Mikhail Gorbachev has died

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.

> the big difference is the oligarchs

The oligarchs were minted in the late 80s and 90s. They weren’t a preëxisting power structure. Putin came to power with their and the FSB’s help. (He was also popular for not being incompetent.)

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.

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.

Soviet military can't do nothing. It's not Latin America or Myanmar.

They will just sit there and wait for orders to come.

I'm interested in reading these stories, are there any particular links you can suggest?

The us helped that happen, if anything.

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 dealing, 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.

You'll have an absolute blast reading Red Notice by Browder. It's about a hedge fund guy that ends up in Russia during the privatization period, quickly realizes the country is getting looted and wants a big slice for himself. It's a true-ish story, written like a spy novel, with many fascinating details about this unique period in history.

> with the help and active involvement of the West

Yes, many ascendants had contact with the West. It’s how they played the game so well at the start of shock therapy. In most cases, they hired the right consultants who helped them do things like hoover up shares from people who didn’t know better to build a controlling stake. But to get to that point, they’d already accumulated assets.

The West enabled the rise of Russia’s oligarchs. But it didn’t mint them.

The book Red Notice by Bill Browder discusses this period. I wish the Netflix movie of the same name was based on it instead!

>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.

No, this is purely wishful thinking. The Soviet System was one fundamentally incentivized and propagated corruption. Those who had previously been in control or had knowledge of the workings of the Soviet Economy were always going to profit significantly. The US had little control over this.

You may be right about the lack of ability of the U.S. to have much impact. Though I don't think the outcome of the was so forgone.

There was lots of corruption in the Soviet Union. But we're talking about orders of magnitude difference here. Soviet corruption revolved around small bribes for services, lies on official documentation, etc. For 30 years now, Russia's resources have been looted to enrich several dozen people. We're talking about one of the largest shifts in wealth inequality in the history of the world.

The current crop of Russian oligarchs are generally not former communist party officials. They did gain their resources from former party members and largely by bribing these people.

Much of this could've been prevented however with an orderly transition away from the single party system. By outlawing the party, Russia broke the central disciplining and organizing structure of government, the economy and law. This left in place the people but without discipline or oversight which allowed the looting to take place.

I think you have this upside down.

The oligarchs didn't swoop in and ruin everything. The Russian government did not want their resources and industry controlled by foreign share holders, so they were dead set on privatizing the economy by selling to Russians only.

With this constraint, the handful of Russians who were able to raise capital in such a short time, without foreign counter bids, got the privatized businesses far below market prices as a result. This is what made them billionaires, and turned them into the oligarchs.

Yes, they swooped in, as I said

Which ever way the cause and effect happened, I think parent's point stands that there was little the US could have done to intervene.

No, none of the oligarchs were generals. They were usually entrepreneurs (Russia always had them, openly under Perestroika) who were well connected with one or more of

* The state apparatus

* The gray/black economy (or the criminal underworld)

* Foreign interests

The Soviet military was tightly politically controlled, they were well aware of the dangers of popular generals.

Not only that, it would have been highly inappropriate for the US to intervene in another country's domestic affairs uninvited.

The assumption everything bad is always our fault is just the other side of the coin of the narcissistic belief that we're the greatest of all time at everything and therefor always right.

>There was lots of corruption in the Soviet Union. But we're talking about orders of magnitude difference here. Soviet corruption revolved around small bribes for services, lies on official documentation, etc. For 30 years now, Russia's resources have been looted to enrich several dozen people. We're talking about one of the largest shifts in wealth inequality in the history of the world.

This is how Russia has been under the communist rule. Everyone was "equal" and yet of course party members were "more equal" enjoy many prestiges which the common proletariat could only dream of. The meta culture was that of corruption and has been for a long time. You were never going to undo that.