Yes he did want to hold those states in the Soviet Union. But he liberalised the Soviet Union. And as Iāve said the inevitable outcome of that was its break up, which was a categorically good thing. Because the entire entity was rotten.
The mistake that was made by the west when the Soviet Union broke up was not putting in place a Marshall Plan type plan to try and transition the former Soviet states to social democracy instead of unleashing shock doctrine on them. But for all that, by the late 1990s, Russia was on a tenuous road to being a valued member of the international community and on an even more tenuous road to some sort of prosperity.
Then a self styled āstrong, decisive leaderā who in reality was a coward and a fantasist took charge, and what happened happened.
Self styled āstrong, decisive leadersā are very, very overrated.
Yes all that happened subsequently was unintended by Gorbachev which would suggest that he was a hopeless incompetent which is where I started off here.
Yes indeed, whatever their faults, and they have plenty, they are infinitely preferable to despots and utter charlatans like, Trump, Putin, Xi, Assad and Modi etc.
Donāt be so silly. You are lionising a man whose raisin detre was to to hold the Soviet Union together and failed utterly in that regard. If he had intended to liberalise and facilitate the break up of the Union Iād have some regard for him but he utterly failed in his aims.
I said he was the best leader of the Soviet Union there ever was. He thawed the international climate considerably. Donāt forget that as recently as 1984 nuclear war was on the pop of breaking out between the Soviets and the US. All that disappeared with Gorbachev. He pulled them out of Afghanistan as well.
Human rights are a good thing. Under him human rights improved considerably. The end of the Cold War and the break up of the Soviet Union were great things.
I couldnāt give a fuck whether he wanted to keep the Soviet Union together. Nobody outside Russia did.
As Soviet/Russian leaders go, which is not a high standard at all, he was as good as there was. He was the only one who had any humanity in him. The point is the system he came to preside over was not a system that valued humanity. It was dependent on absolute repression. Therefore when any humanity was introduced, its fall was inevitable.
Johnson was the man at the wheel when how many people were killed in Vietnam because they were potentially communists again? Was it a few or a lot. Was it paramount to American foreign policy at the time? Was it good leadership?
IKE fully intended to use nuclear weapons in war. He was absolutely prepared to do so in the name of MAD. There were no other battle plans during his tenure. Was that good leadership?
Starting a needless war is always a terrible idea. It was a terrible idea in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Ukraine.
Some people condemn the starting of the Vietnam and Iraq wars but support the war Russia launched on Ukraine. Work that one out.
Nuclear weapons were invented to win the war of all wars. They continue to exist because deterrence, and because others wonāt give them up. You hope you never have to use them. But any leader of a western nuclear power who isnāt prepared to state they will use nuclear weapons if they are first attacked with nuclear weapons should not be leading a western nuclear power.
Liz Truss was entirely correct to state she would be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary.
The message to Putin should be loud and clear - we will not use nuclear weapons first - but if you do, you will be wiped out.