NationStates Jolt Archive

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-soviet-union-coming-back.html

Im not sure if ifs the citizens of Russia and the former Soviet countries that dont recognize the threat,
but more of that they are used to being told what to do,a nd feel more secure in being told what to do.

I have my own opinions, just as all of you, and I'd like to comment that
it is to my opinion that the CCCP was a well organized union of nations... weather forced into the union or not it was effective nonetheless.
... that is until it disbanded.
Oh well.

But yes, i believe another 'USSR' style union will be formed in Asia again.

In my opinion the modern day CIS is nothing more than a capitalist oriented CCCP/Soviet Union.

In my opinion the modern day CIS is nothing more than a capitalist oriented CCCP/Soviet Union.

I'd have to agree with you on that.

By the way,
from what i've studied i really havn't found a reason that explains the disband of the Soviet Union well enough...
someone enlighten me please

I'd have to agree with you on that.

By the way,
from what i've studied i really havn't found a reason that explains the disband of the Soviet Union well enough...
someone enlighten me please

The USSR disbanded simply because it ran out of money and couldn't sustain itself. That and countries in Eastern Europe were seduced by capitalism when they started free trade with other countries. That's pretty much the Clip Notes version of why the USSR fell.

what to understand? the soviet republics had been being raped by russia for 70 years and they were sick of it. the ussr lost its will to hold itself together by force so everyone went their own way.

its not coming back. do you really think that any of the former republics are willing to relinquish their own contries in order to be treated like crap by the larger union once again?

I'd have to agree with you on that.

By the way,
from what i've studied i really havn't found a reason that explains the disband of the Soviet Union well enough...
someone enlighten me please

The most fundamental reasons were nationalism and resentment of the Russians.

Practically all of the member republics of the USSR had been independent nations at one time or another. When the control apparattus of the Soviet Union disintegrated, suppressed nationalism resurged massively - suddely it was cool to be Belarusian, or Georgian, or Ukrainian. An they all felt they could do a better job of running themselves than the central government in Moscow could.

Plus, the Muscovites are all Russians. Now, despite everything the USSR said, despite it's most notorious ruler being Georgian, there is something you must understand about the USSR - it was STILL the Russian Empire. If you were Russian, you got preferred treatment, better food, more chances to shine. If you weren't Russian, you got less. If you were from a small ethnic minority (and especially if you weren't Caucasian) you were treated like shit.

Nobody but the Russians ever wanted to be part of the USSR in the first place. Once they got their chance, the rest of the country declared independence as fast as they could run a new flag up the pole in the market square.

what to understand? the soviet republics had been being raped by russia for 70 years and they were sick of it. the ussr lost its will to hold itself together by force so everyone went their own way.

its not coming back. do you really think that any of the former republics are willing to relinquish their own contries in order to be treated like crap by the larger union once again?

Yes, i do think that. As for treated like crap... that's an opinion.

But thank you Wilgrove for the explaination. That made a whole lot more sense to me than Ashmoria's biased reasoning.

No offense Ashmoria, but you did attack my question with a flame-style answer.
And im not the only one who believes it will comeback. Many people do actually.

The most fundamental reasons were nationalism and resentment of the Russians.

Practically all of the member republics of the USSR had been independent nations at one time or another. When the control apparattus of the Soviet Union disintegrated, suppressed nationalism resurged massively - suddely it was cool to be Belarusian, or Georgian, or Ukrainian. An they all felt they could do a better job of running themselves than the central government in Moscow could.

Plus, the Muscovites are all Russians. Now, despite everything the USSR said, despite it's most notorious ruler being Georgian, there is something you must understand about the USSR - it was STILL the Russian Empire. If you were Russian, you got preferred treatment, better food, more chances to shine. If you weren't Russian, you got less. If you were from a small ethnic minority (and especially if you weren't Caucasian) you were treated like shit.

Nobody but the Russians ever wanted to be part of the USSR in the first place. Once they got their chance, the rest of the country declared independence as fast as they could run a new flag up the pole in the market square.

Excellent explaination. Mind if I quote you in an essay in writing?
Full credit will be givin to you for this explaination too ;)

Yes, i do think that. As for treated like crap... that's an opinion.

But thank you Wilgrove for the explaination. That made a whole lot more sense to me than Ashmoria's biased reasoning.

