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.
They simply run out of human resources willing to work for the system not money.
They did not need to import dollars to develop new oil fields, they could print rubles.....problems were not financial.
Low productivity was the enemy.
I can hardly imagine a better candidate for autarky then the Soviet Union, they had everything.
Oh, human resources were plenty.
People were still willing to move to all those northern parts of the country ( where they were making good money on construction sites and so on.)
The problem was in Moscow, in the government itself.
After Stalin's "emergency mode" economy that brought the country up to date more or less ( comparably to tzarist Russia,) the powers in Kremlin HAD to rethink their strategies and to allow the private sector to step in the light industry/food processing industry and such, while keeping the heavy industry under the government control as they used to.
They could have easily alleviated this way the shortages of consumer goods, the lack of decent eateries, and many other things that were making Soviet life so drab.
But the gov. remained highly dogmatic, refusing to budge an inch, when it came to the "exploitation" issue in the private sector. They ( up there, in Kremlin) were afraid ( I assume) of the rise of independent middle class in Russia, ( that was notably absent in Tzarist Russia as well,) even within the Soviet framework.
Another thing I suspect, is that Soviet nomenclature of the later times ( Brezhnev times) was already eyeing all the country's riches to be pocketed BY THEM, without sharing it with the rest of population - the representatives of the middle class in particular.
I think it became particularly obvious when Gorbachev came to power.
Other than that, I agree with you that Russia ( well Soviet Union) had everything it needed to stay afloat - the ability to develop technology independently from the West, the natural resources AND the human resources.
It was sort of like the submarine, that could batten down hatches and to still stay afloat independently from the West. The military expenditures wouldn't matter that much.
It was the "insiders" job to let the enemy in on board.
Oh, human resources were plenty.
People were still willing to move to all those northern parts of the country ( where they were making good money on construction sites and so on.)
The problem was in Moscow, in the government itself.
After Stalin's "emergency mode" economy that brought the country up to date more or less ( comparably to tzarist Russia,) the powers in Kremlin HAD to rethink their strategies and to allow the private sector to step in the light industry/food processing industry and such, while keeping the heavy industry under the government control as they used to.
They could have easily alleviated this way the shortages of consumer goods, the lack of decent eateries, and many other things that were making Soviet life so drab.
But the gov. remained highly dogmatic, refusing to budge an inch, when it came to the "exploitation" issue in the private sector. They ( up there, in Kremlin) were afraid ( I assume) of the rise of independent middle class in Russia, ( that was notably absent in Tzarist Russia as well,) even within the Soviet framework.
Another thing I suspect, is that Soviet nomenclature of the later times ( Brezhnev times) was already eyeing all the country's riches to be pocketed BY THEM, without sharing it with the rest of population - the representatives of the middle class in particular.
I think it became particularly obvious when Gorbachev came to power.
Other than that, I agree with you that Russia ( well Soviet Union) had everything it needed to stay afloat - the ability to develop technology independently from the West, the natural resources AND the human resources.
It was sort of like the submarine, that could batten down hatches and to still stay afloat independently from the West. The military expenditures wouldn't matter that much.
It was the "insiders" job to let the enemy in on board.
You said better than me....it was the system, the USSR crumbled on itself, the US had very little to do with it, the Cold War victory claim was the first mistake the West did dealing with the aftermath of the Soviet Union collapse.
You said better than me....it was the system, the USSR crumbled on itself, the US had very little to do with it, the Cold War victory claim was the first mistake the West did dealing with the aftermath of the Soviet Union collapse.
Yes, that was first huge mistake.
I could have believed that it was an incident, but the whole Ukraine as anti-Russian project proved that it's a system, not just a mishap.
And again it happened specifically on Dems watch.
So yeah..
This doesn't leave any space for further doubts.
I could have believed that it was an incident, but the whole Ukraine as anti-Russian project proved that it's a system, not just a mishap.
And again it happened specifically on Dems watch.
So yeah..
This doesn't leave any space for further doubts.
To be precise, the first that used the line "The US has won the Cold War" was Bush the father and the people in his administration.
For years the West denied (several articles vigorously disputing such assurances written up to 2014-2015) that it was promised no further NATO enlargement in exchange for Germany re-unification. Finally, after a batch of transcripts emerged, the real truth came out...sure there was no a treaty or anything like that but informal assurances were indeed given.
To be precise, the first that used the line "The US has won the Cold War" was Bush the father and the people in his administration.
For years the West denied (several articles vigorously disputing such assurances written up to 2014-2015) that it was promised no further NATO enlargement in exchange for Germany re-unification. Finally, after a batch of transcripts emerged, the real truth came out...sure there was no a treaty or anything like that but informal assurances were indeed given.
The interesting thing about Bush Senior is that he was VERY careful about that victory.
You might not remember, but he was even against the cessation of the Baltic countries back then ( as much as they were demanding it.)
He was leaving it totally up to Gorbachev and his acceptance ( or lack of thereof.)
And of course there was promise given to Russia ( orally, not in written form) that NATO will not move eastward, towards Russian borders in exchange for Germany's unification.
Putin keeps on reminding of that to the Western media reps. when they are trying to accuse him of "aggression" as usual.
Russians know very specifically who promised them that during Bush Senior presidency - they've mentioned it another day during one of the regular TV programs, I just don't remember the details now off top.
Russians know very specifically who promised them that during Bush Senior presidency - they've mentioned it another day during one of the regular TV programs, I just don't remember the details now off top.
James Baker, Bush Senior Secretary of State, was one of the people making that promise orally. He is one of the last surviving highly skilled true diplomats in the US. America does not produce them anymore, we threw away the mould....the lunatics have taken over the asylum....
Look, the guarantees about NATO were made in reference to the events occurring at the time. It is not realistic to expect that some diplomat giving current guarantees were somehow indefinitely binding half of Europe to never be allowed to join our defensive alliance. Mr. Baker et al could not speak for future leaders of Poland anymore than Gorby could bind Putin to any deals.
Look, the guarantees about NATO were made in reference to the events occurring at the time. It is not realistic to expect that some diplomat giving current guarantees were somehow indefinitely binding half of Europe to never be allowed to join our defensive alliance. Mr. Baker et al could not speak for future leaders of Poland anymore than Gorby could bind Putin to any deals.
No silly, it's not "whining about the past" - it's all about future, and where it's leading us, because of those unfulfilled promises.
(Take note Gorbi fulfilled his, so your reference to Putin is irrelevant as usual.)
No silly, it's not "whining about the past" - it's all about future, and where it's leading us, because of those unfulfilled promises.
(Take note Gorbi fulfilled his, so your reference to Putin is irrelevant as usual.)
We should remind to our friend DKM the words of George Kennan about NATO enlargement, one of the greatest American diplomats, the author of the famous "Long Telegram" at the beginning of the Cold War and one of the architect of the containment strategy towards the USSR...so not exactly an internet Russian propagandist or an intellectual lightweight....
"I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''
''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
That was a diplomat from the freaking TRUMAN administration! Who cares what he thought. Its 2021, Russia is fomenting conflict on NATO's borders and needs to stop before it gets burned badly.
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.
