It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was the US involved in the collapse of the Soviet Union?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
There is some debate as to if the United States really wa involved, covertly, in the break up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's. If this is true, why couldn't Russia do anything to the United States if this was the case and why are we now allies to this day?


Thanks!




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Reply to JonesLHS

There is some debate as to if the United States really wa involved, covertly, in the break up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's. If this is true, why couldn't Russia do anything to the United States if this was the case and why are we now allies to this day?

Yes the US was involved in breaking up the Soviet Union. It started when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan during 1980s and the US supported the insurgents with weapons to cripple the soviets.That was the END of the soviets.

Russia is doing something about it. Most of the weapons that the insurgents nowadays use to fight the US and coalition troops are Russian made.

The recent support was in 2006 where the hezbullah insurgents were fighting the Israeli army. The insurgents mostly used Russian made anti-tank missiles to destroy many Israeli tanks.
US and Israel are very very close.

So bringing Israel down=bringing US down.

The US and the Russians are allies but not ALLIES!!


[edit on 23-12-2007 by kangjia57]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Of course the USA was involved in the break up of the USSR, but what you might not know, is that we were instrumental in the creation and perpetuation of the USSR. reformed-theology.org... The USSR served it’s purpose of socializing the West, that’s the real reason it no longer exists.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kangjia57
 


Kangjia,

Thank you for the reply. But what you had given me was more on the response of the military involvement during the Russian-Afghan war; but my question was leaning more towards the economic standpoint, and I apologize my question was not well stated, let me reiterate:

I did some research on the collapse and this is what it stated:




The Soviet Union's collapse into independent nations began in earnest in 1985. After years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth was at a standstill. Failed attempts at reform and a stagnant economy led to a general feeling of discontent, especially in the Baltic republics and Eastern Europe. Greater political and social freedoms, instituted by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, created an atmosphere of open criticism of the Moscow regime.



But what does this mean exactly, and how was this any proof that the US was involved solely in the economic and social standpoint of the collapse? This sounds more of a government issue because they wanted to buildup their military (since they were in Berlin) to maintain their annexation of the country. This of course included domestic money to be issued to the military, and there was less growth in the economy. This is what had made them lose to the Afghani's.

But how was this, at all, US related?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
In my opinion, the Soviet Union brought down the Soviet Union. You have to look back at the history of Russia/USSR to understand.

By the turn of the 20th century Russia was a backwards, practically failed state. Czar Nicholas II was an autocratic leader who neglected his people, consequently the Communists under Lenin took over. By 1920, Lenin himself conceded that socialism/communism wasn't going to work. Once Lenin died Stalin took over and cemented his power by turning the country into a fascist police state. Russia/USSR then became highly industrialised and scientifically advanced, this gave the IMPRESSION that it was a successful country on par with the US. However, it was an economic failure. When Gorbachev (one of the greatest leaders in history) came to power he realised this and set about reforms to dismantle the USSR.

As for Russia getting back at the US, you don't realise that the collapse of the USSR was the best thing that could happen to Russia. The USSR was a mess, had the US gotten their way Russia would have turned into a democratic capitalist powerhouse and eventually sided with the US and EU, believe it or not. Of course, the Kremlin would have lost it's power, this is where Putin comes into the equation.

Also Kanjia57, you fail to see that Afghanistan was America's way of getting back at the USSR for their involvement in Korea and Vietnam (among others).

Resistor, if the US was instrumental in creating the USSR, to socialize the west, howcome the US and others intervened in the Russian civil war to help the white army? Or were they just pretending?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Cthulwho
 


Cthulwho,

I thank you much for expanding on your theory of the collapse. One question from your response:

Why would Gorbachev do such a thing, to dismantle his own country, knowing that there would be dangers in the road?

And also, how is it that the United States was so lucky to not go through these same economic problems as Russia did? Was it because of the well planned economic budgeting the U.S. does annually?

I am sure the U.S. was quite so happy when they realized the USSR was collapsing, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Why would Gorbachev do such a thing, to dismantle his own country, knowing that there would be dangers in the road?


The end justifies the means, or in Lenin's words "One step back, to take two steps forward". You have to understand that people back then were lining up to buy bananas (for example), the system of central planning had completely failed and it became obvious that they had to introduce free markets. Dismantling the obsolete Soviet system was one necessity for this to happen.



And also, how is it that the United States was so lucky to not go through these same economic problems as Russia did? Was it because of the well planned economic budgeting the U.S. does annually?


The US was capitalist, this means that the economy is driven by market forces, companies would only produce things people would pay for. The higher the demand/lower the supply for a commodity the higher the price. This ensures that scarce resources are used efficiently. With bananas (for example), companies would produce enough to meet the demand, and be motivated by profit.

So when it comes to the US military budget, they were able to spend large amounts of money which they received from tax collection. They were able to collect large tax revenues because companies and individuals had large incomes as a result of capitalism.


I am sure the U.S. was quite so happy when they realized the USSR was collapsing, wouldn't you agree?


I totally agree. However I don't believe it's because the US is evil and wanted to see Russian people starving in the streets.

Western countries get along well with Democratic, capitalist countries.
Fascist countries (USSR, China, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe) get along with other fascist countries.

A democratic, capitalist, globalist Russia would be a lot more friendly to the west than a fascist, socialist, nationalist Russia. It's like how the US built up the economies of Germany, Japan and South Korea after the wars. It payed off because those countries are now strong allies of the US, they also do a lot of trade which is mutually beneficial.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   
It wasn't really so covert.

Massively expensive high-tech weapons programmes like Star Wars had the Soviets bankrupting themselves in a desperate attemtp to keep up the arms race.

Dissidents and other disaffected individuals and groups in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries were given support and publicity - and were no doubt funded too, in secret. One very important dissident group were the Polish workers who formed an independent trade union, Solidarity, under Lech Walesa. The Polish uprising was supported by the USA and the Roman Catholic church acting together. The other really important crack in the fabric, as pointed out earlier, was support for the Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviet forces, which helped keep them bogged down and demoralized, and finally helped defeat them.

All these things were public knowledge at the time, or very soon after. I'm sure there were lots of covert operations, too. It was war, after all: the Cold War.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Thanks to you all for answering my question. Now I understand. Thanks again guys!

Happy Holidays!


BJ

[edit on 24-12-2007 by JonesLHS]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I do not think the united states was involved in this sort of operation, people were just sick of it, it took only one country to do it, and the rest did the same, it was people in general , regular people who pulled it off.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cthulwho
Resistor, if the US was instrumental in creating the USSR, to socialize the west, howcome the US and others intervened in the Russian civil war to help the white army? Or were they just pretending?


‘They’ are always pretending. What I mean to say is that it was the wall street financiers and industrialists that financed the Bolshevik revolution, not the USA gov. The USA and other western governments (under the control of the globalist bankers) did help the white army, but only enough to drag out the conflict and allow a nice profit off of arms sales, and the interest to finance them. This is how the globalists work, by controlling both sides of the equation, predetermining the outcome, and profiting from the process.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join