Are we seeing the reemergence of Soviet Union?

[qsaark]

Perhaps Zia balked at the Soviets due to the collective experience of the Daoud and Taraki-Amin regime next door…

Collective experience of what? What harm the Daoud/Tarakai regimes did to Pakistan?

OR he may have been dissuaded by the poor economic state of East Germany and other Soviet allies after all the Soviets provided very little in terms of trade and other economic benefits (ask the Indians).

The former Soviet Union was not responsible for the poor economies of its allies; the corrupt regimes of those states, their failed policies, and unrealistic reliance on the Soviet aid was responsible for their poor economy. Not all the countries that aligned with the West or the US have the greatest economies and a number of Latin American countries as well as Pakistan are the example.

Had Pakistan allied with the Soviets in the late 70’s it may have likely resulted in the balkanization of Pakistan by India, Iran and USSR.

Pure assumption just like the never proven domino theory and the warm water theory.

 

[qsaark]

Nor was it friendly, in fact I do consider the Soviet Union a threat, it was an imperialistic, Communism expansionist agenda, and brutal regime.

And what about the USA? Using you and than discarded like a toilet paper, you call this 'friendly'?

To suggest they were not an enemy of Pakistan is naive, because, and I once read the Soviet Union did actually send fighter jets into Pakistan's air space which later the PAF shot down all of them, their presence and intentions in Pakistan Airspace is inconclusive. Yes one can say this was in response to Pakistan's support and backing of Mujahideen forces fighting the Soviet Army.

Did you read my post closely? About the 50s ad 60s, the NAM, the SEATO/CENTO, the U-2 spy planes flying from Budbeer near Peshawar etc? The fighters were sent during the unholy Afghan war when we were fighting a US proxy war against the Soviets.

The Soviet Union could have posed a problem for us later, if they weren't our enemies in the 1980's I think they would have been in the 90's. Besides, how would you have liked to live next to Soviet-Afghanistan. It wouldn't be surprising if Soviets had succeeded that we would have Russian-speakers in Afghanistan and possibly our tribal belt.

You are assuming too much without perhaps knowing the history of Pakistan-Soviet Union relationships.

Defeating the SU in my opinion was the right thing to do, we helped liberate many people around the world who had lived under Soviet tyranny, this ought to be a sense of dignity and pride for Pakistan, that we contributed and played a major role in defeating one of the world's "Super Powers".

In return of what? Extremism? Arms and drug culture? A uni-polar world? How do you see your relation with the world today after the great service of defeating the Soviet Union? How do you define your relations with the US?

Bottom line is, we could have befriended with the West without declaring the Soviet Union our enemy. In the international politics, its all about your interest, whereas we have always been making ourselves fool in the name of religion, ungodly nations, friend, enemy and what not.

 

[HAIDER]

Bear is dead, it was shot dead in Poland and Afghanistan. Has no energy to re emerge. Now only trying its best saving the face by providing political and defence stability in different ex-republics around. But polish decision of taking part in NATO missile defence system has again put " some energy " in bear. Otherwise, its dead.

 

[dbc]

Collective experience of what? What harm the Daoud/Tarakai regimes did to Pakistan?

The former Soviet Union was not responsible for the poor economies of its allies; the corrupt regimes of those states, their failed policies, and unrealistic reliance on the Soviet aid was responsible for their poor economy. Not all the countries that aligned with the West or the US have the greatest economies and a number of Latin American countries as well as Pakistan are the example.

Pure assumption just like the never proven domino theory and the warm water theory.

You have a poor grasp of historic facts I am amused you know less than me. Daoud did harm Pakistan by supporting Baluchistan secessionist. At one point he sent troops into Bajaur Pakistan to press the Pashtunistan issue - but that’s was not was not my point.

To clarify, I meant to imply that Zia was aware of the whimsical nature of Soviet support to its dictator allies by the collective experience of both the Daoud and Taraki-Amin regimes.

