Jimmy Carter's role in winning the Cold War

Cypress said:
Trumpf is the first American president to go out of his way to bad-mouth and alienate long standing western Allies, while going out of his way to kiss the @ss of the Kremlin chief and former KGB leader.

If Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter had done what Trump does, they would have been brought up on treason charges by a Republican congress, and run out of the country.
Click to expand...

"Speaking to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ahead of a global nuclear security summit in South Korea, Obama asked for “space” and “time” to deal with the missile defense issue.

"Yeah. I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you,” Medvedev said.

"This is my last election,” Obama said. “After my election, I have more flexibility."

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, who will hand the Russian presidency over to Vladimir Putin in May"
 
Cypress said:
I was 100 percent in favor of it, given the Soviet's invasion of Afganistan. Even though I was just a teenager, I was well versed in the nature of Soviet totalitarianism. Denying them hard currency and a propaganda platform was well warranted.

More importantly, the USSR was not brought down by Abrahms tanks, Pershing missiles, or ICBMs.

It was brought down by the moral authority of the west, the moral superiority of western liberal democracy, and by the Soviet system being utterly discredited as a morally bankrupt system of degenerate totalitarianism.

I believe that Carter understood this far better than Reagan, and that his judicious use of American soft power, the moral authority of his presidency, and shining a bright light on the moral depravity of Soviet totalitarianism did more than its fair share to shame and discredit the communist system of the USSR. I believe it helped lay the groundwork for the emergence of a reform movement under Gorbachev.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union was going down no matter what. It was simply unsustainable.
My wife grew up in the GDR and was 24 when the Wall came down. She said they always knew the Soviet Union was a paper tiger (so to speak) and couldn't understand what the West was afraid of.
 
Cypress said:
In some ways, Jimmy Carter was the right man for the right time. On the heels of Watergate, Vietnam, and the abuses on the national security state, we really needed someone with moral authority in a leadership role.

Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are, by presidential standards, models of clean government and moral behavior. For some weird reason, the GOP routinely nominates and elects people of dubious moral character, abject incompetence, and/or flat-out criminals, aka Tricky Dick, Spiro Agnew, Donald Trumpf, Dumbya, Bedtime for Bonzo.
Click to expand...

And carter never started a war
 
Cypress said:
In some ways, Jimmy Carter was the right man for the right time. On the heels of Watergate, Vietnam, and the abuses on the national security state, we really needed someone with moral authority in a leadership role.

Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are, by presidential standards, models of clean government and moral behavior. For some weird reason, the GOP routinely nominates and elects people of dubious moral character, abject incompetence, and/or flat-out criminals, aka Tricky Dick, Spiro Agnew, Donald Trumpf, Dumbya, Bedtime for Bonzo.
Click to expand...

That's because (R) voters routinely confuse bluster, bullying, and braggadocio with "strength."
 
anonymoose said:
The Soviet Union was going down no matter what. It was simply unsustainable.
Click to expand...
I agree. And that is what I have been telling the dudes who claim Reagan won the Cold War.

All seven of the post-WW2 presidents really did was to contain the Soviet Union....and maintained the West's position as the morally superior choice to totalitarian communism. Which played some role in undermining the USSR and eroding their credibility. And Carter was better than that than most. Ultimately, totalitarian communism was unsustainable. The US, NATO, and the liberal democracies of the west may have just helped speed up the ultimate demise to some measurable extent.
My wife grew up in the GDR and was 24 when the Wall came down. She said they always knew the Soviet Union was a paper tiger (so to speak) and couldn't understand what the West was afraid of.
Click to expand...
I had the same discussion with many a conservative. With my position being that Reagan and other US Presidents utterly exaggerated the conventional threat of the USSR. Primarily, I think, to fuel our military industrial complex and national security state. The USSR was never anything more than an empire that sought regional hegemony in its Eurasian sphere of influence. In that respect, they were not so very different from the imperial tsarist Russian empire.

The caricatures of the preposterous movie Red Dawn notwithstanding, there was exactly zero chance the USSR was ever going to invade North America, Great Britain, Australia, or Japan. I don't think they realistically even contemplated invading France, the low countries, and FRG. Their goal was to maintain their security buffer, aka Warsaw Pact, and to practice dominance and regional hegemony over their Eurasian neighbors.
 
MASON said:
I don't remember anybody that didn't think it was a terrible idea.
That and the Iran hostage crisis.Where he should have given Iran 72 hrs to release the hostages
or we would level Tehran.
Click to expand...

I lived during the boycott of the Moscow Olympics and I do not remember a widespread revulsion to Carter's decision. I thought in light of the USSR's flagrant violation of international law, contravention of standards of international conduct, and illegal invasion of Afghanistan the boycott was fully merited, and extracted a significant price on the Kremlin by denying them a substantial sum of western hard currency and denied them a much vaunted propaganda platform.
,
As for Iran, in retrospect I think Carter comes out looking better than he did at the time. Carter got the hostages back alive, and whatever mistakes he made, you can say this about Carter: he never caved to the Iranians, he never was blackmailed by them, he never paid brides, never gave them blood money, or groveled to them. He did not give them jack shit.

