End of an Era – Boris Yelsin DEAD!!!

So in this way you justify the Soviets action yet

Justify what? Who didn’t do the same thing is my question. If the Soviets were really after as much land as they could grab they liberated Manchuria. They were under no obligation to return that to China. They took islands from the Japanese and have not returned them either… but then the Japanese took Port Arthur from the Russians and didn’t return it till they were forced to.

…that is generally how it works… land taken by force is usually relinquished only by force. Ask the Serbs.

so if you are anti-West, then are you anti-Soviet as well? or do you hold a double standard even though the Soviets used the same methods as other “Western powers”

I did not say I was anti western… that is merely PhantomIIs opinion… he also thinks I am anti American too I think. Sure the Soviets used many of the same methods as used by the West. But on a much smaller scale and for a much shorter period of time. They spent a lot of time fighting for survival rather than aquiring territory.

no, they are part of China that Russia took over. Alot of the asian tribes that live there had to flee to the Chinese side of the border.

when did they part of China? Even old times before nations states boundries were defined by tribes. but it does not mean Tribes own that land. they just managed to live there before any other power. and Soviet Union should have anexed Mongolia as part of Russia. Just small population and rest of world has suffered because of Mongols in the past. Simlarly 70% of Kazakistan and whole of Eastern Ukraine also belongs to Russia becaues of ethinic, scientific, economic reasons.
It was Russia that played Great Game with British empire in 19th century. and empire stretched from Easter Europen like Poland/Finland to Pacific coast in one homoenous structures unlike small islands of British.
China was a small kingdom at that point. For making claim on another terroitory there should be reason like language, Ethinicities, Scientific base, Economic dependency. like USA can make a claim on Taiwan. because Most of Tawianese speak english, using US scientific base for modernization (which is again built by Russian immigrants and other Eastern Europeans).

Under Yeltsin, Russo-Chinese relations were very warm.. but under Putin, he says one thing but does another.

Putin is alot clever than Yelstin. He is making a Global alliance of natural resource countries for raising the price which directly contridicts with natural resource consuming countries.

Every line on the map of the world that represents a border is a political creation usually determined by military force. Look at the wars between the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. The whole idea of a country is political and was largely created by force. Countries appear and disappear with regularity, especially in Europe.
What is your point? If the Russian empire hadn’t gobbled them up then the Chinese or the Turks or someone else would have. There are no good guys.

So in this way you justify the Soviets action yet

“the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
If might really was right then rapists would be the good guys…

so if you are anti-West, then are you anti-Soviet as well? or do you hold a double standard even though the Soviets used the same methods as other “Western powers”

indeed many were part of Russia before learning of the existence of the resources of that region..but they became a part of Russia through conquests and annexation, not just areas East of the Urals but even those in the West too.

Every line on the map of the world that represents a border is a political creation usually determined by military force. Look at the wars between the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. The whole idea of a country is political and was largely created by force. Countries appear and disappear with regularity, especially in Europe.

Some may have joined voluntarily with the Russian Empire, but others bitterly opposed it, and others were too miniscule in number to offer decent resistance. But even in that case they continued to fight.

What is your point? If the Russian empire hadn’t gobbled them up then the Chinese or the Turks or someone else would have. There are no good guys.

You seem very anti-western Garry.

I do believe that is the understatement of the year…..

———-
“the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
———-
Samuel P. Huntington

If might really was right then rapists would be the good guys…

You seem very anti-western Garry.

I do believe that is the understatement of the year…..

The parts of Russia that are east of the Urals are parts of Russia. They are not treated as a colony, and were part of Russia long before any oil was found there or many of the other resources that have been found there too.

indeed many were part of Russia before learning of the existence of the resources of that region..but they became a part of Russia through conquests and annexation, not just areas East of the Urals but even those in the West too. Some may have joined voluntarily with the Russian Empire, but others bitterly opposed it, and others were too miniscule in number to offer decent resistance. But even in that case they continued to fight.

also they certainly were treated more like colonies. take your pick, from the Russian imperial era, the Russians practiced heavy taxes and encouraged ethnic Russian immigration to these areas often in conflict with natives.. during the Soviet era, the Soviets sent many ethnic Russians and Ukrainians to these areas simply to work on the industry of extracting these resources, none of which stays in their own area.. all the raw resources are sent elsewhere (usually to European Russia) for processing and sold by them, not the area of these resources. As such, these resource colonies don’t even earn most of the profits. That is no different from Western Europe or America’s resource colonies in Africa, Asia, etc where they solely provide the raw materials.

