[FridayoLeary]

The story depresses me a little. One of the greatest engineering marvels in history, destroyed by stereotypical Russian negligence, incompetence and corruption and more then 100 lives lost in the process. The Soviets for all their many sins were at least capable of building incredible things, the protections on the nuclear reactor held up, for example, preventing a massive environmental catastrophe.

[giraffe_lady]

It's stereotypical now but I remember at the time this was taken as a kind of confirmation that russia had been coasting on and also neglecting a lot of the soviet-era infrastructure. It's hard to reflect back now but in 2000 the soviet collapse was recent memory and the role and effectiveness of its successor was an open question, internationally.

I do remember that in the 90s the "russia understanders" were split into two camps: now that russia is free of the shackles of communism it will step into its destiny as supreme global superpower vs the soviet system was actually quite effective at large scale mundane infrastructure & logistics in a way the russian federation isn't.

By 2000 the weight of evidence was already fairly strong for the second view but this disaster, and especially their response to it, really settled the matter. This is how I remember feeling about it all anyway.

[hencq]

I also remember how frustrating and depressing it was that they wouldn’t allow foreign teams to help with the rescue effort. At the time it was clear that the Russians lacked the capabilities to do it. I also think in hindsight it was a sign how little interest Russia had in being part of the West.

[vkou]

You should look into the history of the 90s again.

Russia opened up to the West in a big way in the first half of the decade, and worked with NATO and the UN in the first half of the Bosnian war.

The result was... A complete collapse of the domestic economy, and a second half of the Bosnian war where NATO no longer felt like it needed to get Russia on board to do whatever it wanted in the region.

The degradation of this relationship was not the fault of a single party. Clinton and Yeltsin (an utter turd of a man) worked hard to have a productive relationship, but then Bush gets elected and takes a more... Unipolar view of the world. As does Putin.

[nradov]

I looked into the history of the 90s again. The collapse of the domestic Russian economy was 100% their own fault. If they had simply accepted their place as a second-rate power under US hegemony (something like France) then everything would have been fine and they would be far more secure and prosperous today.

[vkou]

> The collapse of the domestic Russian economy was 100% their own fault.

It was.

But that doesn't matter - the result was incredible misery and ruin for the country, and it drove reactionary, anti-western sentiment, kind of like how reactionary sentiment over $3 eggs drove Americans to flip the table and rally behind Trump II.

[eszed]

Early in the Bush administration, at least, there was continuing approchement. Bush was mocked for saying something like "I looked into his [Putin's] eyes, and I trust him". I don't remember enough about the early GWOT days to pinpoint the particulars of the falling out, but I do remember thinking that there were areas of cooperation not being pursued. Like, could Russia have been brought along into Afghanistan? I thought that at the time, though I'm not sure how it looks 25 years later. Like you, however, I doubt that Russia's eventual (and justified, mind you!) current stance and status was written into stone.

[vkou]

> Like, could Russia have been brought along into Afghanistan?

It pretty much was. Afghanistan was a UN-sanctioned war, and Russia did not object to it from its position on the UNSC - and provided support for the invasion.

Iraq (Three permanent UNSC members voted against it), on the other hand, was a clear indication that the rules-based world is a sham and a scam... And that the only rule that matters is 'Fuck you, make me.'

You know how Trump is criticized for pursuing idiotic short-term gains that torpedo long-term trust and legitimacy? That was also the real, lasting legacy of Bush II's first term. Anyone playing by the rules is a fool.

[Gagarin1917]

Russia had roughly half the population as compared to the Soviet Union. There’s just no way they could have ever competed on the global stage the same way.

[bluGill]

Sweden's population is tiny, but by working with "the west" they gain from everything everyone else does. Russia has isolated themselves (both directly and in doing things that made others want to isolate them), and thus cannot benefit from what others do near as much.

[mitthrowaway2]

If one took the view that communism was holding back roughly half of their their potential, then it would have been a reasonable prediction.

[Gagarin1917]

No, it wouldn’t have. Only with cetera peribus would that make any sense. And losing half your population is not “all other things being equal.”

It’s a major difference that has a huge impact on output and relative standing globally.

[nradov]

I don't understand your comment. Over the long term, communism (or any sort of economic central planning) will obviously cripple any country's economy. The absolute number of people is meaningless if they're only pretending to work.

Look at the war between Russia and Ukraine today. Every day Russia sends hundreds of men to their deaths in human wave attacks with nothing to show for it. They have a large population but but they're not doing anything useful. If they had double the population it wouldn't change anything.

[Gagarin1917]

> Over the long term, communism (or any sort of economic central planning) will obviously cripple any country's economy. The absolute number of people is meaningless if they're only pretending to work.

I’m as anti-communist as can be, but saying population is meaningless when it comes to national output is ridiculous. There are many capitalist nations around the world, but the United States is the most populous, and therefore has the most output… because population plays a major role in national output. The socioeconomics of a nation certainly play a role too, but not enough to overcome population being cut in half.

Ceteris peribus, a capitalist country will beat a communist one long term in output and influence. But that’s not the only thing that can influence output and influence.

> Look at the war between Russia and Ukraine today. Every day Russia sends hundreds of men to their deaths in human wave attacks with nothing to show for it. They have a large population but but they're not doing anything useful.

The entire nation is not devoted to Ukraine, they still need to maintain defenses against NATO and China simultaneously. The Ukraine war is just what they can spare on top of those other goals.

[stickfigure]

The soviet-era protections on a certain infamous RBMK reactor didn't hold up quite so well.