Your Favorite Russian Leader?

[Shofercia]

If Russia's rulers have all been incompetent, then why has it been a world power for the last 500 years?

Because it is large. You really can not ignore it how much you try it.

If all rulers sucked, how'd Russia get so big? Did the Mongols just come up and say, "yo Russia, please take our land, we're giving it away"?

[Shofercia]

Favourite Russian Leader?
[ ] Incompetent tsars
[ ] Incompetent dictators
[ ] Incompetent dictatorial state capitalists
[X] How about NO?

Damn, Russia must be something "special" if they had only incompetent leaders but have ranged from being a world power to a superpower and has a large list of achievements in is past. If it gets its first competent leader I can only imagine what it could then achieve.

We'll become Captain Planet!

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Because it is large. You really can not ignore it how much you try it.

If all rulers sucked, how'd Russia get so big? Did the Mongols just come up and say, "yo Russia, please take our land, we're giving it away"?

Obviously its part of the global zionist conspiracy.

Jews destroyed the Mongol Empire!

[Astracarn]

Trotsky would've been alright.

[Astracarn]

But honestly, my opinions of Russian leaders throughout the ages isn't generally positive, so I can't choose a "favourite."

[Shofercia]

If all rulers sucked, how'd Russia get so big? Did the Mongols just come up and say, "yo Russia, please take our land, we're giving it away"?

Obviously its part of the global zionist conspiracy.

Jews destroyed the Mongol Empire!

Well, Kalita does sound Jewish. Maybe it was Kalitastein!

[Inquilabstan]

Lenin, followed by Andropov.

[New Freedomstan]

1: Vladimir Lenin
2: Nikita Khruschev
3: Yuri Andropov
4: Joseph Stalin
5: Alexei Kosygin

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

Putin, because he has the best rhymes.

take all my internetz...

Putin for the win! next comes Lenin followed by Stalin.

[Meinkraft]

Guys, stop Stalin the Kart! The forum isn't Lenin time for you to waste! You're Putin it to shame! This Marx my 371st post.


Also, Putin.

[Risottia]

So who is your favorite Russian leader?

Pjotr Velikij and Lenin.

[Shofercia]

So who is your favorite Russian leader?

Pjotr Velikij and Lenin.

Why Lenin Ris? I get Peter the Great since you're a Euro-Federalist, but why Lenin?

[Risottia]

Pjotr Velikij and Lenin.

Why Lenin Ris? I get Peter the Great since you're a Euro-Federalist, but why Lenin?

Because vsja vlast' sovetam.

No, seriously, the NEP was a great move, as you can see by the flourishing of arts in that period and shortly after.

[Jetan]

Alexander II, the Good Tsar.

[Shofercia]

Why Lenin Ris? I get Peter the Great since you're a Euro-Federalist, but why Lenin?

Because vsja vlast' sovetam.

No, seriously, the NEP was a great move, as you can see by the flourishing of arts in that period and shortly after.

I agree that NEP was wonderful, and so do Ilf and Petrov, (don't know if you've seen Zolotoy Telenok, I highly recommend it if you haven't, "oh kak ya sidel pri NEPE, oh kak ya sidel pri NEPE",) but it took the Kronstadt Rebellion to get Lenin to agree to NEP, and needing a rebellion to get your act together is not the hallmark of a great leader. Plus he signed Brest-Litovsk, which ended up not working out, since there was major intervention during the Russian Civil War. I think that a leader needs to be more of a visionary than Lenin was, or rather, wasn't.

[Risottia]

needing a rebellion to get your act together is not the hallmark of a great leader.

Dunno... not getting owned by a rebellion is the mark of a great politician, though.

Plus he signed Brest-Litovsk, which ended up not working out, since there was major intervention during the Russian Civil War.

Yup but Russia needed peace immediately. Brest-Litovsk was the better one could get realistically in a reasonably short time.

