Quote from: be.open on Today at 11:27:06 AM

Quote from: paxmao on Today at 11:11:31 AM

Quote from: be.open on Today at 06:23:53 AM

Quote from: paxmao on June 26, 2024, 04:37:04 PM

Why is it so difficult for Ruzzia to understand? They lost. It is very simple. The USSR was as big and as influential as Ruzzia ever got, and it failed - they collapsed completely.

USSR lost, not Russia. It was a strategic mistake of the United States, when they collapsed the USSR in 1991 and won the Cold War, they relaxed and began to rest on their laurels. Apparently they thought that Russia would collapse on its own.

Is it really so difficult for the West to understand? The Union republics did not strengthen the Soviet Union, but rather drew vitality from Russia. Now Russia is much stronger than the USSR in the best years of its power.

So... Ruzzia had nothing to do with the USSR, it was all the rest but Ruzzia that failed? You need to be honest at least to yourself, Ruzzia is not standing to "the West", but to a very limited and insufficient aid to Ukraine.

If the collapse of the USSR was a "mistake by the US" and not a mistake by the KGB guys that rule you how come half of it is being economically and socially successful in the EU and the NATO? You do not have a selling point, that is why you sent the tanks instead of the diplomats.

The mistake of the United States was not the collapse of the USSR, but the fact that after that they immediately relaxed and began to celebrate the victory and did not take advantage of the opportunity to immediately break Russia into several parts at the same time. Apparently they thought that the centrifugal forces in Russia, amid the shock of the collapse of the USSR, were strong enough for Russia to collapse on its own. The favorable moment was missed and now the West can only dream about the collapse of Russia.

Oh my... So your idea of a good strategy is to allow a country that has over a thousand nuclear warheads to collapse an be split into a range of different parts each one of them with in physical possession of part of a nuclear arsenal, while getting whoever gets in power in each of those be a potential suicidal maniac.

do you not see any possible problem with that course of action? Like, you know, multiplying by 20 the number of possible bilateral nuclear conflicts with potential for full human species extinction?