These aren't "wild claims". These are facts of history.
But you have no evidence?
Reagan didn't "win" the cold war. The societal model of the soviets simply failed. They overreached and its satellite states cut themselves loose. Their economic model was unsustainable.
It was less luxurious than the West, but it was a functional, sustainable model. They could have gone on under the same system indefinitely if they wanted to. What actually sealed their fate was the failed coup attempt in 1991 in which Gorbachev was temporarily removed from power and placed under house arrest. That's what accelerated what could have been a slow, incremental transition. But even then, it was all internal to the USSR and Russia, meaning that it was all of their own free will. It came about largely through Gorbachev's reforms, as he was clearly more enlightened and liberal than his predecessors. It could not have happened under a more hardline leadership.
Expansionism. Discouraging them of pushing further into Germany and other regions and create more satellite communist states.
The regions they occupied after WW2 were regions that the Western Allies already agreed to. They honored their agreement and did not expand any further than that. In other places in the world, there were popular revolts whose leaders asked for Soviet assistance (i.e. Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, etc.). I would hardly call those events "expansionism." The boundaries of the USSR remained as they were from 1945 to 1991. They did not "expand" in any way, shape, or form.
Of course, I'm not saying they were a bunch of choir boys either. What they did around the world was no different than what our own government was doing, such as interventionism in internal conflicts, campaigns to gain hearts and minds, etc.
Go and read the NATO manifesto. It's common sense.
It was the second time in just 30 years that Europe was in ruins as a result of world wars.
To think that this alliance only existed for the sole purpose of being "anti soviet" measure, is just delusional.
There was more to it then just that.
I know where these arguments come from and the basis of your position. I've heard it all my life, probably even before you were born. I've read the NATO manifesto. It's not "common sense." It's imperialism and warmongering. The reason Europe found itself in ruins two times within a period of 30 years was because certain countries in Western Europe wanted to keep their empires and their hegemonic position in Europe, and the idea of some upstart challenging that hegemony was unacceptable to them.
As it turned out, Britain and France and their allies were not strong enough to defeat Germany on their own. They needed outside help, namely from the US and USSR. It also turned out to be an opportunity for both the US and the USSR to have their own spheres of influence in Europe. From the US side, we were in full-tilt Red Scare mode, and Truman was under enormous pressure from the right wing to stop communism, so creating the "national security state" and bolstering US defenses in Europe was one of the results of that pressure. Truman was hated for "giving away" China and Eastern Europe to the Soviets (as if they were ours to give in the first place).
But it was just power politics at work, a process which continues to this day. You seem to want to make it out to be some sort of epic, heroic struggle between "good and evil," as if the West is like the Jedi Knights against the Sith Lords of Russia. And you call me "delusional"? Ha! Look at yourself. Geopolitics is some kind of comic book melodrama to you. Nearly everything you say drips with this mentality.
The feelings were mutual, I assure you.
I'm not sure what that means, but one thing that the Russians have never forgotten (while most Americans have) is that we actually sent troops to Russia to intervene on the side of the Whites against the Reds in their Civil War. That already put us off on the wrong foot, and it only went downhill from there. There was really no reason for that, as they did not threaten us in the slightest. The fear in the U.S. was more about the ideology, as the period of the first Red Scare had descended. They had not even done anything yet, and our government already decided they were evil.
These countries are part of the "free world"? lol
You have a strange definition of the word "free".
Not my definition. That's the definition of the old Cold Warriors from that era. In their eyes, "free" merely means "non-communist."
I do respect the standards and definitions offered by Freedom House in their yearly surveys, but that doesn't mean there haven't been gross inconsistencies in how our government presents the outside world to the public and how they implement foreign policy. Our leaders have always had a line of bull ten miles long when they talk about these matters, but I'm surprised that so many still fall for it.
Both are still authoritarian countries. "Free" is not a word that applies to these societies.
