PDA

View Full Version : End of the USSR: visualising how the former Soviet countries are doing, 20 years on



Aunt Hilda
10-16-2013, 09:45 PM
End of the USSR: visualising how the former Soviet countries are doing, 20 years on (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/aug/17/ussr-soviet-countries-data#_)

It's two decades since the USSR broke up. But what happened to those Soviet countries? Here's the key data
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2011/8/17/1313582722744/The-former-USSR-graphic-001.jpg


They were three days that shook the world - and shook the Soviet Union so hard that it fell apart.
But for better or worse? Twenty years on from the Soviet coup that ultimately ended Mikhail Gorbachev (http://www.theguardian.com/world/mikhail-gorbachev)'s political career and gave birth to 15 new states, The Guardian was keen to explore just how well those 15 former Soviet republics had performed as independent countries. Our data team mined statistics from sources ranging from the World Bank, the UNHCR, the UN Crime Trends Survey and the Happy Planet Index to compare the performance of the countries. And we combed through the OSCE's reports on every election in each country since 1991 to see where democracy was taking hold - and where it was not wanted.
It was in many senses a traumatic break-up. Like a marriage, there was so much that was jointly owned that it was hard to make a clean break. Industries, military units, whole populations, were scattered across an empire, indivisible. Moreover, the economic crisis that led the USSR to the brink tilted most of the emergent countries into the abyss. GDP fell as much as 50 percent in the 1990s in some republics, Russia (http://www.theguardian.com/world/russia) leading the race to the bottom as capital flight, industrial collapse, hyperinflation and tax avoidance took their toll. Almost as startling as the collapse was the economic rebound in the 2000s. By the end of the decade, some economies were five times as big as they were in 1991. High energy prices helped major exporters like Russia, Kazakhstan (http://www.theguardian.com/world/kazakhstan), Turkmenistan (http://www.theguardian.com/world/turkmenistan)and Azerbaijan (http://www.theguardian.com/world/azerbaijan), but even perennial stragglers like Moldova (http://www.theguardian.com/world/moldova) and Armenia began to grow...
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/aug/17/ussr-soviet-countries-data#

oh guardian....

Acquisitor
10-16-2013, 09:54 PM
Russia should have been more selfish imo. Excluding the Baltic states its the only country that thanks to its natural resources has potential to be wealthy. By allowing people from irrelevant countries like Moldova, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Tajikistan to come over, to work and to send money home Russia is losing not just its money, but also itself since Islamic central Asia is one big womb capable of spawning millions of mouths to feed which can only be fed by Russian natural resources.

Ambitions of the leaders to control "lost territories" is costing Russia a lot of money and possibly its future.

Smaug
10-16-2013, 09:56 PM
See? All the Baltic countries are doing fine, not only Nordic blonde Estonia.

Aunt Hilda
10-16-2013, 09:58 PM
See? All the Baltic countries are doing fine, not only Nordic blonde Estonia.
this is from 2011, Estonia just started to get back on their feet after a crippling recession, while the balts were in deep recession.

gregorius
10-16-2013, 10:00 PM
lovely

korkolola
10-16-2013, 11:06 PM
Russia should have been more selfish imo. Excluding the Baltic states its the only country that thanks to its natural resources has potential to be wealthy. By allowing people from irrelevant countries like Moldova, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Tajikistan to come over, to work and to send money home Russia is losing not just its money, but also itself since Islamic central Asia is one big womb capable of spawning millions of mouths to feed which can only be fed by Russian natural resources.

Ambitions of the leaders to control "lost territories" is costing Russia a lot of money and possibly its future.

Jesus, those 'people from irrelevant countries' have nothing to do with the fact nobody will ever be capable of controlling a territory as big as Russia properly, nor they are 'fed by Russian natural resources' (sic!). Do you even know how many state-endorsed people are controlling the money that comes form aforementioned natural resources & how the money is allocated. If Russia had a welfare state as, let's say, Norway, your point could be at least somewhat valid. Most of the immigrants there are blue-collar workers, salesmen, taxi drivers and etc. They do not have any social security numbers, hell, most of them are illegals in general.
'People from irrelevant' countries would not be there in Moscow & other bigger cities of Russia if the local population, local market did not need them. They serve a purpose there and as long as Russia is not following the steps of Western countries which adopted a welfare state system, they're going to be fine in the long term.

