From Fox News

Gorbachev was the Soviet premier I actually remember (vaguely recall Andropov and Brezhnev, but was too young to care about them.) Apparently not a favorite in Russia but even as a teenager I was fascinated by the Reagan-Gorbachev dynamic that marked "the beginning of the end."

I was very skeptical at the time, but I am pleased he played a large part in the changes that followed the Cold War.

Sad that "we all" could not have done better with the opportunity presented to the world.

I appreciated his courage.

He was a commie but not a G D commie. There could have been many worse guys in charge of the Soviet U. at the time.

He saw the writing on the wall. Most Russians have a very low opinion of him, mainly due to the belief that he 'allowed' the West to destroy what they had. A misguided belief, that what was once a glorious and proud nation, was really a bankrupt and hollow shell of a nation, surviving on its own mythology and self crafted image.

He was a card carrying member of the Club of Rome and a U.N. Globalist.
I couldn't care less.

I had the opportunity to hear him speak in person in the late 90's and he was very complimentary of his old foe, Ronald Reagan. I agree with Herkdriver's characterization.

He was on my celebrity death list, so now I’m tied with my wife and FIL with 1 so far this year….here’s to hoping my least favorite traitor Jane Fonda gets her wings this year.

He truly believed that communism didn't need violence/force to stay in control. He acted on that belief, and the wheels came off.

On purpose or not, his actions (and inactions) freed Eastern Europe and a host of others from Russian control.

For anyone curious how that all transpired, there's a good book on what happened to the USSR. "The Strange Death of the Soviet Empire"

RIP, Mr. Gorbachev.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
He saw the writing on the wall. Most Russians have a very low opinion of him, mainly due to the belief that he 'allowed' the West to destroy what they had. A misguided belief, that what was once a glorious and proud nation, was really a bankrupt and hollow shell of a nation, surviving on its own mythology and self crafted image.

That's a popular Russian sentiment these days of course; the somewhat more informed still blame him for losing control of a necessary reform process. Gorbachev wasn't the first to see the Soviet economic model was unsustainable, after all. Ironically, that recognition originated within the KGB, which was very much aware that the West was leaving the USSR in the dust, not least because their agents there saw it with their own eyes. By the late 70s, then-KGB chief Yuri Andropov established a dedicated unit to keep track of the divergent economic development.

When Andropov became Soviet leader in 1982, he tried to enforce more discipline in production, clamp down on corruption, fight alcoholism, etc. He also started legislation to strengthen participation of workers in their plants, but died before further reforms to give citizens more freedoms and room for initiative while retaining overall party control could be launched. Meanwhile the KGB and affiliated institutes experimented with capitalist methods, establishing "friendly firms" in the West to bring in hard currency and embargoed technology, and hiring young enterprising minds to try some of that at home; frequently from ethnic minorities which hit a glass ceiling in the Soviet system despite its promise of egality, like Jews, Caucasians and Central Asians.

In Andropov's last months there was a large-scale experiment of giving plants in several Soviet republics authority to make their own decisions, which improved productivity notably. The model was later expanded, and would have led to a system similar to contemporary China - essentially capitalism under party control - though at the time the role model was Pinochet's Chile, of all places. When Andropov's protegee Gorbachev rose to the top, he enacted far more comprehensive reforms though; not just allowing private enterprises but also devolving more authority to the Soviet republics and districts and rolling back repression, including media censorship. That led to public exposure of common bad conditions and the dark sides of Soviet history, loss of trust in the system and rise of nationalism among the various nationalities.

In the end those centrifugal tendencies tore the USSR apart. The attempted 1991 coup by communist hardliners which Yeltsin seized upon to disband the Union and become president of Russia merely sealed its fate. The KGB had gone into self-preservation mode by the late 80s, looting state and party coffers to funnel money into their network of "friendly firms" in the West and at home to prepare for a later return to power. Of course then they lost control of their young entrepreneurs who seized upon liberal market reforms under Yeltsin to gobble up large parts of former state enterprises and become the original Russian oligarchs - until the actual return of the KGB in the guise of Putin, who exacted the old guard's revenge on them and put his own cronies in their place.