But the bottom line is, whether or not a country is "free" has not been an issue for the US in deciding which regimes they will support and which they will oppose. It's more a matter of whether they're friendly and cooperative with Western business interests and/or some useful, strategic interest. It's been a complicated relationship when it comes to China, although our mistakes regarding China seemed to occur around the same time we were making huge mistakes with Russia.
Not everything. Just the blowing up of the bridges that were being build.
Note how it's Russia who gradually shut down Nordstream also. Moving away from Russia as the main energy suppliers was a response to Russia's military campaign in Ukraine as well as them weaponizing the energy supplies for the sole purpose of artificially creating an energy (and by extension economic) crisis in Europe.
Well, as you said, the feelings were mutual. I just think that there's two sides to every story. I just find it difficult to believe when I'm presented with perceptions of Russia as a bunch of crazy people who can do nothing but create mayhem and chaos wherever they go. That's what I've been hearing quite a lot of over the past several years, which reminds me of earlier times. It's always been "Russia did this" or "Russia did that." As if we're just sitting here like a bunch of wishy-washy old men who can't figure out what to do.
Frankly, I think it's rather weak to keep going on and on with this "Russia bad" kick. That is, if Russia is so bad, and if they pose a potential threat to America and our way of life, then we had better shape up ourselves and get better prepared.
You are just confirming what I said.
I'm only saying that they're still willing to work with Russia, even if they don't like what they're doing in Ukraine. They don't like what the U.S. does a lot of times, but they still work with us. With NATO and Russia being at odds with each other, this could be an opportunity for them to play off both sides against the other. Meanwhile, China is forging better relations in Latin America, a region which the US has taken for granted and treated with indifference in recent years.
Trade relations are illustrative of improving overall relations.
And trade in energy in this industrialized highly digital society is a very big deal.
It's literally handing over the keys to production capacity and economic activity.
We have seen the effects of what happens when the supply is shut down or otherwise tampered with.
Full blown energy and economic crisis was the result and we are still feeling residual impact of it and will continue to feel such for years to come.
They (the Kremlin) betrayed this trust.
Yes, weaponizing oil in that way can be devastating to relations between countries. We did it with the Japanese, and look how they responded. Then there was the Arab oil embargo back in 1973-74. Of course, Europe didn't have to depend on Russian energy supplies. That was their choice, and if their relationship with Russia went sour and led to the consequences you're describing, that's unfortunate.
The whole thing is unfortunate, mainly because I believe that if we had acted differently in 1990 and the years that followed, our relations with Russia might not have gone sour. There was hope that we could come to terms and enjoy a peaceful and productive relationship. I just don't believe that they would have turned on us just out of the blue for no reason.
Those aren't political decision, so it's a false comparison.
It requires political decisions made by governments to allow it in the first place.
So what do you propose would be a better course of action?
And how would the consequences of such a course be better in the long run then the current one?
I think we need to think more globally and strategically. Have you ever noticed that a lot of the policies and the general philosophical and global perceptions upon which they are based are somewhat antiquated nowadays? For example, I've noticed in numerous discussions about this war, constant comparisons to WW2 and Hitler are being made, but the fact is, it's not the 1930s/40s anymore. We don't live in that kind of world anymore, nor do we live in the late 1940s and 50s when the fear of communism was at its peak. We've transcended all of this.
I think NATO itself has become an anachronism. If anything, if NATO is deemed a necessary organization for Western interests, then a similar organization might be needed in the Pacific region (such as Japan, SK, Australia/NZ, Philippines) - or perhaps a combining of the Pacific, US, and European powers into a single alliance.
We'll just have to find a way to coexist with Russia and China, but we shouldn't push them too far either. Maybe we can try to extend an olive branch and see if we can come to terms. It's not appeasement, just practical diplomacy and dealing with real world geopolitics on its own terms. If the Ukrainians and Russians choose to keep fighting each other, then I don't think there's a heck of a lot that anyone (other than them) can do to stop them. But they might reach some sort of agreement.
There is no panacea to this, there's no golden answer that can resolve all the world's problems. But I do know that continued saber-rattling and hostility rarely bodes well for a peaceful future.
The only other option is world war, but maybe America might win and come out on top again.