I think that a leader needs to be more of a visionary than Lenin was, or rather, wasn't.

Also a healthy dose of realism is needed. As usual, the problem is striking a working balance.

[Shofercia]

needing a rebellion to get your act together is not the hallmark of a great leader.

Dunno... not getting owned by a rebellion is the mark of a great politician, though.

Plus he signed Brest-Litovsk, which ended up not working out, since there was major intervention during the Russian Civil War.

Yup but Russia needed peace immediately. Brest-Litovsk was the better one could get realistically in a reasonably short time.

I think that a leader needs to be more of a visionary than Lenin was, or rather, wasn't.

Also a healthy dose of realism is needed. As usual, the problem is striking a working balance.

True, but War Communism should've ended months earlier. It was a temporary shock-therapy solution. Lenin overextended it.

In terms of peace, I would've just withdrawn my armies a bit back, and created a new trench system. WWI was trench warfare, where the offensives and counteroffensives were brutal. Setting up defensive positions and constantly retreating, even in 1917, would've cost Germany a lot of lives, and they still had France and GB to deal with.

While, I agree about the dose of realism, we both know that there was more to it than that. Lenin didn't want any countries to have borders, that's part of why he agreed to Brest-Litovsk, thinking that USSR will get all of it back, so I wouldn't say that Lenin's vision was realistic.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

Lenin.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Alexander II, the Good Tsar.

Nicholas I made more meaningful reforms for the serfs. In fact, Nicholas forced Alexander to promise to free the serfs on his deathbed. Sadly, his son did a terrible job of it and probably left the serfs more badly off than they were before.

Spoilers guys:
Being autocratic doesn't make you a bad person or a bad ruler.

[Jetan]

Alexander II, the Good Tsar.

Nicholas I made more meaningful reforms for the serfs. In fact, Nicholas forced Alexander to promise to free the serfs on his deathbed. Sadly, his son did a terrible job of it and probably left the serfs more badly off than they were before.

Spoilers guys:
Being autocratic doesn't make you a bad person or a bad ruler.

I'm not necessarily referencing serfdom. I'm from Finland, and as a finn I can say that we never had a Grand Prince better than Alexander II. There is a reason why he still has a statue at the Senate Square in Helsinki.

[Mollary]

Gorbachev, obviously.

[Shofercia]

Gorbachev, obviously.

*hic*
*coups Gorbachev*
*hic*

That was easy!

[Mollary]

Gorbachev, obviously.

*hic*
*coups Gorbachev*
*hic*

That was easy!

Well, until that.

[Shofercia]

*hic*
*coups Gorbachev*
*hic*

That was easy!

Well, until that.

Collection of my posts on Gorbachev, from: viewtopic.php?p=14124249#p14124249

Gorbachev restored civil rights, eh? Didn't realize that the right to be ethnically cleansed was a civil right. Gorbachev ethnically cleansed a good chunk of Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh, during "Operation Ring".

But his real failure was in the area of Social Rights. Under Gorbachev, tens of millions of Russians lost their access to heating fuel, and other basic necessities, and thousands of elderly people, our fellow human beings, froze to death. Gorbachev then pissed his pants in front of a drunk, (he was couped by Yetlsin, who was a drunk,) while taking away the benefits of military soldiers who criticized him, and other soldiers as well. His policies systematically demolished the Social Rights of people living in the Soviet Union.

Take a look at how the natural growth rate dropped when Gorbafool took office: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Russia.PNG

Also, here's some other stuff on Gorbachev:

Translation from Slavic original: "Gorbachev wouldn't shoot/impale/exile enough people. Fucking pussy."

