Was there ever a point during the cold war were one side had

>>33345556
The Soviets (and later Russia) had more nuclear weapons than the US from around the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s. It's been around equal numbers since then.

As far as tanks go, the Red Army fuckin loved'em. They cranked 100,000 T-54/55s off the assembly lines, plus 20k T-72s, 25k T-62s, 10k T-64s, 5k T-80s and about 6-7k IS variants. Plus a whole family of self propelled guns, tank destroyers, and other shit.

Meanwhile, the US cranked out about 16k Pattons between the M46 and M60, and about 10k Abrams tanks. A bunch of other prototypes and one-run models exist with 20-500 models produced apiece.

US strategy has always been about overwhelming air power. The Soviets tended to prefer huge columns of tanks.

>>33345556
the short time when america had nukes and russia didn't,
and also the time when america had delivery systems and russia didn't.

File: t-72 & mig-21.jpg (531KB, 1122x1450px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 1122x1450px

>>33345652
>US strategy has always been about overwhelming air power. The Soviets tended to prefer huge columns of tanks.
Cool story, considering Soviet Union operated the largest air force on the planet.

>>33345692
And all inferior to the US Air Forces tech at the time. Don't go all slavaboo on us now. It's why the Soviet Union spent so much time and effort trying to develop their anti-aircraft to make up for their lack of quality air power.

>>33345698
>And all inferior to the US Air Forces tech at the time.
So Soviet tanks are better than American ones?

I'm gay and I have a big cock.

>>33345692
North Korea has one of the largest standing armies on the planet, nobody would argue they're anything like the best. Soviet air power was mostly in pre-Eagle MiGs and various flavors of Sukhoi ground attackers. Consider that Naval aviation also factors into the US strength in the air.

The point is that the US focused down a military centered on projecting power around the world with carrier groups and airpower, whereas the Soviets were smack in the middle of damn near everything, and could just roll tanks across the border into XYZackistan. They never needed to emphasize the mobile aspect of their military, including in the air.

>>33345717
When it was T-64/T-72 vs whatever Patton model the US had it was a very big tank advantage to the Soviets.
When the M1 and Leo2 came into play with advanced thermals and whatnot the west had a tank that could go toe to toe with pretty much any tank the soviets could field but there was not enough to match the soviet numbers.
In the air even the Soviet union knew they where outmatched after the Israeli shenanigans with their arab neighbours.

>>33345556

Depends on what kind of advantage.

>Technological
The US from '46-'52
The US from '80-'91

>Economic
The US from '80-'91
The Soviets from '55-'61

>Diplomatic/Political
The Soviets from '73-'86

File: mig-31bm with r-37 & r-73 (2).jpg (248KB, 1280x860px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1280x860px

>>33345698
Well memed. They've developed sophisticated IADS and ECM because the key to true superiority on the battlefield lies within cooperation between all military branches.
>>33345722
Where are you taking these goalposts, anon? Your original sententia was that "Soviets tended to prefer huge columns of tanks over air power". Now you are telling us North Korea tends to prefer pacifism as their giant army is not a proof of the contrary? Your second hypothesis is bullshit just as well. Soviet Air Forces operated a large variety of aircraft mostly on par with their western counterparts, as well as the entire arm of interceptors not excelled by anyone in the world to this very date.
The third point you are making is correct, but it does not correspond with the first two. First of all, Soviet Union was perfectly capable of power projection, as it proved fending the combined US and British carrier groups off the coast of India in 1971. Second, not having to emphasise power projection due to not being stuck on the wrong side of the globe has more to do with naval doctrine and does not correspond with having or lacking sophisticated air forces.

>>33345556
Soviets were able to kick US out of Europe pretty whole Cold War until 1985. Lowest point of US technological, military, economical and diplomatic level was in Nixon crisis. Soviet could just grab and take whole planet, but they missed that window of possibility because politburo was full of hippies to that time.

>>33346150
Or the politburo knew that a war would undoubtedly lead to a nuclear war?
There is no scenario during the cold war where a military conflict between the super powers would not have lead to an atomic apocalypse.

the missle gap wasn't real mane. The US always outnumbered the Soviets as far as missles ten fold. The thought of the missle gap was dissiminated to get the ball going for even more missles.

>>33345745

>In the air even the Soviet union knew they where outmatched after the Israeli shenanigans with their arab neighbours.

Are you seriously implying arab pilots were exploiting the full potential of their equipment?
It's like assessing the M1's performace by looking at the Iraqi army.

Nigga what the fuck do you think the Arms Race was for?

>>33345670
>and also the time when america had delivery systems and russia didn't.
Russia built the first ICBM's, I don't think there was a point where the US was ever ahead until the late 70's.

>>33345717

Up until the M1 Abrams, they were. Even though the T-72 gets a bad reputation, it's been shown capable of surviving ATGMs ten years younger than itself and be no worse for wear, and has performed admirably when under the control of actual bloc countries. It's why the US placed much emphasis on using aircraft and artillery to take out armor over direct tank to tank engagements, and why the Patton series were designed to operate from a "hull down" position, as in a frontal engagement a Patton's armor is inferior to a T-72's.

>>33345692

They did that by holding onto legacy aircraft far longer than the US even when they wouldn't be of practical use in a Cold War gone hot: the MIG-15 and 17 were cannon fodder against the F-15 and would have been destroyed in numbers equaling the amount of missiles each fighter carried. What the Soviets normally used these for was low-intensity conflicts against dune coons and other groups with no realistic way to shoot them down, and in the case they had to be used against a first world nation it was hoped was that attrition from air to ground engagements with their land-based AA systems would possibly weaken the USAF to the point that they could get their outdated aircraft in the air for ground attack and reconnaissance from outside NATO's zone of control.

That, and they liked to inflate their numbers to intimidate the West, which led to the infamous "bomber gap" debacle.

>>33346194
>it's been shown capable of surviving ATGMs ten years younger than itself and be no worse for wear,
Interested in this, got a video or source?

>>33346174
>Or the politburo knew that a war would undoubtedly lead to a nuclear war?
In that time Soviets were more prepared for global nuclear war than US. They literally designed their cities with nuclear strike possibility in minds.
Also, it was 1971, no Trident II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlPEBROvR9w
Also, Soviet had more political power. With some efforts they could put end to NATO, because France already left it.

>>33345670
>the short time when america had nukes and russia didn't
I still don't get why the US didn't just drop one on St Petersburg and sent a notice to the Soviets to GTFO of Europe or the next ones goes into every major Soviet city.
What was the Soviets gonna do about it? Complain to the UN?