Compaire that to how Reagan handled his hostage crises in Lebanon. Bedtime for Bonzo totally caved to Iran, paid bribes to terrorists in effect, groveled to Iran and illegally gave high tech American weapons to the Iranian mullahs in a covert attempt at paying for the hostage's freedom.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I was 100 percent in favor of it, given the Soviet's invasion of Afganistan. Even though I was just a teenager, I was well versed in the nature of Soviet totalitarianism. Denying them hard currency and a propaganda platform was well warranted.

More importantly, the USSR was not brought down by Abrahms tanks, Pershing missiles, or ICBMs.

It was brought down by the moral authority of the west, the moral superiority of western liberal democracy, and by the Soviet system being utterly discredited as a morally bankrupt system of degenerate totalitarianism.

I believe that Carter understood this far better than Reagan, and that his judicious use of American soft power, the moral authority of his presidency, and shining a bright light on the moral depravity of Soviet totalitarianism did more than its fair share to shame and discredit the communist system of the USSR. I believe it helped lay the groundwork for the emergence of a reform movement under Gorbachev.
Click to expand...

It absolutely was brought down by weapons systems, because, those things aren't cheap. Especially for a backwards, illiberal economic system like Marxism.

Carter's actual contribution was giving the green light to Rep. Charlie Wilson's plan.
 
Cypress said:
I lived during the boycott of the Moscow Olympics and I do not remember a widespread revulsion to Carter's decision. I thought in light of the USSR's flagrant violation of international law, contravention of standards of international conduct, and illegal invasion of Afghanistan the boycott was fully merited, and extracted a significant price on the Kremlin by denying them a substantial sum of western hard currency and denied them a much vaunted propaganda platform.
,
As for Iran, in retrospect I think Carter comes out looking better than he did at the time. Carter got the hostages back alive, and whatever mistakes he made, you can say this about Carter: he never caved to the Iranians, he never was blackmailed by them, he never paid brides, never gave them blood money, or groveled to them. He did not give them jack shit.

Compaire that to how Reagan handled his hostage crises in Lebanon. Bedtime for Bonzo totally caved to Iran, paid bribes to terrorists in effect, groveled to Iran and illegally gave high tech American weapons to the Iranian mullahs in a covert attempt at paying for the hostage's freedom.
Click to expand...

They didn't release the hostages till Reagan took office
 
Howard the Duck said:
It absolutely was brought down by weapons systems, because, those things aren't cheap. Especially for a backwards, illiberal economic system like Marxism.

Carter's actual contribution was giving the green light to Rep. Charlie Wilson's plan.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if this is trolling, or if you actually do not know the history of the cold war. There is exactly zero percent probability that B52 bombers and Abrahms tanks directly caused the Soviet Union to dissolve.

The interesting separate question of military parity in my mind comes down to this: US Naval forces were far superior to Soviet naval forces, while Soviet conventional ground forces completely outgunned the US Army. Soviet tanks were generally superior to all US tanks throughout almost the entire the post-WW2 era, until the fifth generation Abrams came along. US jet fighters probably generally had the edge on the soviets, although the later generation Migs and Sukoi fighters arguably reached parity with the best NATO had.

The Kremlin actually prefers Republicans. And they show this preference through deed and action.
That is true for the Kremlin preference for Trump, and it even goes back to the Soviet preference for Gerald Ford to beat Jimmy Carter.

Carter's human rights agenda had a destabilizing impact on his primary adversary, the Soviet leadership.
Soviets preferred a Gerald Ford victory in 1976, according to declassified US intelligence assessments

Carter's human rights agenda had a destabilizing impact on his primary adversary, the Soviet leadership. The Kremlin was irritated and dismayed when it realized that Carter was intent on using the Helsinki agreements to empower Soviet dissidents and thus undermine Soviet rule. A recently declassified U.S. intelligence report from 1978 indicates that the Soviets had been hoping for a Ford victory in 1976. They had counted on continuing the direct secret discussions they had held with Nixon and his advisor Henry Kissinger — discussions that mostly bracketed human rights concerns and that Moscow counted among its greatest postwar successes.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/16/thank-you-jimmy-carter-obama-soviet-union-foreign-policy/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
By the late 1970s, the Soviet Union’s economy and global influence were weakening. With the counsel of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Soviet expert, Carter exploited these weaknesses.
Click to expand...
what I bolded. the Cold war was a continuum from Truman to Reagan

The mistake we have made is to treat Russia like a pariah ("weaknesses to be exploited") to"take out" Putin
That's the extreme language and policy,and relations the US and Russia have today

Russia wouldn't be in Venezuela if we hadn't forced Russia into China's alliance.

Sloppy type language "we are at war with Russia" McCain like bellicosity should be refuted
 
anatta said:
what I bolded. the Cold war was a continuum from Truman to Reagan

The mistake we have made is to treat Russia like a pariah ("weaknesses to be exploited") to"take out" Putin
That's the extreme language and policy,and relations the US and Russia have today

Russia wouldn't be in Venezuela if we hadn't forced Russia into China's alliance.

