NWC INS Lecture Series -- Lecture 3: "Why Russia Lost the Cold War," Sept. 29, 2020.

[@nguyenphucdang4567]

Who else is here after Dr.Paine's interview with Patel

[@jacobnugent8159]

I’m here after the Fat Electrician mentioned her on the unsubscribe podcast

[@edie1707]

bro patel was so stupid, but i’m happy to have found her through him. hope he improves his interview style and does more research going in, she totally saved the video.

[@PaulHirsh]

Me too

[@phantomkelvink4225]

@@edie1707I know, I am late but looking at the comments from those short, make me want to puke….I swear they didn’t watch the full interviews and is just there to stroke their nationalistic pride.

[@patgrady]

@@edie1707 i think he just jumped in with the theory-craft stuff he's been dreaming about since high school. She gave him a post doc smack down and it turned into a perfectly great interview

[@esterhammerfic]

I'm binging her videos since her interview with Patel, so good

[@chrishooge3442]

Dr. Paine only recently popped up on my radar and she is a no-nonsense lecturer. Peter Zeihan likes his laugh lines. Mearsheimer can't seem to get out of his own way. I'd like to see them all debate each other.

[@yernoi2167]

its funny seeing people who started on the interview she did go to different resources from her but the further you go these comments have less and less likes. good to see you here brother.

[@hectorzambrano9411]

I enjoy her lecture

[@justin8865]

What debate would they have? They probably largely agree with each other

[@chrishooge3442]

@@justin8865 Not really. Zeihan and Paine have made similar commentary though their styles are very different. Mearsheimer is defending his "great power" thesis and blaming NATO for the mess that is currently Russia. Zeihan even called that "unmitigated horseshit." Go back 4+ years and look at some of Mearsheimer's talks on YT. He's basically making Putin talking points.

[@justin8865]

@chrishooge3442 oh I don't know mearshimer, I just assumed since zeihan and Paine are very similar.

[@texasforever7887]

I don't know why it took me this long to find Professor Paine, but she is fantastic. I'm going to binge her lectures this week and order some books.

[@deborahborlase7100]

What an absolute delight to find Dr Paine. I'm so glad this video and lecture series were opened to tge public. Thank you for sharing this vast treasure trove of knowledge!!!

[@chetpomeroy1399]

I for one hope to see more posts on KZbin depicting the *fascinating* lectures of this professor -- a joy to listen to!

[@tristan7216]

She came up in my YT shorts and here I am, no BS here!

[@alanburke1893]

I greatly appreciate that Prof. Paine doesn't simply attempt to ram through a linear reason for a great historical change. I remember attending a seminar on the Battle of Stalingrad, eminent historians argued the nuances of various grand strategies. During the Q&A ...a softly spoken Reserve Army logistics officer pointed out that German artillery was essentially horse-drawn. Once fodder stocks declined, they lost all mobility. Once starving troops started eating the ravenous horses... encirclement and defeat was inevitable. His observations reminded the audience to never simply accept the propaganda tropes ... the airlift would have required the parachuting of hay bales😅... brilliant lecture... I feel like an eager undergraduate again... 40 years on. Best of America 🇺🇸....Vote Blue

[@texasforever7887]

Absolutely, she is a breath of fresh air when compared to the majority of lectures out there. Although one should save the nation from the irliberal left😉. Vote never blue🇺🇲

[@bdnevins]

Another Tour de Force by Professor Paine.

[@numberfive2120]

All of our politicians should be required to take Dr. Paine's classes.

[@snakeburrito2512]

У меня отец был на военных сборах в 1987-89. Механик-водитель на ЗИЛ-135. Так они в количестве 500 человек покинули часть, устав 2 недели подряд жрать одну капусту. Overextended, indeed.

[@albertgerard4639]

This chick rocks 😎

[@hungryghost3260]

Dr. Paine's analysis is so solid that even though it pre-dates Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it is still valid, instructive, and fascinating. 🙂

[@samuelramsey5995]

She’s goes into her analysis on Russia and how land empires don’t like neighbors

[@Roboto129]

@52:47 she must've broken some hopeful hearts. What a brilliant woman!

[@texasforever7887]

No doubt ❤

[@ottovalkamo1]

Sarah C. Paine is an amazing and outstanding author, historian and professor. Her book arsenal is an amazing set of good writing, detailed military campaign and operation maps and discussion. I highly recommend her boon Wars for Asia 1911-1948 and I can't wait to get my hands on her "The Japanese Empire" and "The First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895"

[@andrewnorrie2731]

I just picked up her 'Wars for Asia' the other day. Hope to start reading it shortly.

