Could the Soviet Union come back?

[National Socialist Republics of Europe]

The Soviet Union continues to exist through the European Union and the USA.

[Bratislavskaya]

The Soviet Union continues to exist through the European Union and the USA.

That is the most hilarious political statement I have seen in years.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Soviet Nostalgia" in many of the former SSRs is a well-reported thing according to a recent set of Gallup surveys, but this is more people lamenting the loss of Soviet social programmes and benefits, rather than being a part of the Soviet Union itself. The Russians report a higher "nostalgia" than other countries, probably due to the loss of global prominence after the dissolution of the union.

Overall, 51% of all respondents in all countries regarded the breakup as a "harm" to the former Soviet Union, with an average of only a quarter claiming it a benefit. Discounting "don't know" and "won't say", this becomes a two thirds majority of former SU residents who believe the breakup to be a harm.
People not alive or very young at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union are three times as likely as those ages 65 or over, who spent much of their lives living in the Soviet Union, to believe that the breakup was a "harm". Three quarters of over-65s believed the breakup to be a harm, compared to a third of those aged 15-30 and almost half of those aged 30-44.
Interestingly, 30% and 29% of these two ages respectively believed the breakup to be a benefit - a further 20% of those aged under 30 refused to answer, while 16% claimed they did not know. Meaning that both age groups, again, for definitive given answers, still believe the breakup to be a net harm.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166538/forme ... eakup.aspx

[Holy Empire of Divinia]

I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in and say that while the same land mass might once again all be occupied by a single nation, it won't be called the USSR or anything similar, I just feel like it would make it sound too bad, like if Germany got a new nationalist party and called it the Nazis, or if the USA renamed its President to a King, without changing how his role worked. Names mean quite a lot.

Although, personally, as an Australian, I think that the West has committed far more evils, particularly America, than the rest of the world. Who is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation? America. Who is constantly invading the middle-east for flimsy reasons (such as supposed weapons of mass destruction which, I may point out, America has) which are then proven wrong and forgotten about? America. The whole cold war between it and Russia. Russia may have tried to move nukes to Cuba, but America already had nukes in Turkey aimed at Russia, so it was the antagonist.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that while Putin is a rough, tough guy and certainly not 'nice', people need to consider that maybe, just maybe, their own country isn't so great either. Just remember, the Nazis thought what they were doing was right as well.

Um...so anyway, sorry if I've derailed this thread or annoyed anyone, just stating my opinion, don't want any hate, I just think we should all get along and have free discussions.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think it says far more about the restraint of the US that despite considerable internal political pressures, they never used nuclear weapons since WWII, despite the huge number of conflicts they found themselves in since. Nuclear conflict or escalation had been threatened in the Middle East, Korea and Vietnam, usually against the Soviet Union (though in Korea it was against China). The Israelis almost nuked the Egyptian front line in the Six-Day War.
Had the Soviets developed nuclear technology at the same time as the US, war in Europe could have escalated into a nuclear conflict against Russia, or they could have remained allied against Japan and initiated their own nuclear campaign.

The Soviet Union, aside from Afghanistan, found itself in few or no military campaigns during the Cold War.

[National Socialist Republics of Europe]

The Soviet Union continues to exist through the European Union and the USA.

That is the most hilarious political statement I have seen in years.

Anatoly Golitsyn and Yuri Bezmenov were KGB agents, not comedians.

[Syndicapolis]

I wish they would give the USSR a try again, just without a vanguard and with all power to the Soviets. It could work now that Russia is a capitalist country, and there are no Bolshevik dictators to fuck everything up and make the revolution bourgeois.

[Bratislavskaya]

That is the most hilarious political statement I have seen in years.

Anatoly Golitsyn and Yuri Bezmenov were KGB agents, not comedians.

You mentioned two defectors, what has that got to do with you saying the US and EU are communist? The EU is nowhere near communist. The US is stupidly anti-communist to the extent that they planned to use false flag terror attacks against themselves in order to invade Cuba (before they found out they had nukes).

[Herargon]

I wish they would give the USSR a try again, just without a vanguard and with all power to the Soviets. It could work now that Russia is a capitalist country, and there are no Bolshevik dictators to fuck everything up and make the revolution bourgeois.

Won't work. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[National Socialist Republics of Europe]

Anatoly Golitsyn and Yuri Bezmenov were KGB agents, not comedians.

