>You missed the point.

No, I don't think so. You have a pretty good grasp of English, and your point is clear. Perhaps if Metin said something like what you have said, I'd cut him some slack.

>Now tell me what did the US actually do that had direct impact on their economy and what is the significance of the direct US contribution in the economical downfall?

Not an exhaustive list by any means:

1) We helped Western Europe rebuild and rearm after the devastation of WW2;
2) We provided a nuclear shield against Soviet attack, up to and beyond the point where Britain and France had their own nuclear abilities;
3) Standing alongside our recovered allies, we helped protect the West against a potential Soviet invasion with very large Germany-based land and air forces, exercised on a constant basis, as well as a very large, two-ocean navy;
4) We outspent the Soviet Union in military development, without crippling our economy;
5) We funded and supplied the Afghan resistance, illustrating to the Soviets (and the world) what kind of problems their military forces suffered from.

I don't think any of those efforts were as insignificant as you make them out to be. In the end, because of their restrictive political system and inability to both compete with the US and our allies and meet the needs of their population (and client states), the Soviet Union died of exhaustion.

Nowhere will you find me saying that we did this alone. I have the utmost respect for contributions of other NATO member countries in the defense of the West, but you forget that the struggle against the USSR transcended the boundaries of continental Europe. Would the Soviet Union have eventually collapsed on its own, if the US had reverted to its pre-war isolationist policies? My guess is no. Even banded together, the European nuclear club didn't have enough warheads to deter Soviet aggression. But discounting their weapons, the US did. As scary as it was, MAD kept the USSR in check, and our constant improvements to our nuclear arsenal was a major contributing factor to the costs of the arms race. Never mind the fact that we could spend billions developing non-nuclear weapons, put men on the moon, microwaves in every kitchen, and construct the Internet. Oh, wait, that was Gore's doing...

The long and short of it is that the US spent trillions doing all of this, and the Soviet Union just could not keep up. Could we have done it without our allies? Better to ask why we would have even bothered.