Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Mikhail Gorbachev is dead. So is his legacy.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the final general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, died on Tuesday at the age of 91.
He was an extraordinary and truly world-changing leader. Ultimately, and tragically, he was a failed one as well.
Arguably, Gorbachev was the leader that made the greatest impact on my professional life. My first trip outside of the United States was to the Soviet Union back in 1986. Gorbachev had just risen to power the year before, and at the time it wasn't at all clear that he was going to be a great reformer.
In his early days, he was mostly focused on anti-alcohol and anti-corruption campaigns, on trying to improve Soviet society. But he also worked hard to concentrate more power in his hands in the Politburo, where there was a serious power struggle going on. (In fact, Gorbachev’s early days had a fair amount in common with Xi Jinping, but that's really where the comparison ends.)
The Chernobyl disaster hit just a couple months before I showed up in the Soviet Union and therefore at the beginning of Gorbachev's rule. This was an enormous tragedy inside the Soviet Union, but it was a catalytic one: it proved to Gorbachev that the Soviet political and economic system was increasingly sclerotic and bankrupt, and he set out to change it through three unprecedented structural reforms.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
First, glasnost: political openness. In other words, free speech. Second, perestroika: economic opening. In other words, capitalism. And third, khozraschot: accountability. In other words, economic decentralization and political federalism. Gorbachev was also very much an anti-imperialist. He recognized that Soviets were massively overspending on the military and wanted to stop that, so he ended the disastrous war in Afghanistan.
Gorbachev poses with U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush in New York. More hopeful times...
In short order, all of these reforms reverberated across the Soviet empire and unleashed the yearning of millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain to be free. The first political uprisings happened in Eastern Bloc countries, and Gorbachev chose not to use military force to stop them from abandoning communism and leaving the bloc. That of course led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the independence of all these Central and Eastern European countries that are now in NATO and the European Union. This precipitated demands for independence across the 15 republics that made up the Soviet Union, starting in the Baltics, then Ukraine, then Central Asia, and finally Russia proper, followed by a failed military coup in August of 1991. Gorbachev accepted the peaceful end of the Soviet empire on Christmas Day, four months later.
Perhaps the truest tragedy for a statesman is to outlive their legacy, and nothing could be truer for Mikhail Gorbachev.
Vladimir Putin, the president—and now dictator—of Russia, has said that he views the Soviet collapse as “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.” He has devoted his time in office to reviving the Russian empire, centralizing power in his hands, and repressing economic and political freedoms.
Russia today is precisely the opposite of everything Gorbachev had hoped it would be. We, and Russians especially, are all the worst for that.
Mikhail Gorbachev, rest in peace.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
Is Putin still Soviet? Wrong question
Thirty years ago this week, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, forced to choose between dissolving the USSR or trying to hold it together by force, decided to lower the flag and end 75 years of Communist rule. Boris Yeltsin became president of something called the Russian Federation, and the Cold War officially passed into history. Many on both sides of the old divide hoped for a clean break from a confrontational past and looked forward to a new, cooperative future.
Three decades later, how much has changed? There is no question that Russians enjoy a higher standard of living, opportunity, and freedom than during the Soviet period. They can travel. They can read the news from a world away at a moment’s notice. They can enjoy Michelin-starred farm-to-table restaurants and swanky art exhibitions in a smart new Moscow that bears little resemblance to the drab Soviet capital of the last century.
And yet, President Vladimir Putin is now railing at NATO and threatening military action against Ukraine to protect Russia’s sphere of influence. Putin’s most prominent opponent languishes in prison, a year after being poisoned, likely by state officials. And this week, the state shuttered a homegrown human rights group dedicated to cataloging the Soviet regime’s human-rights abuses.
So is Vladimir Putin – a former KGB agent who once called the Soviet collapse the “greatest geopolitical tragedy” of the century – trying to reconstitute a new vision of the old hammers and sickles?
That question misses a longer historical sweep that Putin is part of.
Russia has, since the 18th century, led an empire. It’s a sprawling land empire that is hard to keep together and hard to defend – the Russian winter has repeatedly stepped in to help where mountain ranges or waterways could not – but an empire nonetheless.
For two hundred years, being a great power through imperial clout has been central to Russian leaders’ understanding of what Russia is: from the czars to the Soviets and now to… what? The “phantom pain of a lost empire,” as the syndrome has been called, is a powerful thing.
The thing is, Russia today is smaller than it’s been in 200 years. It lacks the allies that the Soviets had – after all, it’s now Ukraine, not West Germany, that’s living in the shadow of Kremlin threats. It lacks the global ideological appeal that the USSR enjoyed. And, of course, it lacks Ukraine. That’s a problem for imperial Russia because – as Putin tells it, and many Russians agree – Ukraine is a critical and inseparable part of the broader Russian world. Without Ukraine, Russia is, as Putin sees it, just another country.
So when Putin squabbles with the West about where NATO’s borders should end – and the countries squashed dangerously between Russia and Germany can fairly ask why he should get to decide that for them – he is acting on that imperial impulse.
When he claims to be encircled by a NATO that is present across just a tiny fraction of Russia’s immensely long borders, he is expressing the same geopolitical insecurity that kept empresses and czars, commissars and general secretaries awake in the Kremlin for centuries.
The question is whether that vision is sustainable for a Russia that is arguably weaker, globally, than it’s ever been. A Russia of modern people but without a modern innovative economy. Is empire (re)building worth the cost for a Russia that might otherwise be a great country without being a great power? Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the answer to that question seems as distant as ever.
- After Kazakhstan, how will Russia escalate in Ukraine? - GZERO Media ›
- Signs of Russian climbdown following Macron-Putin meeting - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine is fighting for all of us, says Estonia's former president Kersti Kaljulaid - GZERO Media ›
- Global Stage ›
- Russia-Ukraine war: How we got here - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Examining Putin: his logic, mistakes, and hope for Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- Putin has "mummified" Russia: Ivan Krastev On the Putin Effect - GZERO Media ›
- Putin past the point of no return - GZERO Media ›
- Mikhail Gorbachev outlived his legacy - GZERO Media ›
- Putin cornered - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: David Petraeus on Putin's war games - GZERO Media ›
- "Peace" under authoritarian occupation isn't peaceful: Estonia's Kaja Kallas - GZERO Media ›
- Russia vs. NATO: Heightened risk of war - GZERO Media ›
- Putin miscalculated on Ukraine, misled by post-Cold War worldview, says Ivan Krastev - GZERO Media ›
From bad to worse: US/China relations with Zanny Minton Beddoes
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer explores the escalating tension between the world's two biggest geopolitical and economic players—the US and China. With guest Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, Bremmer discusses the modern history of China after the fall of the Soviet Union and why another Cold War might be inevitable.