(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/08/1862/1046/mikhail-gorbachev-1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
https://www.foxnews.com/world/mikhail-gorbachev-former-soviet-leader-who-oversaw-end-cold-war-dead
RIP
A great man...RIP
I honestly thought he'd been dead for decades already. Talk about fading into obscurity.
He was marginalized and almost ostracized in Putin's Russia, as you can imagine. Ultimately his own story is a pretty sad one.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 31, 2022, 06:38:13 AM
I honestly thought he'd been dead for decades already. Talk about fading into obscurity.
He lived long enough to see there is nothing left of his legacy. Sad.
In today's Russia Stalin is a hero and Gorbachev a traitor.
RIP
There is little left of his legacy in Russia. He lamented the same thing to a friend only a month ago. That is tragic indeed.
The legacy he left the rest of the world remains much more intact:
1) Approximately 150,000,000 people in Eastern Europe and various former Soviet Republics who now enjoy national autonomy and greater personal freedom
2) The (relatively) peaceful dissolution of a nuclear-armed empire
3) Millions of Russian middle-class citizens who tasted freedom and capitalism, if only for a decade or two
I heard an interesting interview this morning on National Public Radio. It's unclear who the interviewee was, but she suggested that Gorbachev was an idealistic, Russian Communist leader who was horrified when he finally gained access to the records of Stalin's doings in the 30s and 40s.
He loved Russia and he loved the Communist party, but he loved his wife even more. He wanted to remake the Soviet Union into a place where an academic like his wife (a Professor of Philosophy) could thrive, and he realized that meant opening up Soviet history--which meant opening up Stalin's legacy. That ploy worked in 1990 because Gorbachev, like so many other Russians of his generation, had lived through the realities of Stalin's purges and its aftermath. He could remember.
Fast-forward 30 years to today, and the Russians who might remember Stalin's brutal excesses and the lessons learned from that are dead. The new generation never faced, and has largely chosen to ignore, that legacy. They never learned those lessons.
Putin's Russia is still a far cry from Stalin's Soviet Union, but it seems to be moving steadily in that direction. The reputations of the two men seem very much aligned in the eyes of their Russian supporters. I wonder if the new Russians will have to relearn such harsh, cruel lessons before they have a chance to throw off tyranny?
As a student of Russian history who has a deep close friend who is one of the leading experts of Russia in the US...I can just say...Russia is complex AF.
Gorbachev was....very likely, a man who really believed in the Leninist ideal, without the Comintern aspects. He wanted Russian Socalism in the ideal of Lenin without Lenin's desire to export the revolution. He despised Stalin's embrace of totalarian ideals and imperialist designs on Eastern Europe.
Putin wasn't something he expected. As much as we like to call him "Soviet" or like "Stalin" it's so far from the truth and what he is that he was an unexpected result by Gorbachev.
Putin does not, and has NEVER wanted to restore the Soviet Union. He wants the Russian Empire. He wants Ceasropapism, endorsed by the Orthodox Church from the Roman Throne in Moscow. Gorbachev didn't expect that kind of backlash. He never imagined a world where that would become the motivating and driving factor of Russia.
Is Putin religious?
Quote from: Gusington on September 02, 2022, 08:45:25 AM
Is Putin religious?
He's actually been extremely coy about answering that question. I'd wager personally, no, he's not.
What he is though is a major adherent to the idea that Russia is the "Third Rome", it's something he's mentioned several times. To that end, he is very tied to the influence, power and authority that the Orthodox church gave to the Russian Empire and the idea that the Tsar was also the Chief of Religion with a subordinate Patriarch.
Religious? No, but he he understands the power over people Religion provides and its importance to Imperial Russian ideals.
^I thought it would be an answer like that. So he's not 'Soviet' or a communist - does he think that 1917-1991 was a huge mistake? And does he want to reinstate a tsar??
