←back to thread

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

(www.reuters.com)
970 points homarp | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.431s | source
1. UberFly ◴[] No.32656396[source]
This entire thread instantly devolved into political football humping. The problems within the new post-USSR Russia couldn't have been fixed by the US or the West. The roots of what Russia would become were already deeply set as the USSR collapsed. The main actors there just changed names and continued business as usual.
replies(1): >>32685118 #
2. olegious ◴[] No.32685118[source]
That's where I think you're wrong. The West had a chance to to alter history in 1991, instead Russia was treated like a loser (much like Germany was at the end of WWI and we know how that turned out). To quote a review of a biography of Gorbachev by The Economist from a few years ago:

"Even when Mr Gorbachev accepted the fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany and ultimately its membership of NATO, Mr Bush would play to Mr Gorbachev’s weakness for wanting to be lionised, but felt no obligation to help Russia financially or accommodate him politically. “To hell with that! We prevailed. They didn’t. We can’t let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat,” he said to Helmut Kohl, Germany’s chancellor. This triumphalism was misplaced and would later backfire on America.

Mr Taubman argues that those in power in the West lacked the vision and will to extend a Marshall-type plan to Mr Gorbachev’s Soviet Union (and later to Yeltsin’s Russia). Those who had it were no longer in power. In 1991 Mrs Thatcher appealed to Mr Bush: “We’ve got to help Mikhail…Just a few years back, Ron and I would have given the world to get what has already happened here.” If the West did not come to Mr Gorbachev’s aid, she argued, “history will not forgive us.”" [1]

[1] https://archive.ph/oufgU