Another carry over from IRC:

The discussion was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Her point of view was that Regan and Bush brought the Russian Economy down by causing them to spend money on Defense by spending US's money on Defense. They couldn't keep up and their economy crashed and we won the cold war. She then went on to add that all the Mafia Stuff was Clinton's Fault.

My take is that Reagan's spending policies on SDI and defense, along with his occasional hawkish statements, were definitively the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet economy, but the real question is whether the coffin was already closed.

That's a tough one to answer. Certainly, by the time Gorbachev took office the Soviet economy was stuck in horrible stagnation, with much of the populace turning towards the black markets as the source for their real income and goods. Chances are, Gorbachev's reforms would never really have made a difference - either he would have been too conservative and not made enough difference, or been too liberal and let too much dissent catalyze. The perfect middle path would have been tough to find.

However, Reagan's actions basically forced Gorbachev's hand. In order to do any reforms, Gorbachev had to pacify the hardliners, and Reagan's hawkishness made pacifying the hardliners a very expensive proposition. As a result, Gorbachev didn't have the money or the leeway he probably needed to do a true reform of the Soviet economy.

So in my opinion - the Soviet Union was doomed to fall at some point in the mid-to-late 90's; Reagan's budgets simply moved the timetable up to 1990.

Peace.

Seems to me the entire Cold War was about isolating the USSR not only physically, but financially. All the bad press and propaganda, trade deals with nations, everything, all designed to destroy the USSR economy. And it worked damn well. Not saying it's good or bad, but it worked damn well.

I don't think that our buildup was the only reason. There were some other factors aswell. Like this one. I will post more later.




December 19, 2001: #5606 #5607

[Second Issue of the Day]

#5
San Jose Mercury News
December 16, 2001
Russians yearn for past power, not communism
BY DANIEL SNEIDER
DANIEL SNEIDER, the national/foreign editor of the Mercury News, was the Moscow bureau chief for the Christian Science Monitor from 1990 to 1994.
Moment of liberation

The collapse of that empire, beginning with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and paralleled by the rise of independence movements in the Baltics, Armenia and other Soviet republics, was stunningly rapid. Many Russians lamented these events. But this was a moment of liberation for the peoples under their rule. As a journalist covering the Soviet Union during the years before the fall, I traveled throughout the former republics and found almost universal yearning for freedom from Russian rule.

The strength of that yearning eventually made a continuing union impossible. On Dec. 1, 1991, I covered a referendum in Ukraine for independence. Ukrainians were unlike most other peoples of the Soviet Union. They were fellow Slavs and, like the Byelorussians, treated almost as equals to the Russians; many held positions of trust and power. Yet even there, the sentiment for separation from the empire was overwhelming. Ukrainians defied Gorbachev's last-minute appeals and backed independence by an 83 percent vote. It proved to be the final, decisive blow against the Soviet Union.

A week later, Boris Yeltsin, the leader of the Russian Federation and Gorbachev's rival for power, met with the Ukrainian and Byelorussian leaders in a dacha outside Minsk to declare a new commonwealth, effectively replacing the Soviet Union. Within weeks, most of the other former republics had joined them, leaving Gorbachev alone and powerless in the Kremlin.

In the beginning many Russians, like Yeltsin, welcomed the loss of empire as a relief from an economic burden. Without having to subsidize Central Asia and other far-flung regions, Russia would finally prosper, they argued.

Of course, the economic benefits did not come so easily. As life in Russia worsened, many began to see the end of the Soviet Union as the origin of their decline.

And when the glow of the brief honeymoon with the West dimmed, many Russians saw the American embrace of the former republics as its way to reduce Russia to second-rate status. Russian strategists began to plot the restoration of their former sphere of domination -- from the oil fields of the Caspian to the reaches of Central Asia.

The same fear of being diminished drove the disastrous Russian wars in Chechnya, beginning in 1994 and continuing today. Advocates of force reason that the independence of that small North Caucasian region could bring even further loss of empire. They worry that if Moscow cannot control Chechnya, how can it credibly assert its will in the rest of the vast territory of the Russian Federation, much less in the former Soviet Union?

This may turn into a very intersting thread... I wonder what Russia's take on things is?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...ssr/maps/8.stm


some more good read.

I agree, Markx. Other "fateful" factors were in play as well. Sneider’s article touches upon some of the mounting internal political and philosophical shifting (and fallout) that Russia had in some ways self-destined itself to deal with all along. Very difficult to say precisely what or whom was the final nail. Actually, I’d be more interested to know who or what drove in the first nail, and just what the first nail was.

I still think Russia could realize it's potential to be a truly great nation. It will be interesting to see what time will bring.

I am checking out that link mark, thanks, but come across this and I just found it interesting and funny ..




