Gorbachev: The USSR ** because there is no ***
Before reading, if it's convenient for you, can you click "Follow"? Not only will this make it easier for you to discuss and share, but it will also make you feel more involved, thank you for your support!
In Moscow in 2004, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing had an in-depth conversation with Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union. Their topics touched on sensitive issues, such as Li Zhaoxing's inquiry about the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union by Gorbachev.
Gorbachev also did not have reservations, and replied directly: "Because we don't *** So, is the collapse of the USSR really due to the lack of reformers like ***?"
If there is a figure like ***, will he be able to save the shattered Soviet Union? Let's work on this topic.
Gorbachev's attitude of shirking responsibility after the collapse of the Soviet Union has attracted widespread attention. As a living witness, he has always insisted that the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union was the social system, corruption, the oligarchy and the provocation of the West, not his own incompetence.
Such statements of his make people feel tired and tired, after all, no one likes a coward, but wants to see a person dare to take responsibility.
In the following ten years, Gorbachev gradually faded out of public view, and had to put down his face in order to live, to take on TV dramas and play himself in the play, in order to review that painful past.
Therefore, in 2004, when facing the inquiry of our foreign minister Li Zhaoxing, he opened his heart and told the secret buried in his heart: he lost a powerful and capable reformer like ***.
What he means is that he and *** are both reformers, both want the country to be rich and revitalized, but in the end *** succeeds, and he fails. His defeat not only led to the collapse of his country, but also made him feel deeply guilty.
He believed that if he had been as capable and prestigious as ***, the USSR might have a better future. However, he did not find the real cause of the problem. While his courage in admitting his mistakes is commendable, it is a pity that he did not directly point out the problem.
The collapse of the USSR was indeed related to his incompetence, but it was not entirely his responsibility. After all, if he had been able to see the truth, the USSR might not have collapsed.
The reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union are complex issues that need to be addressed at the beginning. Tsarist Russia in the early twenties of the last century was in an embattled situation, with the aristocracy stubbornly opposing reforms, the serfs rising up, the bourgeoisie trying to seize power, the proletariat rising, and internal and external difficulties.
However, this is only part of the story. Tsarist Russia also faced internal instability and external pressure, Japan launched the Russo-Japanese War in the northeast, which was eventually won, and in World War I, the serf army with high hopes suffered heavy losses.
Such a situation put the tsar ** into the predicament of destroying Russia, and finally collapsed under internal and external troubles. In 1917, the February Revolution broke out in the bourgeoisie, Nicholas II was forced to abdicate, and the democratic republican Soviets** were established, however, this regime did not last and was soon overthrown by the proletariat headed by Lenin due to the weakness of the bourgeoisie.
In conclusion, the reasons for the collapse of the USSR were manifold, and they needed to be delved into from a historical and political perspective.
The creation of the Soviet Union allowed multiple republics to unite into a powerful state. It annexed Poland, defeated Nazi Germany, became the sole hegemon of the European continent, and even rivaled the United States as one of the two poles of the world.
This period of the USSR can only be described in one word - strong. Under Stalin's leadership, the Soviet Union bravely faced all challenges, and under the glorious banner of communism, many countries chose to believe in the Soviet Union, such as the newly founded New China.
Relying on ideological beliefs and great military power, the Soviet Union rose to the top of the world. However, there are two sides to everything. The ** system left over from the wartime although the pace of the Soviet Union was unified.
First, the rapid development, but also laid a hidden danger for later development, and the flashpoint of this hidden danger was precisely the death of Stalin.
In 1953, Stalin's sudden death plunged the entire Soviet Union into chaos. Although no one took the opportunity to seize power, everyone did not know what to do to move forward.
Should we continue to govern the country according to the ideas of our former leaders, or should we develop a completely new set of theories?
In the past Soviet history, there were a lot of political problems. Among them, some of the shortcomings of Stalin's lifetime attracted the attention of the third leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev.
He learned from the hard time and decided to reform the political system, aiming to get the Soviet people out of the leadership and towards the path of seeking truth from facts. On the economic front, Khrushchev considered the development of industry and agriculture a top priority and carried out innovations.
At the same time, diplomatically, he dared to go ahead, even risking the opposition of socialist countries, visiting the United States and trying to get Westerners to change their stereotypes about the Soviet Union.
All these measures were taken for the purpose of seeking peace, stabilizing the Cold War situation, and gaining opportunities for development. Although his actions were questioned and opposed, his choices were all the right decisions to adapt to the development of the times.
It is a pity that Khrushchev's pace was too large, beyond the understanding and acceptance of his subordinates and the population, which ultimately led to his being forced to **, and everything returned to square one.
When Brezhnev took over, his impact on the Soviet Union was mixed. He did not have the supreme power of Stalin and Khrushchev, but was a puppet elected by the Soviet conservatives.
