[hechicxxrr]

A thought provocing post. But there appear to be a couple of inaccuracies in it.

Originally posted by onodera
Back in the eighties, however ridiculous it might sound, the population of the USSR was one of the most pro-American.The USA were a symbol of better life, not because of their two-party system or their free market, but because of their consumer goods. No, we didn't choose freedom, we chose jeans, cola and bubble gum. This, and we stopped executing senior party leaders, which allowed a spineless idiot to get to the top. Yeah, the one with a birthmark.
Anyway, back in 1991, people were expecting the USSR to turn into the USA. IIRC, in 1991 it was the old style Commies (or should I say Stalinists?) that deposed Gorbachev, crushing the hope for a reasonable transition of the CCCP to something new while still retaining some of the old. IMO it was Gorbachev who probably best understood the hopeless situation the Union found itself in, while he also understood that the US (or to a larger extend: the West) were more interested in peacefull co-excistance with- then annihilation of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev's rise to power was possibly driven by his understanding of what you describe as the Soviet citizens' desire for consumer goods, or what should be better described as his understanding that the economic policies of the Comminist Party of the CCCP Where hooribly outdated and could not compete to the West.
It's interesting that you speak of the Soviet populace desires in the 80's (from which Gorbachev's rise to power in 1986 IIRC stemmed), but then jump to the 90's that were governed by Yelstin after the failed coup d'etat.

Actually, they were expecting it to turn into the USSR with jeans, cola and bubble gum, but were greatly disillusioned, as a lot of things that were taken for granted suddenly disappeared:
- free education, from kindergartens to post-grad;
- free medicine, including dentistry, yes;
- free housing;
- inexpensive food;
- their life savings;
- sense of security.
This meant the USSR turned not into the USA of the people's dreams, but into the USA of Soviet propaganda. Hmmm... So perhaps the coupe was succesfull afterall...

And this was the best chance for the US to gain a new friend, to forge a juggernaut of an alliance.
What was needed was a new Marshall plan. But why would they? The leader who appeared to be one that could strike a deal with (Gorbachev) was deposed by reactionary forces, and an uncertain leader who's alligiance was unclear (Yeltsin) filled the void. His drunken behaviour certainly didn't spark much confidence.

The States could've used parts of their now superflous military budget to help Russia adapt its economy to the global market. The population would be grateful, and the later mutual profit would be immense. Would it?

What was done instead? Well, a "shock therapy" was recommended to be used in Russia, and there was also a lot of "Commies taking it in the ass " in the land of the brave. This wasn't what the people expected. At all. Yet they had voted for Yeltsin. Granted, they hadn't much choice.

Around 1994 the support for the US started to wane quite noticeably. Yet they voted for Yeltsin again.

It took a big hit when our economy defaulted in 1998 and hit rock bottom when NATO bombed our historical ally, Serbia, in 1999. Historical ally? Yougolavia was the first dent in the Soviet bloc when Tito choose to be non-aligned.

Even now, if you held a referendum, "America, **** yeah" would lose big time to "America, **** it". And this is the biggest difference between now and the Cold War. Back then, the States were seen as a generally positive force and even when they were doing their best to alienate the Union they weren't alienating the Soviet people, and now they're seen as an aggressive world policeman, and any action against Russia doesn't help their image in the eyes of an average Russian. It's ridiculous to say that during the Cold War the US (or West in general) was seen as a positive force by the Soviets or the Soviet bloc. It may have been true in the 80's (I will take your word for it) in the CCCP, and I will certainly beleive it's true for much of the populace in the sattelite-states of the Warsaw-pact for a longer time than that, but it had been a recent phenomenon in for sure.

In any case, it seams that for the Russians it would have been best if they had adopted the Marshall plan when it was proposed to them first: in the aftermath of WWII.

[quorceopporce]

Originally posted by Arrian
You agreed with the words, but not my intended meaning. My apologies. I wasn't able to follow this thread from the beginning, so I didn't know what you were implying.
I meant we didn't want to dictate our will to the world via threatening them with nuclear weapons. Now that's just crazy. Of course we do exactly that.
As for the enemies thing... if humans had no enemies at all, then I think all nation-states as we know them would collapse. No need for armies, and the primary reason to have a state is collective security. Very good.

[streMunford]

Now that's just crazy. Of course we do exactly that. Nah, we alternatively threaten them with conventional weapons and/or economic sanctions on the one hand and bribe them with money on the other.

-Arrian

[Siffidiolla]

Originally posted by onodera
Around 1994 the support for the US started to wane quite noticeably. It took a big hit when our economy defaulted in 1998 and hit rock bottom when NATO bombed our historical ally, Serbia, in 1999. This was the critical period in setting Russia's direction and when it all went wrong.

1992 and 1993 were very difficult years going from an economy with rationing by queue to rationing by price, but a market economy started from the bottom up. 1993 had reactionary forces opposing Yeltsin and tanks shooting on the streets of Moscow.

1994 saw things getting better, but the end of 1995 saw insider deals between Yeltsin and oligarchs, where they got state assets cheaply and he got their support in the 1996 election. That election also saw the media (even the non-state owned part) blatently supporting Yeltsin as they did not want a communist president.

