>Economic interdependence is good to maintain peace.
False. Even before Ww2, European countries were still economically interdependent and yet still WW2 happened. What maintains peace is democratically elected leaders and separation of powers so that no single mad-man can ever singlehandedly turn a nation to war. That's why we had peace since WW2, democracy. Which Russia rever really had. So being dependent on countries with corrupt undemocratic governments where one leader can do whatever he feels like with no real opposition to stop him, was the real issue.
All the time during the cold war the rather close economic ties between the west and the USSR (grain, gas...) helped to keep communication channels open and reduce the risk of the cold war turning into a hot one in Europe. Not seeing this is quite, well, short sighted.
Grain and gas trade didn't prevent WW3, but fear of mutual annihilation from nuclear weapons did. Same how current grain and gas trade between Russian and the west didn't stop it invading Ukraine.
Sure, MAD helped. As did all those wars in Korea, Vieynam and Afghanistan (there was one involving Russia way beforw the US went there, based on the ignorance of history in this thread I thought it makes sense to add). More than one thing can be true at the same time, especially in a complex world
False. Even before Ww2, European countries were still economically interdependent and yet still WW2 happened. What maintains peace is democratically elected leaders and separation of powers so that no single mad-man can ever singlehandedly turn a nation to war. That's why we had peace since WW2, democracy. Which Russia rever really had. So being dependent on countries with corrupt undemocratic governments where one leader can do whatever he feels like with no real opposition to stop him, was the real issue.