No offense Ashmoria, but you did attack my question with a flame-style answer.
And im not the only one who believes it will comeback. Many people do actually.

oh im sorry i didnt realize that you had an emotional investment in the old soviet union.

if you think that the various soviet republics, satellites and warsaw pact countries were treated well, perhaps you have an explanation of why they dumped them at the first opportunity and before that had to be held in place by force.

**edit**

i wasnt attacking your question. i was making a short and to the point explanation of why the soviet union collapsed.

Yes, i do think that. As for treated like crap... that's an opinion.

But thank you Wilgrove for the explaination. That made a whole lot more sense to me than Ashmoria's biased reasoning.

No offense Ashmoria, but you did attack my question with a flame-style answer.
And im not the only one who believes it will comeback. Many people do actually.

...have you studied Soviet history at all? Check out the post-revolution years of 1917-1923. They were a blast, what with the deliberately engineered famine and use of terror on the populace...

No? How about Stalin's regime? The Purges?

It wasn't a coincidence that the Soviet Union fell to pieces when nationalism surged back. And it's not a coincidence that former-Eastern bloc nations are vehemently anti-Russian. Many people think that the USSR come back? Where are they from, exactly? Unless they're living in the former-Soviet states, then their opinions aren't really relevent.

And Ashmoria's reply was about as gentle as they come in NSG. Grow some thicker skin or you won't enjoy your time here.

The reason's why the Eastern bloc split and why rest of the USSR split are slightly different. You'll note that when the communist party in poland collapsed when it gained independence, whereas in Central Asia the Communist Party simply changed its name and claimed it was a nationalist party now, and that many of the leaders of these countries from the before the USSR-breakup still hold power. In the case of Turkmenistan the only reason the leadership has changed is that 'Turkmenbashi' died.

It wasn't a coincidence that the Soviet Union fell to pieces when nationalism surged back. And it's not a coincidence that former-Eastern bloc nations are vehemently anti-Russian.

It should be pointed out, however, that a lot of the people in those regions have been anti-Russian ever since there were Russians to anti, or at least a Russian state.

It should be pointed out, however, that a lot of the people in those regions have been anti-Russian ever since there were Russians to anti, or at least a Russian state.

Mmm. Perhaps all the more reason to say there won't be another USSR? The only way they'd rejoin Russia is if they were forced to. And that wouldn't happen because:

1) I don't think Russia's armed forces are really capable of asserting control over them (correct me if I'm wrong, though)

2) The West would most certainly not let them do so.

For the love of god why was this thread not entitled 'Back in the USSR'?

I've had that song going through my head all day too, talk about coincidence.

weather forced into the union...


Oh, my god, I knew it. Those soviets finally mastered weather control warfare, in order to assimilate nearby countries.

http://www.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/t/Texjuns/28.jpg

The red storm army is upon us!

The reason's why the Eastern bloc split and why rest of the USSR split are slightly different. You'll note that when the communist party in poland collapsed when it gained independence, whereas in Central Asia the Communist Party simply changed its name and claimed it was a nationalist party now, and that many of the leaders of these countries from the before the USSR-breakup still hold power. In the case of Turkmenistan the only reason the leadership has changed is that 'Turkmenbashi' died.

yeah those places stopped being treated like crap by the ussr and went to being treated like crap by their own leaders.

i know nothing about places like turkmenistan. how long ago were they independant countries? were they kingdoms before they were soviet republics?

Mmm. Perhaps all the more reason to say there won't be another USSR? The only way they'd rejoin Russia is if they were forced to. And that wouldn't happen because:

1) I don't think Russia's armed forces are really capable of asserting control over them (correct me if I'm wrong, though)

2) The West would most certainly not let them do so.

I wasnt argueing with you, I was just saying that blaming the Soviet Union for the anti-Russian feeling in the area is kinda silly.

yeah those places stopped being treated like crap by the ussr and went to being treated like crap by their own leaders.

i know nothing about places like turkmenistan. how long ago were they independant countries? were they kingdoms before they were soviet republics?

I understand that most of Central Asia was composed of city-states, relativly small kingdoms and nomads prior to the Russian takeover.
It did take the Russians most of the 1800's to fully take over the area though, although the British were a big factor in that.

"An authoritarian regime that keeps it people fed and healthy is like a zillion times worse than an authoritarian regime that whores its resources and starves its people!"

That Blogger is an idiot.

