The question is, no doubt, complex. My personal interpretation is that the slowdown and the peaking in oil production was a direct cause of the fall of the Soviet Union simply because it reduced the amount of foreign currency that was available to the government to purchase food and indispensable items from the West. That was helped by other inefficiencies of the Soviet government that generated plenty of negative feedbacks. Anyway, all that is of course debatable.

A good point that Chris makes is how to explain the precipitous drop in production after the peak. That is, indeed, much steeper than what you can see in the case of the US. I think it is another result of the negative feedbacks that occurred in the US but not in the SU (nice symmetric names!). Just one of these negative feedbacks could have been the "brain drain" that led a large number of Russian engineers and scientist to migrate to the West.

Ugo,

I think that since the US had a convertible currency (and in fact the world's "reserve" currency), importing the way out of the problem was feasible. Since nobody wanted rubles, Russia first had to earn dollars/pounds/DM by exporting the oil to then exchange the foreign currency for the needed items. Poland had similar problems - it needed to export coal to the West to earn convertible currencies with which it could for instance buy the needed electronics to equip its ships (built in the Gdansk and Szczecin shipyards) that it would then export. Poland was lacking adequate foreign currency reserves, so the government created two chains of stores (Pewex and Baltona) that would sell foreign goods with huge price markups, and those goods were available only in dollars. At a time that you could buy Levi's jeans for $20 in the US, they would cost $50 at those stores. The extra $30 would help the government rebuild their currency reserves. Any tourist visiting Poland was obliged by law to exchange $15 for Polish zlotys for each day of stay. There were countless other schemes that communist countries were coming up with to enable the imports of critical goods at a time when their own currencies weren't convertible - and of course they weren't due to those governments' own policies - if you don't allow the conversion from rubles or zlotys to dollars, then you can't expect the dollars to flow in if the foreigners can't expect their money to be available on demand in their own currency. So, trade and the aforementioned schemes were the only outlets for currency earnings.

That, as you point out, made a big difference. The other thing is that Russia's systemic transformation caused huge disruptions due to the need for the prices to adjust, the no longer needed heavy industry to close, etc. The 1991 collapse meant that the entire Soviet economy had to close shop and reopen in a totally different guise. Nobody needed more nuclear warheads, battleships and tanks - in a new market economy, people were expecting to be able to get, say, chocolate, meat or shoes, which were rationed under communism. I remember that when I was little (before 1989), my parents would get a ration coupon for 1 (one!) chocolate bar per month for me - anyone over the age of 16 wasn't able to get even one chocolate bar per month. Clearly, when the Soviet central planning collapsed and people were free to produce consumer goods rather than weapons, they chose to do the former - but when you had rusting equipment that could only manufacture AK-47's, then obviously you had to first melt it down and transform it into something else. The complete retooling of the economy took a long time.

Still, the Polish economy only suffered about 15 months of recession, while the Soviet economy was in the doldrums for over 5 years. The difference was that while the Polish law and institutions adjusted along with the "shock therapy" of the economy, Russia was mired in lawlessness and corruption for much longer. There, the economic "shock therapy" was applied without the institutions in place - and the mafia and the oligarchs gladly took advantage of that.

Note: by "trade" I of course meant natural resource exports - trade in consumer goods (which was extremely small) only happened within the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) bloc. Also, I obviously meant "former Soviet" economy when I referred to the slow post-collapse recovery of the FSU.

Yes, Marek, I think that this is exactly the point. The US could survive their national peak in 1970 because they had a convertible currency; they could pay oil in dollars and so they could simply gradually shift the supply from Texas from Saudi Arabia (just an example, oil comes to the US from many producing countries). Russia coulnd't do that. They would have had to pay the Saudi Arabian oil in dollars; but where would they get dollars? Up to then, they had gotten dollars from the sales of their own oil! Then, plenty of other problems with an economy that was so deeply focussed on heavy equipment; military and otherwise.