Most active commenters
  • lapcat(6)
  • jorblumesea(3)

←back to thread

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

(www.reuters.com)
970 points homarp | 11 comments | 30 Aug 22 20:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
lapcat ◴[30 Aug 22 21:07 UTC] 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 #
jorblumesea ◴[30 Aug 22 21:43 UTC] No.32655531[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>32656752 #>>32659108 #
1. lapcat ◴[31 Aug 22 00:05 UTC] No.32656752[source]▶
> If you study geopolitics and history

Please don't make assumptions about what other people have or haven't studied.

> They also have a long, long history of authoritarianism.

You could say the same about the Axis powers in WW2.

replies(3): >>32658695 #>>32663397 #>>32674708 #
2. hetman ◴[31 Aug 22 05:25 UTC] No.32658695[source]▶
The ideologies and power structures of the axis powers ceased to exist as a result of the outcome of WW2. This was not the case when the Russian Federation took on the mantle of the inheritor of the legacy of the USSR. Therefore it does not make sense to equate the history of authoritarianism in these places.
replies(1): >>32662880 #
3. lapcat ◴[31 Aug 22 14:57 UTC] No.32662880[source]▶
Ideologies don't simply cease to exist the day the war is over.
replies(1): >>32671736 #
4. jorblumesea ◴[31 Aug 22 15:26 UTC] No.32663397[source]▶
I think it's pretty clear that many people here lack historical and geo political context.

"Can you believe Russia would invade to get a warm water port?!"

Yes, I would.

Btw your analogy of "why isn't germany authoritarian" is off the mark, because the Russians and NATO completely dismantled the existing power structures post ww2 through force. We did not do anything close to that post cold war. In fact the communist party still exists today in Russia.

Another point is that the US made it clear it would not tolerate an openly authoritarian government in Western Europe but would tolerate far right groups for its own purposes against communism.

replies(1): >>32664316 #
5. lapcat ◴[31 Aug 22 16:13 UTC] No.32664316[source]▶
> I think it's pretty clear that many people here lack historical and geo political context.

> "Can you believe Russia would invade to get a warm water port?!"

> Yes, I would.

You couldn't have a more blatant straw man argument.

I'm not going to reply to you anymore. All you're doing here is chest beating.

replies(1): >>32665292 #
6. jorblumesea ◴[31 Aug 22 17:12 UTC] No.32665292{3}[source]▶
I think someone needs to read a little more history ;)
7. hetman ◴[01 Sep 22 03:52 UTC] No.32671736{3}[source]▶
Of course not, but they lose their power in the imagination of the people when the people realise they had been lied to.
replies(1): >>32673935 #
8. lapcat ◴[01 Sep 22 09:15 UTC] No.32673935{4}[source]▶
> when the people realise they had been lied to

Eagerly awaiting that occurrence...

9. CRConrad ◴[01 Sep 22 11:06 UTC] No.32674708[source]▶
> Please don't make assumptions about what other people have or haven't studied.

They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths.

And quit whining about the guidelines when you're violating them at least as much as anyone else.

replies(1): >>32676464 #
10. lapcat ◴[01 Sep 22 14:12 UTC] No.32676464[source]▶
> They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths.

They were. To make it even more obvious: "I think someone needs to read a little more history" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292

> And quit whining about the guidelines

No. And your comment is blatantly violating the guidelines.

> you're violating them at least as much as anyone else

Nothing nearly as bad as your comment. Also, even if you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, that doesn't justify your own violations, unless you have complete disregard for them.

replies(1): >>32697976 #
11. CRConrad ◴[03 Sep 22 02:17 UTC] No.32697976{3}[source]▶
> > They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths.

> They were.

Nope. "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" is only a prediction of one likely result of an action.

It's only a commentary on one's person if one is the kind of person who thinks everything is about them.

> To make it even more obvious: "I think someone needs to read a little more history" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292

A later comment in reply to your accusation. And you're surprised you got it reflected back at you? Ah, maybe you didn't realise how well-deserved that was.

> > And quit whining about the guidelines

> No. And your comment is blatantly violating the guidelines.

Oh, not only violating, but blatantly violating, eh? Sez you.

> > you're violating them at least as much as anyone else

> Nothing nearly as bad as your comment.

You would think so.

I don't.

> Also, even if you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, that doesn't justify your own violations, unless you have complete disregard for them.

Exactly. Ponder on that for a while.