I know that you've probably been brainwashed by bullshit like "Gorby Mania", in terms of Gorbachev, into a rosy description of the so-called "Glorious Reformer". You haven't heard of Operation Ring, nor of Gorbachev's brutal starvation of hundreds of thousands of Russians. Having actually lived under that scumbag, and having family members directly affected, my description is a tad more realistic, and not quite so rosy. Since you're not getting this, let me put it in plain English: the issue with Gorbachev isn't that he didn't kill enough. It's that he, indirectly, killed too much. Soviet political leaders have little trouble killing. And Gorbachev was a Soviet leader political leader last time I checked, or are we pretending that he was a great democrat as well?

Don't get me wrong, he certainly was a fucking pussy. But not because he failed to kill people. Giving an order to kill for a heartless barbarian requires no courage. Standing up to a drunk, now that requires more courage than Gorbachev could muster. Prior to Gorbachev's "election", the Russian population was at 143 million, and growing at a comfortable pace of 700k - 750k a year. When Gorbachev was couped in 1991, the growth was at a pathetic 100k, and the natural growth was negative the next year, the first time since Stalin's Collectivization; oh wait, Stalin is bad guy, (TM,) and Gorbachev is good guy, (TM,) I shouldn't be comparing their statistics, even if they're truthful, amirite?

Or are we to forget that Gorbachev was very power hungry, do we get to forget that too? He held the posts of President, General Secretary, Politburo, and Secretariat, all at the same time. Dare I compare him to Joe Stalin in terms of power grabbing? Oh, but he didn't really kill to get ahead, so I guess that makes him slightly better.

And then came Gorbachev's first batch of economic reforms. They were spectacular, at failing that is. Gorbachev managed to become the first leader to destroy Soviet GNP growth, achieving a spectacular rate of -25% GNP growth in two years. That's a quarter of GDP. Lost. In two years. Gorbachev's economic reforms also tripled the internal debt. Oh my, how mean of me to bring out all of these nasty facts.

And in 1989 Gorbachev held the first "free" election. The election was so free, that an economic failure was elected, that's just how free it was. Yep, Russians just love voting for economic failures /sarcasm

Gorbachev then proceeded to alienate the Kazakhs, by removing the head of the Kazakh SSR. Replacing him with an idiot. When the Kazakhs protested, they were called rioters, and the "oh so peaceful Gorbachev" had no issues slandering or suppressing them, as long as he was in Moscow, and didn't actually face any threats. Instead of someone intimately knowledgeble with Kazakh history, Gorbafool, excuse me, Gorbachev, appointed Kolbin, whose knowledge of Kazakhstan was nil. Kolbin moved in, and attempted to root out corruption. Failing at that, he was forced out of Kazakhstan by the current president. And thus Gorbachev alienated one of the most loyal SSRs, because he couldn't even find someone who knew a proper Kazakh greeting to run Kazakhstan.

Then Gorbachev passed another law, that shifted control from knowledgeable people, to clueless people, which would mark standard Gorbachevite policies.

In July 1987, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union passed the Law on State Enterprise. The law stipulated that state enterprises were free to determine output levels based on demand from consumers and other enterprises. Enterprises had to fulfill state orders, but they could dispose of the remaining output as they saw fit. However, at the same time the state still held control over the means of production for these enterprises, thus limiting their ability to enact full-cost accountability. Enterprises bought input from suppliers at negotiated contract prices. Under the law, enterprises became self-financing; that is, they had to cover expenses (wages, taxes, supplies, and debt service) through revenues. No longer was the government to rescue unprofitable enterprises that could face bankruptcy. Finally, the law shifted control over the enterprise operations from ministries to elected workers' collectives. Gosplan's (Russian: Государственный комитет по планированию, State Committee for Planning) responsibilities were to supply general guidelines and national investment priorities, not to formulate detailed production plans.

