[J. Henry Christ]

[ QUOTE ]
the Russians were a superpower that desired a large sphere of influence,

[/ QUOTE ]

Many historians would dispute this assertion. From the Russian perspective, the US was a clear and present threat with 1000s of troops stationed outside Russia's borders, superior technology and economic base, and clearly self-appointed to check and eventually defeat their political system (communism). From this viewpoint, wouldn't you fear US power and the US's desire for large sphere of influence?

Also, Russia generally spread its influence only after US threat, or as an opportunity to hurt the US after it involved itslef in third-party wars (see Korea and Vietnam which both started as nationalistic wars and only received Russian backing after US invoilved itself; the exact same way in which US began backing Osama and Co. once they got involved w/ Russia in Afghan.). Russian influence in Eastern Europe was set up as a buffer to protect the homeland after twice in the previous 30 years being invaded preemptively by a German juggernaut, which led to two wars in which Russians lost millions and millions of lives (Russian military and civilian deaths during WWI and WWII exceed that of any other nation, exceeding the US totals by ~50x).

In summary, the entire perspective of the US when it comes to Russian intentions and offensive goals is skewed by most, as a result of being fed politicians' lies and half-truths for 60 years. From an objective point of view, Russia's actions after WWII are reasonable and the threat posed by the newly ascendent and increasingly aggressive US was very real. This does not mean I condone Russia's aims (I abhor their communism completely), but it is not fair to assert that their aims were to expand and spread their influence. Rather their aims were to secure themselves against the obvious threat posed by the US and its very powerful European allies.