It Wasn't What He Wanted, But Gorbachev Allowed an Evil Empire To Collapse
Alas, the Russians never forgave him.

If the late Mikhail Gorbachev had gotten his way, the world would look a lot different than it does now. Socialism would still be the dominant economic system from Leipzig to Yakutsk. The Warsaw Pact would still exist; a unified Germany would not, nor would the independent Baltic states. Above all, the planet would still be blighted by the wheezing and malevolent existence of what Ronald Reagan rightly described as "the evil empire"—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
"I regret it to this day," Gorbachev said to Werner Herzog about the collapse of the Soviet Union. "It is hard." Poor thing.
Yet we should not judge the eighth and final Soviet leader, who died Tuesday at the age of 91, by his base geopolitical desires but rather by the glorious human flourishing that his actions—and especially his inactions—allowed to take place. Gorbachev's economically desperate late-1980s policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (reform) unleashed a whirlwind of freedom-seeking among hundreds of millions of captive peoples, quickly overwhelming any one man's (or regime's) ability to control it.
And during most—though definitely not all—key moments of potential armed conflict between dictatorial hardliners and outgunned revolutionaries, Gorby told the generals to stand down. This is an achievement worth lingering on and learning from.
History is not over-stuffed with examples of outstretched empires that withdrew into a more reasonable perimeter without putting up a bloody fight. Surely it helped in the decision making process that Moscow was dead broke and hopelessly outmatched in just about every competitive resource except oil reserves and nuclear weapons. Another perennially underrated factor in the comparative peacefulness of the Soviet collapse is that—contrary to the propaganda of both Vladimir Putin and Gorbachev himself—neither the newly freed countries nor their superpower protector sought the types of revenge historically typical among vanquishers.
The result was that, under the watches of both Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush, November 9, 1989 became the most liberating day of the most liberating month of the most liberating year in human history. Hardly limited to the long-suffering nations of Central Europe, the imperial drawdowns from both sides of the Cold War brought crucial and long-awaited relief to the proxy-war-scarred post-colonialist countries of Africa and South America. The fact that Gorbachev planned for almost none of this should not dull our appreciation for him not getting in the way.
That asteroid-level event of totalitarian destruction comes with a takeaway for the United States—the world will be more free, and self-governing, after the United States stops assuming responsibility for its security arrangements.
But as we've also seen during the past six murderous months, the nation of Russia has never allowed the perceived wound of its imperial amputations to heal. There could and should have been a real post–Cold War settlement, just as there have been major international agreements about borders, populations, and security arrangements following every significant geopolitical conflagration. But alas, all sides to that 20th-century-defining conflict squandered that opportunity.
Gorbachev was no help in that process, nurturing (whether authentically or in the name of domestic reputation-salvaging) the kind of sullen nationalist paranoia that Putin would make his whole raison d'être. The world lives daily with the disastrous downstream results.
But it's hard to communicate to those who weren't there what better times his birthmark-decorated forehead once foretold. From affable acceptance of the winds of change to cameos in Wim Wenders movies to his iconic role in a Pizza Hut ad, Gorbachev felt like—and was—a marvelous transition figure from Brezhnevian totalitarianism to this new thing that was being birthed in the 1990s. It was a naïve (and neoliberal!) vision, sure, but it was more hopeful than the world Gorby now leaves behind. RIP.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But it's hard to communicate to those who weren't there what better times his birthmark-decorated forehead once foretold. From affable acceptance of the winds of change to cameos in Wim Wenders movies to his iconic role in a Pizza Hut ad, Gorbachev felt like—and was—a marvelous transition figure from Brezhnevian totalitarianism to this new thing that was being birthed in the 1990s. It was a naïve (and neoliberal!) vision, sure, but it was more hopeful than the world Gorby now leaves behind. RIP.
Gorby is not popular in Russia.
Konstantin Kisin, Russian Immigrant gives a pretty good description and explanation why the Russians don't have a... favorable view of unfettered free markets.
