Here is something interesting I've been thinking about... what if the Soviet Union hadn't been disbanded after the August 1991 coup? This isn't for just pure speculation... I'm talking about facts... Gorbachev was bringing the country closer and closer to democracy... the glasnost and perestroika were changing the country. Furthermore... in the last days of the USSR, the poverty level was around 2%, when the new government came to power, the poverty level jumped to around 50%. That is considering the USSR had a lower standard of living, but still... Another issue is Chechnya... because of the collapse of the USSR, war erupted of Chechnya.
And let's keep in mind, the US, who had been working better with the Soviet Union since Gorbachev came to power, could have intervened... wasn't part of the point of the Regan-Gorbachev talks and Bush-Gorbachev talks to strengthen relations between the two superpowers? Now we have crooks like Putin in, who are just as power hungry as Soviet dictators... sure he's not president anymore, but that just meant he had to step down after a term limit to influence the election of the next one and manipulate things as prime minister. Gorbachev developed, in the end, a democratic election system.
I really don't know that you can pin any current failure on the coup of 18 years ago. If the US government crumbles someday, will people paint the revolution against Britain as a failure?
It's basically impossible to know where the USSR would be today if not for the coup. It seems like this belongs in the Speculation forum.
I would be interested in finding out where you get your figures for the poverty rates, 2 percent seem a bit low for even a developed nation. It may depend on how it's calculated, or how it's reported.
I agree though, things are a mess in the former Soviet Union states. Who's to say it wasn't going to happen very soon anyway, either by political coup or by widespread rebellion?
I would be interested in finding out where you get your figures for the poverty rates, 2 percent seem a bit low for even a developed nation. It may depend on how it's calculated, or how it's reported.
I agree though, things are a mess in the former Soviet Union states. Who's to say it wasn't going to happen very soon anyway, either by political coup or by widespread rebellion?
I'll admit I forget where I got the info... keep in mind that there was a lower standard of living, but still, that's a huge jump.
Azerbaijan... where is there a speculation forum? And I think there is a big difference between something that happened 18 years ago and something that happened over 200 years ago. YES, both events do have lasting effects... this is just a question of opinion... whether or not you believe the coup helped Russia become a better country, or if the shift in government hurt the nation.
One other thing to point out... we can have a rough idea of what the USSR would have been like... Gorbachev had plans through 2000 to destroy a certain amount of missiles (I forget how many), which he had begun to do and which helped to end Cold War tensions.
I'll admit I forget where I got the info... keep in mind that there was a lower standard of living, but still, that's a huge jump.
Azerbaijan... where is there a speculation forum? And I think there is a big difference between something that happened 18 years ago and something that happened over 200 years ago. YES, both events do have lasting effects... this is just a question of opinion... whether or not you believe the coup helped Russia become a better country, or if the shift in government hurt the nation.
One other thing to point out... we can have a rough idea of what the USSR would have been like... Gorbachev had plans through 2000 to destroy a certain amount of missiles (I forget how many), which he had begun to do and which helped to end Cold War tensions.
The definition of your terms is also relevant. By Russia do you mean Russia the nation/former province of the USSR, or do you mean the collected former provinces of the USSR? Because the answer to the question is not necessarily the same with both definitions.
When I refer to Russia... I refer to the Russian Federation... this is not to downplay that there are issues in the other former Soviet Republics, and now many of them are impoverished countries. When I mentioned the poverty statistic however I was referring to the Russian Federation.
its fairly simple to have non rigged elections when you throw into jail your top opponents prior. people are SCARED of putin. that partially appeals to the russian mentality (some would argue they are sick of not being taken seriously and want to be proud of the power of their nation again, and they believe putin is/will provide that, which he is flexing his muscle alot). anyways my basic point is that the elections themselves can be fine, but when your prime opponents are too scared to run against you because the last guy who said he would was thrown into jail and his fortune seized (richest man in russia btw, so if putin can do it to him imagine what he could do to you.)
The USSR was a very oppressive country and people naturally wanted to be free.Also the Ukrainians , Georgians ,and all the people in the former soviet republics wanted to have their own country not stay in the soviet union , they wanted freedom and that is not wrong.What is questionable is how these countries were governed after wards but that is another discussion altogether .The USSR could not change so it went the way of the dinosaur.
There's another problem. Russia has had trouble "letting go" of its considerable political interests in former Soviet republics. IN fact, many Russians still live and work abroad in these republics and expect Mother Russia to continue to protect their interests, even though they now live and work in a foreign sovereign state. Look at the recent troubles in Georgia/Abkhazi/Ossetia, and the election problems in Ukraine. Either there is a real problem with ethnic Russians and Russian interference in the area, or there are suspected shenanigans where Russia supposedly used its leverage to derail or skew the outcome of elections. (Many sides bend the available facts, or make stuff up to blame one faction or another. I claim no particular insight into the truth, if it is at all knowable in its entirety.)
