Russian Appraisals Of The Late Mikhail Gorbachev: The Good, The Bad, And The Gray

Mikhail Gorbachev the former President of the Soviet Union passed away at a Moscow hospital at the age of 91. Gorbachev's passing was noted by President Vladimir Putin:

"Mikhail Gorbachev was a politician and a statesman who exerted a tremendous influence on the course of world history. He headed this country at a time of complicated and dramatic change and large-scale foreign policy, economic and social challenges. He realized that reforms were necessary, and he strove to suggest his own solutions to long-standing problems.

I would like to make special mention of the large-scale humanitarian, charitable and educational activities that Mikhail Gorbachev conducted in the past few years."[1]

It should be noted that Putin had congratulated Gorbachev previously, when the latter attained milestone birthdays, as did Dmitry Medvedev when he served as Russia's president. Gorbachev, however, was denied a state funeral, and Putin would absent himself from the private ceremony. This compromise created broad permissible boundaries for reactions by both Gorbachev's admirers and those who blamed him for destroying the Soviet Union. There were of course voices in the middle, who credited Gorbachev with good intentions but with poor results.

MEMRI's survey of reactions to the death of Mikhail Gorbachev follows below:

Mikhail Gorbachev with Vladimir Putin (Source: Apa.az)

Gorbachev In Shades Of Gray

International affairs expert Fyodor Lukyanov sought the middle ground in his evaluation that portrayed Gorbachev as a somewhat tragic figure:

"Mikhail Gorbachev died. The last Soviet general secretary left when there was nothing left– not even a good memory –of his political legacy, whose major content he considered the end of the Cold War, because in the end everyone was left offended, embittered, sometimes to the point of brutality...

"Gorbachev is a suitable figure to blame everything on him: both what preceded him and what happened afterwards. This is especially true now, when a bacchanalia is ongoing, whose direct roots go back precisely to that time - the collapse of the USSR as a single country and as a system-forming part of the world. History is indifferent to what the statesman desired and what he aspired to; they judge him by the practical result."

On the other hand, Gorbachev in his heyday did not hijack the country but represented the existing zeitgeist:

"Those who remember the atmosphere that preceded Gorbachev's arrival know how tired the previous one was by that moment and how much they wanted something else. Maybe not all of them, but very, very many of them. So, Gorbachev did not emerge from alien realms or from a CIA test tube, but from the aspirations of a weary society. And the attempt to appeal to this society was extremely desirable to them, hence the phenomenal popularity of MS [Mikhail Sergeyevich] at the first stage of the reforms.

"The mistakes of perestroika... led to the collapse of Gorbachev's political policy. But the very appeal to society, which for some time revived and experienced a spiritual impulse for change, remained unique and not to be repeated...

"The pendulum of Russian history swings rhythmically - from one extreme to another... but the sincere dreams of the latter half of the 1980s turned into the gloomy misanthropy of today's socio-political hyperrealism, chastened by the experience of deceived trust and wanting repayment in full."[2]

Kommersant columnist Dmitry Drize scoffed at the notion that Gorbachev brought down the Soviet Union almost singlehandedly: "There is no point in discussing the historical role of Mikhail Gorbachev and his personal responsibility for certain events. It is unlikely that one person, even if endowed with the broadest powers, is capable of destroying such a country as the USSR."

Gorbachev as "a person of state importance, a historical figure and the president of a vast country, even if it no longer exists," merited a state funeral but that would have caused complications.

"The current Russian government, of course, takes into account the mood in society, the information agenda and the big tasks facing the country. It cannot thank Gorbachev for getting rid of the totalitarian past. But no one denies that he was a world-class figure, and even a reformer. And there is not even a hint of condemnation of his role. Apparently, it is officially considered that this is quite enough and there can be no complaints against the leaders of the state".

Gorbachev was not a villain contrary to many characters in Russian history and he faced tremendous odds.

"More importantly, Gorbachev appeared, and broke into the country's politics and public life at the turn of an era. It was necessary to urgently change something in order to avoid a catastrophe. Maybe he didn't want to, but he had to - that's what happens when there is no choice.