[@hectorzambrano9411]

Great lecture

[@freddecker2407]

Thank you for an interesting talk. Having listened to the talk and having lived through the era of the end of the Cold War, I still think Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. So many of the secondary causes mentioned in the talk come back to Reagan: the economic pressure of the arms race, the end of detente and arms reduction as U. S. policy, and the focus on ending the Soviet Union, support for anti-Communists in Nicaragua and around the world, the Strategic Defense Initiative, support for Solidarity in Poland, and so on were all a result of Ronald Reagan's deliberate strategy of opposing the Soviet Union. George Bush Sr. ran for president unsuccessfully, and only was elected after Reagan completed his successful presidency and Bush was able to campaign as Reagan's Vice President. Other presidents sought ways of neutralizing the Soviet Union, by arms control and NATO alliance, and so on, but Reagan sought to end the Soviet Union rather than to coexist with it. As I recall, the area of global Communist influence on the planet beginning in 1917 when the Soviet Union began expanded under every U. S. single president until Ronald Reagan, when the Soviet Union was mortally wounded.

[@tyronebiggums8660]

My view: Reagan played an important role in ending the Cold War, but ultimately the Cold War was a relay race. It was the consistent effort of Americans for fifty years, starting with Truman’s policy of containment which provided the victory.

[@DLYChicago]

Professor Paine is the G.O.A.T.!!!

[@jamesworth4576]

Spectacular lecture. I especially valued the Q&A.

[@clydecessna737]

Reagan spent half as much on defense than Kennedy. The number of carriers and aircraft actually declined, though modernized. Most the key weapons that he deployed had been developed in the 107s. (M-1, M-2, AH-64, MLRS etc) Star Wars was something new however.

[@chrisparker9672]

"These are all navel explanations." 🔥🔥🔥

[@monumentofwonders]

One lesson to be learned, is that no individual leader or administration can grasp the complexity of real life situations evolving over time. Even in retrospect, as Paine shows, events involving many different players with different levels of competence and motives produce unexpected or even expected results - but no one knows which decision or which action was the decisive one.

[@temijinkahn511]

Sally has a terrific book about the Japanese Empire. So glad I found it. Well researched and organized.

[@jacobnugent8159]

I’ll have to check it out

[@pedrocaetano3366]

Parabéns, que mulher incrível e inteligente.Gostei.

[@merlindorfman6570]

Are the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union the same event or separate events, and if separate are they inevitably tied together? In terms of the collapse of the USSR, the lecture barely mentioned the Pope and the Afghanistan defeat, and did not mention Chernobyl at all ( the realization that a nuclear war could not be "won," which had been a big part of Soviet military doctrine). But the focus on the roles of Bush I and Kohl was valuable and welcome.

[@Goldeneye3336]

Chernobyl is just a massive systemic failure on the engineering side tbh. It's a disaster, don't get me wrong, but what ended up happening is a byproduct of subpar nuclear engineering in that era. Even the USRR was well aware of it (and even acknowledged it in further studies, not like China with Covid).

[@timmilder8313]

We're ignoring our internal third world while playing in Ukraine. Clock's ticking.

[@MarkGarcia-q5e]

Rodriguez Timothy Thomas Sandra Lee Kimberly

[@상보-z7q]

Anderson Richard Williams Michelle Clark Anthony

[@rosalindcrossman8395]

Williams Eric Jackson Margaret Gonzalez Jessica

[@ImAliveAndYouAreDead]

Her praise for Merkel is frankly undeserved... And to some extent, Thatcher was right about Germany: it became a European Japan, but worse.

[@Blackgriffonphoenixg]

to be fair this lecture was 3 years ago

[@philipjoyce8817]

Is it just me or does she not seem to like Republicans? Just little digs here and there. The. Again not surprised she is in academia. Clearly a very smart woman though with history and geopolitics

[@telluwide5553]

Merkel like Alan Greenspan were both worshipped in their time while in power. It wasn't until after they left their respected posts, the true disasters of their tenures were recognized...

[@tyronebiggums8660]

Yes I am not fond of Merkel and think that Germany has been a pain in the behind for the past twenty years, but ultimately that is still better than to have Soviet/Russian troops in Germany

[@tyronebiggums8660]

@@philipjoyce8817I wouldn’t say she dislikes Republicans. In this lecture alone she gave some praise to Nixon, Ford, HW Bush, and Reagan.

[@christopheraaron2412]

Feeding the kids that are hungry and also stop hating each other. Seems that that is something we should do and could do.

