What do you think of Boris Yeltsin?

[Jordkloden]

Someone still loves you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Someone_S ... is_Yeltsin

[Kar-Esseria]

What odds?

He didn't build Russia from scratch when Soviet Union collapsed but inherited everything what was wrong with it.

Yeah, and he made it 10x worse.

[The Brittish Isles]

(Image)

(Image)

this proves he's the best man ever

[Conscentia]

A corrupt drunkard who destroyed Russia's chance at Democracy and Capitalism.

Worst leader in Russia's history, period.

Worse than Stalin? Seriously?

[Kvatchdom]

Basically gave the key to the door of fuck Russia to the Mafias, but could've been worse.

[United Marxist Nations]

For reference, what Russians think of him: http://www.russiavotes.org/president/ye ... pinion.php

Basically, lots of people hate him, to the point that more than half of the population literally could't think of anything good he did.

Note: From 1999 & 2000, will get newer stuff if necessary.

[Teemant]

Basically gave the key to the door of fuck Russia to the Mafias, but could've been worse.

They had the key before Yeltsin.

[Kvatchdom]

Basically gave the key to the door of fuck Russia to the Mafias, but could've been worse.

They had the key before Yeltsin.

Nah, they had lockpicks.

[Kar-Esseria]

A corrupt drunkard who destroyed Russia's chance at Democracy and Capitalism.

Worst leader in Russia's history, period.

Worse than Stalin? Seriously?

Yes.

Stalin was an asshole, but he still got things done, he was effective. Granted, the war helped him immensely, but still.

Just because a leader is a psychotic tyrant doesn't mean they're automatically a bad leader. Though I'm not saying Stalin was a good leader though. Yeltsin was a terrible leader, Stalin was a terrible man.

[Prosorusiya]

Better than Putin but only just. Bombarding Parliament = not cool brother. Still better than Putin though.

[Napkiraly]

From what I've heard he's one of the worst leaders Russia has ever had, beaten only by several Tsars. You can say what you like about Putin but compared to this guy Putin is almost a saint since he removed most of the corruption within his government and despite clear election fraud and homophobic policies has managed to keep a somewhat stable and prosperous Russia.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Kar-Esseria]

From what I've heard he's one of the worst leaders Russia has ever had, beaten only by several Tsars. You can say what you like about Putin but compared to this guy Putin is almost a saint since he removed most of the corruption within his government and despite clear election fraud and homophobic policies has managed to keep a somewhat stable and prosperous Russia.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think he means corruption in the police and military.

[Napkiraly]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think he means corruption in the police and military.

The police in Russia are still quite corrupt and the biggest reform to try and tackle that was under Medvedev and not Putin.

The military isn't as corrupt as it used to be, but part of that is that it has received more funding so that soldiers don't have to steal and sell equipment to survive. It still has its issues, for instance former Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who ironicallly launched a number of anti-corruption (which were opposed within the military) and then was sacked for his not so pure shenanigans.

And this isn't getting to the point where it's heavily suspected that Putin himself is incredibly corrupt.

[Kar-Esseria]

I think he means corruption in the police and military.

The police in Russia are still quite corrupt and the biggest reform to try and tackle that was under Medvedev and not Putin.

The military isn't as corrupt as it used to be, but part of that is that it has received more funding so that soldiers don't have to steal and sell equipment to survive. It still has its issues, for instance former Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who ironicallly launched a number of anti-corruption (which were opposed within the military) and then was sacked for his not so pure shenanigans.

And this isn't getting to the point where it's heavily suspected that Putin himself is incredibly corrupt.

Medvedev is Putin's puppet, dude. The whole party is under the direct influence of Putin.

Putin himself is undoubtedly corrupt, but he has (through Medvedev) been cracking down on corruption in the military and police. Corrupt cops and soldiers help no one.

[Napkiraly]

The police in Russia are still quite corrupt and the biggest reform to try and tackle that was under Medvedev and not Putin.

The military isn't as corrupt as it used to be, but part of that is that it has received more funding so that soldiers don't have to steal and sell equipment to survive. It still has its issues, for instance former Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who ironicallly launched a number of anti-corruption (which were opposed within the military) and then was sacked for his not so pure shenanigans.

And this isn't getting to the point where it's heavily suspected that Putin himself is incredibly corrupt.

Medvedev is Putin's puppet, dude. The whole party is under the direct influence of Putin.

Putin himself is undoubtedly corrupt, but he has (through Medvedev) been cracking down on corruption in the military and police. Corrupt cops and soldiers help no one.

I wouldn't call Medvedev his puppet, at least during his presidency, more the lesser of the big shots (Medvedev has his own little faction, more pro-reform minded). Medvedev and Putin did noticeably spar over issues, especially when it came to international relations (in particular relations with the West).

Maybe no longer corrupt in the sense of "Pay us or we'll keep you in detention for a few hours or make some bullshit charge" but definitely corrupt in the "tell us who to beat up, boss" department. It really depends on your relationship with the regime.

[Risottia]

Terrible "leader" (more like a puppet of the Russian mafia and of the Western lobbies, continuously pissed on vodka), but still better than Nikolaj II Romanov, Boris Godunov or the False Dimitryj .

