In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed as a nation state. Although, in retrospect, this seemed the likely outcome after years of economic stagnation, political corruption, and most importantly, the collapse of all pro-Soviet communist regimes in Eastern Europe by 1989, no one expected it (Painter, 108.) The Soviet Union, ever since the death of Stalin in 1953, had experienced economic and nationalistic difficulties, but this had never led to such a drastic change of events. So why did it collapse so unexpectedly, and who or what is responsible for the disintegration? These questions have been the focal point of many debates in the historical and political arena, and this essay will take a closer look at one important issue. The issue at hand is, to what extent is Gorbachev responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union? Gorbachev came to power in March 1985 (Smith, 136) and, dismissing the Brezhnev era as 'years of stagnation,' he announced strong intentions to radically transform the Soviet Union both politically and economically. Economically he aimed to radically restructure management and party through perestroika, and politically he intended to make the system more open to input and criticism through glasnost (Reynolds, 543.) Many historians claim that these two policies, which internationally became the catchwords of the Gorbachev era, caused the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Glasnost fueled dormant nationalistic sentiments throughout Eastern Europe and provoked public criticism of a failing political system, while Perestroika spelled deconstruction, not reconstruction of the economy. Other historians have turned the spotlight away from Gorbachev, focusing it on the hardliner President Reagan of the United States, who came to power after Jimmy Carter in 1981 (Cannon, online, 2001.) They argue that Reagan was 'the man who ended the Cold War' through his national self-confidence, purpose, and optimistic m...