[@Goldeneye3336]

Thing is, kids never get to rule the world.

[@christopheraaron2412]

@@Goldeneye3336 it's a question of responsible adults. To be honest what you just posted didn't make any sense.

[@Goldeneye3336]

@@christopheraaron2412 Oh no, it makes sense. You didn't get it, that's different. Plenty of good things most humans would end up agreeing upon in whatever utopia you'd imagine. That's why kids never get to rule the world.

[@christopheraaron2412]

Feeding kids vs utopian society. ""you didn't get it, that's different.'' What is different is offering low I.Q. responses and suffering under the delusion of believing it offers something of value to the discussion. What I stated has nothing to do with kids ruling the world, a ridiculous idea anyway. Feeding kids being a utopian idea, sure sets the bar low regarding so called utopian societies, or your belief that feeding kids is a utopian idea is beyond absurd.

[@cinhh]

Easy to understand why The Fat Electrician likes her so much. 😊

[@RumanaKhanom-w6n]

Young Nancy Harris Kenneth Thomas Matthew

[@GkjcAmpj-s2g]

Thompson Jessica Rodriguez Lisa Lee William

[@MaudWinston-t8n]

Lee Kevin Harris Kimberly Thomas John

[@MonirahjahanOrpah]

Young Amy Walker Sarah Miller Jason

[@RoyBurnell-o6n]

Walker Shirley Walker Jose Martin Donna

[@JD..........]

Equal parts informed, well intentioned, and savage. That's what a historian and strategist should be.

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Allen Michael Johnson Amy Lee Michelle

[@EurojuegosBsAs]

Q&A was slow clap worthy

[@chrishooge3442]

As an old Army RTO I particularly like the "Over" when she wants the next question.

[@kilodeltaeight]

I found the “over” adorable, and incredibly effective at keeping the conversation flowing rather than both parties guessing when someone was done talking - a major issue with the latency of online communication.

[@mirvjournal1693]

"Timely tank deployment"

[@udeychowdhury2529]

Great video, thanks

[@jshepard152]

32:44 I enjoyed her summary of the Soviet charm offensive. Fantastic presentation.

[@TheHFChang]

What an incredible holistic historical evaluation of the period.

[@josefadams647]

this is awesome

[@aarxo5237]

Amazing video, thank you!

[@Nodalthree]

Since I lived through this era, I can relate to these topics. One documentary that exposed the Soviet Union's lack of concepts was when they attempted to conduct a beauty pageant. It was sad to watch.

[@rickwrites2612]

Thats so interesting...how can I find out more about how a beauty pageant would reveal such weakness?

[@Duartearaujo]

The Q&A aged really well

[@d1d234]

This isn’t complicated. Communism/Socialism cannot compete with Capitalism. A system that hates individuality and new ideas/free speech CANNOT compete with a system that values individual accomplishment and new ideas/free and unfettered speech of all kinds. Communism/Socialism hates change and Capitalism LOVES change. Like I said not complicated. Our new ideas, GPS directed bombing, uranium based armor and ammunition, MUCH better planes/ships with new metallurgy, a huge Civilian Airline fleet/Merchant Marine fleet, the Soviets and Chinese had ZERO chance against American Exceptionalism and Capitalism. Not complicated.

[@Lovin_It]

I think the view that everything is way more complicated, but possibly not intractable, is more realistic, but keep repeating yourself without additional research.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

You’re not entirely wrong, but your “I already know all the answers” mindset is a very lame excuse to avoid watching the video. Dr. Paine digs down into details to explore the actual history. We can find insights in her presentation. Your clichéd platitude doesn’t offer much in the way of insights.

[@d1d234]

@@MarcosElMalo2 It is the BASIC motivators of human behavior that count. Trying to move against basic human behavior is like trying to stop the ocean waves from hitting the beach. In the end it’s the ONLY thing that dictates how nations will prosper or fall, absent gargantuan natural disasters.

[@Lovin_It]

@@d1d234 You are being dogmatic. You realize none of the Western experts could predict with any accuracy how long China would take to catch up on dozens of technologies, right? Eventually, you are going to have to enlarge and correct the very simplistic map of what you think is going on.

[@d1d234]

@@Lovin_It A system that destroys Jack Ma because he becomes too powerful teaches a lesson to other budding businessmen - do not be too successful, don’t be tooooo inventive, don’t be tooooooooo good because the CCP will steal the fruit of your labor and toss you into a re-education camp. And THAT IS why the current Chinese system has problems - they must STEAL technology from the West in order to produce anything worthwhile. Face the facts. I am dogmatic because this dogma is simply true. Perhaps when the CCP falls apart, the Chinese genius can come back in full force.

