How the US blew their chance to get Russia as an ally.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Arrian
So, what would the basis for the "juggernaut" of an alliance you speak of?

We had been able to keep up with you in the arms race while providing aid to socialist third world countries. That's a huge lot of industrial capacity which could be used instead of China's. A lot of it is gone now. Russia has oil, you buy gas for 4$ a gallon. Together we would have enough nukes to dictate our will to the whole world.

[Arrian]

We had been able to keep up with you in the arms race...

Not really.

That's a huge lot of industrial capacity which could be used instead of China's. A lot of it is gone now.

It was woefully inefficient when it existed. It had to be converted into something useful in a capitalistic global economy. Would a "Marshall Plan" have succeeded in doing that? I don't know. Maybe, but I rather doubt it was feasible in the first place (Bebro put it better than me - once we started talking about "oversight" it would've been all over).

Russia has oil, you buy gas for 4$ a gallon.

Good for you. Are you implying that you'd have been selling to us cheaper if we'd made nicey nice with you 15 years ago? If so, I call bull****.

Together we would have enough nukes to dictate our will to the whole world.

I know this may be difficult for you to understand or believe, but we don't want that.

edit: and even if we did, there is no such thing as having enough nukes to dictate to the world. MAD doesn't work like that.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

I know this may be difficult for you to understand or believe, but we don't want that.

Speak for yourself

[onodera]

Originally posted by Arrian
edit: and even if we did, there is no such thing as having enough nukes to dictate to the world. MAD doesn't work like that.

-Arrian

Does China have enough nukes to ensure MAD?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I know this may be difficult for you to understand or believe, but we don't want that.

This is right. The US liked you better as an enemy. Things worked better.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by onodera

Does China have enough nukes to ensure MAD?

That is debatable, I think ... they have enough to effectively have MAD, whether they actually do or not in an actual nuclear situation is a bit more complex. I believe political scientists have treated them as MAD-capable since around 2000.

When I studied this (around that time), they had around a hundred nukes, and were considered not quite MAD capable, but strong enough that they were treated as one of the MAD group anyway, as it would be difficult to guarantee obliteration of their entire stockpile (one of the requirements of MAD). I presume they have more now.

[David Floyd]

So your (somewhat asinine) point is that if we had ponied up billions and given it to Russia, we might be allies now??

Sorry, welcome to the real world. Russia had no one to blame for its problems but itself. Let me get this straight, communism got you into your problem, and you finally saw the light and dumped communism, but your solution to prosperity is more communism, this time on a global scale? Sure, the US could have afforded to dump a few tens of billions to you, but why should we? Some vague promise of alliance? Why do we need that?

Russia has a very large population, massive natural resources, and is well situated as a natural trading partner of Europe and China. Stop blaming the US for your problems, and do something about it.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This is right. The US liked you better as an enemy. Things worked better.

Nice twist on my words, Kid.

I'm sure you know what I actually meant. But there is a kernel of truth to your statement: there is definitely a group of Americans (to say nothing of Russians!) that yearns for the Cold War.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

The world was easier then.

Easy /= Better

[Elok]

Well, what with our own human rights violations and Saudi Arabia, I don't know that we'd have much space for another monster in our closet anyway. Which isn't to say I like the thought of Russia as an enemy; ideally they should be like running into your ex at a party--chilly but civil.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Nice twist on my words, Kid.

I'm sure you know what I actually meant. But there is a kernel of truth to your statement: there is definitely a group of Americans (to say nothing of Russians!) that yearns for the Cold War.

-Arrian

Actually I just agreed with what you said. I wasn't twisting you words.

The US system needs enemies to work. Without enemies it will collapse.

[germanos]

Re: How the US blew their chance to get Russia as an ally.

A thought provocing post. But there appear to be a couple of inaccuracies in it.

Originally posted by onodera
Back in the eighties, however ridiculous it might sound, the population of the USSR was one of the most pro-American.The USA were a symbol of better life, not because of their two-party system or their free market, but because of their consumer goods. No, we didn't choose freedom, we chose jeans, cola and bubble gum. This, and we stopped executing senior party leaders, which allowed a spineless idiot to get to the top. Yeah, the one with a birthmark.
Anyway, back in 1991, people were expecting the USSR to turn into the USA.