>>33346204

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTFJm9jgC8

>>33345670
What about the entire time America had an economical advantage?

>>33346291
Shows nothing of the after effects of the hit, hell the video stops before the smoke and dust from the hit even clears.

>>33346177
When soviet operators tried to show the dirty mudskins how to properly use their equipment, the russians got raped even harder than the arabs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

>>33346331
>video stops before the smoke and dust from the hit even clears
That's mean that tank is OK, obv.

>>33346235
>In that time Soviets were more prepared for global nuclear war than US. They literally designed their cities with nuclear strike possibility in minds.

>doubt

>>33346150
Soviets where balls deep in Afghan in 1985, given how terrible that was going picking a fight with anyone else was just fucking madness

>>33346235
Ah yes, the "if there's two of us and one of them left, we win" argument.
No matter how much you harden your cities, after you drop a few dozen megatons worth of nukes on each of them, irradiated rubble will be all that's left.
When that happens it's not worth much to the few survivors that Washington and New York glows slightly brighter in the dark than your former home does.

>>33346383
>Soviets where balls deep in Afghan in 1985, given how terrible that was going
It was OK. And they modernized their Hinds against Stingers. US upgraded their force in Europe to that time and Gorbachev took the lead in USSR. Gorbachev = Soviet defeat.

>>33345556
The Russian advantage in espionage gave a massive lead to the USSR and removed almost all of the technological advantage the US had in the 1940s. By the 1950s every department of OSS (modern day CIA) had been infiltrated by the Soviets.

McCarthy did nothing wrong.

>>33346402
>It was OK.
It was most definitely not ok, they took terrible casualties from day one to the day they got out. My father in law was a surgeon there for a few tours and he had some pretty nasty stories about how they where piecing together dozens of kids every day, the political fallout of continued casualties- while it didn't bleed the USSR white, it did heavily compromise their 'face' in terms of how they appeared to the rest of the world and a bunch of incompetent fucks. Then it started leaking out into their local news and that clipped the nuts of commies to the point they had to either punch out and pretend it didn't happen, or kept the dick in and hoped things got better.

It didn't get better, it just managed to suck to the point very few people would be capable of defending it.

>>33346424
You can say absolutely same shit about any US war after 2001 and this is not change fact that US still can win a war against China or Russia.

File: 1318935074812.jpg (57KB, 340x483px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 340x483px

Soon after WW2 ended, Americans ware about to go home, and dismantle the war machine, like they did after WW1, everyone was tired and wanted to go home.
Plus, American political elite ware allied with soviets in bringing down British Empire.

It is this anons opinion, that, should Stalin be more patient, kept it quiet, and waited till USA leaves, he could have zerg rushed entire Europe in a matter of days.
Air superiority would not be enough to stop the red flood of now experienced soviet commanders armed with top-tier armor.
I believe that he could have been stockpiling war supplies near the western borders and nobody would suspect a thing, remember, it was a time when everyone in the West loved "Uncle Joe" (as western propaganda called him).

Unfortunately, he allowed the tensions to escalate quickly, Americans quickly woke up (Churchil was warning them all the time but they didn't give a fuck earlier), stayed in Urop and Iron Meat Curtain fell.

File: mig-3 & mig-35 (1).jpg (122KB, 1307x934px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1307x934px

>>33346194
>They did that by holding onto legacy aircraft far longer than the US
>MIG-15 and 17 were cannon fodder against the F-15
MiG-15/-17 and F-86 were decommissioned about the same time in the early 70s. Well memed, retard, won't even bother reading the rest of your post.

File: butthurt belt.jpg (101KB, 663x501px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 663x501px

>>33346284
>I still don't get why the US didn't just drop one on St Petersburg and sent a notice to the Soviets to GTFO of Europe or the next ones goes into every major Soviet city.

>>33346368
>Arrange one ambush
>Wave it for 50 years as if it matters
Meanwhile in real life yids shat their pants in fear as Foxbats flew recon missions over their dusty middle-eastern shithole.

File: fv4201-chieftain-tank-front-three-quarter.jpg (436KB, 2048x1340px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 2048x1340px

>>33346194

1. US did hull down not because of specific design features, but because they were expected to be defending a push against Soviet forces in a possible escalation of hostilities. American tanks have had stronger turret armor than hull armor since the M4 Sherman, and Pattons were entirely intended to fight against other tanks; they were used extensively in the Gulf War for this reason.
2. Pattons were not the only type of tank at NATO's disposal: the Chieftain was introduced several years earlier than and was equal to the T-72 as proven in the Battle of the Bridges.

>>33346623

Defending against a push*

>>33346284
Perhaps because such a strange concept as the intrinsic value of human life, which the US leaders of the time used to respect? Nothing that self-loving, alienated, cowadooty-generation millenials would understand.

>>33346513
But one MiG-25 pilot escaped the rotten hellhole that was/is russia and the west found out that the MiG-25 too was a useless meme, just like all other russian aircraft.
Then the Lebanon war of '82 happened and showed the wprld exactly how much of a stinking garbage heap the mainstay aircrafts of the soviet air force was.

>>33346656
>communists
>human life
Sure thing Ivan, sure thing.

>>33345692
Anything soviet is simply fodder for enemy bullets. Largest, yes. Most powerful? Debatable for sure.

>>33346664
>But one MiG-25 pilot escaped the rotten hellhole that was/is russia and the west found out that the MiG-25 too was a useless meme, just like all other russian aircraft.
It was perfectly capable of performing its intended task, intercepting bombers.
The west just thought it was intended as a match for the F-15 in the air superiority role due to a lack of actual information on it.

>>33345556
Until the late '50s, absolutely. Immediately following WWII the US was in a position to... let's call it formalize their position as world hegemon.

>>33346711
I'm glad smarter people than you were in charge back then.

Here's a movie for anyone with half a brain about the subject, it's pretty good: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/

File: su-27 (1).jpg (789KB, 2710x1800px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 2710x1800px

>>33346664
It's not Foxbat's problem that westerners were so dumb they thought it was an air superiority fighter.
>Lebanon war of '82
The one that showed yids needed at least an aircraft generation worth of advantage to stop shitting themselves even against such a simple system as 2K12 that helped arabs to slaughter their air force 10 years prior. And event then, it was an export aircraft. Too underdeveloped to crate something like F-15, yids were essentially the same as the sandniggers around them.