Yes, the former USSR (don't say CCCP, it makes you sound stupid) is collapsing horribly, but I would thing that would make a new Union even more unlikely.

Not going to happen. The entire Eastern Bloc is never going to allow the Russians to dominate and occupy them like they did back then; everything is pretty much better than it was during the Soviet era, and especially in the Baltic republics they're not going to let the Soviets pull another 1940 and illegally annex them again. I mean, those countries are wealthy and are rapidly approaching OECD levels of income and development; they hated the Soviets to begin with and they're not going to go back to them barring military invasion.

Honestly, the former countries of the USSR would sooner fight Russia in a war than be dragged back under their tyranny again.

Mmm. Perhaps all the more reason to say there won't be another USSR? The only way they'd rejoin Russia is if they were forced to. And that wouldn't happen because:

1) I don't think Russia's armed forces are really capable of asserting control over them (correct me if I'm wrong, though)

2) The West would most certainly not let them do so.

1) Russia's armed forces aren't great, true, but they probably have it in them to conquer Central Asia. I mean, the Central Asian nations are among the easiest nations to conquer in the world - if there was a video game about conquering the world, Central Asia would be the introductory level. They are mostly made up of huge, scarcely populated plains with people with below-average health and morale. The Russian Army could very easily just roll in and annex them.

2) Meh, we might, we might not. Russia is pretty much our friend these days. Whereas the Central Asian republics are nothing but minor annoyances. Us folks in Europe would probably let them get away with it, especially if they did it in the winter.

Well, an opinion is an opinion.
I have mine, you can keep yours.

Just dont talk like you know everything, because there are things i can learn from you, and things you can learn from me.

But i do beleive it will eventually happen again... not in the near future... but not in the real distant future either...

In my opinion the modern day CIS is nothing more than a capitalist oriented CCCP/Soviet Union.

very true, very true...
like that russian spy who got poisoned, thats very USSRish

1) Russia's armed forces aren't great, true, but they probably have it in them to conquer Central Asia. I mean, the Central Asian nations are among the easiest nations to conquer in the world - if there was a video game about conquering the world, Central Asia would be the introductory level. They are mostly made up of huge, scarcely populated plains with people with below-average health and morale. The Russian Army could very easily just roll in and annex them.

Afghanistan? If the Russians couldn't defeat the Afghani resistance fighters (and the terrorists we inadvertently assisted as well), they sure as hell don't stand a chance against a nation like Kazakhstan, which is a lot bigger and has a lot larger population.

Hell, they couldn't even subdue Chechnya and that's barely half the size of Armenia.

Excellent explaination. Mind if I quote you in an essay in writing?
Full credit will be givin to you for this explaination too ;)

Please, feel free. If you want, PM me and I'll give you my real name for attribution.

Afghanistan? If the Russians couldn't defeat the Afghani resistance fighters (and the terrorists we inadvertently assisted as well), they sure as hell don't stand a chance against a nation like Kazakhstan, which is a lot bigger and has a lot larger population.

Hell, they couldn't even subdue Chechnya and that's barely half the size of Armenia.

Afghanistan is considered by some to be part of the Middle East. And they had US support in the guerilla war, if you remember.

Not to say they couldnt have hurt the Soviets on their own, but I think the Afghan-Soviet War might have been a bit different without somebody backing the guerillas.

Its quite clear that former USSR members in Caucasus and in Europe(exept maybe Belorussia) will not voluntarily join USSR and west most likely wouldn't allow Russia to take them by force. Central Asian countries also wouldn't join voluntarily but that if anyone defends them is unclear but its quite clear that China, USA and Iran would all dislike Russian invasion in that area.

In my opinion the modern day CIS is nothing more than a capitalist oriented CCCP/Soviet Union.

CIS is not even close as centralized as USSR was.

USA is a bigger threat to the world than Russia will ever be.

Afghanistan? If the Russians couldn't defeat the Afghani resistance fighters (and the terrorists we inadvertently assisted as well), they sure as hell don't stand a chance against a nation like Kazakhstan, which is a lot bigger and has a lot larger population.

Hell, they couldn't even subdue Chechnya and that's barely half the size of Armenia.Unfair comparison. Even the US army sucks when it comes to engaging with guerilla forces. And the best excuse that they have is that the insurgents are funded by Syria and Iran... hardly world superpowers like the US's involvement with Afghanistan.

USA is a bigger threat to the world than Russia will ever be.

