A Gander at the Past

All this talk of rebellions in today's class started me thinking about the Soviets again. While our reading of the "Long Telegram" was already a secondary source, I still find a few of the statements quite intriguing.

First, the idea that direct conflict goes against Soviet interests is fascinating. As written, the fear of instability for the Soviet Union was not of internal nature, but of foreign nations. Thus, it'd seem on the contrary, that conflict would be acceptable and profitable--in the long run--if the targets were of drastically inferior nature. Is the theory that, if the USSR attacks anyone it's as if it's striking the first domino? But, this theory wasn't--I don't believe--in place at this time (1946). It seems like there were plenty of places where conflict could easily be dismissed as not a threat to the global community, but rather to redefine Russia's borders.

Even the more modern approach to foreign policy, as outlined later in the reading, this renunciation of direct conflict continues, which is especially surprising as jargon such as "Kremlin's neurotic view...insecurity" come into play.