| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New Cold War?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


New Cold War?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Alburz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Shogun

Joined: 20 Oct 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Alburz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: New Cold War?
    Posted: 10 Nov 2014 at 02:00
Russians are sending more troops to Ukraine. This time it is a convoy of tanks and trucks load with heavy weaponry. Russia is gambling on dangerous bet. What is your opinion about this new Russian move?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2014 at 02:43
What has the U.S. and Britain to do with Russian internal affairs? I think Anglos should keep theirs noses out of Russian influential zone. Otherwise, the West is producing a dangerous tension in the world.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Alburz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Shogun

Joined: 20 Oct 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Alburz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2014 at 03:11
Right after Ukraine independence, Russia, US and European allies promised to protect Ukraine from foreign aggressor if it gave up its nuclear arsenal. Ukraine sent back all its stock pile to Russia for destruction. Now, Russia is invading the helpless Ukraine to curve out a new Russian empire and appease its expansionist attitude. Majority of Ukrainians are pro EU but Russians want to keep them under the control with puppet dictators such as Yankovic. That is the problem. Now US and Europeans have a moral obligation to support Ukraine from any aggressor, and the will of majority of Ukrainian if they can. 

I know US hasn't played well in foreign policy in recent years, for example the illegal invasion of Iraq, but I give them full support in Ukrainian conflict.


Edited by Alburz - 10 Nov 2014 at 03:13
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2014 at 03:19
Do you really mean the U.S. and the Western Europeans act by "morality"?

Give me a break. That's the most absurd comment I have read on here since the "black Egyptian" debate. The U.S. and Western Europe only act driven by economical and geopolitical interest. That's all.
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Alburz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Shogun

Joined: 20 Oct 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Alburz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2014 at 03:39
Yes, you are somewhat right, but they can chose which one give them the prestige and is in their interest. As you may know they will not meddle in Africa any more. The area of conflict is generally around oil and gas rich area or border line of Europe. Having a moral obligation makes it more appeasing in public eye. 

If you think of it no country moves a finger if it is not in its interest. US and European allies at least follow some decency code and leave some snack behind for general public. Russia sweeps the floor with innocent blood and give them nothing. Russian yoke is ole boots on the ground and iron fist with no passion for locals. I prefer European intervention such as Germany or Italy over some brutal dictatorship of Russia. Europeans add something to the local value not like Russians who strip the locals out of their rights.

The best case certainly is to leave Ukrainian alone and let them decide if it is possible. But the current situation does not allow such a fancy dream.


Edited by Alburz - 10 Nov 2014 at 03:42
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2014 at 07:55
Contemporary "imperial" Russia is hardly any "superpower", so its ability to confront the opposite part over time can be questioned. So why should there be cold war without any clear ideological confrontation, only nationalism?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2014 at 01:56
I'm not sure if there is a new Cold War developing, or simply a reactivation of the old one, dormant for some years.

In any case, it doesn't really matter, what matters is that Russia, with it's superior fire power should not be permitted to simply carve off parts of a sovereign country, as it pleases.

I've written on this before in another thread, and my view is that Russia is a world problem, not one simply for the Ukraine and or the USA. The time is long overdue for a radical overhaul of the United Nations and NATO, to provide a means, military or otherwise, to counter Russian hegemony.

I've also said before that my belief is that Putin has in his sights the restoration of the old Soviet Union, by one means or another, and the Ukraine incursion could be the first step.

See also http://www.themercury.com.au/news/world/new-report-reveals-a-growing-list-of-provocative-clashes-between-russia-nato/story-fnj3ty5y-1227119063461

Edited by toyomotor - 11 Nov 2014 at 02:10
Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2014 at 02:46
Russians are crazy.  They changed their presidential term so that Putin their supreme leader could more effectively rule.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2014 at 16:01
I said some time ago that Putin was a gambler. Such personalities often become dictators and become prone to aggressive getsures, at worse invading other countries and setting off wars. Putin has already become entrenched in that particular niche of behaviour. He has said that he wants to re-invigorate the Russian military. Without belligerence, that's quite difficult. The two go together. I doubt Putin actually wants a war with the west as such (he's not stupid), but then, dictators of old rarely take on the stronger power. They cause trouble until the stronger power feels intervention is necessary. So yes, a new Cold War is developing. It might not reach that scale of course - it depends on the extent to which Putin gambles his territorial and military pretensions, how much internal pressure to succeed he is under, and how strong the limits of foreign tolerance are observed to be.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2014 at 00:31
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

I said some time ago that Putin was a gambler. Such personalities often become dictators and become prone to aggressive getsures, at worse invading other countries and setting off wars. Putin has already become entrenched in that particular niche of behaviour. He has said that he wants to re-invigorate the Russian military. Without belligerence, that's quite difficult. The two go together. I doubt Putin actually wants a war with the west as such (he's not stupid), but then, dictators of old rarely take on the stronger power. They cause trouble until the stronger power feels intervention is necessary. So yes, a new Cold War is developing. It might not reach that scale of course - it depends on the extent to which Putin gambles his territorial and military pretensions, how much internal pressure to succeed he is under, and how strong the limits of foreign tolerance are observed to be.



