Ukraine was the focus for this one, as it is more difficult to constantly change between interventions when creating a thesis, as a recent concerted independence effort from the US and others. I know much more about the more recent events (circa 21st) as this was the focus for my research.
As for a correct answer, I can't say that any position would have been close to positive, although deaths certainly would be minimized if the lust for power by both sides (and involvement of secret services) was nonexistent, or again to have a neutral belt. Times back in the 20th century and still now does not produce any moral rationality, ideally USSR and NATO shouldn't have existed. There were attempts by some with enough power to be heard yet not enough to make any impact.
Cultural and ethnic ties between Ukraine and the USSR clearly complicates the issue, Ukraine due to its location has always been used as a toy by the major power players of the US and Russia.
However independence I think is positive, if the independence is actually true in reality (Ukraine's economic dependence on other nations) is another question. Especially if you think that Ukraine was incorporated into the large military prowess of the USSR, only now to again be incorporated into the EU (probably will happen, causing possibly direct military action as Russia would no longer have any buffer).
the ussr shouldn't have existed? Why?
In a broad sense due to what can be stated as complexity theory, when a system of power coalesces in a smaller minority who can make decisions, unplanned and disastrous results do and did occur in the 20th century for anyone living in the USSR at the time.
Yes, the ideals were somewhat respectable however pragmatically this doesn't work if you want to have a semi-moral system for the individuals living there.
so you support anarchism?
In many ways the USSR was far better in many different ways than capitalist countries at the same time. From what I've read about the democracy it was better than the system we have even today in the United States (even ignoring the fact that capitalism and democracy are incompatible)
"However independence I think is positive"
Independence of the people or independence of the government?
Independence of the government is one step closer if you have a value system towards less violence, more prosperity (freedom in how to act and say what you wish); however the dictates of the said government is still too far odious.
I cannot argue that the USSR was in any way better, with the lack of the ability to do anything stated above. I don't know where you read that. Looking at your posts I can see you support marxism? If I'm not mistaken marxism doesn't equate to anarchism, unless you mean anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism.
I do support anarchism, however as voluntarism, capitalism and communism are long past buzz words with conflicting meanings of what 'true capitalism' is. Both terms should be relegated to the 20th century.
capitalism needs a government to exist, it can not be anarchist
from what I've read, anybody who silenced criticism in the USSR was jailed, not the opposite
"If I'm not mistaken marxism doesn't equate to anarchism, unless you mean anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism."
Marxism still doesn't equate to anarchist communism or syndicalism. I support marxism only so far, past a point in the revolution states are no longer needed to fight the capitalists.
"conflicting meanings of what 'true capitalism' is"
True capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, capital.
"Independence of the government is one step closer if you have a value system towards less violence, more prosperity (freedom in how to act and say what you wish)"
you can not be independent of government (or the ruling class) under capitalism and capitalism always tends towards violence, in fact it needs it to survive
First, you could compare GDP between the Soviet Union vs the US as an example, just because GDP per capita in the USSR increased doesn't automatically result in being more prosperous. The following gives the change in GDP per capita for the U.S. in the similar period, which is higher than the figures given for the USSR. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA
Ask yourself why are you trying to fight capitalists? What do you want to achieve? Unfortunately fighting in any literal sense will not produce greater prosperity, again capitalism has lost any real meaning.
If you are using federal reserve notes circulated by a capitalist system, and claim to be fighting it unfortunately you cannot and will not win.
A ruling class in some sense always wins, 1% of individuals eventually control a majority of resources over time, this has been established in nature. I do not evangelise or agree with much of what Jordan Peterson says but he gives an explanation here.
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=6Q0PCDEJWek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_J.de_Solla_Price
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule(Internet_culture)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
That said, with the critique of interventionism I am not using a political angle in these posts. We both have certain perspectives that I don't think can be altered in this discussion, although I appreciate this.
Hopefully you will still want to read the next parts of my essay despite these differences :D
"First, you could compare GDP between the Soviet Union vs the US as an example, just because GDP per capita in the USSR increased doesn't automatically result in being more prosperous. The following gives the change in GDP per capita for the U.S. in the similar period, which is higher than the figures given for the USSR. "
The problem is you are comparing two different countries with different levels of industry, technology, and natural resources. The USSR was also able to go into far less trade with other countries because of embargoes. The best comparison is between a country and itself under a different system. Even though it had more advanced technology, industry, better trade, and the same natural resources it did far worse.
If you really want to compare, at least compare growth. It took the USSR 44 years to go from a backwards agricultural society into the first to put a man into space, how fast was the progress in the usa at that time?
"Ask yourself why are you trying to fight capitalists? What do you want to achieve? Unfortunately fighting in any literal sense will not produce greater prosperity, again capitalism has lost any real meaning."
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. The meaning still stands and will always stand with meaning as a type of economic system until post-scarcity.
Actually looking at the golden age of capitalism, fighting does help it. Capitalism needs to expand to produce greater technology innovation and prosperity. When there is nothing left to expand into it grinds into a halt and the only thing the ruling class can do is hold a monopoly or start wars so that they can rebuild the means of production again as another temporary expansion.
Again cannot win? A weakened russia won against the entire world, castro started a revolution with 100 people, Rojava is an ongoing (winning) revolution today.
"1% of individuals eventually control a majority of resources over time, this has been established in nature."
No society without a government has ever had that happen. Worker control of the means of production will easily prevent that. Also the human nature argument is stupid.
https://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/06/02/the-human-nature-argument/
"We both have certain perspectives that I don't think can be altered in this discussion, although I appreciate this."
Are you sure about that? I was not boring with these opinions and ideals, I learned them through speaking with others. Eventually I started debating. There was one group of people I just couldn't beat, they had all the facts that proved all of my ideas wrong. Eventually I decided that I could not hold ideals I could not defend.
Comparing two rather outdated systems using federal reserve notes of paper printed out of thin air by a central authority does not produce freedom or overall prosperity, real purchasing power decreases per year due to the increasing supply.
All other points are null and void. The individual is the smallest minority. To require anarchy while needing a collective solution of unification of workers without the ability of the individual to choose not to co-operate and still be free, does not produce a level of freedom I would be interested in. Politics and battles of control are bread and circus tricks.
Again if centrally controlled notes are used you do not have freedom. Make the old system obsolete as Buckminster Fuller once opined.
Hence why I'm sure why our perspectives cannot be changed, although I realize what you are saying.
"All other points are null and void. The individual is the smallest minority. To require anarchy while needing a collective solution of unification of workers without the ability of the individual to choose not to co-operate and still be free, does not produce a level of freedom I would be interested in. Politics and battles of control are bread and circus tricks."
but even the most collectivist form of anarchy (literally called collectivist anarchy) even holds this ability as its highest standard. Please research something before you try to debate about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
"All other points are null and void. "
The economic system is the system of control over the means of production. The monetary system can change all it wants, but the economic system will be the same. Your points are all moot.
"Comparing two rather outdated systems using federal reserve notes of paper printed out of thin air by a central authority does not produce freedom or overall prosperity, real purchasing power decreases per year due to the increasing supply."
the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The monetary system doesn't cause this, it just accelerates it.