←back to thread

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

(www.reuters.com)
970 points homarp | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bediger4000 ◴[] No.32654941[source]
I was taught that Ronald Reagan ended the cold war and gave us the longest lasting economic boom.
replies(7): >>32654994 #>>32654999 #>>32655091 #>>32655200 #>>32655258 #>>32658202 #>>32661189 #
flavius29663 ◴[] No.32654999[source]
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.
replies(4): >>32655037 #>>32655121 #>>32655195 #>>32655217 #
woodruffw ◴[] No.32655121[source]
There's a disconnect here: the US policy in question took place over decades, not the 8 years that Reagan was president.
replies(2): >>32655185 #>>32656176 #
avmich ◴[] No.32655185[source]
It's easy to argue that it's USSR people, not Western, who benefited most from the end of the Cold War.
replies(2): >>32655262 #>>32655334 #
romwell ◴[] No.32655334[source]
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.

replies(3): >>32655463 #>>32655722 #>>32655880 #
mantas ◴[] No.32655722[source]
Yeah, USSR should have kept all the occupied countries!

/sarcasm

replies(1): >>32657851 #
1. romwell ◴[] No.32657851[source]
I was trying to say that there was a way forward for the Cold War to end without the dissolution of the USSR — not that it'd be great for the occupied countries (or people of USSR in general) for USSR to continue existing.

The dissolution could have happened afterwards, in an organized manner, as a process — not a cataclysm.

That way we could have ended up with the new countries not having old apparatchiks as little tsars. Maybe we'd have an independent Yakutia, Siberia, Tatarstan too

replies(1): >>32658737 #
2. mantas ◴[] No.32658737[source]
Dissolution as it did was quite organised. Especially when you take into consideration that the society could barely function in market economy after decades of living sovietism. And economically it was a mess with too much focus on military complex. The rest being terribly inefficient.

The only way to stay away from the old apparatchiks would have been management by occupational forces for several decades. And that occupational forces should have kept USSR market closed instead of pushing their own produce. Which is hardly possible.

replies(1): >>32658883 #
3. avmich ◴[] No.32658883[source]
Right. I'd add that it was, judging by historical parallels, rather happy dissolution - not perfect, as GP mentions, but hardly a cause for too much annoyance.
replies(1): >>32659783 #
4. mantas ◴[] No.32659783{3}[source]
Well, for the annoyances part, Russia did great work to setup future annoyances that they're now exploiting. Rebel republics in Georgia that were exploited in 2008. Nagorno karabach in Armenia is hot since late 80s and probably will stay such in foreseeable future. Then Moldova's Padniestre is ripe and would have been next after Ukraine. Crimea with special status of Sevastopol was perfect setup too.

Here in Lithuania we narrowly avoided a similar issue as well with an attempt to establish an „autonomous republic“ in early 90s.