[@mitchyoung93]

Uh '

[@Lovin_It]

49:27 Meese is wrong about the Cold War beginning with Soviet policies. Read 'American Prometheus' about the US Air Force Hawks wanting to build as many atom bombs and hydrogen bombs they had to justify more production by just finding more Russian cities to add to their wish list. Oppenheimer opposed this eventually, Leo Szilard always fought for an international commission for nuclear matters, as did Pearson. The Russians paid dearly to end WWII, they were allies, natural ones at that, witness the bicoastal naval blockade that Lincoln probably alluded to in the Gettysburg address, hence, the US Thanksgiving. On another note, why would China deservedly possess their current 'myriad' of problems? What's your moral justification for that? They build infrastructure world-wide; they could probably rebuild North American infrastructure and peace would be contagious. Thirty years of predictions that they would crash, it hasn't happened yet. Bush Sr. was responsible for pushing the one child policy when he was Ambassador, look how that turned out. The only huge weakness is the Three Gorges Dam, if that blows, 400m people will be affected, and I think the entire world economy will take a disastrous hit for it. The US incidentally has not refrained from hinting that they'd sabotage it. You also ignore many financial and economic levers and artificial advantages, in addition to the reserve currency status, which seems finally to be in its Ponzi end-stages currently, there is the Leo Wanta sabotage of the Russian economy. Again, Bush Sr. was involved in that. In general, the first thing to teach at a War College is Peace; but that might be a firing offense.

[@Marc-vc1wo]

Meese is correct about the Soviets beginning the Cold War, because the Soviets refused to allow the peoples of newly liberated Eastern Europe the right to self determination, which had been particularly important for the British. The whole reason the British declared war on Germany was the invasion of Poland; to have the Soviets refuse to allow the free will of the people to vote for their choice of government, was a slap in Britain's face and betrayed an agreed upon plan. The fact is, the Bolshevik (later Soviet), policy to spread communism across the world - at gunpoint if necessary - was a direct threat to the western way of life, just as it was before WW2. This means that no matter what, the Soviets were destined to be the enemy. Neither the atomic bomb nor hydrogen bomb "caused" the Cold War; communism and capitalism are competitive and were destined to clash. By the time the hydrogen bomb existed (1952), the Cold War was in full swing. Churchills famous "iron curtain from the Baltic to Trieste" speech was in March of 1946. That's when most historians agree the Cold War officially began. Within one year of the end of WW2, the Soviets had shown their intent to remain as occupiers across the lands they had taken from the Nazis; the Soviets were also promoting communist revolution across Europe and eventually the globe. Yes, The Russians paid dearly to end WW2 - a war they had a direct role in starting, by the way - and the only reason the western Allies worked with the Soviets was because the Nazis were a worse alternative. So no, they were NOT natural allies. China deservedly has a myriad of problems directly because of the communist regime and its policies; the U.S. had hoped that bringing China into the global market and economic system would instill a free market economy, thereby making the Chinese realize capitalism was a preferred system. The U.S. naively believed that democracy would follow; instead the Chinese took the free market idea while maintaining the authoritarian communist political system. The Tiananmen Square massacre was a wake up call; the violent suppression of the Uyghur people and later the crackdowns in Hong Kong, were a clear signal that China had zero interest in democratizing and thus the US had no desire to continue working with the CCP. That's more than sufficient moral justification; in fact I personally believe that after the brutal Tiananmen massacre we should have embargoed China permanently. Sure, the B&R Initiatives are beneficial and useful programs; is that supposed to excuse the vicious suppression the CCP engages in? No, the west sees the CCP for what it is and acts accordingly - and has no interest in having China take over US infrastructure programs. The U.S. just passed a trillion dollar infrastructure bill that will cover America's needs. As far as the rest of this drivel, You are a clown if you think Bush Sr caused China to adopt a one child policy; this policy was under discussion for literally decades prior to implementation. You sound like an idiot for your 3 Gorges Dam conspiracy comments. But then, the Chinese government never did take responsibility for the Covid outbreak, instead lying to the world about covid entering China on frozen fish. If the Chinese government wants respect from the world and the U.S. in particular, the first thing it needs to do is earn the respect of its own people. That starts with being open and honest. But that's not something Dictator Xi is very good at.