Powerhungry

USA is a bigger threat to the world than Russia will ever be.

Is there a sub-clause in Godwins Law for this sort of comment?

Unfair comparison. Even the US army sucks when it comes to engaging with guerilla forces. And the best excuse that they have is that the insurgents are funded by Syria and Iran... hardly world superpowers like the US's involvement with Afghanistan.

No it's not. If the Russians tried to invade one of their former countries, they would face the exact same problems as we did in Vietnam, Iraq, or any of the other guerrilla wars we have fought. Pretty much everyone in these countries want nothing to do with the Russians; they oppressed, exploited, occupied, and discriminated against them for nearly 80 years under the Soviets...there's no love lost there.

To make matters worse, their military is significantly less advanced and of lower quality than ours; they would suffer severe losses far worse than what we have so far in Iraq. Even Vietnam would be tame compared to the losses the Russians would suffer in such a war.

Of course, don't forget that Syria and Iran buy a lot of weapons manufactured by the Russians or other suppliers....it's hardly a quality gap compared to what we sold the Afghanis in the 1980's.

Is there a sub-clause in Godwins Law for this sort of comment?

whats "godwin". i've heard it a lot but never understood what it means.

1) Russia's armed forces aren't great, true, but they probably have it in them to conquer Central Asia. I mean, the Central Asian nations are among the easiest nations to conquer in the world - if there was a video game about conquering the world, Central Asia would be the introductory level. They are mostly made up of huge, scarcely populated plains with people with below-average health and morale. The Russian Army could very easily just roll in and annex them.


yes but they would have to WANT to do it. what is the benefit of bringing back in the central asian republics? they had great potential that was mostly squandered by the ussr. they need a good long time to recover economically and ecologically. THEN they will be worth conquering again. until then they would just be a big sink hole of resentment.

Is there a sub-clause in Godwins Law for this sort of comment?

nah

we just ignore it as irrelevant famebait.

Afghanistan is considered by some to be part of the Middle East. And they had US support in the guerilla war, if you remember.

The countries invaded by the Russians would definitely have our support; hell, China and India would also help them, especially since neither of them want the Russians at their doorstep again. They had to deal with that during the Soviet era, and they don't want it again.

In fact, pretty much the entire world would be opposing them.

Not to say they couldnt have hurt the Soviets on their own, but I think the Afghan-Soviet War might have been a bit different without somebody backing the guerillas.

Yeah, but it's a given that the US would aid those countries against Russia along with a number of other nations.

yes but they would have to WANT to do it. what is the benefit of bringing back in the central asian republics? they had great potential that was mostly squandered by the ussr. they need a good long time to recover economically and ecologically. THEN they will be worth conquering again. until then they would just be a big sink hole of resentment.

Of course, if they recover they'll not only still be a giant sinkhole of resentment, but they'll also be too strong economically and politically to even remotely hope to conquer.

whats "godwin". i've heard it a lot but never understood what it means.

wikipedia.org

nah

we just ignore it as irrelevant famebait.
OIC

The countries invaded by the Russians would definitely have our support; hell, China and India would also help them, especially since neither of them want the Russians at their doorstep again. They had to deal with that during the Soviet era, and they don't want it again.

In fact, pretty much the entire world would be opposing them.

Yeah, but it's a given that the US would aid those countries against Russia along with a number of other nations.

It really depends on how they spin it. India might even LIKE the Soviets to put a bit of preassure on Pakistan, that or the Russians might not go as far as Afghanistan anyway.
I understand that the general reason for the Russians fancying that extra space is more out of paranoia than world-domination ambitions.

As to the second part, it would depend on the political climate at the time. If Tajikistan suddenly goes, "LULZ US R SUKZORZ WE R AL-KIDA DOODZ NAO" (however unlikely that is), I doubt the US is going to jump in and save them from the Ruskies.

yeah those places stopped being treated like crap by the ussr and went to being treated like crap by their own leaders.

i know nothing about places like turkmenistan. how long ago were they independant countries? were they kingdoms before they were soviet republics?They have long complicated histories. A simple breakdown is spent a significant part of their history as part of the Islamic caliphate, then the mongols invade the region and break up the unity of the region. Several Khanates are formed. The one that sticks in my mind if the Khanate of Bukhara. Power slowly shifts and Islamic emirates pop up and take control from the Khanates. In the late 19th century many emirates become protectorates of the Russian Empire. The USSR invades around about 1920. At the time there was very little sense of nationalism. Even now developing a sense of nationalism within Central Asian countries can be problematic as the countries borders divide those of similar ethnicities. Indeed, even by conservative estimates there are more ethnic Tajiks living outside of Tajikistan than living within the country.