Whether the USSR could actually have survived with someone else than Gorbachev, or him enacting different politics, is doubtful; apparently serious attempts at alternate history to that effect tend to start changing things at least in the 60s. In the end, for all the hard feelings and revisionist thinking it caused in Russia, up to the war in Ukraine, its downfall was for the better of course; millions of Eastern Europeans got freed from communist rule. Germans in particular love Gorbachev to this day for his role in re-unification of Germany, mainly by not interfering with it. Though as so often in history, his famous statement of "those who are late are punished by life" to East German hardline communist holdout leader Erich Honecker is actually a misquote; he really stated some variations of "danger/trouble await (only) those who don't react to life".

I think Sigmonkey hit it about right.

There was a tremendous opportunity during the Bush-1 and Clinton eras to help guide that part of the world, and Russia in particular, into a direction so we wouldn't face the Russia that we face today. Now that ship has sailed.

Much like the events at the end of World War 1 could have kept a number of the problems we have faced since from happening or mitigated them to a large degree.

We needed a once in a century leader to be in control during once a once in a century event and really missed out.

".....that what was once a glorious and proud nation, was really a bankrupt and hollow shell of a nation, surviving on its own mythology and self crafted image."

Sounds familiar.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
He was a card carrying member of the Club of Rome and a U.N. Globalist.
I couldn't care less.

Jesus Christ on a stick. He presided over the USSR as it was falling apart, and was instrumental in preventing that collapse from leading to internal conflict and becoming a larger conflict with the West. I think he deserves a lot of credit for preventing disaster as the USSR collapsed.

Some Putinistas think the USSR could have been sustained and Gorbachev let it collapse. Maybe collapse could have been forestalled, but central control communism was doomed, and Gorbachev, at the very least, steered to a controlled crash.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
He was a card carrying member of the Club of Rome and a U.N. Globalist.
I couldn't care less.

Jesus Christ on a stick. He presided over the USSR as it was falling apart, and was instrumental in preventing that collapse from leading to internal conflict and becoming a larger conflict with the West. I think he deserves a lot of credit for preventing disaster as the USSR collapsed.

Some Putinistas think the USSR could have been sustained and Gorbachev let it collapse. Maybe collapse could have been forestalled, but central control communism was doomed, and Gorbachev, at the very least, steered to a controlled crash.

Everything most people know about the man comes from the same MSM that is destroying Nationalism in this country. I'm happy you believe everything you watched on those 3 major networks back in the day.

"We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road." --Mikhail Gorbachev

Sorry I don't share your warm and fuzzy feelings about the man.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

Everything most people know about the man comes from the same MSM that is destroying Nationalism in this country. I'm happy you believe everything you watched on those 3 major networks back in the day.

"We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road." --Mikhail Gorbachev

Sorry I don't share your warm and fuzzy feelings about the man.

I'm not saying he wasn't a committed communist. But that doesn't make what I did say not true. The collapse of the USSR could have been a world disaster.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
There was a tremendous opportunity during the Bush-1 and Clinton eras to help guide that part of the world, and Russia in particular, into a direction so we wouldn't face the Russia that we face today. Now that ship has sailed.

Much like the events at the end of World War 1 could have kept a number of the problems we have faced since from happening or mitigated them to a large degree.

We needed a once in a century leader to be in control during once a once in a century event and really missed out.

I think after WWII, with a very weakened Russia, that was a prime opportunity to have pushed to Moscow and rid them and communism of existence. I believe that's what Patton wanted to do. Hell I think helping Nazi Germany defeat Russia would have resulted in a lesser evil than what ultimately happened. Without Russia and the Soviet Union, China doesn't exist as it does today. Chiang would've remained in power and likely successfully purged the communists such as Mao and company. No Soviet Union and no red China means the wars in Korea and Vietnam never happen and Korea is still a single country.

