I agree with you, Canuckus,

in the sense that we have consistently disrespected and disregarded Russia, never attempting to make them a friend, unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge the end of the Cold War... or needing a perpetual enemy for propaganda's sake.

The U.S. government, for some inexplicable reason suffered Soviet brain freeze, and never processed the information that the USSR collapsed in 1991.

During the ensuing thirty two years, they have consistently behaved as if their No. 1 enemy on earth remained that non-existent Russian conglomerate... the military industrial complex has used them as a phantom with which to justify exorbitant over pricing of the research and development of new weapons.

Yes, we need a strong military, but not with Russia as our main focus. There are many equal opportunity seekers of that designation.

The USSR imploded under the unenviable failure of it's Marxist ideology. Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet leader, was in poor health when the USSR was formed and died little more than a year later.

On January 1, 1991, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world, covering some 8,650,000 square miles (22,400,000 square km), nearly one-sixth of Earth’s land surface. Its population numbered more than 290 million, and 100 distinct nationalities lived within its borders.

It also boasted an arsenal of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, and its sphere of influence, exerted through such mechanisms as the Warsaw Pact, extended throughout eastern Europe.

Within a year, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. While it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to pinpoint a single cause for an event as complex and far-reaching as the dissolution of a global superpower, a number of internal and external factors were at play in the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Soviet defense spending accelerated dramatically in response to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and proposals such as the Strategic Defense Initiative. The SDI was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan in a nationwide television address on March 23, 1983.

The state lost control of both the media and the public sphere, and democratic reform movements gained steam throughout the Soviet bloc.

Mikhail Gorbachev was named general secretary of the C*******t Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) on March 11, 1985, his primary domestic goals were to jump-start the moribund Soviet economy and to streamline the cumbersome government bureaucracy.

He instituted the policies of glasnost (“openness”) to foster dialogue and perestroika (“restructuring”) to introduce quasi free market policies to government-run industries. Glasnost opened the floodgates to criticism of the entire Soviet apparatus. The state lost control of both the media and the public sphere, and democratic reform movements gained steam throughout the Soviet bloc.

Gorbachev’s reforms and his abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine hastened the demise of the Soviet empire. By the end of 1989 Hungary had dismantled its border fence with Austria, Solidarity had swept into power in Poland, the Baltic states were taking concrete steps toward independence, and the Berlin Wall had been toppled. The Iron Curtain had fallen, and the Soviet Union did not long outlast it... except in the mind of succeeding U.S. Administrations and State Department bureaucrats.

We are Watching the Final Collapse of the Soviet Empire
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2023
AMAC Exclusive – By Ben Solis

Following the downfall of the USSR in December 1991, Moscow’s primary objective has been to continue to exert Russian influence over the old Soviet republics. But Putin’s war in Ukraine has revealed that mission to be a failure and has furthered the collapse of Russia as a great world power.

The history of post-Soviet central Eurasian politics helps clarify the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war. Once the Soviet regime fell, the immediate question became what would happen to Russia, which had always been the predominant cultural and political force within the USSR.

The Clinton administration, which came into office just one year after the Soviet Union’s collapse, adopted a policy of supporting the Russian state in an attempt to preserve some stability in the region – particularly given Russia’s status as a nuclear power. According to one advisor to former President Yeltsin, President Clinton saved Russia’s status as a superpower by granting it rights to be the only nuclear-armed state of the former Soviet Union. With The Highly-Enriched Uranium and Low-Enriched Uranium program (HEU-LEU) U.S. taxpayers financed the Russian nuclear industry for 20 years. The U.S. paid Russia approximately $17 billion for 14,446 tons of low-enriched uranium up through 2013.

This fact was a great concern for a few Russian specialists, including the former National Security Agency Director for President Reagan, Lt. General William E. Odom. In Fall 2001, General Odom stressed that the West’s generosity and kindness toward Russia was pointless, since it was highly unlikely Russia would ever become a great power aligned with the West. “Treating it like one is neither in Russia’s interests nor the West’s,” he prophetically stated. But Odom’s opinion was rather isolated at that time, since most Western security “experts” mostly praised Russia, although its foreign policy was supported by expansionary wars.

For Russian leaders, however, the chief priority was always continuing to exert influence in the old empire – by force if necessary. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia created the Commonwealth of Independent States, promising to protect former republics and be a judge in often-heated border disputes like those between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The goal was to establish Russia as the predominant power in the region to stave off Western encroachment.

