Was Boris Yeltsin the best leader Russia has ever had?

[TheReckoning]

I think a serious argument could be yes, at least post-1900.

[Antonio the Sixth]

no

He is probably in the upper half of the distribution, which says far more about other Russian leaders than it does about Yeltsin himself, but that's as far as I can go.

[Mr. Smith]

Medvedev was better, and he was a puppet.

[buritobr]

Ask the Russians. Probably they will say NIET

[BG-NY]

No. Extremely corrupt, birthed the oligarchy and was complicit in rigging elections.

[darklordoftech]

What about Gorbachev?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What about Gorbachev?

Surprisingly, he was probably the best in my lifetime.

[TheReckoning]

What about Gorbachev?

Typically, having your country turn from being a superpower to literally collapsing is not a sign of being a good leader.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What about Gorbachev?

Typically, having your country turn from being a superpower to literally collapsing is not a sign of being a good leader.

The seeds of collapse were sewn by the aging and incompetent leadership of the USSR that preceded Gorbachev.

[Mr. Smith]

What about Gorbachev?

That's Soviet, not Russia.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Of course Lenin and Stalin during WW II were our allies bit China became Communist because they got rid of their Emperor the Last Emperor of China that's why they became an Axis we dropped the Atom bomb on Japan so that Russia didn't enter the war

Part of the reason China got rid of it's Emperor he was 8 yrs old and the oligarchy took over

China never attacks Taiwan because of Nike town that's why Russia gave up Grinder basketball, but they support like Iran military and monetary to Russia

[TheReckoning]

What about Gorbachev?

Typically, having your country turn from being a superpower to literally collapsing is not a sign of being a good leader.

The seeds of collapse were sewn by the aging and incompetent leadership of the USSR that preceded Gorbachev.

Yeah, and Gorbachev did nothing to prevent said collapse. He just accepted it was inevitable, which is not something a strong leader does.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Alexander Nevsky?

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

What about Gorbachev?

Typically, having your country turn from being a superpower to literally collapsing is not a sign of being a good leader.

The seeds of collapse were sewn by the aging and incompetent leadership of the USSR that preceded Gorbachev.

Yeah, and Gorbachev did nothing to prevent said collapse. He just accepted it was inevitable, which is not something a strong leader does.

But it was inevitable at that point.

[Mechavada]

No, LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#After_WW2




I'm far from a natalist type but like good lord. . . . . . . . this isn't a statistic that I would ascribe to a "best leader".  Ever.

[KaiserDave]

Gorbachev did not accept the collapse of the USSR as inevitable, he bitterly opposed it and resigned rather than oversee the dissolution of the USSR. His reforms certainly advanced the collapse of the USSR but he at no point desired that or accepted it.

[TheReckoning]

What about Gorbachev?

Typically, having your country turn from being a superpower to literally collapsing is not a sign of being a good leader.

The seeds of collapse were sewn by the aging and incompetent leadership of the USSR that preceded Gorbachev.

Yeah, and Gorbachev did nothing to prevent said collapse. He just accepted it was inevitable, which is not something a strong leader does.

But it was inevitable at that point.

It wasn’t. Anyone who says the collapse of any country is “inevitable” doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

[Beet]

Gorbachev and Yeltsin were very good leaders... for the West. Which kind of explains why they massively overindex here. The best leader of modern Russia is virtually unspeakable. But having your country go from an agricultural backwater to a global superpower, and defeating Nazi Germany while you're at it, is not bad.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

What about Gorbachev?

Typically, having your country turn from being a superpower to literally collapsing is not a sign of being a good leader.

The seeds of collapse were sewn by the aging and incompetent leadership of the USSR that preceded Gorbachev.

Yeah, and Gorbachev did nothing to prevent said collapse. He just accepted it was inevitable, which is not something a strong leader does.

But it was inevitable at that point.

It wasn’t. Anyone who says the collapse of any country is “inevitable” doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Anyone who deals in absolutes doesn't know what they're talking about.

[TheReckoning]

No, LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#After_WW2




I'm far from a natalist type but like good lord. . . . . . . . this isn't a statistic that I would ascribe to a "best leader".  Ever.

I mean, per that graph, Putin saw deaths decline under his presidency while Gorbachev saw them rise, but pretty much no one would say here that Putin was a better president than Gorbachev. Death rates don’t mean much. Yeltsin wasn’t a good leader- the more you learn about him, the more that appears to be the case- but he has to be contextualized with other Russian leaders.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Kerensky

/s

[KaiserDave]

Anyway the answer is the question is a resounding no. Even if it's post 1990, Medved was better. Yeltsin was a man with sincere goals but his Presidency was a catastrophic failure on every level. Under Medvedev, there was economic growth, diplomatic rapprochement, and no military adventures or horrific war crimes (unless I am possibly missing something?). It was an authoritarian state but on balance it's still superior than whatever was going in the 90s.

On the question of inevitable collapse I think the word inevitable is perhaps strong, but by the time Gorbachev became General Secretary there were serious, crippling issues in the party and in the state, and in the Union Republics that were eroding the Soviet Union from the inside.

[Middle-aged Europe]

"Best" doesn't really hit it IMO. Maybe less harmful than others.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Best at destroying Russia. Life expectancies dropped massively and his approval rating might have been as low as 2% at the end.

[TheReckoning]

Anyway the answer is the question is a resounding no. Even if it's post 1990, Medved was better. Yeltsin was a man with sincere goals but his Presidency was a catastrophic failure on every level. Under Medvedev, there was economic growth, diplomatic rapprochement, and no military adventures or horrific war crimes (unless I am possibly missing something?). It was an authoritarian state but on balance it's still superior than whatever was going in the 90s.

On the question of inevitable collapse I think the word inevitable is perhaps strong, but by the time Gorbachev became General Secretary there were serious, crippling issues in the party and in the state, and in the Union Republics that were eroding the Soviet Union from the inside.

Wasn’t Medvedev a total Putin puppet, that only held office de jure because Putin was term limited?