>>33346434
2001 is a bit too far ahead for this story,

Sov-Afghan war was mostly started because the US was flogged out after Vietnam and the Soviets knew they could get away with it, because no one (ie: the US) would give a fuck.
It started the same way Vietnam did- political aspirations and bring some godless communism to a bunch of crazy hillbilly's
Of course by the time it started to suck horribly, it turned into the "USSR's Vietnam" and they realised, aww jeez we're fucked. Then there's the CIA giggling like mad cunts, pouring cash and missiles into there because that's fairly much what the Soviets did in Vietnam and the suck became even worse.

The shared suck by both countries is that-
>Near economic collapse
>Political credibility shot to hell
>Kids in bodybags
>Fuck that, no more long wars

In both cases neither the US or USSR would engage in protracted conflicts for a very long time, for the US it wasn't really until 1991 they had the guts to 'go hard' and fuck some shit up. Even then it was a tentative, heavily backed enterprise from the UN which was a guaranteed win.
For the now Russians, they lost everything- credibility, glasnost, economy in ruins, gangsters running the country. Even now there's a big syndrome in the Putin government that means they'll dip a toe in, maybe wave their dicks around and do things just to annoy the US/Rest of the world- but they won't commit to a big war.

Skip forward now to 2017, many years after Afghan and Iraq wars- the US is 'barely' coming to terms with the cost and political credibility that went up in smoke during the last 16 years of dicking around. They won't commit to much for a long time, likewise neither will Russia.

File: Joseph_McCarthy.jpg (577KB, 996x1191px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 996x1191px

>>33346713
McCarthyism is strong with this one.

>>33346767
>it turned into the "USSR's Vietnam"
"USSR's Vietnam" was not even anywhere near as devastating as the actual Vietnam.

>>33346756
Lebanon war
>Su-22, introduced 1970
>MiG-23, introduced 1970
Downed by
>F-15, introduced 1974
>F-16, introduced 1978

They are all from the same generation but the US has always been one generation ahead as far as tactics and technology go.

>>33346789
Doesn't matter, result was the same as the unstoppable, greatly feared 'Soviet Stronk' military went in there, flopped around, died, killed some people, threw shit everywhere and FAILED
Because they failed, all credibility lost and people started realising that if their leaders couldn't win a war in a small country, the great lefty dream was all bullshit because they couldn't run a fruitstand let alone a union of 150-200mil people. Sov-Afghan war wasn't the sole reason the USSR imploded, but it was a leading factor.

The key to this in regards to OP's question as to the advantage one might have after another is that there was very few periods between 1945-1990 when one side had the will and motivation to take the other out.
They'd poke each other with sticks, have arms races, proxy wars and all that shit, but the motivation and will just really wasn't there for a major shitfest.

>>33346756
>Lebanon war of '82
You obviously have no clue as to what actually happened both there and in 73.
In 73, the yids went up against a IADS tailored to counter their particular tactics, and lost around 100 jets as a result; by the war's end tactics had adapted and the loss rates of the early days were already gone.
In 82 Israel carried out what to this day serves as a textbook example of how to wreck an IADS from the air. Use of extreme EW, decoys, carefully planned attack runs, coordinated by 2 E-2C, totally destroyed the Syrian air defences. And most of the aircraft involved with said action were F-4s and A-4s, same as had been active in 73.
In 73 the F-4s had proved capable of destroying Syrian pilots in the air, and the F-15 was superior.
Saying the yids were the equivalent of the arabs is completely incorrect.

File: Su-35BM weapons.jpg (306KB, 1869x1209px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1869x1209px

>>33346177
Guy, I love MiG & Sukhoi too, but I'll even admit they're generally sub-par aircraft when compared to their American opposite.

There is times when the Soviets got it right, and made a great bird, but it was immediately (within ±6 years) countered by American aircraft & FCS quality.


>>33346368
Ambushes shouldn't count when comparing air power.. however, the Arabs did warn the Soviet pilots that the IAF loved that tactic.

We still have instances where Arab pilots in Soviet gear have shot down American jets (USN F/A-18s over Iraq), rare as they may be.

>>33346371
Doubt what?

That the Soviets (and the Russians still today) build hundreds of hardened nuclear shelters for its civilians?

That's common knowledge friend. The USSR built it for 50% their cities population to survive.

The USA built a couple shelters here and there, but kinda expected the citizens to make their own too.

>>33346852
>3rd gen Su-22 and MiG-23 are the same generation as 4th gen F-15 and F-16
Get a load of this clown.

I kind of unironically wish that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was still around

Not because I'm a commie, but it would be nice to see what the Cold War would look like into the 21st Century

>>33346656
Probably would have saved lives by doing that.

>>33346863
>Doesn't matter, result was the same as the unstoppable, greatly feared 'Soviet Stronk' military went in there, flopped around, died, killed some people, threw shit everywhere and FAILED
OK, what was their mission in Afghanistan in first place?

>>33347055

To prop up the Communist Afghan government.

Which, like South Vietnam, collapsed after the withdrawal

>>33346447
>experienced soviet commanderd
"No" even legendary zukove was just a good at the zerg rush tactics
Any of the prussian generals left on the german side could, given american or british numbers out do them ie ricktoven or makinson

>>33347104
>collapsed after the withdrawal
They hold longer than South Vietnam, longer USSR itself and they hold much better than modern Iraqi government which collapsed in two weeks after hot phase of war against IS and US required US direct help.
To the moment of Soviet withdraw Afghan government was OK. Again - Gorbachev stopped all support because he was very naive and actually thought that US, China, Pakistan and everyone else will stop support of people who will become Taliban.

>>33346371
it's pretty widely known that the Soviets integrated nuclear-hardened structures into city planning post-1960.

>>33346284
it's hard to portray yourself as the right and just side when you nuke millions of Ruskie civilians who dindu nothing.

>>33346770
He was right about commies tho

File: q73.jpg (502KB, 1285x1255px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 1285x1255px

>>33346863
Bitch, please, spare me of your quality "analysis". The only major problem Soviet military had during the war is that they were trained for apocalyptic warfare in Europe, not anti-insurgency intervention in a dusty mountain shithole. In a complete lack of adequate strategy and doctrine they utilised the only tactics they knew which was naturally ineffective. And yet by the end of the war Soviet Union controlled every major route and city in Afghanistan.
>Sov-Afghan war wasn't the sole reason the USSR imploded, but it was a leading factor.
This is what towelhead islamshits actually believed in the 90s. I wonder how spewing this horse shit corresponds in your head with the 1991 Soviet referendum that clearly showed the overwhelming support of the Union's preservation among the population of the majority of its republics. Please, do tell. But I bet your sorry clown ass won't respond with anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument.
>>33346882
>And most of the aircraft involved with said action were F-4s and A-4s
Lol.
>≈90 fighter aircraft (mostly F-15s and F-16s)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19
>Saying the yids were the equivalent of the arabs is completely incorrect.
Really well trained arabs. I was mainly referring to the fact that both sides used export equipment though.

