Abstract
The Soviet Union’s increased concern with the sea can only be understood in the light of the changes which have taken place in her foreign policy since 1953. Stalin to the day of his death saw his country as encircled and threatened by a hostile world, as she had been since the Revolution and the Civil War. His slogan of ‘Socialism is one Country’ symbolised this siege mentality in both internal and external policies. Hitler’s invasion and the near defeat and signs of internal break-up which followed it confirmed this attitude which did not disappear at the end of the war. Based on Stalin’s conviction of the inevitable hostility of capitalist to communist countries, it merely transferred historical and ideological suspicions to Russia’s erstwhile allies, particularly the United States. The latter’s open commitment to capitalism, her opposition to Russia’s claim to suzerainty over Eastern Europe and her monopoly of atomic weapons made her the chief threat. When to these she added the commitment to support a militarily united Western Europe through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1949 and thus deny the Soviet Union the influence in Europe to which Stalin believed her performance in the war had entitled her, the onset of the political and military confrontation of the Cold War was inevitable. Its transformation into actual hostilities involving the new weapons of mass destruction now possessed by both sides seemed more than likely as long as an increasingly megalomaniac Stalin ruled the Soviet Union.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
For authoritative treatment of the development of Soviet Foreign Policy see Mackintosh (1962), G. Stern, ‘Soviet Foreign Policy in Theory and Practice’ in Northedge (1974), and Edmunds (1975).
R. E. Kanet and M. Rajan, ‘Soviet Policy Towards the Third World’ in Kelley (1980) pp. 235–66.
Edmunds (1975) pp. 12–14.
Gorbachev’s approach to Foreign Policy was revealed in Gorbachev (1986) pp. 9–27, 80–96. Useful commentaries in Lyne (1987) and Mackintosh (1987).
What follows is based largely on Ranft (1972).
Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, 1977, vol. XXIII, p. 28703.
L. Labedz, ‘Ideology and Soviet Foreign Policy’ in Bertram (1980) pp. 22–30.
Gorbachev (1986) pp. 9–27; Lyne (1987) p. 208.
R. Legvold, ‘The Concept of Power and Security in Soviet History’ in Bertram (1980) pp. 5–12.
M. Mackintosh, ‘The USSR and its New Super-power Status’ in Atlantic Treaty Assoc. (1975) develops this theme excellently.
V. V. Aspaturian, ‘Detente and Strategic Balance’ in MccGwire and McDonnell (1977) pp. 1–30; R. Lowenthal, ‘The Soviet Union in the Post-Revolutionary Era: an Overview’ in Dallin and Larson (1968) pp. 13–22; W. Zimmerman, ‘Soviet Perceptions of the United States’ in ibid., pp. 163–79; A. Dallin, ‘The United States in Soviet Perspective in Bertram (1980) pp. 31–9. Gorbachev (1986) pp. 7, 81–4; Lyne (1987) pp. 220–4; Mackintosh (1987) pp. 8–10.
G. S. Dragnich, ‘The Soviet Union’s quest for Access to Naval Facilities in Egypt Prior to the June War of 1967h’; A. Z. Rubinstein, ‘The Soviet-Egyptian Influence Relationship since the 1967 War’; and R. O. Freedman, ‘The Soviet Union and Sadat’s Egypt’, all in MccGwire et al. (1975). More detailed accounts of the naval negotiations will be found in M. M. El-Hussini, ‘Soviet-Egyptian Relations 1945–70, with Special Reference to Naval Matters’, a University of London unpublished PhD thesis for 1981. H. S. P. Shoup’s forthcoming thesis will take the story up to 1975.
For a full treatment of this see Theberge (1979).
The most perceptive although not always congruent Western discussions on this are Booth (1974) and (1977), Cable (1981), and Dismukes and McConnell (1979).
See Gorshkov (1974) and (1979).
See Dismukes and McConnell (1979), M. MccGwire, ‘Naval Power and Soviet Oceans Development’ and J. McConnell, ‘Military-Political Tasks of the Soviet Navy’ both in US Government (1976) for the best insight into these controversies. MccGwire (1987), Appendix C. pp. 448–76, updates the arguments.
For instance, Bagley (1977).
Gorshkov (1974) pp. 114–20 and (1979) pp. 244–53.
Gorshkov (1974) pp. 3–5. What follows is based on chapters 1–3 of this and chapters 1–2 of Gorshkov (1979).
Ibid., pp. 12–14.
Ibid., p. xi.
Gorshkov (1974) pp. 113–20; Gorshkov (1979) pp. 2–6, 245–51.
Gorshkov (1974) pp. 119–20; Gorshkov (1979) pp. 252–3.
For an authoritative analysis see Butler (1971). B. Buzan, ‘Naval Power, the Law of the Sea and the Indian Ocean’ in Marine Policy, July 1981, pp. 194ff., gives an excellent summary of the Soviet Union’s general position.
D. P. O’Connell, ‘Transit Rights and Maritime Strategy’, Journal of the RUSI, June 1978, pp. 11ff.
W. E. Butler, ‘The Legal Dimension of Soviet Maritime Policy’ in MccGwire (1973a) pp. 109–22. Also Janis (1976) chapter 2.
O’Connell, op. cit., p. 12.
Janis (1976) p. 27.
Butler (1971) pp. 52–65, 104–15, 116–33.
Booth (1985) gives a good analysis of the naval implications of the Convention; Birnie (1986) illuminates the legal complexities in Northern waters; Butler (1983, 1987) deals impressively with the development of Russia’s position and gives the text of her legislation.
Gorshkov (1979) pp. 46–58. Butler (1987) deals fully with the Black Sea incident.
Examples of Soviet attempts to turn international maritime law to its advantage are given in S. Roberts. ‘The Turkish Straits and Soviet Naval Operations’ in Navy International, October 1981, pp. 581–5; and E. Young and V. Sebek, ‘Red Seas and Blue Seas: Soviet uses of Ocean Law’ in Survival, November/December 1978, pp. 255–62.
See A. M. Kelly and C. Petersen, Recent Changes in Soviet Naval Policy: Prospects for Arms Limitations in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean (Arlington, Virginia: Center for Naval Analyses Professional Paper No. 150, 1976). Also B. Buzan, ‘Naval Power, the Law of the Sea and the Indian Ocean’, op. cit.
Kelly and Petersen, op. cit., pp. 4–11.
Ibid., pp. 11, 13; Buzan, op. cit., pp. 196–200.
F. Griffith. ‘The Tactical Uses of Arms Control’ in MccGwire et al. (1975) pp. 637–60 speculates interestingly about this.
Copyright information
© 1989 Bryan Ranft and Geoffrey Till
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ranft, B., Till, G. (1989). The Foreign Policy Background. In: The Sea in Soviet Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09464-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09464-6_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-09466-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-09464-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)