Boris Gudonov wasn't so bad.

For 13 years Boris was a brilliant and successful regent for Fyodor I ; when Fyodor died childless in 1598, Boris was a popular and obvious choice as the next Tsar. For the first three years of his reign, he continued to rule successfully. Though I can see why Marxists might not think too highly of the reforms that instituted the particularly Russian form of modern serfdom.

It was the disastrous famine of 1601-1603 that undermined Boris' reign, and instituted the Time of Troubles; but it's not as if Boris had much control over the Peruvian volcanic eruption that caused the famine. Boris' death in 1605, and the murder of his son and successor Fyodor that same year, destabilised the Russian state just when it needed a strong leader to deal with the aftermath of the famine and the foreign support for the False Dmitri; but I'm not sure that Boris chose to have a stroke, either.

But for a volcano in Peru, Boris would be remembered much more kindly.

I was thinking more of Boris' lack of diplomatic and dinastic success with the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth: ultimately, Boris failed to strengthen Russia enough to avoid the Troubles. I understand how an Orthodox would see favourably his success in securing an autonomous Patriarchate for Russia, though.

[Conserative Morality]

A twat who paved the way for Russia's current mess.

[Rusozak]

A wonder he was sober enough to stop the coup in the first place.

Worst leader modern Russia ever had. He dissolved the Russian government with the support of the military.

Nice guy, eh?

Well, there's still Stalin.

[Napkiraly]

A wonder he was sober enough to stop the coup in the first place.

Worst leader modern Russia ever had. He dissolved the Russian government with the support of the military.

Nice guy, eh?

Well, there's still Stalin.

At least Stalin was more competent. Yeltsin truly was a drunken mess and the worst leader in recent Russian history.

[New Werpland]

I like him because he made Russia weak.

Actually he was just an incompetent/drunk version of Putin with less bravado. There was no real movement toward Liberalism during Yeltsin, in fact he is probably to blame for today's Russia.

[Rusozak]

Well, there's still Stalin.

At least Stalin was more competent. Yeltsin truly was a drunken mess and the worst leader in recent Russian history.

Sounds like a poor "ends justify the means" argument. I'd like an incompetent drunk over a butcher of millions.

[United Marxist Nations]

At least Stalin was more competent. Yeltsin truly was a drunken mess and the worst leader in recent Russian history.

Sounds like a poor "ends justify the means" argument. I'd like an incompetent drunk over a butcher of millions.

You think people don't die from rampant incompetence and the collapse of an economy? Russian male life expectancy drastically decreased, infrastructure was in major disrepair, pensions went unpaid. People died, and this is borne out in the population stagnation and ultimate decline.

[Conscentia]

Sounds like a poor "ends justify the means" argument. I'd like an incompetent drunk over a butcher of millions.

You think people don't die from rampant incompetence and the collapse of an economy? Russian male life expectancy drastically decreased, infrastructure was in major disrepair, pensions went unpaid. People died, and this is borne out in the population stagnation and ultimate decline.

The competent guy was competent enough to ensure that his damage persisted longer.

[United Marxist Nations]

You think people don't die from rampant incompetence and the collapse of an economy? Russian male life expectancy drastically decreased, infrastructure was in major disrepair, pensions went unpaid. People died, and this is borne out in the population stagnation and ultimate decline.

The competent guy was competent enough to ensure that his damage persisted longer.

If you mean Stalin, much of his policy was replaced and his legacy denounced by 1958, only 5 years after his death. Also, the good things he did also persisted longer. With Yeltsin, really only the bad stuff persists much at all.

[The Archregimancy]

Boris Gudonov wasn't so bad.

For 13 years Boris was a brilliant and successful regent for Fyodor I ; when Fyodor died childless in 1598, Boris was a popular and obvious choice as the next Tsar. For the first three years of his reign, he continued to rule successfully. Though I can see why Marxists might not think too highly of the reforms that instituted the particularly Russian form of modern serfdom.

It was the disastrous famine of 1601-1603 that undermined Boris' reign, and instituted the Time of Troubles; but it's not as if Boris had much control over the Peruvian volcanic eruption that caused the famine. Boris' death in 1605, and the murder of his son and successor Fyodor that same year, destabilised the Russian state just when it needed a strong leader to deal with the aftermath of the famine and the foreign support for the False Dmitri; but I'm not sure that Boris chose to have a stroke, either.

But for a volcano in Peru, Boris would be remembered much more kindly.

I was thinking more of Boris' lack of diplomatic and dinastic success with the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth: ultimately, Boris failed to strengthen Russia enough to avoid the Troubles. I understand how an Orthodox would see favourably his success in securing an autonomous Patriarchate for Russia, though.

It's nothing really to do with the patriarchate (which I didn't bring up) - just recognition that Boris was a highly successful ruler until the 1601-1603 famine, and while we could argue about how well he coped with the consequences of the latter (including the Polish-Lithuanian intervention), the famine itself had external environmental causes that no European ruler could have predicted. For 16 years, as regent and then Tsar, Boris was an excellent ruler; when it did go pear-shaped, the lack of dynastic legitimacy was a serious problem, but not all of his problems were of his own making.