A Sparkling Shrine to a Reviled Russian Leader

History is an odd thing these days. Maybe always. What we don't like, we want to destroy or, at least shame ourselves. Shame ourselves for something that happened when we were kids, or not even born. Bizarre this identity politics. But seems it's universal and constantly used for political gain. That's right, political gain. Black vs. white, hispanic vs. white, female vs. male vs. LGBTQ. And now, Putin vs. the 1990s! Not too long ago, but as this article points out, there are two sides. Always. Neither is as 'black and white' as positioned by the politicians. In this case, Putin. A living monster for some, hero for a few. And Yeltsin. A dead man that had, from my perspective, a strong vision for Russia. As pointed out, the position taken may have flaws on both sides, but the fact remains that Yeltsin did not bring down the Soviet Union; communism did. If they'd had an industrial revolution years before adopting communism, it may have worked out better. But as it was agricultural with little else, it was doomed. The starvation of millions could not be ignored; although Putin does ignore it. Politicians; every disaster offers them opportunity to lie.

Yeltsin’s finest hour, atop that armored vehicle in Moscow hurling defiance at the putschists, was very fine indeed, and had a sniper then taken him down, he would be remembered today as a martyred hero and not an erratic sot. He had much to do with impeding Gorbachev’s attempts to preserve a transformed USSR, and at year’s end effectively dealt the union a death blow. Hard to remember anymore, but in his time Gorbachev was regarded as a political Houdini, balancing the various political factions in his country as he attempted to shed the rigid Stalinist carapace his society was pressing against. He’s recognized today as instrumental in the USSR’s demise (“an incompetent reformer and a masterful, but unintended revolutionary” as one analysis later put it), but what he hoped to achieve was the transformation of the Soviet Union into an entity that could achieve respectability in the global community. Suppose he had succeeded? Suppose the Soviet Union had survived as a looser confederation—perhaps with the Baltic bone extracted from its throat—with tighter control over its fissionable materials than the daughter republics exercised in the 1990s, shorn of its more messianic imperial pretensions, granted a softer landing…might this entity, under the educated and cosmopolitan Gorbachev, not have been a more useful international citizen than Yeltsin’s dazed, looted Russia, or the resentful and revanchist kleptocracy that has emerged under his successor once removed?

Great report. Hope to visit someday. Thanks.

I don’t know much about Yeltsin, but I can never forget his jumping on the tank outside Kremlin and not let the Communists take over. Only a brave or a foolish person can do that, and Yeltsin was not the latter that day.

Is there a room in this fancy building commemorating the 10 million people who died in the beginning of the 90s as a direct consequence of the economic collapse due to the "reforms" ? Half of the Russian industrial capacity was simply shut down overnight, poverty and starvation was rampant, women were lining up along the streets of Moscow trying to sell some old clothes to get money for food. The Yeltsin years denotes one of the worst social catastrophes in peacetime we can remember. Well, in the west we don't remember, we even hardly heard of it. But the Russians don't forget, and that's the very foundation for Putin's popularity. Yeltsin was a cosigner of the laws practically written by western advisers (mostly US, and one Swede) which created both the collapse and the oligarchs. Russia still suffers from the extreme economic inequality that followed. (there is much talk about "Putin's oligarchs", which we in fact created and Putin partly hampered, which was one of his achievements). Yeltsin is dead - long live Yeltsin!

Mr. Higgins omitted to mention that the Yeltsin Presidential Center was built by personal decision of Mr. Putin, who ordered to allocate billions of state budget rubles to developing the sparkling shrine. The shrine has also been generously financed, annually, by the Putin's government. Strange life.

Well, given that DJ Trump will eventually have a presidential library ("the greatest in the history of civilization" no doubt), this doesn't qualify as much of an honor. If 10% of the stuff about Yeltsin in the recent Gorbachev biography is true he's no hero. For sure Russians hate Gorbachev, who they perceive as orchestrating their downfall. His mistake was to have faith in Bush, who made promises about Europe that weren't kept and were plainly beyond his power to deliver. Nevertheless, Gorbachev had a vision about transitioning out of the Cold War in a way that didn't involve selling out the country to the highest bidder. Yeltsin, not so much. But hey, why should we expect more from the Soviet Union than from the good old USA in terms of governmental dealings with its oligarchs.

How wonderful that Russians have access to this history. Yeltsin was a great man, his stature shortened only by the monumental task he faced transforming a centuries-old secretive and absolutist government culture, and one that instinctively craved murderous vodzhes and czars, into one open to the participation and leadership of its citizens. He had to master politics, security, economics, and civil engineering— in short, accomplish tasks that take countries 100 years or so to do, all in a decade before the vipers he knew were slithering around his ankles finally took him down. No wonder he drank.

I was there a couple of years ago and found it fascinating. The picture in the typical Soviet apartment has a man on a phone. The phone actually rings and you hear a recording of a neighbor who wants to know what is going on. Swan Lake comes on the TV, since the news was shut down. You then go through the door to an exhibit about the 1991 putsch. I felt almost like I was going through it. It also does not shy away from the hard years after the fall of Communism. Definitely worth visiting if you find yourself in Yekaterinburg.

