Why does the USSR want to take over Eastern Europe?

It’s both.

On the defensive side, because Russia has been seriously invaded multiple times by European powers, such as by Napoleon, and Germany in both World Wars. The USSR was also rightly aware that Western nations saw it as a threat. Russia has had a long-standing military outlook on Eastern Europe as a safety buffer between itself and potential invasions from the west.

On the offensive side, it was because the USSR was interested in power and expansion, particularly when led by Josef Stalin.

I believe it is wrong to believe Russia is out to “take over” Eastern Europe any more than we want to “take over” Latin America. What Russia does not want is to be surrounded by nations allied with the United States. This should be understandable, just as we are more than annoyed with any place choosing to side up with Russia anywhere in the world. Indeed we are dead set on making life difficult for any in this hemisphere who dare entertain cordial sentiments regarding Russia, and do not hesitate in advancing said doctrine.

@stanleybmanly Can you explain more why you say the US wants to take over Latin America? Do you think the US actually wants to make Latin America part of the US? Russia was taking control over land and territory. It seems to me America doesn’t want the financial responsibility of countries in the third world, but maybe I’m wrong about that.

The USSR (Soviet Union) broke up in 1991.

@JLeslie read what I said again. The United States does NOT want or need to take over Latin America. Controlling foreign ambitions in the region has proven sufficient since establishment of the Monroe Doctrine.

My mistake. Thanks.

Yes, the U.S.S.R. sought worldwide dominion.

They were saying it is inevitable. First the world was ruled by Rome, then Byzantum, and then Moscow. The Kremlin, like all totalitarian regimes, sought to rule the world.

Communism spreads because more and more resources are needed to feed it. Its basic assumption is wealth and resources only need to be redistributed.

Communists and socialists believe their system is the way of the future.

Eventual world domination. Napoleon wanted it, Hitler wanted it. There doesn’t seem like there’s much else for them to think about…

It is incorrect to state they “wanted to take over” Eastern Europe. They conquered Eastern Europe by pushing out the Nazis. Post war, they set up the Warsaw Pact nations to counteract NATO.

They no more “took over” Eastern Europe than the US took over Western Europe.

@zenvelo is correct. Pretty much Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill sat down at the Yalta conference, pulled out a map, and drew lines on it. What Stalin got became the USSR. Any efforts to expand those boundaries would likely have been done for economic or strategic purposes. Look at Russia taking over Crimea for an example. That peninsula opens up ports on the Black Sea that allow easy access to Turkey and other trading ports on that body of water.

@seawulf575 The Allies didn’t divide up Europe like you imply. The US and Britain didn’t occupy the lands they had freed from Nazi occupation, like Stalin/ Russia did. When Stalin moved in, he stayed. I think you, @seawulf575 , misinterpreted what @zenvelo said.

@zenvelo Well, they did a bit more than that. Stalin invaded eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940, and he had plans in the works to invade Germany, which were preempted when Hitler invaded the USSR.

The USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) no longer exists

It ceased to exist on 25 Dec 1991.

Maybe this is an old thread.

In general, they want to protect their interests. As we see in Ukraine. Ive edited this article to focus first in giving my insights on the big picture regarding your question.

What we see is short and medium term thinking of both the West Europa and the Russian governments, from Tsars to current rulers. This is partly based on a history of mutual invasions and other rivalry.
So, from the Western perspective, I think we should reckognize the Russian feelings and rights, based on historical reasons.
On the other side, the memory of Soviet rule in Eastern Europe. As for now, the expansion of NATO to the east was a fundamental mistake and a very insensitive move. It stirred old nerves and wounds. Same applies to Russian expansion towards former Warschaupact nations.

Besides the old, the new reality of the global politics is mutual increased economic dependency. Money as the new superweapon to assure mutual assured destruction. This limits military ambitions.
Still, we cannot ignore the classic military strategic considerations of the involved parties. Those are partly outdated, but still the justified concerns needs to be acknowledged and adressed.

I hope this helps you a bit. Some toughts about the present.

In the overall wisdom, I see the need for a Eastern-European Military alliance, combined with the freedom to make trade agreements with both the West and East, for fundamental improvements of the present and future regional power balance and economic development.

I see some wisdom in a strong buffer alliance, in the military perspective. Note: while increased mixing is obvious, NATO is still a military treaty, compared with the EU founded for economical reasons. For the coming decades, we need stabilization in the centre between West and East, for the benefit of all.

A defensive military cooperation between Finland, Ukrain and Turkey can be good starting point for discussion: those nations have their own assets to contribute to such alliance.
Other nations like Poland, the Baltic states and even Belorussia might consider participation. This treaty will pose an independent power between Western and Russian interests.

This would be a good construction for the coming decades but might be retired within a century, creating new stability that will fundamentally improve into a endurable trust between neighbouring powers and the involved participants. New economic ventures, created by more security, can create a new reality, bringing prosperity for the region and geopolitical stabilty.