No, Reagan didn't win the Cold War

[Vympel]

Link

A 1994 article:

The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR. At most SDI shifted the marginal allocation of defense rubles as some funds were allotted for developing countermeasures to ballistic defense.

If American defense spending had bankrupted the Soviet economy, forcing an end to the Cold War, Soviet defense spending should have declined as East-West relations improved. CIA estimates show that it remained relatively constant as a proportion of the Soviet gross national product during the 1980s, including Gorbachev's first four years in office. Soviet defense spending was not reduced until 1989 and did not decline nearly as rapidly as the overall economy.

To be sure, defense spending was an extraordinary burden on the Soviet economy. As early as the 1970s some officials warned Leonid Brezhnev that the economy would stagnate if the military continued to consume such a disproportionate share of resources. The General Secretary ignored their warnings, in large part because his authority depended on the support of a coalition in which defense and heavy industry were well represented. Brezhnev was also extraordinarily loyal to the Soviet military and fiercely proud of its performance. Soviet defense spending under Brezhnev and Gorbachev was primarily a response to internal political imperatives--to pressures from the Soviet version of the military-industrial complex. The Cold War and the high levels of American defense spending provided at most an opportunity for leaders of the Soviet military-industrial complex to justify their claims to preferential treatment. Even though the Cold War has ended and the United States is no longer considered a threat by the current Russian leadership, Russian defense spending now consumes roughly as great a percentage of GNP as it did in the Brezhnev years.

[MKSheppard]

I've got a serious question then. If Reagan didn't win the Cold War,
then why was Gorbachev so frantic to get him to give up SDI? He
offered to eliminate all ICBMs if Reagan would give up SDI. The
East Germans even began assassination prominent executives of
West German companies engaged in SDI research.

[Stuart Mackey]

I've got a serious question then. If Reagan didn't win the Cold War,
then why was Gorbachev so frantic to get him to give up SDI? He
offered to eliminate all ICBMs if Reagan would give up SDI. The
East Germans even began assassination prominent executives of
West German companies engaged in SDI research.

Perhaps he wanted to avoid a situation that would give more hardline elements some serious influence counter to his economic reforms?
Remembere that Gorbachev was not overly popular within the USSR.

[Coyote]

Wasn't it that the Soviet defense budget was already operating over-capacity, and that Reagan bet that if the US ramped up defense spending, then sooner or later the USSR would feel compelled to do the same?

Basically, SDI was a way to tell the Soviets, "Now you'll have to get ready to spend even MORE, since we're going to deploy a whole new technology that you don't have yet". It was the possibility of throwing away more of the economy, not the throwing away that was already being accomplished, that exacerbated the cracks in the already crumbling Soviet system.

[Vympel]

Wasn't it that the Soviet defense budget was already operating over-capacity, and that Reagan bet that if the US ramped up defense spending, then sooner or later the USSR would feel compelled to do the same?

They never did feel compelled, that's the point. Soviet defense spending did not rise and fall in comparison to that of the United States.

Basically, SDI was a way to tell the Soviets, "Now you'll have to get ready to spend even MORE, since we're going to deploy a whole new technology that you don't have yet". It was the possibility of throwing away more of the economy, not the throwing away that was already being accomplished, that exacerbated the cracks in the already crumbling Soviet system.

Not supported by the evidence. Also from the article:

Gorbachev felt free to make a series of proposals for deep cuts in his country's nuclear arsenal because he was confident that the United States would not attack the Soviet Union. In conversation with his military advisers he rejected any plans that were premised on war with the West. Since he saw no threat of attack by the United States, Gorbachev was not intimidated by the military programs of the Reagan Administration. "These were unnecessary and wasteful expenditures that we were not going to match," he told us. If both superpowers were to avoid the growing risk of accidental war, they had to make deep cuts in their strategic forces. "This was an imperative of the nuclear age."