"Most likely, no one fully imagined that the structure would turn out to be so rickety that it would fall apart even resulting from of an attempt at cosmetic repairs.

"And right now, Gorbachev is also leaving at a turning point in history, as if indicating that his mission is over. And it is not entirely clear where we are currently headed- either back to the USSR, or somewhere else. But be that as it may, this will happen in the absence of Mikhail Gorbachev.

"And, of course, one can only say that the reformers' lot is hard. Any [reformer], even the unconvinced, but involuntarily reformers. You can't have it and please everyone at the same time. But there is an opportunity to forever inscribe yourself in capital letters in world history. This is already a major achievement..." [3]

"Political scientist Maxim Khodinkin commented on Gorbachev's controversial legacy: "'There is no white and black, there are only different shades of gray' - this famous phrase can describe many people, moments and historical eras. It is also fair to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, who passed away on August 30, 2022 at the age of 92. He will forever go down in Russian and world history as one of the most controversial rulers. 'He brought us freedom and democracy,' some will say. 'He sold the country for torn jeans and cola,"' others will answer. These contradictions have not subsided over the past 30 years since the collapse of the USSR. An exact assessment of the legacy of the last General Secretary cannot be given even now, after his death."

"Gorbachev, in the opinion of many, sincerely wanted to reform the USSR, and breathe new life into a 70-year-old organism. But he didn't succeed. Despite the 1990 referendum, where the majority of the population voted to preserve the Soviet Union, a 'parade of sovereignties' began - the Supreme Soviets of the Union republics, one after another, decided on the right to self-determination. In practice, this meant their withdrawal from the country...

 "'His merit is that he (Gorbachev) felt the need for change, it's true, and tried to change the system itself, but the problem was that it was worthless by itself," Vladimir Putin noted in an interview with Western media. The Russian president said that the contemporary leadership of the USSR [under Gorbachev did not understand 'what changes were needed and how to achieve them.'

Due to the current international convulsions, Khodinkin believed it premature to evaluate Gorbachev's legacy:

"However, current events demonstrate that the USSR's collapse is not over yet. The events of 1991 only launched the tectonic geopolitical shifts that the world is experiencing today. At that time. it seemed that a new era of international relations had begun, the 'end of history'. However, this was only an intermediate stage. Only decades later will we be able to give a clear and impartial assessment of 'Gorbachev's legacy.' In 2022, it is still too early to do so."[4]

Political scientist and columnist George Bovt noted that both Gorbachev's eulogists and his detractors conveniently ignore facts that do not coincide with their perceptions of the man.

"Of the Western leaders, no one now remembers that, after leaving power, Gorbachev sometimes gave very harsh assessments of what his former partners were doing. He accused America of arrogance and criticized the expansion of NATO. He supported the annexation of Crimea, saying that he would have done the same himself, for which he was declared non grata by Ukraine. Finally, he warned that pressure on Russia, the desire to exclude its influence on international affairs, the expansion of NATO - all this could not only drag the Russian Federation into a new cold war, but also lead to a hot war."

China displayed the same tendency in reverse. "Although it was he [Gorbachev], who in 1989 normalized relations between the USSR and the PRC. This is no longer remembered in Beijing. On the other hand, the Beijing English-language Global Times writes about Gorbachev as 'an unprincipled servant of the United States and the West, who made gross mistakes in the international arena and caused economic chaos at home, and this serves as a reminder to other countries: one must be wary of any attempt at such a" peaceful evolution "[5]

Totally Negative Assessments Of Gorbachev

Dmitry Mikhailin, the General Director of Russian Reporters magazine believes that Putin has spent his entire time cleaning up after Gorbachev culminating with the current fighting in Ukraine: "MS Gorbachev was a good, kind person who was categorically in the wrong place at absolutely the wrong time.

"What Putin is doing now, Gorbachev should have done 30 years ago: [assuring the] non-expansion of NATO, the non-collapse of the economy, a fair divorce [with the former Soviet republics]- if [there was] a divorce. I think Mikhail Sergeevich sincerely believed that he was doing good for the country and the planet: peace, friendship, open borders, and everyone loves each other. And what happened was what happened: NATO bases near our borders and the 1990s. All his 20 years, Putin corrects the mistakes made first of all by Gorbachev, and secondly by Yeltsin. And, of course, it will never be completely corrected.