The problem in 1996 to 1998 was that the external image of Russia had been changed and western money come flooding in. This took off the pressure to reform and was the point that I lost hope that Russia would transform itself into a western democracy with a functioning economy and legal system.

The financial collapse in 1998 was the point that many Russians lost confidence in a western approach and started looking for a strong leader who they eventually found in Putin.

Overall IMHO:
-the shock therapy was applied too slowly, as senior people did not want the collapse of the major industrial units
-Yeltsin and the oligarchs were too ready to put their personal goals above the good of the country
-when things appeared to be getting better reforms stalled
-Russians do not like being told what to do by outsiders so a larger plan would not have helped

[Ygxejxox]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You're whack. actually he has a point

[MIBgirlsXXL]

Let's not forget that a good number of people here in the US still saw Russia as an enemy after 1991. There's no way Clinton could have passed aid in the form of a Marshall Plan after 1st exiting a recession and then after the Newt took over the House.

In addition the Russians gave out 'parcels' of ex-govt industries to the people, who were by then so desperate 99% sold them off immediately to buy the basics for living. A very few wealthy families bought up those parcels and the stage was set for oligarchy as early as '92.

By the mid-nineties Russia was looking like a money pit to most western companies, as the red tape they were bound with did not apply to home-grown business (or they knew better how to navigate it). I seriously doubt anything we did after that could've been much better than how things turned out.

[Teprophopay]

Sure, in hindsight then.

[tsaaapla]

Can anyone understand what BK was trying to say? I'll rephrase it. The west offered an olive branch to Russia, and Russia refused to take it.

Exactly 10 years ago we had no economy to speak of. It was destroyed by the tidal forces of capitalism. No, it was because communism collapsed and you weren't willing to give market reforms a chance.

20 years ago we were ruled by a wimp who did his best to ruin the country while claiming he was restarting the economy. All for a shiny medal from Sweden and all the pizza he can eat. The Soviet Union could not be preserved in any situation.

Do you think we should be grateful for that condescending act? Also, back then there was a lot of political freedom here. Nothing good came out of it. Condescending? It was an olive branch. This is exactly why Russia is isolated.

I don't love Putin, but I don't hate him. He is not a perfect benevolent dictator you might think everyone here is thinking he is, but he's the best ruler we had since that guy from Gori. There's a lot of room for improvement (more people should join Khodorkovsky, for example, but there should be fewer state-owned TV channels), but can you name a better candidate? A better candidate? Kasparov.

Okay, what do you say we should do? Repudiate the Soviet union, by handing over Karelia to Finland and East Prussia to the Germans.

The second thing you should do is offer a free trade zone with all the former satellites, by which they can sell their goods free to Russia and vice versa.

The third is to intial market reforms, and strip away the controlled economy.

The fourth is to offer guarantees of independence to all the small republics.

[TineSeign]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A better candidate? Kasparov. Do you believe people will vote for the guy?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Repudiate the Soviet union, by handing over Karelia to Finland and East Prussia to the Germans.

The second thing you should do is offer a free trade zone with all the former satellites, by which they can sell their goods free to Russia and vice versa.

The third is to intial market reforms, and strip away the controlled economy.

The fourth is to offer guarantees of independence to all the small republics. Only if you give California to Mexico first.

I'm not well informed about the state of our trade agreements, but I don't think there's a lot of restrictions. We're actually subsidizing some of our neighbours by selling raw commodities at a low price.

I agree that small businesses in Russia are in a sad state, but I'm against large corporations controlling our heavy industry and natural resourses. These should be nationalized if they already aren't.

Fourth is not a problem at all. We have never tried to annex any of the former Soviet republics.

[lodsemelf]

Do you believe people will vote for the guy? He's got good ideas. He'd be a strong leader of Russia.

Only if you give California to Mexico first. It's territory that rightfully belongs to Finland and Germany.

Just because others do things that are wrong, doesn't justify you doing wrong things too.

Fourth is not a problem at all. We have never tried to annex any of the former Soviet republics. That would mean withdrawing from all of Georgia.

[gopsbousperie]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't know if privatization vs nationalization matters much in Russia. All the proceeds will go to the rich anyway. Exactly. Corruption has always been the Russian Economic problem. From the Tsars to the Communist to the Democrats to the New Totalitarianism. The country will never be the economic power that it could be until it cures that problem.

[Tij84ye]

He's definitely worse in body count

[rootoronpunty]

I’ll format this using chevrons, if you don’t mind. It’s a chore to multiquote.
>A thought provoking post. But there appear to be a couple of inaccuracies in it.
Probably. I do not claim to be 100% accurate.

