Boris Yeltsin, former Russian president, so much priced by the west, is finally dead.
What sort of legacy he left behind him ?.
Maybe this compression will help to find an answer.


Hitler fought for Germany against German enemies.

Yeltsin fought together with Russian enemies to destroy Russia.

Hitler tried to take back from those who stole from German people.

Yeltsin gave everything to criminal oligarchs, stealing from Russian people.

Hitler was a dictator who did not have a courage to burn German parliament openly and did it secretly, when it was empty, to save Germany from German enemies.

Yeltsin was a dictator who openly bombarded Russian parliament, full of Russian people, in front of the whole world, to please enemies of Russia.

Hitler worked hard to destroy Russia.
Yeltsin also worked hard to destroy Russia.

Hitler was a discipline man who behaved decently in front of public.

Yelltsin behaved like a clown making circus from Russia on great satisfaction of Russian enemies.

Hitler was sober vegetarian.

Yeltsin was an alcohol addict.

Hitler honorably punished and killed himself for his crimes.

Traitor Yeltsin cowardly escaped deserved prosecution and punishment for the crimes against Russian people

Will another Russian traitor Gorbachev remain unpunished?

Translation - Yeltsin didn't do much of anything to prop up Cuba, and the OP is bitter about it.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

That's right he was an enemy of Cuba.

Russia was fortunate to be saved by Putin.


The rule is very simple :
If the Russian leader is priced by America and the west ( eg. Yeltsin, Gorbachev ) it means he is bad for Russia and should be immediately replaced.
On the other hand if the head of Russia is constantly criticised by America and the west ( like Putin ) then it means he is very good for Russia.

Why?

The answer is very simple:

America and the West are Russian enemies.

Wow, laca, launching insults at a man the day after he dies. And by trying to compare him unfavorably with the creator of the holocaust, no less.
That seems like a new low.

I just presented the factual facts.
You conclude for yourself.
To help you just compare situation in Russia now and during Yeltsin period.

The transition between USSR to Russia left a lot of Russians on the side of the road, and Yelstine made some mistakes... like the Tchetchenya war, and the Russian army's attitude towards Tchetchens (murder, rapes, kidnapping...)

Yelstine was also corrupted... He passes a law just before he passed to Putin that he will me imuned, so that he can spend the rest of his life safe in his villa...

But Yelstin was far to be a Hilter... By comparing him to Hitler, you make the Holocaust as if it was nothing...

__________________

I don’t understand what you want to say.
Chechnya is part of Russian territory and Russia as a country has right to defend its territory. Finally it’s non of western or American business.
You want to tell me they are concern what’s happening in Russia or Chechnya because they love Russian or Chechen people???
What would USA government do if occupied indigenous Mexican population have uprising in California and Texas, they would just watch what’s happening?

Russian territory, Russian territory... This region has its border moving all the time... And I doubt that Chechen feels Russian after what Russia had done to this region

Why you are defending this war?

__________________

You are absolutely right! Here is good article:


Toasting Yeltsin
Mark Simpson

He was the best president of Russia that the west ever had. That's why Russians loathed him.

Why, I wonder, was Boris Yeltsin, one of Russia's most disastrous leaders ever, so cherished and lionised in the west as a "hero" and "giant: of the 20th century and a beacon of "freedom'"

The Yeltsin many Russians will remember was rather different. A drunken opportunist who immeasurably impoverished much of his country while fantastically enriching his clique. A president who robbed an entire generation of their pensions, put living standards into free-fall and knocked decades off Russian male life expectancy, making it the lowest in the developed world, beginning a process of depopulation of Mother Russia that continues to this day. A man who started his populist career campaigning against the relatively small-time corruption of party bosses and then presided over an era of corruption and gangsterism so vast it is without historical precedent.

Perhaps, then, he is held in such high regard in the west because he was the man who buried communism and this effaces all his misdeeds? Well, yes and no. Leaving aside that communism largely imploded under the weight of its own contradictions rather than the weight of Boris on a tank, it's clear that if Yeltsin had succeeded in overthrowing communism but instead of drunken chaos and impotence had built on its ruins a strong Russia that defended its own interests and was a powerful force on the world stage his reputation in the west would be very different and he would be attacked by some of the very same people he is now championed by. He'd be almost as reviled as ... Putin!

The reason he is regarded so highly in the west is the same reason why he is loathed in Russia: he was the best president of Russia the west ever had. Not only was he craven towards western interests but he supervised the near total destruction of his country as a political and military force in the world. He ploughed Russia into the earth for us so we didn't have to do it ourselves.

Yes, it would have been nice if the Russian economy had flourished after communism and the Russian people hadn't had to suffer so much but if the price of removing a serious rival from the world stage and gaining access to her vast and strategically vital natural resources was the degradation and emiseration of an entire nation, save a lucky few lottery winners and gangsters, then, well, that's a price that's well worth them paying, isn't it?

Putin is hated as much in the west as Yeltsin is revered not because he is anti-democratic (Yeltsin was anti-democratic too when it suited him) but because he has rebuilt the Russian state, Russian power, Russian self-respect and isn't afraid to assert Russian interests.

The UK is home to those plotting oligarchs who believe that Russia is just part of their property portfolio, not just because we have expensive restaurants and good private security companies but because we were one of the main architects of the anarchy that made them insanely rich. Putin may have been Yeltsin's anointed heir (at the price of granting him immunity from prosecution), but he turned out to be something of a patriot, turning on the powerful oligarchy which had really run Russia while Yeltsin fiddled. This is why he is so popular in Russia and why exiled oligarchs bragging about their coup plans only make him more popular.

The dramatic rise in Russophobia in the west in recent years is less about liberal anxiety over Moscow's authoritarianism than naked self-interest: the west has woken up to the fact that the Russian bear is still alive, despite our best attempt to poison him with Yeltsin 210 in the 1990s, and he wants his gas and oil back, spassiba.

Comment is free: Toasting Yeltsin

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes

What about Stalin? He was pretty roundly criticized by the West.
Good for Russia? Would support another one like him for the Russian people?

With most people I wouldn't bother asking, but I can never tell with you, laca.

Stalin was good for war time. Just imagine, that Germans attacked Russia with not Stalin as leader but with, for example, Nikolay 2.

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes

Perhaps, but according to laca's theory, that was precisely the moment when Stalin became (temporarily) bad for the Russian people because for a brief period there while he was fighting the Nazis, the West approved of Stalin and was absolutely giddy about it.

Well I don’t think that Indigenous Mexicans and Indians ( if any left after the most horrific genocide in history ) in Texas and California also feel Anglo-Saxons, for example, when they are forcefully encouraged to use English language and not allowed own language at school.

If Stalin was not there today Russia would be either German or American colony and the Russian oil would flow in to greedy corporate oligarchs like Bush as it is happening now in Iraq.
If Stalin did something bad he did it to Russians and its non of your business, let Russians deal with that.The difference is that you did the biggest genocide in the history on others, killing 40 million American Indians and killing and enslaving millions of black African people.
Russian people had to be and must be on alert all the time because the biggest world predictor USA and its western puppets are constantly waiting around the corner.

Its noit right that the NSDAP burned the "Reichtstag". It has been burned by van der Lubbe, which was an dutch communist