Given that we know Putin isn't Gorbachev's biggest fan, won't be attending his funeral and, in fact, seems to hold him responsible for USSR/Russia's loss of position as a world super power, it's interesting to see RT [working within the editorial constraints they must be under] producing quite a broadly favourable, albeit 'warts and all' biography of Gorbachev.
I also wonder if there's a subliminal message here, or am I 'reading 'between the lines' a bit too much?
There does seem to be quite a lot of emphasis on Gorbachev as a man of the people, contrasts with previous [and unstated 'current'?] dictatorial leadership. And the choice of accompanying photographs seem to also be contrasting Gorbachev, not only with what went before, but subliminally with what has come after; contemporary artwork depicting the leader in various non-official posters, rock concerts, mention of open and free debates on TV, smiling Gorbachev mingling with the people [including in Kiev!].
There's even a lengthy section, praising Gorbachev as a peacemaker, which pointedly mentions the withdrawal from Afghanistan, an "unwinnable war" where "...fifteen thousand Soviet soldiers died, hundreds of thousands more were wounded or psychologically traumatised"....Again, is this a subtle comment on current events? Another lengthy section emphasises how the Soviet Union was not one monolithic nation, but comprised of dozens of distinct nationalities and ethnic groups.
Give it a read. If you can overcome your revulsion at RT's usual party-line towing output. I really didn't expect to find such a long, reasonably unbiased and almost nostalgic for pre-Putin times obituary on Russia Today.
I think you are overthinking it. In Russia there is a strong tradition of writing "either good or none" about deceased people. Individual blogs and anonymous telegram channels are an exception, of course, but not state media. Jumping on the graves publicly just didn't catch up yet.
If Kuchma, the creator of modern Ukrainian state, would die tomorrow he would get a very similar obituary, no doubt.
Also, RT in general is not the crazy propaganda outlet. Its mission is to be boring and predictable. Russia has some dedicated resources for crazier kinds of propaganda.
Of course, they are writing good things about deceased. But what kind of good things?
Mentioning 15,000 killed in Afghanistan is quite daring at this time.
I remember Afghanistan very well because I lived in the Soviet Union at that time. Every mother was worried that her son could be sent to Afghanistan and die there. But now about three times more Russians have been killed in Ukraine (and population of Russia is about half of the population of the Soviet Union at that time). Comparatively the death rate is 6 times greater in this unwinnable war.
Whatever were Gorbachev's aims, he gets credit for stopping this blood-bath. I wonder if there will be another leader emerging in Russia who will stop the pointless war in Ukraine?
The population of Crimea, which is a part of Russian Federation that Ukraine does not acknowledge, is around 2,5M which is ~150 times greater than Soviet loss of life in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure what is the way out of "pointless war in Ukraine" that would resolve this specific question, at the very least.
In Afghanistan, Soviet Union has left behind an allied secular government which would outlive the USSR by a few years. It was not like the American disengagement with people falling off planes.
If people changing countries is not a big deal, why does not Ukraine admit the loss of territories it does not control since 2014? Until that happens, or Russia is defeated militarily, I see no grounds in expecting the war to stop. Ceasefires are possible but those won't last forever either.
>If people changing countries is not a big deal, why does not Ukraine admit the loss of territories it does not control since 2014?
Because we know what Russians do to civilians. Hundred thousand victims in Mariupol didn’t murder themselves.
And yes, this means the war won’t end until at least couple of thousands young people from Moscow and Petersburg return home in pieces. Which means they need to get to the front first - for now the Russians fighting are ethnic minorities from Moscow’s colonies - and this means the sooner the draft starts the better. They are starting to enroll the homeless, which is a good sign.
The first part of your claim might as well be true.
But the second one isn't. Russia has large number of Russian citizens there now, and is not leaving them behind. I don't see that happening.
