

as the sole remaining superpower becoming the hyperpower or hegemon of the new global system, lacking

any immediate competitor possessing it’s level of allies (most of the largest economies in the world after the

45 www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm46 Weighing the US Navy Defense & Security Analysis, Volume 17, Issue 3 December 2001 , pages 259 - 26547 http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html List of nuclear arsenal estimates. Center for Defense information48 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_9_19/ai_100111687/ “High-tech tools of war: U.S. military technology is more than a decade ahead of every other country's and is advancing so quickly that the rest of the world's forces might never catch up” Insight on the News, April 15, 2003 by J. Michael Waller; b news website49 50 Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower?Analyzing American Power in the Post-Cold War , , Kim Richard Nossal http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm

13

USA are its individualallies in western Europe!51), soft power5253, economic influence and industrialization and a

military in a class of it’s own. US military expenditures were greater than the next 5 powers combined and

represented almost half of all global military expenditures. 54

Top 15 nations, as ranked by military spending in 1999 (data from WMEAT) 55

Final Words:

It is my thesis that the US retained it’s status as a superpower after the collapse of it’s primary rival, the USSR

and the end of the cold war. This resulted in their being no single states rivaling it during that period, a position

which left it the hegemony of the international global system.

51 France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Japan, South Korea in the Far east.52 Nye, Bound to Lead, 31; also 29-35 and 188ff. 53 Josef Joffe, "The secret of US world domination," The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 27 September 1997.

54 http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.phpTable 1: US military spending as a percentage of world military spending, 1985--1999 (data from WMEAT) Chart 1

55 http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.phpTable 1: US military spending as a percentage of world military spending, 1985--1999 (data from WMEAT) Chart 1

14

In short, a vacuum was created in the balance of power with the removal of the USSR, and the US was left

standing as the single center of global affairs. Capable of unilateral action56 by dint of it’s great power,

influence and overwhelming military capabilities.

Whether this unipolar state of affairs will persevere is another question entirely, and is out of the scope of this

work. Some experts, like Kim Richard Nossal57 in his article “Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower?

Analyzing American Power in the Post-Cold War Era” believe so, while others, including Henry Kissinger 58 and

Huntington 59 believe that power in modern era has become increasingly diffused and that not only is the

current state of affairs not one of unipolarity, but that global forces will further diffuse power and reduce US

exceptionalism (with the rise of other economic powerhouses such as China60 and India61).

I personally agree with the latter thesis, but as has been said, this is both outside the scope of this work, and

it’s chosen level of analysis (We’re discussing the state level, not the global-international long term level!).

However, my case that the US was a hyperpower or unipower in the global system, and that this state of

affairs was facilitated by the fall of the USSR stands, and I believe is justified by the extensive economic and

military data that has been supplied.

Bibliography:

When writing this work I relied extensively on the following articles and works:

The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, Kennedy Paul, 1987

Diplomacy, Kissinger Henry, 199456 Operation Gulf Storm: Reaction and reprisals to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait by the USA and it’s allies.

Intervention in Yugoslavia, an area that was once within the sphere of influence of the USSR. http://www.nato.int/kosovo/all-frce.htm "Operation Allied Force" "A historical overview sets out NATO's rolein relation to the conflict in Kosovo"57 http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm58 Diplomacy, Kissinger Henry, 1994, page 809: “The end of the cold war has created what some observers call a “unipolar” or “one power world”…”power has become more diffuse”…”As the 21st century approaches, vast global forces are at work that will render the US less exceptional”59 Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Huntington, Samuel P60 China is already the world’s 2d largest economy as of the time of this writing. 61 http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948401.htm

“A New World Economy :The balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve” Bloomberg business week, AUGUST 22, 2005

15

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Huntington, Samuel P, 2003 ed

“Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the Post-Cold War Era”, Kim Richard Nossal http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm

“The Actors in International Politics”, “Classic readings and Contemporary debates in International Relations” pages 128-129 “The State as an Actor”. Authors: Phil Williams , Donald M. Goldstein, Jay M. Shafritz

“Classic readings and Contemporary debates in International Relations” pages 707-716 ““Limits of American Power””. Authors: Phil Williams , Donald M. Goldstein, Jay M. Shafritz

Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power, Stephen M. Walt, pages 6-8 Source: International Security, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Spring, 1985), pp. 3-43, The MIT Press.URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2538540

The homepage of late Agnus Maddison [RIP], Emeritus Professor of Economics of the University of

Groningen. His “Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2008 AD” was

exceptionally valuable.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute studies, my primary source for year over year

military expenditure figures (http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/worldreg2010)

Global Security website (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget-

expenditures.htm) for figures on military expenditures, the Russian federation in particular.

The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) World Factbook – For economic data and facts.

IMF World Economic Outlook Database – International Monetary foundation, especially for information

on year over year changes to the USSR economy.

US Library of Congress Country Studies (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html)