Think about the tens (maybe hundreds?) of millions of people who were murdered, purged and starved to death under communism. It truly is the greatest evil of all-time.

If I could send a Terminator to go back in time to eliminate one person from existence, it would be Karl Marx.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

Everything most people know about the man comes from the same MSM that is destroying Nationalism in this country. I'm happy you believe everything you watched on those 3 major networks back in the day.

"We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road." --Mikhail Gorbachev

Sorry I don't share your warm and fuzzy feelings about the man.

I'm not saying he wasn't a committed communist. But that doesn't make what I did say not true. The collapse of the USSR could have been a world disaster.

Do you think the collapse of the USSR just happened or do you think there could have been a itsy bitsy possibility some really powerful people made it happen for reasons other than what you were told in the News? I know...it was just the right thing to do to save the world. God Bless you Comrade Gorbachev!

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:


Do you think the collapse of the USSR just happened or do you think there could have been a itsy bitsy possibility some really powerful people made it happen for reasons other than what you were told in the News? I know...it was just the right thing to do to save the world. God Bless you Comrade Gorbachev!

Yes, you are right. You are so much smarter than the rest of us. You know things we don't know. You see the true way of the world, and we all live in ignorant bliss because it is more comfortable and it is what they want.

You really enjoy being wiser, smarter, and better informed than the rest of us.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:


Do you think the collapse of the USSR just happened or do you think there could have been a itsy bitsy possibility some really powerful people made it happen for reasons other than what you were told in the News? I know...it was just the right thing to do to save the world. God Bless you Comrade Gorbachev!

Yes, you are right. You are so much smarter than the rest of us. You know things we don't know. You see the true way of the world, and we all live in ignorant bliss because it is more comfortable and it is what they want.

You really enjoy being wiser, smarter, and better informed than the rest of us.

I stated my opinion based on my research. Sorry I disagreed with your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

Everything most people know about the man comes from the same MSM that is destroying Nationalism in this country. I'm happy you believe everything you watched on those 3 major networks back in the day.

"We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road." --Mikhail Gorbachev

Sorry I don't share your warm and fuzzy feelings about the man.

I'm not saying he wasn't a committed communist. But that doesn't make what I did say not true. The collapse of the USSR could have been a world disaster.

Do you think the collapse of the USSR just happened or do you think there could have been a itsy bitsy possibility some really powerful people made it happen for reasons other than what you were told in the News? I know...it was just the right thing to do to save the world. God Bless you Comrade Gorbachev!

Holy crap. I’d hate to know what you know about what’s happening in the world today.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
I think Sigmonkey hit it about right.

There was a tremendous opportunity during the Bush-1 and Clinton eras to help guide that part of the world, and Russia in particular, into a direction so we wouldn't face the Russia that we face today. Now that ship has sailed.

Much like the events at the end of World War 1 could have kept a number of the problems we have faced since from happening or mitigated them to a large degree.

We needed a once in a century leader to be in control during once a once in a century event and really missed out.

I'm not sure much could have been done differently, honestly. Bush's "no bailout for Gorbachev" policy was criticized as missing a chance to build another friendly democracy through a new Marshall Plan; but I suspect he was right that American voters wouldn't have stood for propping up a nominally still communist country after decades of socialism. There were also concerns that American aid would have made Gorbachev look like a US stooge for his own conservatives, and given how just the presence of American economic advisors to the Yeltsin government has been spun into "the West tried to destroy Russia by making it adopt liberal market reforms which weakened the state!" there, that can't be discounted.

The two other major variables in the Bush/Gorbachev era were German reunification and independence of former Soviet Republics, particularly the Baltic States. On the first, Gorbachev as noted was himself a major enabler when he cut the Eastern European satellites lose because the Soviets could no longer afford the military expenditures to back up political control. They might have harbored the illusion that two German states would continue to exist even after the fall of socialism in the DDR, because reunification was conditional to consent of the WW II allies; indeed the British and French weren't exactly enthusiast at the prospect of a united Germany that would surpass them in sheer size, and the resulting economic and political power. So Bush's support for unification was essential.