"I have had long hair for 16 years. In the Soviet time this caused huge problems. I played rock-and-roll, and this was absolutely forbidden. The police used to follow us, and we weren’t allowed into concert halls. After the collapse of the USSR, rock music emerged from underground, long hair became acceptable, and no-one stopped anyone from playing music. But there’s another problem. In Soviet times, despite all the bans, young people went to concerts and rock groups were popular. Today people can do what they want, but they don’t need rock anymore. So it’s still difficult for musicians like me, but for different reasons". Zaza Narsia, guitarist

I personaly think that first nail was Afghan war. Long depressing no win war. It broke the russian backbone. They were stuck there for way too long. 11 years is a long time for just fighting the enemy so determine to fight and die. Then our support through ISI and Induction of stingers in that war theater. I give lots of credit to Pakistan's ISI and military in bringing down the russian army.

I am sure you are aware of that CIA or USA was never involved directly. You can imagine russian frustration that they were gaving direct and in direct threats even they blew up OGRI-Camp In Rawalpindi( Pakistan ) Killed 200 or so people and injuring more then 1000. That was a major stock pile of stingers.

Then later who ever CIA or KGB blew up a presidentail plane and killed US ambasador, Pakistani president and some other international diplomats. It is a lenghty debate and I am sure no one is interested. But that was too late for russians. They drain their resoruces in Afghanistan and spend a lot, just to save their face. All this was just to give you a little picture of what might have happened. If you also notice it was right after the Afghan war, 1989 russians pulled out completely and then in 1990-91 russia collapsed. I think there is a strong connection.


If it was only build up then I think they were doing pretty good for 30-40 years or so, and could continue.

What do you think?

[quote]Originally posted by justagirl
[b]I am checking out that link mark, thanks, but come across this and I just found it interesting and funny ..






Funny indeed.

I had an interesting thought...I was reading about China's defense a while back and saw where China changed their entire defense strategy after Desert Storm...As it showed our weapons were better than China had thought and showed a glaring weakness in their own.

How did Desert Storm effect the Soviet Union??

One could make the argument that Reagan’s actions were actually counter productive to the reforms Gorbachev was trying to introduce. He had little fear of nuclear engagement with the US and there appeared to be no attempt throughout the 80s to match the American buildup, or to crank up SDI. On the other hand, Reagan's rhetoric and actions would have provided considerable ammunition to hardliners who wanted to slow reforms.

I think the better reading of Reagan's actions during this time was that he completely misread the mood and capability of the USSR. Back when it started, the buildup wasn't about attaining massive superiority but playing catch up with an enemy that he imagined to be far more powerful than it was in reality.

It is possible that the key change was the installation of Gorbachev, as continued hard-line leadership might have survived for decades even with economic problems.

Peace.

There was another factor to be thrown into this. Technological advance. If numbers would be the sole measure of superiority then USSR had us hands down.

The problems came in when you looked at something like Desert Storm. Like USSR, Iraq had loads of armor, far outweighing anything we could muster in the area without extensive logistical nightmares. That was a factor that was rendered nil by first eliminating any threat to aircraft through sam sites and the like and then the tank killers had free reign to come in and turkey shoot in a way that armor could not defend against.

Where this is going is that everytime Russia thought it had something going for it some new development would be put into effect that eliminated it. When Russia started developing massive numbers of nuclear warheads, we went to MIRV"S. Needing less missiles to do the same job. The (at one time) 10 to 1 ratio of armor that they had was nullified in much the same manner, with arial tank killers, ground troop missiles, and better mines. They were outspent, out researched, and overextended trying to play catch up. Yes, it did break the bank for Russia.

Don’t know about conventional weapons but the US development of MIRV’s and high precision “bunker busting" nuclear weapons was an example of technology and generals driving weapons development rather that political strategic policy. Both technologies were de-stabilizing as they provided incentive for a US first strike. Knowing that a relatively small number of US missiles could destroy land-based Russian missiles before launch increased the danger of nuclear war. (The danger was mitigated, as the US could not prevent retaliation by Russian subs.) Add the SDI and the US might be seen as positioning itself to “win” a nuclear war.

Interesting to speculate on what might have happened if Gorbachev had not been in power during the break-up of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union still had the power to destroy the US in a frenzy of mutual annihilation. Glad Stalin wasn’t in power. (Or a Saddam Hussein.) This hamster believes the world owes a debt to Gorbachev.

An interesting thought, Hamster, and it pokes me off an another thought. The fall of Russia might also be due to the chance concurrent rise of three world leaders.