As for economic benefits there is no question excluding banana republic’s most of our allies including Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Pakistan benefited from trade with larger more sophisticated western economies. I have a hunch Pakistan was performing better than its eastern neighbor India in the 70’s and early 80’s.

 

[attitude]

well its good for Russia and for the world if reunion take place

to counter china Russia should think

 

[Parashuram1]

Moscow was never our enemy, we made it our enemy in the love of the USA and the West. Throughout the 50s and in the early 60s, the India-USSR relationships were not extremely cordial as India was a leader of the Non-Align Movement. With the same token, USSR was not the enemy of Pakistan but when our imposed rulers aligned themselves with the anti-communist capitalist West/USA, and signed up useless treaties such as SEATO/CENTO, and allowed the US to operate U-2 spy planes from Pakistani soil, only than the former USSR started taking us her enemy. Even than, Moscow helped us erect our first and only Steel Mill complex (Pakistan Steel) in 70s during the time of PM Bhutto. As soon as the Dictator Zia overthrew the Bhutto's democratically elected government, we fell back in the lap of the USA and got ourself involved in the US's proxy war against the Soviet Union in the Afghanistan. This is mind boggling that our ignorant rulers (with the exception of Mr. Bhutto) never worked on improving relations with a geographically close and a mighty power and decided to sleep with a faraway and extremely unreliable USA.

You could very well say that for pretty much every adversary you have. I have merely stated the fact that even if you attempt to build strategic ties with Russians, they would still like to keep it to non-strategic and good diplomatic level due to their strategic partnership with your rivals, the Indians.

New Delhi's new overtures to United States has been wrongly projected by the media which is known for sensationalizing everything. If as a researcher you take a closer look, the Indians are doing fine job by keeping both in the balance through non-strategic excellent ties with Americans and at the same time retaining the close and strategic ties with Kremlin.

You would see that strategic weaponry such as nuclear submarines that they openly thank Russians for their assistance, the stealth fighter programme, even their acquisition of Russian aircraft carriers despite so many hiccups with Russians, and strategic assets like their north-south corridor and say even their high profile nuclear deals are an example of this.

Actually, Non-Alignment's (NAM) main advantage was that those who pursued this could retain relations deals with both sides of the Iron Curtain. While many countries like Poland and Georgia from Europe have joined NATO wagon and Chinese becoming nearly self-reliant, it seems the only friends who didn't leave the Kremlin till now is New Delhi.
I mean it is really interesting for us in Europe to see the rapid change in various foreign policies and as many have changed over the last 20 years, this one remains the strongest. While strategic initiative from Islamabad would be good, I don't think it would be upheld for other purposes except maybe perhaps ousting the Taliban, eliminating terrorism from Asia, etc.

This realpolitik has been given way when the seeds were sown in Cold War, friend. Once a farmer sows the seeds of an orange, it is silly for him to expect an apple tree.

 

[Hammy007]

if soviet union rises again solution is present guess what, pakistan haha

 

[Parashuram1]

It's also possible they would have respected Pakistan's sovereignty and understood Pakistan is no Afghanistan and the Pakistan military with or without the backing of other allies can upset and defeat them, giving them a reason to end their expansion and limited to Afghanistan as far as SW/S-Asia is concerned.

Excuse me!? Could you please explain the highlighted part in your statement? Because honestly, I don't see anything in that other than nationalistic jingoism. Defeat the Soviet Union without the support from Allies? Even the United States and us European countries had alliances despite more resources, money and technology to defeat the USSR, than even Pakistan of that era.

I don't see how a non-nuclear Pakistan, equipped with not even quarter of Soviet inventory of weapons, could ever defeat them in a one-on-one combat. Shooting down a couple of fighters isn't the same as winning a full blown war against a superpower.

if soviet union rises again solution is present guess what, pakistan haha

Very funny.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

interesting question.. Would pakistan have accepted a 3rd party mediation from USSR or Russia on Kashmir.. That is if India was ok with 3rd party mediation?

