People claim that Communism in Russia fell because the military spending was more of a burden than the economy could handle. That is like saying a man dies because he was sprinting and could not keep up that rate of speed. My point is that the alternative solution is simple - just slow down. Ditto with Russia's spending on war and missiles. It could simply cut back. So that spending (by itself or even with other things) does NOT really make sense - it doesn't explain the fall of Communism.in Russia.
I mean the alternative view to the accepted one (that the fall was legit) is that the fall of Communism was contrived. They did it because it was to their advantage to do so. What has happened as a result of that fall?? Answer: the USA has clearly disarmed overmuch. CLEARLY to a degree that they would not otherwise be the case, right?? Isn't that Clearly to the advantage of the Russians!!!
If the Cold War had kept going on in the 80s-90s-2000s we wouldn't have cut back to just 12 subs we have at present, from the impressive 39 boomer subs we had in Reagan's day. Shouldn't we entertain the notion that the masterminds in the Kremlin could have foreseen just that disarmament frenzy, and said to themselves, Oh wow - that's what we've got to do: END THE COLD WAR and the stupid Americans (and Europeans) are sure to react by shifting tons of money away from the military over to "social programs" ie, welfare spending.
That the fall of Communism in Russia was deliberate is shown by the fact that Gorbachev came to New York City, to the UN and declared, "no more us of force to crush rebellion in the East Euro states." THAT is what led East Europe to demand more freedom, and Russia giving freedom to their "satellite nations.". I add that because "ending the Cold War" is a catch all term that includes a lot more than just that. Giving up Eastern Europe is thrown in, along with letting the SU split up. Plus legalizing capitalism and religion.
I admit that if the fall was a fraud, Gorbachev has to be given credit for a massive amount of risk-taking. It's breath-taking in its scope.
It just goes to show how much they desire to win nuclear war -- which is what ending the Cold War will do for them in the sense that the West has been steadily disarming (while the Russians, not so much).
A reporter asked Pres. Bush back in 2008 or so something like Can you verify that Russia is abiding by the arms control agreements? Bush, so typical of our leaders, said, something like, "I emphasize transparency, not verification." The West is so happy for Russia to withdraw from E Europe that the West is willing to turn a blind eye on all the cheating they do. For example Russia built THOUSANDS of ABMs when the ABM Treaty limits them to just 200. This was way before we pulled out of that treaty ourselves.
I guess the main thing for me to emphasize about the Kremlin is that they are no dummies. You have to ask yourself, "Could it be that the Russians were smart enuff to see that ending the Cold War, etc, etc would lead to America disarming, going overboard about disarmament??" (So that Russia could win nuclear war when America's missile warheads, the number of them, were reduced down to a number on a par with the Russian ABMs needed to shoot them all down. I mean Russia reportedly has enuff ABMs to intercept 1,300 warheads. While we have recently cut back to where we have just 1,150 warheads on the subs we have at sea. (The subs in port don't count, for they can be easily wiped out by bombing our ports, you see.) In short, we have disarmed to the point that we have fewer warheads than Russia can shoot down !! We are actually TEMPTING the Russians to bomb us !! I'm not making this up.
PS: Could the Kremlin have been smart enuff to foresee that ending the Cold War, etc, would trick America into going overboard on disarmament??
If you answer yes to that question, why not admit that the prospect of winning world war 3 may be so tempting that the Kremlin judges the loss of millions of American lives to be worth the price??
No comments:
Post a Comment