[HN Gopher] Mikhail Gorbachev has died ___________________________________________________________________ Mikhail Gorbachev has died Author : homarp Score : 381 points Date : 2022-08-30 20:37 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | steve76 wrote: | bloak wrote: | I thought the Mandela Effect | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Mandela_Effect) was a | myth ... but now I experience it myself. I can so clearly | remember reading Gorbachev's obituary a few years ago ... Did | anyone else have a similar reaction? | | (Perhaps I read an article about him on his 90th birthday and | assumed it was an obituary?) | Nokinside wrote: | He was able to get into politburo very young because he was a | good administrator and he had powerful patrons. But he became the | leader of the USSR just because there was nobody else. Politburo | was so old that everybody ahead of him, or more power hungry than | him was in hospice or otherwise not fully functioning. | | Then he started finally some of the common sense reforms needed. | | His intention was never to drop communism or let the soviet block | to disintegrate, but things got out of hand. His greatest act was | let it happen even when it was against everything he had worked | for. | epolanski wrote: | > common sense reforms | | Politically and in terms of press freedom, maybe. | | Economically it was a disaster that ruined an already | stagnating growth and turned it into recession. | photochemsyn wrote: | "Arsenals of Folly" By Richard Rhodes is one of the best records | of the Gorbachev era with respect to negotiations over arms | reductions with Reagan (which resulted in a highly fractured US | administration, with opponents (Cheney etc.) fighting advocates | (Shultz etc.) over what policy Reagan should support), the | immense effect of the Chernobyl disaster on the Soviet Union | (something many nuclear energy proponents still try to downplay), | and a few other aspects of Gorbachev's years in power in the | USSR. | | The culmination of Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika was the | Fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the more memorable historical | moments of the 20th century and one which gave a lot of hope to | young people who grew up under the constant threat of nuclear | annihilation. If you watched "The Day After Tomorrow" on American | television in the 1980s, you might know the feeling. | | However, in retrospect that was a high point in terms of hopes | for peace and prosperity. The Soviet Union went rapidly from | communist authoritarian to oligarch kleptocracy during the | Yeltsin era, and NATO wasn't disbanded like the Warsaw Pact was | but instead started bombing Europe (Yugoslavia), and the steady | downhill progression has continued ever since. Putin threw out or | jailed the oligarchs Washington preferred by 2005 or so, and | since then it's been a steady return to full on Cold War proxy | wars and gas and oil pipeline control conflicts (Georgia, Syria, | Azerbaijan, Ukraine) stretching from the Middle East to Northern | Europe. | | It's ridiculous that after all those peace efforts in the late | 1980s, we're back to early 1980s levels of nuclear tension. As | far as who to blame, there's plenty to go around - oil | corporations wanting more profits, arms dealers wanting more | wars, authoritarians wanting more power, empires wanting more | control of resources, etc. | nradov wrote: | I won't attempt to defend NATO interventions in other | countries, but disbanding it like the Warsaw Pact was never a | real option so long as Russia continued to maintain a | significant military capability including nuclear weapons. The | Warsaw Pact was never a real thing to begin with. It was a | total fiction, not a voluntary alliance of (somewhat) equal | sovereign states like NATO. All of the other Warsaw Pact | members were under military occupation by the USSR and had zero | real decision making authority. Any attempt to go their own way | was immediately, violently crushed. So dissolving the Warsaw | Pact when the USSR disintegrated meant nothing. | | And before someone tries to draw a false equivalence between | the USSR's role in the Warsaw Pact and the USA's role in NATO, | those were hardly the same. NATO members were free to leave at | any time without fear of a US invasion. France actually did | withdraw from the NATO command structure for a while and | nothing happened to them. | brnt wrote: | Note that in Russian doctrine as tought in universities, the Cold | War never ended. | vkou wrote: | Based on my count of how many hair-trigger alert nuclear | weapons are pointed from east to west, and vice versa, I'd say | that the Cold War only ended in name. | avgcorrection wrote: | Russia-US relations have been pretty cold for most of these | decades so why not. | 9999px wrote: | chitowneats wrote: | I laughed so loud at this my wife yelled at me from across | the house, "What's so funny?!" | romwell wrote: | There's no way that comment wasn't sarcasm, right? | mminer237 wrote: | Looking at his comment history, no, he looks to 100% | believe poor, innocent Russia is fighting a defensive war | in which it has been easily rolling over Ukraine. | theonething wrote: | Seems accurate to me. It never completely ended. | DoneWithAllThat wrote: | This seems like needless pedantry at least for a conversation | outside of school. The USSR (with whom the Cold War was being | fought) was dissolved and Germany was reunified. For all | intents and purposes it did end, just a new conflict (now with | Russia) began. | brnt wrote: | Seeing as the Cold War was a framework for conflicts, not a | conflict in itself, I find it extremely illuminating to | consider the view of the opposing party. Not a technicality | in the slightest. | avmich wrote: | Andrei Piontkovskiy, in addition to two known World Wars, | considers the Cold War as the World War III and the current | war in Eastern Europe as the World War IV. His parallels are | that WWII was fought by Germany dissatisfied by the results | of WWI, and WWIV is fought by Russia dissatisfied by the | results of WWIII. | bishnu wrote: | This analogy doesn't hold for "WWIII" though, right? By | this analogy, I would call the current crisis "Cold War | II". | avmich wrote: | World wars involve many countries, and Cold War | definitely qualify. Today's war is a pretty active, quite | large "hot" war, which also involves many countries - | even though most fight by proxy. | xg15 wrote: | I also think "Cold War II" for the current situation is | more fitting. | | I think if there is any useful distinction between "hot" | and "cold" world wars then it's most likely whether super | powers are in _direct military conflict with each other_ | or whether military confrontation is "only" through | proxy wars. | | Note that the original cold war wasn't very "cold" for | much of the world either - the only thing that didn't | happen was _direct_ millitary confrontation between the | US and USSR. Nevertheless there were lots of local | conflicts and proxy wars where each bloc was backing a | faction. | avmich wrote: | In the today's war in Ukraine one country - Russia - | fights directly, not from proxies, and the other side - | mostly USA, but also other Western countries - supply | weapons, volunteers, intelligence services, training. It | is comparable with Vietnam war, right, but not already | with Afghan war of 1980-s, or small conflicts around the | world. The scale of war is also quite large, the level of | directly fighting forces is much more comparable. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | If the cold war did end, why didn't NATO dissolve as well? It | was born exactly to contain the USSR! Instead NATO kept | expanding east... | LtWorf wrote: | So USA can force europeans to buy their fighter jets. | MichaelCollins wrote: | From another perspective _all of it_ is a continuation of the | Great Game, the Anglosphere /Russia conflict dating back to | the 1800s that never really stopped, and was merely put on | pause for a few years a couple times (mostly when the Anglos | felt that other continental Europeans were consolidating | enough power to be an even greater threat than Russia.) | [deleted] | [deleted] | keepquestioning wrote: | laserbrain wrote: | >>A Soviet man is waiting in line to purchase vodka from a liquor | store, but due to restrictions imposed by Gorbachev, the line is | very long. The man loses his composure and screams, >I can't take | this waiting in line anymore, I HATE Gorbachev, I am going to the | Kremlin right now, and I am going to kill him!< After 40 minutes | the man returns and elbows his way back to his place in line. The | crowd begin to ask if he has succeeded in killing Gorbachev. >No, | I got to the Kremlin all right, but the line to kill Gorbachev | was even longer than here!<<< | [deleted] | insane_dreamer wrote: | This is not a joke. I was in Russia during the Gorby era (and | early Yeltsin) and people indeed hated Gorby for his attempt to | crack-down on drunkenness by limiting the purchase of vodka. | negus wrote: | Have you heard about a single moment in time when people | liked the leader of their country? | MichaelCollins wrote: | I'm having a real hard time thinking of a leader who wasn't | liked by at least _some_ of the people, and it 's surely | impossible to find any leader liked by _literally all_ | people in their country. So clearly it 's all shades of | gray. | | The worst leaders in history, the Hitlers and Stalins, have | enjoyed substantial if not majority popular support in | their time. Biden and Trump both have millions of Americans | who like them. Even Caligula was popular with the general | Roman population, if only because he lowered taxes and | threw money around. Maybe Ceausescu was close to | universally hated, but everybody was afraid to say anything | until the preference cascade occurred? But probably even he | had genuine supporters. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | FDR after he gave up to the requests of the communists and | created the largest welfare program in US history? | LeftHandPath wrote: | Usually the most beloved are also the most hated. | seanw444 wrote: | Man, what people will do for alcohol. | berkut wrote: | That joke was told about many of the soviet leaders... | avgcorrection wrote: | You're writing in English. No need for those godawful Danish- | style backwards guillemets. | dang wrote: | I understand the activation but please let's keep internecine | punctuation conflict off HN. | postit wrote: | Am I the only one surprised he was still alive? | [deleted] | bigmattystyles wrote: | I hate that my first thought was 'On the start of Ukraine's | counteroffensive which is by some reports going well for | Ukraine?'. Seems highly convenient as a distraction. I have no | evidence for my thought and am dismissing it. The world has made | me reflexively conspiracy prone, I don't believe in most | conspiracies but it sucks to think about them. | insane_dreamer wrote: | Maybe not a popular opinion, I think that had Gorby been able to | succeed in his reforms rather than be squeezed from both sides, | Russia would have been better off in the long run both | economically and politically. Instead, it swung from autocratic | communism one day to near total collapse ("free market" anarchy) | the next during which those with connections and saw the | opportunity gobbled up all the resources eventually leading to a | oligarchical authoritarianism. | the_third_wave wrote: | Is seems clear that Russia did not fare well in its move from | corrupt authoritarian Communism (a tautology if ever there was | one) to the kleptocracy which replaced it - often by the hands | of the same people. It is just as clear that eastern Europe | _did_ fare well by the fall of the Soviet empire. If Gorbachev | had succeeded in dissolving the Soviet Union without having | Russia descend into the chaos which followed things might have | been better but I find it hard to see how something like that | could have been orchestrated. It more or less worked in Eastern | Germany due to the efforts (financially and socially) of | Western Germany. The way this was handled in Russia was | scandalous and led the country from one failed economic system | into another failing one with the oligarchs and their cronies | taking the place of the Party. Which country could have been | the 'Germany' for Russia? Who could have dissolved the | inefficient state conglomerates like Treuhandanstalt [1] did in | Eastern Germany, who would have covered the financial losses? | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treuhandanstalt | [deleted] | kenned3 wrote: | coalbin wrote: | I meet your skepticism with a video of him telling the joke: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh6q9gNCIQ | kenned3 wrote: | Thanks for a link to a site labeled "free propaganda". It | really rang true here, it is propaganda, and it is free? | | Do read the comments on youtube. | dang wrote: | " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic | tangents._ " | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | p.s. I don't think the joke was mean-spirited. | | We detached this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32654981. | [deleted] | ipnon wrote: | Let me tell you why I think this is an inappropriate comment: | The point of it seems not to be collaboratively extending the | line of thought proposed by the original post or the parent | comment, but to make the parent commenter feel some kind of | personal shame or stupidity. Good commenting is more like a | team sport than a martial art. | mhh__ wrote: | Perhaps, but equally that's a route to a monoculture - can we | not question Reagan? | | Americans love to glibly propitiate to Reagan's spirit (in | heaven I'm assured), there's no way they could be doing so | out of ignorance of the more controversial aspects of his | presidency? | dang wrote: | Of course we can question Reagan but when it comes to | political/ideological flamebait, it's best to (a) avoid it | and (b) stay on topic. | | Whimsical off-topic stuff can be ok, but flamewar off-topic | stuff isn't, and a sort of generic greatest-hits of bad | Reagan is definitely that. | | This is in the site guidelines | (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and | there's lots of past explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/ | ?