Opinion of Boris Yeltsin

[OSR stands with Israel]

Still HP but still better than any other leader Russia has ever had

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ineffective HP. I would not have voted for him in 1996.

[DavidB.]

HP and a much worse leader than Putin too -- better for the West, but worse for Russia.

[mvd10]

Hilariously incompetent. Didn't he literally rig the 1996 election too?

Anyway, the complete and utter chaos in Russia in the 1990s is another reason why Russia sadly won't become a Western-style liberal democracy anytime soon. Must be a terrific legacy...

[😥]

HP, but he was better than Putin

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Still HP but still better than any other leader Russia has ever had

Peter the Great wants to have a word with you.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Hilariously incompetent. Didn't he literally rig the 1996 election too?

Anyway, the complete and utter chaos in Russia in the 1990s is another reason why Russia sadly won't become a Western-style liberal democracy anytime soon. Must be a terrific legacy...

Russia would need someone firm, strong and willing to move slowly, incrementally, towards Western-style liberal democracy. A benevolent, moderately autocratic president with good political instincts. Yeltsin was not such a person.
Yeltsin helped us get Putin.
It's a shame the Czar was murdered in 1880...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Probably the most incompetent russian leader since Nicholas himself (although obviously not the most malevolent). In fact that doesn't even begin to cover it: he was a vain, intellectually limited gangster hack who was a devoted and zealous shill for the Party till he realised it would be more advantageous to reinvent himself as a liberal.

The Yeltsin administration was, from start to finish an antidemocratic, surreally corrupt and aggressively neoliberal disaster that poisoned the well of democracy for a generation and led the country to far worse depths than what it reached in the latter days of the USSR.

To name a few examples: the "democratic hero" shelled the elected parliament in 1993, killing hundreds, when they refused to rewrite the constitution to enhance his own personal power; he gave away over 200 billion dollars of state property to his cronies, which the state received only 7 billion; he presided over one of the largest recessions in history with GDP falling by 50 percent and a huge swathe of the population pushed into poverty, he initiated the Chechen Wars which rival the greatest crimes of the Russian military in Afghanistan and Hungary in their depravity. At some points the corruption was so bad government officials were found simply walking out of the buildings with tens of millions of American dollars in briefcases. Then his whole rule was capped off by the1998 financial crisis and finally the naming of Putin as his successor. What a legacy!

Bizarre that anybody would dislike Putin, but like Yeltsin. When Boris was alive he never offered more than muted criticism of the man. They are of the same ilk.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Hilariously incompetent. Didn't he literally rig the 1996 election too?

Anyway, the complete and utter chaos in Russia in the 1990s is another reason why Russia sadly won't become a Western-style liberal democracy anytime soon. Must be a terrific legacy...

Russia would need someone firm, strong and willing to move slowly, incrementally, towards Western-style liberal democracy. A benevolent, moderately autocratic president with good political instincts. Yeltsin was not such a person.
Yeltsin helped us get Putin.
It's a shame the Czar was murdered in 1880...

Whenever somebody claims people need an autocrat to order them around, I always think "speak for yourself".

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Hilariously incompetent. Didn't he literally rig the 1996 election too?

Anyway, the complete and utter chaos in Russia in the 1990s is another reason why Russia sadly won't become a Western-style liberal democracy anytime soon. Must be a terrific legacy...

Russia would need someone firm, strong and willing to move slowly, incrementally, towards Western-style liberal democracy. A benevolent, moderately autocratic president with good political instincts. Yeltsin was not such a person.
Yeltsin helped us get Putin.
It's a shame the Czar was murdered in 1880...

Whenever somebody claims people need an autocrat to order them around, I always think "speak for yourself".

Russians have been conditioned to accept autocracy. That won't change overnight no matter how many times you and I may wish that status quo to end.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Hilariously incompetent. Didn't he literally rig the 1996 election too?

Anyway, the complete and utter chaos in Russia in the 1990s is another reason why Russia sadly won't become a Western-style liberal democracy anytime soon. Must be a terrific legacy...

Russia would need someone firm, strong and willing to move slowly, incrementally, towards Western-style liberal democracy. A benevolent, moderately autocratic president with good political instincts. Yeltsin was not such a person.
Yeltsin helped us get Putin.
It's a shame the Czar was murdered in 1880...

