Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reagan didn't orchestrate the fall of the Soviet Union anymore than G.W. Bush sent people to Mars as he said he would. At best, Reagan helped to speed up an already inevitable collapse from a failed system of government which actually began prior to his entering into office.
I recommend you read up a little on the "Afghan Trap" that was laid by Zbigniew Brzezinski back in 1979. Brzezinski instituted a plan to train fundamentalist Islamic mujeheddin fighters in Pakistan, and sent those fighters to attack the PDPA. The idea was not to destroy the PDPA, but to make the Soviets so nervous about the stability of their puppet regime that they would invade Afghanistan to protect it. Brzezinski wanted, at bottom, to hand the Soviet Union their own debilitating Vietnam.
Guess what, it worked and in 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and spent 10 years being handed their hat by a bunch of US funded primitives. After such time, the Soviet Union's treasuries were severely depleted and when during the 80's they attempted to counter the US's "Star Wars" program, they went bankrupt sooner rather than later.
This leaves out big % of what actually caused the fall. I always have to laugh at the coincidence theory. That would negate Reagan taking control back from a superior Russian nuclear threat. They held supremacy in both might and nuclear arsenal. There wasn't a person you could find that would put the SU on the spot like Reagan did, they were all too scared. The spotlight was what's required. Reagan actually reached out to Brezhnev to talk about the grain embargo. But probably the most key part was getting Thatcher and the Pope on board along with the many others to sign on to missile defense. The missile defense was just the straw breaking the back, after trade embargos, the military build up, proaganda, and creating an edge and making sure everyone understood it wasn't just between communist and capitalist.
Anyways...
Reagan had KGB detail that would later become part of this thread, see if you can find him.
Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.
As discussed in the linked story, intimidation of neighbors is the primary Russian tactic under Putin. No, I don't view us as having the same processes as Putin.
I didn't say we had the same processes as Putin but the US certainly has interest outside its borders to which it intervenes that are not related to trade. Is there another country on the planet that has more personnel in other nations than the United States?
Quote:
Regarding the OP, it mentioned Communism, but the link is about intimidation, not economic practices. Regarding Putin and economics though, I hope Obama does do something, and soon. The quicker we can get towards independence from oil, the faster we break Putin's main leverage.
Last I checked it was Dmitry Medvedev running that show and not Putin. Although I have no doubt that Putin plays a powerful role in Russian government. Then again we have our own dynastic figures in our political system as well, ie. Bush-Clinton.
In any case, I actually agree, the faster we are free of foreign sources of energy the less worries these folks will be. Then again, considering our propensity to intervene in everyone elses business, I suspect we will continue our foreign adventures for the sake of controlling who gets what energy, even if we ourselves don't need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
This leaves out big % of what actually caused the fall. I always have to laugh at the coincidence theory. That would negate Reagan taking control back from a superior Russian nuclear threat. They held supremacy in both might and nuclear arsenal. There wasn't a person you could find that would put the SU on the spot like Reagan did, they were all too scared. The spotlight was what's required. Reagan actually reached out to Brezhnev to talk about the grain embargo. But probably the most key part was getting Thatcher and the Pope on board along with the many others to sign on to missile defense. The missile defense was just the straw breaking the back, after trade embargos, the military build up, proaganda, and creating an edge and making sure everyone understood it wasn't just between communist and capitalist.
I recall seeing the "superior Soviet Union military apparatus" while thousands of people stood in lines for stale moldy bread.
Sorry but Communism which was prescribed under the Soviet model was doomed to fall apart on its own without any external help. Its a failed system and proof of inflexibility and inefficiency. The Soviet Union was a paper tiger used as much to justify massive military expenditures and nearly every analysis since its collapse has shown its military, while numerically superior, was junk.
Sorry but Communism which was prescribed under the Soviet model was doomed to fall apart on its own without any external help. Its a failed system and proof of inflexibility and inefficiency. The Soviet Union was a paper tiger used as much to justify massive military expenditures and nearly every analysis since its collapse has shown its military, while numerically superior, was junk.
It is now, 30 years later. During our buildup they had been dumping money into their military for decades so while people were starving that didn't stop their military investments. In fact if you ask folks like Saganista they said the Soviet Union wasn't in as bad as shape as was stated. I agree communism is a failed system but nothing in 1980 said they were going to fail and practically everyone but Reagan legitimized the Soviet power, some today still do. I'm not going with arm chair quarterbacks, just the players of the game and in many cases Reagan's opposition.
It is now, 30 years later. During our buildup they had been dumping money into their military for decades so while people were starving that didn't stop their military investments. In fact if you ask folks like Saganista they said the Soviet Union wasn't in as bad as shape as was stated. I agree communism is a failed system but nothing in 1980 said they were going to fail and practically everyone but Reagan legitimized the Soviet power, some today still do. I'm not going with arm chair quarterbacks, just the players of the game and in many cases Reagan's opposition.
There were people as far back as the late 60's and early 70's who suggested that the Soviet Union was paint over rust. One that comes to mind is the historian, Emmanuel Todd, not to mention some of the statements made by several defectors.
Quote:
"The world is too large and dynamic to be controlled by one power." According to Todd, whose 1976 book predicted the fall of the Soviet Union
Last I checked it was Dmitry Medvedev running that show and not Putin. Although I have no doubt that Putin plays a powerful role in Russian government.
Actually, Putin very likely plays a bit more than a powerful supporting role:
One year after the inauguration of its third president, Russia continues to be ruled by a narrow circle of the country's elite, handpicked by Putin from among his friends...In addition, Putin completely dominates economic policy. He personally makes all decisions regarding the size of the federal budget, the use of the Reserve Fund and what sector or company will get government bailout funds. Putin prefers to make such decisions "on the spot," making it clear who is really calling the shots.
Actually, Putin very likely plays a bit more than a powerful supporting role:
One year after the inauguration of its third president, Russia continues to be ruled by a narrow circle of the country's elite, handpicked by Putin from among his friends...In addition, Putin completely dominates economic policy. He personally makes all decisions regarding the size of the federal budget, the use of the Reserve Fund and what sector or company will get government bailout funds. Putin prefers to make such decisions "on the spot," making it clear who is really calling the shots.
What is the rational to use that would suggest Obama is required or even should do anything about Russian internal affairs? Are we that interventionist now that we believe we have the right to decide how other nations governments should be managed or function?
What is the rational to use that would suggest Obama is required or even should do anything about Russian internal affairs? Are we that interventionist now that we believe we have the right to decide how other nations governments should be managed or function?
My answer is as already stated, get independent of the stuff giving him economic leverage. That alone would achieve the goals that I believe are appropriate, and significantly cripple Russian external influence.
It is just about all they have, natural resource extortion. They actually aren't very good at creating things, or running things set up by others (who they expel).
I'd also leverage my trade relationships with China, India and Brazil, as you and I have discussed in many past threads. In addition, I'd incentivize economic participation by Ukraine and Georgia in the EU.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