>>Back in the eighties, however ridiculous it might sound, the population of the USSR was one of the most pro-American. The USA were a symbol of better life, not because of their two-party system or their free market, but because of their consumer goods. No, we didn't choose freedom, we chose jeans, cola and bubble gum. This, and we stopped executing senior party leaders, which allowed a spineless idiot to get to the top. Yeah, the one with a birthmark.
>>Anyway, back in 1991, people were expecting the USSR to turn into the USA.
>IIRC, in 1991 it was the old style Commies (or should I say Stalinists?) that deposed Gorbachev, crushing the hope for a reasonable transition of the CCCP to something new while still retaining some of the old. IMO it was Gorbachev who probably best understood the hopeless situation the Union found itself in, while he also understood that the US (or to a larger extend: the West) were more interested in peaceful co-existence with- then annihilation of the Soviet Union.
He drove the country to food rationing and let nationalist rulers take power in the republics. Well, maybe the wheel of history was turning and he just happened to be there, but his policies didn’t help either. You can’t mix planned economy with hozraschet.
>Gorbachev's rise to power was possibly driven by his understanding of what you describe as the Soviet citizens' desire for consumer goods, or what should be better described as his understanding that the economic policies of the Communist Party of the CCCP Where horribly outdated and could not compete to the West.
I think any politician’s rise to power is driven by his or her lust for power. And yes, we were exhausted by the military competition.

>It's interesting that you speak of the Soviet populace desires in the 80's (from which Gorbachev's rise to power in 1986 IIRC stemmed), but then jump to the 90's that were governed by Yelstin after the failed coup d'etat.
1989-1993 is a one big WTF period of Russian history. I still cannot comprehend it completely.

>>Actually, they were expecting it to turn into the USSR with jeans, cola and bubble gum, but were greatly disillusioned, as a lot of things that were taken for granted suddenly disappeared:
>>- free education, from kindergartens to post-grad;
>>- free medicine, including dentistry, yes;
>>- free housing;
>>- inexpensive food;
>>- their life savings;
>>- sense of security.
>>This meant the USSR turned not into the USA of the people's dreams, but into the USA of Soviet propaganda.
>Hmmm... So perhaps the coup was successful after all...
The second one was.

>>And this was the best chance for the US to gain a new friend, to forge a juggernaut of an alliance.
>>What was needed was a new Marshall plan.
>But why would they? The leader who appeared to be one that could strike a deal with (Gorbachev) was deposed by reactionary forces, and an uncertain leader whose allegiance was unclear (Yeltsin) filled the void. His drunken behaviour certainly didn't spark much confidence.
You might be right, the USA probably expected Russia to fragment further (which it nearly did).

>>The States could've used parts of their now superflous military budget to help Russia adapt its economy to the global market. The population would be grateful, and the later mutual profit would be immense.
>Would it?
It’d still be better than a low-key confrontation.

>>What was done instead? Well, a "shock therapy" was recommended to be used in Russia, and there was also a lot of "Commies taking it in the ass " in the land of the brave. This wasn't what the people expected. At all.
>Yet they had voted for Yeltsin. Granted, they hadn't much choice.
I don’t consider the 1993 coup an election.

>>Around 1994 the support for the US started to wane quite noticeably.
>Yet they voted for Yeltsin again.
Actually, Zyuganov won. Even with large-scale electoral fraud, Yeltsin barely managed to scrape up enough votes to win in the second rounf.

>>It took a big hit when our economy defaulted in 1998 and hit rock bottom when NATO bombed our historical ally, Serbia, in 1999.
>Historical ally? Yugoslavia was the first dent in the Soviet bloc when Tito chose to be non-aligned.
Dating back to the Imperial times. Do you remember how the WWI started?

>>Even now, if you held a referendum, "America, **** yeah" would lose big time to "America, **** it". And this is the biggest difference between now and the Cold War. Back then, the States were seen as a generally positive force and even when they were doing their best to alienate the Union they weren't alienating the Soviet people, and now they're seen as an aggressive world policeman and any action against Russia doesn't help their image in the eyes of an average Russian.
>It's ridiculous to say that during the Cold War the US (or West in general) was seen as a positive force by the Soviets or the Soviet bloc. It may have been true in the 80's (I will take your word for it) in the CCCP, and I will certainly believe it's true for much of the populace in the satellite-states of the Warsaw-pact for a longer time than that, but it had been a recent phenomenon in for sure.
It was true in the 70’s as well. I can’t say that about the 60’s, as they were the hottest part of the Cold War.

>In any case, it seems that for the Russians it would have been best if they had adopted the Marshall plan when it was proposed to them first: in the aftermath of WWII.
Yeah. JS would’ve cheated the US out of their money. But back then the Red Flower was still blooming, and accepting it would mean accepting your second place, which would stop the spreading of the red idea.

[Sniliabiz]

He was a butcher on a mass scale.

[GetsTan]

Originally posted by onodera

Oh, come on. He might not be a communist, but you can't deny how much he did for Russia. heavy industry > millions killed?

[irrehoobe]

Originally posted by onodera

Oh, come on. He might not be a communist, but you can't deny how much he did for Russia. It isn't the "communist" part of his personality that I find revolting...

[corriffuniee]

Originally posted by DanS
The countries that embraced the sharpest turns from communism are now the most successful economically. See, e.g., the Czech Republic and Poland. I attribute it to geography in at least equally large measure.