Sloppy type language "we are at war with Russia" McCain like bellicosity should be refuted
Click to expand...

And this is why the Kremlin, from both the Soviet era to the Putin oligarchy prefers Republicans.

Jimmy Carter was the model, but in general liberals are going to prioritize human rights, democracy, and express an overt hostility to repression and totalitarianism. And it does not matter if Brezhnev or Putin are leading the Kremlin.

I believe your attitude of real politick is a manifestation of conservative principle - let the Soviets have their sphere of influence, we will have ours, and who gives a shit about democracy and human rights in Russia. That would be music to Putin, Brezhnev, or Lenin's ears.
 
Cypress said:
I can't tell if this is trolling, or if you actually do not know the history of the cold war. There is exactly zero percent probability that B52 bombers and Abrahms tanks directly caused the Soviet Union to dissolve.

The interesting separate question of military parity in my mind comes down to this: US Naval forces were far superior to Soviet naval forces, while Soviet conventional ground forces completely outgunned the US Army. Soviet tanks were generally superior to all US tanks throughout almost the entire the post-WW2 era, until the fifth generation Abrams came along. US jet fighters probably generally had the edge on the soviets, thought the later generation Migs and Sukoi fighters probably reached parity with the best NATO had.

The Kremlin actually prefers Republicans. And they show this preference through deed and action.
That is true for Trump, and it even goes back to the Soviet preference for Gerald Ford to beat Jimmy Carter.
Click to expand...
Good balance of weapons system description.
Russian prefer Republicans because POTUS like GH Bush understand Russia is a legit power
and looks for cooperation in mutual areas of interests.

Obama's schizoid Reset and then meddling in the Euromaidan no doubt made Putin dread having Hillary
on the world stage

Vicky Nuland (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs under Hillary) is still at it -
she just joined The Brookings.
She still runs her mouth that Trump's foreign policy is a "disruption" as she characterizes it
 
Cypress said:
And this is why the Kremlin, from both the Soviet era to the Putin oligarchy prefers Republicans.

Jimmy Carter was the model, but in general liberals are going to prioritize human rights, democracy, and express an overt hostility to repression and totalitarianism. And it does not matter if Brezhnev or Putin are leading the Kremlin.

I believe your attitude of real politick is a manifestation of conservative principle - let the Soviets have their sphere of influence, we will have ours, and who gives a shit about democracy and human rights in Russia. That would be music to Putin, Brezhnev, or Lenin's ears.
Click to expand...
lol. "Human rights" would not have kept da Russans out of Venezuela. It's a paper tiger.
A healthy 'China card' approach ( realpolitik ) may very well have.

Putin has no choice but to see US as their enemy now -economic and military,
forced into a strategic military and increasing economic alliance with China
 
Cypress said:
I can't tell if this is trolling, or if you actually do not know the history of the cold war. There is exactly zero percent probability that B52 bombers and Abrahms tanks directly caused the Soviet Union to dissolve.

The interesting separate question of military parity in my mind comes down to this: US Naval forces were far superior to Soviet naval forces, while Soviet conventional ground forces completely outgunned the US Army. Soviet tanks were generally superior to all US tanks throughout almost the entire the post-WW2 era, until the fifth generation Abrams came along. US jet fighters probably generally had the edge on the soviets, although the later generation Migs and Sukoi fighters arguably reached parity with the best NATO had.

The Kremlin actually prefers Republicans. And they show this preference through deed and action.
That is true for the Kremlin preference for Trump, and it even goes back to the Soviet preference for Gerald Ford to beat Jimmy Carter.
Click to expand...

Defense spending is 100% the reason why we won the Cold War. You would have to be trolling to suggest otherwise.

Regarding fighter jets, we refer to Russian fighters as near-peer.
 
I thought the liberal narrative was that the partys switched names after Nixon.

Not only did Carter where his evil Christianity on his sleeve, but he was s son of the South ... who elected by all the former Slave States.

BTW, U.S. military aid to Afghanistan defeated the Russians. The cost of that war broke the Russian bank. And Carter ... started a war with Iran by invading the country with the failed, disastrous Eagle Claw operation.
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
lol. "Human rights" would not have kept da Russans out of Venezuela. It's a paper tiger.
A healthy 'China card' approach ( realpolitik ) may very well have.

Putin has no choice but to see US as their enemy now -economic and military,
forced into a strategic military and increasing economic alliance with China
Click to expand...

I notice that you portray no genuine commitment to human rights, human freedom, and democratic principles in your post.

Which is why you, the Kremlin, and the KGB prefer Republicans.

Liberals - like Jimmy Carter, et al. - have an ideological and personal predisposition for being hostile to totalitarianism, repression, and all affronts to human dignity and freedom. And that is probably exactly what annoyed the Kremlin and the KGB about western liberals. Conservatives they could understand - it was all about spheres of influence and raw economic hegemony.
 
Cypress what made you vote for Reagan at the time? Lots of people have switched political parties in their lifetime and voted for both Democrats and Republicans for President so it's not like you did anything wrong or unique. But based on everything you say you believe and how you speak about Reagan how did you ever vote for the man?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top