You mentioned two defectors, what has that got to do with you saying the US and EU are communist? The EU is nowhere near communist. The US is stupidly anti-communist to the extent that they planned to use false flag terror attacks against themselves in order to invade Cuba (before they found out they had nukes).

You should begin to study and read the statements of these defectors before opening your mouth.

Obviously the communist infiltration of the US establishment reached its high after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

[Syike]

Although, personally, as an Australian, 1. I think that the West has committed far more evils, particularly America, than the rest of the world. 2. Who is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation? America. 3. Who is constantly invading the middle-east for flimsy reasons (such as supposed weapons of mass destruction which, I may point out, America has) which are then proven wrong and forgotten about? America. 4. The whole cold war between it and Russia. Russia may have tried to move nukes to Cuba, but America already had nukes in Turkey aimed at Russia, so it was the antagonist.

1. Have this for reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

2. Such is life in the Zone.

3. Where on earth did you come up with the idea that the US constantly invaded the middle-east for flimsy reasons? If anything, Ye Olde British Empire invaded the whole fucking world for flimsy reasons. Perhaps you possess a flawed idea of what the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were about. It seems you lack context. The Invasion of Iraq was a counter-invasion for Saddam Hussein's flimsy reasoned invasion of Kuwait, the US' ally. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was also, you know, condemned by the entire UN. It was also no secret that Hussein's Iraq possessed WMDs in the form of chemical weapons, and parts for development of nuclear weapons were discovered. Anyhow, the US took out Hussein, fought insurgents, established a Western style government and that was that (until recently). Afghanistan, however, was an anti Al-Qaeda operation for both the 9/11 attacks and how they had also fucked the Afghani government up the ass and around the corner.

4. No shit it was between the US and Russia, who else were you expecting? The UK and Yugoslavia? President Roosevelt succeeded in overtaking the now dying British Empire economically, much how many Europeans predicted the US would do to many people during the 19th century. By the end of WWII, the US and Soviet Union were the leading superpowers in the world, what with their massive economies and militaries. The US having nuclear weapons in Turkey aimed at Russia did not make them the antagonist during the Cuban Missile Crisis like you believe, that's completely fucking irrelevant. Perhaps you failed to notice that the US had a lot of nukes in a lot of places pointed at Russia, the same goes for Russia, except they're pointing at the US.

Your turn, sir.

[United Marxist Nations]

"Soviet Nostalgia" in many of the former SSRs is a well-reported thing according to a recent set of Gallup surveys, but this is more people lamenting the loss of Soviet social programmes and benefits, rather than being a part of the Soviet Union itself. The Russians report a higher "nostalgia" than other countries, probably due to the loss of global prominence after the dissolution of the union.

Overall, 51% of all respondents in all countries regarded the breakup as a "harm" to the former Soviet Union, with an average of only a quarter claiming it a benefit. Discounting "don't know" and "won't say", this becomes a two thirds majority of former SU residents who believe the breakup to be a harm.
People not alive or very young at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union are three times as likely as those ages 65 or over, who spent much of their lives living in the Soviet Union, to believe that the breakup was a "harm". Three quarters of over-65s believed the breakup to be a harm, compared to a third of those aged 15-30 and almost half of those aged 30-44.
Interestingly, 30% and 29% of these two ages respectively believed the breakup to be a benefit - a further 20% of those aged under 30 refused to answer, while 16% claimed they did not know. Meaning that both age groups, again, for definitive given answers, still believe the breakup to be a net harm.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166538/forme ... eakup.aspx

You're definitely right about it being mostly about the social program:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/con ... iet-union/

[Imperializt Russia]

4. No shit it was between the US and Russia, who else were you expecting? The UK and Yugoslavia? President Roosevelt succeeded in overtaking the now dying British Empire economically, much how many Europeans predicted the US would do to many people during the 19th century. By the end of WWII, the US and Soviet Union were the leading superpowers in the world, what with their massive economies and militaries. The US having nuclear weapons in Turkey aimed at Russia did not make them the antagonist during the Cuban Missile Crisis like you believe, that's completely fucking irrelevant. Perhaps you failed to notice that the US had a lot of nukes in a lot of places pointed at Russia, the same goes for Russia, except they're pointing at the US.

To deride the siting in Turkey as "irrelevant" is to ignore the limitations of missile technology at the time.
ICBMs suffered massive limitations, while IRBMs and MRBMs were a slightly more "proven" technology. Hence their widespread distribution throughout the NATO west Europe and the Warsaw Pact until the INF treaty.

