I disagree, honestly. Reagan would’ve sided with Russia in an instant, especially if it meant getting one over on the liberals. Remember that he accused the milquetoast American left of having gone ‘so far left they left America’.
Reagan’s opposition was to communism, not to regional powers enforcing their hegemony over smaller states. Ukraine would be sacrificed in an instant. It’s doubtful that he’d have any moral opposition, considering the shitbags he was fond of supporting.
@PugJesus That was a good line, but he was a very effective communicator. In my view, Reagan wanted what happened to happen - for the Soviet Union to collapse. “Mr. Gobachev, tear down this wall!” The US fucked up a once-in-a-millenium opportunity after the collapse, but that is another topic. After Vietnam, other than in Central America - Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras which were in our sphere of influence, no American President was going to meddle in a regional conflict. Moral opposition doesn’t mean anything to anybody, but that is realpolitic. @Blamemeta@Lapus
I disagree. The SovUnion was collapsing, and the CIA knew this as far back as the 70s. Reagan no doubt wanted the Sovs to collapse, and I have no doubt he genuinely pursued that goal, but he did little to actually accelerate the process. The Sovs were rotted out from the inside.
Let’s not forget the Iran angle of the Iran-Contra scandal, or that Reagan supported apartheid SA long after his own party had turned against it. Not only that, but his meddling in Latin American countries went beyond the usual vile Cold War shenanigans, and into deeply disturbing - and arguably counterproductive - territory.
I disagree that moral opposition doesn’t mean anything - realpolitik itself is a deeply controversial idea. Obligatory fuck Kissinger.
@PugJesus In my view (and recollection) the whole point of the “star wars” project was to force the Sovs to spend themselves into collapse, which they did. That is why Reagan got credit for “winning” the Cold War. The Sovs were created on a false economic foundation - I’m referring to the forced collectivization of agriculture by Stalin as an example (not the human loss associated with it). So I think they were never whole as a point to rot from.
To be clear, I’m not a fan of Reagan and never was. He was out of control in Latin America, supported the Shah, lots of bad things. Realpolitik has been controversial for many years but I used the term as a description of how things are. And I agree - fuck Kissinger. The last thing we need is that guy negotiating on his own with his “old friend” in China.
I disagree, honestly. Reagan would’ve sided with Russia in an instant, especially if it meant getting one over on the liberals. Remember that he accused the milquetoast American left of having gone ‘so far left they left America’.
Reagan’s opposition was to communism, not to regional powers enforcing their hegemony over smaller states. Ukraine would be sacrificed in an instant. It’s doubtful that he’d have any moral opposition, considering the shitbags he was fond of supporting.
@PugJesus That was a good line, but he was a very effective communicator. In my view, Reagan wanted what happened to happen - for the Soviet Union to collapse. “Mr. Gobachev, tear down this wall!” The US fucked up a once-in-a-millenium opportunity after the collapse, but that is another topic. After Vietnam, other than in Central America - Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras which were in our sphere of influence, no American President was going to meddle in a regional conflict. Moral opposition doesn’t mean anything to anybody, but that is realpolitic.
@Blamemeta @Lapus
I disagree. The SovUnion was collapsing, and the CIA knew this as far back as the 70s. Reagan no doubt wanted the Sovs to collapse, and I have no doubt he genuinely pursued that goal, but he did little to actually accelerate the process. The Sovs were rotted out from the inside.
Let’s not forget the Iran angle of the Iran-Contra scandal, or that Reagan supported apartheid SA long after his own party had turned against it. Not only that, but his meddling in Latin American countries went beyond the usual vile Cold War shenanigans, and into deeply disturbing - and arguably counterproductive - territory.
I disagree that moral opposition doesn’t mean anything - realpolitik itself is a deeply controversial idea. Obligatory fuck Kissinger.
@PugJesus In my view (and recollection) the whole point of the “star wars” project was to force the Sovs to spend themselves into collapse, which they did. That is why Reagan got credit for “winning” the Cold War. The Sovs were created on a false economic foundation - I’m referring to the forced collectivization of agriculture by Stalin as an example (not the human loss associated with it). So I think they were never whole as a point to rot from.
To be clear, I’m not a fan of Reagan and never was. He was out of control in Latin America, supported the Shah, lots of bad things. Realpolitik has been controversial for many years but I used the term as a description of how things are. And I agree - fuck Kissinger. The last thing we need is that guy negotiating on his own with his “old friend” in China.
Have a good evening.
@Blamemeta @Lapus
You too, mate! Always a pleasure to have a civil discussion about history.