Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Was dividing us all part of Putin’s plan from the start?!

United we stand, divided we fall... are we falling? Are we becoming weak and egotistical?! Whatever happened to diplomacy?!!!!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Northwest · M
Putin successfully exploited our divisions. You cannot exploit an undivided nation.

Diplomacy has nothing to do with it. Putting used to head the KGB, when the Soviet Union was still the Soviet Union. He remembers that time vividly, when we spent $Bs to destabilize the Soviet Union, and $Ts in building up our military and supporting dictators and wars, designed to weaken the Soviet Union.

To be fair, the Soviet Union's mission, was to conquer, but we went about resisting the wrong way. Today, it's not about political/economic ideology, but about payback and plain old control, just as it was, centuries ago, when the royalty of Europe was fighting for nothing other than control and greed.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Northwest Yes, we weakened the Soviet Union with our military build-ups because they could't keep up. But it can also be argued the Reagan defense budgets made up for the decline of the 1970s, as well as confronting an increasingly hostile Soviet Union.

I think it was the right choice.

And the number one reason why?

[b]Millions and millions of people in Eastern Europe - that were free before Nazi Germany's (and the USSR's) invasions in 1939 - no longer live under communist rule.[/b]

Where we probably failed was in not assisting Russia [i]more[/i] economically while Yeltsin was in power so that he didn't make a deal with the devil, that is essentially anointing Putin as his successor to please the oligarchs.
Northwest · M
@beckyromero OK, not sure how this is related to my post.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Northwest

I thought when you said "To be fair, the Soviet Union's mission, was to conquer, but we went about resisting the wrong way" you might have meant we shouldn't have "spent $Bs to destabilize the Soviet Union, and $Ts in building up our military... designed to weaken the Soviet Union."

Sorry, I don't want or mean to put words in your mouth. That's only what I thought you meant by it.

But I do think it was the right choice (spending all those billions on our military knowing the USSR couldn't keep up) since it effectively ended the USSR's stranglehold on eastern Europe.

And that's not to say, it was only our military spending. Mikhail Gorbachev's policies had a lot to do with it, too.
Northwest · M
@beckyromero Ahhh, no, I meant what I said, and it was in response to the word "diplomacy" in the initial post. I was not discussing the side effects. Just saying that we did not use diplomacy with the Soviet Union.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Northwest Ah, OK.

Early on it was Stalin, so forget diplomacy in those years.

With Khrushchev, yes, maybe some openings were possible. We used some: Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved diplomatically. There was no invasion of Cuba (talking post Bay of Pigs).

Maybe tensions would have ease more had JFK lived and Khrushchev not been removed in an essential coup. Hardliners came after him until basically Andropov (ironically KGB) came to power, then Gorbachev not longer after.

Still, there was SALT I, SALT II, START 1, NEW START - arms reductions treaties.

Don't think USSR was much interested, though, in things beyond that. They weren't going to give up their stranglehold on eastern Europe.

From the USSR's perspective, they felt surrounded. And they had been invaded twice in the 20th century from Europe. And there was China to the south, Japan to the east.