Or did it open a Pandora’s jar of evil? Are we better off without the Soviet Union?
I believe it opened us to a lot more troubles. It’s obvious the Soviets where keeping the lid on.
Removing them allowed all the little terrors to roam free.
What say you?
Um? There are a lot of problems in the areas formerly under Soviet rule. That is a problem. I suppose you’d have to ask them if they’re better off… I want to say yes, but I don’t have to live there. I don’t think the collapse of a government is ever a good thing, no matter how bad the government, at least in the short term.
While the Soviets may have been, as you say, keeping a lid on, there is such a thing as paying too high a price for something. Since I can’t turn my personal experiences with Russians, Ukranians, and Lithuanians into what this board will generally accept as data, I guess I have to leave it there and say: the price was too high, but that doesn’t make rampant corruption “good”.
This is one of the most arrogant things I’ve ever read.
Reeder, lets be realistic of who, exactly, the Soviets were “keeping the lid on.”
These captive peoples included:
Ukranians
Latvians
Lithuanians
Estonians
Poles
Czechs
Slovaks
Hungarians
Bulgarians
East Germans
Romanians
Among many others.
Why don’t you take a little poll of them, and see if they’d welcome the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact back.
Let me put the case, too, in terms you’ll understand, Reeder.
There’s a measurable chance that John Kerry will be an absolutely horrible president. There’s even a small chance he’ll turn out to be some sort of undemocratic tyrant.
Stranger things have happened in world history.
I don’t guess, though, that these risks will cause you to vote for Bush in the fall though, will they?
There wasn’t any way to predict with absolute certainty what the post-Soviet world would look like. Does that mean it was wrong for the U.S. to oppose Soviet expansionism, militarism, and human rights violations?
I certainly don’t think so.
I think there’s a fallacy in the OP.
It’s not so much that the end of the Soviet Union ‘didn’t make the world a better place’ so much as it’s the end of the Soviet Union allowed pent up frustrations and other issues to begin working out and defining themselves.
Just because they haven’t completed that process (having been stymied for decades) doesn’t me it’s bad.
That’s like declaring “history’s over! Let’s tally up the points and see who won!”
I don’t think that it’s so much that the collapse of the Soviets caused all the problems in the post-Cold War world. We just pay more attention to them now. They’re more visible because the Soviets, who we spent so much of our attention on, is gone. Global poverty, terrorism, Islamic extremism, international crime and drug cartels…all of this existed while the Soviets existed. They just weren’t so much the prime focus.
I wonder if Reeder remembers what it was like living with the constant knowledge that the world as we knew it could end in a flash within half an hour.
Er, you don’t think that could still happen now? I do; but it’s just lower on the list of things to worry about in the public perception.
Mind you, I’m not claiming that we might not be at least somewhat better off overall with the Soviet Union defunct. It’s just that I don’t think the end of the Soviet Union made that big a difference to the chances of the specific hazard of nuclear war. (Detente and arms talks with the USSR certainly made a big difference in that regard, but IMO the actual demise of the Communist state didn’t.)
It didn’t reduce the chance of a nuclear exchange taking place - if anything that possibility has gone up. But it has almost eliminated the possibility of a massive global nuclear exchange of thousands of missiles. This was a major improvement in the overall safety of the world.
There’s also the argument that Reagan’s arms buildup with the Soviets increased the risk of a nuclear holocaust, but I suspect the Worshippers of St. Ron don’t want to dwell on that.
Sam Stone: * But it has almost eliminated the possibility of a massive global nuclear exchange of thousands of missiles.*
Again, though, I don’t think it was the actual demise of the Soviet Union that was the key here; more important was our gradual rapprochement on nuclear issues with the Soviet Union while it still existed.
Despite some kneejerk reactions (how the hell did Kerry get roped into this thread?) the OP raises a valid point. Back in the days of the Cold War, there were essentially two sides; Us and Them. Every international issue therefore tended to become a confrontation between the Americans and the Soviets but there was the advantage that if the two superpowers agreed on an issue, it was settled. So global politics were stable.
Now, instead of one big problem, American foreign policy has to deal with a thousand little problems. And some of these problems are bad.
But overall, I think we came out better. The collapse of the Soivet Union did eliminate one huge threat to the world and improve the lives of many people. And most of the problems that arose since then were already present but were muted. So now they can be addressed as well. Worst case scenario; small threats are better than big threats.