Acquisitor
10-16-2013, 11:12 PM
Jesus, those 'people from irrelevant countries' have nothing to do with the fact nobody will ever be capable of controlling a territory as big as Russia properly, nor they are 'fed by Russian natural resources' (sic!). Do you even know how many state-endorsed people are controlling the money that comes form aforementioned natural resources & how the money is allocated. If Russia had a welfare state as, let's say, Norway, your point could be at least somewhat valid. Most of the immigrants there are blue-collar workers, salesmen, taxi drivers and etc. They do not have any social security numbers, hell, most of them are illegals in general.
'People from irrelevant' countries would not be there in Moscow & other bigger cities of Russia if the local population, local market did not need them. They serve a purpose there and as long as Russia is not following the steps of Western countries which adopted a welfare state system, they're going to be fine in the long term.

1) They bring islam with them. As their numbers grow, so will their political power. Quite dangerous.

2) not all of them are taxi drivers and kebab sellers, many are criminals with little to lose.

3) Their services are only required because they are cheaper than Russki Ivan. People with power like to either employ them or by taking bribes from those who do.

4) Russia is being overrun.

5) what if it happened in Lithuania ? how would you feel about it ? what if you would see horny lonely and angry men everywhere who would look at you with their empty eyes every time you go outside ?

Azamat
10-16-2013, 11:41 PM
All of these countries liberalized their economies, turned towards market allocation, privatizing state-owned firms, and usually so to the detriment of economic efficiency and their societies as a whole. The "hammer-and-sickle rating" shouldn't be a degree, it should be binary.

RussiaPrussia
10-16-2013, 11:58 PM
basically all got plundered, got poorer and lost their population thanks to the west. Also its outdated gdp per capita latvia and lithuenia are below russia now.

Anglojew
10-16-2013, 11:59 PM
End of the USSR: visualising how the former Soviet countries are doing, 20 years on (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/aug/17/ussr-soviet-countries-data#_)

It's two decades since the USSR broke up. But what happened to those Soviet countries? Here's the key data
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2011/8/17/1313582722744/The-former-USSR-graphic-001.jpg


They were three days that shook the world - and shook the Soviet Union so hard that it fell apart.
But for better or worse? Twenty years on from the Soviet coup that ultimately ended Mikhail Gorbachev (http://www.theguardian.com/world/mikhail-gorbachev)'s political career and gave birth to 15 new states, The Guardian was keen to explore just how well those 15 former Soviet republics had performed as independent countries. Our data team mined statistics from sources ranging from the World Bank, the UNHCR, the UN Crime Trends Survey and the Happy Planet Index to compare the performance of the countries. And we combed through the OSCE's reports on every election in each country since 1991 to see where democracy was taking hold - and where it was not wanted.
It was in many senses a traumatic break-up. Like a marriage, there was so much that was jointly owned that it was hard to make a clean break. Industries, military units, whole populations, were scattered across an empire, indivisible. Moreover, the economic crisis that led the USSR to the brink tilted most of the emergent countries into the abyss. GDP fell as much as 50 percent in the 1990s in some republics, Russia (http://www.theguardian.com/world/russia) leading the race to the bottom as capital flight, industrial collapse, hyperinflation and tax avoidance took their toll. Almost as startling as the collapse was the economic rebound in the 2000s. By the end of the decade, some economies were five times as big as they were in 1991. High energy prices helped major exporters like Russia, Kazakhstan (http://www.theguardian.com/world/kazakhstan), Turkmenistan (http://www.theguardian.com/world/turkmenistan)and Azerbaijan (http://www.theguardian.com/world/azerbaijan), but even perennial stragglers like Moldova (http://www.theguardian.com/world/moldova) and Armenia began to grow...
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/aug/17/ussr-soviet-countries-data#

oh guardian....

What's clear is that the communism was a superior system for the Muslim republics.

Sky earth
10-17-2013, 12:03 AM
Nothing has changed for the Central Asian countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I really hope for a democratic revolution but It's somehow not possible in Turkic countries. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are all ruled by corrupted and evil dictators who oppress the freedom of speech and press freedom extremely. Turkmenistan is a extreme totalitarian state with the lowest human rights after North Korea.

Acquisitor
10-17-2013, 12:03 AM
What's clear is that the communism was a superior system for the Muslim republics.

These Central Asian republics were being held on life support from Moscow and again were fed by Russia.

In fact, they were receiving so much that their life standard was higher than that in Russia.

RussiaPrussia
10-17-2013, 12:05 AM
Nothing has changed for the Central Asian countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I really hope for a democratic revolution but It's somehow not possible in Turkic countries. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are all ruled by corrupted and evil dictators who oppress the freedom of speech and press freedom extremely. Turkmenistan is a extreme totalitarian state with the lowest human rights after North Korea.

central asians had always dictatorship why youre wondering?

Anglojew
10-17-2013, 12:10 AM
Russia clearly should recolonise Central Asia, convert them to Orthodoxy, and usher in a new utopia for the region.

Vesuvian Sky
10-17-2013, 12:16 AM
I find the central asian republics situations very interesting.

Nostalgia rules apparently in Tajikistan and the rest of the former 'Bukharan' territories for the USSR yet Kyrgyzstan firmly looks west.

Meanwhile, mixed emotions for Kaz-stan.

RussiaPrussia
10-17-2013, 02:12 AM
I find the central asian republics situations very interesting.

Nostalgia rules apparently in Tajikistan and the rest of the former 'Bukharan' territories for the USSR yet Kyrgyzstan firmly looks west.

Meanwhile, mixed emotions for Kaz-stan.

basically so poorer the region so more nestolgia

Vesuvian Sky
10-17-2013, 02:36 AM
basically so poorer the region so more nestolgia

Funny thing is though, Tajikistan usually received the least amount of Soviet economic support when it was in the Union. Having actually been there and receiving their opinions on Moscow, they're attitude regarding the Soviet/Russian rule of their country is not all that positive. So particularly for Tajikistan, the nostalgia I doubt is derived from some sort of positive economic association with the Soviet Union.

Sky earth
10-17-2013, 12:14 PM
Russia clearly should recolonise Central Asia, convert them to Orthodoxy, and usher in a new utopia for the region.

Central Asians are already Russified enough. I don't know why you want a Christian Central Asia know. Central Asian countries were and will be always secular and the same goes for the ethnicities there. Of course there are some extreme militant Islamist groups like the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan but the majority don't support these extremist groups

Anglojew
10-17-2013, 12:19 PM
Central Asians are already Russified enough. I don't know why you want a Christian Central Asia know. Central Asian countries were and will be always secular and the same goes for the ethnicities there. Of course there are some extreme militant Islamist groups like the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan but the majority don't support these extremist groups

Yeah, they all seem ok actually.

Corvus
10-17-2013, 12:29 PM
The Central Asian -stan nations are just performing well due to oil reserves.
Without it they would be doomed to fail

Dandelion
10-17-2013, 12:29 PM
What's clear is that the communism was a superior system for the Muslim republics.

Indeed. Communism is very flawed a system, but still an improvement over a muslim (semi-)theocracy, even freedom-wise (of which the USSR offered little, but at least you were allowed contact with the opposite gender for instance).

Dandelion
10-17-2013, 12:32 PM
Russia clearly should recolonise Central Asia, convert them to Orthodoxy, and usher in a new utopia for the region.

Or rather build a fence around their borders and use a shoot-to-kill policy for tresspassers. Might be cheaper than fighting an endless guerilla war against islamists who keep reappearing like mushrooms on a rainy autumn day.

It's not as if Chechnya and Dagestan became more progressive over the years since the fall of the USSR, on the contrary.

Vesuvian Sky
10-17-2013, 12:45 PM
Regarding Central Asia, not all of those countries are crazy Islamist in nature. Kazakhstan is a very secular country with a very mixed Christian and Muslim populous plus ethnicities from all over the former USSR who were dumped there during the 'Virgin Lands' campaign (to farm the steppes basically).

The more problematic Central Asian Republic is definitely Uzbekistan. It has some strong Islamic sentiments. Tajikistan could go either way but they have a pres. who is secular in nature and a complete dick (apparently) who keeps a decent lid on things. He's a controversial guy but next to no Islamic demonstrations take place for which the same can't be said for Uzbekistan.

Turkmenistan is a little iffy as I recall. Kyrgyzstan likewise has its issues but its not that bad. Most of Central Asian states IMO are Islamic lite compared to say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia (obviously).