Well the solution THE only solution is simple

a) United National , runs Kashmir security , and Kashmiri run the
country like Hong Kong did for 50 years, and after that its
transfered over to Pakistan or India based on voting conducted
by United Nation

Its common sense, India got freedom, Pakistan got freedom let these ppl also decide their fate peacefully nothing to be sentimental about it

b) During 50 years , both indians/Pakistanis can visit Kashmir as
nomral no visa , and peopel would come closer due to it interact
with each other frequently

c) Owership of land/work in region will be restricted to Kashmiri
owned companies, Kashmiri citizens just like in Hong Kong

If Britian and China can transfer Hong Kong with no blood shed why can't India let Kashmir decide its fate which is due since 1947

The water issue is already decided by Sindh/Tas treaty , and that is un debatable as its a matter of life or death for Pakistan with out water there will be war its un avoidable

a) The only solution to that problem is , treaty be respected
b) India/Pakista launch joint projects to purify water and make it drinkable for people in both countries

Let by gones be by gones and look for future

 

[Abi]

Do you think the soviet union would have bent over for America like Russia is now? The only way for Russia is down.

 

[Parashuram1]

Do you think the soviet union would have bent over for America like Russia is now? The only way for Russia is down.

After What Soviets had seen in Afghanistan, I don't think they would have remained that rigid. Cold war was bound to get over and they would have eventually had to adjust to the new market conditions as Communism was failing to generate development on an equal level as Western countries. Do you have any idea of the economic chaos the USSR was in during its last moments?

Funny that you as an Iranian want to see Russians down. I thought Iran's current savior on the horizon is Russia. In any case, it would take a lot of time for them to go down IMO. Simply because despite a poor infrastructure as compared to West, Russia still has a powerful scientific and engineering base.

 

[Abi]

After What Soviets had seen in Afghanistan, I don't think they would have remained that rigid. Cold war was bound to get over and they would have eventually had to adjust to the new market conditions as Communism was failing to generate development on an equal level as Western countries. Do you have any idea of the economic chaos the USSR was in during its last moments?

Funny that you as an Iranian want to see Russians down. I thought Iran's current savior on the horizon is Russia. In any case, it would take a lot of time for them to go down IMO. Simply because despite a poor infrastructure as compared to West, Russia still has a powerful scientific and engineering base.

Savior? Please, they are the worlds most unreliable country.

 

[Parashuram1]

Savior? Please, they are the worlds most unreliable country.

And pray tell me whom you consider the most reliable? Currently, both Russians and Chinese are taking one step in your favor and two steps against you. United States and Europe are outright against your nuclear acquisition, even France and our government isn't comfortable.

That counts all the permanent members and crucial non-permanent members of IAEA as well as United Nations. Now tell me which permanent member with capability to undo your pariah status have I missed?

 

[brahmastra]

if Roman Empire can rise after thousands of year then why not U.S.S.R.

P.S. For me, European Union = Roman Empire

 

[jha]

You have a poor grasp of historic facts I am amused you know less than me. Daoud did harm Pakistan by supporting Baluchistan secessionist. At one point he sent troops into Bajaur Pakistan to press the Pashtunistan issue - but that’s was not was not my point.

To clarify, I meant to imply that Zia was aware of the whimsical nature of Soviet support to its dictator allies by the collective experience of both the Daoud and Taraki-Amin regimes.

As for economic benefits there is no question excluding banana republic’s most of our allies including Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Pakistan benefited from trade with larger more sophisticated western economies. I have a hunch Pakistan was performing better than its eastern neighbor India in the 70’s and early 80’s.

very true...the LICENSE raj took INDIA almost to bankruptcy.
in the early 90's the opening market policy was started and the result is not that bad...

as much as pakistan doing better is concerned..sine this is much smaller nation ...lesser help can cause substantial developments...plus they inherited LAHORE ...