Your last line, imp, is exactly the case.

Putin has seen that the west has tolerated his Armys incursions into the Ukraine, and that foreign governments have been too weak to intercede.

He would see that foreign tolerance is at a high level, so there is no expected military resistance to his plans, he's prepared to last out any embargoes placed on Russia and retaliate with some of his own, like cutting off oil and gas to other countries.

There must be some force applied to the Russians before they get totally out of control.




Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2014 at 05:03
Australia is hosting the International G20 Meeting, a meeting of the worlds top 20 economies.

The Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has had some deep and meaningful words with Putin over the downing of MH 17. He gave notice of his intention to so some weeks ago.

The Australian Navy is at present monitoring the movements of four Russian Navy ships in the Coral Sea, and on a heading towards Australian waters.

While the presence of the ships is not unusual in past G20 Meetings, normal practice dictates that their government advises, in this case Australia, of their presence and intentions.

The Australian government, having no prior knowledge of the Russians intentions, has said that they will not be permitted to enter Australian waters, unless in the case of an emergency.

So, what is this, pure bad manners, or is Putin letting Australia know that he's capable of pressuring Australia?

Could be interesting.

Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
Alburz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Shogun

Joined: 20 Oct 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Alburz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2014 at 05:58
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Australia is hosting the International G20 Meeting, a meeting of the worlds top 20 economies.

The Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has had some deep and meaningful words with Putin over the downing of MH 17. He gave notice of his intention to so some weeks ago.

The Australian Navy is at present monitoring the movements of four Russian Navy ships in the Coral Sea, and on a heading towards Australian waters.

While the presence of the ships is not unusual in past G20 Meetings, normal practice dictates that their government advises, in this case Australia, of their presence and intentions.

The Australian government, having no prior knowledge of the Russians intentions, has said that they will not be permitted to enter Australian waters, unless in the case of an emergency.

So, what is this, pure bad manners, or is Putin letting Australia know that he's capable of pressuring Australia?

Could be interesting.

Russia is simply showing its tooth! sign of warning I assume.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2014 at 10:39
Russia has explained the presence of their ships as testing their range ability in case they have to do research in the Antarctic.

Warships doing research? Crap!
Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2014 at 16:37
I see France has delayed delivery of a warship and the Russians are making threats of repercussions if they don't get the vessel they ordered.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2014 at 00:04
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Australia is hosting the International G20 Meeting, a meeting of the worlds top 20 economies.

The Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has had some deep and meaningful words with Putin over the downing of MH 17. He gave notice of his intention to so some weeks ago.

The Australian Navy is at present monitoring the movements of four Russian Navy ships in the Coral Sea, and on a heading towards Australian waters.

While the presence of the ships is not unusual in past G20 Meetings, normal practice dictates that their government advises, in this case Australia, of their presence and intentions.

The Australian government, having no prior knowledge of the Russians intentions, has said that they will not be permitted to enter Australian waters, unless in the case of an emergency.

So, what is this, pure bad manners, or is Putin letting Australia know that he's capable of pressuring Australia?

Could be interesting.


Not to worry mate. The Russian Navy has a habit of either sinking their own ships, or having them break down while the crew are swilling vodka in the mess. You'll note that this small fleet has an ocean going tug with them, in case of embarrassing malfunctions. That's kind of like a car manufacturer putting on a show of the latest models for the media, but having a tow truck driving along in the lineup, just in case.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2014 at 00:23
Yes, the presence of an ocean going tug did exercise my mind a bit.

If Putins intention was to engage in a bit of sabre rattling with Australia, he'll find that he will have more than Australia to contend with.

As for the media reports that Australias submarines are too far away to be of any use in surveillance of the Russians, I'd take that with a grain of salt. In any case, you can bet the there's a US sub not far away.
Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2014 at 23:53
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Yes, the presence of an ocean going tug did exercise my mind a bit.

If Putins intention was to engage in a bit of sabre rattling with Australia, he'll find that he will have more than Australia to contend with.

As for the media reports that Australias submarines are too far away to be of any use in surveillance of the Russians, I'd take that with a grain of salt. In any case, you can bet the there's a US sub not far away.