In addition, his ability to deal with the various contradictions in the country is limited, and he is unable to confront the vested interests that are rampant in their enrichment. However, it is puzzling that, despite this, Brezhnev achieved remarkable results.
During his reign, the Soviet Union's economy developed significantly, and its military strength once surpassed that of the United States, becoming the world's leader. The situation of the Cold War also changed, from the United States attacking the Soviet Union to the Soviet Union attacking and defending.
However, this is only scratching the surface. Brezhnev did not take any action, the economic development of the USSR was due to the energy **, and the military strength was increased due to excessive dependence on the military, the development of only heavy industry and the neglect of people's livelihood.
This means that as powerful as the USSR appeared on the surface, in reality, as long as the energy *** they were beaten back to square one. In this case, the USSR is no longer the USSR of the past, and the sickle and hammer are no longer the faith of the Soviet people.
And at this time, Brezhnev died, Gorbachev came to power, and he inherited a very chaotic situation. So, does Gorbachev have a chance to turn the tables?
At one time, there was some argument that the possibility of reforming the ills of the Soviet Union was slim, and that Gorbachev should adopt a smooth transition and gradually implement reforms. However, he stubbornly insisted that for serious illnesses it was necessary to use drastic drugs, and that comprehensive and profound reforms were the only way to save the Soviet Union.
However, his series of wrong decisions, including public mistakes, to show weakness to the outside world, led to a loss of confidence in the public. This series of actions seems to be correct, but he miscalculates the ambitions of the Western world, which does not want the Soviet Union to recover, but wants to see a broken socialist country, and does not even want to see socialism exist.
Faced with this situation, Gorbachev chose to play the emotional card and implement a comprehensive party reform, allowing the people to choose the party that would lead the Soviet Union, and providing opportunities for the development of the bourgeoisie.
After a long period of illness, the people no longer trusted the CPSU. Water can carry a boat and it can sink a boat, and it is obviously impossible for you to have a group of people who do not have enough to eat to choose a leader based on faith alone.
Thus, as expected, the CPSU eventually lost its leadership, and the USSR completely collapsed in the silence of Christmas Eve and disappeared into the long river of history. Regarding the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, some believe that Gorbachev is to blame, but why would anyone oppose it?
The reason is simple, the blogger is not saying that Gorbachev did not have any responsibility, but only that even without his wrong decisions, the USSR would not have lasted long, and as for the specific reasons, it is not complicated to understand.
First: Economic Difficulties Affect National Stability The core element of every country's long-term stability is the economy. Military, political, diplomatic are secondary, because if the people have a hard time, the country itself will collapse, and this is exactly the dilemma that the USSR faced.
The economic problems of the USSR have existed for a long time and have been doomed since its inception. Although the planned economy was implemented in the early days, there was plenty of food, and the handicraft and light industries were relatively developed, so that they would not starve and freeze, while the situation in the USSR was the opposite, although the territory was vast, but most of it was permafrost, and the only regions that were really suitable for production and industrial development were Moscow and Ukraine.
What does this mean? It means that if the Soviet Union wants to get rich, there are only two ways to go: **energy and **military equipment, and use this money to meet the basic living needs of the people.
This is certainly achievable, but it also depends on the current situation. In times of peace, normal transactions are carried out, everything is fine, but in troubled times, oil ** is depressed, and no one buys military equipment, and these resources do not meet the living needs of the people.
Gorbachev's dilemma at that time was that energy had plummeted, state revenues had decreased, and light industrial products such as food and clothing had soared. This unequal market situation led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia's path to capitalism.
In addition, the infiltration and provocation of Western countries also exacerbated the predicament of the Soviet Union. Western countries led by the United States carried out all-round suppression of the Soviet Union through economic blockade, manipulation of energy and food, diplomatic suppression, military spearhead targeting of the Middle East, and political sowing discord.
This repression left the Soviet Union with no respite and no choice but to disintegrate. In general, the collapse of the Soviet Union was the result of many factors, including the infiltration and suppression of energy and light industrial products by Western countries.
These factors put the Soviet Union in a predicament that could not save itself, and had no choice but to disintegrate and move towards the road of capitalism.
The decline of the USSR: from idealism to military hegemony. The Soviet Union was initially founded on the idealism of communism, which was supported by the proletariat all over the world. However, over time, the USSR turned to military hegemony and abandoned the soil of communism.
This is an essential mistake, because what the Western world fears is the power of the proletarians of the whole world uniting, and the USSR itself abandoned this path. Even with brilliant reformers such as ***, it will not be able to solve the dilemma at its root.
The decline of the USSR was in the bones, predestined as early as the time of Gorbachev. While Gorbachev's incompetence accelerated this process, the main responsibility lay with the USSR itself.