The first and last President of the USSR M.S.
Gorbachev surpassed Kaiser Wilhelm II, who spent 22 years in exile (from 1918 to 1941) after abdicating.
Gorbachev spent 30 years in political exile.
Of course, both the Kaiser and the General Secretary are far from A.F.
Kerensky, whose exile was half a century old.
But we are not talking about the ephemeral Alexandra Fedorovna, who has been at the helm of power for only six months, but about the once powerful rulers of powerful powers.
In this nomination of post-power existence, only two were long-livers - Hohenzollern and Gorbachev.
And in order to assess the duration of this existence, let us imagine that the pensioner N.A.
Romanov, who is out of work, but not persecuted by anyone, died only in 1947.
That is exactly what happened with Gorbachev.
Such longevity led to the fact - and this happened to all political Methuselahs: Molotov, Ligachev, Kerensky, Wilhelm, Kaganovich, etc. - that their death turned out to be little noticed or even not noticed at all.
When many decades passed from the moment they went into anarchy, and life in their countries was such that a year should be counted as three, as on the front line, they were simply forgotten about.
Both praisers and detractors.
Other times have come, other tribes have come.
The same with Gorbachev.
All his deeds, both good and evil, have already been discussed a hundred times, and in a very different way.
An exhaustive collective obituary was written, corrected and supplemented many years ago.
Now, at the beginning of September 2022, there is, in general, nothing to add to it.
Which is rather good, because violent passions over a dead person not yet buried do not paint anyone.
Especially over the deceased, who lived through the Aredov's eyelids.
If, nevertheless, to understand the abundant statements, then curses to Gorbachev look more emotional than rational.
With the fact that he lost control, the car skidded, the result was deplorable, almost everyone agrees.
The difference is in the question of Gorbachev's goal setting.
Did he consciously want such an outcome for his country, or was there pernicious arrogance here?
All that we know speaks rather of the latter.
True, arrogance is inherent in people in general.
Take at least the current couch strategists.
Faith in the power of their ideas there is able to shake any imagination.
But all these people have is an Internet modem, a laptop and a sofa.
Whereas M.S.
Gorbachev, having come to power - at first almost absolute - had a significantly greater resource.
Was it easy to avoid dizziness: “What is not subject to me?”
In addition, the public was inclined to approve, if not all the ideas of the Secretary General, then many.
Sensory hunger - "Changes (and even thrills) require our hearts" - was very great, dislike for the mossy obkomychi, which the young general secretary would boldly overcome, was also.
Now we all have become smarter (at a high price), it’s hard to say whether the former general secretary has become smarter, but at the end of the 1980s, when everything was being decided, almost everyone lacked intelligence and caution.
Criticizing the state creativity of M.S.
Gorbachev, this should be remembered.
And, of course, our Western partners render an unimportant service to the newly deceased.
Boris Johnson: “I have always admired his courage and honesty in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion.
His relentless drive to open up Soviet society remains an example for all of us."
Lizaveta Truss: “Mikhail Gorbachev was an outstanding statesman who made a significant contribution to global security and stability while working with Western leaders to end the Cold War.
This legacy of cooperation and peace must prevail.”
Emmanuel Macron: "His commitment to peace in Europe changed our common history" (although it is not clear in what direction it changed).
Former American Ambassador to Moscow McFaul: "It is difficult to imagine a person who, to a greater extent than Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, changed the course of history in a positive direction."
It is clear that funeral panegyrics are a special genre.
This is known to anyone who has ever been to a civil memorial service.
But, of course, such speeches by people known for their “love” for our country can lead the citizens of Russia to various bad thoughts.
However, the Russian authorities, not succumbing to these thoughts, adhere to the logic of legitimism.
That is, Mikhail Sergeevich is now on a different court, which will be fairer than ours, but it is fitting for us to maintain the succession of power.
And grave honors to the president of the USSR are a guarantee of such succession in the present and future.
May he rest in peace.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.