←back to thread

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

(www.reuters.com)
970 points homarp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lapcat ◴[] No.32655071[source]
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.

replies(64): >>32655130 #>>32655132 #>>32655148 #>>32655171 #>>32655208 #>>32655210 #>>32655213 #>>32655216 #>>32655220 #>>32655250 #>>32655277 #>>32655379 #>>32655385 #>>32655397 #>>32655429 #>>32655455 #>>32655478 #>>32655495 #>>32655531 #>>32655556 #>>32655561 #>>32655593 #>>32655659 #>>32655665 #>>32655728 #>>32655739 #>>32655805 #>>32655833 #>>32655891 #>>32655943 #>>32655957 #>>32655967 #>>32655988 #>>32655989 #>>32655995 #>>32656055 #>>32656063 #>>32656083 #>>32656097 #>>32656101 #>>32656343 #>>32656419 #>>32656578 #>>32656655 #>>32656671 #>>32656849 #>>32656968 #>>32656998 #>>32657100 #>>32657198 #>>32657263 #>>32657318 #>>32657872 #>>32657920 #>>32657940 #>>32658274 #>>32658285 #>>32658654 #>>32658705 #>>32658804 #>>32658817 #>>32659007 #>>32659408 #>>32659688 #
avmich ◴[] No.32655130[source]
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.

replies(3): >>32655196 #>>32655443 #>>32655652 #
thriftwy ◴[] No.32655196[source]
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.

replies(1): >>32655398 #
avmich ◴[] No.32655398[source]
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.
replies(1): >>32655500 #
thriftwy ◴[] No.32655500[source]
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.

replies(2): >>32655656 #>>32656325 #
1. avmich ◴[] No.32655656{5}[source]
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.