>>33345556
Not really. Both America and Russia have too big of a country with too big a population.

You can take ground, but you gotta hold it. Not possible either way. Americans would kill more, but no winner.

File: t-72b3.jpg (46KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x500px

>>33347018
>but it would be nice to see what the Cold War would look like into the 21st Century
It's essentially happening right now. What is more interesting is that if the Cold War would have turned out to be the same shitfest of trolling and propaganda among ordinary citizens as the current state of thing is if internet was as common as nowadays in its continuation.

>>33347194
>Soviet "referendums"

lmao

>>33347183
He was an alcoholic with mental issues.

>>33346656
This

>>33346656
Don't try to reason with High School kids wanting to become Muhreens after they graduate

>>33347194
Only major problem?
They didn't control shit, the whole country was rife with insurgency as the USSR had managed to piss off everyone in the entire country to the point that even people who might have been sympathetic to their cause where alienated, abused, killed, tortured and 'disappeared' if they had any issues. Easy recruiting for the insurgents that needed warm bodies to hold a gun.
I've been to Afghanistan- 3 tours, spoken to the old folks about the coming of the USSR and how they'd been at first welcoming of them- up until the Soviets shat the bed with all the behaviour of being animals in a sty. During the withdraw they lost over 520KIA, they got out, under constant attack.

>overwhelming support of the Union's preservation among the population of the majority of its republics.
Bullshit
Reforms started in 1985 as the USSR was in partial economic collapse, part of that was de-militarisation of the satellite republics to save money, withdraw from Afghanistan which by 1989 was a complete shit-show and then some increased 'democratisation' of the Soviet system allowing business, better relations with outside countries and a hands-off running of the individual republics.
Poland said 'fuck you' in 1989, got free elections
From there, the lack of intervention from the soviet state in the satellite republics saw the baltics leave quickly and all the s'tans down south begin their own independence movements.
1990, the USSR isn't committed to the arms race being challenged by the US mass-military buildup

Because everyone realised the USSR was a crock of shit, communism sucked a filthy arsehole as lines stretched blocks for basic supplies and by 1991, they threw in the towel and gave up

>>33345745
I dunno about that. The Israelis tore up Arab tank forces using the Patton. The fire control for the L7 105mm cannon was pretty great. It significantly out-ranged Soviet cannons.

Would the Arab Spring have happened if the Cold War continued?

If so, what would have happened? I feel like WW3 would have started over Syria already if we handled it like we do OTL

File: 1488308299534.gif (1MB, 326x268px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 326x268px

>>33345556
>Perhaps because such a strange concept as the intrinsic value of human life, which the US leaders of the time used to respect?

You're either very delusional, or really likes playing the scumbag

>>33347335

If I recall, the Central Asian SSRs actually mostly wanted to stay in the USSR for economic reasons, as did Belarus

Ukraine was pretty split down the middle wether to be independent or not

The Baltics and the Caucasus just wanted out

It was the Soviet coup that completely torpedoed support for continuing the Union, as it made everyone scared that they would wake up in a KGB dictatorship or in a civil war

Yeltsin was also able to use the coup to rally liberal support and effectively ursurped Gorbachev

>>33345717
Not 1v1, but the Russians have a long history of fielding cost-effective tanks well suited to high-intensity conflict. If you're going to take a lot of losses, it's better to have many adequate tanks than a limited number of superior tanks.

>>33345556
In conventional conflicts soviets always had enormous advantage thanks to numbers in the field and reserves alone. Their problem would lie in the fact that they were unable to spread outside of mainland Europe, no matter how hard would they try. They were able to turn Baltic and the Black Sea into mare nostrum but nothing outside of it.

This is something NATO was of course completely aware of, hence why all their strategies were focused on inflicting massive casualties in places they've seen as potential "hard" points of their invasion, see Fulda Gap.

Now the funniest thing about it is that Soviets were actually ready for tactical/strategic retreat in Eastern Germany. They wanted to have the northern flank of NATO army to end on Baltic for the reason you can see above - they've had special units who were trained for amphibious assault and depending on the version of their plan they wanted to perform diversionary landing behind NATO backs(which wasn't possible if they'd have to land outside of main part of the Baltic) once the frontline would be established. The front-line was supposed to be either based on Elbe, Oder or Vistula, with landing points being located either in Eastern Germany or Northwestern part of Poland. The point of it all being engaging as many NATO unit in the mainland as possible, and inflicting as huge casualties as possible on top of having propaganda-upper-hand(they could paint NATO as aggressors in this case easily). Nuclear deterrent aside, the search for moral upper hand was one of the reasons why the Cold War didn't become "hot", but that's just digression. The entire idea behind this plan was that since the Soviet Union wasn't able to reach Great Britain or mainland US, they wanted to wear down the population of those two countries as much as they could before they'd left mainland Europe which could help them with negotiating peace.

Of course this is the conventional war scenario which is not really a likely one.

Who cares? The Cold War was a waste of time. We spent 40 years and billions of dollars trying to keep western Europe from going communist, and as soon as the Soviet empire collapsed, the stupid motherfuckers voted themselves into a new communist empire called the EU of their own free will. We should never have bothered.

File: 214421.jpg (3MB, 4437x3416px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4437x3416px

>>33347335
>They didn't control shit
Lol, next time try harder.
>USSR had managed to piss off everyone in the entire country
Towelhead islamshit insurgency was present there years before 1979. All Soviet Union did was intervening into it and slaughtering a good part of these fanatic animals in support of the secular government that held for years after the withdrawal.
>Bullshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991
I think it is time for you to shut your stinky trap and GTFO.

>>33347155

The amount of support the NVA got compared to the amount of support that the Muj got was not even the same order of magnitude.

>>33347457
>The Cold War was a waste of time.
Cold war was peak of humanity power. People dreamed about stars and reached fucking moon. Now people dream about new iPhone and US can't even send a human to orbit by themselves anymore.

>>33347404
>Ukraine was pretty split down the middle wether to be independent or not
I wouldn't call 71.48% support pretty split.
>The Baltics and the Caucasus just wanted out
Azerbaijan wanted to stay.Essentially the only states that wanted out are Baltic limitrophes, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia.

