Is it good for US that soviet union collapsed

I disagree with the statement that the dissolution of the USSR was good for the USA. In R1, I shall argue that it led to a decline in US influence overseas, through its inaction in Eastern Europe, that all of its main regional allies outside of the EU and Africa quickly collapsed, since they were surplus to America"s need as a world power, and were quickly superseded by non-aligned rogue states, and that it led to a general decline in overt US military action across the world, since they no longer had the anti-communist casus belli against non-aligned countries. After the Soviet Union fell, the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as the former SFSRs of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all drifted into the sphere of the German-dominated European Union. Primarily British, French, Dutch, Belgian and German corporations have swooped into the region, and are exploiting the cheap labour there. American influence has declined somewhat in the region, with the regions now finding themselves aligned with the EU rather than the American sphere of influence. In addition to this, the countries in Central Asia that were previously either SFSRs or aligned countries, namely the "istan" countries, are now primarily dominated by Japan and its corporations, since America failed to act. The country of Afghanistan is a unique case. It was, until 1989 when the Soviets withdrew their forces from the region, a Soviet satellite state. NATO (A term by which I mean the USA) intended to create a satellite state like neighbouring Pakistan is now, and how neighbouring Iran was until the revolution, but this backfired. When the US-backed Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they rejected the people who were supposed to be their masters, leading to them being vilified in the press. Until the invasion in 2001, they were not aligned with any major power, though they were known to associate with their anti-west theocratic neighbours Iran. This strengthened the non-aligned bloc of nations in the Middle East, much to the chagrin of the USA. During the Cold War, there were two clear spheres of influence, as marked by treaties such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact, as well as several bilateral treaties between the US and its pet despotisms and the USSR and its own. China had limited influence, and became independent of the Soviet sphere after the schism. This left two clearly-defined superpower structures " the US and the USSR. After the USSR ceased to exist, there started to be power systems taking advantage of the power vacuum left by it in Eastern Europe and Central Asia that led to the rise of powers such as the European Union, Russia as its own nation, the Middle East as an energy producer, Japan and China, which is becoming something of a world power at the moment. None of these powers, which range in their internal unity and in their military prowess, since only the Middle East and the European Union have been truly involved in a combat zone in the last half century. The USA has therefore lost its monopoly on non-Soviet power in the world, and therefore has lost influence on the world stage in favour of the more populous areas of the EU and China, as well as the more technologically advanced nation of Japan and the energy giants of Russia and the Middle East. Secondly, it has led to a decline in the influence of the USA in other spheres of the world. Pinochet"s regime collapsed in 1990, when he stepped down as dictator; as did the Apartheid Regime in South Africa and Suharto in Indonesia. The collapse also enabled billions of dollars of materiel to be illegally shipped out of the colonies of the USSR and the USA. Prior to this, when a despotism wanted to commit crimes against humanity, they would have to make sure their relationship with their liege country was smooth enough to do it, and after discussions with the US or Soviet ambassador for buying cheap weapons from their latest military engagement, they could kill and maim their populations to their hearts" content. After first the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the Eastern Bloc states in 1989, and then after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the remnants of the occupation were derelict in the regions of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The USSR had armed itself to the teeth in preparing for a war with NATO, and in Eastern Europe, there were enough weapons and materiel to supply millions of Warsaw Pact soldiers in the defence of the territory of Eastern Europe in what was intended to be a repeat of the Great Patriotic War, only one that would never enter Russia. There were entire tank divisions, helicopter squadrons, warehouses full of small arms and ammunition, abandoned by the Red Army when they were disbanded. The illegal arms trade was incredibly lucrative over the course of the next few years, until the situation had calmed down in the mid-1990s. Millions of weapons and materiel found its way into the black market, and was distributed across the world. Soviet arms were used in the Rwandan Genocide, the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict, the Kosovo War and many other wars. In the Kosovo War especially, as American soldiers were killed by these weapons, it was estimated that between two thirds and three quarters of the weapons used by Milosevic"s army were purchased on the black market from Soviet military bases. It is said that one can purchase a nuclear weapon for a few million dollars in one of the "-istans", if one knows where to look, and all over the developing and developed world there are millions of Warsaw Pact armaments floating around, waiting to be bought by warlords, such as Aidid of Somalia, the Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the LRA of Central Africa, all of whom have killed US soldiers in combat. This huge influx of cheap arms has given the most obscure militia groups the ability to be the new Vietcong when fighting regular armies, which has caused huge problems to administration on a local, national and international level. The fall of the USSR undermined US influence overseas and strengthened its enemies. Thirdly, it caused an unnecessary shock to the system of casus belli generation the USA previously had. Prior to 1989, the USA just had to make up some tosh about the domino effect, and bringing freedom to the most wretched corners of the world, combine it with some apple pie and baseball rhetoric about values, democracy and possibly religion, and they could deploy thousands of combat troops to pretty much any country in the world. After 1989, they had to use much more tenuous excuses for wars, the first of which was Panama in 1990, which they used the excuse of attacks on US soldiers and Noriega"s brutal dictatorship, which apparently gave them justification to kill thousands of Panamanian civilians and replace Noriega with an equally corrupt and brutal dictator. The same could be said for the Gulf War, also of that year, when they used the excuse of one odious dictatorship, that they had been allied with for its lifetime, invaded another odious dictatorship that had good relations with an odious dictatorship that was better allies (a term that means bigger oil exporter) with the USA. After a short, bloody war, they sent Saddam"s forces packing, resuming weapons exports immediately afterward. This has happened since then. The Kosovo War, the Iraq War, the Invasion of Afghanistan, the Somali Civil War and the Bosnian War are all examples of the post-1989 warmongering that has a gossamer veneer of legitimacy behind it. 9/11 provided a limited excuse, but that is now fading into hypocrisy with arming Al Qaeda in Syria, so the excuse of chemical weapons is now being used. In short, the fall of the USSR was bad for the USA because it deprived it of its ability to arbitrarily invade other countries, and it must now be humanitarian in its presentation, rather than just anti-communist.