Of course, if they recover they'll not only still be a giant sinkhole of resentment, but they'll also be too strong economically and politically to even remotely hope to conquer.

yeah there is that.

so maybe if the russians wait until they arent quite recovered and THEN conquer them and still have that giant sinkhole of resentment.....

many things would have to change before it would make sense for the russians to go on a campaign of military conquest of its neighbors.

It really depends on how they spin it. India might even LIKE the Soviets to put a bit of preassure on Pakistan, that or the Russians might not go as far as Afghanistan anyway.

I understand that the general reason for the Russians fancying that extra space is more out of paranoia than world-domination ambitions.

India's a lot closer to the US than it was during the Cold War; I'd say they would at worst go neutral and simply play no role in the situation. They just don't have the ties or relationship with Russia to justify allowing them to move in close to their territory.

Of course, the pressure on Pakistan would be interesting; it's also possible that Russia might start trying to influence Pakistan in order to pressure India.

As to the second part, it would depend on the political climate at the time. If Tajikistan suddenly goes, "LULZ US R SUKZORZ WE R AL-KIDA DOODZ NAO" (however unlikely that is), I doubt the US is going to jump in and save them from the Ruskies.

It's a good question, actually. During the 80's, we knew already that there were radical Islamists involved in the fight against the Soviets, but we funded them anyway because the USSR was seen as the bigger threat.

It would really boil down to whether the threat of a belligerent Russia annexing its former territories is greater than the threat of funding and supporting a regime with ties to Al-Qaeda. Obviously, that's not an easy question by any stretch; we wouldn't want a repeat of Afghanistan where the militants overthrew the government following the war and took control.

They have long complicated histories. A simple breakdown is spent a significant part of their history as part of the Islamic caliphate, then the mongols invade the region and break up the unity of the region. Several Khanates are formed. The one that sticks in my mind if the Khanate of Bukhara. Power slowly shifts and Islamic emirates pop up and take control from the Khanates. In the late 19th century many emirates become protectorates of the Russian Empire. The USSR invades around about 1920. At the time there was very little sense of nationalism.

since you seem to know something....

do the current countries of uzbekistan, turkmenistan, kyrgystan, whatever, represent accurately the ancient boundaries of cultures or are they as artificial as the boundaries of countries in africa?

since you seem to know something....

do the current countries of uzbekistan, turkmenistan, kyrgystan, whatever, represent accurately the ancient boundaries of cultures or are they as artificial as the boundaries of countries in africa?Completely artificial. Aside from the Tajik capital of Dushanbe the largest Tajik city (Samarqand) is located in Uzbekistan. Additionally there is no sense in splitting up Fergana Valley between three separate countries. The only reason was to split up the population and prevent them forming a national identity.

Please don't take me as an authoritive source. I only know most of this because I was volunteering in Bukhara (another large Tajik city) for 3 months two years ago.

Completely artificial. Aside from the Tajik capital of Dushanbe the largest Tajik city (Samarqand) is located in Uzbekistan. Additionally there is no sense in splitting up Fergana Valley between three separate countries. The only reason was to split up the population and prevent them forming a national identity.

Please don't take me as an authoritive source. I only know most of this because I was volunteering in Bukhara (another large Tajik city) for 3 months two years ago.

i suspected as much from my brief foray onto wikipedia. surely that kind of artificial boundary could contribute to instability in the future that might end up giving russia a chance to reclaim the area (if they should ever be so foolish as to want to do that again)

is it an area worth visiting? as i was looking at wiki it seemed very exotic. should i put it on my list or is the whole area a pit of former soviet devastation?

i suspected as much from my brief foray onto wikipedia. surely that kind of artificial boundary could contribute to instability in the future that might end up giving russia a chance to reclaim the area (if they should ever be so foolish as to want to do that again)

is it an area worth visiting? as i was looking at wiki it seemed very exotic. should i put it on my list or is the whole area a pit of former soviet devastation?I might be a bit biased, but I absolutely loved it. I worked in Bukhara and visited Tashkent and Samarqand. The culture and the people are just... intangible really. <3

There are various safety issues though. Like never drink the tap water, not only can it have a myriad of diseases, but it contains large amounts of heavy metals. Never let your passport out of your sight. And get your vaccinations before you go, and travel insurance with comprehensive health insurance too.