Only during Yeltsin’s era did some of these territories like Yakutia and Bashkortostan, fight the federal government and gained greater share of the profits and stronger control of their resources.

you should check out these if you have the time
http://www.amazon.com/Russias-Diamond-Colony-Republic-Sakha/dp/9057024209
http://www.amazon.com/Russias-Conquest-Siberia-Penetration-Colonies/dp/0875951473

Perhaps, but would they have stayed in power without military/KGB/and financial backup coming from the Kremlin? Remember Hungary in 56 or the Czeck uprising in 68? Both were put down by the Kremlin.

The Kremlin certainly made sure that what ever government happened to be in power was a friendly (to the Kremlin) government, much the same as the US did in central and south america… any old dictator is fine as long as they are our dictator. But just because the Kremlin kept those poles and hungarians and czechs etc etc in power doesn’t mean they are directly responsible for the way those poles, hungarians, etc etc treated their own people. They hardly gave out manuals to teach them how to oppress their own people.

Funny how after the USSR folded, so did the power of the supposedly indigenous communist parties of those states.

The Soviet Union dissolved after most of the Eastern European countries had their democratic revolutions. In fact Germany became Germany again two years before in 1989.

It seems despite their higher standard of living than the USSR, they couldn’t wait to join the EU, NATO and the “West”.

Yet with all their whining of being victims of the evil russian gaolers on close examination the so called prisoners had better living conditions than the gaolers…

Remember, Once the Berlin wall came down Ceausescu was soon out of power, and days later was dead. Doesn;’t sound too popular to me.

When did I say the local communists were popular? I am saying they were responsible directly for the treatment of the local population… something the Russians had little direct day to day control of.

well the wall came down from the Gorbatsovs will. Chausesku was outsided propaply with KGB assistance, so weird things occured there back then.

But I have to agree J Boyle for while, thougth the communist in all warsav pact states where “domestic” Only Georgi Dimitrov in Bulgaria survived from the first Comitern generation and could be said that was indegenious communist rule. Other was Tito in Yugoslavia and Otto W. Kuusinen of our own (but never get his change:rolleyes: ) The heart blood of the true international communism ended up in Siberia in Stalins tyranny, among many veterans of the Russian revolution as well:(

These days such things are forgotten and Russia alone is suddenly responsible for all of that Georgian, Stalins ill deeds, or the oppression of the eastern european countries, when in actual fact it was Polish communists in charge in Poland, and Czech communists in charge in the Czech republic etc etc.

Perhaps, but would they have stayed in power without military/KGB/and financial backup coming from the Kremlin? Remember Hungary in 56 or the Czeck uprising in 68? Both were put down by the Kremlin.

Funny how after the USSR folded, so did the power of the supposedly indigenous communist parties of those states.

It seems despite their higher standard of living than the USSR, they couldn’t wait to join the EU, NATO and the “West”.

Remember, Once the Berlin wall came down Ceausescu was soon out of power, and days later was dead. Doesn;’t sound too popular to me.:D

The parts of Russia that are east of the Urals are parts of Russia.

no, they are part of China that Russia took over. Alot of the asian tribes that live there had to flee to the Chinese side of the border.

Under Yeltsin, Russo-Chinese relations were very warm.. but under Putin, he says one thing but does another.

I think Yeltsin is overrated too, but as far as pilaging resources.. the Soviets were equally as guilty.. instead of having far off colonies like Western Europe did,

The parts of Russia that are east of the Urals are parts of Russia. They are not treated as a colony, and were part of Russia long before any oil was found there or many of the other resources that have been found there too.

I laugh at claims of evil Soviets oppressing eastern europe… most Soviet officers wanted to be based in Eastern Europe rather than be kept in the Soviet Union because the living standards in eastern europe were much higher and access to western goods was much easier.

These days such things are forgotten and Russia alone is suddenly responsible for all of that Georgian, Stalins ill deeds, or the oppression of the eastern european countries, when in actual fact it was Polish communists in charge in Poland, and Czech communists in charge in the Czech republic etc etc.

.
Of course how could the Russians compete with the west? The west has been pilaging the known world of resources for centuries, while the Soviets didn’t really even enter the industrial age till the late 1920s.

I think Yeltsin is overrated too, but as far as pilaging resources.. the Soviets were equally as guilty.. instead of having far off colonies like Western Europe did, they had a continuous land colonies to the east. many of those cities like Tyumen, Yakutsk, etc all exist simply to exploit the prime resource of the region.. then send it somewhere far away for processing and seeing little of the profits from the sales. basically making most of Russia (east of the Urals), the periphery to European Russia.

Whether or not you agree with his actions, both in taking power away from Gorbachov, or for ordering the shelling of the protestors in the parliament building a few years later, surely no-one can deny that his actions changed the course of history.