The American public's response to Vietnam, coupled with the election of apologist and appeaser-in-chief Jimmy Carter emboldened the Soviets. They felt they were winning the war for the hearts and minds of the world. The Soviet 'sphere of influence' was growing. Key American supporters like Iran moved away from America. Russia invaded Afghanistan, they stepped up arms shipments to Cuba and Central and South America, they were interfering all through Africa and the Middle East, etc.

Then along comes Reagan. He starts a vast military buildup, and a program of aggressively opposing the Soviets throughout the world, both militarily and with rhetoric. He's willing to put the cards on the table and call them an "evil empire". In the meantime, Afghanistan turns into the Soviets' Vietnam. The tide starts to turn. The Soviets install a series of hard-liners (Chernyenko, Andropov), only to see them die in office in rapid succession. The people start to grow dissatisfied. The politburo makes a momentous decision to attempt to turn the tide of opinion by selecting a young reformer in Mikhail Gorbachev, rather than instituting a brutal crackdown on dissent.

I believe that the rise of Gorbachev was the Soviet Union's attempt to look more moderate and legitimate to counter the growing anti Soviet rhetoric championed primarily by Reagan and Thatcher. And that's exactly what might have happened if the world wouldn't have had those two people at that time in history. If Carter had been President, he would have responded to Glasnost and Perestroika by easing up on the Soviets and giving them breathing room. Which is exactly what the Politburo needed. I was involved in a number of debates back then, and the Democrats were portraying Reagan as a monster for his "evil empire" talk. Reagan was burned in effigy in Europe, along with Thatcher. The popular culture was dead set against them.

But Reagan and Thatcher seemed to see Gorbachev's rise as a crack in the Empire, and turned up the heat, both rhetorically and militarily. SDI moved the cold war into the realm of high technology instead of brute force and raw numbers, which was a game the Soviets were simply unprepared to play. Reagan went to the Berlin wall and yelled, "Mr. Gorbachev - Tear Down This Wall!". And by now, thanks to Glasnost and Perestroika, the Soviet people were able to see and hear exactly what was going on. It was about this time that the point of no return was passed, and the collapse of the empire happened startlingly fast.

So the defense buildup was part of it, and SDI was part of it, and Reagan was part of it, and so was Thatcher. History has proven that Reagan and Thatcher were right, and possibly saved the world from a lot of grief (along with Gorbachev, who must be given a big chunk of the credit).

Those three people acting together were the real catalyst. All three were necessary. Without Reagan and Thatcher, Gorbachev would almost certainly not have been allowed (or had the desire) to institute the reforms that ultimately brought down the empire. Without Gorbachev, Reagan and Thatcher's rhetoric would have fallen on deaf ears.

The world might be a better place because for a short period when the world needed it most, those three people rose to power together.

Peace.

Did U.S. Build-Up Cause Soviet Collapse?

NO. USSR was going down with or without US. I was heavily involved in international marketing for advanced US products during mid eighties. I spent a lot of time in China. From my experience with friends who dealt with USSR from other countries, tells me a different story. At the time, the Russians did not understand commercial manufacturing, marketing and incentive programs, Deming methodology etc. It is the lack of knowledge about the world market and lack of knowledge transfer that caused their failure while the Chinese kept going forward.

Social structure also played and still playing a major role too. Even though the Chinese were paid about $30 per month, they were willing to do hard work for a common future while in USSR, "what is for me", "why should I" caused many problems.

Bottom line: They adopted the wrong business process methodology for their social structure. And they are paying for it even today.

The Soviet Bloc was like several tons of steel supported by toothpicks that were beginning to crumble. Some guy (Reagan or Bush Sr., for example) walks over and takes a swipe at one toothpick..... and then gets the credit when it all crashes down.

Communism and/or socialism work great on paper- but ultimately become dangerously top-heavy in practice. Democracy works great on paper too- and does seem to work better in practice than other systems...... but personally I do get paranoid about the shades of creeping socialism in the US- and the resulting top-heaviness. I see little utility companies who were providing rather good, courteous service being bought up by governments- local state and federal- and then getting snobbish behind their 'you can't fight city hall' attitudes. Our representatives on all levels are treated more and more like royalty- lavished in perks and salaries far beyond the comprehension of common working citizens. Public service, and public servants- are vanishing in the wake of 'what's in it for ME?' and 'I'm in charge here' bureacrats while taxation skyrockets. In another 100 years- only toothpicks will be left at the bottom...................

Spacecat, you do not have to wait for 100 years. Our problems are compounding and as they say, bigger they are, harder they fall. We will be lucky to make it beyond 12 more years. Remember, our problems are exponential. Every quarter business have to gain market share, revenue and so on. And our whole future government spending is built on that scenario. Take away the toothpick (somebody sneezes...) we had it....

That is another story in another thread called America Decline...I think...

Thank you for the posting. I am in agreement.