"The current SVO [Special Military Operation] is a natural consequence of the Gorbachev era. But there is one plus: this is the final completion of this era."[6]

The Liberal Democratic Party leader Leonid Slutsky said if decency made him sorry over Gorbachev's demise, he was "just as sorry for that great country, whose processes of collapse began precisely in the era of 'perestroika' and 'new thinking' [both bywords of the Gorbachev era] and played into the hands of those who sought to erase the USSR from the global political map." The leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov, whose party pines for a restoration of the USSR offered no condolences and termed Gorbachev an outright traitor. "Essentially, this [person] is a political Vlasovite."[7] During World War II, General Andrei Vlasov defected to the Nazis and fought against the Soviet Union. He was hanged following the war.

Zyuganov believed that the custom of not badmouthing the dead did not apply to major political leaders, whose decisions affected the "fate of the world, the well-being of people, and the dignity of states....

I do not share the assessments (of Western politicians). I believe that Gorbachev was one of those rulers who brought absolute disaster, grief and misfortune to all the peoples not only of our country, but also to allies and friends.[8]

Gennady Zyuganov (Source: Ria.ru)

The pro-regime Pravda.ru outlet, not to be confused with the Communist paper Pravda ran a derogatory article on Gorbachev, who created great expectations but disastrously failed them:

"For many of our fellow citizens, Gorbachev's name is inextricably linked with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was a direct consequence of the reforms launched by Gorbachev and his entourage.

"In addition, the ex-president of the USSR was a politician who did not justify the hopes placed on him. After all, the first time after Gorbachev became General Secretary in March 1985, he was very popular. A young leader focused on change, on making people's lives better - well, how could you not support him?

"But very soon support was replaced by disappointment. The perestroika initiated by Gorbachev did not justify the hopes for a better life, on the contrary, it became even worse."

As opposed to the narrative that Gorbachev's reforms came as a response to the crisis that the Soviet Union had entered, Alexander Bubnov, Associate Professor of History and Political Theory believed that Gorbachev's tenure was a time of missed opportunities and the Soviet Union was salvageable under the right leader.

"The Soviet Union of the Gorbachev era was a country with a very huge potential, similar to modern China. This is a potential that could develop both into economic leadership in the world and into a decent standard of living for people. And Gorbachev's activity is a series of mistakes, sometimes conscious, sometimes just a lack of political education, political experience, which led to the fact that these excellent chances were not realized."

Not only did Gorbachev fail to exploit the existing opportunities but the USSR's collapse was his doing says Bubnov:

"The further the Gorbachev era recedes from us, the more clearly these missed, destroyed chances will become apparent. And the Soviet Union's collapse, which is largely on his conscience, led to numerous bloody conflicts, the consequences of which we are still disentangling."

Historian Ivan Kulakov  believed that the extremely negative assessment of Gorbachev, particularly amongst those over 40 who survive the USSR's collapse was justified.

"And thanks to this man's [Gorbachev's] activities, his inconsistent policy, the territories, assembled into such a complex supranational structure that was the Soviet Union, began to fall apart. Literally, all the ulcers of ethnic strife surfaced in five or six years. This is precisely 'thanks' to the fact that the so-called democratization policy, glasnost, had begun."

Kulakov laments that Gorbachev had destroyed the great Soviet achievement built with so much blood and effort:

"And in just a few years, what had been built for decades, and what was defended during the Great Patriotic War was destroyed. This was due to the fact that at the top there was a man who together with his team really did not understand how to change, where to change, in which direction to change and undertook such chaotic actions."[9]

Unqualifiedly Positive Appraisals

There were also highly positive assessments of Gorbachev. Not surprisingly many came from journalists, who first tasted journalistic freedom and the ability to criticize the authorities under him, but there were also government figures.

Alexey Kudrin, Chairman of the Accounts Chamber and one of the few surviving liberals in a position of authority commented:

"Mikhail Gorbachev, the author of 'new thinking' and perestroika, which were designed to give the country and the whole world a fresh breath, has died. [He was an] historic, large-scale personality.