After being without work for 6 months, I started completing a simple online work over this website I found online, and I couldn't be happier now. (res-05) Results... After 3 months of doing this my monthly income increased by 8900 per month by working for just several hours per week...Start by following the:-
.
Instructions here:>>> https://workofferweb24.pages.dev/
"Gorby is not popular in Russia."
Political leaders who bring big changes to "old ways" are seldom immediately popular amongst their peers (there are exceptions). Sometimes, it takes a generation or two before they are appreciated by the general populace. Sometimes it never happens. And, sometimes they end up being despised.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ati-15) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
Surely it helped in the decision making process that Moscow was dead broke and hopelessly outmatched in just about every competitive resource except oil reserves and nuclear weapons
“Helped” is putting it lightly.
Are we now saying that the USSR didn’t get beat in the Cold War? That they voluntarily threw communism into the shit-heap of history?
I like how Gorbachev "allowed" it to happen. He had no power to stop it.
Pretty much. He didn't really have any choice other than to roll with it if he wanted Russia to remain a key global power. And the irony is that--and people consistently forget this--the conventional wisdom amongst the left-liberal press and social elites at the start of the 1980s was that the USSR had the upper hand, and that the US needed to figure out a way to co-exist with them before Ronny Raygun killed the planet in a nuclear holocaust.
When in fact it was Reagan's leadership that convinced Gorbachev that maintaining the USSR in a blaze of glory was a Real Bad Idea.
"Peace through strength" only works when a leader knows when and how to apply the strength. Carter didn't, Reagan did, and Biden doesn't.
"Allowed" in the sense that he did not have the Communist regime go down fighting its fate violently. Not insignificant, but still a reactive influence, not a driving one.
If he tried to have it fight, he'd have likely suffered a fate similar to Ceaucescu.
"If he tried to have it fight, he'd have likely suffered a fate similar to Ceaucescu."
Maybe.
But the fact is that he did not, sparing many lives in the process.
He did more good with his failures than most leaders did with their success.
neither the newly freed countries nor their superpower protector sought the types of revenge historically typical among vanquishers.
HA HA HA
The "harvard boys" would like a word. After the fall of a communist dictatorship, it takes american imperial fuckery to actually make the average life expectancy go down.
And if you don't know what im talking about, learn about what the "harvard boys" did before calling me a commie.
Their looter system of faux privitazation empowered the oligarchs that took control of russia to rob the country blind, and putin came to power as an oligarch that opposed the other oligarchs.
Russia is a cleptocracy because of them boys. Dont get it twisted.
I believe he is talking about the former SSR not waging war on each other, not the corruption inside Russia. That was indeed a surprise.
Look how the pieces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire fought each other, and how the pieces of Yugoslavia fought each other. The pieces of the USSR were remarkably calm compared to them.
I think the fact that nearly every SSR had a sizeable population of Russians in it kept the SSRs from fighting each other.
Umm... Chechnya?
The worst part of the USSR breakup was the incredible corrupt kleptocracy which took over Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, and remains to this day, although Ukraine has made a lot of progress in the last few years. I've often wondered if the US could have done anything to ease it or even prevent it, and I don't think so; any help we had offered would have raised more suspicions than they already had. Russia simply has always had a strongman mindset, going back before the Tsars.
But maybe the US could have offered some kind of Marshall plan to Belarus and Ukraine at least, who might not have been as suspicious. Offer to help change their railroads to the standard western gauge, to help bring them closer to Europe and isolate them from Russia, and even make the same standing offer to Russia. Wouldn't have been horrendously expensive, and a massive effort might have been able to do it in a remarkably short time. They might get brand new locomotives and some rolling stock. Shifting the one rail itself would be relatively simple and fast; you could even lay an extra rail and run both gauges at once at more expense but without a full shutdown.