File: Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria_(1945).gif (103KB, 992x627px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 992x627px

>>33347443
>They were able to turn Baltic and the Black Sea into mare nostrum but nothing outside of it.
Ahem. Essentially you are right though, in the case of NATO attack their doctrine postulated steamrolling over Europe all the way to the Atlantic Ocean shore and fending off any US supplies and possibility to launch amphibious operations essentially turning the scenario into a stalemate with both parties sitting on their sides of the Atlantic unable to cause serious damage to each other without putting nuclear option in use and thereby forcing a diplomatic solution.

>>33347475
Here's a fucking hint, referendums in communist countries don't mean shit.

History says-
1986
Baltics are strongly pushing for independence from the union, Kazakhstan is basically one big riot
1987
Moscow tries for a 'one party democracy', no one believes it and now the Baltics are up in arms, Latvia says fuck it and leaves completely and the Caucuses are starting demonstrations
1988
Shit running wild- Baltics are all mounting fronts against communism, Caucuses are in full rebellion and the western republics + Ukraine are up in protest
1989
Moscow... umm maybe we'll try a 2nd party
Baltics are gone, Caucuses are in full scale war blockading access, Western republics are forming their own political systems and no longer care, all the Stans are basically chimping out
1990
Lithuania, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia and Georgia are completely gone
Caucuses are going buck wild along the Iranian border
Ukraine leaves the USSR
Stans... well they're busy killing each other
1991
Moscow is in crisis, Yeltsin gets in and its all over by Christmas

>>33347011
>designed and built within a few years from each other
>US tech leaps and bound more advanced than the dog shit the russians tried to pass off as planes at that time

Yeah, the russians was a full generation behind, relying on zerg tactics combined with obsolete WWII era GCI concepts.

>>33345670
To be fair, if you read Bruce Blair, C3I was immensely vulnerable to a first strike by Soviet ICBMs. While the silos could survive a lot of overpressure, the phone lines and other emergency comms could not.

File: USSR 4.jpg (1MB, 2017x1307px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2017x1307px

>>33347524
I know this feel.

>>33345556
Soviets had the advantage in Europe up until 1987 when NATO rolled out heaps of decisively technologically superior equipment.
The war at that point would be determined by who got the first strike. Assuming the Soviets got it first, they'd have to be quick to achieve a symbolic victory before everything was reduced to radioactive ashes.

If NATO got it first, they would be nigh-unstoppable until everything was, well, reduced to radioactive ashes.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-03-18T17-17-41.366Z.png (77KB, 1104x879px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1104x879px

>>33347633
>Lies, it doesn't count!
Here's a fucking hint: quit arguing the objective reality, clown.

>>33347665

Old Soviet propaganda was aesthetic as fuck.

>>33346664
The MiG-25 wasn't a fighter, dumbass.

It was for lobbing some of the largest air-to-air missiles at B-52s, and after some radar upgrades, low altitude B-1s.

File: tehnika_bezopasnosti_07.jpg (167KB, 526x700px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 526x700px

>>33347689
Trying to paint the breakup of the USSR as a civilised, gentle conversation over a cup of tea is bullshit.
It was a screaming shit fit of riots, the odd massacre and insane levels of corruption

>>33347696
Some of it was pretty hilarious as well

>>33346235
>In that time Soviets were more prepared for global nuclear war than US

The fuck does that prove? You could be very prepared for an earthquake or a flood, that doesn't mean you want one to happen.

>>33346475
There is an awesome video of a MiG-17 getting nailed by an Israeli F-4 Phantom in 1973 on the Internet somewhere.

>>33346424
Wasn't there also a guy with an eyepatch stealing men

>>33346767
>they won't commit to much for a long time
He says as we're getting the tip into Syria.

>>33346284
You do realize that there are moral problems with nuclear warfare to the extent that the Catholic Church has well-reasoned argument that nuclear weapons are implicitly genocidal.

File: 1488905440276.jpg (138KB, 1024x791px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x791px

>Soviet/Russian air
>Good
Pick literally only one

>>33347732

I don't think that the pro-Soviets paint the breakup of the USSR as "civilized"

If anything, they probably see it as even worse than we do, though they probably blame "the imperialist West and their puppet Yeltsin" over their own fucked up system


Though, to be fair, the USSR could have survived if glasnost never happened but economic reform did. China reformed it's economy while cracking down on free speech and they thrived, despite some of the same problems the USSR faced (restive minorities that want independence)

File: USSR 5.jpg (1MB, 1265x2551px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1265x2551px

>>33347696
Yeah.
>>33347732
Trying to make a point that contradicts objective reality is bullshit, and yet this is what you are trying to do after your bullshit was exposed. Next time get your facts straight before posting.

>>33347705
>It was for lobbing some of the largest air-to-air missiles at B-52s, and after some radar upgrades, low altitude B-1s.
It was for lobbing but different kind, IIRC, some of main developers was relative of some very high-rang person, so, they build it. Soviet system was free from lobbying like in US, but it had different kinds of clusterfuck situation when factory builds t-55, they have a plan to complete and they build this fucking tank for decades even when it's totally outdated, because setting up a production of new type of tank will fuck up perfect execution of plans and with it - no bonus for plant's bosses. Another type of clusterfuck were intrigues between research institutes and their own factories like one that killed T-4 project for worse Tu-160.
Or when they build a bunch of liquid metal cooled reactor powered submarines just because it seems to be cool. They spend hell a lot of money to build "cool" things just because scientist want that.

>>33347794
>Or when they build a bunch of liquid metal cooled reactor powered submarines just because it seems to be cool. They spend hell a lot of money to build "cool" things just because scientist want that.

I've heard this before, and I would very much like a citation. And documentation of other examples of that phenomenon.

File: 91a2019457a6.jpg (103KB, 993x656px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 993x656px

>>33347736
We are talking about Soviet Air Forces. If anything DPRK still operates them.

>>33347843
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine
Basically it was "why not?" type of military hardware. They could build one sub to test concept, they could build a ground facility to test a reactor (BTW, Russians only now managed to build a working civilian reactor of similar concept - BN-800 - and they use it to test things for commercial BN-1200 which will save the world from energy crisis) but nope.

>>33347254
But they were infiltrating and subverting American media and politics. That's like saying people who believe the government watches everything they do are paranoid nutters even after Snowden.

>>33347868
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine

I know what a fucking Alfa-class SSN is. I want a citation, preferably academic (eg not Wiki-fucking-pedia) about the phenomenon of military hardware being built to satisfy scientific curiosity rather than military needs.

Hey, look, it's another slavaboos-take-USSR-propaganda-at-face-value thread.

Don't get tired of seeing these every 15 minutes.