Konstantin Kosachev, Vice Speaker of the Federation Council amplified that part of the Putinite formula that while viewing the collapse of the Soviet Union as a tragedy believes that the Communist regime had to be dismantled to praise Gorbachev:

"The departure of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev is a tragedy for the country and for all those of us whose lives he managed to change for the better. That's right - for the better, despite the collapse of the USSR and huge trials for its former citizens. Yes, in the days of the Soviet Union there were many great achievements, among which, first of all, the [World War II] Victory and space. But if these victories were systemic, they were thanks to the exploits of the people, and not to the system of Soviet power. It was Gorbachev who broke the system, which was initially false and which eventually degenerated into an anti-popular one. Gorbachev blazed a path that our people could not have otherwise traveled in the last three and a half decades - a difficult path, but, unlike the previous 70 years, finally in the right direction. And for all the inconsistency of the results, Gorbachev deserves respect, and he deserves to be remembered.[10]

Konstantin Kosachev (Source: Interfax.ru)

Grigory Yavlinksy, founder of the liberal Yabloko Party eulogized Gorbachev:

"Gorbachev gave us freedom. He gave freedom to hundreds of millions of people in and around Russia, and also to half of Europe. How we in Russia took advantage of the freedom given to us, this great opportunity - this is our responsibility."

Yavlinsky praised Gorbachev for sticking it out in Russia rather than seeking comfortable exile:

"Gorbachev did not leave Russia. He would have been received with enthusiasm in any country, but he remained in his homeland, where it was extremely difficult for him due to mass misunderstanding and rejection."[11]

As stated, liberal Russian journalists, including people shut down since the fighting in Ukraine, felt the loss of Gorbachev most keenly.

Alexei Venediktov, former editor-in-chief of the shuttered Echo of Moscow radio station wrote:

"It seems to me that we are all orphans, but not everyone has understood this yet. Mikhail Sergeyevich is already a historical figure, I would say, a mythological one. And I lost a friend, not a president, that's all."

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dmitry Muratov, editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta that has suspended publication wrote of Gorbachev: "He despised realpolitik. He was certain that the time for resolving world order issues by force had passed. He believed in the [free] choice of nations. He released political prisoners. Stopped the war in Afghanistan and the nuclear arms race. He told me that he refused to press the nuclear attack button even in training!"[12]

Konstantin Remchukov editor-in-chief of Nezavisimaya Gazeta wrote the following in an editorial:

"Mikhail Gorbachev will remain a historical figure not only because the Soviet Union disappeared under him, but, above all, because he put into practice the principles of humanism, applying them to the management of late Soviet society. The essence of Gorbachev's humanism was reduced to the rejection of repression and discrimination against dissidents, which in the vastness of our homeland is still the rarest feature of state (sovereign) rule."

Gorbachev's reforms were unfairly denigrated by his successors: "However, a real comprehensive analysis of perestroika as a specific modernization project, through the prism of institutional transformation, has not been carried out. Probably the main reason for this is the applied political goals and objectives of first the Yeltsin and then the Putin regimes, who used the one-sided criticism of perestroika for their own interests, as if they would have coped with the challenges facing the CPSU and the USSR better than Gorbachev and that generation of Soviet leaders."

The challenge was overwhelming and the Soviet Union was not worth saving:

"It is now quite obvious that Gorbachev intended to renovate the socialist house. He believed in the fundamental viability of the system... Gorbachev was mistaken sincerely, situationally. But as the facts and truth about real socialism were revealed, he could only react to them by not resisting their spread. Gorbachev did not have his own program of action for the transformation of the country adapted to the new knowledge.

"Be that as it may, the main thing in the personality of Mikhail Sergeyevich is that he turned out to be not a murderer, not a maniac of power, reveling in the suffering and blood of others.