It seems to me like a reasonably simple and cheap project which might have eased the transition from the USSR. I can't think of anything else.
I remember around 1992 seeing long lines of railroad cars loaded with Brand new IH combines. There were over 200. All being delivered to the former Soviet Union. Some big agreement made that happen.
“The worst part of the USSR breakup was the incredible corrupt kleptocracy which took over Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, and remains to this day”
You could say the same thing about the American revolution.
Hah! True enough, but being just a farming economy, there wasn't a whole lot of real change.
The USSR was every bit as corrupt as its successor regimes. The difference is that after the USSR collapsed, there was far less effort put into stifling all discussion of corruption.
Viktor Belenko's book mentions several egregious examples. The one I found amusing was the shortage of jet fuel due to the brass selling it on the black market to drink.
-jcr
Reagan whipped Gorby's ass and ended Soviet Communism in Europe. Almost anyone else would have had us subsidizing the Evil Empire to this day.
Communism/socialism whipped Gorby's ass. Nothing Reagan did would have made any difference if the USSR wasn't failing on it's own.
LOL
Nobody else saw it that way. Even our intel agencies --- winners that they are --- did not foresee a collapse at all.
Are you saying inability of outsiders to predict the collapse is evidence that Reagan caused the downfall as opposed to internal issues?
Communist and socialist states are inherently oppressive, and with time unstable. But right up to the day the wall was breached there were Zero people predicting it.
And it happened because a low level administrator misunderstood his orders.
History is easy to see in retrospect, whereas life can be hard to predict in the future? Exactly!
Acksbuyally, Ludwig Von Mises seen decades ewrlier that Socialism runs anathema to human nature and human flourishing and could never last. Marx was wrong, Von Mises was right.
Above all, the planet would still be blighted by the wheezing and malevolent existence of what Ronald Reagan rightly described as "the evil empire"—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
And he'd be too far to the right for the modern progressive.
In 1922 Chairman Lenin signed the treaty creating the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. By 2022, so many of its signatory Republics had gone to war with each other that , on his dying day, Gorbachev could look back on a death toll averaging more than a million a year for a century.
Glory to Socialism
There was another ad, an old Slavic-looking couple listening to broadcasts on an inconspicuous radio set, speculating with subtitles on whether Ronnie would manage to get reelected. I don't see that one on Youtube. It was hard-hitting--but I voted libertarian just the same.
Surprisingly, Welch fails to mention that 4 people pushed Gorby to allow the USSR to fall: John Paul 2, Thatcher, Walesa, and Reagan. And he fails to mention the ‘Gorbasms’ the leftist Western media had.
Not Welch’s best.
The result was that, under the watches of both Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush, November 9, 1989 became the most liberating day of the most liberating month of the most liberating year in human history.
For all the nay-sayers over 60 or so, just think back to that day and evening and ask yourself if it was not one of the great moments that you remember along with Neil Armstrong climbing down the ladder. Did it happen as BigT points out (JP2, Walesa and Thatcher pounding on it too) - yes. Did it have some unpleasant consequences - yes. Are the Russians still sore about it - some are. But was it a great moment? Absolutely!
What I remember from that day, as a middle schooler, was how fucking surreal that period was. Most of my childhood had consisted of a decade-long chimpout by Hollywood and the press about potential nuclear annihilation, and all of a sudden here were Germans breaking down the wall with sledgehammers and chisels, followed by a few short weeks of Communist government after Communist government in eastern Europe folding in on itself as a "Welcome to the 1990s!" Christmas present.
BINGO! My point exactly!
(Ceaușescu's execution on December 25 was indeed a rather macabre Christmas present, but I tend to remember the happier night and day of the Osti's ignoring the wall and the goons and heading west to see their relatives and experience freedom, finally!)
Like the Romanians, I can't get enough of Ceausescu's execution. His buddies Nixon and Ford missed the party.