Reagan's commitment to SDI made it more difficult for Gorbachev to persuade his officials that arms control was in the Soviet interest. Conservatives, some of the military leadership, and spokesmen for defense-related industries insisted that SDI was proof of America's hostile intentions. In a contentious politburo meeting called to discuss arms control, Soviet armed forces chief of staff Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev angrily warned that the Soviet people would not tolerate any weakening of Soviet defenses, according to Oleg Grinevsky, now Russia's ambassador to Sweden. Yakovlev insists that "Star Wars was exploited by hardliners to complicate Gorbachev's attempt to end the Cold War."

[Coyote]

But wouldn't it make sense for Gorbachov to publicly pooh-pooh the SDI project, so as not to appear like he was crambling to play catch-up-- a PR move to shore up the image of Soviet strength?

Politicians deal with images, as much if not more than, fact. IN the USA, there were and still are a great number of people who believed SDI was workable, and I am sure there were many in the USSR that were afraid of it, regardless of whether it was feasable. It is not important whether the weapon works, after all-- just so long as the enemy thinks it will work.

After all, as you pointed out here:

Reagan's commitment to SDI made it more difficult for Gorbachev to persuade his officials that arms control was in the Soviet interest. Conservatives, some of the military leadership, and spokesmen for defense-related industries insisted that SDI was proof of America's hostile intentions. In a contentious politburo meeting called to discuss arms control, Soviet armed forces chief of staff Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev angrily warned that the Soviet people would not tolerate any weakening of Soviet defenses, according to Oleg Grinevsky, now Russia's ambassador to Sweden. Yakovlev insists that "Star Wars was exploited by hardliners to complicate Gorbachev's attempt to end the Cold War."

Marshal Akhromeyev, for example, only had to believe that the system was a threat. While USSR defense spending may have stayed the same despite US gains, adding the SDI to the stew would mean that many in the Soviet Union woukld, at some point in the future, feel compelled to keep up.

The problem with all this is that it is supposition-- none of us, not you nor I nor anyone else, can truly know what Reagan, Gorbachov, Akhromeyev, et al, were really thinking. Maybe Reagan intended all along for the SDI to be a Trojan Horse... maybe he actually believed in it. Many in the public did, and many scientists on both sides were commited to figuring it out. Did Gorbachev really think it would work? Did the Soviet defense cartels?

We just don't know, because politicians will say one thing for public consumption when in reality they know something else. Politicians will do dumb things just to make a public statement.

[Vympel]

But wouldn't it make sense for Gorbachov to publicly pooh-pooh the SDI project, so as not to appear like he was crambling to play catch-up-- a PR move to shore up the image of Soviet strength?

Perhaps, but you also have Yakovlev and Gorbachev agreeing in private as to their goals- in 1983, before he was General Secretary. Besides- uou can't predicate an argument that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War on what some might expect a politician to do in the absence of any evidence to indicate that it is in fact the case.

Politicians deal with images, as much if not more than, fact. IN the USA, there were and still are a great number of people who believed SDI was workable, and I am sure there were many in the USSR that were afraid of it, regardless of whether it was feasable. It is not important whether the weapon works, after all-- just so long as the enemy thinks it will work.

Reagan's commitment to SDI made it more difficult for Gorbachev to persuade his officials that arms control was in the Soviet interest. Conservatives, some of the military leadership, and spokesmen for defense-related industries insisted that SDI was proof of America's hostile intentions.

Bu they are not Gorbachev.

In a contentious politburo meeting called to discuss arms control, Soviet armed forces chief of staff Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev angrily warned that the Soviet people would not tolerate any weakening of Soviet defenses,

He is also not Gorbachev.

Marshal Akhromeyev, for example, only had to believe that the system was a threat. While USSR defense spending may have stayed the same despite US gains, adding the SDI to the stew would mean that many in the Soviet Union woukld, at some point in the future, feel compelled to keep up.

Why? There's no evidence that the Soviet Union ever changed its defense spending in response to US changes, why would they do so now? The article shows that they did devote some funding to countering missile defense (the fruits of which have since been born in the SS-27, reportedly)- there's no reason to assume the Soviets would be compelled to match them with a fully comprehensive system of their own, especially considering that this is kind of like the "mirror imaging" syndrome that confounded US estimates of Soviet weaponry and tactics during the Cold War. Also, what that officer's opinion was has no bearing on Gorbachev's state of mind or his authority to make decisions, which is what's important.