Quote from: SirAndrewD on September 01, 2022, 11:00:53 PM
Putin does not, and has NEVER wanted to restore the Soviet Union. He wants the Russian Empire. He wants Ceasropapism, endorsed by the Orthodox Church from the Roman Throne in Moscow. [...] [He's] a major adherent to the idea that Russia is the "Third Rome", it's something he's mentioned several times. To that end, he is very tied to the influence, power and authority that the Orthodox church gave to the Russian Empire and the idea that the Tsar was also the Chief of Religion with a subordinate Patriarch.
Religious? No, but he he understands the power over people Religion provides and its importance to Imperial Russian ideals.
I've been suggesting something along the same lines in this thread, too. Glad to see some independent confirmation from another one-or-two lines! O0
This explains why he has gone in for 'national socialism' rather than 'international' (as with the Comintern). But like those other national socialists, he definitely wants to 'anschluss' (so to speak) those Russian-speaking resource regions back under his control. And then go farther: Romania has already been listed on his target board if he could get Odessa and its western final coastline secured!
I guess he's like a Paradox player, working on the map. ;)
Going back to Gorbachev: he could be just as ruthless as any prior Soviet leader, and was so during his early reign. He mellowed out as a marketing strategy for opening up the Soviet Union, once he realized they couldn't win an economic contest initiated by Reagan (and of course he didn't want to ash the planet, and for that reason along with economy rolling tanks to Portugal's coast was out. ;) )
I heard a commenter this week summarize (no doubt over-hastily) his rule as exposing the cracks in Soviet Russia in order to get some cooperative help in spackling them, which almost kind-of worked, except exposing the cracks also exposed them to more wear and tear.
But they did get Pizza Hut out of it!
Do you have a link to what you mentioned about Romania?
No, but someone linked to it waaaaay back in the Ukraine War thread, if I recall correctly -- I'm pretty sure that's where I read it, but that was weeks ago now. :buck2: Something about how he mentioned plans to go after Moldavia next, which is part of "Greater Romania"? -- Moldavia isn't a NATO member of course. (And Putin is already occupying part of it, in the Transnitria.)
Quote from: Gusington on September 02, 2022, 09:03:49 AM
^I thought it would be an answer like that. So he's not 'Soviet' or a communist - does he think that 1917-1991 was a huge mistake? And does he want to reinstate a tsar??
Yes, from his statements both public and private he seems to view the Soviet era as a mistake.
He's very old school Fascist in his thinking, in that he sees the people as in service to the state, and HE is the state. He seems to have always been very uncomfortable and dismissive of the Leninist ideal that the proletariat were the actual rulers of the Soviet state. (No matter how much that became a pretense post Lenin)
This was most evident in his rambling speech the night he declared war on Ukraine. He lamented the Soviet mistake that non Russian territories were independent "Socialist Republics" with their own identities. To him they were all Russia, always Russia and should be Russia again (Look out Baltic States and Poland).
Another evidence of this has been the treatment of Ukrainian refugees forced to go to Russia from the Mariupol region. They're classified as "Stateless" and ISW recently reported that they're going to be sent to "Adaptation Camps" for assimilation into Russian culture and identity. Very much part of Putin's dream of non-Russian erasure.
Now, as to the Tsar? Well, my old Russian History professor argues that Putin has already defacto made himself Tsar, and that's what he is in his mind. But beyond that, a Monarchy? No.
Putin doesn't seem to have given a moments thought to a line of succession and as to what will happen after he dies. On the face of it that sounds absurd, especially as he grows ill and his lifespan may be measured now in months instead of years. However, to me, it seems that over the years, especially with his loud endless proclamations of his health and heartiness, that he's fallen into the line of thinking that a lot of dictators throughout history all the way back to the first Emperors of China have. I honestly don't believe that Putin accepts that he's ever going to die.
'Non Russian territories were independent' ...'adaptation camps'...'Baltic states and Poland'...so much Hitler here. I wonder what Putin thinks of Hitler, in private, when not referring to 'the Great Patriotic War.' I would bet he idolizes Hitler.
I disagree on Putin planning a line and plan for succession. Somewhere there must be detailed plans and hand picked successors. There has to be. How could someone as fascist or royalist as Putin neglect that? Even if he doesn't think he'll ever die...