>>33347884
You've got T-4 which was developed in Suchoi burou and then bring to Central Committee with "let's build it" preposition. There is a Russians sources that tell that argumentation about expensive titanium hull on that plane literally was "it will bring science forward". And Tupolev was like "do you want to bankrupt the country?". Also there were people like Vladimir Chelomey who lectured military on how missiles should be build and Glushko who refused to build engines for Soviet moon rocket just because he didn't want it. Personal argues with Korolev. Most of Soviet "net-gen" tanks were build because of personal initiatives of general constructors.
Russia continue tradition, development of PAK-FA was began by Suchoi by their own. They sold it to government years after work began. Su-47 was build just because they want it, for scientific purposes, MoD didn't pay for that.

>>33348039
Give me citations so I can read further. Is that so hard to understand?

>>33348114
>expecting sources
>on 4chan
wew

>>33347794
>Soviet system was free from lobbying like in US, but it had different kinds of clusterfuck situation when factory builds t-55, they have a plan to complete and they build this fucking tank for decades even when it's totally outdated, because setting up a production of new type of tank will fuck up perfect execution of plans and with it - no bonus for plant's bosses
>M60 Patton Produced 1960–87
Kek.
>Another type of clusterfuck were intrigues between research institutes and their own factories like one that killed T-4 project for worse Tu-160.
>T-4 being superiour to Tu-160
Double kek. Anyway, T-4 was stillborn, same as XB-70 and B-58.

>>33348039
>You've got T-4 which was developed in Suchoi burou and then bring to Central Committee with "let's build it" preposition
Yeah, right, I'm going to need a citation on this.
>Also there were people like Vladimir Chelomey who lectured military on how missiles should be build
And rightfully so, Chelomey was a fucking genius.
>and Glushko who refused to build engines for Soviet moon rocket just because he didn't want it
Oh, please. Korolev started this mess and licked as much leadership's asscracks as it was humanely possible just to convince them not to use Chelimey's UR-700 rocket with RD-270 engines developed by Glushko. This resulted in N-1 with its thirty small NK-15 engines and fuel feed system so clusterfucked it kept crashing the rocket. Glushko did nothing wrong. Was Korolev not acting like a massive faggot on this issue, Soviets would've likely landed men on the Moon.
>Russia continue tradition, development of PAK-FA was began by Suchoi by their own. They sold it to government years after work began
Nice pile of horse shit.
>Su-47 was build just because they want it, for scientific purposes, MoD didn't pay for that.
An even better pile of horse shit. Soviet MoD ordered a development of Su-27KM which is where Su-47 originates from. Long story short the country collapsed and the funding stopped, so Sukhoi decided to at least produce a simplified version as a technology demonstrator.

File: 640x960.jpg (63KB, 640x853px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x853px

>>33347880
Sure they were. These rotten motherfuckers in Senate, what do they know? My good old friend Glass O'Jack told me all the truth about it.

>>33348800
An alcoholic clock is right twice a day.

File: Shevchenko_BN350_desalinati.jpg (48KB, 490x339px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 490x339px

>>33347868
Oh wait, I didn't even notice he posted yet another pile of horse shit.
>Russians only now managed to build a working civilian reactor of similar concept - BN-800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor
Will you please stop embarrassing yourself? It's cringeworthy.

>>33345556
>>33345720
fukkin samefags.

File: PCWq4pa.jpg (71KB, 599x595px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 599x595px

Communists are the scum of the earth.

File: polan journey to to hui.jpg (143KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 960x720px

>>33349930
Poles are the plumbers of the earth.

File: 1488586671712.png (120KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 644x598px

>>33350079
Fuck off back to the hole you crawled out of leftist cretin.

File: 1480074264429.png (105KB, 954x1157px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 954x1157px

Reminder that this board has been getting infested with leftists since Trump won.

File: poland on int.png (1MB, 1990x1464px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1990x1464px

>>33350515
As if you have to be a commie to make fun of the plumber nation. Now shit up and clean my toilet.

>>33345692
Good one, retard.

File: q54.jpg (542KB, 1318x1246px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1318x1246px

>>33351056
What is it, Eugene? Truth hurts?

File: 1472969284997.jpg (311KB, 852x1200px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 852x1200px

>>33347696

File: 1488587687058.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>33351032
>as if you have to be a commie

Please stop. You make it way too obvious. Poland is leagues better than Russia, my leftishit friend. Go suck off Marx some more.

File: 1446132604001.jpg (155KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 900x506px

>>33351261
>Poland is leagues better than Russia
In having plumbing as a certified national idea. Shut up and keep cleaning it, poolan.

>>33351096
>Eugene
The Armatard is on one of his krokodil infused shilling drives again.
You would probably earn more potatoes if you stuck to actual insults.
Calling someone Eugene as an insult is like calling someone Bill or Joe and expecting him to be insulted.

>>33351329
Poland provides Europe with affordable craftsmen.
Russia provides Europe with cheap whores.
At least one of those groups preserve some dignity and the other one has earned their motherland the title of "the Whorehouse of Europe"

>>33350545
/pol/ has also gotten uppity and spill from their containment board in great numbers.
>inb4 muh /pol/ and /k/ are share ideals
Anyone who wishes to infringe on the right of anyone to own guns can fuck right off.
That means you too /pol/.

>>33345692
>largest

Not best by any means though, see >>33347760

File: the teachings of polan.png (107KB, 1224x1137px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1224x1137px

>>33351461
Indeed, without pooland Europe would probably have gone epidemic with clogging toilets. Poolans are on an honourable mission, like hussars of old.

File: q55.jpg (529KB, 1242x1440px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1242x1440px

>>33351521
Regardless of the opinion on Soviet Air Forces held by a typical local brainwashed amerishit clown, saying that the country that operated the largest air force on the planet "tended to prefer huge columns of tanks over air power" is hands down incorrect.

>>33348800
https://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4
It happened m8.
>>33345556
I'd say the Soviets would've had a rather decisive edge up until the mid 80's or so militarily. This is all assuming conventional warfare of course, but then if you factor in the other countries getting involved it gets a little muddy. If a land war broke out and didn't end soon then the various members of NATO/PACT may start getting second thoughts depending on how the war's going.
>>33351329
Objectively though Poland has a higher standard of living than Russia, as does a large chunk of the "butthurt belt".

>>33351978
Don't blame him. He's gotta get potatoes for his vatnik bucket. That or draw porn on Patreon

>>33345556
No, most of it was nonsense. Nazis that each side scooped up were trying to get us to destroy each other.

