←back to thread

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

(www.reuters.com)
970 points homarp | 3 comments | 30 Aug 22 20:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
mytailorisrich ◴[30 Aug 22 21:18 UTC] No.32655210[source]▶
Democracy does not imply friend of or aligned with the West.

Russia has historically been an imperial power and seeks to further its own power and perceived interests, and they certainly refuse to be under foreign/Western/American domination.

A democratic government could mean less reckless actions but it wouldn't necessarily mean friendlier actions.

replies(2): >>32655400 #>>32655841 #
ajross ◴[30 Aug 22 22:13 UTC] No.32655841[source]▶
> Democracy does not imply friend of or aligned with the West.

It seems like it does, though? I mean, no, it's not like India or Brazil are subjugated client states of the US or Germany or whatever, but they know where their natural allies are and which direction the wind blows in international relationships. Market democracies are going to stick together, if for no other reason than because they'll end up poorer if they don't, and they don't like that.

replies(1): >>32659860 #
1. mytailorisrich ◴[31 Aug 22 08:47 UTC] No.32659860[source]▶
Germany is dominated by the US since WWII (having been invaded and occupied) in the same way Japan is.

India is neither aligned nor allied with the US. They share interests particularly when it comes to containing China. But again India's interests on this have nothing to do with being a democracy or with China not being a democracy.

The US are of course heavily involved in Brazil, including by supporting the military coup there in 1964... following which the military government was unsurprisingly completely aligned with the US.

I think that there is a 'survivor' bias here because most countries are not strong enough to resist the US so either they are 'friendly' or something might happen to them... Iran did democratically elect a President once but he was not 'friendly' so was promptly replaced by a friendly dictator.

To assume shared geopolitical interests only because two countries are superficially "market democracies" sounds rather naive.

replies(1): >>32664530 #
2. ajross ◴[31 Aug 22 16:26 UTC] No.32664530[source]▶
> India is neither aligned nor allied with the US. They share interests

Which is pretty much what I said, no?

> particularly when it comes to containing China. But again India's interests on this have nothing to do with being a democracy or with China not being a democracy.

But... it is. India can trust the US, to be blunt, not to shit in the bed of international commerce and trade. India can trust, on balance[1], that if it provides valuable exports that the US will consume them and that if the US has a product on the market India will be able to buy it. India can not trust China or Russia to operate in the same kind of good-faith/mutual-interest paradigm.

And the reason is that the US government is constrained by its populace, who don't like it when stuff gets expensive. Putin and Xi are not so constrained (to different extents, Putin is far more of a rogue actor), and are free to take actions in direct contravention of international norms if they think it's in their "long term" best interests. Democracies can't do that.

[1] Yes, there are always exceptions. But they don't involve "lemme just outlaw all your products and invade my neighbor, 'K?"

replies(1): >>32665324 #
3. mytailorisrich ◴[31 Aug 22 17:14 UTC] No.32665324[source]▶
The problems between India and China have nothing to do with any of what you mention. It's about regional influence and, especially, border disputes actually created by the British, none of which would change if China suddenly became a democracy (in fact public opinion is quite nationalistic of both sides so beware).

In fact it's India that has played the "lemme outlaw your products" card against China recently.

On the other hand, India has very good relations with Russia. Russia supplies half of India's military equipment.

Let's not get into invading others as the US would certainly NOT look good, including or especially compared to China...

So, again, your view seems rather superficial and naive.