I'm not a death penalty kind of guy when the guilt is even possibly in doubt, but I cheered when that motherfucker Ceauşescu and his bitch wife Elena were shot like dogs on worldwide TV after a speedy trial that they never gave to any of their citizen-slaves! I cheer to this day seeing it on YouTube and elsewhere! If there were a Hell, I'd say may the Ceauşescus burn in it! Merry Christmas back at 'cha to the Romanian people!
I recall at Thanksgiving dinner giving thanks for the fall of the wall and the freedom delivered to millions. I had been to E Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1984 and was quite familiar with the Communist lifestyle. And their love for Americans.
I wish it could always been the spring of 1990 again. Terrible year for me for personal reasons, but what a wonderful, happy spring for the world. You really get MLK's sense of "Free at last, free at last, Free at last!".
Downhill from there.... Sigh.
And yet all of the predictions of late stage capitalism are coming true, just as Marx predicted, so who’s the fool now?
You are.
Too bad he did so poorly predicting the outcome communism though. Millions died from his poor predictions.
Not as many as died from Chinese government choices. About 25 million died in China from the beginning of fanatical prohibitionism in 1837 to America's Reconstruction era. This was about the entire American population including Comanches. Mao's Great Leap Forward soon killed an even larger number when the planet's population was less than half what it is now. Yet the bipartisan Kleptocracy still models policy on Chinese prohibitionism as it did beginning in 1903. You have to wonder what outcome it wants.
LOL, literally nothing Marx predicted actually came true. The only thing that's happened is that his followers through the decades have morphed marxism from an economic theory to a system of religious belief.
Not to dis Marx but Engels was really the brains behind Marxism not to mention the guy who bankrolled Marx. Engels had a hands on view of how workers were treated since his Daddy was a big factory owner and at the time treated workers the same terrible way other employers were.
One thing often overlooked about Engels' predictions is he was able to make big bucks with his predictions in the stock market. What both Marx and Engels both got wrong about capitalism is how it would morph into the crony capitalism we have now into a governmental/industrial complex where the government chooses winners and losers ignoring any true capitalist input from market forces.
Note to foreign readers: Engels, like Hitler, was raised a devout Christian altruist.
"And yet all of the predictions of late stage capitalism are coming true, just as Marx predicted, so who’s the fool now?"
You're still really not worth shit at this; study OBL and STFU until you get better, asshole.
Capitalism is a German communist neologism unconnected with rational ethical values. American looter Howells coined "The Accumulation" which much better conveys the meaning of the concept. Gorby, like every other altruist collectivist dictator, became a wealthy member of The Accumulation.
You are full of shit.
Marx? Who? 🙂
damikesc
August.31.2022 at 7:00 am
"I like how Gorbachev "allowed" it to happen. He had no power to stop it."
Yep. Reagan kicked one of the legs out, but the table was already collapsing; Gorby happened to be there at the time.
But he had the sense to realize that the table was coming down. He just made sure it didn't hit too many people along the way. You know, he could have done just the opposite, and started WWIII, but he didn't. For that we can thank him.
Isn't this kind of like giving Osama Bin Laden a prize for "letting" the War on Terror come to an end?
Not quite so sinister. More like giving President Bill Clinton an award for ending welfare as it was at that point. The fact that it was his inability to get anything done (either Clinton or Gorbachev) does tend to relegate him to "incompetent" rather than "misguided" (or evil), but it comes to the same thing: a good result for humanity.
Not to worry Gorbachev, a new much more malevolent empire has arisen to replace the USSR. China has the economic might and the pure evil to terrorize its captive citizens as well as the rest of the world.
It's gonna be a hard century. I need to figure out how to say that in Mandarin.
Get some older DVD copies of Firefly and Serenity and turn on the Closed Captioning and you can learn some shiny cuss-words in Mandarin Chinese said in a Western drawl.
Solo...What are all the Walter Duranty's for Vladimir Putin saying anything about this? Communism was as much his baby as every Soviet dictator...