More than likely. In any case, the position of any significant surface ship is known at all times these days, due to satellite surveillance. These ships are 1980's technology, designed to fight a nuclear war- fire off a few cruise missiles, and then sail of to Armageddon, or Cuba, whichever comes first. They may not have so much application in our current high tech age. Putin is a bit like some old time admiral, hoping gunboats will whip the natives into shape by awe alone, when in fact he is out of his league in a number of aspects.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2014 at 00:27
Captain:

I agree with you.

I'm not suggesting that there is/was any intention to attack Australia, the ships are merely a display.

Apparently Putin is feeling a bit lonely at the G20, with western leaders virtually lining up to tell him to get out of the Ukraine. Not that it will make any difference, Putin will do as he wants.
Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2014 at 12:25
Putin isn't going to ignore international opinion - he really cannot afford to do so, especially since the resources of Russia are not yet returning the profits they potentially have, and that Russia is currently dependent on the modern global economic climate as much as anyone else. Remember that the West are supporting Ukraine's case and Ukraine currently controls the stop valves to Russia's lucrative gas pipelines into Europe. Plans to build northern and southern relief pipelines have not yet been completed. Russian railways have been negotiating for some years to allow through trains into Italy and Switzerland using double gauge track, and they aren't doing that for fun.

What Putin is going to do is wait for the West to look the other way or test how far he can push his luck - that's his personality.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Thorvald View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thorvald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2015 at 14:24
New coldwar? I don't think the coldwar even ended in the first place!

http://germanicrealm.informe.com/forum/
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Oct 2015 at 13:13
The Cold War ended with the colapse of the Soviet Union and the unification of Germany, thus ending the hostilities that had existed since 1945, which was in itself based on hostilties that had been caused by the First World War. In effect, the previous century was a long period of ideological conflict that has now been resolved. However, Putin is not the sort of personality to simply sit there and rule peaceably. As I've already said, he's a gambler, and has a desire to be seen as a stereotypical tough guy. Further, Russia is under economic pressure right now and for leaders with limited political skills, warfare is the obvious means of detracting public criticism and perhaps even generating some economic lift. It's not a new Cold War, but definitely a period of difficult relations. That said, we are edging closer, not just over Ukraine, but the Baltic States, areas that Russia sees as their own and dislikes the intrusions of western systems such as NATO to which these countries are affiliated.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct 2015 at 02:02
I can also see a new front on the Cold War developing to include China.

The construction of artificial islands, and increases to the size of natural islands, coupled with Chinas claim to the south China Sea, is leading to further tensions with the USA, as well as the other five countries which hold claim to the Spratley Islands.

The USA has, this week, sent a warship to sail within 12 miles of the artificial islands, and Australia, although having just signed new trade deals with China, looks set to do the same.

In my view, Australia should keep out of it, we have no real interest in the South China Sea, political or otherwise.


Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2015 at 14:17
Isolationism doesn't work. America has learned that lesson, Japan learned it once before when Admiral Perry forced them to accept trading links with gunboats in the bay. The problem is that influence in global politics declines in proportion to uninvolvement. In fact, the concept that it is 'someone elses war' is not unusual in human history, but given the proximity of a powerful Chinese state, military, and economic clout, Australia would be better served remaining engaged with current events.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2015 at 04:11
I'm afraid that America has _not_ learned that lesson, but needs to learn it all over again every generation.  Choosing Perry was the best thing that Millard Fillmore did, yes he showed up in Tokyo harbor with gunboats, but he wouldn't be provoked, the Japanese would row out and shoot a few arrows, and unlike what his contemporaries would do, he ignored them until they finally came out to deal with him properly.  The USA has been fortunate in dealing with Japan, with Perry and MacArthur, or maybe we should say Fillmore and Truman.

I think ANZUS is in Australia's best interests, but then again, I am not Australian, and I believe, neither are you Caldrail?

I think that one can over exaggerate the usefulness of the cold war model in understanding future politics.  This rebirth of the cult of assassins in Iraq and Syria, has nothing to do with a cold war model.
It also has nothing to do with the golden age of Islam, except for the fact that it is the wet dream of rogues, and yes, assassins to revive 'the caliphate.'
A cold war complicates things, but it is not the overarching concern for the US.  Of course, enough complications can swamp an issue, an area.  But refugees is probably a more important issue for Australia, (or at least more immediately important) than the possibility of a densely populated China, swooping down to get Australia's resources.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2015 at 10:04
On the contrary. Far from being a nation sat on the sidelines, the Americans have been heavily involved in global politics since WW2. Not without self interest you might argue, but the truth is that America has adopted the role of guarantor of western democracy in the same light it had during WW2, a period in which it emerged from a major global conflict with huge surpluses in production, agriculture, and wealth. America was the only nation to profit from WW2. And remember, the Cold War came about because America chose to guarantee the promise of Polish independence, having been invaded twice by Russia in six years, and whose territory Stalin had no intention of releasing. Whilst it's true that Churchill had recognised this potential flashpoint and had asked his planners to map out a possible campaign against Soviet Russia, those planners were in no doubt that Britain was in no shape to handle another major conflict, and they were right.