Gorbachev was responsible for the reforms in the Soviet Union that led to its change from Communism to a form of socialism where the state would own assets but they would have private ownership and a market economy. That was their most painless way out of communism. Yeltsen fcked things up because he couldn’t take power from Gorby, and rushed through laws and changes that solidified the theft of Russia’s wealth by the former communists and allowed them to keep their ill gotten gains. 80% of Russias population was below the poverty line while ex commies were spending up big in the west buying soccer teams and basically squandering their ill gotten wealth.

…adolph hitler changed the course of history too, as did Stalin.
I don’t miss them either.

Whether that change will ultimately be for good or ill is probably not yet clear, given the recent speech by Putin.

Considering Yeltsin put him in power I would expect him to say nice things about him… doesn’t mean they are true, or even that he meant it.

Sure, Yeltsin caused poverty and inflation in the Russian Economy, but change never comes without a price,

They paid too dearly. Look at eastern europes transition to democracy. Much simpler and less painful. Look at China. They aren’t even a multi party system yet… where was the rush?

and while Russian society is now possibly very polarised with some citizens becoming very rich and some very poor, anyone who believes this was not already the case under the old Soviet regime is probably deluding themsleves.

So the fact that the majority are no better off than under a system the west calls evil what the f is supposed to be the point of becoming democratic? A vote every 4-5 years? Next you will say they were no worse off under Stalin, but the reality is they weren’t. At least under communism they had a healthcare system, they had a job for life. They would get a pension. The education system actually worked. Now they give up what they did have and get to put a tick on a piece of paper every 4-5 years.

No wonder they are so happy.

Personally I think occasionally seeing the “fallible human” side of politiicans is no bad thing, I strongly distrust anyone who is never seen to have made a mistake, or who never shows themselves to be “real” like the rest of us.

So Dan Quaile for US president?

I had to choose between Yeltsin or Bush Senior, then I know who I would prefer to have at the helm of a super-state… and his nickname sure ain’t “Dubbya”.

I would rather have Ronald McDonald in Charge of Russia than either…

A man who changed the course of history…?

Whether or not you agree with his actions, both in taking power away from Gorbachov, or for ordering the shelling of the protestors in the parliament building a few years later, surely no-one can deny that his actions changed the course of history. Whether that change will ultimately be for good or ill is probably not yet clear, given the recent speech by Putin.

Sure, Yeltsin caused poverty and inflation in the Russian Economy, but change never comes without a price, and while Russian society is now possibly very polarised with some citizens becoming very rich and some very poor, anyone who believes this was not already the case under the old Soviet regime is probably deluding themsleves.

Yes the guy did make a fool of himself once or twice -but don’t we all? Personally I think occasionally seeing the “fallible human” side of politiicans is no bad thing, I strongly distrust anyone who is never seen to have made a mistake, or who never shows themselves to be “real” like the rest of us.

I had to choose between Yeltsin or Bush Senior, then I know who I would prefer to have at the helm of a super-state… and his nickname sure ain’t “Dubbya”.

RIP Mr Yeltsin

Paul F

Yeltsin wanted power. If he had been able to become the leader of the Soviet Union he would have been that. When he got to power all the powerful communists were already dividing up the loot. The communist party could easily have overthrown Yeltsen and Gorbachev but they were too busy diviing up all the resources of the former Soviet Union to care…

An interview with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor of Russian and Slavic Studies at New York University and author of several books, including Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia.

http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/5814

WP: If those circumstances hadn’t come together the way they did, and the Soviet Union had remained in tact, what, in your view, would “the post-Soviet space” have looked like today?

