What do you guys think? How important was the fallout from the Chernobyl disaster to the eventual fall of the USSR?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/chernobyl_and_the_fall_of_the_soviet_union_gorbachev_s_glasnost_allowed.html
Quote
Did Chernobyl Cause the Soviet Union To Explode?
The nuclear theory of the fall of the USSR.
By Mark Joseph Stern|Posted Friday, Jan. 25, 2013, at 3:45 PM ET
At 1:23 a.m. on April 26, 1986, Reactor 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded, following a disastrously ill-judged systems test by undertrained technicians. As surplus energy surged through the reactor, its core combusted, immediately killing nearby workers and exposing others to deadly levels of radiation. In the nearby town of Prypiat, Ukraine, people woke up to respiratory distress and nausea. Emergency response workers encased the reactor in a concrete sarcophagus and, unprepared for exposure to radioactivity, became stricken with severe symptoms of radiation poisoning. Tens of thousands of Soviet citizens filed into Chernobyl to help, considering it their patriotic duty; all were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation with no warning from the government. It took two days for the explosion to be announced, in vague terms, on the national news; not until Sweden discovered a radiation cloud that had drifted across Europe was the true extent of the Chernobyl explosion revealed.
Reactor 4 may not have been the only thing that exploded that day. Fewer than six years elapsed between the meltdown at Chernobyl and the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union—six years marked by suspicion of government, dissatisfaction with public safety, and demands for greater transparency. Could Chernobyl have caused the first, most fundamental crack in the Soviet state and led to its collapse?
That might sound like an audacious proposal, but it's been advanced by none other than the man who oversaw the dismantling of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. He states flatly that the Chernobyl explosion was "perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union." According to Gorbachev, the Chernobyl explosion was a "turning point" that "opened the possibility of much greater freedom of expression, to the point that the system as we knew it could no longer continue." Gorbachev introduced his policy of glasnost, or "openness" of ideas and expression, not long before the Chernobyl explosion. It was his remedy for widespread censorship and government secrecy. To Gorbachev, Chernobyl proved the wisdom and necessity of glasnost. The explosion and attendant tumult, he claims, "made absolutely clear how important it was to continue the policy of glasnost."
Gorbachev's laudable dedication to glasnost may have set the state on a path toward destruction. Sovietologists "don't like monocausal explanations" of the fall of the USSR, said Michael David-Fox, a professor of Russian and Soviet history at Georgetown University. Still, "there's a case to be made" that Chernobyl occurred early enough in Gorbachev's first phase of glasnost to hasten the process and eventually drive the state into the ground.
Few Westerners were convinced that the new leader's reforms would be serious in 1985 and 1986. Yet by 1987, the year following Chernobyl, glasnost had taken hold of Soviet society, with sudden openness dominating the press and the public forum. Outrage over the catastrophe began to spread among even loyal citizens who had never questioned the infallibility of their government. A more authoritarian leader might still have been able to crack down on complaints about Chernobyl at this fairly early date, but Gorbachev, fighting a political battle as a reformer, chose to maintain glasnost while casting censorious conservatives as nemeses of liberty and wooing the intelligentsia. Gorbachev needed this latter group's support to achieve his reforms and hold back hardliners, so he accepted their barrage of condemnation toward the government. To keep the intelligentsia as allies, in other words, Gorbachev had to accept them as critics.
The intelligentsia's complaints trickled down through much of the population. This opened the door to comparison with the West, a toxic line of thought in this famously closed society. Soviets had been told for decades they were the best in the world—at everything. Through the mid-1980s, they still believed they were a major superpower, facing only the United States as serious competition. When information about Chernobyl and the public health crisis leaked, though, Soviet citizens realized that their government and industries were startlingly incompetent.