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... and https://hn.alg | olia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., though | you might have to scroll through boilerplate to get to the | more substantial explanations. | avgcorrection wrote: | Propagandistic anecdotes deserve a little bit of ridicule. | But just a little bit. | kenned3 wrote: | So like telling "jokes" at Russia's expense by a man of | questionable ethics? | | what is the point of his joke, if not to mock another | country? | | The OP posted a quote, and i posted one too? | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _" jokes" at Russia's expense_ | | I'm not seeing it. That joke could just as easily be told | for any other national leader and it would still work. | hk__2 wrote: | The author of the joke doesn't really matter here; the | point is that it's funny, period. I'm not sure how you can | see a mockery of any country in a joke that would work with | literally any important person in any country. | mhh__ wrote: | In that case there'd be no need to mention reagan at all? | most of the "Soviet" jokes people tell seem to be made up | anyhow. | kenned3 wrote: | Comedy is subjective. | | Try telling a sexually charged joke at your place of | employment and see what happens. | | World leaders freely slandering other countries like this | is shameful, and not what you expect from a "world | leader". | arwhatever wrote: | Werner Herzog's interview/documentary with him just a couple of | years ago was very interesting, and I recommend watching. | bediger4000 wrote: | I was taught that Ronald Reagan ended the cold war and gave us | the longest lasting economic boom. | mturmon wrote: | /s, I assume? (you never know!) | | Having read a couple of Cold War histories, most recently Tony | Judt's excellent _Postwar_ , I learned that what's often | missing from American pop-level summaries is the work put in by | the people behind the Iron Curtain to bring it down -- for | examples, the Polish Catholics and union members, and the Czech | dissidents such as Vaclav Havel. | | Generally American pop-level accounts like to emphasize | American agency in what happened. | INTPenis wrote: | I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, in the sense | that it never ended. It only took a back seat in the media | while Russia was disorganized. | flavius29663 wrote: | it ended for 150 or so million people in Eastern Europe, that | were freed from Russia. | jjtheblunt wrote: | Aren't their countries still filled with Soviet era (or | even more recent?) environmental hazards, like ubiquitous | asbestos and who knows what else? | | When i took Russian, we watched a Soviet propaganda film : | it bragged about asbestos exports as a sign of Soviet | strength, and i think the teachers (one native Russian | speaker) perhaps showed it to emphasize what a disaster had | already been created (this was shortly pre 2000). | kenned3 wrote: | Many countries are still stranded with "cold war" | environmental problems. | | The US has many "superfunds" dedicated to cleaning up | "cold war radioactivity" issues. | | A bit more info on the Quebec asbestos issues. Canada | didnt stop exporting it until 2012. | | " Canada led world production of asbestos before the | country's two largest mines (both in Quebec) halted | operations in 2012. The closure marked the suspension of | the country's asbestos production for the first time in | 130 years. " | | Exporting this wasn't unique to the Soviets. | jeromegv wrote: | Quebec was also bragging about their asbestos export not | too long ago either. This isn't really something unique | to Soviet Union. | jen20 wrote: | Eastern _and_ Western Europe. | ProAm wrote: | Ended or postponed? | avmich wrote: | The Cold War has definitely ended for Eastern Europe. | ProAm wrote: | I dont think it really ended. Shifted. But there is a | reason the US is funding fission and new Moon rockets, | there is a reason the US is concerned about Taiwan. I | think we're still deep in it. | aaaaaaaaata wrote: | He ended, Trump sorta suspended? | [deleted] | thriftwy wrote: | In 1955, eastern europeans were so thankful to be free from | Germany. | | In 1995, eastern europeans were so thankful to be free from | Russia. | | In 2035, you can expect eastern europeans to be thankful | again. Not sure who'd it be this time. | flavius29663 wrote: | > In 1955, eastern europeans were so thankful to be free | from Germany. | | Not sure which Eastern Europeans you mean, but I can | assure you most of those 150 mil people were not happy | they got conquered by nazis or commies, it was the same | amount of genocide and societal damage from both sides. | flavius29663 wrote: | He did. It's just that leftists in the US won't accept that and | pretend that the Cold War just "ended" one day, because of the | goodwill of the Russians, not because the US policy forced them | into bankruptcy. | woodruffw wrote: | There's a disconnect here: the US policy in question took | place over decades, not the 8 years that Reagan was | president. | flavius29663 wrote: | of course it was a decades long policy, but Reagan takes | the laurels because his predecessor was appeasing USSR and | Reagan did the exact opposite, bringing about the downfall | of the USSR. If a new Carter would have been in power, I am | not sure 1989 would have happen when it did. | avmich wrote: | It's easy to argue that it's USSR people, not Western, who | benefited most from the end of the Cold War. | woodruffw wrote: | Are you responding to the right comment? That's sort of | unrelated to the GP's remark (that Ronald Reagan can be | credited with ending the Cold War). | | (It's also hard to assert that generally: Russia is by | many metrics worse off than it was under the USSR, while | most of the rest of Central and Eastern Europe is better | off.) | avmich wrote: | > Are you responding to the right comment? | | I was adding to your comment, perhaps too tangentially - | the GP remark may suggest that USA benefited more than | USSR. | | > It's also hard to assert that generally: Russia is by | many metrics worse off than it was under the USSR | | Economical, cultural, political environment were greatly | improved as the direct consequences of the end of the | Cold War, up until ~2010, so I'm not sure why do you | think the Russia is worse off. What metrics do you | choose? | woodruffw wrote: | My bad! I understand now. | | > What metrics do you choose? | | I was thinking of life expectancy and the generally high | overall mortality rate in Russia, some of which is | attributable to rising alcoholism. But it looks like | their life expectancy has also improved somewhat over the | last decade, so I can't claim that unequivocally. | romwell wrote: | Some did, some didn't, the way it happened. | | The Cold War wasn't a good thing, but it didn't have to | end with the dissolution of the USSR, and the dissolution | of the USSR didn't have to end with a coup, followed by | chaos, which nevertheless kept all the appartchiks in | charge. | | 30 years later, we can see how the people who were in | charge of the USSR are the reason if fell apart: because | they are still running Russia, and are running it into | the ground (Putin, Shoigu, Lavrov, etc are all USSR | apparatchiks). | | Thieves and criminals, the whole lot of them. | | The USSR ate itself, because it didn't succeed in | figuring out a way to refresh the power structures. And | so that fish rotted starting from its head. | nradov wrote: | You can't seriously claim that the USSR should have been | held together as a single empire, contrary to the wishes | of most people who lived outside of Russia. The | dissolution of the USSR was absolutely, unambiguously a | positive event for the human race despite the minor | problems which resulted. | avmich wrote: | > The Cold War wasn't a good thing, but it didn't have to | end with the dissolution of the USSR, and the dissolution | of the USSR didn't have to end with a coup, followed by | chaos, which nevertheless kept all the appartchiks in | charge. | | We may almost always wish things were better than they | actually were. For example, USA went through a minor | recession at the end of the Cold War - was it necessary? | In case of USSR things could be much worse - some argue | we pass now through the violent ending of that Cold War, | in a form of actual "hot" war, partially because some | Soviet people didn't reflect enough on the events of XX | century. | mantas wrote: | Yeah, USSR should have kept all the occupied countries! | | /sarcasm | romwell wrote: | Yeah right, because the USSR had never before gone through | hardship, and it's the "bankruptcy" that led to ousting of | Gorbachev in a coup after his reforms (including a de-facto | Prohibition, in Russia of all places!). | | Let's also ignore that little thing that Russia is now doing | in Ukraine, and put up a "mission accomplished" banner on the | clusterfuck that happened in 1991. | | The USSR didn't fall apart because of any goodwill, but it | did fall apart because Gorbachev fucked up. | | Reagan deserves as much credit for this as Obama does for the | eruption of Eyjafjallajokull in Iceleand in 2010. | | If you disagree, note that the burden of proof is on you | here; and you're welcome to point out which specific effects | of actions of Reagan's administration caused the collapse of | the USSR, along with an explanation why much more severe | hardships experienced by people of the USSR in the earlier | decades did not. | avmich wrote: | > Yeah right, because the USSR had never before gone | through hardship, and it's the "bankruptcy" that led to | ousting of Gorbachev in a coup after his reforms (including | a de-facto Prohibition, in Russia of all places!). | | Hardship is something USSR went through many times - until | it didn't. And there were many reasons, on many levels, why | the situation in late 1980-s was bleak. What was with the | oil prices at the time? | | > The USSR didn't fall apart because of any goodwill, but | it did fall apart because Gorbachev fucked up. | | One of his phrases was "socialism with a human face". | Before Gorbachev, Andropov tried to "rule as it should be | done", but, as a popular joke states, "has proven that if | you rule seriously, you can't live longer than a year". | Stalinist times have ended, and more soft, Brezhnev-like | ruling turned out to be too incapable. Gorbachev managed to | do few mistakes, while trying to rule mostly well - and | ended up with opening the country, in the form of many | states, to the beneficial external world. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | > not because the US policy forced them into bankruptcy | | what?! | | It was pretty much the USSR policies that forced them into | bankrupcy.... as it did in every other socialist state. | | source: am from another former socialist country, that also | doesn't exist anymore. | flavius29663 wrote: | Maybe you're not aware how much the USSR was spending on | defense, espionage, space programs...By the end of the | decade they ended up spending 14% of the GDP on military, | trying to keep up with the US | avmich wrote: | US definitely were helping to bankrupt... but then just | before the putsch in August 1991 USA got really worried | that USSR will split in parts, and the nightmare of | managing relations with multiple nuclear states led them to | support Gorbachev and USSR, until it actually broke. Then | the work of gathering all nuclear armaments into one state | - Russia - was going on, along with support of Russian | scientists (lest them go to places like Iran and help them | with their projects). That's one of the big reasons we have | ISS now... | the-smug-one wrote: | Dang, good move to force a whole country into bankruptcy. | zmgsabst wrote: | Seems to be working for China, as well. | bediger4000 wrote: | Should I have been taught Ronald Reagan did that as well? | kenned3 wrote: | I suggest you look at the external debt of China vs other | nations, you may be surprised with what you find. | jltsiren wrote: | Reagan didn't end the cold war. He applied economic pressure, | which created the conditions that allowed the cold war to end. | | Gorbachev played the critical part. He let the East European | satellite states go rather than sending troops to restore | status quo. Within the USSR, his reforms gave the democratic | opposition some room to breathe. Once Gorbachev's power started | to fail, that allowed the opposition to win, rather than the | hardliners who attempted a coup. | | With another kind of leader on the opposite side, Reagan's | policies could have won but not ended the cold war. The USSR | could have become something like North Korea, but much bigger. | It would have been stable but no longer a global superpower. | (That may also be where Russia is headed today, as there are no | viable alternatives to Putin's regime.) | insane_dreamer wrote: | long live trickle-down economics! /s | insane_dreamer wrote: | don't get the downvotes; do people here actually believe in | trickle-down economics or just fail to recognize the sarcasm? | LetThereBeLight wrote: | Anyone interesting in learning more about Gorbachev's life, I | recommend watching Werner Herzog's Meeting Gorbachev. | helge9210 wrote: | There is a saying in Russian that can be translated as "That one | died. This one will follow". | RichardCNormos wrote: | Paraphrasing President Reagan: | | The Moscow police are notoriously strict when it comes to | speeding. One day, Gorbachev and his driver are going to a | meeting, and they are running late. Gorbachev admonishes the | driver to go faster, but his driver refuses. | | Finally, Gorbachev says, "Fine! Pull over! I will drive." | | Gorbachev starts speeding through the streets of Moscow with his | driver in the back seat. They are pulled over by the police. | | The first officer gets out of the car and walks to Gorbachev's | car. They talk for a moment, then the officer returns, as white | as a sheet. | | "Well? Was it someone important?" says the second officer. | | The first officer replies, "Important?! You have no idea! | Gorbachev is his driver!" | 0003 wrote: | The first driver was a KGB agent named Putin | [deleted] | alexott wrote: | There was an earlier anecdote about Brezhnev on this topic... | misiti3780 wrote: | that is pretty funny. | idlewords wrote: | Gorbachev secured his place in history by what he _didn 't_ do. | While never endorsing the end of the eastern bloc, he made it | clear beginning in the late 1980's that unlike his predecessors, | he would not oppose democratic reforms in Eastern Europe by | force. To general astonishment, he kept this promise, and with | the regrettable exception of Lithuania this commitment to not | repeating the crimes of his predecessors is Gorbachev's greatest | legacy. In 1988 you would have been hard pressed to find anyone | who could imagine the mostly peaceful collapse of the Eastern | Bloc, but Gorbachev had the moral courage to accept this once | unimaginable consequence of his policy and to see it through. | nradov wrote: | For those unfamiliar with what happened in Lithuania, in 1991 | Gorbachev used military force to kill 14 Lithuanian civilians | who were demonstrating for democratic reforms. | | https://www.rferl.org/a/lithuania-soviet-crackdown-1991-krem... | pastacacioepepe wrote: | > who were demonstrating for democratic reforms. | | You seem to comment to better inform readers, yet your | comment distorts the truth. | | Even the article you linked talks about Lithuania declaring | independence from the URSS, not asking for democratic | reforms. | | Despite what your article says, if you read the story on | Wikipedia, Lithuania did in fact unilaterally declare | independence from the URSS in March 1990. | | Just as an example, check what Spain did in 2017 when | Catalonia tried to declare independence after a popular vote. | If Catalonians decided to resist, there is no doubt that the | Spanish state would have used violence to suppress them. Try | to imagine what the USA would do if any of its states tried | to declare independence. | saalweachter wrote: | Interestingly, South Carolina declared its independence | December 20, 1860, and the US Civil War didn't begin until | April 12, 1861, when the Confederate Army attacked Fort | Sumter. | | It's an intriguing historical question what would have | happened if Fort Sumter hadn't been attacked. Would the | Union have eventually made the first move? Would peaceful | negotiations have eventually resulted in some stronger | guarantee in the continuance of slavery and an end to | secession? Would the Union have eventually dissolved | amicably? | twright wrote: | I'm not sure your specific speculation is on the list: ht | tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_alternate_ | h... | Dracophoenix wrote: | > It's an intriguing historical question what would have | happened if Fort Sumter hadn't been attacked. Would the | Union have eventually made the first move? | | Going by what happened during the Nullification Crisis, | the answer is likely a "Yes". | type0 wrote: | Spain isn't a union state | idlewords wrote: | The parent comment is correct, Lithuanians were | demonstrating for the right to self-determination. The | Baltic States were forcibly annexed to the Soviet Union in | 1940; the comparison to Catalonia or US states is specious. | Over two million people participated in peaceful protests | in 1989 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way), the | Soviet decision to suppress this movement by force is a | black mark on Gorbachev's legacy. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | > The parent comment is correct | | I'm sorry but it's not, and I already stated why with | reason. They were not asking for "democratic reforms", | but for independence. | | Call it self-determination if it makes you feel better. | Debate my comparisons, fair enough, I just tried to put | things in perspective. | alrs wrote: | Gorba, the Chief. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNoBstt8uYM | swyx wrote: | RIP. I did my college essay on Gorbachev. Still think the Cold | War was the greatest urgent threat to humanity and welcome any | moves to end it, failures and all | thriftwy wrote: | I guess it feels so good when you get all the benefits and | somebody else foots the failures. | | Well, 2022 is a year of boomerang. | drumhead wrote: | He really changed the world. Ended the cold war, an incredibly | important figure in 20th Century history. One of the few decent | people in Russian politics. | SlavikCA wrote: | As the Russian, I'm of the opinion that Gorbachev is traitor. | | I hate communism, so it's good that he helped us to get rid of | that. | | But why getting rid of communism had to include letting Americans | to take reign in many government agencies of Russia? | | What would be your opinion of US president, if he goes to to | retire in Russia? | | I'm reading some Russian news site, and almost universally | Gorbachev is hated by Russians. | DFHippie wrote: | > What would be your opinion of US president, if he goes to to | retire in Russia? | | Did Gorbachev retire outside Russia? I wasn't aware of this. He | died in Moscow. The last time I heard about him before this was | when he attended an RT event in Moscow (which was also attended | by Jill Stein and Michael Flynn). Where outside Russia did he | retire? Why did he leave this place to die in a Russian | hospital? Your comment leads one to infer he retired to the US. | | > I'm reading some Russian news site, and almost universally | Gorbachev is hated by Russians. | | Russian news sites are notable lately for not allowing the free | expression of Russian opinions, so what they show you may not | be representative. I'm not saying you're wrong but that Russian | news sites aren't great evidence that you're right. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _letting Americans to take reign in many government agencies | of Russia?_ | | I haven't heard of Americans taking on leadership roles in | Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Do you have any | examples, or sources about this? | alliao wrote: | what are his chances living to this ripe old age if he had | stayed? i don't think he had a spectacular life in the US | either, just became a normal bloke | xg15 wrote: | I still think the gp's question is relevant: | | > _What would be your opinion of US president, if he goes to | to retire in Russia?_ | giantrobot wrote: | > But why getting rid of communism had to include letting | Americans to take reign in many government agencies of Russia? | | Wow. Such a claim. I'm sure you have mountains of examples of | this happening just one time. | rossmohax wrote: | Harvard Boys: | https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do- | russ... | [deleted] | jaza wrote: | Are you suggesting that Gorbachev went to retire in the US? He | travelled extensively to the US and elsewhere, but as far as I | know he only ever lived in Russia. | paulpauper wrote: | Like Bill clinton, he helped define 90s geopolitics. It's | remarkable how he faded away like he did. Nelson Mandela, Yassir | Arafat , Ariel Sharon..that whole era. | legerdemain wrote: | The Reuters article describes Gorbachev as "the last Soviet | president." This is technically correct, but misleading. | Gorbachev was also the first and the only person to hold that | office. Heads of the Soviet Union held the office of the general | secretary of the party. | hunglee2 wrote: | Hard to know the man behind the image, but Gorbachev seemed like | a fundamentally decent man, who was perhaps over his head at a | moment no one could be reasonably be expected to prepare for. | Still, with him at the helm of the sinking ship, chaos and | conflict was at least avoided, or at least deferred, and for that | we should be thankful. RIP | elchin wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_January | Aperocky wrote: | He might be a decent human, but he's woefully bad at his job. | | He might be able to salvage the Soviet Union into something | else, but instead most of it turned into multiple heaps of | dumpster fire, which after burning and destroying, was then | commandeered by thugs, mafia and oligarchs. | desindol wrote: | Sometimes you have to work in the constraints of your time as | he did. You'll learn that when you get older. | timmg wrote: | > He might be able to salvage the Soviet Union into something | else, but instead most of it turned into multiple heaps of | dumpster fire... | | Wasn't he essentially removed from power by Yeltsin -- who | did so by breaking up the Soviet Union? | | My history isn't that great. But my understanding is that | Yeltsin was the president of Russia, while Gorbachev was | leader of the Soviet Union. By breaking up the union, Yeltsin | put Gorby out of a job and essentially became the leader. | | (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) | twelve40 wrote: | Yes, this is accurate. But underneath these formalities, | just as the parent mentioned, was a weak, gullible and | incompetent man who lost control of the country and caused | a lot of real pain (90s were hell on earth). He is widely | despised by his own people now, despite all the official | bs. | varjag wrote: | People are complicated beings. He was a part decent man, part | criminal and part coward. