As to the role of Saudi oil in bankrupting the USSR, it was contributatory, but insufficient even in tandem with other factors. Additionally, the USSR was the largest producer of petroleum on the planet, and its reserves considerably outweighed those of Saudi. Not only was it quite self-sufficient for its own needs, but it could earn a pretty penny in foreign hard currency with its exports.Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus
And considering the price of oil after 1973 compared to the price of oil prior to late 1973, even with the Saudis in effect generously subsidizing the West by keeping oil prices artificially low, such prices were still historically high; WWII was fought on $3 a barrel oil. Under no circumstances was the price of oil at any time post-1973 a major problem for the USSR, one way or the other. Even at only 6 times the 1940's price, the Soviets were making out pretty good.
As far back as the early 1970s, Kissinger had arrived at the conclusion that the Soviet economy would be unable to sustain its military strength much past 1984-5. The Soviet system was cracking internally, and the sheer burden of trying to keep up with US military equipment and R&D spending created unbearable stresses on a system that was dealing with general disillusionment at home, dissent within the populations of its satellites, and its own faltering economy - so badly mismanaged that it had to buy large quanitities of cereals from Western countries for years. The Soviet Union was crumbling under its own weight while its subjects were chipping away at it from within; the US pile-on in the 1980's forced an issue that could otherwise have dragged on for a few more decades had a rather less aggressive policy been pursued.
I'll grant you partially the comment about the defeat of Germany in WWII; but as to "we", I'm not American, and can assure you that the Commonwealth view of the outcome of WWII that it was won by British Brains, Russian Blood, and American Muscle differs substantially from the more popular US view. But the Commonwealth view is in no doubt that American Muscle was utterly essential to the defeat of Germany. No American muscle = no Nazi defeat.
Chinese investments (such as in US T-Bills) are being hurt by the devaluation of the US dollar, not only because even interest rate hikes (which are not occurring at the moment) are unlikely to be able to make up for the dollar's loss of value, but also because to convert cheaper US dollars into more expensive currencies entails additional loss. China is stuck holding the bag until the US dollar stabilizes - and the PLA's pay increases and equipment purchases are funded in no small part by hard currency earned from exports to the US.
In any event, economic warfare has long been a civilized way of taking the fight to the enemy, particularly for nation-states. It is but one of many ways war is waged by the state against its enemies, whether military force is directly applied or not: "Learning from the Stones: A Go Approach to Mastering China's Strategic Concept, Shi," by David Lai.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute....cfm?PubID=378
This article on Chinese strategic thought is for the most part easily assimilated, and this is assisted by the essential simplicity of Sinic conceptions of strategy. It is not complex, merely subtle and thoroughly comprehensive. Although this article is hardly comprehensive, and is fairly fundamental, taken with the Chinese strategic classics, there is little that subsequent theories of war do much other than add commentary or technology.
Bookmarks