>>33347762
>the USSR could have survived if glasnost never happened but economic reform did.
Possibly, but it was about 7-8 years too late to save it from spiralling out of control as their economy was already a bit of a wreck by the time Gorbachev got there and vainly tried to point it in a direction that at the time was the 'least painful' result. Hindsight says he was wrong and didn't do it correctly, but essentially he got handed a bum steer and made of it what he could.
The debacle of Yeltsin's mismanagement after didn't help either as he lurched drunkenly from one stage to another and essentially let the gangsters get into everything.

>>33347788
>objective reality
My arse, they had all these 'staggering' pro-soviet votes in the referendum and then, hey lets just dissolve the USSR anyway because obviously they didn't have enough support. Get your autism in check and out of wikipedia, actual reality is that they had no support because historically the break up started way before 1991 and throwing in the towel was the only way to prevent a massive application of force to keep it from spinning out of control if they held the leftist course.
Militarily they didn't really have anyway to enforce anything.
Mostly they where not getting paid for months at a time and being asked to shoot their fellow's to enforce a regime that didn't pay them was too much, even for the most dedicated.

My wife was born in the soviet union and via her and my in-laws (of whom some still live in Russia and Ukraine), there's not much you can tell me about what actually happened, probably because you where not even born then and just spouting leftist bullshit from your socialist lecturers.

Leftists
Not even once kids

>>33346484
What is return to sender
What is deadman switch

File: q21.jpg (579KB, 1515x1426px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 1515x1426px

>>33354683
>Objective reality my arse
High quality argument, clown. Once again, quit arguing it. You lost.
>out of wikipedia, actual reality is that they had no support
In the actual reality the preservation of the Union had enormous support with population across the entire country in the majority of republics. Too bad one alcoholic scum and a hundred thousand protesters in the capital was what really mattered in the new-born shitocracy, not country-wide referendums.
>I got a mail order bride, I know this shit
Lol, so you wasn't even born in the USSR? Piss off faggot, your opinion doesn't even mean anything.
>He still thinks I'm a leftist
Top kek.

>>33356554
Different anon, but
>Had enormous support
Then why did most of them break away in the end? Methinks you dream too much of a dead country.
>Top Kek
For one to support the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, one must be a leftist.

>>33356554
Could it have been that Yeltsin knew that keeping the union alive was like keeping a burning plane flying?
Maybe it was obvious to everyone with some insight into matters, unlike the savage peasants that constituted 95% of the soviet population, that the union was broke, rebellions just a matter of days away, out-everythinged by the west, the Warsaw pact members finally fed up with russian oppression telling russia to go fuck themselves and the fact and the fact that the socialism had shown itself to be a load of bullshit?
Gorbachev and Yeltsin should be lauded as heroes, theydid what was needed, they freed millions from kreml oppression without anyone having to die for it. Except for those who died during the constitutional crisis but that where mostly russians so who cares.
>He still thinks I'm a leftist
It's fairly obvious that you are a vatnik not old enough to remember how utter shit the Soviet union was.

>>33356710
>For one to support the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, one must be a leftist
One could also be a vatnik not giving a fuck about socialism but longs for times where russia was not a pile of burning garbage, when they had military parity with NATO and Eastern Europe under their fascist boot.

>>33356554
Smells like a burning vatnik being blown out

>>33356710
>Then why did most of them break away in the end?
Because no one gave two fucks about the will of the people. With Yeltsin signing Belavezha Accords Ukraine, Belarus and Russia essentially left the Union, which made it pointless for the rest to remain.
>For one to support the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, one must be a leftist.
I don't support USSR, I just think that its dissolution was completely unnecessary as opposed to its preservation and reformation as a democratic federation, which is what people voted for at the said referendum.
>>33356711
Could it have been that Yeltsin was an alcoholic powermongering criminal? Gee, who knows.
>savage peasants that constituted 95% of the soviet population
Lol.
>It's fairly obvious that you are a vatnik not old enough to remember how utter shit the Soviet union was.
It's fairly obvious that you're an Ukrainian mail order bride owner who have never lived even anywhere close to the Soviet Union neither territory nor time wise. Your opinion is irrelevant.
>>33356727
Smells like amerishit projections.

>>33356834
>no one gave two fucks about the will of the people
The multiple riots/revolutions in the baltics/some parts of the Caucasus seem to suggest otherwise.
>preservation and reformation as a democratic federation
Wasn't going to happen with Gorbachev in charge, and even if you replaced him with someone else the cracks in the system were too many by that point in time. A truly democratic and slightly more market-economy styled USSR might well and truly have been a better answer, but by the late 80's the writing was on the wall.

File: image.jpg (32KB, 301x340px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 301x340px

>>33345556

The soviets had the advantage, during the start of WWII when they sent a bunch of Jews over here as political immigrants fleeing persecution.

They went to California and started trying to think of ways to start a communist revolution in America. They Finally decided to make a think tank and founded the Frankfort school and translated a bunch of communist textbooks into achedmia to make classes that would indoctrinate people. Another group of them went into Hollywood to dominate the movie industry and demoralize people over the next 30+ years so the indoctrination classes could be weaponized with a generation of demoralized youth.


Soviets had the advantage with subversion. Destroy the culture from the inside with a memetic that only destabalizes.

>>33356834
>Could it have been that Yeltsin was an alcoholic powermongering criminal?
He was a man of the russian people in other words?
Maybe it was because he himself was a prime example of a russian he knew that the Union was far beyond salvage in the late 80s. Because when the Union collapsed it was never a question of IF but WHEN and how many dead. Given the circumstances and the innate savagery of russians you got of extremely light.

>It's fairly obvious that you're an Ukrainian mail order bride owner who have never lived even anywhere close to the Soviet Union neither territory nor time wise

Not the slav waifu anon, nor Ukrainian.
Or where you implying that the wife was Ukrainian?
In any case, looks like I was right on the money regarding you, a butthurt vatnik, detached from reality and whose sole reason to continue to live in the hellhole that is russia is that you tell yourself that there is any glory left in what has become a nation sized whorehouse.

>>33356851
>The multiple riots/revolutions in the baltics/some parts of the Caucasus seem to suggest otherwise.
I am talking about the rest of the country that was very much in favour on not dissolving it any further than just letting go the republics that didn't want to stay.
>Wasn't going to happen with Gorbachev in charge
There are no ifs in history. The discussion started from someone suggesting that the course of the Afghan War angered the people to the point they didn't want to remain in the Union. this is proven false by the results of the 1991 referendum.

