After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fate of the union republics was uncertain, especially in Ukraine. The Slavic country is not only torn apart, but also mired in extreme poverty, with refugees everywhere. In stark contrast, Belarus, also a Slavic state, miraculously avoided a similar tragedy.
Many people wonder why Belarus, also a Slav, was able to "survive"?In fact, there is only one answer - national capitalization.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, privatization reforms left both Russia and Ukraine mired in capital control. During the Yeltsin years, Russia was even on the verge of collapse, but fortunately Putin hit the capital in time, eliminated its influence and saved the country. However, Ukraine was not so lucky. After the privatization reforms, the country's industry and wealth were controlled by a few careerists and capitalists. ** has become an ornament, but the fate of the country is determined by domestic and foreign capital, and all decisions only take into account the interests of capital, rather than the interests of the nation and the people.
This is the core reason for the absurdity of many of Ukraine's decisions, and the source of its helplessness.
Belarus has also undergone privatization, but it has managed to escape Ukraine's catastrophe for two key reasons.
First of all, Belarus did not completely abandon the principle of public ownership in the process of privatization. Despite the initiation of privatization, the principle of coexistence of multiple ownership systems was adhered to, and the majority of state-owned enterprises were kept under state control. Only a very small number of small enterprises have fallen into the hands of private capital, which not only keeps the country stable, but also guarantees that state power is in the hands of the state.
Secondly, Belarus has a strong leader - Lukashenko. He successfully fought the color revolutions of the West, resisted the penetration of the West, and resisted the control of Western capital. This has enabled Belarus to maintain stability at all times, the interests of the people are protected under the protection of state-owned capital, and the country's decision-making is truly based on the interests of the people and mistakes are avoided.
Therefore, although it is sometimes not a good thing to be in power for a long time, it is definitely the most stable and profitable option if you proceed from the national interest.
What do you think about this issue?Welcome to leave a message, welcome to consult, together with the depth**.
* The fate of the privatization of the Slavic countries, revealing the different fates of Belarus and Ukraine!
Belarus and Ukraine: the fate of privatization intersects.
After reading the above article, I have a deeper understanding of the fate of privatization in the Slavic countries, especially the stark contrast between Belarus and Ukraine. The article sheds light on the profound impact of privatization on the development of the country and the role of leadership in this process.
First of all, I agree with the article's profound observation of the serious impact of privatization on Ukraine. The control of capital has led to the fragmentation of the country, the wealth of the country is monopolized by a few, and political decision-making becomes a nominal existence. This makes me wonder whether the privatization process of the state needs to be more carefully planned to avoid excessive deprivation of national resources.
Secondly, the article points to the crisis in Russia during the Yeltsin years, and Putin's timely capital strike as a crucial step in turning the tide for Russia. This led me to think about the responsibility and responsibility of leadership in times of national crisis. The decisive and executive power of leaders at critical moments has a profound impact on the direction of the country, which is also the key to whether the country can get out of the predicament.
In contrast, Belarus was able to "survive" for two reasons. First of all, the application of the decision to maintain public ownership in the process of privatization. This principle of coexistence of multiple ownership systems has allowed the state to privatize while maintaining control over key industries and ensuring the stability of the country. Secondly, there is a strong leader Lukashenko's firm decision-making, which successfully resisted the infiltration of the country by foreign forces and ensured that the country is on the right path.
The article concludes by mentioning the pros and cons of long-term governance, which makes me think about the change and innovation of leadership in long-term governance. Staying in power for a long time may lead to institutional rigidity, but if we can act in the interests of the country and avoid abuse of power, it may also be a way to ensure the long-term stability of the country.
In general, this article opened up a new perspective on the process of privatization of the Slavic countries. Privatization is not a one-time solution, but a complex process that requires careful planning and effective leadership. Looking forward to more on the depth of national development and the role of leadership**.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!