The prominent Bolshevik Fyodor Raskolnikov wrote in an open letter to Stalin in 1939: "No one in the Soviet Union feels safe. No one, going to bed, knows whether he will be able to avoid nighttime arrest, no one has mercy. The rightist and the guilty, the hero of October and the enemy of the revolution, the old Bolshevik and the non-Party, the collective farm peasant and plenipotentiary, the people's commissar and the worker, the intellectual and the Marshal of the Soviet Union - all are equally subject to the blows of your scourge, everyone is spinning in a diabolical bloody carousel. In these words [We have]- the most emotionally accurate characterization of Stalinism as tyranny.

"Gorbachev certainly condemned Stalin's crimes, therefore he appreciated Khrushchev, but he hardly understood that the supporting structures of the USSR were created from conceptually solid building materials called 'fear', 'violence', 'closedness'. That is why the idea of ​​perestroika as an improvement was soon supplemented by glasnost as a form of comprehensive discussion of shortcomings, criticism and dismissal of the old nomenklatura cadres. Under Stalin, a personnel purge was carried out by repressive methods, and Gorbachev humanely offered the right to the truth. The fiercest Stalinist repressions weakened the Soviet Union in various areas of life, in which geniuses and ordinary professionals were mowed down, but did not undermine the very existence of the state.

"Gorbachev's glasnost turned into an injection of the truth vaccine, which became a lethal dose for Soviet statehood itself. The state, and even federal in structure shattered...Thus, the overhaul of the socialist system, started by the convinced socialist Gorbachev, ended with its dismantling, the collapse of the Soviet statehood. This is the most striking effect of the impact of perestroika on socialism of the Stalinist type. And the most obvious proof of the incompatibility of the built Soviet state with the principles of normality, with the desire of citizens to live richer, freer, without repressions and suspicions about the West.

"Along the way, it turned out that the foundation, framework, floors and load-bearing structures of the building of Soviet socialism, created by Stalin, despite the ongoing repairs in the course of life, carried out by other leaders, constructively formed the basis of what Gorbachev inherited under the name "developed socialism."

Gorbachev's achievements were lost in the resentment over deteriorating economic conditions.

"Against the backdrop of the economic catastrophe of perestroika, achievements in expanding the boundaries of political freedom were clear. Informal associations, new parties, elections, platforms, manifestos and charters - the diversity of political expression and political proposal was a weak counterbalance to empty stalls and dramatically falling real incomes.

"At the same time, Gorbachev's foreign policy achievements are destined for a long historical memory and the gratitude of his descendants. He ended the Cold War, allowed travel abroad, abolished censorship, simplified access to world cultural treasures...

By the way, the openness of borders led to a mass adjustment of the ideas of Soviet citizens about the quality standards of goods and services. It turned out that the actual quality of Soviet goods mainly corresponded to the era of post-revolutionary and post-war commodity famine and total shortages. The verdict on the Soviet economic planning model was passed down by the citizens.... The foreign market generated an endless variety of goods of acceptable quality in response to solvent demand."

Finally, Remchukov praised Gorbachev for acquiescing to the peaceful dissolution of the USSR:

I will always be grateful to Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev for giving us freedom, including the freedom to search for an adequate statehood and an acceptable economic development model. That he did his best to avoid bloodshed for the sake of ideological chimeras. And when he realized that the idea of ​​national sovereignty was totally popular in the Union republics, he left the Kremlin with dignity, lowering the flag of the USSR.

Between the state, ideology and man, Gorbachev uncompromisingly chose man. His rights, freedoms, happiness."[13]

Konstantin Remchukov (Source: Rbc.ru)

Political scientist and essayist Anna Yaroshinkaya was grateful for the freedom of journalistic expression. She recalled being censored and attacked for daring to criticize the authorities. "But one thing is certain: Gorbachev is the fate of millions of Soviet people who saw in the new party leader a chance for a breath of freedom. Today it is difficult for many to understand what this means, especially for the new generation that has grown up (without even knowing it) on Gorbachev's yeast of freedom. Because when it (freedom) exists, we simply do not notice it. It's like air or sunrise."

However, Yaroshinkaya's generation noticed it because "Before Gorbachev's perestroika, then I, like many other journalists around the entire perimeter of the USSR, who disagree with the leading and guiding CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union], would at best have to look for the fifth corner in the vast expanses of the Soviet Union. At worst, get to know the Mordovian political [prisoner] camps."[14]