Soviet republics, 20 years after

[Winner]

Take a look at this interactive graph (made by BBC). You can compare how the former Soviet republics fared after the dissolution of the Empire of Evil, aka the USSR.

Winners are:

- Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
- Russia and Belarus, if you forget about the fact that they're still autocratic

Losers are:

- Central Asian "stans" (except Kazakhstan)

 

[luiz]

I think that the point that Russia also won from the breakup of the USSR (and indeed of the whole Warsaw Pact) is not stressed as much as it should be.

 

[tonberry]

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are undoubtedly the success story of the Soviet Union breakup. All the others, perhaps excluding Ukraine, should've stay united.

I think that the point that Russia also won from the breakup of the USSR (and indeed of the whole Warsaw Pact) is not stressed as much as it should be.

Really? If freedom in Russia would be on a European level today, I could see the decline of the 90's as an adequate price to pay. But it's not the case so I really think that a surviving Soviet Union going trough economic reforms like the chinese did would have been much better for them.

 

[luiz]

Really? If freedom in Russia would be on a European level today, I could see the decline of the 90's as an adequate price to pay. But it's not the case so I really think that a surviving Soviet Union going trough economic reforms like the chinese did would have been much better for them.

Two very different cases. China is about 92% Han, while the USRR was only something like 60% Russian (I don't know the exact figure but it's somewhere in that range). Those minority groups resented Russian rule for the most part, as they had since the days of the Russian Empire. So the USSR had to expend considerable resources to keep them united and pacified, sometimes using very brutal methods that generated more resentment and thus more expenses. The same can be said about the satellite orbit in the Warsaw Pact - it would have been better for Russia, in the long run, to not have occupied those nations - they should have become neutral along the lines of Finland.

There was a Russian decline in the 90's, yes, but now they're richer than in the Soviet days, and have the potential to be a high income economy in a relatively short period. Of course, the authoritarianism of Putin and co. is a big concern and may compromise the economic development in the future.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I quote from the Russia section:

While overall wealth has grown over the last two decades the gap between rich and poor is widening. The bottom 40% are being paid less in real terms than they were in 1991, while only the top 20% have seen their incomes more than double.

And today things are "better" than they have been since Soviet dissolution. Which about sums up my views on the results of that catastrophe.

 

[RedRalph]

I quote from the Russia section:



And today things are "better" than they have been since Soviet dissolution. Which about sums up my views on the results of that catastrophe.

Exactly. It's ridiculous to suggest things have got better.

 

[luiz]

There are two different things, though: the breakup of the Soviet Union and the change of economic system. The two are not the same.

You (and Cheezy) can believe that the change in economic system was bad while still noting that the breakup of the USSR was good for Russia's long term health.

 

[Mise]

I really don't see how the kleptocratic joke that is "modern" Russia is anything other than a loser here.

 

[Winner]

I really don't see how the kleptocratic joke that is "modern" Russia is anything other than a loser here.

I meant it relatively to all the others. With the exception of the Baltic states, it's a pretty bleak story.

--

For comparison, the other former Eastern Bloc countries:

 

[cardgame]

A wild Chart Without Labels appears!

 

[Dreadnought]

Estonia is the richest of the 15? That's a surprise!

 

[Traitorfish]

Scandinavians are very fond of cheap booze.

 

[Ajidica]

Who isn't?

 

[Traitorfish]

Who isn't?

Point being, that Estonia has very cheap booze, and the inhabitants of Sweden and Finland, nations which are most grievously lacking in cheap booze, are known to take the ferry across to Estonia to stock up.

 

[Camikaze]

This is just looking at 'is this country doing better than twenty years ago', which doesn't necessarily tell you anything about whether the breakup of the USSR was good for it or not. That's probably worth keeping in mind. Russia being (arguably) worse off now doesn't necessarily indicate that remaining in the USSR would've been better for it, and Estonia being better off now doesn't necessarily indicate that leaving the USSR was the right decision. You can infer something from the ways in which prosperity or poverty have come about, but there isn't a direct causative link.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Estonia is the richest of the 15? That's a surprise!

I recently got the general impression that Estonia deserves more attention than it's size and international role suggest. They have low debt, good economic figures and very progressive ideas. For instance: There is an online function through which any citizen can check when and who in the public sector took a look at their data. Amazing transparency.

There are two different things, though: the breakup of the Soviet Union and the change of economic system. The two are not the same.

You (and Cheezy) can believe that the change in economic system was bad while still noting that the breakup of the USSR was good for Russia's long term health.

That it is good for Russia's long term health may be your opinion, but it is presumptuous to treat this as a fact.

 

[innonimatu]

For instance: There is an online function through which any citizen can check when and who in the public sector took a look at their data. Amazing transparency.

Perhaps, it it's anything more than theater. But it's also scary: it means that all their systems holding information on the citizens are probably interconnected and the whole is accessible to at least some people.

 

[GamezRule]

I think the only real winners, at least in Russia, were the Soviet bureaucrats.

 

[luiz]

That it is good for Russia's long term health may be your opinion, but it is presumptuous to treat this as a fact.

It is an opinion based on the fact that the rest of the Soviet Union and the sattelite orbit represented a net drag for Russia. So it is a pretty solid opinion.

It's not complicated. Brazil would be better off if it got rid of the Northeast too.

 

[amadeus]

Why do we treat 1991 (or for that matter any year before then) as a baseline by which to measure performance? Yes, the 1990s were bad in Russia, but that was the real state of Russia; the Soviet economy was a fantasy, a con job, a fraud. Why else would it fall apart so easily?