The problem with all this is that it is supposition-- none of us, not you nor I nor anyone else, can truly know what Reagan, Gorbachov, Akhromeyev, et al, were really thinking. Maybe Reagan intended all along for the SDI to be a Trojan Horse... maybe he actually believed in it. Many in the public did, and many scientists on both sides were commited to figuring it out. Did Gorbachev really think it would work? Did the Soviet defense cartels?

We just don't know, because politicians will say one thing for public consumption when in reality they know something else. Politicians will do dumb things just to make a public statement.

The eivdence is clearly to one side- we have Soviet defense expenditures that did not react to US splurging- and we have testimony that Gorbachev did not agree with the hardliners in his own administration. Put simply, there's no evidence that Reagan's defense buildup had any effect at all on the decision to put an end to it. In fact, it's quite possible that if Gorby hadn't been the one in power, the hardliners would've had their way and kept the thing going longer.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

The eivdence is clearly to one side- we have Soviet defense expenditures that did not react to US splurging- and we have testimony that Gorbachev did not agree with the hardliners in his own administration. Put simply, there's no evidence that Reagan's defense buildup had any effect at all on the decision to put an end to it. In fact, it's quite possible that if Gorby hadn't been the one in power, the hardliners would've had their way and kept the thing going longer.

Gorbachev was a man who reconised the limits and the endemic corruption with the Soviet economy, and that economy was on its last legs, which is why he wished to reform it.
Had the USSR played silly buggers they would have collapsed sooner rather than later. Gorbachev, in his desire to move the economy forward, unwittingly let loose forces that he was not willing to stop with force. The economy was shagged and Gorbachevs renouncing of force to solve 'issues' brought and end to the Warsaw Pact as a viable entity and ultimatly the USSR.

[Vympel]

Gorbachev was a man who reconised the limits and the endemic corruption with the Soviet economy, and that economy was on its last legs, which is why he wished to reform it.
Had the USSR played silly buggers they would have collapsed sooner rather than later. Gorbachev, in his desire to move the economy forward, unwittingly let loose forces that he was not willing to stop with force. The economy was shagged and Gorbachevs renouncing of force to solve 'issues' brought and end to the Warsaw Pact as a viable entity and ultimatly the USSR.

What do you mean by "silly buggers"? There's no way the USSR would've collapsed in 1991 if Gorbachev hadn't unleashed those forces- it would've collapsed, but not in so short a period.

[Stuart Mackey]

Gorbachev was a man who reconised the limits and the endemic corruption with the Soviet economy, and that economy was on its last legs, which is why he wished to reform it.
Had the USSR played silly buggers they would have collapsed sooner rather than later. Gorbachev, in his desire to move the economy forward, unwittingly let loose forces that he was not willing to stop with force. The economy was shagged and Gorbachevs renouncing of force to solve 'issues' brought and end to the Warsaw Pact as a viable entity and ultimatly the USSR.

What do you mean by "silly buggers"?

Playing arms race with the US

There's no way the USSR would've collapsed in 1991 if Gorbachev hadn't unleashed those forces- it would've collapsed, but not in so short a period.

The Soviet Economy was stuffed, if they put even more into the armed forces what do you think would have happned? Even communist nations are not immune to economic forces. They were in a catch 22, simple as that.

[Vympel]

Playing arms race with the US

Ah ok. I thought you meant proceed as usual.

The Soviet Economy was stuffed, if they put even more into the armed forces what do you think would have happned?

Where did I make the argument that the USSR wouldn't collapse if more of the economy was diverted to arms? What I do dispute is "sooner rather than later"- especially if provided that Gorby *did* use force to resolve any issues. It's also got to be remembered that Gorby introduced not only economic, but political reforms, and IMO it was the political reforms that did the USSR in more than the economic ones.