The best time of year to go is in the spring. It gets very cold in the winter and ludicrously hot during the summer. The advantage of late spring is that fresh fruit is obscenely cheap. 0.20USD for a kilogram of strawberries.

No it's not. If the Russians tried to invade one of their former countries, they would face the exact same problems as we did in Vietnam, Iraq, or any of the other guerrilla wars we have fought. Pretty much everyone in these countries want nothing to do with the Russians; they oppressed, exploited, occupied, and discriminated against them for nearly 80 years under the Soviets...there's no love lost there.

To make matters worse, their military is significantly less advanced and of lower quality than ours; they would suffer severe losses far worse than what we have so far in Iraq. Even Vietnam would be tame compared to the losses the Russians would suffer in such a war.

Of course, don't forget that Syria and Iran buy a lot of weapons manufactured by the Russians or other suppliers....it's hardly a quality gap compared to what we sold the Afghanis in the 1980's.Whoops. Sorry, my point was that the Soviets lost in Afghanistan due to USA funding of the Taliban, and lack of support for the war at home. I don't think for a second that Russia could reestablish the USSR... though they do have one advantage... they're more mongoloid. They don't even pretend to give a shit about human rights or the sanctity of human rights.

A hostage crisis in a theatre? Gas them, hostages and all! Neighbouring country not doing what you want? Cut off their gass supply in the middle of winter! Some ex-KGB guy doesn't know when to shut up? Assassinate him in a foreign country uncleanly as possible. You want the whole world to know that messing with you gets people into trouble. A journalist digging up shit on you? Have her shot in an elevator. Some oligarch is looking interested in moving in on your political turf? Convict him of fraud and tax evasion and then seize his company to make a tidy little profit by reprivatising it.

Of course it will come back...with me at its helm!

Hail Mother Russia!

:D:D:D:D

Communism might make a comeback in Russia. But there's no way it hell it would cut it in other ex-Soviet nations, like Ukraine and the Baltic countries.

Whoops. Sorry, my point was that the Soviets lost in Afghanistan due to USA funding of the Taliban, and lack of support for the war at home. I don't think for a second that Russia could reestablish the USSR... though they do have one advantage... they're more mongoloid. They don't even pretend to give a shit about human rights or the sanctity of human rights.

True, but if they tried it they wouldn't be just opposed by the US and resistance fighters. Pretty much every nation in the world, especially the Eastern Bloc nations, would actively fight to stop a menace like that from ever succeeding.

A hostage crisis in a theatre? Gas them, hostages and all! Neighbouring country not doing what you want? Cut off their gass supply in the middle of winter! Some ex-KGB guy doesn't know when to shut up? Assassinate him in a foreign country uncleanly as possible. You want the whole world to know that messing with you gets people into trouble. A journalist digging up shit on you? Have her shot in an elevator. Some oligarch is looking interested in moving in on your political turf? Convict him of fraud and tax evasion and then seize his company to make a tidy little profit by reprivatising it.

Their tactics are brutal, but in the end they fail horribly; they alienate and demoralize the people at home and give the resistance even more reason to fight back. I mean, in four years Russia had over 15,000 soldiers killed in a region half the size of Massachusetts with a population of about one million.

For comparison, Kazakhstan has a population of 15 million and an area the size of Western Europe. They also have a lot of oil, which means money to spend on weapons and equipment...it would be a slaughter that would make Afghanistan look tame in comparison.

And that's only one of their former Republics...they'll never be able to reunite the USSR again.

I wouldn't be too surprised if Communist parties regained power in Russia and in some of the former Eastern Bloc states that have done particularly badly in the last decade and a half.

But, no, nothing resembling the USSR will ever re-emerge; there's no real political will for it, and there'd be very serious opposition from all kinds of parties.

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-soviet-union-coming-back.html

Im not sure if ifs the citizens of Russia and the former Soviet countries that dont recognize the threat,
but more of that they are used to being told what to do,a nd feel more secure in being told what to do.

I have my own opinions, just as all of you, and I'd like to comment that
it is to my opinion that the CCCP was a well organized union of nations... weather forced into the union or not it was effective nonetheless.
... that is until it disbanded.
Oh well.

