if the USSR and communism had not collapsed.. (2 Viewers)

[swag]

5- Globalization became the new enemy of the free people of the World, but the struggle against it is just a group of parties of throwing stones into some poor soldiers, without affecting the heads...

I don't know if I buy that. Globalization has its evils, for sure, but it also has plenty of Luddites against it on unrealistic grounds as well -- just like the people who would have had you think the industrial revolution was purely evil over a century ago. And then at least, those people had more grounds for concern than the anti-globalization types now.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Snoop]

What is the USSR?

Mother Russia

 

[HelterSkelter]

i dont know what to make of the whole global security issue.when the USSR was at its peak,yes there was the cold war with america,but i think the nuclear threat was less 'bigger' than it is now.right now you have one superpower which is light years ahead of the others in terms of technology and artillery.so that kinda means that it isnt answerable to anyone.with the USSR at its peak,there was probably a 'you screw us,we can screw you equally bad' notion that kept both nations away from actually turning the cold war into something much more dangerous.

ive come across lots of people who favour communism,and they raise a pretty valid point about there being a long standing peace during the cold war's time.ever since Russia's demise,that peace has vanished.im not talking about peace in its literal sense.sure,there were issues in the world during the cold war's peak,but the amount of fighting and bloodshed that exists now was not present back then.or was it?

 

[Jem83]

Well I know one thing for sure..

Women would've spent more time in the kitchen!!

.. Not that I want them to or anything :rolleyes2

 

[Omair]

Salman is right though, all that i know is, through out history there were atleast 2 super powers with locked thorns against each other. Whenever one falls another rises. But now it's only the U.S. so it's kind of mis-blanaced. It makes the US do whatever they want without getting a NO from anywhere. Even if they get any they won't care just like what happened in the last Iraqi war when France and Germany disagreed with them they went to war anyway.

In other words, having only one super power is just like having a dectatorship. Or atleast i think so.

 

[Slagathor]

To all the people making the USSR sound like a good alternative:

Poland disagrees.

 

[Jem83]

Salman is right though, all that i know is, through out history there were atleast 2 super powers with locked thorns against each other. Whenever one falls another rises. But now it's only the U.S. so it's kind of mis-blanaced. It makes the US do whatever they want without getting a NO from anywhere. Even if they get any they won't care just like what happened in the last Iraqi war when France and Germany disagreed with them they went to war anyway.

In other words, having only one super power is just like having a dectatorship. Or atleast i think so.

Good thinking Omair, because you're right. Only one set of rules apply and one must conform and obey them!

There wasn't always throughout history only 2 superpowers though..
But it makes no real difference to the point you were making!

 

[Omair]

There wasn't always throughout history only 2 superpowers though..
But it makes no real difference to the point you were making!

I didn't mean only 2 superpowers through out history .. i meant 2 super powers atleast in every era ..

 

[Enron]

To all the people making the USSR sound like a good alternative:

Poland disagrees.

As does the rest of Eastern Europe.

 

[Jem83]

"At least" 2 is correct, yes

My bad!

 

[Martin]

4- The developing countries lived under dictatorships which were loyal to one of the two parties. Fake democracy is now covering those same dictatorships...

What exactly are you calling the 'developing countries'?

 

[Martin]

To all the people making the USSR sound like a good alternative:

Poland disagrees.

To all those making the USSR sound like a good alternative, they did not live in the USSR nor any of of the countries in its 'sphere of influence'.

 

[Enron]

To all those making the USSR sound like a good alternative, they did not live in the USSR nor any of of the countries in its 'sphere of influence'.

Exactly.

 

[swag]

I'm sure Fli has a few words on that as well...

 

[Chxta]

We all know that.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

To all those making the USSR sound like a good alternative, they did not live in the USSR nor any of of the countries in its 'sphere of influence'.

Right on, bro.

 

[Elvin]

would the world be a better place to live in?a more equal balance of power would have been there obviously,unlike the unequal balance that exists right now in favour of the USA.the world would have been dividen between communism and capitalism like the post world war 2 - pre 1990 era.had that balance still existed,would we be living in a better world in terms of global security,in terms of global well being etc?

I say FUCK THAT!

A lot of people are happy to be independent of Russians, u know...

 

[Cronios]

1- Both countries were using the whole world to test their weapons. Now, Only Americans can do that. The problem is still there...

2- There were some war zones where the two parties fought against each other like Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua... The wars continued after USSR left the battle field, making these places more prone to American invasion...

3- Wars in Balkan Area have caused deaths more than all the cold war's victims...

4- The developing countries lived under dictatorships which were loyal to one of the two parties. Fake democracy is now covering those same dictatorships...

5- Globalization became the new enemy of the free people of the World, but the struggle against it is just a group of parties of throwing stones into some poor soldiers, without affecting the heads...

6- The two parties keep claiming that they will decrease their neclear arsenal, while in fact, nothing happens...