I'm probably biased, but I can't see how another course would have led to an overall better result. Reunification would have remained an issue causing political friction in the middle of Europe on end, and with the East German border regime gone, the DDR would just have bled dry as it was going to before the Wall and fences. The other question was NATO membership; again the Soviets may have hoped for a neutral Germany, but given history, again noone in the West was going to allow a big reunited nation like that not to be tied into Western security structures; least of all the West German government at the time. All the ideas about NATO guarantees not covering East Germany were impractical and flew in the face of the alliance's principle of indivisible security. Writing into the 2+4 Treaty that there would be no permanent basing of foreign troops and no nuclear systems in East Germany was the best the USSR was going to get.

The independence of the Baltic States was more serious since they were actually part of the USSR, and their breaking away started the unravelling of the whole thing. But then they had been independent nations between the World Wars before being annexed by the Soviets, and while the West didn't belabor the issue afterwards for reasons of Realpolitik, their claim to statehood was always recognized. Even so, official recognition of their independence wasn't forthcoming before early 1991, after a struggle going back three years with much declarations, referendums, peaceful protests and violent crackdowns; and then it was first by small Western nations like Iceland and Denmark.

The US was preoccupied with events in the Persian Gulf at the time and didn't really throw its weight around on the issue. Eventually the outcome of the Moscow coup attempt in August put paid to the issue, the USSR, and Gorbachev's presidency. It's hard to see how Bush could have made things go differently - tell the Baltics to cool it in a complete moral reversal of Western policy and indeed precedent from American history? Ride to the rescue of Gorbachev during the coup, intervening in a domestic Soviet conflict? Now there would have been some chance to trigger WW III after basically winning the Cold War.

In the Clinton-Yeltsin era, we have the aforementioned liberal market reforms and the contentious issue of NATO expansion. On the first, again it's hard to see what Clinton could have done differently. Russian conspiracy theory notwithstanding, it wasn't the US government making Yeltsin deregulate the economy at breakneck speed and selling off state enterprises to the emerging oligarchs at firesale prices. There was a bunch of Harvard economists advising him, hoping to emulate the success of capitalist "shock therapy" in Poland. Mostly however there was good old-fashioned political horsetrading and corruption, with the oligarchs promising to defend Yeltsin (and their wealth) against the resurgent communists through their economic power, stakes in media, etc.

Now NATO expansion admittedly originated basically 100 percent in American domestic politics. In the Bush era, there was wide consent in Western politics that the notorious verbal promises that "NATO won't expand an inch to the East" made by US secretary of state James Baker and his German colleague Hans-Dietrich Genscher, although made in the context of unification with East Germany (see 2+4 Treaty above), meant "or beyond". Come the Clinton years, and Republicans were eyeing swing states with substantial voter demographics of Eastern European descent to win over with promises of NATO membership for the old countries. The Democrats weren't going to hand them that, so within a couple years you have broad bi-partisan support and the US government pushing for expansion within the alliance.

The rise of the neocons, flush with the feeling of "we won the Cold War, it's the dawn of an American century in which we'll use unchallenged US power to bring the entire world democracy and free markets", did its part. It's hard to say how a different approach would have gone. The Eastern Europeans certainly feel proven right in their drive to seek security in NATO by Putin's aggressive politics and military interventions in the last 20 years or so. The counter-argument would be that Russia wouldn't have been driven there without NATO expansion. Personally, I doubt that; there's ample built-up resentment from the other issues above, which as noted look hard to change.

Moreover, the way Putin came to power and secured it was heavily influenced by the chaos of the Yeltsin years, but not external factors; and his system, or of anyone like him, is threatened by the success of liberal Western democratic free market systems in Eastern Europe. I believe that any realistically imaginable Russian government in this time would try to reassert its grip on the former Soviet sphere of influence, challenging the Western model. Which would suck for the Eastern Europeans if they weren't in NATO.