This process of "letting go" is going to take a while. Russia wants good relations with its neighbours, and they want autonomy and harmony in their regions not always falling under the shadow of a former invader.
If the USSR and the USA did end up working together then yes it would (at the very least we wouldn't of had all of those incredibly cheap AK-47s being dumped onto the illegal arms market and the oil oligarchs wouldn't of existed)
However if Gorbavech failed but the USSR was still going strong,the moronic brinksmanship between both countries would just countiue probably with more horrible vietnam/afghanistan/three days war style proxy fighting until they both end up collapsing. Or nuking each other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I am not posting in the custom card creation forum something has gone horribely wrong.
What was the standard for poverty, having less than half a slice of bread to eat per day? They were rationing food as late as 1990.
the article you linked to mentions that food had not been rationed in Leningrad since the siege in WW2...I think it refers more to a specific food shortage crisis caused by the destabilization of the labor force just before the collapse of the soviet union than to a general trend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"But then are we most in order when we are most out of order."-Jack Cade
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And let's keep in mind, the US, who had been working better with the Soviet Union since Gorbachev came to power, could have intervened... wasn't part of the point of the Regan-Gorbachev talks and Bush-Gorbachev talks to strengthen relations between the two superpowers? Now we have crooks like Putin in, who are just as power hungry as Soviet dictators... sure he's not president anymore, but that just meant he had to step down after a term limit to influence the election of the next one and manipulate things as prime minister. Gorbachev developed, in the end, a democratic election system.
What do you think?
DECKS
:symw::symb: Life Gain :symb::symw:
Building (eventually)...
:symb::symr::symg: Dragon-Ramp :symg::symr::symb:
It's basically impossible to know where the USSR would be today if not for the coup. It seems like this belongs in the Speculation forum.
I agree though, things are a mess in the former Soviet Union states. Who's to say it wasn't going to happen very soon anyway, either by political coup or by widespread rebellion?
I'll admit I forget where I got the info... keep in mind that there was a lower standard of living, but still, that's a huge jump.
Azerbaijan... where is there a speculation forum? And I think there is a big difference between something that happened 18 years ago and something that happened over 200 years ago. YES, both events do have lasting effects... this is just a question of opinion... whether or not you believe the coup helped Russia become a better country, or if the shift in government hurt the nation.
One other thing to point out... we can have a rough idea of what the USSR would have been like... Gorbachev had plans through 2000 to destroy a certain amount of missiles (I forget how many), which he had begun to do and which helped to end Cold War tensions.
DECKS
:symw::symb: Life Gain :symb::symw:
Building (eventually)...
:symb::symr::symg: Dragon-Ramp :symg::symr::symb:
The definition of your terms is also relevant. By Russia do you mean Russia the nation/former province of the USSR, or do you mean the collected former provinces of the USSR? Because the answer to the question is not necessarily the same with both definitions.
DECKS
:symw::symb: Life Gain :symb::symw:
Building (eventually)...
:symb::symr::symg: Dragon-Ramp :symg::symr::symb:
Maybe he meant disbanding of the USSR instead of coup.
DECKS
:symw::symb: Life Gain :symb::symw:
Building (eventually)...
:symb::symr::symg: Dragon-Ramp :symg::symr::symb:
There's another problem. Russia has had trouble "letting go" of its considerable political interests in former Soviet republics. IN fact, many Russians still live and work abroad in these republics and expect Mother Russia to continue to protect their interests, even though they now live and work in a foreign sovereign state. Look at the recent troubles in Georgia/Abkhazi/Ossetia, and the election problems in Ukraine. Either there is a real problem with ethnic Russians and Russian interference in the area, or there are suspected shenanigans where Russia supposedly used its leverage to derail or skew the outcome of elections. (Many sides bend the available facts, or make stuff up to blame one faction or another. I claim no particular insight into the truth, if it is at all knowable in its entirety.)
This process of "letting go" is going to take a while. Russia wants good relations with its neighbours, and they want autonomy and harmony in their regions not always falling under the shadow of a former invader.
However if Gorbavech failed but the USSR was still going strong,the moronic brinksmanship between both countries would just countiue probably with more horrible vietnam/afghanistan/three days war style proxy fighting until they both end up collapsing. Or nuking each other.
2% poverty? You've gotta be kidding me.
What was the standard for poverty, having less than half a slice of bread to eat per day? They were rationing food as late as 1990.
the article you linked to mentions that food had not been rationed in Leningrad since the siege in WW2...I think it refers more to a specific food shortage crisis caused by the destabilization of the labor force just before the collapse of the soviet union than to a general trend.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft