Why did the Soviet Union collapse and in what ways is Russia

GOAT president Ronald Reagan made them spend too much money on their military
source: what my parents told me growing up

Its economy had basically failed to grow forom 1969 to 1989 except in the matters of oil exportation and alcohol consumption. Centralized economies are not very good for growth.

>>3059547
It's pure economical reasons. Un-diversified, non-competive economics basing on oil prices and imports. Incompetent and corrupted government played a role too.

File: 1494201739283.png (216KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 600x620px

>>3059547
They failed to adopt neoliberal reforms early enough like China did, now they are an oligarchic plutocracy.

>>3059547
after 1954 everything went downhill due to regionalism. the elite didnt care about whos in charge in the republics, as long as the military is functional. so these republics slowly but surely got thugs and regional strongmen as leaders... and when the central authority weakened, they saw their chance...

File: 72[1].jpg (88KB, 418x352px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 418x352px

>>3059587
Then the process of decentralization through shock therapy should have sent Russian GDP/PPP and free market activity skyrocketing instead of making the 90's almost as catastrophic as the 10's. History tells us that all ways to run an economy, regardless of being better or worse than each other, will still grow the economy exponentially. Russia didn't recover because it was so less centralized but because of energy prices like you mentioned and technology, and there being nowhere to go but up

Total centralization and brutal repression can produce a stable country like DPRK which continues to exist despite the abrupt end to support flowing from the Soviet dick, as does Cuba and Venezuela. But if the state eases up on the authoritarianism and leans to western standards, instability erupts. A leader who was the polar opposite of Stalin chose to make reforms and naively gave the people freedom before he could offer prosperity, and that was the end of that. The majority besides those in the Baltic republics and west Ukraine did not want to dissolve the union but it didn't matter

Reagan's wise guidance being the main factor is a meme, as much a meme as saying Vietnam was lost because the vietcong were unbeatable. If it was as simple as military spending then the war would've gone hot any moment: Immediately after WW2, western Europe has no chance and never really ends up holding an advantage. Later dogfights in Korea showed that the forces could match each other fiercely. Late game, a nuclear exchange favors the USSR with its greater land mass, larger bomb stockpile and larger, dirtier yields, and a weaker economy/industry equalized in destruction. He'd be known as Reagan the Retard by survivors because trillion dollar space lasers wouldn't have made a difference, but now he gets to be a legend for being in the right place at the right time entirely unexpectedly

File: Chavez_legacy.png (443KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 480x480px

>>3059921
>Venezuela
>Stable

>>3059921
ur a dirty commie, aren't you

>>3059921
>Total centralization and brutal repression can produce a stable country
>USSR lasted less than a century
>US is on its third
>England's current system of government is on its fifth
>the Netherlands is on their sixth