Video-conference

“20th Anniversary since Disintegration of the Soviet Union”

OREM, Utah -- On Monday, November 21, 2011, in the campus library auditorium at

Utah Valley University, there was a special conference commemorating the twentieth

anniversary of what Dr. Rusty Butler calls a monumental, historical moment—the disintegration

of the Soviet Union. This was a three-panel teleconference via Skype with guests participating

from Russia and Washington, D.C. This event was sponsored by the Utah International Mountain

Forum, the Office of International Affairs and Diplomacy at UVU, and the Department of

History and Political Science at UVU. The conference was free and the public was invited to

come, and a question-and-answer period concluded each panel.

Dr. Rusty Butler, Associate Vice-President, International Affairs/Diplomacy, UVU ( L ) and John McClure, co-

chair, Utah International Mountain Forum ( R ) during the video-conference

The first panel, titled “View from Russia”, featured Dr. Frederick White, Associate Dean of the

College of Humanities and Social Sciences at UVU, Dr. Natalia Gronskaya of Nizhniy

Novgorod, Russia, representatives of the Sakharov Museum and students in Nizhniy Novgorod,

and Alexey Semyonov, President of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, and was moderated by Dr.

Rusty Butler, Associate Vice President of International Affairs and Diplomacy at UVU.

These views from Russia gave some perspectives of Soviet citizens during the

disintegration of the Soviet Union. There were fascinating stories of fear, uneasiness, hope, and

anticipation. One of the students was at sea on a boat at the time and they didn’t have any

reliable information. The captain was unsure of which flag to sail into port under—they left the

Soviet Union, but that didn’t exist anymore (they made the “right choice” and raised the tricolor

imperial flag that Russia adopted). Others, who were out of the country during the

transformation, expressed similar views of leaving one country and the daunting journey going

home to a different place without a name. For Russians, it was hard to make sense of this strange

time. The whole transformation seemed so sudden and rapid when it happened, but many people

had noticed increasingly ubiquitous signs of change in the years prior to 1991 as the communist

government was loosening restrictions and losing their ironfisted grip on the state. Dr.

Gronskaya noted that the mentality of the country was changing, fostering greater desires for

liberties and human rights. Russians could feel a hint of freedom in the air. Opposition to the

state was no longer aggressively quashed and communist leaders, especially Lenin, were openly

criticized. Alexey Semyonov explained that there was no doubt that change was inevitable, and it

was understood that the Soviet Union couldn’t sustain itself much longer. Semyonov clarified

that the only question was how the dissolution would happen—peacefully or violently? What

could have been catastrophic ended up being a much more “peaceful” political dissolution. Many

leaders, like Andrei Sakharov, had been working on restructuring the union under more

democratic structures while keeping the same territory, similar to the current European Union,

but the peripheral states desired independence, and the union fragmented. For people in the

collapsing country, the time of turmoil and incoherency was also a time of hope for the future

and romantic expectations. For everyone, regardless of their view or their trepidation, it was a

time to say goodbye to the past and to take the next steps into the future. Dr. Fred White

described that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a major turning point in world

history, leading to the emergence of a new country with a new identity, political and economic

system, and culture.

According to Alexey Semyonov, although Russia has had relative success in the

transition, progress in the other former Soviet republics has been varied and some of the promise

that came out of the dissolution has been realized, yet democracy isn’t as free flowing throughout

the territory as was hoped. There were new opportunities, but not all of the states were able to

successfully progress in post-Soviet transition. It became clear that democracy needed to be built

on something more substantive than destroying communism. The Baltic States have quickly

advanced and developed, but the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia continue to struggle as

they face their new challenges. There is still hope for progress, much opportunity for success,

and the future may be bright for the states.

The second panel, titled “View from Washington, D.C.”, featured former U.S.

Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William

Miller, and Dr. William Hill, professor of national security at the National War College in

Washington, D.C. and two-time former head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, and was

moderated by Alexey Semyonov.

In this panel, the distinguished guests presented a United States government view of the

collapse of the Soviet empire. Each of the panelists gained interest in Russia in their youth, as

they were children of the Cold War—the U.S.-Soviet Union relationship was a daily factor in

life. Ambassador Matlock gave insight into the thoughts and feelings of Ronald Reagan, the U.S.

President in the 1980s. President Reagan was concerned with the arms race between the two

states and the conditions in the Soviet Union, especially concerning human rights. The American

efforts were aimed at encouraging internal change in the Soviet Union, which efforts were

effective. Ambassador Matlock also described the agenda and goals of the United States relating

to relations with the Soviet Union. He explained that, by 1987, Premier Gorbachev was

accepting the U.S. four-point agenda of arms reduction (eliminating nuclear weapons),

withdrawal from military action around the world (an end to proxy wars), protecting human

rights, and establishing a working relationship (dismantling the Iron Curtain). These goals helped

to open the country and allowed for the beginnings of democratization in the late 1980s.