Ukraine does not want to leave their citizens behind either. So it seems that the conflict is not ending peacefully. Maybe it's not ending at all. Think Kashmir.
Russia does not only leave their own people behind but actively send more to die.
Of course, there will be some limit how far they can go. It is expected that at some point there will be a new leader who will intervene and stop these senseless killings of their own people.
A new leader whose first action is to lose a war? I wonder how long he gets to live.
When you just stop the military action it is called a "ceasefire" and requires agreement of both sides. We might see that eventually. Just leaving the land (and people) that, as you have said, people has died for, and doing that for nothing - I don't see how that could be popular. I also fail to see how it may be a good bargaining point. When you give anything in advance you have less stuff to bargain with.
Putin lost the war. A new leader would be a man of courage to say that clearly. And he would lead the country to prosperity instead of more killings and stagnation.
Who needs your prosperity promises if you turn 5 million of their compatriots into refugees, captives, or worse? Russians've seen that kind of "prosperity" in the 90s and I don't think they're going to fall for this one more time.
If you think Ukraine have won the war, let's see how they arrange the life on all the lands that they have already reclaimed.
No one is going to fall for the promises of the USSR system, that's for sure.
5 million Ukrainians already run away from it. I think they are doing great, much better than those who stayed in a war zone (where many were brutally tortured or killed). As soon as the war ends, many of them will come back. In fact, many are already returning.
Possibly. But isn't there also a tradition [also seen in China] where, faced with high levels of state censorship, the press turns to historical or mythological figures to make allegorical comment on current events, that they can't express openly?
>In Russia there is a strong tradition of writing "either good or none" about deceased people...
We have the same concept in English. The saying is "Don't speak ill of the dead"
But the obituary does make a lot of criticisms of Gorbachev's failings, as well as praising his successes. Having read it all the way through [and it's a lengthy piece!] I'm left with the message "He did some great things and he did some stupid things. But his heart was in the right place and he was a was basically a decent human being"
Almost the last line in the obit recounts how Gorbachev choked up and left the stage in tears halfway through singing an old Russian song in memory of his dead wife. Somehow I can't but see that as a pointed contrast with Vladimir Putin who would never allow himself to be portrayed as the kind of man who cries in public.
The problem is, you can write virtually everything on the anonymous Telegram channels, so there is no much sense in trying to make allegorical comments on the news outlets.
Nobody goes to news outlets for news anymore. They exist just to show the official stance (pretty much everywhere).
Putin cried in public after his re-election in 2012 :)
Given that we know Putin isn't Gorbachev's biggest fan, won't be attending his funeral and, in fact, seems to hold him responsible for USSR/Russia's loss of position as a world super power, it's interesting to see RT [working within the editorial constraints they must be under] producing quite a broadly favourable, albeit 'warts and all' biography of Gorbachev.
I also wonder if there's a subliminal message here, or am I 'reading 'between the lines' a bit too much?
There does seem to be quite a lot of emphasis on Gorbachev as a man of the people, contrasts with previous [and unstated 'current'?] dictatorial leadership. And the choice of accompanying photographs seem to also be contrasting Gorbachev, not only with what went before, but subliminally with what has come after; contemporary artwork depicting the leader in various non-official posters, rock concerts, mention of open and free debates on TV, smiling Gorbachev mingling with the people [including in Kiev!].
There's even a lengthy section, praising Gorbachev as a peacemaker, which pointedly mentions the withdrawal from Afghanistan, an "unwinnable war" where "...fifteen thousand Soviet soldiers died, hundreds of thousands more were wounded or psychologically traumatised"....Again, is this a subtle comment on current events? Another lengthy section emphasises how the Soviet Union was not one monolithic nation, but comprised of dozens of distinct nationalities and ethnic groups.
Give it a read. If you can overcome your revulsion at RT's usual party-line towing output. I really didn't expect to find such a long, reasonably unbiased and almost nostalgic for pre-Putin times obituary on Russia Today.