IIRC, in 1991 it was the old style Commies (or should I say Stalinists?) that deposed Gorbachev, crushing the hope for a reasonable transition of the CCCP to something new while still retaining some of the old. IMO it was Gorbachev who probably best understood the hopeless situation the Union found itself in, while he also understood that the US (or to a larger extend: the West) were more interested in peacefull co-excistance with- then annihilation of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev's rise to power was possibly driven by his understanding of what you describe as the Soviet citizens' desire for consumer goods, or what should be better described as his understanding that the economic policies of the Comminist Party of the CCCP Where hooribly outdated and could not compete to the West.
It's interesting that you speak of the Soviet populace desires in the 80's (from which Gorbachev's rise to power in 1986 IIRC stemmed), but then jump to the 90's that were governed by Yelstin after the failed coup d'etat.

Actually, they were expecting it to turn into the USSR with jeans, cola and bubble gum, but were greatly disillusioned, as a lot of things that were taken for granted suddenly disappeared:
- free education, from kindergartens to post-grad;
- free medicine, including dentistry, yes;
- free housing;
- inexpensive food;
- their life savings;
- sense of security.
This meant the USSR turned not into the USA of the people's dreams, but into the USA of Soviet propaganda.

Hmmm... So perhaps the coupe was succesfull afterall...

And this was the best chance for the US to gain a new friend, to forge a juggernaut of an alliance.
What was needed was a new Marshall plan.

But why would they? The leader who appeared to be one that could strike a deal with (Gorbachev) was deposed by reactionary forces, and an uncertain leader who's alligiance was unclear (Yeltsin) filled the void. His drunken behaviour certainly didn't spark much confidence.

The States could've used parts of their now superflous military budget to help Russia adapt its economy to the global market. The population would be grateful, and the later mutual profit would be immense.

Would it?

What was done instead? Well, a "shock therapy" was recommended to be used in Russia, and there was also a lot of "Commies taking it in the ass " in the land of the brave. This wasn't what the people expected. At all.

Yet they had voted for Yeltsin. Granted, they hadn't much choice.

Around 1994 the support for the US started to wane quite noticeably.

Yet they voted for Yeltsin again.

It took a big hit when our economy defaulted in 1998 and hit rock bottom when NATO bombed our historical ally, Serbia, in 1999.

Historical ally? Yougolavia was the first dent in the Soviet bloc when Tito choose to be non-aligned.

Even now, if you held a referendum, "America, **** yeah" would lose big time to "America, **** it". And this is the biggest difference between now and the Cold War. Back then, the States were seen as a generally positive force and even when they were doing their best to alienate the Union they weren't alienating the Soviet people, and now they're seen as an aggressive world policeman, and any action against Russia doesn't help their image in the eyes of an average Russian.

It's ridiculous to say that during the Cold War the US (or West in general) was seen as a positive force by the Soviets or the Soviet bloc. It may have been true in the 80's (I will take your word for it) in the CCCP, and I will certainly beleive it's true for much of the populace in the sattelite-states of the Warsaw-pact for a longer time than that, but it had been a recent phenomenon in for sure.

In any case, it seams that for the Russians it would have been best if they had adopted the Marshall plan when it was proposed to them first: in the aftermath of WWII.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Actually I just agreed with what you said. I wasn't twisting you words.

The US system needs enemies to work. Without enemies it will collapse.

You agreed with the words, but not my intended meaning.

I meant we didn't want to dictate our will to the world via threatening them with nuclear weapons.

As for the enemies thing... if humans had no enemies at all, then I think all nation-states as we know them would collapse. No need for armies, and the primary reason to have a state is collective security.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
You agreed with the words, but not my intended meaning.

My apologies. I wasn't able to follow this thread from the beginning, so I didn't know what you were implying.

I meant we didn't want to dictate our will to the world via threatening them with nuclear weapons.

Now that's just crazy. Of course we do exactly that.

As for the enemies thing... if humans had no enemies at all, then I think all nation-states as we know them would collapse. No need for armies, and the primary reason to have a state is collective security.

Very good.

[Lancer]

We had Russia as an ally once, it was enough.