Quote from: Gusington on September 02, 2022, 11:06:17 AM
'Non Russian territories were independent' ...'adaptation camps'...'Baltic states and Poland'...so much Hitler here. I wonder what Putin thinks of Hitler, in private, when not referring to 'the Great Patriotic War.' I would bet he idolizes Hitler.
I disagree on Putin planning a line and plan for succession. Somewhere there must be detailed plans and hand picked successors. There has to be. How could someone as fascist or royalist as Putin neglect that? Even if he doesn't think he'll ever die...
What's crazy is that he doesn't seem like he actually has picked anyone.
There's certainly a short list, Patrushev, Sobyanin, Belousov and a couple of others. Medvedev would seem the logical and official choice but he seems to be largely frozen out as a pure rubber stamp yes man despite his own personal ambitions to be "the guy".
What intelligence in the west has reported is that the line of succession is very much up in the air in the Kremlin, and there's already the beginnings of a Death of Stalin type jockeying for support and position behind closed doors. Even if Putin picks someone or leaves clear instructions, no doubt no one is going to take them particularly seriously if it doesn't fit their personal ambitions.
To that end that's why there's not even the whiff of Monarchy to the Russian state.
^Really interesting. If I ever go back to school I should take some Russian history classes.
Every now and then before 2022 I have seen articles bubble to the surface on some Romanov descendants appearing for a short time and then they disappear again. None of them ever mention a desire to restore the Romanovs though, like you say.
So is Putin trying to build some weird WH40k/Russian style, 'devotion to the emperor' or something?
Russian history is great. There was a reason I concentrated in it and it wasn't just my crush on my professor.
And yeah, the Russians, even I'd wager Putin, have zero love for the old Monarchy and the decadence and more than occasional incompetence of the Romanovs.
This is why Putin has always been careful to adopt the popular identity politics of the Empire, but never directly suggest a return to its actual political structure or name. The memory of the Caste system still leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of the Russian people. One thing he likely agreed with the communists on.
Even now Putin has made sure to establish a direct, absolute dictatorship. The kleptocrats are "oligarchs" in name only. Putin runs them. When one of them crosses him they end up falling out a window.
Go back to Russia's beef with America and you will find, as George F. Kennan wrote, that they never did and never will forgive us for the invasion of 1918 in an attempt to restore the Romanovs. In their mind the US can never be trusted because of that event, and that's not something that's gone away since.
As to what Putin's vision of Russia is? Yeah, him as the Patriarch, father of all Russia "God Emperor" seems to be it. He does seem to lack the immortality part so it seems he'll leave it in a shambles when he's gone, much like 40k.
Again, pissing on the legacy and vision of Gorbachev. Russia's gonna Russia.
^Hahaha I'm afraid to look for memes for 'Russia's Gonna Russia' - the sheer number will crash my rig.
We never hear about the attempt to restore the Romanovs here in the US...I doubt there's anyone not on this site who even knows what that was anymore.
...annnnnd now I can see the skeletal remains of Putin on a golden throne, declared to be only mostly-dead by his successors, as they go on to rule the All-Russia (and occasionally shoot each other with armies) in his name!
It's a sad commentary on the life of Gorbachev that even in his funeral thread, we're talking about Putin punting along. :-[
Quote from: JasonPratt on September 02, 2022, 09:29:20 AM
Going back to Gorbachev: he could be just as ruthless as any prior Soviet leader, and was so during his early reign. He mellowed out as a marketing strategy for opening up the Soviet Union, once he realized they couldn't win an economic contest initiated by Reagan (and of course he didn't want to ash the planet, and for that reason along with economy rolling tanks to Portugal's coast was out. ;) )
I don't really agree with that assessment.
I published a peer reviewed paper in the Journal Historian in 1999 where I compiled a lot of internal Soviet resources, primarily the journals of Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and his book In Confidence, along with a compiled helicopter look by western historian John Lewis Gaddis that took a pretty deep look at the collapse of the Soviet Union from the inside. It didn't quite jive with the "America Triumphant" self congratulations of the late 80's. It didn't entirely dismiss them either. As is anything it's more complicated than that.
