He didnāt destroy it, he liberalised things a bit - which was a good thing - and the natural result of that was the disintegration of the Soviet Union - which was also a good thing.
The Soviet Union was not worth holding together because it was a failed entity which was deeply repressive.
I canāt think of many good things done by any leaders of the Soviet Union.
He didnāt understand what he was doing. He didnāt understand the economics of the planned economy. He had no idea where what he was doing would lead. Where it lead was that a fairly stable failed entity morphed into a viciously unstable failed entity.
Russia simply couldnāt economically maintain the Soviet Unionā¦ It was nothing to do with ideology. The place was literally falling apart and those that had means were ready to make their fortune in the chaos of its collapse.
Ask the citizens of the Baltic countries, Ukraine and Georgia whether theyād prefer being free, independent countries to being part of a failed empire based on lies, repression and genocide.
I find it bizarre that anybody would think artificially propping up a failed empire was the way to go.