But yes, i believe another 'USSR' style union will be formed in Asia again.
Don't worry. In a few years you'll outgrow that.

But thank you Wilgrove for the explaination. That made a whole lot more sense to me than Ashmoria's biased reasoning.
Except her reasoning isn't biased. The USSR collapsed for a multitude of reasons, one of them being that which she mentioned.

Except her reasoning isn't biased. The USSR collapsed for a multitude of reasons, one of them being that which she mentioned.

True. I've been reading the book Lenin's Tomb, which talks about the final days and collapse of the USSR, and the resentment of the member states was one of the big reasons why it collapsed.

For lack of a better term, the Soviets raped their member states. With the exception of Malenkov and Khrushchev, they really brought little benefit to these regions. The environment in places like Central Asia was utterly destroyed, and the people suffered and died due to environmental pollution. Even in Russia the Soviets ruined the land in their ruthless drive for industrialization.

The Soviet Union was the biggest ecological disaster in history, and much of the resentment against it stems from the exploitation of resources in Asia and Eastern Europe by the Soviets.

True. I've been reading the book Lenin's Tomb, which talks about the final days and collapse of the USSR, and the resentment of the member states was one of the big reasons why it collapsed.

For lack of a better term, the Soviets raped their member states.
Indeed. They effectively colonised them, much like Europe (and the Arabs before it) did to Africa. That book sounds interesting by the way - I'll give it a look.

As for the environmental destruction, I get what you mean. I've seen Russia in films and from pictures Russian acquaintances showed me. Some is gorgeous. Most of it though? I'd rather live on Mars.

Indeed. They effectively colonised them, much like Europe (and the Arabs before it) did to Africa. That book sounds interesting by the way - I'll give it a look.

It's an excellent book. Imperium by Ryszard Kapuściński is another good look at the rise and fall Soviet Union in the post-Stalin era.

As for the environmental destruction, I get what you mean. I've seen Russia in films and from pictures Russian acquaintances showed me. Some is gorgeous. Most of it though? I'd rather live on Mars.

It's the product of their obsession with extensive growth; Gosplan and the Soviet leaders never wanted better steel or cheaper TVs, they always wanted more and it led them to exploit rather than use their environment, with the ensuing consequences of environmental and economic devastation.

The 1950's and 1960's reformers like Kosygin and Rozenberg were brushed aside once Khrushchev was ousted in 1964...and they were the ones who were responsible for the high growth rate of the Soviet economy during that time and would have been capable of keeping it growing after the 1960's.

It's an excellent book. Imperium by Ryszard Kapuściński is another good look at the rise and fall Soviet Union in the post-Stalin era.



It's the product of their obsession with extensive growth; Gosplan and the Soviet leaders never wanted better steel or cheaper TVs, they always wanted more and it led them to exploit rather than use their environment, with the ensuing consequences of environmental and economic devastation.

The 1950's and 1960's reformers like Kosygin and Rozenberg were brushed aside once Khrushchev was ousted in 1964...and they were the ones who were responsible for the high growth rate of the Soviet economy during that time and would have been capable of keeping it growing after the 1960's.

ive always thought that the reason for that was the lack of need of the government to be responsible to the people.

in the united states there was the same pressure for exploitation of resources. and we have exploited more than our share. but at least in the country the people can speak up, get environmental protections, and balance out the populations interest in quality of life with the desire for development.

in the ussr, the people's will was irrelevant so there was no way to put the brakes on the worst of exploitation.

Tajikstan is not going to go Islamist in a chaotic, Taliban kind of way. They're going to go Islamist in the heavily organised, modernised, republican Iranian kind of way.

Tajik is pretty much just Farsi with a semi-Russified accent, and the two nations share a lot of cultural links, and I wouldn't be surprised if a future Tajik government decided to vassalise their nation to Iran. In fact, following the passing of the Soviet Old Guard in the Central Asian nations, perhaps we will see more nations alligning themselves with Iran, to avoid the much more threatening influences of Russia or China.

(And a fun fact about Tajikstan, the name of their capital city, Dushanbe, translates as 'Monday'.)

Not to say they couldnt have hurt the Soviets on their own, but I think the Afghan-Soviet War might have been a bit different without somebody backing the guerillas.

Quite true. Before the introduction of US Stinger missiles and tactics regarding their use, the Hind-Ds were making significant headway against the insurgents.