They gave Kazakhstan autonomy to keep in line with Marxism. They abandoned "bases" because it was falling due to the revisionism of Khrushchev, the stagnation of Brenchev and the reforms of Gorbachev.
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Understanding the fall of the SU
The Russians completely quit eastern Europe.
They also quit territories that had been part of the Russian empire for centuries. People in Kazakhstan did not demand independence, yet Russia gave it to them. Wouldn't it make sense for the new bourgeoisie, and the bureaucratic elites in Russia, to try to maintain control of some of these territories?
Later in the 90's Russia abandoned bases in Cuba and Vietnam, even though they were never asked to.
This doesn't make much sense to me.
They gave Kazakhstan autonomy to keep in line with Marxism. They abandoned "bases" because it was falling due to the revisionism of Khrushchev, the stagnation of Brenchev and the reforms of Gorbachev.
Did you even try reading the OP? Or do you skip every 5th word?
You mean at the fall? They choose to seceded (at least the government) and because the whole USSR was dissolving.
*secede
I hope you can contribute something useful in the future.
My mistake it happens.
There is nothing cryptic about the fall of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev instituted devastating reforms to a country that had turned its back on Marxist-Leninism and one of them was to stop complete control of the east bloc.
Would you please try to read the OP before replying again.
I did read the original post and it didn't make much sense to me because I understand most of the cold war and the reasons for all your questions are in: A. Gorbachev wanting to stop interfering with the other East European governments and B. Russia losing much of it's power (political, economical, military) from the fall of the USSR
Belarus is only a russian proxy and they can demand what they want from Ukraine by energy blackmail. Poland, Hungary, etc were already insurrecting for a long time. It's not only because their names and political cover changed that anything in essence changed.
People in Kazakhstan demanded independence/autonomy, only that they were deported, killed, enslaved or silenced because of this (see for example Jeltoqsan riot).
Also, even if we were to believe tha Kazakhstan's people wanted to be part of Soviet Union, which indeed I believe some did, there is a point in the soviet "release" of Kazakhstan. It's the same point behind reasons for South Korea not to annex North Korea: why would someone want a poor, unqualified population in the age of free trade and globalism? In exchange for some resources? If I'm not mistaken russian energy companies already explore and profit from most of Kazakhstan stuff, all the country is already under complete russian sphere of influence.
New? Are you one of these persons who believe Soviet Union was an authentic socialist state instead of an autocracy? The "elites" of Russia already existed for a long time, either operating in illegal markets or under the cover of the communist party. Most of the transactions were done behind curtains way before the political change would happen. See for example that the current leader of Russia is a former kgb director.
Putin was made 'KGB' director around 1997, at the time of the fall of the soviet union he was a low level political intelligence agent in east Germany. Not that his has anything to do with this thread.
Kazakhstan is a huge country were half the small population is ethnically Russian and the other half are Russian-speaking. It's abundantly rich with resources and Russia is far from the only player in the Kazakh market, See CHINA/US. Chchnya is many times smaller and poorer than Kazakhstan, but, funny enough, it wasn't just let go " in the age of free trade and globalism."
Why doesn't America ditch its poorer states? Why doesn't China get rid of Tibet?
You avoid answering the OP and post ridiculous BS and then we have to respond to it and the OP is never brought up again. Get lost!
It only makes sense if you understand the nature of the state (see Lenin, Marx and Engels.) A state exists only, and only, for the purpose of suppressing a class of people. The slave state suppresses slaves, the feudal state suppresses serfs, the capitalist state suppresses workers. The communist state of the USSR existed for the same purpose: the suppression of the capitalist class. And Stalin, in his inimitable and probably insane way, suppressed the capitalist (and, particularly, the small and medium size capitalist farmers) class by killing them. After having been invaded by capitalist Europe and by the reactionary fascist capitalist, Hitler, Stalin decided to occupy Eastern Europe.
Once the capitalist class had been destroyed, the basis for the existence of the Soviet state ceased to exist, and the Soviet state then collapsed, withered away and died (as someone once said.) The Soviet Union was surrounded by world capitalism which then moved in and re-established capital, more or less, in Russia. The lesson: if you are going to establish a communist state you better make sure it is an international state (or revert to a mixed socialist/capitalist state, see China, Vietnam.)
When the Soviet Union collapsed, all of its occupied states in Eastern Europe collapsed.
And, please spare me the ridicule for even suggesting that the Soviet Union collapsed because Stalin killed off the capitalists (exactly as Marx and Lenin predicted). I have heard it all before.
Stephen Kotkin I think said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a suicide. I agree.
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." - Mao Zedong
Stalin vs H. G. Wells - Marxism vs Liberalism
The State and Revolution
The Critique of the Gotha Programme
CatsAttack, if you are not a troll, then please moderate your tone. Don't ask questions and then tell people "to get lost" or basically that they are stupid; you do this repeatedly and it's abusive and not condusive for conversation -- especially in "Learning".
I think the most not conducive thing is posting flat-out lies as facts in the learning section. I, like others, am trying to learn, I don't need to agree with people's views but I won't tolerate lies posted as facts. Opinions are one thing, everyone can have one, but you can't just post outright lies as facts. Also going completely off topic I do not appreciate. Your concern is noted and I will try to ignore the liars but I think the quality of discussion and learning will greatly suffer if these lies go unmentioned and the lying scoundrels remain unexposed.
