This is a not uncommon view among Soviet and post-Soviet scholars. In some ways it's true - he was an idealist, in ways both good and bad. But some of this is special pleading. Describing as inaction the *profound* decision to block East European leaders from using violence to stop the mass movements there is one example. Saying he was less repressive, or however she put it, than "some" of his predecessors and successors is another, and an especially bizarre one. Critics like Applebaum both bash him for letting the whole thing crumble on the one hand, and for still using violence on the other, as if the outcome otherwise would have been anything other than much greater violence and bloodshed.
Thanks for that! I generally really like Applebaum, and lots of good points here, but, I do think you are right that it is quite unfair to paint all this as fundamentally passive.
What's your take on the Anne Applebaum take?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/gorbachev-legacy-russia/671288/
This is a not uncommon view among Soviet and post-Soviet scholars. In some ways it's true - he was an idealist, in ways both good and bad. But some of this is special pleading. Describing as inaction the *profound* decision to block East European leaders from using violence to stop the mass movements there is one example. Saying he was less repressive, or however she put it, than "some" of his predecessors and successors is another, and an especially bizarre one. Critics like Applebaum both bash him for letting the whole thing crumble on the one hand, and for still using violence on the other, as if the outcome otherwise would have been anything other than much greater violence and bloodshed.
Thanks for that! I generally really like Applebaum, and lots of good points here, but, I do think you are right that it is quite unfair to paint all this as fundamentally passive.