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Aren't we all? | varjag wrote: | Sure, who among us did not massacre an uprising or two. | timmg wrote: | > but Gorbachev seemed like a fundamentally decent man | | I caught this movie at the Tribeca Film festival: | https://tribecafilm.com/festival/archive/meeting-gorbachev-2... | | It was very sympathetic toward him. And I don't think it is a | "great" film in any sense. But I did feel like I got a taste | for who he was. And I also felt he was a fundamentally decent | person. | trymas wrote: | Nasreddin_Hodja wrote: | Plus there was also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_January | loeg wrote: | Probably the most relevant sentence from that article: | | > The role of Mikhail Gorbachev in the January events remains | disputed. | mantas wrote: | The last missing puzzle piece is pretty clear when looking at | the full picture. Maybe now that he is gone, nobody will | prevent from stating it officially. | | It's pretty clear that he was aware and gave orders. There're | testimonies that next time Alfa unit asked for written | orders. Guess when Alfa unit was given unwritten orders and | who could give them such orders? If they acted without | orders, why no heads roll back then? | MichaelCollins wrote: | I wonder how all of this played into Alfa's decision not to | kill protestors in service of the August 1991 Soviet coup | d'etat attempt. | stefan_ wrote: | What is "disputed"? It says right there, under Commanders and | leaders: Mikhail Gorbachev. Such is the nature of the deal; | power for responsibility. | mantas wrote: | There's no paper with Gorbachev's signature. Which is | pretty usual to Soviets - leave no paper trace was modus | operandi since the establishment of USSR. | avmich wrote: | Rest in peace, Mikhail Sergeevich. You were an old school enough | to perhaps not understand fully what you did to the people of | former USSR, but even misunderstood it certainly was once-in-an- | era kind of great. | spapas82 wrote: | My late grandfather was a really good and kind man. He never | argued or blamed people. | | The only person that I remember that my grandfather had really | negative feelings for was Gorbachev. | | I never learned why. | AlexAndScripts wrote: | Was he Lithuanian by any chance? Gorbachev killed protestors | there, arguably the biggest stain on his otherwise surprisingly | decent record. | | Or did he sympathise with communism? Gorbachev arguably | accelerated it's decline. | spapas82 wrote: | He was Greek and yes, he was with the communist party in his | youth. So probably that's why... | eloy wrote: | RIP Gorbachev, one of the few genuinely good people in politics. | | After he retired from politics, he was featured in several | advertisements: | | - In 1994 for Apple Computer: | https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/10/07/The-first-advertisem... | | - In 1998 for Pizza Hut: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachev_Pizza_Hut_commercial | | - In 2000 for the OBB, the Austrian railways: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLscz8kEg6c | | - In 2007 for Louis Vuitton: | https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05vuitton.... | jtjbdhsjjdnd wrote: | For the West he was a hero, for the Russians he was a disaster | https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Russia/Death_rate/ . I don't | blame Gorbachev for this. Just as in the case of Nikolai II | Russian totalitarian state and lack of checks and balances | washed out an inept person to rule the country. | koheripbal wrote: | The communist system is responsible for that, not Gorbachev. | Centralized gov't controlled economies create corruption | which results in ultimate economic collapse. | mortenjorck wrote: | Personally, I try to avoid characterizing anyone in politics as | a "genuinely good person" or otherwise. I don't think it's a | useful framing. | | As humans, we gravitate toward personalities, identities, and | stories, and these all matter for the people we keep close to | us. In the public sphere, however, actions and legacy are what | matter, for better or worse. For a major historical figure like | Gorbachev, there is bound to be both better and worse, and to | me the most valuable analysis is of those actions and legacy | rather than personal character. | lapcat wrote: | The United States didn't do enough to help Russia transition to | democracy in the 1990s. There was no "Marshall Plan" after the | Cold War like there was after World War II. This was a huge | mistake, and we see the consequences now, with Russia having | turned back toward totalitarianism and imperialism. Sadly, it | seems that Gorbachev's efforts were mostly for naught. But it was | courageous at the time to open up the Soviet Union to glasnost | and perestroika. | | Of course Yeltsin was a big part of the problem too. | spaetzleesser wrote: | A "Marshall Plan" for Russia would have worked as well as the | "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan has worked over the last 20 | years. You can't impose your system on people who don't want | it. Do you think Russia would have handed control over to | Westerners? And without control it's just an endless money | sink. The oligarchs would just have become a little richer. | avmich wrote: | Just to be certain, I'm sure the last 20 years put a long- | lasting effect on Afghan people, won't be erased soon. We | even see some effects in modern Iraq, where the period was | shorter. | tomasaugustus wrote: | Don't forget Putin was a darling of the US and the West for a | long time. Read the praises The Economist sung of him. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | The huge metal show in Moscow shows just how much optimism | there was in that moment. | | If you've never seen this footage, definitely look: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W7wqQwa-TU | | 1.6 million people in an airfield at a free concert that lasted | all day. There's a documentary about it but I've not watched | it. | | It's so disappointing the world couldn't bring that optimism to | fruition, and instead kleptocrats took over. | cronix wrote: | Not to take away from that awesome concert, but Lars has | stated several times it was closer to 500k, but somehow the | number keeps growing... | | > However, Lars explained in the conversation that he doesn't | know the exact number how many people were in the concert, | but he heard at the time that there were half a million | people attended the show. | | > "Listen, it may go up by 100,000 people each year! I heard | at the time it was around half a million. Whatever it was, it | was a f*ck-load of people. | | https://metalheadzone.com/lars-ulrich-clarifies-the-myth- | tha... | avmich wrote: | Was the absence of Marshall plan happened because of the West | or because of Russia's decision? | | > Sadly, it seems that Gorbachev's efforts were mostly for | naught. | | Russia today is a faint ghost of the former USSR. The events in | Eastern Europe show that to an extent. | nxm wrote: | Who would pay for Marshall Plan? | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Somebody pays eventually. We are all paying for it right | now, plus interest. | avmich wrote: | Absolutely. And we will likely pay for similar situations | with Hungary, Turkey, China... | avmich wrote: | How much? E.g. in early 1992 monthly stipend of a student - | something which he could somehow survive for a month (not | quite, too low, but somewhat close) was about 60 roubles. | And the USD-RUR course was 100 roubles for a dollar. So a | person was barely - very barely - surviving on 7 dollars 20 | cents a year. | | Do you know how much Russian economy costed at the time? | anon_123g987 wrote: | > Russia today is a faint ghost of the former USSR. | | Russia was only a _part_ of the USSR. Their main problem is | that they, too, believe that they _are_ the former USSR, and | try to restore the former glory. Well, the state of the war | in Ukraine (another part of the former USSR) clearly shows | how wrong they are. | avmich wrote: | > Well, the state of the war in Ukraine (another part of | the former USSR) clearly shows how wrong they are. | | I assume you mean "Russia believe that they are the former | USSR". | | It's interesting to note that Russia in 1990-s focused on | economic modernization - and while it went through highly | criminal years, they built a good market economy by 1999 - | while Ukraine was mostly (more) doing political reform - | and they had established presidential changes. Now more | economically robust Russia with autocratic ruling fights | with still quite corrupt, but politically much more | democratic Ukraine - and shows that, yes, it's better to be | a poor democracy, than a rich autocracy, because autocracy | will get you in the end... or maybe it's a too hasty | conclusion. | hahaitsfunny wrote: | LudwigNagasena wrote: | That has little to do with the USSR as those lands were | conquered by the Russian Empire in 18th century from the | Ottomans. | thriftwy wrote: | It's smaller all right. But it is also much more robust. | | Late USSR was the kind of society where most everything was | in short supply and which has even failed to feed itself. | Yes, it had a lot of hardware and people. All of that was for | no good, given the awful system in place. | avmich wrote: | I'd point out that USSR was much more self-reliant than | Russia - you couldn't really put sanctions on Eastern block | of countries, they produced everything, with certain things | so good they are still competitive. Yes, market economy | does greatly improve Russia's agility, but special services | can't stop ruin most of what they can touch, so even market | economy has limited net benefits now - while at the time of | USSR they had a good counterbalance in the form of the | Communist Party. | thriftwy wrote: | You can't be self-reliant when you are bankrupt and all | basic neccesities are in short supply. | | USSR was defunct. Its communist party was also defunct. | | Russia is lucky to have China which produces enormous | assortment of items as well as trade surplus. | avmich wrote: | USSR wasn't bankrupt for many decades - until the end, of | course, but it's silly to compare unstable USSR in 1991 | going through destructive transformations with Russia, | which still "just" losing the was against the West - so | far. You should compare USSR of 1980 with Russia today | (or rather before February 24 this year) - and USSR will | win in capabilities, despite the lack of market economy. | | > USSR was defunct. Its communist party was also defunct. | | USSR was relatively stable for decades, with all its | great shortcomings. | | I don't think China plays significant enough role in | today's events. | wcarron wrote: | You can lead a horse to water; but you can't make it drink. It | wasn't the US' responsibility, it was the Russian peoples'. | [deleted] | pessimizer wrote: | You can't make it drink, but you can back a corrupt drunk who | will shell the parliament and make sure that the Russian | people know that America will never be on their side. | hourislate wrote: | lucideer wrote: | > _The United States didn 't do enough_ | | I think if you dig into the history a bit more closely, you'll | quickly find that the United States did in fact do | plenty[0][1]. | | [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/27/world/10.2-billion- | loan-t... | | [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- | xpm-1996-07-09-mn-22423-... | lapcat wrote: | "The International Monetary Fund said today that it had | approved a $10.2 billion loan for Russia. The move is | expected to be helpful to President Boris N. Yeltsin in the | presidential election in June. The three-year loan is the | fund's second biggest, after a $17.8 billion credit granted | to Mexico last year." | | "The United States transferred over $13 billion (equivalent | of about $115 billion[A] in 2021[B]) in economic recovery | programs to Western European economies after the end of World | War II." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan | hahaitsfunny wrote: | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | On the contrary, the "shock therapy" approach that Russia took | in the Yeltsin years was, in many ways, prescribed by the West, | and ended up being a complete disaster for both your average | Russian person, and for capitalism and democracy as a whole, | because most people just learned to associate these things with | the kleptocracy that occurred in the 90s. | lapcat wrote: | > On the contrary | | I agree with everything you said, so I don't take it as | contrary to what I said. | anigbrowl wrote: | 'On the contrary' can have flexible scope, in this case it | seems to mean 'contrary to any idea of a Marshall plan...' | sereja wrote: | Interestingly, the disdain for democracy in both Russia and | China is strongly motivated by "we've already tried giving | people freedom and it didn't work". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_cr. | .. | mturmon wrote: | I think there's a lot of historical support for this view. | Here's a summary from 1998: | | https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do- | russ... | ajross wrote: | > [Western-driven reconstruction was] complete disaster for | both your average Russian person | | I think that's overstating the case. In fact the "average | Russian person" was living in destitute poverty through most | of the cold war, and none of that meaningfully changed with | the advent of a market economy. Except that Russians of the | 2000's could get eat better food and watch (much) better TV. | | It's absolutely true that most of the western aid ended up | hurting and not helping. But the bar was very, very low to | begin with. | paganel wrote: | > was living in destitute poverty through most of the cold | wa | | Genuinely asking, did you live East of the Wall back then? | | Because I did live East of the Wall (not in the former | USSR, though), and I can assure you that we were most | certainly not living in "destitute poverty" (my dad was a | civil engineer, my mum had graduated from a hydro | construction faculty). My parents did end up living in | destitute poverty, as in having to get back to literally | subsistence agriculture in order to survive, but that only | came in the second part of the '90s, once democracy had | already been in place for a few good years (and democracy | had come with privatizations and price liberalizations). | avmich wrote: | You're kidding. Watch a Soviet movie, estimate the level of | poverty people lived - if the difference with reality was | too great, people wouldn't watch them. | LtWorf wrote: | Check life expectancy of russians... it is not the same... | it has gone worse. | avmich wrote: | Unimpressed. How much worse? USA life expectation went | worse for last couple of years - is it enough argument | for the lack of an argument? | sudosysgen wrote: | That's ridiculous. The average Russian in the cold war was | living a pretty okay life materially speaking. Far from | destitute poverty. The economic crash in 1991 was so | devastating it led to millions in excess mortality. | epolanski wrote: | People in the soviet union definitely did not live in | poverty during the cold war. | | Average Russian ranked in top 30 for standard of livings | and in the first two decades after the war gdp grew more | than in US. Richer countries like baltics ranked among the | top 20 at times during soviet times. It was definitely not | even in all soviet countries and regions, but that's not | unlike other countries or regions. | kilolima wrote: | We did enough. See | https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russ... | baxtr wrote: | I once heard someone say that any country needs two attempts | until democracy works out properly. Maybe it's the same here. | eastbound wrote: | The upside of claiming nothing is set until the 3rd time, is | that it takes 40-80 years for each try, and that gives plenty | of time to be right. | | Democracy is fragile, chaotic and dirty. The French started | democracy with beheading the people that the French would | have elected (Louis XVI wasn't killed until 1793, because he | tried to organize a referendum for him, which he was sure to | win, and the parliament people couldn't let that happen). | Then the French elected Napoleon, which is the opposite of | democracy too in its processes. Then Napoleon was demoted and | a few years went by and he came back in Juans Les Pins, and | conquered Paris with huge crowds growing at each village. | | The whole story of democracy in each country is often a farce | ending with a happy power balance, while we often turn a | blind eye to blatant violations of democracy when it's in our | favour. | | So there's no first or second attempt at democracy. There are | errands that countries do, and sometimes they become | democratic despite having a kind at the head, sometimes they | look democratic and aren't, and sometimes the negative forces | win. Lest we live in the good days. | johnchristopher wrote: | What would the US's second attempt be in its history ? | MichaelCollins wrote: | The Articles of Confederation were a failure, so we tried a | second time, at the Constitutional Convention in | Philadelphia in 1787, the result of which was _the | Constitution_ under which the American government has been | operating since. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(Un | i... | avgcorrection wrote: | The West was and is about capitalism, not democracy. Democracy | in the Third and Second World often gets in the way for the | West since it brings with itself problems like nationalization | of resources (i.e. closing off resources to Western | corporations). Probably other problems as well. | practice9 wrote: | What the US (and Europe) should have done was to take away the | nukes from Russia, and let Ukraine have their nukes after the | fall of USSR. Russia definitely has more history of imperialism | than Ukraine (which has none of that) | vt85 wrote: | LudwigNagasena wrote: | > There was no "Marshall Plan" after the Cold War like there | was after World War II | | Well, kinda https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard- | boys-do-russ... | lapcat wrote: | And people like Larry Summers are still around giving | economic "advice", failing upward. | eternalban wrote: | > There was no "Marshall Plan" after the Cold War like there | was after World War II. This was a huge mistake | | This notion is based on ignoring historic facts. Germany (and | Japan) in WWII were fully vanquished foes whose _entire_ socio- | political system was redrawn by the victors. Marshall plan | executed in an environment of near total control over Germany. | US simply was not in a position to do a Marshall Plan for ex- | Soviet Union. | | > The United States didn't do enough to help Russia transition | to democracy in the 1990s. | | This is another nice sounding but entirely wrongheaded thought. | Do you really think an outside force can come and force a | nation with its historic trajectory and 'make them democratic'? | Democracy, or whatever goes by that name in the West today, has | its roots in Magna Carta! That's 1215 [yes, I watched Better | Call Saul]. Read up on history of England, and how much | bloodshed it took to go from there to a parliamentary system, | with (important to note) its entire elite class on board with | the political arrangement -- it was after all what _they_ | wanted after having their Glorious Revolution. | | The idea that a bunch of Americans can waltz into Moscow and | St. Petersburg and turn Russia in a "democratic nation" by some | means of time compression squeezing in centuries of organic | development into a couple of decades is frankly laughable. | LtWorf wrote: | Good point. Except you're forgetting Marshal plan wasn't only | for Germany and Japan. | thehappypm wrote: | I think the big difference is the oligarchs. The USSR had | already been transitioned to a resource state, and there was no | actual rebuilding that needed to happen. The Marshall plan was | almost easy because you could tally up all the broken bridges | and say "itll cost us $X to fix". What's the equivalent for | post USSR? What ended up happening was oligarchs swooped in to | take over from the central planners, and it's not clear how the | US could have helped steer it differently short of going to war | with Russia's upper class. | epolanski wrote: | The us helped that happen, if anything. | DubiousPusher wrote: | The U.S. held a lot of sway in the post USSR. They lent a lot | of credibility to Yeltsin. | | If the U.S. had pushed for a system that actually would've | held the resources in trust for the people and allowed them | to be developed by market capital, that very likely could've | happened. | | But the reality is that across every region of the globe, the | U.S. in the constant purity quest of its foreign policy had | purposefully alienated anyone with anything other than right | of center views. It found itself cozied up to the most | audacious self seeking would be autocrats, cartelists and | outright gangsters for the very reason that they stood the | most to gain from the decline of Communism and so they beat | their chest the hardest against it. | | Particularly the Reagan and Bush administrations had little | interest in looking over the shoulders of those they had been | ready to support as promelgators of coup. Though instead the | Communists committed political suicide and these | entrepreneurs of corruption instead would pick over the | carcass of the state. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _the big difference is the oligarchs_ | | The oligarchs were minted in the late 80s and 90s. They | weren't a preexisting power structure. Putin came to power | with their and the FSB's help. (He was also popular for not | being incompetent.) | blockwriter wrote: | Wasn't the preexisting power structure the Soviet military? | I thought that that Soviet generals stationed near large | and valuable resources simply decided that these large and | valuable resources had become their private property. | Organized crimes and powerful politicians filled in the | gaps. | thriftwy wrote: | Soviet military can't do nothing. It's not Latin America | or Myanmar. | | They will just sit there and wait for orders to come. | sam_lowry_ wrote: | They were minted in late 80s and 90s with the help and | active involvement of the West. | | There were so many stories... | | Working at McKinsey in Moscow in 90s made you instantly | into a multi-millionaire. US was sending planes full of | dollars to Almaty. Chechen avisos were a CIA plot... and so | on and so forth. | scrlk wrote: | I'm interested in reading these stories, are there any | particular links you can suggest? | mytailorisrich wrote: | Democracy does not imply friend of or aligned with the West. | | Russia has historically been an imperial power and seeks to | further its own power and perceived interests, and they | certainly refuse to be under foreign/Western/American | domination. | | A democratic government could mean less reckless actions but it | wouldn't necessarily mean friendlier actions. | mistrial9 wrote: | Americans seem unaware of the movement of armies by Western | European Imperial powers through eastern Europe, very | particularly British Imperialists, in the historical shadow | of the horse-lords in centuries earlier. The talk is like | everyone is innocent except the current government, that the | USA opposes; so far from true. | ajross wrote: | > Democracy does not imply friend of or aligned with the | West. | | It seems like it does, though? I mean, no, it's not like | India or Brazil are subjugated client states of the US or | Germany or whatever, but they know where their natural allies | are and which direction the wind blows in international | relationships. Market democracies are going to stick | together, if for no other reason than because they'll end up | poorer if they don't, and they don't like that. | steve76 wrote: | duxup wrote: | The locals in power have to want to do it too. As soon as | enough don't want it, it is over. | | I'm skeptical of the idea that you can impose Democracy. | jrochkind1 wrote: | > As soon as enough don't want it, it is over. | | Which worries me about the USA, it's pretty hit or miss at | the moment. | | But there are also things that can affect who wants it, or | what people think "it" is, or how they think you should get | there. What people want is not an independent variable | unaffected by anything else. | hotpotamus wrote: | Republicans have long said that the federal government is | structurally incompetent and unable to effectively administer | a large country. They made a convincing argument with their | performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I doubt Russia would | have been much different. | Maursault wrote: | Republicans have long said any government is bad. They want | Big Business to be unrestrained, unregulated, pure | democracy, at the expense of individual civil rights. I | can't tell the difference between Republicans and | anarchists, other than the sad fact that nearly all | Republicans vote adversely to their personal economic | interests to stifle economic opportunity, in order to keep | the very richest the very richest, for that one future day | when they are the richest of the richest. It makes no | sense, because that day will never come because they are | voting to stifle their own personal economic advancement | for the sake of issues skew to economics, such as abortion | and 2nd Amendment issues. Really... if you earn less than | $325K/year, as nearly all Republicans do, it is insane to | keep voting that way. If everyone always ignored all other | issues, and voted solely in their personal economic | interests, we'd never see another Republican elected until | nearly everyone was rich. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _Republicans have long said any government is bad._ | | Most republicans are not anarcho-libertarians. Asserting | that _any_ government is bad is fringe even among | libertarians, and most republicans aren 't even | libertarians. | hotpotamus wrote: | > "The nine most terrifying words in the English language | are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" | | -Ronald Reagan | | Perhaps you know that Reagan didn't really mean it, but | it seems like many people believed him anyway. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _Perhaps you know that Reagan didn 't really mean it_ | | I think you surely know it too, Reagan was all too eager | to use government power and his supporters were happy to | see him do it. | seanw444 wrote: | Republicans? Man, some people just can't get past the "my | party vs your party" mindset. | hotpotamus wrote: | Federalism is one of the core principles of the | Republican party. I don't believe that's a controversial | statement of fact, but I also didn't think vaccines or | the shape of the Earth were controversial subjects, so I | never know these days. | micromacrofoot wrote: | federalism is an excuse to reduce regulation and continue | stealing money from the lower classes | nxm wrote: | Pushing vaccines and forcing them onto people is (or they | lose their jobs). Similarly, Democratic government forced | many businesses to permanently close as they were deemed | non-essential. | hotpotamus wrote: | As a child I was compelled to take vaccinations in order | to attend school. My buddy in the military tells me he | was "voluntold" to give blood for his fellow soldiers, | nevermind all the vaccines they were required to take. | Back then, vaccine denial was a loony left fringe thing, | and now it seems to be a mainstream conservative | position. Times change I suppose, but I do remember the | old days. | avmich wrote: | Reading about successes fighting polio with vaccines, or | just remembering a standard practice in American health | system to routinely vaccinate people - with rather few | exceptions - shows a big difference with COVID-related | vaccine controversy. What's that different?.. | MichaelCollins wrote: | The biggest difference is Polio crippled kids and they | were vaccinating kids, whereas COVID mostly kills | grandparents and leaves most kids unscathed. | | Also, now we have facebook. | seanw444 wrote: | None of the people I know who voted Republican would come | close to identifying themselves as federalists. In fact, | it's an occasional discussion between some of us. It's | almost like two parties aren't enough to describe the | positions of everyone who is forced to identify with one | of them. | hotpotamus wrote: | > We believe our constitutional system -- limited | government, separation of powers, federalism, and the | rights of the people -- must be preserved uncompromised | for future generations. | | That's from the preamble of the 2016 Republican platform | (the most recent one since they declined to publish one | in 2020 in lieu of just doing whatever Donald Trump | said); literally their statement of values. But I've long | believed that Republicans rely on voters who don't | actually know what they're voting for, so your anecdote | does strengthen that impression of mine. | avmich wrote: | The question here is - are Republicans actually those who | they write in their documents they are? Or the | Republicans are those who the majority of people | considering themselves Republican and voting for them | thinks? | | Certain degrees of federalism are, I think, common across | the political spectrum, not only describe Republicans. | Apocryphon wrote: | That was a very different situation, those were states that | were militarily invaded and then occupied by American | forces, who were involved in reconstructing countries | devastated by war. | codyb wrote: | Yea, and most young democracies are very vulnerable. You | can look at the Arab Spring for examples of failed | democracies, and the early United States (it took us 20 | years to get off the Articles of Confederation and work | on the Constitution we use today). | | Myanmar's another one. India's been restricting its | people's rights lately. | | Democracy takes a while to establish as a stable system | and often fails. | | Alexander the Great was granting (non-representative) | democracies to cities in Asia Minor 2400 years ago, I | wonder what he'd think of Erdogan. | AmpsterMan wrote: | The Thirteen Colonies had a long history of democratic | self governance. The revolution was mostly an | independence movement. The revolutionary part was the | Republican federation. | | This long history of democratic rule was not present in | many modern attempts to establish democracies. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | I'm not sure the average Russian would have seen the | situation much differently. | | Look at the people today who decry chinese investment in | the US economy? I'm not even saying those people are | wrong. | | All it takes is for one person or group in the country to | poke us enough to the point where we feel the need to | strengthen our security posture there (read: add more | troops) and then some terrible situation like Abu Ghraib | completely destroys any credibility we have with the | local population and it just spirals into disaster. | | I simply have no faith left in our government's ability | to execute even a completely peaceful operation like the | marshall plan (and similarly what we did in Japan). | avmich wrote: | What's your proposition then? How it's best to go forward | from where we are, if you don't trust the current | organization abilities? | ceejayoz wrote: | > Republicans have long said that the federal government is | structurally incompetent and unable to effectively | administer a large country. | | To be fair, things probably work better when you don't put | people with that ideology in charge of said government. | | It's like picking a flat-Earther as an astronaut. | hnhg wrote: | You couldn't impose democracy on many parts of the USA if it | were suddenly removed, let's face it. | ghostwriter wrote: | that's good, as the US is a constitutional republic | ZoomerCretin wrote: | Democratic republic, which is what everyone means when we | say democracy. | ghostwriter wrote: | Hardly everyone, but left zoomers who are unable to | understand the key founding papers and who refuse | descriptive comments of the founders on the matter most | certainly do. [1]: "While often categorized as a | democracy, the United States is more accurately defined | as a constitutional federal republic. What does this | mean? "Constitutional" refers to the fact that government | in the United States is based on a Constitution which is | the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution | not only provides the framework for how the federal and | state governments are structured, but also places | significant limits on their powers. "Federal" means that | there is both a national government and governments of | the 50 states. A "republic" is a form of government in | which the people hold power, but elect representatives to | exercise that power." | | Federalist No_14 also had a lot to say on the matter: "In | a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government | in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it | by their representatives and agents. A democracy, | consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A | republic may be extended over a large region." | | [1] https://ar.usembassy.gov/education-culture/irc/u-s- | governmen... | 8note wrote: | The founders aren't very relevant anymore. Their system | was bad, and the current one is better, though it keeps | some of the old flaws they introduced as compromises for | the time | | Based on your quote, they didn't understand that | representative democracy is still democracy? The internet | lessons the need for representatives, since we don't need | to travel to talk to each other anymore. | ghostwriter wrote: | > The founders aren't very relevant anymore. Their system | was bad, and the current one is better, though it keeps | some of the old flaws they introduced as compromises for | the time | | The US embassy thinks otherwise: | https://ar.usembassy.gov/education-culture/irc/u-s- | governmen... | pedrosorio wrote: | > Hardly everyone, but left zoomers | | I am not a zoomer and I agree with the commenter you are | replying to. Most of the "west" has a form of government | that is a representative democracy (most of them as | republics, but quite a few as constitutional monarchies | as well), including the US. | | Most people would not waste their time nitpicking the | usage of such a widely accepted term. | | https://web.archive.org/web/20200215230538/https://ourwor | ldi... | ghostwriter wrote: | > Most people would not waste their time nitpicking the | usage of such a widely accepted term. | | For some reason the US embassy still finds it important | enough to broadcast the difference to the rest of the | world: https://ar.usembassy.gov/education- | culture/irc/u-s-governmen... Could you explain that? | andrekandre wrote: | i think you are being a bit pedantic, it says: | While often categorized as a democracy, the United States | is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal | republic. | | notice the wording "more accurately" and not | "mischaracterized" etc | | -- | | btw... whats the point in arguing the u.s isn't a | democracy? | | are you trying to say that people shouldn't be able to | decide their leaders? | lapcat wrote: | > I'm skeptical of the idea that you can impose Democracy. | | We didn't need to impose democracy. Russia had democracy for | a time. The Marshall Plan was about economic investment. The | transition from communism to capitalism was a very rough one | for the Soviet people, and that's a big part of why democracy | failed. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Marshall Plan was about economic investment. The | transition from communism to capitalism was a very rough | one for the Soviet people, and that 's a big part of why | democracy failed._ | | It was also about stabilising a war-torn continent's | economy. To keep them from going communist. | munk-a wrote: | And it would've made a lot of sense to re-apply it here | since Russia has clearly gone in a strongly authoritarian | direction and is invading its neighbors. It's a pretty | clear example of a destabilizing actor in the region. | KptMarchewa wrote: | They had democracy of a Ryazan sugar flavor. Nothing | compared to real one. | Beltalowda wrote: | You can't impose democracy, but if democracy and associated | ideas such as the free market spectacularly fails the people | - as it did in the 90s - then that certainly doesn't help. We | probably could have done a thing or two to make it fail | _less_. Would that have made a meaningful difference? Hard to | say for sure, but it would have been worth to try. | eurasiantiger wrote: | Certainly the west could have done more to prevent | corruption and money laundering in western banks, but the | opportunities were too lucrative and refusal too dangerous. | avmich wrote: | For young democracies - like Russia in 1992 - it's possible | to get captured by populists, who, instead of solving tough | problems and laying out the groundwork for the subsequent | development, promise some doubtful, in retrospect at least, | things, point fingers towards convenient scapegoats etc. In | this sense Russia was unlucky. Yes, people didn't know | much, and were led to believe etc... so the guilt is spread | of course, and many are involved. Everybody should have | tried to do the best in their place, then the possibilities | are larger - but in this case, it turned out to be not | enough. | | I'm not sure we now know a guaranteed way of how to deal | with situations like that. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Not "ideas" failed the people, but the implementers - which | turned out to be straight up robbers, dividing past | empire's industrial base amongst them, like western idol | Khodorkovsky or Berezovsky. | | Where the politicians were less corrupt, the free market | worked spectacularly well, like in Poland. | ZoomerCretin wrote: | So it wasn't real capitalism? | Beltalowda wrote: | There is no such thing as "real capitalism"; it's a broad | and somewhat vague set of ideas with many possible | implementations, none of which are more "real capitalism" | than any other, although I'd argue that some | implementations definitely _better_ than others (and 90s | Russia is a good example of that). | ZoomerCretin wrote: | Capitalism is just an economic system with predominantly | private ownership of the means of production. Whether a | country's set of economically productive organizations | are owned by shareholders via a stock exchange or by | whomever was powerful enough to take control of them by | corrupt means seems irrelevant, no? | throwaways85989 wrote: | It was not really a base for capitalism to take hold and | effect. It needs a basic rule of law and democracy to | work. All it got was brief window of chaos, before the | kleptocracy returned. | | Best description of the cultural background i found so | far was this: | | https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?t=76 | sammalloy wrote: | > It was not really a base for capitalism to take hold | and effect. It needs a basic rule of law and democracy to | work. All it got was brief window of chaos, before the | kleptocracy returned. | | This is my understanding as well, from everything I've | read. The more interesting question is why Russia, both | as a nation state and a culture, has no history or | tradition of democracy. I've never received an answer to | this question. | abraxas wrote: | > The United States didn't do enough to help Russia transition | to democracy in the 1990s. | | This is subtle Russian propaganda that Kasparov has completely | demolished in his most recent book, "Winter is coming". | | The West has embraced Russia's democracy right after the fall | of the iron curtain. Not only were all sanctions lifted but a | ton of aid was offered, debts were forgiven and rescue plans | were put in place when their economy began to sputter. Over | time however, the West realized that the place was hopelessly | corrupt and any economic aid was just going to line the pockets | of the oligarchy and in the late nineties the gravy train | finally stopped. But to say that Russia wasn't help or was | humiliated in the early nineties is a lie spread by the | sympathizers of the current regime in Moscow. | VictorPath wrote: | > The West has embraced Russia's democracy right after the | fall of the iron curtain. | | Right like Clinton and the US congress cheering Yeltsin | bombing Russia's elected parliament. | Quekid5 wrote: | I think this talk shows that it's probably a bit more | complicated than that: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw | | Unless you happen to understand Finnish, subtitles are | mandatory (and very accurate AFAICT). There is a link to a | dubbed version in the comments if that is preferred. | gus_massa wrote: | [Remove the two spaces before the link to make it clicky.] | Quekid5 wrote: | [Thank you, edited] | droptablemain wrote: | Everyone should read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. | epolanski wrote: | Actually US did a lot to help Yeltsin reelected, never stopped | the expansion eastwards, attacked Serbia without UN approval, | pushed for Kosovo referendum under Nato occupation, never | stopped the military exercises and flights on russian border | and tried its best to meddle in Russia's internal affairs and | us economists were among those that most pushed Yeltsin for the | shock transition towards a capitalist market which led to ghe | 1998 default. | | I think US did enough divide and conquer and meddling to help | bringing back an authoritarian government. | | Anyway, totalitarian has a specific meaning, not a random one, | it's a government that holds total control on all powers in a | country. Stalinist USSR and Nazi germany (modern eritrea and | north korea) apply to that definition, Italian or spanish | fascisms do not (in both the head of state was the king), even | less Russia since it is a de jure democracy. | avmich wrote: | > I think US did enough divide and conquer and meddling to | help bringing back an authoritarian government. | | There is a phrase in Russia, :) "But in USA they lynch | people". The idea is that in Russia it's often that | discussion is interrupted by listing the ills of America, to | avoid talking about Russia or for other reasons, so it's easy | to justify pointing fingers to "the real evil". | | I think you're wrong and your arguments are misplaced. | | The phrase "never stopped the expansion eastwards" suggests | that you don't see e.g. Slovenia as an interested party to | join NATO, for whatever reason they chose, and instead see it | as an evidence of guilt. | | > Stalinist USSR and Nazi germany ... apply to that | definition... even less Russia since it is a de jure | democracy. | | Current Russian laws mean little to define Russia de facto. | Just like Hitler laws meant little at the time. | mercy_dude wrote: | Or May be that was the US master plan all along. I mean when | has US ever had a marshal plan? Anyone who has followed US | foreign policies after war, there are multiple examples come to | sight where they just straight up help the country go into deep | chaos so much so that the local people hope they were better | off with pre war dictatorship. Look at Iraq, Libya, Syria, | Afghanistan. | | I don't know why anyone would call US ally anymore or even | count on them. | zdragnar wrote: | > I mean when has US ever had a marshal plan? | | That's kind of a silly question, as the answer is in the | name. | VictorPath wrote: | What do you mean, like when Clinton and the US Congress cheered | Yeltsin bombing Russia's elected parliament (Duma). Then | Yeltsin appointed Putin and here we are. The US has positioned | Russia exactly where it wants it - it has positioned the | Ukraine exactly where it wants it too. | oytis wrote: | Marshall plan was tied to occupation though whereby U.S. could | direct and correct the first steps of the young post-war German | democracy. Nothing like that would be allowed by post-Soviet | elites, no matter how much economic help U.S. would offer. | eps wrote: | It's naive to think that a Western-style democracy could've | been instilled in Russia just through some extra effort. | | The fact that it works elsewhere doesn't mean it's a suitable | model for other countries. Especially when there's a _lot_ of | prior baggage of being ruled by a single person, be it a tzar | or a head of Politburo. | theonething wrote: | > Especially when there's a lot of prior baggage of being | ruled by a single person, be it a tzar or a head of | Politburo. | | This describes Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania and Poland, | all former Soviet bloc countries. They've all had varying | levels of success transitioning from communism to democracy | and from a planned economy to market. | | So it can happen. Could it have happened for Russia? Who | knows? Based on the above, I lean towards yes. | sgjohnson wrote: | > This describes Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania and | Poland, all former Soviet bloc countries. They've all had | varying levels of success transitioning from communism to | democracy and from a planned economy to market. | | Yes, but neither the Baltics nor Warsaw Pact countries want | anything to do with communism in the first place. It was | forced onto them. So transitioning back to a democracy and | market economy was far more straightforward. | cjbgkagh wrote: | Tarq0n wrote: | That's a very serious claim, could you please provide some | citations? | cjbgkagh wrote: | A peer comment reminded me of the name 'shock therapy', the | think tank was called 'Harvard institute for international | development'. | | https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/ho | w... | | https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do- | russ... | | My original comment has been flagged. I'd like to know why. | If I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected. | pessimizer wrote: | It was flagged for not sufficiently praising the awful | behavior of the US during and after the fall of the USSR. | saalweachter wrote: | If I had to guess, it's because George Soros is often | used as synecdoche for "the vast Jewish conspiracy" by | anti-Semites, so your comment sounds an awful lot like | "the Jews are responsible for ruining Russia". | | Which, uh, sounds a lot like anti-Semitic rhetoric not | uncommon in, among other places, Russia. | sereja wrote: | The world had already A/B tested "damage the economy so that | it would never be a threat again" and "help transition to | democracy" with Germany. The latter worked better. | cjbgkagh wrote: | I'm not the one who needs convincing. | jorblumesea wrote: | If you study geopolitics and history, you might come to the | conclusion that Russia was never going to be a democratic ally | of the West regardless of how much economic aid they were | given. | | Russia at the end of the cold war had geopolitical imperatives | such as a warm water ports, buffer states and desire for | Russian hegemony that would have existed regardless of their | economic state. They also have a long, long history of | authoritarianism. | wnevets wrote: | > The United States didn't do enough to help Russia transition | to democracy in the 1990s. | | Some how people manage to blame everything on the United | States. | markdown wrote: | The US manages to meddle and create problems all over the | world. | | A small part of the US footprint: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r. | .. | wnevets wrote: | > The US manages to meddle and create problems all over the | world. | | Huh? The OP is accusing the US of NOT meddling. Talk about | damned if you do, damned if you don't. | sudosysgen wrote: | The US meddled, and it did a lot. The OP is saying the US | meddled wrong and could have meddled beneficially. If the | US had decided not to meddle in the USSRs affairs, the | world would have gone quite differently. | wnevets wrote: | > The OP is saying the US meddled wrong and could have | meddled beneficially. | | How are you getting that from the Original Post? The | Original Post only mentions what the US didn't do, not | what it did do. | zdragnar wrote: | Ah yes, the world was such a utopia before the US. | pessimizer wrote: | Why step into a conversation as if everybody else is | arguing that there's heaven on earth? Are you going to | ask people if they love Saddam next? | daemoens wrote: | That doesn't invalidate the point that the US has created | incredible amounts of instability around the world. | sgjohnson wrote: | Actually the British are more to blame for that, as they | are the ones who deliberately drew the borders of modern | middle east with the explicit goal to cause maximum | instability. | daemoens wrote: | Yes they are, but we overthrew a government from half of | the Latin American countries in the same time period. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_i | n_r... | discodave wrote: | If you wanna act like a superpower, then you're going to get | judged like a superpower. | MichaelCollins wrote: | Wry and karmic, but nevertheless an unrealistic | expectation. | andrepd wrote: | > The United States didn't do enough to help Russia transition | to democracy in the 1990s. | | This wording implies an accident, or negligence. In fact, it | was an _intentional_ and _explicit_ policy of "shock doctrine" | economic deregulation and ultra-liberalisation that led to the | absolute misery of the 1990s, and the kleptocracy that | continues to this day. | avmich wrote: | In Poland that same "shock doctrine" led to quite good | results, quite soon. | | Not to mention lack of evidence... | paganel wrote: | > There was no "Marshall Plan" after the Cold War l | | There was such a plan, at least in the twisted minds of the | people behind the Washington Consensus. They were calling it | privatization or price liberalization or some other non-sense | like that, thing is the common people got the very, very short | stick (like my parents, who lost their jobs, their city | apartment and who had to resort to literally subsistence | agriculture in a matter of 4-5 years maximum; I'm not from | Russia, but still from the former communist space) while some | lucky ones from amongst us became entrepreneurs and business | leaders. Also, most of the really juicy assets (like almost of | all our banking sector, our oil resources etc) got sold to | Western companies, but that was a given if we wanted to become | part of the European Union and of the West more generally | speaking. | | Yes, I've started to become more and more bitter as the years | have gone by, I'm now almost the same age as my dad was in the | mid-'90s, when all hell started to economically unravel. Nobody | had asked my parents, or us, who were mere kids and teenagers | back then, if we were agreeing to the sacrifices that they were | going to impose on us. | baybal2 wrote: | decebalus1 wrote: | Cut the crap, paganel (lasa vrajeala). You're completely off | topic and just wrong. The transition to the market economy | for Romania was indeed painful in the 90s but that's | primarily because the exact same communist apparatus was | still leading the country and they held the reins on | Romania's western connections. However, in the long run, I | don't think I'm the only person to say it was successful and | you can have a decent life in modern day Romania. Way better | life than in Russia. And your attempt to blame Washington for | how Romania's transition to capitalism unfolded in the 90s is | just wrong. | | > got sold to Western companies | | I'm shaking my head to when reading such obtuse propaganda on | hacker news. | simonh wrote: | I thought most of the major assets got bought by connected | oligarchs, sometimes by literally putting goons at the doors | of the auction room to beat up anyone that tried to get in to | bid against them. If the oils fields were actually owned by | European companies, we'd be buying Russian oil from | ourselves, not from Russia. | ptero wrote: | That was one way. Another was not paying salaries for | months ("company has no money" was a common case) until | employees sell their "vauchers" to those who wanted to buy. | bhupy wrote: | The transition to a market economy went very well for most of | the former Soviet Republics _except_ Russia. | | https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2022/03/16/the- | transiti... | | A lot of Russia's issues stem from the way the government | sold off their state owned corporations, which created | artificial monopoly/oligopoly owners overnight -- often | insiders/cronies to begin with. This can be contrasted with | traditional market economies where large corporations start | off as small companies and become dominant through | innovation, growth, and generally meeting consumer demands. | spamizbad wrote: | What's crazy is the minds behind the Washington Consensus | favored a form of extreme capitalism that no western | democracy would ever tolerate such a system on their own | soil. | | Some ultra-capitalist die-hards have even retreated away from | Liberalism in general as they found it too restrictive for | their extreme ideology (they know their economic regime could | never gain sustained popular support; it would need to be | imposed) | AndyMcConachie wrote: | The USA put Yeltsin into power with a coup. Then Yeltsin turned | over the reins to Putin. To say that the USA "didn't do enough | to help Russia transition to democracy in the 1990s" is | incredibly ignorant. The USA had no interest in promoting | democracy in 90's post-USSR. | | Gorbachev was a fool who believed that the USA and the west | would not rape his country. We'll never know how many former | citizens of the USSR died because of 90's shock therapy. | eej71 wrote: | I'm not sure what special powers you think the United States | would have that could change the course of an entire culture | that still seeems drawn to the strong-man archtype. These kinds | of transformations have to come from within. | anonAndOn wrote: | Maybe it's because Russia as it currently exists is not a | viable country? Moscow's delusions of adequacy really become | apparent when the Russian Army is stealing washing machines en | masse from its poor neighbor. | baybal2 wrote: | ozgune wrote: | I read "Gorbachev: His Life and Times" almost randomly five | years ago. I'm going off of memory, but my primary takeaway | from the book was your comment. | | Gorbachev believed in Western ideals, maybe a bit too much. The | Western leaders were extremely supportive of his reforms and | promised to be with him. After the Wall fell, and Russian | economy nose dived, no one was there for him. People were | starving on the streets, Gorbachev asked for humanitarian aid, | but nothing came. | | https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/23/world/gorbachev-pleads-fo... | | I think he pleaded for $3B from Helmut Kohl in the end, but | even that was too much. IIRC, the book ended with a bitter note | on Western promises, what Russia could have become, along with | a warning on consequences in the future. | avmich wrote: | > People were starving on the streets, Gorbachev asked for | humanitarian aid, but nothing came. | | Looks like some hyperbolization. There was a term "legs of | Bush", referring to chicken legs from USA, sold in many | places in at least some cities. There were "humanitarian" | bags of rice, also available to some significant extent. This | was in around 1994, so, Yeltsin times already, but before | 1991 Soviet Union was somewhat more stable regarding food. | | Maybe the reference is regarding a short period at the end of | 1991, a few months between GKChP putsch and the dissolution | of the USSR? This period is mentioned in a contemporary song | ("Kombinatsiya", "Two pieces of sausage"), but it was short | enough so that humanitarian help couldn't get to the country. | ozgune wrote: | Yes, this could be hyperbole or my memory misleading me. | I'm not Russian and it's hard to find good resources on | this topic from the time. | | I found the following article from the Associated Press. It | looks like Gorbachev said that Soviet Union didn't expect | famine, but would face food shortages. It's still sad that | the humanitarian aid didn't come, leading to Gorbachev's | resignation. | | https://apnews.com/article/a9a10bdf38d213033157d6d98c29e2c1 | | > In a letter last month to Jacques Delors, the EC | commission president, the Soviets asked for millions of | tons of food that it valued at $7.5 billion. The rest of | the $14.7 billion in aid was requested from other Western | nations. | | The Kremlin's request included 5.5 million tons of grain, | 900,000 tons of sugar, 800,000 tons of meat, 350,000 tons | of butter, 300,000 tons of vegetable fat, 300,000 tons of | flour, 50,000 tons of tobacco, 50,000 tons of baby food and | 30,000 tons of malt. | 62951413 wrote: | In hindsight, that's directionally correct even though it was | not that obvious back then. Only freaks mentioned the nukes in | the 90s for example. Now it's crystal clear that their | stockpile alone should have justified much higher engagement | from the first world. Possibly all the way to literally buying | most of it. All kinds of things were possible in the early 90s. | | We can definitely blame the US for forcing Ukraine to | relinquish its nukes. We can blame the US for insisting for a | long time on preserving the USSR (during the Gorbachev era). We | can blame the US for not paying enough attention to the other | two Slavic former republics early. We can blame America for not | penalizing Yeltsin's regime when they started to veer off the | original course. | | But we need to remember that it was the West in general, not | just the US. The EU is equally to blame. And even though the | last 20 years are a direct result of the 90s not that much was | done in those 20 years either. Not in 2008, not in 2014, not | even when President Trump told the Germans to cut the pipelines | and spend on the military. | | It very well could be the case that destroying the Evil Empire | was an unprecedented affair which was too hard for anybody. | Where by hard I mean impossible in the Velvet Revolution style. | Or at all. They had to perform multiple simultaneous | transitions (Totalitarianism -> Democracy, central planning -> | market economy, empire -> nation state). With a population | impoverished by 70 years of Communism and three generations not | knowing any other life (not the case in the Eastern Europe). | | It's poetically fitting that Mr Gorbachev died the same year | his entire legacy was erased. He was not perfect, he was an | idealist, but he gave freedom to the people. It was him who | opened the border and let millions escape. | tibbydudeza wrote: | In hindsight it seems it would have been a futile wasted effort | - there are many books that have been written about Russia and | it's the psyche of it's people and why they would never succeed | with democracy. | | Now we have a proto-facist regime copying some aspects the Nazi | regime. | karaterobot wrote: | Your comment makes it sounds like you believe the U.S. had the | power to decide whether or not Russia would turn into a | kleptocracy or not. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but if I'm | not, I'm skeptical. Marshall plan notwithstanding, I would give | credit to the people and government of Japan for their post-war | success: it could easily have gone another direction, and the | U.S. couldn't have stopped that from happening. Likewise, the | people of Russia and their government are ultimately the ones | with agency in their case. I don't think the U.S. should take | on the burden of developing other countries; going down that | road has been a bad idea more often than not. | mannykannot wrote: | The Marshall plan was partly a plan to create allies capable | of resisting further Soviet expansion, but also a response to | how the Versailles treaty set the stage for resurgent German | militarism. | | The response to the fall of the USSR was neither, but I | recall breathless reports in the US press of how Harvard MBAs | were going to Russia to help it transition to a free market | economy, and ruefully thinking it would be better if they | aimed for emulating Western European economies. | | And, outside of the former USSR, Western Europe had the most | to gain if this could have been effected - as is now all too | clear. Insofar as anything might have helped, this was not | only the US's bag. | DubiousPusher wrote: | > I would give credit to the people and government of Japan | for their post-war success: it could easily have gone another | direction, and the U.S. couldn't have stopped that from | happening. | | I suggest you read more about the post war occupation of | Japan. The U.S. put its thumb heavily on the scale forcing | Japan to accept democratization throughout. Unusual for the | U.S. this included pushing economic democracy by supporting | Japan's very successful land redistribution scheme. | jollybean wrote: | The US military defeated Japan and was an occupying power. | | The US had the power to dictate whatever terms. | | Japan was on it's back. | | Russia in 1992 was it's own entity. Still a nuclear power. | Making it's own decisions. | | Not only would Russia not have tolerated US intervention, | I'm extremely doubtful there could have been such a thing | on any terms. | | As it stands, much of the money used by Oligarchs to buy up | Natural Resources firms was from the US private banking | system. | | Russia is Russia, they are 100% responsible for their own | problems, and those have been roiling through history for | 100's of years. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _The U.S. put its thumb heavily on the scale_ | | More than a thumb. The Constitution of Japan was written by | Americans. America stomped on the scale, and _that time_ it | seems to have worked. | agumonkey wrote: | isn't it cultural ? japanese seems to be ok struggling | under american control and keep reaching higher. People | say US money made Japan thrive but so many time throwing | money at a large problem fails.. I think the population | was just more mentally compatible. | | Or maybe the post soviet Russia was dealt a bad hand. | Hard to know (just like here, you can find infinite | streams of contradictory arguments) | MichaelCollins wrote: | Hard to say. I suspect the horrific bombing of Japanese | cities probably had something to do with their | willingness to submit. Leaving their Emperor intact as a | figurehead probably helped a lot. Perhaps American | willingness to help Japan rebuild immediately after such | a bitter war also played a role. | | There were probably innumerable factors that went into | it. But there are a lot of differences between that | situation and the fall of the Soviet Union. | karaterobot wrote: | Thanks for the suggestion about learning about the | occupation. To be clear: my statement wasn't that the U.S. | did nothing, but that there is no amount they could have | done which would force Japan to succeed against their will, | or their own ability. There are many examples of the U.S. | putting its thumb on the scale, so to speak, in countries | where there was not a subsequent, successful democratic | transition. The difference between these cases, I'm | suggesting, is not the weight of U.S. involvement, but | factors external to U.S. foreign policy, such as the people | in the countries affected. | vkou wrote: | > Your comment makes it sounds like you believe the U.S. had | the power to decide whether or not Russia would turn into a | kleptocracy or not. | | Given the utter unmitigated disaster of the Russian economy | in the 90s, I'd daresay that it certainly had the ability to | influence it away from the hard swing towards strongman | authoritarianism that followed. | | The Washington Consensus was a disaster, and strongly soured | the country on working with the West. | lapcat wrote: | > Your comment makes it sounds like you believe the U.S. had | the power to decide whether or not Russia would turn into a | kleptocracy or not. | | There's a lot of evidence that US kleptocrats collaborated to | help turn Russia into a kleptocracy. Practically encouraged | rather than discouraged that outcome. | koheripbal wrote: | You cite no evidence for this conspiratorial claim. | avmich wrote: | I'm sceptical that turning Russia into a kleptocracy was a | plan. Usually participants just want to quickly enrich | themselves. So I can agree that "let's make it good" plan | didn't work well enough, but for planned degradation I'd | like to see more arguments. | SirOibaf wrote: | Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall! - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCO9BYCGNeY ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-30 23:00 UTC)