[RedImperator]

The Soviets were in trouble economically at least as early as the late Brezhnev years. Some sort of collapse was inevitable, though a peaceful breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR certainly wasn't. I think Reagan's smartest move wasn't so much putting pressure on Gorbachev as knowing when to take it off. If he'd held a hard line all through the 1980s, refused to negotiate arms limitation and whatnot, Gorbachev would have had a much harder time dealing with his conservative opponents at home, which could have delayed or prevented glasnost. Of course glasnost was a mistake from Gorbachev's point of view, but it's likely the results of that were better than the would-be results of a general economic collapse in the USSR.

[Stuart Mackey]

The Soviet Economy was stuffed, if they put even more into the armed forces what do you think would have happned? Even communist nations are not immune to economic forces. They were in a catch 22, simple as that.

You're missing the point- Gorby never had any intention to engage the US in an arms race (and the USSR had not responded to US spending tit for tat), and Gorby entertained his views before he became General Secretary and before Reagan's SDI rubbish.

No no no..not what I meant..What I meant was that if the USSR had played arms races with the US, the USSR would have collapsed sooner rather than later. Gorbys actions let it last as long as it did. Gorby realised this inherent weakness in the USSR, hence he never played the game of more arms. Its worth noting that he never wanted the collapse that happned in reality iirc.

[Vympel]

No no no..not what I meant..What I meant was that if the USSR had played arms races with the US, the USSR would have collapsed sooner rather than later. Gorbys actions let it last as long as it did. Gorby realised this inherent weakness in the USSR, hence he never played the game of more arms. Its worth noting that he never wanted the collapse that happned in reality iirc.

Yeah, I edited my post but you must've hit quote before I did it. In terms of a collapse sooner, for all we know, hardliners could've taken control and done what Gorby *wouldn't* do and really put the iron fist down (or back down, as they case may be). Sometimes I wonder if it would've gone the way of a super-crazy North Korea.

A bit more on the political reforms- I have a book that was published just before the collapse of the USSR, about the Soviet Army- very unfortunate that it came out just as it ceased to exist. Anyway, by a Westerner- she detailed some of the ways that Gorby's reforms had damaged the system on which the USSR relied, for example, the reverence for the Red Army being supplanted by critical, Western style articles exposing weaknesses etc.

[Stuart Mackey]

No no no..not what I meant..What I meant was that if the USSR had played arms races with the US, the USSR would have collapsed sooner rather than later. Gorbys actions let it last as long as it did. Gorby realised this inherent weakness in the USSR, hence he never played the game of more arms. Its worth noting that he never wanted the collapse that happned in reality iirc.

Yeah, I edited my post but you must've hit quote before I did it. In terms of a collapse sooner, for all we know, hardliners could've taken control and done what Gorby *wouldn't* do and really put the iron fist down (or back down, as they case may be). Sometimes I wonder if it would've gone the way of a super-crazy North Korea.

Which is a scary thought...

A bit more on the political reforms- I have a book that was published just before the collapse of the USSR, about the Soviet Army- very unfortunate that it came out just as it ceased to exist. Anyway, by a Westerner- she detailed some of the ways that Gorby's reforms had damaged the system on which the USSR relied, for example, the reverence for the Red Army being supplanted by critical, Western style articles exposing weaknesses etc.

Hmm Cary Schofield, Inside the Soviet Army. prefaced byMarshal Yazov ?
If so, thts one interesting book.

[Vympel]

Hmm Cary Schofield, Inside the Soviet Army. prefaced byMarshal Yazov ?
If so, thts one interesting book.

Yeah, that's the one. Nice pictures, and got it dirt cheap (because noone cares about an Army's thats gone, presumably). I found it in 1999 in a surplus book store.

[Stuart Mackey]

Hmm Cary Schofield, Inside the Soviet Army. prefaced byMarshal Yazov ?
If so, thts one interesting book.

Yeah, that's the one. Nice pictures, and got it dirt cheap (because noone cares about an Army's thats gone, presumably). I found it in 1999 in a surplus book store.