Radioactivity was a novel menace for Soviets. Radiation poisoning was personal and permanent, made all the more frightening by its mysteriousness. (Apprehension over the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl extended beyond the USSR's borders; across Europe, the anti-nuclear movement boomed in popularity, converting a side issue into a major cause for environmental activists.) A toxin imperceptible to the eye is as unavoidable as it is terrifying, yet Soviets were unable to rely upon their ostensibly dependable government to inform and protect them. As panicked citizens kindled one another's fright and horror, the regime lost any remaining control over the public discourse. Glasnost had, in a few short months, careened out of control, fueled by frenzied dismay over the perils of radiation.
Did Gorbachev realize his visionary reforms were undercutting his regime's legitimacy? This seems highly unlikely. Kate Brown, a Soviet nuclear historian at the University of Maryland, believes that Gorbachev was a true believer in the Soviet system—and in the ability of free expression to solve the state's myriad crises.
"Gorbachev did really imagine an honest discussion of the country's problems in the press and workplaces," Brown said. But he also likely saw glasnost as an incremental process. The meltdown in Chernobyl, in contrast, was sensational and uncontainable. It wasn't a systemic issue to be discussed in editorial pages and offices; it was a terrifying, deadly mistake caused by a poorly built and ineptly run facility and exacerbated by a slow, unsophisticated response.
Chernobyl, then, represented a fundamental shift in the relationship between the Soviet citizenry and the state. Before the explosion, most Soviets were not discontented dissidents; they believed in the Soviet system, forgave its flaws, and hoped for a better future within its confines. But after Chernobyl, the system seemed potentially unredeemable—and actively dangerous. In the early days of glasnost, stories of Stalin's mass murders decades earlier slowly bubbled to the fore, but those generally receded, so far removed were they from everyday life. After Chernobyl, though, every citizen's safety was at stake.
The explosion rained radioactive isotopes across the farmlands of northern Ukraine, contaminating crops, grazing areas, and livestock. "You had to ask the question, 'What's in my kid's milk?' " Brown noted. "What's in my food?" For many, the answer was radiation. In an attempt to dilute contaminated meat, the Soviet government mixed small amounts of radiation-tainted cow carcasses with noncontaminated beef then shipped the mix across the country. Horror stories of radiation spread; victims fled the area and then told their stories on street corners and in town halls. Testimonies appeared in books and newspapers, often with a note of criticism toward the regime's response. The evidence was simply overwhelming: The once-hallowed regime was utterly fallible, and in this moment of crisis, it had failed.
The USSR would limp on for several more years before collapsing. One of history's largest empires disappeared from the Earth on Christmas Day, 1991.
Though the regime is gone, Chernobyl remains—a ghost town and unintentional wildlife preserve packed with elk, wolves, wild boar, and nuclear hot spots. Its ghost lingers in northern Ukraine: The Ferris wheel from an amusement park set to open one week following the explosion sits frozen in time; children's dolls haunt dark corners of abandoned houses; a massive indoor swimming pool sits empty, echoing the winds.
The tragedy that occurred here started as a horrible accident and then got worse as the regime first sat on its hands and then flailed them helplessly. It might have been the impetus for the downfall of the entire Soviet project. But the Chernobyl of 2013 does not look like the start of a major political upheaval. If anything, it looks more like a graveyard. Perhaps that's only fitting. If Gorbachev's theory is correct, Chernobyl represents the final resting place of the Soviet state, a government undone by the power of free expression. It took only one nuclear explosion to unleash that power.
The only nukes that brought down the Soviet were the ones Reagan was pointing at it.
The USSR didn't explode, it imploded.
Oil, jimmy, oil.
Low oil prices of the 80s took down their economy.
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2013, 10:01:13 AM
Low oil prices of the 80s took down their economy.
And completely atrocious and wasteful production methodologies only compounded the issue.
Chernobyl did contribute indirectly to the Fall of USSR by creating an aura of distrust on Gorbatchev's reform policy, by pinpointing that glasnost wouldn't be total in that the Soviet government would still keep hiding even big, collectively lethal environmental hazards on its frontstep to protect its hide, and that the level of bureaucratic mismanagement and amateurism was so much higher than expected, that it could become life-threatening in itself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2013, 10:44:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2013, 10:01:13 AM
Low oil prices of the 80s took down their economy.
