For Russians, a symbol of weakness and loss

The Boston Globe ^ | April 24, 2007 | Marshall I. Goldman

[A. Pole]

[...]

Yeltsin was a true hero and the hope was that he would use this momentum to further the move toward democracy and a market system that Gorbachev had just begun. I was in Moscow at the time of the coup attempt and when Yeltsin put down the coup, the public was thrilled and proud of themselves in a way I had never sensed in Moscow before or since.

The trouble was that Yeltsin stood by as others, including some American advisers, allowed some of Russia's most prized assets to be turned over to a very few undeserving individuals. Overnight these new owners, who came to be called oligarchs, became billionaires. That explains why Moscow today has more billionaires than New York City. That in itself would not be a problem except that almost none of these Russians were self-made entrepreneurs. Instead almost all of their wealth is due to the fact that they were allowed to take over ownership of what had been the state's most valuable resources.

This created enormous resentment within the public at large, particularly because at the same time, the economy collapsed, leaving over one third of the population below the poverty line. All this was accompanied by a financial meltdown in August 1998 when most of the country's major banks were forced to close their doors, the ruble lost its value, and Russia was forced to default on its debt.

[...]

While much of this will leave Yeltsin with a legacy that will be regarded positively in the outside world, Yeltsin's legacy within Russia is unlikely to be so kind. He will be thought of as someone who while initially a hero, stood by, often indisposed because he was sick, drunk or in a state of depression, while the country lost its bearings.

[...]

[A. Pole]

Bump

[Thrownatbirth]

Not so amazing that US liberals would bash Boris.

[ClearCase_guy]

I generally consider Gorbachev to be a leader who inherited a tottering empire, tried to fix it and only succeeded in making it fall completely apart -- then Gorbachev looked around and said, "I ... uh ... meant to do that."

Yeltsin, on the other hand, knew what he was doing, and succeeded in pushing communism off the stage in a very deliberate fashion. I respected Yeltsin. It's a shame that Putin is trying to revive the Bad Old Days.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Yeltsin gave Communist and the SU the coup de grace. His fortitude and bravery should be commended. Changing Russia was a monumental task. Yeltsin had to constantly fight off the Communists, who were still very strong, and idiots like Zorinosky. The oligarchs that took control simply too advantage of the privatization. I remember that the idea was “shock therapy.” Get privatization over with quickly, so that the Commies could reverse it if they came to power. I think his major mistake was picking the Chekist, Putin as his successor.

[DesScorp]

Back in college, my Russian History prof insisted Yeltsin was a bumbling fool. Wonder what he thinks of Putin, eh?

[annalex]

Yeltsin was likable and brave.

Setting up as plutocracy masquerading as capitalism was his great error. History may be able to answer whether the error was of discernment or deliberate.

As Americans, we should ponder this question: is the ease with which the Soviet plutocracy transformed itself into a capitalist plutocracy under American set of advisors a signal for us to reassess our own version of capitalism?

May the good Lord rest Yeltsin’s soul, and give him forgiveness of sin and everlasting peace.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Russians may miss the EVIL EMPIRE like Putin does, but Moscow's slaves in the Soviet "prison of nations" rejoice and thank God for its collapse.

If it were not Yeltsin, Soviet troops would have not been withdrawn from Lithuania - “If it were not Boris Yeltsin, trust me, we would have encountered serious problems in withdrawal of Soviet troops from Lithuania.”