Ukraine, which has many cultural and historical bonds with Russia, was a centerpiece of this strategy. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin told his Ukrainian counterpart that Kyiv will always be in “the system of Russia’s strategic interests.”

This Clinton administration’s approach, which was largely adopted by the Bush and Obama administrations, led to years of Russian provocations in places like Crimea, as well as proxy wars with the West in places like Syria. It was only President Donald Trump who broke with conventional wisdom on Russia. Unsurprisingly, he became the first U.S. president in the 21st century under whom Putin did not seize more territory. Unlike Washington bureaucrats, Mr. Trump became a classic business problem solver: first by recognizing Ukraine’s right to Crimea, secondly by arming Kyiv with modern anti-tank missiles, and thirdly by supporting Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.

But despite heightened tensions throughout the last several decades, Russian political and military leadership had also recognized the major risks associated with embroiling Russia in a major prolonged armed conflict with one of its neighbors – particularly Ukraine. Dev****g a significant amount of resources to such a war, they feared, would cause Russia both to lose influence in other areas and provoke a harsh backlash from the West.

A strategic advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Yakovlev, observed that if Russia decided to wage war against Ukraine, “it would be its last war that would result in the country’s disappearance from the political map for decades.” A month before the current war, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, chairman of the All-Russian Officers Assembly, said that, according to international law, Russia “might be punished with the loss of statehood for an invasion of independent Ukraine.”

But in recent years that dynamic began to shift, to where Putin began to view an invasion of Ukraine as a show of strength to prevent post-Soviet states from falling out of Russia’s sphere of influence. Subsequent U.S. administrations had artificially preserved Russia’s great power status, but a weakened economy had also left Moscow feeling vulnerable. As a result, Putin apparently felt incentivized to invade Ukraine to preserve Russian influence in central Eurasia.

The warnings of prior Soviet leaders have proven prescient, however. With its focus on Ukraine, Russia has failed to fulfill its treaty obligations to other countries like Armenia, leading its Prime Minister to conclude that Russia’s military presence in the country threatens Armenia’s security.

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan’s relations with Moscow have changed forever after they joined Turkic Council, with headquarters in Istanbul and opposite priorities from those of Russia, including capitalization and fortification of their borders.

Even the Russian state has become unstable. The Republic of Tatarstan, officially part of the Russian federation but with a predominantly Muslim population of 3.5 million, is now demanding more autonomy from Moscow. Last month, the Tatarstan Parliament replaced the president’s title with the historic name of an Islamic leader. The Kremlin had previously granted Tatarstan privileged status since it was their bridge to other Islamic-dominated regions, but now fractures are beginning to show.

Similarly, Dagestan in Kavkaz and Buryatia in Siberia, the regions that have suffered the most significant losses of servicemen in the war against Ukraine, recently demonstrated more resolve, denying Moscow further military recruitment of its young people.

Amid this bubbling turmoil, analysts have started to discuss potential scenarios of Russia’s complete downfall. Dr. Janusz Bugajski, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, has urged American policymakers to prepare for the imminent collapse of the Russian Federation. “We are witnessing an ongoing revolution in global security for which Western policymakers are unprepared,” he says. Similarly, analysts at the European Parliament anticipate Russia’s fall.

There is also concern inside Russia about this potential scenario. An independent Levada Center poll indicated in December that 82 percent of Russians were highly concerned or somewhat concerned about the Ukraine war. Nearly 50 percent expected unrest in Russia in 2023.

Most scenarios presented by experts presume that Russia falls into totalitarianism, with Soviet-style ideological control over citizens and a hyper-centralized government that will inevitably be unable to make informed decisions.

If this occurs, Western leaders should, as General Odom wisely recommended, not make the mistake of treating Russia as a great power again. Instead, they should let the Soviet empire die once and for all.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/01/27/every-dollar-the-u-s-throws-at-ukraine-zaps-resources-from-our-own-depleted-military/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ae&utm_campaign=memail&seyid=45477?utm_campaign=ACTENGAGE

Every Dollar The U.S. Throws At Ukraine Zaps Resources From Our Own Depleted Military
BY: TYLER STONE
JANUARY 27, 2023
6 MIN READ

The state of U.S. military production should be more concerning to the American public than Ukraine’s corruption.

Earlier this week, The New York Times reported on the Ukrainian government’s recent shake-up to fight corruption. “The dismissals appeared to reflect Mr. Zelensky’s goal of reassuring Ukraine’s allies — which are sending billions of dollars in military aid — that his government would show zero tolerance for graft as it prepares for a possible new offensive by Moscow,” according to the Times. Why did it take Volodymyr Zelensky 11 months to address the corruption issue? There have been signs of the problem for many months now.