And completely atrocious and wasteful production methodologies only compounded the issue.
Shareholder value? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2013, 12:19:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2013, 10:44:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2013, 10:01:13 AM
Low oil prices of the 80s took down their economy.
And completely atrocious and wasteful production methodologies only compounded the issue.
Shareholder value? :unsure:
No, just using the same drilling techniques from the 1920s well into the 1990s.
I think oil was only one part of the general problem of aging technology and inefficient techniques. It was a major one, but the inability to get enough capital to replace old factories and the like dragged on the economy every where.
There's something in that.
And I've read an argument that the damage of WW2 was so severe in the Soviet Union that it was near fatally crippled and doomed to fail.
Though there must have been some senarios where it prospered or at least survived for longer.
Quote from: mongers on January 28, 2013, 07:12:23 PM
There's something in that.
And I've read an argument that the damage of WW2 was so severe in the Soviet Union that it was near fatally crippled and doomed to fail.
Though there must have been some senarios where it prospered or at least survived for longer.
That doesn't sound right. It's not like Soviet Union had been limping along for the next 45 years. Its best years by far have been after the war, particularly in the 1960ies and 1970ies. I'm not even sure that Soviet Union had to disintegrate, only communism was doomed.
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2013, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 28, 2013, 07:12:23 PM
There's something in that.
And I've read an argument that the damage of WW2 was so severe in the Soviet Union that it was near fatally crippled and doomed to fail.
Though there must have been some senarios where it prospered or at least survived for longer.
That doesn't sound right. It's not like Soviet Union had been limping along for the next 45 years. Its best years by far have been after the war, particularly in the 1960ies and 1970ies. I'm not even sure that Soviet Union had to disintegrate, only communism was doomed.
The war helped erase the biggest advantage the Soviet Union had, population.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2013, 06:34:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2013, 12:19:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2013, 10:44:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 28, 2013, 10:01:13 AM
Low oil prices of the 80s took down their economy.
And completely atrocious and wasteful production methodologies only compounded the issue.
Shareholder value? :unsure:
No, just using the same drilling techniques from the 1920s well into the 1990s.
For most conventional fields 1920s technology is still used today and is more than good enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 07:59:29 PM
The war helped erase the biggest advantage the Soviet Union had, population.
Lots of Russians died, but there were plenty more left. Losing 1/8th of the population isn't really something that's good for the country, but it's not going to depopulate it. It's also not like the young men were the only ones dying; thanks to hunger and genocidal policies by Germans, every age group pitched in.
Quote from: Viking on January 28, 2013, 08:08:22 PM
For most conventional fields 1920s technology is still used today and is more than good enough.
Not when it was managed by Soviet Russians it wasn't.
Quote from: Viking on January 28, 2013, 08:08:22 PM
For most conventional fields 1920s technology is still used today and is more than good enough.
I find this a dubious proposition.
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2013, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 07:59:29 PM
The war helped erase the biggest advantage the Soviet Union had, population.
Lots of Russians died, but there were plenty more left. Losing 1/8th of the population isn't really something that's good for the country, but it's not going to depopulate it. It's also not like the young men were the only ones dying; thanks to hunger and genocidal policies by Germans, every age group pitched in.
Yeah, but like half the deaths were military age so that had to hurt. And there also deaths from the famines, forced relocation, purges etc. The "echo" of the war could be seen the population of the Soviet Union for the rest of its' existence. It hit ethnic Russians especially hard, which were the only ones the Soviet government really trusted. A firm majority of Ethnic Russians were required to keep the country together, if the hold of Russia on the other republics weakened they risked the possibility of the individual republics just leaving (which eventually happened).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 28, 2013, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 28, 2013, 08:08:22 PM
For most conventional fields 1920s technology is still used today and is more than good enough.
I find this a dubious proposition.
How much time have you spent in close proximity to oil field equipment ?
Hint:a lot of it ain't that hight tech, think more along the lines of tried and tested.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 08:33:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2013, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 07:59:29 PM
The war helped erase the biggest advantage the Soviet Union had, population.