>>33356939
>Maybe it was because he himself was a prime example of a russian he knew that the Union was far beyond salvage in the late 80s
Or maybe you should stop arguing objective reality in which the absolute majority of the country voted in favour of its preservation. See, you can spew your subjective bullshit, but it won't matter, since the referendum results would still remain there for everyone to see as an eternal proof of your opinion being nothing but a pile of horse shit.
>Or where you implying that the wife was Ukrainian?
I'm not implying it, he said it himself.
>detached from reality
Projections of a typical delusional brainwashed amerishit who can't even point at Ukraine on the map.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

>>33356940
The referendum was a last-ditch effort, shit was already going out of hand. The Baltic republics were flying their own colors and using their own languages to do business since 87/88, shit was already going down between Armenia/Azerbaijan, and shit was starting to happen in the central 'Stans. Even if the referendum is conclusive, Gorbachev would've had to reverse his position on not using force to keep the Union together almost assuredly.

>>33356979
You seem to keep misinterpreting it. Referendum was not to prevent anyone from leaving the Union or preserving the Union as it was. It was for reforming the Union and letting go anyone who wanted to leave: Baltic limitrophes, Georgia, Armenia and Moldova. Which is a microscopic loss relative to the amount of people who wanted to stay.
>Gorbachev would've had to reverse his position on not using force to keep the Union together almost assuredly
Why? 77.8% of people with 80% turnout voted to just let the said 6 republics leave, preserve the country and democratically reform it. It's overwhelming support. Who really go to use force in the end was Yeltsin, during the 1993 constitutional crisis where he really openly showed what a powermongering alcoholic scum he was.

>>33356962
>muh objectivity
You are forgetting the '93 referendum where Yeltsin did have a majority support for his course of action.
Yeltsin was a hero and that's objectivity for you.
Your shitty 91 referendum was an impossibility to achieve at that point, you can have a referendum showing that the population want to build a colony on Jupiter but that doesn't make it a possibility.
>amerishit who can't even point at Ukraine on the map
Nope, from Europe and I've been to russia.
Took the trans siberian railway, switched to trans mongolian, all the way to china.
I've seen a lot of russia and outside of the polished parts of Moscow and St. Petersburg you'd just as well vist fucking Purgatory since everything is grey, devoid of life, happines or any credible reason to live outside of a vodka fueled haze.
The nature and scenery was stellar oth, I'll give you that.

>>33357154
>'93 referendum
which one of the two that had no regard to the dissolution of the USSR and consequentially to this argument whatsoever you are talking about? The one that showed 64% turnout and showed 40-48% disapproval of Yeltsin? Or the one that happened after the alcoholic scum shot the Parliament with tanks, that showed 54% turnout with 40% against Yeltsin's constitution? Bitch, please. Yeltsin was on the break of impeachment not once, not twice, but fucking thrice. And dissolution of the USSR through signing Belavezha Accords was specifically among the accusations.
See you keep spewing your bullshit, moving goalposts and manoeuvring around, but the fact is the referendum clearly showed that the people were in favour of preserving the country. And there is literally nothing you can do to discredit this.
>Hurr durr I took transiberian once, I know what's what
You are the living walking Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>33357271
Yeltsin was following the 91 referendum by signing the accords youf stupid cum stain.
The question of the referendum was
>Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?
which the Belavezha Accords did as it gave the different states self determination as a confederation of independent states.
The fact that power hungry criminals in kreml did not wish to see the people of eastern Europe gain freedom from the yone of russian oppression is another matter and why the entire shit collapsed like the lungs of a russian tuberculosis patient.

>Dunning-Kruger
Fucking really?
That's extra funny coming from a vatnik using big words he doesn't fully understand.
You could have gone for the anecdote fallacy but no, you wanted to sound like a retard with a dictionary.

>>33347756
Who the fuck cares what the Cucklics think

>>33346284
Patton asked the same question and they killed him for it. America wanted the Soviets to occupy eastern Europe so they could occupy western Europe and call it protection.

>>33357271
As a point of interest, what do you propose to happen should it actually be determined that Yeltsin did something illegal and that the breakup of the Union was faulty? Various 'stan countries might accept some form of union with Russia but the baltics, Georgia and Ukraine would never agree to anything involving Russia.

Marxism is the most failed ideology in history.

>>33359063
>Call it protection
I'd say it was rather worthwhile protection considering how Western Europe turned out compared to the Eastern half under Communism.

File: currentyear.jpg (71KB, 709x648px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 709x648px

>>33360435

>>33358906
>Yeltsin was following the 91 referendum by signing the accords
And this retard has now officially entered damage control state of mind. Learn the fucking difference, you ignorant prick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Sovereign_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States
>Fucking really?
Fucking really, and your desperate projections won't change shit.
>Piece of shit ignorant clown talks about fallacies while trying to literally oppose objective reality
Too bad for you, clown, this won't make the 1991 referendum disappear. Your pathetic excuse for an argument is still invalid and will remain so for as long as you will try to argue reality.
>>33359122
It was already determined. I repeat, the discussion started from someone suggesting that the course of the Afghan War angered the people to the point they didn't want to remain in the Union, which is proven false by the results of the 1991 referendum. I'm proposing nothing, it's purely an academic subject since the history has already taken another path and the damage caused by the dissolution of the country can not be undone.
>the baltics, Georgia
Once again, the referendum was not about keeping them in the Union. On the contrary, it was about letting them go.

>>33360968
I'm not even reading this thread, just saw this yugefuck post scrolling down.
You need to chill the fuck out anon. This is 4chan, even if the other dude is wrong, you still lost.

>>33345556

Technically speaking, Russia still has more tanks than the US does today, but many of them are in poor condition and Russia likely doesn't have nearly as much ammunition to spare as the USSR, so of those that do work not all of them could be armed.

>>33360968
Lel, this is one triggered vatnik :^)
Fill a babby bottle with vodka and calm down.
The referendum you bang on about clearly states that people wished for the Union to be changed to a federation of free states with less draconian dictatorship from russian scum.
That is what the vote tells us and that is what Yeltsin signed up for.
Unfortunately, the draconian russian scum did not want to give up their power and the '91 coup attempt happened which killed the commie party and any chance of a socialist federation.
No matter what you feel, the 1922 Union Treaty would have to be renounced if the wish of the 1991 referendum was to be respected, the 91 referendum was a vote for a change, not to preserve the status quo of the union.
In short there was no possible way to preserve any kind of Kreml led anything, call it a union, federation, commonwealth or clusterfuck.
Yeltsin saw the writing on the wall, took russia for a far softer landing than would have happened otherwise and should as such be regarded as a hero.