--------------------------------------------------------------

As a result, the World wasn't really affected by the collapse of the USSR...

Great post!!!

 

[Juventico]

What exactly are you calling the 'developing countries'?

Us: the Third World that still believe that through the touch of some Magic Wand will become industrialized countries with lots of resources.

The disappearance of the Sovjet Union has had a huge impact on the world. Once it was gone, there was a void that was needed to be filled, economically and politically speaking most countries began the process of block-building. The EU has been trying to become an economical/political superpower. At the moment they are a power, and are struggling to become super.

Latinamerica has its own economical wannabe block (MERCOSUR), dunno much about Mideast, Africa on that matter. And well in the Far East, the economies and ideologies are too different to try and build up a strong block.

What does this mean, that we now have a world were most countries that were non-aligned, or "neutral" or big-partners of the URSS are now racing to take over their spotlight in world economics. Oil-rich countries have the advantages nowadays, but we can see blooming economies in Brazil, India and China.

Militarily... pumpkin: ) Things are just plain worse than 10 or 15 years back. Apparently to try and just get some money in their hands a certain former superpower did a Juventus-like garage sale, and thus russian made machineguns, tanks, jets and other lots of bang-bang-kill-kill thingies ended up in the wrong hands, giving countries with less-than-benevolent leaders a shot to kill anyone that isn't his friend. Of course, the guys that disagree with him and have some money can arm themselves too, so we have a violent world overflooded with weapons. Sadly though, instead of killing each other, those weapon-crazy sickos decide to kill each others' civilians. Resulting in terrorists on one side, and state-terror on the other.

Milosevic did order ethnic cleansing during the Balkan War, Israel did the same (or so I hear/read) during this brief (but still too long) war on Libanon.

Nuclear proliferation is another big issue on the political agenda. If back in the day having a nice big army, or a chunk of the Antarctica or a space program was the definition of the 'cool guys from the World' having a nuclear program seems to be 'in' this days. Many countries, did have their nuclear plans even during cold war, the difference between then and now is that back then two superpowers would frown at you, and force you to sign a non-profileration treaty. Now when Bush tells anyone to abort their Nuke Program they simply say "Up yours" and schedule a Nuclear Test.

The world's not better or worse than fifteen/thirty years ago. It's ina transition period, where countries will have to find a new balance of powers, both on economical terms and military. Sadly though, "peace" is only a push button and a nuclear program away of being shattered.

 

[Rhizoid]

What I find interesting about the whole USSR was its sheer size and the way they controlled it. The fact that you can speak Russian from St. Petersburg to Vladivostock is fascinating.

I’m not gonna talk about the Lenins, Stalins, Brezhnevs, Trotskys, and Gorby’s…there are dozens of books on that. One great significance of the USSR was the cultural influence it had on the various republics. I always wondered – had it not been for the rise of the Soviets, would former SSR’s such as the Central Asia countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan etc) all be using Cyrillic alphabets for their countries? Historically their native languages (mainly Turkic with some Persian) had their own unique dialects, alphabets and grammar. The Cyrillic alphabet IMO, changed everything as that alphabet itself was created for Slavic languages.

Plus, the first language for most of the above mention ex-USSR is Russian. Even Mongolian, which was written using an ancient script vertically (they write from top to bottom), currently uses Cyrillic alphabet.

Yesterday there was a cool program on BBC (I forget its name now!) with the president of Georgia, Saakashvili. His country is a prime example of an ex-SSR trying to come up with new strategies for survival and growth without having to suck up to president Putin. For example, their tension with Russia involves the Abkhazian ethnic group who want their own country. If I’m not mistaken (not sure about this fact) the Abkhazians were heavily funded by the Russians and are investing this in their campaigns for independence. I think the republic of Ossetia (south) also want independence.

The list is endless for the number of countries that seek full independence from the Russian federation. I recently read about a country and an ethnic group called Transnistria! They’re supposedly seeking independence from Moldova, and regard themselves as a unique people with their or historical roots. And let’s not even get started with the story of Chechnya…

This opens up a philosophical debate on whether these people should be allowed to have a right to exercise their own politics. (if that were the case then you’d have 7,834,937,239 countries in the world )

Other strange occurrences are territorial disputes. Ever seen a map of Azerbaijan? First you have the country, then you see Armenia, then you go a little south I think, and a circle called Karabagh pops up under the name Azerbaijan! Lol

Then you have another dimension which is called OIL. Control and exploitation of these resources is a crucial asset to the Russian Federation…so it’s tough for the weaker ex-SSR’s to play their own ball game. That’s why you have countries like Kazakhstan which are booming now, economically given their extremely good relations with Russia. OTOH, you can also take a look at the Georgia example (not giving a rat’s ass what Russia thinks) – a country being labeled as the next Singapore or Hong Kong in Europe.

Just my two cents…if anyone from the above mentioned nations could shed some more light on these issues, I’d appreciate it.