Lots of Russians died, but there were plenty more left. Losing 1/8th of the population isn't really something that's good for the country, but it's not going to depopulate it. It's also not like the young men were the only ones dying; thanks to hunger and genocidal policies by Germans, every age group pitched in.
Yeah, but like half the deaths were military age so that had to hurt. And there also deaths from the famines, forced relocation, purges etc. The "echo" of the war could be seen the population of the Soviet Union for the rest of its' existence. It hit ethnic Russians especially hard, which were the only ones the Soviet government really trusted. A firm majority of Ethnic Russians were required to keep the country together, if the hold of Russia on the other republics weakened they risked the possibility of the individual republics just leaving (which eventually happened).
Didn't the war and Stalin's hijinks hit the Ukranians even harder? They were the second largest ethnic group and the ones most likely to make trouble.
Quote from: mongers on January 28, 2013, 08:35:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 28, 2013, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 28, 2013, 08:08:22 PM
For most conventional fields 1920s technology is still used today and is more than good enough.
I find this a dubious proposition.
How much time have you spent in close proximity to oil field equipment ?
Hint:
a lot of it ain't that hight tech, think more along the lines of tried and tested.
:face: I wasn't think oil fields when I read that statement, I was thinking of all fields of endeavors.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 08:33:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2013, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 07:59:29 PM
The war helped erase the biggest advantage the Soviet Union had, population.
Lots of Russians died, but there were plenty more left. Losing 1/8th of the population isn't really something that's good for the country, but it's not going to depopulate it. It's also not like the young men were the only ones dying; thanks to hunger and genocidal policies by Germans, every age group pitched in.
Yeah, but like half the deaths were military age so that had to hurt. And there also deaths from the famines, forced relocation, purges etc. The "echo" of the war could be seen the population of the Soviet Union for the rest of its' existence. It hit ethnic Russians especially hard, which were the only ones the Soviet government really trusted. A firm majority of Ethnic Russians were required to keep the country together, if the hold of Russia on the other republics weakened they risked the possibility of the individual republics just leaving (which eventually happened).
WWII casualties weren't disproportionally Russian. A lot of it had to do with the fact that the western-most republics were the ones most heavily occupied for the longest period. As for age groups, while military age casualties were disproportionate, older groups were running at the overall overage, and the youngest ones were running below average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
:huh: Did you read the link you provided? Soviet military dead by nationality is 66% Russian, the second higher is Ukrainian with 15%. The Soviet Union preferred ethnic Russians to make the majority of most of it's military units.
There should have been one more Georgian casualty.
Quote from: citizen k on January 28, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
There should have been one more Georgian casualty.
I don't think Jonas is that old.
Quote from: citizen k on January 28, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
There should have been one more Georgian casualty.
Yeah Saakashvili 2008
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg99.imageshack.us%2Fimg99%2F6283%2F610xdn9.jpg&hash=a654fc230bb142c6d5cfaf6c8bee0a1d8e2f9dd1)
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 08:58:30 PM
:huh: Did you read the link you provided? Soviet military dead by nationality is 66% Russian, the second higher is Ukrainian with 15%. The Soviet Union preferred ethnic Russians to make the majority of most of it's military units.
The more important stat is the % of casualties in each Soviet Republic. Several republics suffered more than Russia.
Moreover a quick look at the math shows that Russians were 56.7% of the population of the USSR, and according to that chart they made up 52.4% of the casualties.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 28, 2013, 11:29:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 08:58:30 PM
:huh: Did you read the link you provided? Soviet military dead by nationality is 66% Russian, the second higher is Ukrainian with 15%. The Soviet Union preferred ethnic Russians to make the majority of most of it's military units.
The more important stat is the % of casualties in each Soviet Republic. Several republics suffered more than Russia.
Moreover a quick look at the math shows that Russians were 56.7% of the population of the USSR, and according to that chart they made up 52.4% of the casualties.