Ambassador Matlock also shared his unique perspective as United States representative to the

Soviet Union, regarding the dissolution of the union. By mid-1990, it was clear to the United

States that the Soviet Union was on a track toward dissolution, although the United States was

encouraging a transition to a democratic union—similar to Gorbachev’s, Sakharov’s, and others’

ideal—instead of a complete disbanding of the union. Dissenting from Gorbachev’s position,

other Russian government leaders, especially Yeltsin, weren’t as interested in maintaining a

unified territory as they were in democratizing and sustaining a viable Russia. Dr. William Hill

described how the United States knew that the end of communism was imminent—evidenced by

the fundamental changes and substantial reforms including Yeltsin’s presidential campaign—yet

surprised by how fast the situation progressed and how quickly power shifted from Gorbachev to

Yeltsin. William Miller’s experience was very fascinating. Through his position as head of the

International Foundation in Moscow, he was able to regularly meet with and become friends

with both Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and was able to witness firsthand the personal dynamic

between the two leaders. He described the “war” between their personalities, experiences, and

ideas as individuals—Gorbachev was reforming the system, cultivating and accepting opposing

views, and ending single-party rule in hopes of developing a stronger union while Yeltsin wished

to end the Soviet Union completely. It was definitely a unique time in American and world

history and the dissolution of a global superpower forever altered everyone’s perception of the

world.

Democratization and progress became a topic of the second panel also. Ambassador

Matlock explained that in the United States’ view, Russia is the primary trustee of regional

stability, and they should do more for the future success and progress of the former Soviet

republics. It was mentioned again that the Baltic States have progressed democratically and have

had great success in their development, and that the other regions have struggled. There are still

some “messy events” according to Alexey Semyonov. Ambassadors Matlock and Miller and Dr.

Hill described some of these messy events. Central Asia struggles with dictatorships and is being

affected by the operations in Afghanistan, Ukraine is politically divided and experiencing high

levels of corruption, there are at least five serious and unresolved wars in the peripheral states,

human rights are limited in many of the new states, there is no standard procedure for the

handling of disputes between the states (the major actors handled the breakup of Yugoslavia and

the crisis in Kosovo one way, then take a drastically different approach to the breakup of the

Soviet Union and the crises in the Caucasus), and tensions are high between the U.S. and the

Russian Federation over the handling of conflicts in the region—especially the Russia-Georgia

conflict. Dr. Hill mentioned that the outlook of peace in the region is grim and some of the

situations are very dangerous, but there is still some hope that cooperation and third-party actors

can, while respecting states’ sovereignty, help resolve many of the “unsolved and insolvable”

basic issues that threaten the stability of the republics. Ambassador Miller was hopeful that

people in the region would return to living together peacefully, like they had for centuries.

Ambassador Matlock concluded that there is also hope that collaboration and respect between

the United States and Russia can strengthen their relationships and bolster their cooperation, and

that pure reason will always prevail.

Students of UVU at the audience

The final panel, titled “View from New Generation of Leaders”, was an informal

roundtable with participation from Lindsay Funk, the U.S. President of the Stanford U.S.-Russia

Forum (SURF) currently living in Moscow, Nikita Alentyev, SURF officer in the Moscow

Higher School of Education, Richard Portwood, co-founder of the Center for American-Russian

Engagement of Emerging Leaders (CAREEL) and former UVU Student Body President, and

Cooper Henderson, co-founder of CAREEL and former Westminster College Student Body

President, and was moderated by John McClure, SURF delegate and co-president of UVU’s

Russian and Foreign Affairs Club.

Because of the efforts of emerging leaders, the future really is bright as common

ambitions to improve relationships and create something meaningful bring the United States and

Russia closer together. Each of the panelists emphasized that through hands-on exchanges and

cooperative engagement efforts, future leaders are able to learn and recognize others’ viewpoints,

tear down historical misconceptions and stereotypes, and create opportunities for interaction

beyond government engagements. Lindsay Funk noted that people haven’t forgotten the politics

and issues of the past—which causes an uneasy relationship—but they are open to each other

and to cooperation. One encouraging sign is the increasingly positive perception between the

United States and Russia following the official reset of the relationship between the two

countries. There are fundamental differences between Russia and the U.S. Lindsay Funk and

John McClure explained that it is important to acknowledge and accept those differences, and as

long as they are understood, ties can be created and gaps bridged. Richard Portwood was hopeful

because the current “Millennial” generation is motivated to understand and seems ready and able

to move out of the past and into the future.

Organizers and participants of the video-conference:

Covi King, co-chair, Utah International Mountain Forum, Cooper Henderson, former Westminster College Student

Body President, Chris Heaton, co-chair, Utah International Mountain Forum, Carlos Alarco, Designer - Instructional

Technologist, DL Development Support Center, UVU Library, John McClure, co-chair, Utah International Mountain Forum,

Dallin Kauffman, Administrative Support , International Affairs and Diplomacyof UVU

When an idea or nugget of information is important, it is repeated. This conference had

two main facts that bore repetition. The major recurring theme during the presentations was that

the disintegration of the Soviet Union started before 1991, and many people were predicting the

collapse of communism for years prior to the actual events. Secondly, it was an uneasy period of

history; many former republics are still struggling to transition fully into the modern world yet

there is still some hope.

By Troy Bradley, UVU Political Science student