[@Lovin_It]

@@Marc-vc1wo If you'd cut out your ad hominem attacks, your credibility would be plausible to some of the less informed. Read Daniel A. Bell again, read Killing Hope, revised for 2003, again, do your homework. Notice I didn't bother insulting your intelligence because it's not relevant to any argument. As for the rest, time will tell who is right. You might want to google who has insinuated attacks on the Three Gorges Dam, that would eliminate your childish accusation re C.T. What advanced civilization would blow up the pipeline half a year ago, dictate to the Netherlands who they can sell chips to, and threaten to blow up Taiwan's advanced chip factories? All on public record, and remember, making Germany, an Ally, go dark, is consistent with Chomsky et al; always hurt your competitors economically, what you say goes, even your western Allies. I post this not for the slow learners, but for those who are willing to challenge their own errors by reading more.

[@goatvision6908]

Is she Sally or Sarah. If she is Sarah then she is very patient.

[@FriendlyPalBud]

He full name is Sarah, but based on the fact that her employer has put out numerous videos callling her "Sally" I think it's a nickname.

[@jshepard152]

@@FriendlyPalBud I think so too. Her email address at the Navy War College is "sally....".

[@kilodeltaeight]

Her legal name is Sarah, and in traditional academic form that is what goes on her papers and other works of authorship. But, her friends and colleagues call her Sally in day-to-day conversation.

[@richardbarrow4620]

In 1981 I was pulling out of the gas station across the street from my office. On the radio, President Reagan announced he was starting an arms race that would bankrupt the Soviet Union.

[@Goldeneye3336]

Reagan isn't a non-factor in 90s late Russia/ex-USRR. It just ain't only him. That's her major point. She explains all the intricate details (there are more considerations, she's only working from a trade/war/navy/politics presentation and she's marvelous at detailing all these sub-details, she gives most ins/outs in a short video). Reagan was a puppet to a much more intrincate system and I liked Reagan.

[@Angie254M]

I enjoy listening to her but can academics learn how to precis their words? I don't need an entire course. Get to the point. This is 2024. Foot notes or a bibliography are already established means of communicating vast amounts of information.

[@arsena1816]

Wrong on the USSR. The 10 years 1979 to 1989 USSR war in Afghanistan did it. Their first full scale war since WW2 and an already fragile economy with breadlines going back decades imploded their economy

[@IrishCaesar]

I think the woman who lived through the event, has multiple degrees studying it, and now makes a living teaching about one of the most complex modern events, probably knows more than you do

[@patnolen8072]

Did the lecture mention the Soviet-Afghan War of the 80s? Now that you mention that I don't believe it did.

[@AlfredoDutti]

what are you talking about? Russia did not take part in the Cold War. Russia didn't exist until 1991

[@Blackgriffonphoenixg]

get a load of this bozo not understanding that even within the USSR, there was such a thing as the Russian SSR within it running the show and effectively functioning de facto as Russia.

[@0MVR_0]

Russia did not lose the cold war the soviet union disassembled. Everywhere american troops hit dirt, soviet involvement tipped the balance. China, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba. The statement is a nice fairy tale though.

[@jshepard152]

They lost and they know it.

[@0MVR_0]

@jshepard152 Russia amd the Soviet union are two separate entities

[@don2458]

Excellent historical review of the collapse of the Cold War. However, a little issue with her conclusion: President Reagan was the catalyst which took down the USSR. But academia is always at the ready at taking away from conservatives achievements. This was a Reagan total victory.

[@johnstevenson1709]

Do you deny that the internals of the Russian economy played a part or Afghanistan or Chernobyl or solidarity and the collapsing control over the satellites? It sounds to me more like conservatives always refuse to acknowledge other causes which might share the stage with the cowboy they fetishe.

[@herzkine]

@@johnstevenson1709 i give Reagan totally his economy bloating strategy has destroyed UssR , too bad long term it also destroyed USA s economy too and it will lead to implosion. He planted the cancer in both .

[@Blackgriffonphoenixg]

The whole subject is about how there is no one catalyst, no one guy you can worship about it. It's a culmination of many pivot points. Academia is rightly so at the ready to take away from conservative achievements, because funny enough the things that Reagan did to make the conflict end were very much not politically conservative.

[@danielgonzalez7541]

The SOVIET UNION lost the cold war, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION/RUSSIA is a completely different state-entity.

[@Blackgriffonphoenixg]

The Russian SSR was a part of (and the core of) the USSR. Semantics aren't gonna make a difference, son

[@danielgonzalez7541]

@@Blackgriffonphoenixg It's not just a name change/semantics, there are major structural differences, the USSR was much larger (22M km2) than Russia (17M km2), ethnic makeups are different, you can't just use Russia as an interchangeable term for the USSR..