Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Russia Ukraine war, page-27683

First 27683 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
bcr

4,899 Posts.

130

10/05/22

17:22

Post #: 61322338
Share

Originally posted by lucky1973 ↑

@bcr ,

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the worry in the West was what would happen to that country’s thousands of nuclear weapons. Would nukes fall into the hands of terrorists, rogue states, criminals and plunge the world into a nuclear nightmare? The West could have used that as a reason for a military intervention.

Also, you finish of your number one enemy when it is at it's weakest. The West did not do it. They waited and they got Yeltsin, who they were very happy with. The reforms, that concentrated on privatisation of Russia's assets made Russia weak and not in a position to provide any sort of opposition to the NATO's fourth and fifth enlargement.

"The corruption associated with privatisation had made Yeltsin and the reformers unpopular – and many feared the communists would return to power. The democrats had to resort to desperate measures. Every possible resource was mobilised to ensure that Yeltsin was re-elected – including deals with powerful oligarchs with large media empires. The communists were defeated but the price was endemic cynicism about the democratic process." 1996 Election.

"There is no need for conjecture in this case. The story was discussed quite openly at the time and included a Time magazine cover story with the guilty parties going on record about their role in subverting democracy.
“In 1996 American political consultants and the Bill Clinton administration made certain that Boris Yeltsin remained in the Russian presidency.”
Polls showed that Yeltsin was in danger of losing to the Communist Party candidate Gennadi Zhuganov. The collapse of the Soviet Union had created an economic and political catastrophe for the Russian people. Oligarchs openly stole public funds while government workers went without pay. Russians lost the safety net they had enjoyed and the disaster resulted in a precipitous decline in life expectancy and birth rates".
By Margaret Kimberley
Global Research, March 18, 2017
Black Agenda Report 14 March 2017

The US could have intervened directly, but they decided not to, because everything was working according to plan. In the decade to follow, Yeltsin's reforms created Putin.

Expand

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the worry in the West was what would happen to that country’s thousands of nuclear weapons. Would nukes fall into the hands of terrorists, rogue states, criminals and plunge the world into a nuclear nightmare? The West could have used that as a reason for a military intervention.

Expand

Given that we would be talking about securing every single warhead, the sheer logistics of that would be well beyond the capability of NATO at the time. The BEST outcome would be for a stable, and orderly transition of power to a less hostile Soviet Union.

Given the extremely sensitive nature, and the rapid pace, of events, a NATO intervention could have been the very thing that set off a nuclear exchange.

This is just a fantasy you've created, including the idea that "everything was going according to plan" for the US.

Nobody had any idea in 1989, that within two years of the Berlin wall coming down, the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union wouldn't exist.

There was no "plan".
4 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

The Rising Tide: How institutional adoption is shaping the future of crypto

SVL

Silver Mines pushing ahead with NSW Bowdens project despite green group setback over power lines

HIQ

Mouthguard concussion sensor tech developer HIT IQ wins second US patent

TRE

Toubani raises $10M to see Mali's Koubada Gold Project through to DFS

CC9

Chariot locks in high-potential drill target at Black Mountain, one of the USA's largest lithium landholdings

There are more pages in this discussion • 206,124 more messages in this thread...

First 27683 Last