Cohen: Well, it would have depended on a central question. Gorbachev set into process a Soviet reformation. He called it perestroika, but putting it into the context of history, and not just Russian history, we would call it an attempted reformation. Had that reformation continued, with or without Gorbachev, because by 1989-1990 it no longer required Gorbachev’s leadership; his historic role was to put it into motion… After all, there was a moment in the struggle between Gorbachev and Yeltsin in 1990 and 1991 when Yeltsin’s intent had not been to abolish the Soviet Union, but to become president of the Soviet Union and displace Gorbachev. The question is, would there have continued to be a reforming Soviet Union, or would something like the failed putsch of August 1991 happened again and stopped the reformation? If the Soviet Union had continued to reform, it would have meant the reform of the Union Treaty, and therefore the Soviet Union certainly would have been smaller. Three Baltic countries would have certainly gone, it’s possible that Georgia would have gone. It’s not clear about Ukraine because that was a very unusual situation, driven more by elite politics then public opinion. But if a reforming Soviet Union had continued to exist, I think the outcome would have been a smaller Soviet Union, maybe eight, nine, 10 republics, but still the bulk of Soviet territory, people, and resources. In so far as, say, the Central Asian republics had remained under the political influence of Moscow, they would have had to continue to democratize. The democratization of Central Asia ended with the end of the Soviet Union. The only reason they began democratization in the Central Asian republics was because they were compelled to do so by Moscow’s leadership. Once free of that, they reverted to authoritarianism. In the economy you would have gotten some unstable but functioning mix of a state economy and a private economy, something like what Putin is probably trying to recreate today. You would have had a Soviet Union, I see no reason why you wouldn’t have, but it would have been a different Soviet Union. On the other hand, had the reformation been ended, and it only could have been ended by force, and you can’t rule that out, then you would have had a very nasty looking dictatorship. Remember, when the coup makers sought to overthrow Gorbachev in August of 1991 and imposed martial law in Moscow by bringing troops into the center of Moscow, almost all of the republic leaders, who until then had been acting as though they were sovereign or independent, immediately either fell silent or collaborated with the coup makers. In other words, they were afraid of Moscow. It is only when Moscow under Yeltsin said, “We no longer want you, clear your own way, we are no longer going to subsidize you,” they went away, ran away. But had that not happened, had Moscow not driven them away, or really, disowned them, because remember, the Soviet Union was abolished by the three Slavic republics. The others would have still been there, certainly Kazakhstan would have been there; Nazarbaev wanted to preserve the Union. The others were afraid of Moscow, they would have stayed. So it all depends on whether this reformation would have continued, and had it done so, I think the Soviet Union would not have looked bad today. Had it not done so, it would have been pretty terrible.

Yeltsin was a drunken fool who was not that popular in Russia by the end of his term in office.

Oh and of course Gorbachev, Bush the Elder., Thatcher, Blair and Bush the Younger were continously popular, from start to finish:rolleyes:

Remember, all or almost all political careers end in failure.

You seem very anti-western Garry. That of course is your choice. However, the Soviets consumed thier fair share of the worlds resources too. Those Soviet / Russian coal mines, oil wells, gas pipelines and nuclear power stations were not developed for fun you know.

Yeltsin was a drunken fool who was not that popular in Russia by the end of his term in office. He held out the hope that Democracy would solve all of Russias problems and he signed almost everything the west put in front of him.
From the Soviet soldiers that entered Polish farms as they pushed the germans back in WWII to now the Russians have always been poorer than those in what is called the west… and even those in the east.
Of course how could the Russians compete with the west? The west has been pilaging the known world of resources for centuries, while the Soviets didn’t really even enter the industrial age till the late 1920s.
What did Yeltsin do? He stood by and let all those evil communists aquire the lions share of assets and wealth that was present in the former Soviet Union and saw them do what any western company would have done… sacked the bloated staff to a mere shadow of its former self and then onsold it for a fortune. Only the former communists had the power and wealth to do this.

The result was the Russian people went from a small group of powerful party members having all the wealth but they had jobs and healthcare and education to that same small group of now capitalist russian businessmen having all the wealth and them having no job security, a health system that works fine if you afford to go private and pay ten times as much, and lets not mention the education system… especially in rural areas.
Democracy means for the majority no more job security and no pensions… those pension funds were to become part of the wealth of all those new Russian capitalists running to the west claiming Putin is a monster.
Putin is a monster because he is trying to prevent Former communists from selling all of Russias’ assets to big powerful western companies… call him a soviet all you want I doubt the people of Russia would care.

Here in NZ we had our telecomunications industry privatised. You spend decades paying higher prices for phones than other countries but that is for investment in the infrastructure. Then the government of the day decides to make a few million dollars by selling off state owned assets. Within a few years of being sold they are making 100 times more profit than the price they were sold for. No local company could afford to buy the company so of course now a foreign company owns your entire telecommunications system.

…democracy is overrated. BTW now they can put the price up all they like because despute deregulation allowing other telecom companies into the market, it is telecom NZ that owns the cables in the ground, so they have to rent the lines from their competitor… real democracy that is…

It looks more like Clement Attlee and Iain Duncan-Smith…… :diablo:

Condolences. I am deftly no expert on Russian politics, however I cannot help but admire Yeltsin from my point of view. He took some big personal risks to try to improve USSR. He chose a road that is very hard to hoe, some of the changes he made had some immediate benefits, but involved some changes that were very painful for the country to make midterm, hopefully the changes he made will continue to improve the Soviet bloc countries and make the pain of change worth it for most.

Rasputin? 😮

That’s Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull, as any fule kno.

Are Ian Anderson & Rasputin bathing habits about the same? :rolleyes:

I was at a US Air Force museum with a friend, he asked what’s that rendition of Lenin and Stalin doing on that hanger, it was an artist rendition of the Wright brothers. :rolleyes:

Could you please change your little picture, you remind me of Rasputin, or is that who the piccie is all about, and you love it.

Rasputin? 😮

That’s Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull, as any fule kno.