Nevermind that the ministries actually knew what to do, and the workers' collectives had no clue. Never mind that. This is a law that was bound to massively fail. Not surprisingly, it failed:

Gorbachev's economic changes did not do much to restart the country's sluggish economy in the late 1980s. The reforms decentralized things to some extent, although price controls remained, as did the ruble's inconvertibility and most government controls over the means of production. By 1990 the government had virtually lost control over economic conditions. Government spending increased sharply as an increasing number of unprofitable enterprises required state support and consumer price subsidies continued. Tax revenues declined because republic and local governments withheld tax revenues from the central government under the growing spirit of regional autonomy. The elimination of central control over production decisions, especially in the consumer goods sector, led to the breakdown in traditional supply-demand relationships without contributing to the formation of new ones. Thus, instead of streamlining the system, Gorbachev's decentralization caused new production bottlenecks.

Of course, the problem was that now, there was less output, and less money to pay to war veterans, pensioners, orphans; those were left to fend for themselves and die on the street, while Gorbachev bathed in Muscovite luxury, and placed inept idiots in charge. When Yeltsin came to power, tens of thousands of elderly froze to death, since the government couldn't heat their fucking apartments in winter. But fuck that, Gorbachev's portrayed as a hero, right? Not enough yet, Free Detroit?

Let's take a look at Operation Ring then. First, Gorbachev's inept policies provoked friction between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Then Gorbachev sided with the Azeris, against the Armenians, and ethnically cleansed them. But hey, you're probably ok with this, since it's Gorbachev doing it, right? Well the problem with the ethnic cleansing, which wasn't really that bad, at least not compared to what came next: full on wars and violence in the Caucasian Region. Massive population drops, in some places by a third. Like the fucking Black Plague.

Take the Caucasus Region in the, sadly former, USSR. Yes, I miss parts of the USSR, but not Stalinism; deal with it. During the Khrushchev-Brezhnev time period, it was very peaceful. You could walk there, at night, even if you're a young girl, without a burka or anything like that. Nice, safe, peaceful, lots of ethnicities. In Dagestan alone, there are more than ten major ones. And almost everyone got along. Then came "Perestroika, Glasnost, and Operation Ring". Certainly, without Stalin's actions, there might not have been a Chechen War, or two, or an Ossetian War, or three, and so on. But, decent social services, a culture of bonding, investment in sports, decent education, etc, somehow started healing those issues, and it's a big question if they would've resurfaced, had Khrushchev's policies continued to dominate the region. I doubt it.

the coup against Gorbafool was a great thing, and it really sucks that it failed. Really, it does. Under the Soviet Constitution, the Republics could secede from the USSR. When Gorbachev introduced Perestroika and Glasnost, at the same time, that really fucked the Soviet People, with average lifespan falling massively, and Operation Ring was just the finishing touch. After May 15th, 1991, it was impossible to restore the USSR, so the coup didn't really do jack shit for collapsing the USSR. De Facto, it was already gone! It's claimed by those wishing to whitewash Gorbachev's idiocy, that his, so-called "New Union Treaty" was going to "salvage the USSR", but was never given the chance to succeed. And to those shitstorians, I say, "have you read the damn treaty?"

I'm not entirely sure if the drafters of the PATRIOT ACT read the damn thing, but comparing Bush to Gorbachev is indeed unfair; to Bush. I wonder, did the "brilliant minds" who wrote the Treaty of Versailles read the damn thing? The New Union Treaty decentralized power in the USSR. Decentralized power. When other SSRs already had power to leave. It decentralized that further. How the fuck was that going to salvage the USSR? That's like saying "any state can leave the US", and then amending it further, stating, "oh, and by the way, Congress can no longer use the Tax and Spend and Commerce Clause". In what World is this an attempt to salvage anything?

The only thing that the coup could have accomplished, was an attempt to salvage the stability of the RFSFR. Granted, that wasn't their initial intent, but I'm certain that the hardliners would've outperformed Yeltsin. And don't even start on Yeltsin's Dumbocracy. Tanks, firing at Congress, after the latter dared to override Yeltsin's Policy - that ain't Democracy. Can you imagine Clinton ordering the USMC to use Abrams tanks against Congress, shooting at all levels, "cause there might be snipers", during Clinton's Impeachment Trial? Or Nixon pulling that stunt?