The thing to understand about Gorbachev, and some of his early "reign" was that he was largely a result of the disaster of the Brezhnev regime and the damage that his Soviet Adventurism did in the 1970's.
Most of the massive spike in Soviet spending came as a result of Brezhnev's policies, something that was largely unknown in the West until the 90's. There were some like Gorbachev and Dobrynin that came to the conclusion around the mid 70's that the Soviet Union was, essentially doomed. They were economically isolated and Brezhnev's policy of massive spending to try to export the Revolution by force and build more satellite states in Africa, Asia and South America set in motion a slow slide into oblivion.
After Brezhnev's death, the Politburo attempted to go back to the old guard twice, but they kept appointing elderly, sick men who simply couldn't stay alive. Gorbachev was a compromise. They knew he was a moderate and they knew about his desire to adopt western economic systems, but they felt that they could keep him hard line and under control as long as he understood he could be removed from power.
Two things happened. First, Gorbachev bided his time. He slowly replaced old and ailing members of the Politburo with reformers that strengthened his hand and let him start to make radical moves that he felt were necessary to save the Soviet Union.
Second was the Western factor. Dobrynin wrote often about how much the Soviets feared Carter. They had felt Nixon was a man they could work with, he was very shrewd, pragmatic....very Soviet. Ford was an empty suit. But Carter, Carter took moral stands and was directly confrontational with the Soviets in the political sphere. There was real fear he would launch a preemptive attack on the USSR.
Reagan scared them even more. They saw him as Carter on steroids and this was something even Gorbachev believed. Dobrynin commented on the fact that there were quite a few Hawks in the Politburo, largely old Brezhnev adherents, that felt a first strike on the US was a viable plan and policy.
Gorbachev was influenced by this and he was just as concerned about Reagan as the rest of them. However, Dobrynin was among those who had a better impression of Reagan and suggested Gorbachev sit down with him under the impression that he was willing to make real strides towards disarmament and de-escalation.
Gorbachev found that to be the case, and internally there was a lot of shock on both sides that each was so willing to compromise. This gave Gorbachev the leeway, power and ability to start real reforms.
His goal failed though. He hoped that opening the economy and allowing freedom would let the Soviets survive in a hybrid state. He was a believer in the planned economy, but he also understood that the reasons the Soviets had been losing the race for at that point decades, was that the west simply had a better brand that was easier to export. Gorbachev was too little too late to save Soviet Communism and transform it into a more moderate, hybrid system. The damage had already been done, and the internal social pressures both in its Eastern European puppets and internally were too much to bear anymore.
That Pizza Hutt commercial interestingly got a lot right. The old man who is stalwartly defending the Soviet system, the young person who pushes for reforms, and they can all agree in the end they like Pizza. That in as much as anything shows what internally was happening in the late 80's.
But, yeah, I don't think Gorbachev was forced into not being a hard liner. People that knew him didn't think that. I simply think his early days were the inevitable result of the end of the Brezhnev era and the uncertainty about American leadership.
What I do think is that Gorbachev was a moderate. He didn't want and end of the Soviet Union, he believed in its ideals and wanted it to survive. It was a doomed proposition as the USSR was never going to recover from the Era of Stagnation. True radicals like Yeltsin were right, Gorbachev didn't go far enough.
But the Soviet Union died by self inflicted wounds. It simply never could export by raw force what the West exported via economics couched with well funded force. If I'd put why the Soviets collapsed on one man, credit or blame, it's Brezhnev.
Quote from: Gusington on September 02, 2022, 12:25:04 PM
^Hahaha I'm afraid to look for memes for 'Russia's Gonna Russia' - the sheer number will crash my rig.
We never hear about the attempt to restore the Romanovs here in the US...I doubt there's anyone not on this site who even knows what that was anymore.