Ukrainian-born Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., who at the beginning of the invasion was very supportive of Ukraine, more recently began to question Zelensky’s administration. Spartz wanted to have greater oversight on American aid to Ukraine, for which she was criticized by many in both parties.

With the recent removal of several officials, it appears there were grounds for questioning where the funds were being spent in Ukraine. The United States has been by far the largest supporter of military aid to that country, despite the European Union having similar GDP and 100 million more in population. Military equipment is the most important aid to keeping Ukraine’s military armed and fighting, which might be why Zelensky is trying to address corruption now.

With Republicans having control of the House of Representatives, several Republicans want greater oversight of the money being sent to Ukraine. It is unfortunate that it took a change in House leadership to make sure American taxpayer money is being spent properly overseas.

U.S. Military Production at Risk
The state of U.S. military production was another news story that broke this month — and this story should be more concerning to the American public than Ukraine’s problems. The Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank released a report on the U.S. defense industry and military aid to Ukraine. The report found that the United States’ “defense industrial base is not adequately prepared for the competitive security environment that now exists.” The United States is ranked third in casting production, which is necessary for creating weapon systems, and the lag time for the production of most weapons is more than a year.

CSIS believes the United States would run out of precision missiles and other advanced technology in less than a week in a Taiwan Strait conflict. If that were to happen, the United States would have to resort to more crude weapon types, just as Russia has resorted to in Ukraine. The 20 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) that the United States sent to Ukraine could be replaced in about three years depending on the production surge rate. HIMARS have been very effective in Ukraine, but this highlights the continued danger of the United States’ ability to produce weapon systems. If America needs many of these weapon systems in short order, it appears the capability is not there to produce them.

A Depleted Military Can’t Overcommit
This is not a debate about aid to Ukraine but rather a debate on U.S. military production capabilities. The war in Ukraine should be viewed as a sideshow for the United States by capability alone. More than $100 billion in aid has been sent to Ukraine. This is not a small amount, but with a defense budget of more than $700 billion annually, the Ukraine war should not be straining our military. If a conflict did arise that threatened the United States, it would certainly expend more munitions and weapon systems than the Ukraine-Russian war has spent.

For a historical example, the battles fought over Ukraine in World War II committed roughly a third of Germany’s and the Soviet Union’s armies on the Eastern Front. If there is a larger conflict today, the United States would have to commit many more weapons in more theaters than just Ukraine.

Without a strong production capability, the United States would have to sacrifice its commitments in several regions throughout the world. Many Americans don’t want to hear this, and many policymakers ignore this reality, but unless the industrial production gets stronger, we might see many more Afghanistan withdrawals and friendly nations subjugated by great power rivals. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wrote in December to Secretary of State Antony Blinken that there was a $18.7 billion weapons backlog for Taiwan. If the United States is falling behind in its support during peacetime, it would certainly fall further behind during a war.

For years, the United States ignored its industrial weakness and capability, and media outlets and politicians mocked the idea of shipbuilding and fleet sizes, only to find it a valid concern 10 years later. If the United States wants to compete in the coming decades on the world stage, it needs to address this clear weakness in its military. For the past 30 years, the United States has waged war on rogue nations and terrorists in distant regions. The world has changed, and those wars that were fought over the past decades should not be viewed as the standard for defense planners.

The CSIS report also mentions how high inflation is damaging U.S. production. Policymakers need to get the United States economy back on a strong footing, with a stronger dollar and a robust energy sector.

Hope in Historical Precedent
The good news is that this has been done before. In 1968, the United States was in a fairly similar situation as today. The Johnson administration had spent much on both domestic and foreign policy. The war on poverty and the Vietnam War had drained our nation’s budget, weakened its economy, and constrained its movement in the world. Throughout the 1970s the United States had high inflation, severe energy shortages, cultural divisions, and a defeated military. Due to the paralysis of the United States, the Soviet Union took advantage in the 1970s and expanded its influence in the world.

With the right reforms, the United States under President Ronald Reagan was able to challenge the Soviets by the mid-1980s and eventually win the Cold War to become the sole superpower in the 1990s. This is not that far off from where the United States is currently. The war on terror and war on C***d expended many of our nation’s resources, just as our chief rivals are becoming more aggressive.

The bad news is that the United States might not have long to right the ship. We need leaders and policymakers who can quickly make these important adjustments and have a clear and honest vision of what the future holds for the United States.