99% of all former Soviet citizens are better off.
90% of the former Soviet satellite states are better off.
Why?
[ol]
[li]Nothing is ever 100%.[/li][li]The former Yugoslavia has reverted to brainless ethic war & ethnic cleansing. As it has done every single time the region was not ruled by an outside, impartial/semi-impartial government that ruled with an iron fist.[/li][li]Dosvedanya, Comrade OpalCat![/li][li]The economic disruption in the Commonwealth of Independent States has been so severe that a few people actually are worse off. But not many.[/li][/ol]
Actually I think this is one of the most arrogent things I’ve ever read.
Have you taken a little poll? Because from everything I’ve heard there are plenty of people in those places who would welcome them back in a heartbeat. Who are you to say if they’re better off, more than they themselves?
That said:
"There wasn’t any way to predict with absolute certainty what the post-Soviet world would look like. Does that mean it was wrong for the U.S. to oppose Soviet expansionism, militarism, and human rights violations?
I certainly don’t think so."
I don’t think so either. I’m very much in favour of the fall of tyrannies (that’s why I’m voting for Kerry 
).
I just don’t see where Reeder said he did. He didn’t ask what we should have done, but, what has the outcome actually been. Which seems like a perfectly valid question to me. Why not try responding to the question posed?
(Which I suppose I should, while I’m at it 
. But I’m not sure I have one. Just think it’s a question worth asking.)
Well, then that leads me to question whether it’s worth the handwringing.
If he’s lamenting the Soviet Union’s demise, he’s lamenting the demise of a tyrannical, evil regime. Unsupportable, in my mind
If he’s not, he’s essentially saying that the outcome hasn’t neen worth it, though the effort was worthwhile at the time. That’s hindsight, and seems counterproductive in analyzing the conduct of officials then.
It also offers us no help at all in out current foreign policy analysis. The Soviet Union is history, like it or not.
You should also keep in mind that there was a fair amount of corruption and violence in the Soviet Union, including ethnically based corruption and violence. We just didn’t get the news about it until much, much later, if at all.
And let’s not forget the vast numbers of people who died in non-ethnically based (for the most part) purges, or other random acts of government-sponsored evil and stupidity (failed agricultural policies, nuclear testing, forced resettlement, etc.)
ahem
Russians
Uzbeks
Kazakhs
Kyrgyz
Tajiks
Turkmenis
Georgians
Armenians
Chechens
Azerbaijanis
And this isn’t counting the millions of people in the developing world where the US and USSR waged their countless little puppet wars across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Now, with many, it is indeed debatable whether or not they are/were better off under Soviet control.
Personally, I think they all would have been much better off if the Soviet Union wasn’t forced into a 50 year long expensive arms race - though I’m not saying that they are blameless. They dug their own holes in most areas.
Another question you may want to ask is “would it have been better for a continued program of detente leading to a changeover to a more democratic government been better than a sudden collapse” - I think the answer to that question is a decided “yes”, given the state of political affairs of most of the former Soviet Union.
One thing no one has mentioned yet: the collapse of the Soviet Union has made it easier for the U.S. to engage in military adventurism, like the Iraq invasion. The U.S. is now the undisputed “big dog,” militarily, and can do pretty much whatever it damn well pleases without any real fear of counterattack. I submit that this is not necessarily a good thing.
With the (perhaps exaggerated) threat presented by the Soviet Union, the U.S. had to stop and think twice before blithely sending in the Marines - might such-and-such an action trigger WWIII? How badly do we want to call in an air strike?
The end of the Genesis video Land of Confusion seemed very probable when Reagan was in office.
Aside from the occasional planes crashing into skyscrapers.
Things balance out, funnily enough. You can’t get rid of all the threats all the time - something will always crop up, and it has.
Back in the mid '90s, I predicted that history would repeat itself - A WWI/Cold War where we have new technology and it changes the way we fight, followed by a decade or so of relative peace, followed by a radical WWII/War on Terror that will ultimately be much longer and drawn out than we would quite like. In both cases, the second war was caused by failing to tie up the loose ends from the previous war carefully - by allowing things to spiral out of control.
A combination of all these factors is going to lead to disaster.