I learned about the Kornilov Revolt supported by the Western Allies in my 20th Century European History course. It was news to me that, within 30 years before the end of WW II, the Americans, British, and French had together sent more than 100,000 soldiers (under their own flags) to support an anti-Communist revolt that failed. In that light, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact made a little more sense to me, as did the Warsaw Pact...
I'll second SirAndrew's suggestion that Russian politics has always been really confusing. Predicting who the next Soviet head-of-state would be was almost a full-department's job at the CIA from 1945 until 1991, and even they got it wrong (or simply couldn't agree among themselves) as often as not. I don't think even most Russian citizens understand it, which accounts in part for how stoical resignation can still be coupled with fierce patriotism for so many.
Even the Communist Soviet Union fell back on more ethnic themes than Communist themes in WW II. While The Party continued to call the shots, the rhetoric shifted to be much more nationalist/patriotic. It was "Mother Russia!" much more than it was "For state and Party!" After the war, Stalin moved quite fiercely to reign back in those nationalist interests that had emerged during the fight against the Nazis.
^Have you read 'Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union' by Vlad Zubok or Fire Bird by Andrei Kozyrev, D or FarAway?
Quote from: Gusington on September 02, 2022, 03:58:20 PM
^Have you read 'Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union' by Vlad Zubok or Fire Bird by Andrei Kozyrev, D or FarAway?
Yeah, I've read Collapse.
It's an interesting take and I see a lot of Zubok's points.
I think it's correct that Gorbachev did nothing but create the opposite result of what he wanted. Jason had it right that once foundation was exposed the whole thing fell apart.
I'm not sure I 100% agree that the Soviet Union could've been saved. To retain it some reform was going to be necessary or internal pressures were going to break it. Being more hard line and keeping Eastern Europe under tight control might have lengthened things though.
For the Soviets to survive they needed to adopt a China model. Hard line with slow, planned economic opening. Who knows what that would've ended up looking like. I guess it can't be a ton worse than what we got.
Having a fascist, nuclear armed, aggressive Russia...I don't think anyone expected that. Maybe we should have. Maybe we didn't pay enough attention in the West to what we were doing, and how we were doing it, with NATO. Maybe we never cared. I guess we care now.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on September 02, 2022, 11:26:31 AM
There's certainly a short list, Patrushev, Sobyanin, Belousov and a couple of others. Medvedev would seem the logical and official choice but he seems to be largely frozen out as a pure rubber stamp yes man despite his own personal ambitions to be "the guy".
What intelligence in the west has reported is that the line of succession is very much up in the air in the Kremlin, and there's already the beginnings of a Death of Stalin type jockeying for support and position behind closed doors. Even if Putin picks someone or leaves clear instructions, no doubt no one is going to take them particularly seriously if it doesn't fit their personal ambitions.
To that end that's why there's not even the whiff of Monarchy to the Russian state.
I am glad you didn't mention Kadyrov in the line of succession. He has such ambitions, but would you care to comment on why he didn't make the shortlist and the unlikelyhood of this happening? Or perhaps, what would have to happen for him to succeed Putin?
Quote from: Uberhaus on September 02, 2022, 06:12:54 PM
I am glad you didn't mention Kadyrov in the line of succession. He has such ambitions, but would you care to comment on why he didn't make the shortlist and the unlikelyhood of this happening? Or perhaps, what would have to happen for him to succeed Putin?
Well, I can't see him being able to gain the type of political capital or the support among the military to be able to actually control the Russian state. His religion and lack of being Russian are two huge strikes against him among the power brokers in Moscow.
Now...is he someone that would have the ability to seize power? Yes. And he's ambitious and ruthless enough I'm sure he's considered it. He has a hyper loyal private army placed well and could conceivably use that to force the issue and just eliminate the opposition. If he did that, maybe he'd wager on the military just falling in line.
Still, I'm throwing darts there. The guy is feared, and he has a lot of power for being a non-Russian. He'd certainly be a worst case scenario if he took power, but hopefully I'm right in thinking he's a longshot.
Patrushev is the guy with Putin's ear and trust. He also has the strings in the intelligence community to set a succession in motion quickly, and there's a good chance Putin could actually select him for the service.
