On Wednesday celebrates its anniversary, perhaps the most unpopular politician in Russia: the first and last President of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev celebrates 85 years. He is forced to witness not only health centers in his honor, and endless curses, coupled with the proposal to recognize his reign of crime. But does Gorbachev like that?
The recent initiative of Nikita Mikhalkov to arrange the trial of former Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee (otherwise to acknowledge his or her actions a crime), of course, found many supporters, but to take it seriously in the performance of Mikhalkov’s impossible for one simple reason. The same Mikhalkov, in the same interview, spoke of the sacredness of power. But if the power of the sacred, then even the most incompetent criminal and the leader of their state can not be judged. Don’t mix the two concepts. So let’s leave application Mikhalkov on his conscience and try to understand what is actually today’s hero of the day.
“Try to imagine what the last quarter of the century, with all its UPS and downs would not have, and would have been unchanged only Gorbachev”
It’s hard to tell what historical figure was equal to Gorbachev when he launched perestroika, glasnost, new thinking and new method. It is possible that the modestly – on Khrushchev. Supporters compare him with Alexander the Liberator, while mapping with his grandson, Alexander Nicholas, which in Soviet times was called the Bloody, and now canonized, it would be more accurate. Gorbachev was able to avoid martyrdom and the fate of both emperors killed in 62 and 50 years respectively, but failed to escape the collapse of their own state.
Also with Nikolay Gorbachev brings together the forced nature of the reforms and the lack of a proactive stance: they did not create the events, and followed them, often with a huge gap. Same here – the inability to restore order in his closest circles, and many other unacceptable for high head traits.
Despite the fact that most of the current residents of Russia he studied under the Soviet textbooks, the Marxist vision of history considers the role of personality secondary (most importantly – the will of the masses), the vast majority of people for some reason tend to blame all the troubles of the country leader. And liberals follow this concept with no less zeal than the Communists.
From the USSR to Russia: how our country has changed in thirty letmi there is no weak or, conversely, a strong leader is not able to compel citizens are so disappointed in the home country to gladly welcome its collapse, bringing all his forces. That Nicholas II had taught the peasants to burn down the homes of the landowners with the landowners? What Gorbachev caused contention between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis, Georgians with Abkhazians and Ossetians, and the Pro-Romanian Moldovans are Pro-Russia?
The collapse of the States required some kind of “perfect storm”: a combination of factors in a different sequence or with another (perhaps even greater) force would not have led to a catastrophic cumulative effect. And the role (and fault) who by chance were caught up in this moment to the top of the state pyramid is not the main. Despite this, the mass consciousness of the perpetrators was clearly defined – “a weak king” Nicholas II and “incompetent reformer” Mikhail Gorbachev.