Yeah, but those Soviet Republics were not homogenous, they all had ethnic Russians in them.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 28, 2013, 08:58:30 PM
:huh: Did you read the link you provided? Soviet military dead by nationality is 66% Russian, the second higher is Ukrainian with 15%. The Soviet Union preferred ethnic Russians to make the majority of most of it's military units.
Yeah, I did read it, and I also interpreted correctly. It's 63% of military dead, first of all. Second of all, Russians also made up 57% of all Soviet people, so again Russian casualties weren't that disproportionate.
Were did you find the percentage of Russians making up all Soviet citizens?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2013, 12:21:51 AM
Were did you find the percentage of Russians making up all Soviet citizens?
It's right there in one of the tables.
Oh.
Well I suppose that settles it. I'll concede to what ever DGuller was saying. Defeated again. :(
It definitely was a massive embarassment for the regime so I would say it has contributed.
Soviet economic performance in the 50s and 60s was pretty respectable. Yes there were horrible inefficiencies in capital allocation, and innovation lagged in certain areas, but that is also true of China today. The extensive economic policy eventually hit a ceiling by the late 60s. However, the stagnation was masked for a time by the huge run-up in oil prices - the Soviet Union tranformed itself from a heavy industrial powerhouse to a big Slavic oil sheikhdom. CdM and Raz are mistaken to the extent they are claiming that failure to upgrade the fields was the key problem in the Soviet era. In fact, production ramped up enormously in the Brezhnev era, as the western Siberian fields first came on line. Production hit a peak around 1980 but stayed steady throughout the Gorbachev period to the very end. The problem was not production levels, but price. The bottom fell out of the oil market in the 1980s, and state revenues collapsed. This was forseen by Andropov hence the tentative moves towards reform, and when the crash came in the mid-80s, Gorbachev was forced to accelerate the perestroika reforms.
Quote from: Drakken on January 28, 2013, 10:54:59 AM
Chernobyl did contribute indirectly to the Fall of USSR by creating an aura of distrust on Gorbatchev's reform policy, by pinpointing that glasnost wouldn't be total in that the Soviet government would still keep hiding even big, collectively lethal environmental hazards on its frontstep to protect its hide, and that the level of bureaucratic mismanagement and amateurism was so much higher than expected, that it could become life-threatening in itself.
Yeah. It was Soviet Union's "necklace affair".
BTW for those interested in the subject of the Soviet collapse, I would recommend Stephen Kotkin's Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. Short, and a pretty breezy read.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2013, 10:12:22 AM
Soviet economic performance in the 50s and 60s was pretty respectable. Yes there were horrible inefficiencies in capital allocation, and innovation lagged in certain areas, but that is also true of China today. The extensive economic policy eventually hit a ceiling by the late 60s. However, the stagnation was masked for a time by the huge run-up in oil prices - the Soviet Union tranformed itself from a heavy industrial powerhouse to a big Slavic oil sheikhdom. CdM and Raz are mistaken to the extent they are claiming that failure to upgrade the fields was the key problem in the Soviet era. In fact, production ramped up enormously in the Brezhnev era, as the western Siberian fields first came on line. Production hit a peak around 1980 but stayed steady throughout the Gorbachev period to the very end. The problem was not production levels, but price. The bottom fell out of the oil market in the 1980s, and state revenues collapsed. This was forseen by Andropov hence the tentative moves towards reform, and when the crash came in the mid-80s, Gorbachev was forced to accelerate the perestroika reforms.
Man, you guys are just not cutting me any breaks today. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2013, 10:22:39 AM
BTW for those interested in the subject of the Soviet collapse, I would recommend Stephen Kotkin's Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. Short, and a pretty breezy read.
Thanks for the recommendation
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
Man, you guys are just not cutting me any breaks today. :(
It wasn't a bad guess. Underinvestment and technological lags were big causes of thepost-Soviet period problems in the industry, problems which continue to this day.
