But he also said- according to your post- "In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years."
I know Russians who disagree. I also know people who were involved with trade between the Soviet Union and the US in the 70s and who would disagree.
I also never saw any US or Western technology when I was in the Soviet Union- but what ever I am sure you got it all figured out from the comfort of your keyboard.
No need for personal attacks SR, let's try to keep it civil and productive.
I am basing my opinions on commonly known facts and logic, as well as Sutton's revelations.
The U.S, (like all nations), are predisposed to act in their own interests. It is a compelling argument that competitors should be held back and the Bolshevik revolution certainly did that as far as Russia was concerned. Russia is now emerging as a resource rich country capable of competing in an effective way with its own version of capitalism.
Is there any significance that the equally resource rich continent of Africa has emerged as an impoverished, corrupted and debt ridden continent which is both the provider of huge natural resources for more affluent countries as well as the dumping ground of the West.
Obviously China is a bigger competitor but it could be argued this is an unintended consequence of the use of cheap labour by the West.
Do you dispute, with all its connotations, " the
Soviet Union's technological and manufacturing base — which was then engaged in supplying the
Viet Cong — was built by
United States corporations and largely funded by US taxpayers. Steel and iron plants, the
GAZ automobile factory — a
Ford subsidiary, located in eastern Russia — and many other Soviet industrial enterprises were built with the help or technical assistance of the United States or US corporations. He argued further that the Soviet Union's acquisition of
MIRV technology was made possible by receiving (from US sources) machining equipment for the manufacture of precision
ball bearings, necessary to mass-produce MIRV-enabled missiles."
A more recent striking example, (albeit Anglo French), appears to be the 'Conkordski' or whatever it was called... the Russian 'clone' of the top secret Concorde. Yes it could have resulted from some industrial espionage or perhaps there were other machinations going on.
They could have lobbed a few nuclear at Russia...that was/is in their power.
I wonder why they didn't do that? Sounds M.A.D to me. Do you think they possibly took into account that the Soviets also had that capability, (as distinct from Japan which didn't and was nuked twice). I wonder what inspires you to even postulate such an option. Do you think that would have been the right thing to do?
Again, can you answer this question: In Today's Russia, which "American financiers and the corporations under their control" are exploiting Russia in any dominant way? If the answer is no or none..then I suggest that "they" were not successful. If the goal was to keep Russia a minor player in World affairs, then they failed.
Such a statement appears to ridicule the sanctions recently imposed on Russia by the West, which are admittedly pretty ineffective and self defeating. Mastercard, Visa, SWIFT etc have been stopped from operating in Russia, although there was a challenge I believe by the shareholders which reinstated it for a while. This has resulted in Russia embarking on an independent system (based in other currencies).
I feel compelled to comment on the farcical and exemplary hypocrasy nature of Kerry's pronouncement that 'Russia should not use it's resources, (gas/oil) as a weapon', whilst willy nilly imposing economic sanctions and trade embargoes, not only on Russia but many other countries around the World.
You can trudge Sutton's CV as an appeal to authority but that doesn't mean he is right.
So you disregard his stature, qualifications and experience because his views do not align with yours... Surprised not as i have seen this many times on this site by a number of 'debunkers'.
What a 'debate that never happened' and limited to the FED. Hardly relevant SR