Hmmm, I got my copy in 99 on sale at Whitcoulls... spooky possums..

[Axis Kast]

Might not the statistics be hiding something?

You seem to be looking for real as opposed to comparative raises, when the two can be equally as indicative.

Remember that even if Gorbachev never raised spending by 10% at any one, crucial point, it remained constant until the last days of the Soviet Union - meaning that it was actually a growing percentage of total Russian capacity as time went on.

[Vympel]

Might not the statistics be hiding something?

You seem to be looking for real as opposed to comparative raises, when the two can be equally as indicative.

Remember that even if Gorbachev never raised spending by 10% at any one, crucial point, it remained constant until the last days of the Soviet Union - meaning that it was actually a growing percentage of total Russian capacity as time went on.

I think the article was in the context of a proportion of GNP:

If American defense spending had bankrupted the Soviet economy, forcing an end to the Cold War, Soviet defense spending should have declined as East-West relations improved. CIA estimates show that it remained relatively constant as a proportion of the Soviet gross national product during the 1980s, including Gorbachev's first four years in office. Soviet defense spending was not reduced until 1989 and did not decline nearly as rapidly as the overall economy.

Anyway, even if it was a growing percentage of total capacity (and I'm not sure, but I remember reading somehwere that the USSR's economy was still growing, very slowly, in the 1980s) the Russians weren't getting anymore capability to match the United States as a response to Reagan's policies, they were just treading water and keeping their existing habits going out of a smaller pie.

[Axis Kast]

Anyway, even if it was a growing percentage of total capacity (and I'm not sure, but I remember reading somehwere that the USSR's economy was still growing, very slowly, in the 1980s) the Russians weren't getting anymore capability to match the United States as a response to Reagan's policies, they were just treading water and keeping their existing habits going out of a smaller pie.

I'll accept the quote as evidence that the article is speaking in proportional terms, meaning that there was no Soviet defense expansion at all.

On the other hand, to say that hundreds of billions went into the military in Russia merely because that's where hundreds of billions had gone before is a bit suspect. It was obviously the U.S. military buildups of the Carter and Reagan years that prevented a let-up.

[beyond hope]

My understanding was that it was Stalin's fetish for building one giant plant to build tractors/tanks/whatever and building it hundreds of miles away from the requisite resources to build them that did the most damage to the Soviet Union.

[Aaron]

On the other hand, to say that hundreds of billions went into the military in Russia merely because that's where hundreds of billions had gone before is a bit suspect. It was obviously the U.S. military buildups of the Carter and Reagan years that prevented a let-up.

Wait, I thought that Jimmy Carter canceled the B-1 program and slashed military spending? Wasn't one of Regean's platforms when he was running for the White House to revitelise the military, that had been neglected under Carter?

[RedImperator]

My understanding was that it was Stalin's fetish for building one giant plant to build tractors/tanks/whatever and building it hundreds of miles away from the requisite resources to build them that did the most damage to the Soviet Union.

The problems with the Soviet economic structure went much, much deeper than that. The whole system was concieved and run by people completely disconnected from reality, and its collapse was inevitable. Any economic system where initiative and hard work aren't rewarded (in fact, are punished with increasing demands from on high) and leeching is the best survival strategy is doomed.

[Axis Kast]

Carter was still responsible for some increased military spending during the later years of his presidency.

[beyond hope]

My understanding was that it was Stalin's fetish for building one giant plant to build tractors/tanks/whatever and building it hundreds of miles away from the requisite resources to build them that did the most damage to the Soviet Union.

The problems with the Soviet economic structure went much, much deeper than that. The whole system was concieved and run by people completely disconnected from reality, and its collapse was inevitable. Any economic system where initiative and hard work aren't rewarded (in fact, are punished with increasing demands from on high) and leeching is the best survival strategy is doomed.

Right. I was just saying that the "one big plant" thing brought it on much, much sooner.

Carter was still responsible for some increased military spending during the later years of his presidency.

Cruise missiles being one such program IIRC.