China doesn't actually need Australias resources. For a long time now China has invested heavily in third world presence, especially Africa, even to the extent of financing railroad projects to support economic exploitation.

No, I'm not australian. British, Sir, and proud of it :).
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2015 at 02:35
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

America was the only nation to profit from WW2. 

No, I'm not australian. British, Sir, and proud of it :).

That is not exactly true there are two other nations that arguably benefited as much.  Israel and Russia certainly had some side benefits coming out of WW2 .

How much the holocaust benefited Israel is debatable but we could have had a more resolute Britain and U.N. forcing a Palestine state if Jewish sympathy had been less.  More importantly the U.S. Jewish  community that financed the creation of Israel had been less than sympathetic to Zionism before the war.  Zionism not only befitted from financial support but also new members. 

The Soviet Union was greatly expanded after WW2 and Russia had the buffer zone it had always dreamed of.  The devastation of Russia during the war is undeniable but the war also allowed Russia to steal talent, technology and machinery from the areas it occupied.  

I'm sure there were other places that benefited as well but not as directly.  A good case could also be made that the world benefited by having the U.S. emerge from it's isolationism.  The benefits the U.S. received has to be balanced against the cost of financing the major part of the cold war.  The Marshall plan and petrol dollars benefited Europe all most as much as it did the U.S.  Today the U.S. is not nearly as dependent on Middle Eastern oil as Europe yet Europeans have consistently painted U.S. involvement in the region as pure self interest.   Despite the cosmetic solitary that the EU paints Nationalism is alive and well in most European nations and allied status doesn't cover up the jealousy completely.     


Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2015 at 15:39
Israel did not exist in WW2. Russia was not a capitalist society and did not profit in the same way as the US, with whom it eventually declared a contest of productivity and lost. Remember that as much as Russia might have gained by victory in WW2, it had lost via Stalin's tyrannical policies and economic disasters, not to mention the extreme damage to the western half of Russia caused by war with the Third Reich. Also, the ensuing military competition with America in the Cold War mitigated against economic growth. Remember that unlike the United States, in Russia individuals were not encouraged to grow the economy - that was the preserve of the communist state who didn't manage it all that well.


Edited by caldrail - 08 Dec 2015 at 15:40
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Dec 2015 at 04:50
It is ironic that nowadays people argue that the demise of the Soviet Union was inevitable and just a matter of time, whereas the people who argued for historical inevitability before the Soviet demise were those who argued _for_ the triumph of historical materialism, _for_ international socialism, etc.

Correct, the Soviet Union was not a capitalist society, and did not profit the same way as the US, but if things had worked out differently, international communism (an excuse for Russian thuggery) could still be around.  Nothing is inevitable, at least not until it happens, and sometimes not even then.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Dec 2015 at 09:49
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It is ironic that nowadays people argue that the demise of the Soviet Union was inevitable and just a matter of time, whereas the people who argued for historical inevitability before the Soviet demise were those who argued _for_ the triumph of historical materialism, _for_ international socialism, etc.

Correct, the Soviet Union was not a capitalist society, and did not profit the same way as the US, but if things had worked out differently, international communism (an excuse for Russian thuggery) could still be around.  Nothing is inevitable, at least not until it happens, and sometimes not even then.

The question of inevitabillity depends on time. I it at som earlier dateret seemed possible The USSR could win in The log run, such an outcome did not appeal likely in The 1980s. The sudden disappearance of The ester blot on The otter han was a surprise.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Dec 2015 at 09:57
Quote Correct, the Soviet Union was not a capitalist society, and did not profit the same way as the US, but if things had worked out differently, international communism (an excuse for Russian thuggery) could still be around.  Nothing is inevitable, at least not until it happens, and sometimes not even then.

Around 150BC Polybius wrote about socio-politics (mostly to compare to his own Roman system it must be said) and suggested that political structures had a life-pattern of their own. I have similar views in that I see such structures as analogies of biological life - and with good reason, since all complex life is composed of co-operative elements, and we are not quite the single unique creatures we tend to see ourselves as.

It's my understanding that there are still five communist countries today (China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam). Most of them have learned to deal with the dominance of free market economics and democracy in some way or other. They had to of course, because they were no longer supported by the USSR, and China has learned already that invading other countries does nothing for your honour and reputation.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.093 seconds.