If I were a betting man, my money'd be on him.
Thanks for the commentary on Kadyrov. I'll have to learn more about Patrushev.
As for Medvedev, I had learned about his alcoholism when he threatened the west a short while ago, but now I'm hearing rumours about a suicide attempt. No reputable sources I can find mention this, though.
Quote from: Uberhaus on September 02, 2022, 08:10:45 PM
I'll have to learn more about Patrushev.
He's bad news too. Very connected and in line with Putin's fascist leanings, while being an extreme adherent to conspiracy theories. Some believe that Putin's recent unhinged state has been partly, or almost wholly Patrushev's influence.
He could conceivably be a much worse version of Putin if he takes control. Some have called him "The most dangerous man in Russia".
^He's also over 70, so maybe he will wither and die sooner than later.
The detailed essayist in my head just :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: this forum! :smitten:
All hail to SirAndrew for more detailed info! :notworthy:
^+1
Quote from: JasonPratt on September 03, 2022, 01:43:27 PM
The detailed essayist in my head just :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: this forum! :smitten:
All hail to SirAndrew for more detailed info! :notworthy:
LOL, thanks.
Finally some of the stuff I specifically went to college for and published on before I dumped academia.
That stuff is always good for cocktail party conversations, Andrew.
If you drink your cocktails with a bunch of military history nerds...
I've not read the book you refer to, although I did read "The Sleeping Bear" back around 1992 or 1993. The author acknowledged the difficulties ahead, but he seemed a bit more optimistic about Russia than facts ultimately warranted.
Most of what I was studying fell apart in 1990, but I happened to be doing a semester abroad at a Danish program specializing in European politics in the middle of it all, so I got to tour a number of the failing Republics when the governments were brand new.
It was interesting, because the heads of state had almost all changed by Spring 1990, and popular sentiment which had been suppressed for 45 years was welling up all over the place. But the new governments were still brand new, so Marx-Lenin Platz hadn't had the name changed yet, the border guards on trains in the Warsaw Pact countries were still stern bullies to their own citizens (although they weren't quite sure how to respond to those of us with American or Western European passports), and various Communist monuments had historical plaques covered with paper or industrial tape.
Walking the streets of Prague in March, my blue jeans could have been European, but my tennis shoes (the only pair of shoes I brought to Denmark) clearly set me off as American. I had an elderly Czech lady stop me in the streets, with tears in her eyes, thanking me that the US had stood strong against the Soviet Union so that her people could finally have their freedom back after 50 years.
Gorbachev wasn't able to do much for Russia. But he did A LOT for Eastern Europeans.
fuck ruzzia
I think Ukraine's doing a pretty-good job of that already. ^-^
Slava Ukraini
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on September 04, 2022, 02:34:18 PM
Gorbachev wasn't able to do much for Russia. But he did A LOT for Eastern Europeans.
... by being bad at his job, losing the control of events that took place. Not for a lack of trying, he did order Soviet tanks to crush the Baltic independence movement in the three countries, killing tens of civilians while at it. No sympathy for perhaps a lesser devil, but a devil regardless.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on September 02, 2022, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: Uberhaus on September 02, 2022, 08:10:45 PM
I'll have to learn more about Patrushev.
He's bad news too. Very connected and in line with Putin's fascist leanings, while being an extreme adherent to conspiracy theories. Some believe that Putin's recent unhinged state has been partly, or almost wholly Patrushev's influence.
He could conceivably be a much worse version of Putin if he takes control. Some have called him "The most dangerous man in Russia".
Patrusev's Putin's old boss from the KBG days iirc? Definitively bad news, and as one Putin's very few confidants, a likely successor if Putin's has anything to say about this.
The only opposition Putin's afraid of - and perhaps the only opposition that exists as such - is the war opposition, a bunch of hawks who view Putin as too weak with his actions. Patrusov's one of them for sure.
It will get worse before it gets better might well be how this would play out. Assuming it would get better with Russia. That would require their full military defeat in Ukraine, among other things.