So where was Gorbachev in all this, playing chess?

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by August

No matter what Reagan did, if Gorbachev decided not to listen or ignore him, Reagan's efforts would've been in vain. Reagan could not have broken down the wall himself.
And he didn't.

[Skybird]

Gorbatchev was tried to be toppled from within the party's regime. Opposition to his policies was strong - but he kept loyal to the path he had chosen. He may have seen the economy of his country being in very bad shape, but nevertheless, somebody else than him coming to power would have meant that the regime eventually could have hold out for much longer time. How it is possible you see in North Korea - compared to North Korea, the late USSR still was almost an idyll - but still the NK regime lives on, and even can rebuff and outsmart the almighty Americans. The tools to control the crowd the forces to keep foreign enemies out - still existed in the USSR 89. Would have the USSR collapsed nevertheless, sooner or later? Probably yes. Will NK one day collapse? Probably yes. The point is that this does not take plac ein the present, and did not necessarily take place due to western policies in 1989.

So, Gorbatchev really was a lucky event in that he rebelled against the regime, somehow, and broke it open, although it still could have held out much longer by the use of force and old, long tradition. And if the situation for the poeple would have detoriated - who would have cared, for they had no voice? Gorbatchev opened a window of opportunity in history, although somewhat unintentionally, and that simply is his outstanding merit.

As a matter of fact, under Yeltzin, when there was "democracy and capitalism" entering russia and opened the free hunt for Russian assets, the economic situation for many people detoriated much beyond what was the normal status in the USSR, and foreign interests worked hand in hand with regional corruption and russian Mafia to exploit the material values as best as possible - at the cost of the russian people, for the profit of foreign enterprise. Remembering those years, which brought the oligarchic structure to raise that later Putin so unforgivingly started to shatter again in that he signalled very clearly that they would become his personal enemies if they try to ursupate the control over the state, gives Russians little reason to be so very much in favour of American understanding of free market forces in action, "freedom" and democracy. With these, they were worse off than before - thanks to foreign predatory behavior. Now that there is a small hesitent general raise in material status for many russians, one has to note that this started with Putin taking over from weak yeltzin and estavblishing stronger control over the state policies. No, he is not democratic, and yes, he accepts a certain level of corruption in the econoym as long as it still serves the state's interest and does not try to take over control from the state. So what?

In other words: Putinism works much better for Russia than what the West had to bring to it in the early 90s in the name of "freedom and democracy". It was maximum foreign exploitation, dressed in candy-sweet catchphrases.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Irony = OTH post coming after an American posting a picture of Gorbachev paying his respects to a fallen American.

I'd say it flew about 3ft over his head or was it 10?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

This picture is very very telling of the relationship these two had. We only know what we were told via the media and the two involved. We will not know what was said behind closed doors between these two.

[Skybird]

Well, the one made the other stop to talk of the evil of empire.

Or was it the empire of evil?

One way or the other - Reagan was not shy of powerful rethorics, and he never gave them up for cheap reasons only.

Maybe that says something on the relation both men had.

On the other hand - words are words, and gestures are gestures, both can be used to make the crowds believe something that is different from the real thing. So - we simply will never know.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, the one made the other stop to talk of the evil of empire.

Or was it the empire of evil?

One way or the other - Reagan was not shy of powerful rethorics, and he never gave them up for cheap reasons only.

Maybe that says something on the relation both men had.

On the other hand - words are words, and gestures are gestures, Bbth can be used to make the crowds believe something that is different from the real thing. So - we simply will never know.

Absolutely Skybird. This picture will speak more words between Borgachev and Reagan then we will ever know. If there were not genuine respect and admiration of Reagan by Gorbachev he would not have made the trip to the funeral. I truly believe we will never know what really was said behind closed doors. Looking at this picture there is mutual respect between the two and knowing Mr Reagan via living through his presidency and reading book after book about him, he would have reciprocated same if Gorgachev had passed away. Both this thread and the other concerning Reagan's participation with the wall become silent, specifically for me, when I saw this picture. More went on behind the scene then we are told. It takes more than two meetings to gain friendship, respect and admiration.

[Skybird]

That's not exactly how I meant it, but well, life moves on...

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That's not exactly how I meant it, but well, life moves on...

I was agreeing with your last sentence. My point is there was a deeper understanding between these two that we can only begin to understand how deep it was.

[Oberon]

And it was that understanding between two people, not just Gorbachev, not just Reagan, that helped bring down the wall.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by goldorak

I wouldn't be so condescending as Cuba is still communist country and a thorn in side for the US, and lets not even mention Cina a communist state by any definition, and no the "liberal" economic system doesn't make Cina the land of the free. Are the Cinese leaders being naive enough to think a police state can co-exist with a liberal economic system ? It works well enough for them though.

I don't mean to be condescending. But I stand by my statement, communism cannot be maintained over the long term by anything other than a totalitarian state. If you want a system where people are told they cannot improve their lives by hard work and ambition, a system that does not allow rewards but rather takes personal output and spreads it across the population without regard to merit, it will have to be forced on them. That's why the USSR collapsed.

And Reagan as the leader of the US shaped policies that expedited that process. Disagree? That's your right, but tell me, what if Reagan had done the opposite? What if he had sent the Soviets monetary aid and assurred them that cracking down on the Poles and Czechs and East Germans was a-ok with the US? Think that may have had an effect on those people hopping up and down on the wall 20 years ago?

Cuba? Are you serious? They have been under the whim of a single man all my life. Maybe that's why they cannot feed their people without importing 70% of their food. Cuba...they are moving toward democracy and capitalism as well.

China is in transition. Yes, the Chinese Politburo are being naive if they think the Chinese people will tolerate being ruled by a police state govt for long. The day of the fall of the Chinese "Berlin wall" is coming.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Irony = OTH post coming after an American posting a picture of Gorbachev paying his respects to a fallen American.

I think that's Reagan's coffin.

Gorby makes his move.



What?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

I think that's Reagan's coffin.

Gorby makes his move.



What?

Good thinking OTH. Maybe there is hope. As for the crack on Gorby making his move...

[nikimcbee]

He was training is mentor

[Biggles]

Jezus, they make a new Obama parody every day, aren't they?

[nikimcbee]

I actually saw a Gorby speech in person, man that was a loooong time ago. My Russian professors weren't to fond of him, but he wasn't as bad a Brezhnev of as goofy as Khrushchev.