The Cuban deployment was a direct escalation to the Turkish deployment. Both deployments were wound down under bilateral talks between the US and USSR. Jupiter was universally withdrawn from service as a result, expedited by the US service branches' general dislike of the system.
The Cuban deployment was a largely political gesture. The Soviet Union just didn't have anywhere besides Eastern Russia to station MR/IRBMs to threaten the US in the same manner as the US could in western Europe. Eastern Russia, launch sites permitting, could probably have threatened the western seaboard - many ICBM launch sites were positioned in northern and western Russia, to overfly the northern Polar route.

Cuba put Washington DC directly in Russian IRBM range, when Turkey put Moscow in US IRBM range. That was the bottom line of the deployment.

[Grand Russian Federation]

No. I'm pretty sure all of Eastern Europe, minus Belarus, parts of Ukraine, and Russia (maybe), along with the rest of the world minus North Best Korea and maybe China would get really fucking pissed.

I know but the Crimea belongs to the Ukraine it always had!

Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Always? Nope.

I, for one, welcome this taking back of Russian land.

[Espresso and Insanity]

I know but the Crimea belongs to the Ukraine it always had!

Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Always? Nope.

I, for one, welcome this taking back of Russian land.

Please, explain how it's Russian land. Just because Russia owned it at one point, it doesn't mean it's rightfully Russia's. Alaska was once Russia, does that mean that Alaska is rightfully Russian land?

[Grand Russian Federation]

Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Always? Nope.

I, for one, welcome this taking back of Russian land.

Please, explain how it's Russian land. Just because Russia owned it at one point, it doesn't mean it's rightfully Russia's. Alaska was once Russia, does that mean that Alaska is rightfully Russian land?

The majority of people there are Russians.

[Espresso and Insanity]

Please, explain how it's Russian land. Just because Russia owned it at one point, it doesn't mean it's rightfully Russia's. Alaska was once Russia, does that mean that Alaska is rightfully Russian land?

The majority of people there are Russians.

The majority of people there are of Russian ethnicity. But, that doesn't necessarily make Crimea part of Russia.

[Edward Scissorhands]

Probably not. I imagine that would piss off the majority of Eastern Europe.

[Grand Russian Federation]

The majority of people there are Russians.

The majority of people there are of Russian ethnicity. But, that doesn't necessarily make Crimea part of Russia.

I am not speaking of Russia as a nation, but as the people of Russia.

[Espresso and Insanity]

The majority of people there are of Russian ethnicity. But, that doesn't necessarily make Crimea part of Russia.

I am not speaking of Russia as a nation, but as the people of Russia.

You're not making much sense, please elaborate.

[Free Ride]

Probably not. I imagine that would piss off the majority of Eastern Europe.

Anger is just synonymous with animal; the pains it takes to get angry, they are so onerous.

[Grand Russian Federation]

I am not speaking of Russia as a nation, but as the people of Russia.

You're not making much sense, please elaborate.

Russian land does not refer to land that is rightfully owned by the Russian Federation, but owned by the ethnic Russians.

[Espresso and Insanity]

You're not making much sense, please elaborate.

Russian land does not refer to land that is rightfully owned by the Russian Federation, but owned by the ethnic Russians.

But, just because ethnic Russians live in Crimea, I fail to see how that makes it owned by ethnic Russians. Furthermore, that doesn't make it part of the a Russian Federation.

[Grand Russian Federation]

Russian land does not refer to land that is rightfully owned by the Russian Federation, but owned by the ethnic Russians.

But, just because ethnic Russians live in Crimea, I fail to see how that makes it owned by ethnic Russians. Furthermore, that doesn't make it part of the a Russian Federation.

Because they are a majority, AKA more ethnic Russians than Ukrainians. They were still holding there even when their land switched administration.

And don't attack strawmen. I never said it was a part of the Russian Federation.

[Espresso and Insanity]

But, just because ethnic Russians live in Crimea, I fail to see how that makes it owned by ethnic Russians. Furthermore, that doesn't make it part of the a Russian Federation.

Because they are a majority, AKA more ethnic Russians than Ukrainians. They were still holding there even when their land switched administration.

And don't attack strawmen. I never said it was a part of the Russian Federation.

Okay, I'm not trying to attack strawman, I thought you implied that earlier. So, do you think that Crimea should belong to the nation of Ukraine?