Kleptocrats, idiocrats and sycophants... I am old enough to remember fondly when our (strong) disagreements were still based on rational fact-based discussion. What halcyon days those were.
Thank you Branko for this excellent review and this melancholic and nostalgic piece. It’s hard to accept that the world has retrograded as much as it has but that’s the way it is. The devastation of Iraq I and II, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Gaza, West Bank and the triumph of fascists in Europe even when they call themselves moderates like Macron, Starmer, or Merz would not have happened had the Soviet Union survived.
The fate of Gorbachev and of nations of Soviet Union made me re-examine, rethink all I thought I knew about the role of one person, leader, hero in history.
Considering that Reagan began his political rise in California as a hardline opponent of the students' Free Speech Movement at Berkeley University in 1964–65, I'm not sure that he "truly believed in ... freedom of speech".
As for "Soviet Premier", it's not really any worse than referring to all the Russian monarchs up to Nicholas II indiscriminately as "tsars", which is extremely common in English. Peter the Great was the last tsar (царь) of Russia, because he changed the title of the monarch to emperor (император) in 1721.
I do not think it is the same at all. Your example deals with terminology. The mistake in the movie is about substance: General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR was not the same job as the Premier. One is a Party job, another is the job as the head of the cabinet of ministers. Very different,
Yes, melancholy thoughts and maybe some selective nostalgia- but the momentum was great in 1986. Now we likely have a better world (thanks to 1986), but the momentum is devastating.
As a child, I was an avid reader of Pravda, so I had been expecting this for a year or so, while most adults were still stuck in cold war thinking. As for expecting partners to know what their spouses job titles are... well I can't think of one who does!
A Hollywood movie making Gorbachev look good and Reagan look bad? I'm shocked. Jeff Daniels is/was a great actor but having him play Reagan is a bit like casting Jane Fonda (or Meryl Streep, come to think of it) as Thatcher.
No, I don't think we are as close to apocalypse than during the Bay of Pigs tension. Regarding Gorbachev: He may have been a good negotiator with Reagan, but his leverage and skills decreased over time. As the USSR's economy further imploded, and Gorby faced better opponents opposite of him in negotiators, his abilities looked weak.
For some godforsaken reason Gorbachev believed Goldman Sachs and McKinsey when they recommended gifting the economy to the gangsters. That was his big mistake. They were doing the US govvernments bidding in wanting to end communism quickly and permanently rather than creating a socially stable energy super-power integrated into the European economy. Oh and of course they made billions out of the terrible advice.
We have no more statesmen today. No visions or ideals.
Kleptocrats, idiocrats and sycophants... I am old enough to remember fondly when our (strong) disagreements were still based on rational fact-based discussion. What halcyon days those were.
Thank you Branko for this excellent review and this melancholic and nostalgic piece. It’s hard to accept that the world has retrograded as much as it has but that’s the way it is. The devastation of Iraq I and II, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Gaza, West Bank and the triumph of fascists in Europe even when they call themselves moderates like Macron, Starmer, or Merz would not have happened had the Soviet Union survived.
Thank you, Robertinho!
Somehow I find it hard to believe that if Macron, Starmer and Merz count as fascists to you, you weren't calling Reagan too a fascist in 1986.
Thanks for helping me to recall those times.
Recalling what has happened since then makes me so sad.
Very good review, thanks
Grazie Pierluigi
Obviously Reagan played Gorbhachev. Gorbhachev is traitor to socialism
Knowing what happened in Yugoslavia, too.
The fate of Gorbachev and of nations of Soviet Union made me re-examine, rethink all I thought I knew about the role of one person, leader, hero in history.
Considering that Reagan began his political rise in California as a hardline opponent of the students' Free Speech Movement at Berkeley University in 1964–65, I'm not sure that he "truly believed in ... freedom of speech".
As for "Soviet Premier", it's not really any worse than referring to all the Russian monarchs up to Nicholas II indiscriminately as "tsars", which is extremely common in English. Peter the Great was the last tsar (царь) of Russia, because he changed the title of the monarch to emperor (император) in 1721.
I do not think it is the same at all. Your example deals with terminology. The mistake in the movie is about substance: General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR was not the same job as the Premier. One is a Party job, another is the job as the head of the cabinet of ministers. Very different,
Yes, I understand this view very well.
Yes, melancholy thoughts and maybe some selective nostalgia- but the momentum was great in 1986. Now we likely have a better world (thanks to 1986), but the momentum is devastating.
As a child, I was an avid reader of Pravda, so I had been expecting this for a year or so, while most adults were still stuck in cold war thinking. As for expecting partners to know what their spouses job titles are... well I can't think of one who does!
A Hollywood movie making Gorbachev look good and Reagan look bad? I'm shocked. Jeff Daniels is/was a great actor but having him play Reagan is a bit like casting Jane Fonda (or Meryl Streep, come to think of it) as Thatcher.
No, I don't think we are as close to apocalypse than during the Bay of Pigs tension. Regarding Gorbachev: He may have been a good negotiator with Reagan, but his leverage and skills decreased over time. As the USSR's economy further imploded, and Gorby faced better opponents opposite of him in negotiators, his abilities looked weak.
For some godforsaken reason Gorbachev believed Goldman Sachs and McKinsey when they recommended gifting the economy to the gangsters. That was his big mistake. They were doing the US govvernments bidding in wanting to end communism quickly and permanently rather than creating a socially stable energy super-power integrated into the European economy. Oh and of course they made billions out of the terrible advice.