Giving massive funding to education and balancing the budget are wonderful priorities. Both of them. So are Perestroika and Glasnost. But anyone who isn't a reckless idiot of a leader, can figure out that those policies cannot be combined! You first invest in education, infrastructure, etc, and only then do you try to balance the budget, only once those policies get going. Similarly, first you establish Glasnost, and only once Glasnost gets going, only then, do you go for Perestroika. And if you are too stupid and reckless to figure that out, resign. Or, if you are too inept to resign, at least have the decency to get couped by someone who isn't an inept drunk. Gorbafool couldn't even get that right.

Edit: Source: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/rus ... tml#chap08

Gorbachev was in office from 1985 to 1991. Gorbachev continued Brezhnev's War in Afghanistan until 1989, for over half of his term. That's right, for over half of his term, Gorbachev was in an aggressive war, which, despite having the Red Army on his side, Gorbachev managed to lose. Putin on the other hand had three wars, Dagestan War, Second Chechen War and Ossetian War. (Oh come on, not like Medvedev had a major role in that war, aside from giving speeches. Sure Medvedev played a major role in rebuilding Ossetia, but let's not forget who was doing the De Facto leading.)

Unlike Gorbachev, the army that Putin had hasn't been maintained for roughly a decade. Despite this, Putin rushed the T-90s into Dagestan, taking a personal interest in the war, and kept the corrupt Kremlin cronies from interfering. In the Second Chechen War, where Putin's choice was either to counter attack or to force Russia to suffer repeated incursion from the so called "Caucasus Emirate", Putin again managed a war much better than Gorbachev, again winning. By 2006, after only seven years of Putin being in power, the Caucasus Region was once again stable. Why was it unstable in the first place? Gorbachev's actions in 1988, such as Operation Ring.

So really, militarily, Putin pwns Gorbachev. In terms of the economy - Gorbachev's policies led to drunkenness and depression. Putin's policies saw a rapidly improving economy, with just a single shock wave, that was mostly absorbed by the Oligarchs. Economically, Putin's better.

In terms of freedom of speech - well under Gorbachev, not quite. Sure there was freedom of speech for some, but quite a few met Listyev's fate. And then Yeltsin, that's the drunk who couped Gorbachev, killed off whatever was left of freedom of speech in 1993-1995.

Under Putin, well granted, not so much Putin's achievement as it is the Internet's, but now most Russians have more freedom of speech than ever. Is it as expansive as America's? Nope. Is it more than Gorbachev's? When you apply it to the entire population, it certainly is. And unlike Gorbachev, we know that Putin's freedom of speech won't be rescinded by a drunk in a tank, not even a decade into its shoddy existence.

So what criteria is Gorbachev better at, than Putin? Sucking corporate cock? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's a good criteria to have for any leader.

He wanted peace? Is that why he continued the War in Afghanistan for several years? How very pacifistic of him. And he was couped by Yeltsin, who was a notorious drunk. And there was nothing sensible about letting racism rise in Russia, or about Operation Ring. Please - go feed the stories of what a wonderful leader Gorbachev was, to someone who didn't live though the atrocities of his actual rule.

In conclusion, almost everyone that I know who's in Russia, and lived under Gorbachev and is now living under Putin, would prefer Putin to Gorbachev. Immensely so.

[Romberg]

Among the Communists, Khrushchev. Stalin was more of a propagandist, and to be honest, I think Zhukov and others were the real people behind USSR's win against the Nazis. Khrushchev on the other hand helped liberalize the country from Stalinist oppression.

Among the Tsars, Peter the Great. He brought Russia from a poor agricultural state to the powerhouse of Eastern Europe.

And Putin. He is authoritarian, but he is badass, still has support in Russia, and basically saved the economy from collapse after the Yeltsin years. And he's rebuilding the military, so it's a plus. You don't mess with a leader with a black belt.