4 ms·

> The Soviet Union lost the Cold War decisively. Its empire fell into pieces, its regional alliance disappeared, and most of its former allies joined NATO. Russ

> The Soviet Union lost the Cold War decisively. Its empire fell into pieces, its regional alliance disappeared, and most of its former allies joined NATO. Russia lost, and the Western alliance won. Given this, it is not NATO’s responsibility to protect Russian state security interests. It is Russia’s responsibility to give wide berth to NATO, recognizing—as every realist should—that the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must.

panick21_ 5y ago
This is wrongheaded. The Soviet Union didn't lose the Cold War. In fact, the Cold War was ended with a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union. The Cold War was already over when Soviet Union collapsed. Its only later that US propaganda machine got high on themselves proclaiming how they had destroyed the Soviet Union.
- quantified 5y ago
  The Cold War ended when the USSR couldn’t fight it anymore. It was expensive for both sides, an expensive war of attrition. Mikhail Gorbachev should always get great credit for attempting to make it honest and productive. Problem was, making it honest and open allowed all to see, and say out loud, how screwed up and repressive it really was, and it fell apart because it was held together by unwanted force.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    > The Cold War ended when the USSR couldn’t fight it anymore. It was expensive for both sides, an expensive war of attrition. That is just flat out false, as many people have pointed out. Yes it was expensive, but there is no inherent reason Soviet Union had to collapse based on that expense. Gorbachev in order to do the reforms he wanted had to overcome the party opposition, and he did that by basically destroying the power of the party. This then allowed the republics to assert the power. But those things were not exclusive. Gorbachev could have done a lot of his foreign policy without some of the domestic program that eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet union.
    - quantified 5y ago
      But he did do the domestic program. Which did cause it to fall apart. You can lose a war through your own actions, without any activity on your enemy’s part. And it’s not like the loser of the Cold War had to start paying tribute to, or got occupied by, the winner.
      - panick21_ 5y ago
        But my point is that those are not linked. The Soviet Union didn't collapse because they ended the Cold War.
        quantified 5y ago
        But they did, in fact, both lose the Cold War and collapse. Unless somehow either the West decided it wasn’t worth it anymore and called it a draw, but that would be highly revisionist.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  It is true that Communism, being inherently unworkable, would have collapsed eventually anyways. But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about. > In fact, the Cold War was ended with a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union. Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    > It is true that Communism, being inherently unworkable Not really. And 'Communism' is an abstract philosophy, the Soviet Union was an actually workable system. And if you can survive from 1917 to 1990 you can survive a lot of stuff. > would have collapsed eventually anyways. Anything collapses 'eventually' but there is no inherent reason the Soviet Union would have had to stop existing for 100s of years. > But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about. Sure the Soviet Union was not alone on a planet. And of course the Soviet leadership action were about problems in their country but it emphatically was not the inability fight the US military. > Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost. Please point out how they acknowledge that.

panick21_ 5y ago

This is wrongheaded. The Soviet Union didn't lose the Cold War. In fact, the Cold War was ended with a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union. The Cold War was already over when Soviet Union collapsed. Its only later that US propaganda machine got high on themselves proclaiming how they had destroyed the Soviet Union.

quantified 5y ago
The Cold War ended when the USSR couldn’t fight it anymore. It was expensive for both sides, an expensive war of attrition. Mikhail Gorbachev should always get great credit for attempting to make it honest and productive. Problem was, making it honest and open allowed all to see, and say out loud, how screwed up and repressive it really was, and it fell apart because it was held together by unwanted force.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > The Cold War ended when the USSR couldn’t fight it anymore. It was expensive for both sides, an expensive war of attrition. That is just flat out false, as many people have pointed out. Yes it was expensive, but there is no inherent reason Soviet Union had to collapse based on that expense. Gorbachev in order to do the reforms he wanted had to overcome the party opposition, and he did that by basically destroying the power of the party. This then allowed the republics to assert the power. But those things were not exclusive. Gorbachev could have done a lot of his foreign policy without some of the domestic program that eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet union.
  - quantified 5y ago
    But he did do the domestic program. Which did cause it to fall apart. You can lose a war through your own actions, without any activity on your enemy’s part. And it’s not like the loser of the Cold War had to start paying tribute to, or got occupied by, the winner.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      But my point is that those are not linked. The Soviet Union didn't collapse because they ended the Cold War.
      - quantified 5y ago
        But they did, in fact, both lose the Cold War and collapse. Unless somehow either the West decided it wasn’t worth it anymore and called it a draw, but that would be highly revisionist.
cuteboy19 5y ago
It is true that Communism, being inherently unworkable, would have collapsed eventually anyways. But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about. > In fact, the Cold War was ended with a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union. Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > It is true that Communism, being inherently unworkable Not really. And 'Communism' is an abstract philosophy, the Soviet Union was an actually workable system. And if you can survive from 1917 to 1990 you can survive a lot of stuff. > would have collapsed eventually anyways. Anything collapses 'eventually' but there is no inherent reason the Soviet Union would have had to stop existing for 100s of years. > But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about. Sure the Soviet Union was not alone on a planet. And of course the Soviet leadership action were about problems in their country but it emphatically was not the inability fight the US military. > Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost. Please point out how they acknowledge that.