Is the Cold War between Russia and the US inevitable?

[DrakonFin]

Yes, you are right...it won't die. Spontaneous demonstrations take a long time to organise...and require money! And really coincidental that State Department officials were there at that very time. If the situation were reversed, it is unlikely that the world would believe that Soviet officials just happened to be there when a non Soviet friendly government was overthrown!

Be that whatever it was, a state with a government friendly to Russia is now a state with a government not friendly to Russia....exactly what the Soviets feared.

The Americans had a vested interest in supporting the pro-Western demonstrations. And then the Russians had a vested interest in supporting the pro-Russian Yanukovych administration, too, and trying to influence it to keep the nation more aligned with Russia than with the US and the EU.

But neither American nor Russian influence was crucial for the creation and maintenance of the Euromaidan demonstrations, it was rather the fact that the Ukrainians were neatly split into pro-West and pro-Russia camps, and that in the event Yanukovych had through his policies, his corruption and his incompetence made himself a thoroughly unpopular president. The demonstrations were quite simply a reflection of the popular will of the pro-Western Ukrainians, while the pro-Russians were no longer truly supportive of Yanukovych, and many of them saw him as a failure as well. By the time the events culminated on the Maidan, Yanukovych had no political capital left to keep his position as the President of Ukraine. Had he stayed and faced the music, he would have been indicted and removed legally from the presidency by the parliament, and he would have faced lawsuits for corruption, etc, to boot. Instead of taking personal responsibility for the results of his presidency, he chose to flee with his tail between his legs - to Russia, with the help of the Russian government.

The US and the EU seeked to capitalize on the situation in Ukraine, obviously. And of course Russia tried to keep Ukraine as much under its thumb as it could. But it was the politically active Ukrainians themselves who organized the demonstrations on the Maidan and participated in them day after day - which finally prompted Yanukovych's undignified flight from Kiev.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Given the circumstances of the mid-40s, probably not.

The USSR executes their own Operation UNTHINKABLE in 1945. The US is run out of Europe. Even more disillusioned than in 1919 the US population resets to Isolationism & the US hunkers down in the western hemisphere trying to create a new economy without access to Europe and most of Asia. The Communists in Moscow spend the new few decade trying to run a Socialist mega state across three or four continents. That goes about as you'd expect & by 1984 the geopolitical world is almost unrecognizable to us.

The Soviets executing an invasion of Western Europe, regardless of the precise military outcome, is gonna entail the blood of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of American servicemen being on Russian hands in a vicious and treacherous unprovoked sneak attack. That means a massive rally around the flag effect that makes Pearl Harbor look like the Japanese were dropping Christmas chocolate and cards instead of bombs and torpedoes, not any sort of isolationist resurgence. You need it to be the WAllies who attempt an invasion of Eastern Europe (and fail horribly) in order to trigger the sort of isolationist backlash your describing... and good luck with that since WAllied leaders understood the score well-enough to know such an attempt was pure idiocy.

 

[Marc]

Is it possible for Russia and the US to continue to be on good terms after WW2? Even with a White victory, some people suggested that there might still be a Cold War. So, is it possible for the US and Russia to continue to have good relations after WW2 and into the present day, or are tensions inevitable?

As I recently noted on another thread, phrasing "inevitable" on a site devoted to alternate history seem to be inherently contradictory.
If major historical events are deterministic, then all that is left is to debate the details.
If history truly is mutable, then there could be constructed a number of scenarios, with ranging degrees of plausibility, where the relationship between the Soviet bloc and the West is more socioeconomic rivalry than the hard geopolitical battle that lasted for a half-century.

 

[Histor32]

I vote "inevitable" with but some caveats.

The way I see it, the end of the war is just too late a POD. The conflicts that lead to the cold-war are pretty much unavoidable without invoking alien space bats so long as Stalin (or someone like him) is in charge of the USSR during WWII.

Or those in charge of the USA and the West..

The ideological differences are the key..

Was it inevitable no. Was either side going to trade territory won by blood.. No. Plain and simple.

Toss in divided Germany and you have problems more than just Poland that the hell mess started over.. And let's not forget the poor Baltics tossed under the bus.

But germany.. Propper not so much Prussia.. That's a different story.

All sides are guilty with the world revolution and our form of slavery is better than the old brand.. See look at our new logo.. Isn't it neat crap from both the east and west.

Was either side better or worse.. Eh.. But they were going to test each other and with the advent of the bomb and the added bonus of someone a actually using the thing.. Twice.. In war. Well, that set a precedent that others wanted to test as well.

It turned idiological pretty much after the war ended since many in the USA hates Soviet communism (can't blame them). And many others detested American capitalism and ingrained class/cultural / basically corporate serfdom system.. (again can't blame them either)

So yeah thr my hoo hoo is bigger than the other hoo hoo hoo is going to take place

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Given the circumstances of the mid-40s, probably not.



The Soviets executing an invasion of Western Europe, regardless of the precise military outcome, is gonna entail the blood of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of American servicemen being on Russian hands in a vicious and treacherous unprovoked sneak attack. That means a massive rally around the flag effect that makes Pearl Harbor look like the Japanese were dropping Christmas chocolate and cards instead of bombs and torpedoes, not any sort of isolationist resurgence. You need it to be the WAllies who attempt an invasion of Eastern Europe (and fail horribly) in order to trigger the sort of isolationist backlash your describing... and good luck with that since WAllied leaders understood the score well-enough to know such an attempt was pure idiocy.

Possibly, but a large part of the original isolationist movement were on the left. It wa sympathy to the USSR that caused them to desert the isolationist corner in 1941. There is the line that the Warhawks had their chance & all we have is yet another war. There is also that Roosevelt is dead and the interventionist globalist corner has lost their best & most experienced & skilled leader.

It may also be there are not millions of US dead, but perhaps a million PoW after a embarrassing defeat. There are a lot of ways this can fall out & I think most are very much in favor of the US, but there is the outside chance it gets us to no Cold War through defeat and isolationism.

 

[CalBear]

Discussion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and related issues is a Chat Subject. There is even a semi-active thread on the subject. Please take all discussion of current issues there.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Possibly, but a large part of the original isolationist movement were on the left. It wa sympathy to the USSR that caused them to desert the isolationist corner in 1941. There is the line that the Warhawks had their chance & all we have is yet another war. There is also that Roosevelt is dead and the interventionist globalist corner has lost their best & most experienced & skilled leader.

Everything I've read indicates that the main driver of isolationism in the 30's and 40's came from the right-side of the American political spectrum, mostly a mix of fascist sympathizers, "American firsters", lasses-faire economic types who disliked foreign entanglements because of the domestic power it gave the government, and the like. Anyone who shows sympathy to the Soviet Union in a scenario where the Soviets have launched a unprovoked surprise attack which has smashed the American forces in contact with them is far more likely to be branded a anti-American traitor for sympathizing with the killers of Americans then treated as if they have a reasonable point.

It may also be there are not millions of US dead, but perhaps a million PoW after a embarrassing defeat. There are a lot of ways this can fall out & I think most are very much in favor of the US, but there is the outside chance it gets us to no Cold War through defeat and isolationism.

Even netting a million POWs, or many tens of thousands if we're talking about a slightly later attack during the '46-'50 period when the Americans had only roughly a hundred thousand men in Europe, is gonna involve a lot of additional American servicemen getting killed. While I won't discount it as a "blacksheep scenario" or "outside change", which ever term you want to use, I find it far more plausible that you'd see an isolationist backlash if its the WAllies who try and attack first.