> well, that's partly their own fault for their abysmal handling of continental politics. imagine the soviets don't overextend into poland with ribbentrop-molotov, but hit the culminated germans and swoop in as liberators. in that case, you're talking about a completely different history. since the only reason hitler invaded poland was because he believed the ribbentrop-molotov essentially annulled britain's war guarantee to poland(because britain wouldn't dare go to war against both hitler and stalin). but even if they had come in as liberators, i don't see how it would have changed anything. unless wwii never happened. or at least, there was no operation barbarossa. no 25 million soviet dead. no germany nearly taking moscow. regardless, if that was the case, the soviets likely would have taken all of europe. would that be better? > i think you underestimate the american situation. no, i don't think you understand reality. america "won" the cold war by having superior resources/markets. i linked you richard nixon admitting as much. and throughout the cold war, the fear was always that the soviets and china would ally and we'd be fucked. the idea that we won the cold war merely because "muh capitalism" is just neoliberal mythology. without the sino-soviet split, or had the saudis created a petro-soviet or whatever, we would have been fucked.    > and also possible because the western system was way more stable, because it was rewarding for its participants. no. the final nail in the coffin was when we essentially tricked the soviets into invading afghanistan by supporting literal terrorists. which turned the entire islamic world against the soviets. moreover, the benefit to the united states was that we exist in total security in the western hemisphere. whereas russia was almost surrounded by powerful and hostile countries/alliances, and with essentially no warm-water ports. very little ability to "project power" or influence.
United States