Communism went broke.... and the west did... what? Continue to exist while communism was destroyed by Russians from within. Everything you mention seems to me to be more of an internal feat rather than what the west did. What did the west do, besides arming the taliban, to "defeat communism"?
Have a look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCFREwQ846o&feature=related
Where is the west?
If not going broke while another person/country does is considered a "victory", then I have "defeated" many high school bullies in my time
Hell, we have "defeated" most of Africa then, too! But why would we want to "defeat" africa? This argument is absurd, I don't know why it is so widespread here and beaten into our heads in middle school. I guess if you repeat something many times, it becomes true. Besides, if you use the "continued to exist" argument, then there is nothing the Russians could have done to destroy communism without you proclaiming victory. Furthermore, if communism had been successful, then there would be no reason for Russians to overthrow their government, right? Quite a convenient "victory" argument, is it not?
"Failed States"? Like what? Russia? Estonia? Latvia? Poland? Ukraine? Kazakhstan? The only "failed state" I can think of so far is Georgia, which desperately begging to be let into NATO in order to stay in one piece.
Besides, why don't you address the body of the message, rather than a side criticism of the word "victory". We are not talking about the USSR here, but about "The Russian Federation". I don't at all support the USSR (besides its role in WWII, Finish invasion aside), and I think Lenin should be removed from Red Square once and for all.
George, you keep saying that my argument is non-existent. Where is your argument? At least I back up my point of view with economic figures, treaty status, international law, etc., where is your argument? I guess my words are too big, so you fail to see the meaning behind them. I don't know why I'm causing such a stir, since what I am trying to promote is integration and peace. Instead, all I hear in return is that Russia should be "occupied" and that its structures should be "replaced". Who's starting the new cold war now? At least Russians aren't saying that they want to occupy other countries. In the history of the Russian Federation, Russia has not invaded a single country. How exactly is it starting a cold war? I'll try to use smaller words in the future.
George Wallace, I see your "existent" argument consists of calling me a “pompous arse”… nice one! Let me try to be even more of a pompous arse and see how well you understand big words. What you just did is called a “argumentum ad hominem”, or a personal attack. This a logical fallacy which occurs while one is attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted X. By definition, arguments with logical fallacies are invalid. Congrats buddy! Your argument is not only weak, it's non-existent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem : some bed-time reading