What about my other point: did Soviet territory have to disintegrate along with their economy, or was this not inevitable? Apart from the Baltic countries, it's hard to think of a former Soviet republic that benefited from the breakup.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
Man, you guys are just not cutting me any breaks today. :(
I'm taking it easy on you :hug:
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2013, 04:18:44 PM
What about my other point: did Soviet territory have to disintegrate along with their economy, or was this not inevitable? Apart from the Baltic countries, it's hard to think of a former Soviet republic that benefited from the breakup.
Azerbaijan? Georgia?
Anyway the ones who wanted to stay close to Russia have, and have enjoyed whatever supposed benefits in doing so.
I bet the Stans who discovered gas and oil are relatively pumped.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
Georgia?
That's a tough one. Baltics excluded, they are probably the closest ones who actually achieved a semblance of democracy. However, they also went through a number of wars, a nasty genocide, and are in a very precarious geopolitical situation. Their economy isn't doing too hot either.
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2013, 04:18:44 PM
What about my other point: did Soviet territory have to disintegrate along with their economy, or was this not inevitable?
Kotkin addresses this. Under the Soviet system, nothing really bound the disparate territories together other than through the centralized control of the Party. As part of his initiative to "democratize" the Party and isolate the hardliners, Gorbachev separated the Party from the organs of the State and de-centralized the Party. Power flowed to the constituent republics and the newly empowered officials at the republic level could strengthen their position only by flexing their new authority and resisting the center. And Gorbachev, having dismantled the principal instruments of centralized control, was left with no administrative lever or informal authority to reassert the power of the center.
So the disintegration was not caused by the economic collapse, but was caused by administrative and constitutional reforms and Gorbachev's naivite about how they would play out in practice.
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2013, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
Georgia?
That's a tough one. Baltics excluded, they are probably the closest ones who actually achieved a semblance of democracy. However, they also went through a number of wars, a nasty genocide, and are in a very precarious geopolitical situation. Their economy isn't doing too hot either.
Genocide?
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2013, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
Georgia?
That's a tough one. Baltics excluded, they are probably the closest ones who actually achieved a semblance of democracy. However, they also went through a number of wars, a nasty genocide, and are in a very precarious geopolitical situation. Their economy isn't doing too hot either.
Well, Ukraine is not doing too shabby either. Sure, it is not a stellar case of democracy, but I don't think it is worse than Georgia (and has much better economy and better geopolitcal situation).
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2013, 10:03:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2013, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
Georgia?
That's a tough one. Baltics excluded, they are probably the closest ones who actually achieved a semblance of democracy. However, they also went through a number of wars, a nasty genocide, and are in a very precarious geopolitical situation. Their economy isn't doing too hot either.
Well, Ukraine is not doing too shabby either. Sure, it is not a stellar case of democracy, but I don't think it is worse than Georgia (and has much better economy and better geopolitcal situation).
:yeahright:
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 10:16:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2013, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
Georgia?
That's a tough one. Baltics excluded, they are probably the closest ones who actually achieved a semblance of democracy. However, they also went through a number of wars, a nasty genocide, and are in a very precarious geopolitical situation. Their economy isn't doing too hot either.
Genocide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2013, 10:53:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 10:16:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2013, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
Georgia?
That's a tough one. Baltics excluded, they are probably the closest ones who actually achieved a semblance of democracy. However, they also went through a number of wars, a nasty genocide, and are in a very precarious geopolitical situation. Their economy isn't doing too hot either.
Genocide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia
Genocide is a bit of an overstatement. Looks like an ethnic cleansing, which is bad enough.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2013, 10:37:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2013, 10:03:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2013, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
Georgia?
That's a tough one. Baltics excluded, they are probably the closest ones who actually achieved a semblance of democracy. However, they also went through a number of wars, a nasty genocide, and are in a very precarious geopolitical situation. Their economy isn't doing too hot either.
Well, Ukraine is not doing too shabby either. Sure, it is not a stellar case of democracy, but I don't think it is worse than Georgia (and has much better economy and better geopolitcal situation).
:yeahright:
What?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
I bet the Stans who discovered gas and oil are relatively pumped.
Well... you know the drill.