Whenever somebody claims people need an autocrat to order them around, I always think "speak for yourself".

Russians have been conditioned to accept autocracy. That won't change overnight no matter how many times you and I may wish that status quo to end.

And such is always the defence of these monsters, but it doesn't hold up. Mongolia, for example, was under Communist domination for just as long, and is now a (flawed) democracy. The thing that killed the democratic dream in Russia was not "too much democracy addling the minds of the simple russian population" but the fact that the man who claimed to be a democrat was in fact a world class crook who cruelly used the Russian populations desire to escape the misery of the Soviet planned economy to enrich himself and impoverish them further.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Hilariously incompetent. Didn't he literally rig the 1996 election too?

Anyway, the complete and utter chaos in Russia in the 1990s is another reason why Russia sadly won't become a Western-style liberal democracy anytime soon. Must be a terrific legacy...

Russia would need someone firm, strong and willing to move slowly, incrementally, towards Western-style liberal democracy. A benevolent, moderately autocratic president with good political instincts. Yeltsin was not such a person.
Yeltsin helped us get Putin.
It's a shame the Czar was murdered in 1880...

Whenever somebody claims people need an autocrat to order them around, I always think "speak for yourself".

Russians have been conditioned to accept autocracy. That won't change overnight no matter how many times you and I may wish that status quo to end.

And such is always the defence of these monsters, but it doesn't hold up. Mongolia, for example, was under Communist domination for just as long, and is now a (flawed) democracy. The thing that killed the democratic dream in Russia was not "too much democracy addling the minds of the simple russian population" but the fact that the man who claimed to be a democrat was in fact a world class crook who cruelly used the Russian populations desire to escape the misery of the Soviet planned economy to enrich himself and impoverish them further.

Russia did not have too much democracy in the 1990s. What it lacked was a good president, with good policies.
The problem with the statement along the lines of "addling the minds of the simple russian population" and all that is the fact Russia is a very stability-minded country. They aren't massively dumb, they just have a different set of priorities that differ from ours. They've forged a path that is rather inferior to what is normal here. That's defensible in a Russian context though, and they have the right to differ with us. Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

And regarding the stability mindset: it also intersects with the fact that in Russia (especially in the Soviet Era) the government was the economy (look at the rates of public-sector employment, for instance). Yeltsin's shock therapy cut right through the heart and foundation of Russian society and culture as it had developed since 1917, and thus society deteriorated.

Russia's foremost need in the 90s was someone who could manage the transition to a more market-driven economy in a way that was careful, considered, cautious, and non-selfish. Not the crash course Yeltsin gave. A genuine liberal might certainly be a bonus, but merely secondary in the broader scheme of things. Yeltsin was certainly a liberal when it suited him but he failed communities, families, and people across Russia with his policies. Therein lies his largest failure.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

I don't disagree with your assessment on Yeltsin's rule, but the key point isn't that Boris was a well meaning incompetent: the attacks on the population to enrich his buddies was the entire point of his phony and dishonest crusade. He was never a democrat, he was never a liberal (even his acceptance of liberal economics was mainly out of realising it could be used for lucrative means rather than conviction) and he never cared about human rights.

[smoltchanov]

Ineffective HP. I would not have voted for him in 1996.

I voted for him both in 1991 and 1996. He was the best choice from candidates Russia had then. And i would easily vote for him again against Putin (or Trump, or Hillary). Despite all his flaws (and there were lots of them)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ineffective HP. I would not have voted for him in 1996.

I voted for him both in 1991 and 1996. He was the best choice from candidates Russia had then. And i would easily vote for him again against Putin (or Trump, or Hillary)

How much harm would Zyuganov have done in office?

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was announced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. But - not more.

[smoltchanov]

Ineffective HP. I would not have voted for him in 1996.

I voted for him both in 1991 and 1996. He was the best choice from candidates Russia had then. And i would easily vote for him again against Putin (or Trump, or Hillary)

How much harm would Zyuganov have done in office?

A lot. He is an orthodoxal old-school Communist, unlike some younger members of a party, and communists of the Western Europe..

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

And I assume that if you are buddies with Putin and Co, then you can access the magic of those gray schemes. And vice versa.