I share sentiments below that Russians revile Gorbachev more - as evidenced by my annual visits to that country. Undoubtedly, oligarchs are more reviled than Yeltsin - he is seen as that typical uncle in the family - his being drunk until now under Putin - was not a handicap. I can't wait to go and see it. Regarding that one photo of how old Soviet apartments looked - take my word - many are still the same except perhaps in Moscow. Housing continues to be of Kruschev era of the so called Kruschevskis (5 story apartment buildings). It also reminds me of Solidarity museum in Gdansk which has a replica of a grocery store from that era with empty shelves. During my visit, a mother was explaining to her two young kids what they were seeing. Their astonishment in wide eyes - made my visit.

I am surprised, that there is no much of opinions of ordinary visitors about Yeltsin. Seems to me, the success of the museum is not based on the fascinated personality of Yeltsin, but rather on their ability to organise interesting seminar and discussion

My own experience is that most Russians blame Mikhail Gorbachev for the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Boris Yeltsin merely inherited the mess that followed. To be sure, the 90s were riddled with crime and a severe lack of funding for simple public benefits such as playgrounds and parks. Communal apartment stairwells were littered with hypodermic needles. Police jeeps could be seen wanting a push-start owing to dead batteries. And corrupt oligarchs literally robbed the economy of potent state industries. I attribute much of this decline to a lack of good counsel from the West, which for decades encouraged the Soviet Union to adopt a market economy and then contributed to the pillaging that ensued once Yeltsin's government undertook the necessary reforms (the massive MMM scandal that was structured on a huge pyramid scheme that eventually swindled many pensioners of their life savings is but one example). Although personally flawed, give Mr. Yeltsin some credit for being Russia's first leader to step aside when his term limits set in. He's also largely credited for bringing tennis to Russia, which has produced some of the world's outstanding talent to the sport.

“the emergence of so-called oligarchs through corrupt privatization deals." This brings to mind past scandals in the mass privatization under Yeltsin. involving US economists who advised and profited in Russia. Now update to Trump/Putin relations. Tell about Russia’s shock therapy---the privatization of previously public-owned assets, with negative effects on Russian citizens who lost all security, while alcoholism and suicides increased. See The Nation: The Harvard Boys Do Russia. 1998. “After seven years of economic “reform” financed by billions in U.S. and Western aid, subsidized loans and rescheduled debt, the majority of Russian people find themselves worse off economically. The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market instead helped to create a system of tycoon capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of millions of Western aid and plundered Russia’s wealth.” and Re how American investors profited from Russia: is told in this well known artice from 2006. "How Harvard Lost Russia" | Institutional Investor " ….after years of litigation, Harvard, Shleifer and others agreed to pay at least $31 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. government.

To say that he is reviled by most Russians and by Putin is a major exaggeration. Gorbachev is blamed much more for the collapse of the USSR than Yeltsin.

Exhibition designed and produced by Ralph Appelbaum Associates, NYC.

Nikita Mikhalkov and his talented family have survived and flourished under every Russian leader and government for the last 150 years. The family's survivor and flourish gene should be researched. It's magical.

One day, perhaps, a Trump museum will achieve similar success for similar reasons. Unless the Senate does its job sometime soon, that is.

Reagan's question to Carter comes to mind: "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" It has a very different answer for Russians in 2018 than Americans in 1980. Today, Russia is reviled internationally and its economics are shambolic. Because these realities are so heartfelt for most Russians, places like this will probably flourish.

Architecture in the vicinity appears to be mainly circular, a welcome relief from the boxy approach during the Stalin regime. As for Russian/Soviet history since the time of Boris Godunov, it falls into the category of "you can't make this up".

When visiting President Clinton at the White House, the hapless drunk Yeltsin had to be tackled by Secret Service agents from going out in his underpants "to order pizza," as he explained. Truly this distinguished statesman was the kind of Russian leader the US would prefer.

the biggest traitor to Mother Russia

There are precious few good guys in Russian history. Some Tsars were better than others, but, you know, they were all autocrats. I believe that Lenin had good intentions, at least at the beginning, but he made the fatal mistake of wanting an elite, secretive Party to hold power "on behalf of" the workers, rather than trusting a genuine mass movement. More recently, the bravest Russian leader was Gorbachev, who tried to introduce political freedom while retaining a centrally planned economy. Alas, the political freedom quickly enabled Yeltsin's coup. Yeltsin wanted the exact opposite of Gorbachev's policies: political repression combined with unlimited capitalist economic freedom. Rich Russians with friends in high places quickly took over private ownership of Soviet enterprises, which they then milked for their individual benefit. As for Putin, he is precisely in the same relation to Yeltsin as Stalin to Lenin: He threw out even the slightest idealism to become a Tsar-like strongman dictator.

At least it is not a museum that glorifies Stalin, Lenin and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union rooted from within, just like Czarist Russia and just like Rome. There were always a group of wealthy oligarchs that controlled things or massed wealth; even during the supposed great worker's paradise era; a greed, corrupt, repressive implementation of Marxism. Yeltsin's claim to fame was that he stood up to the counter coup to prevent the Soviets from gaining control. Many, alive then, saw him as a hero and hence his subsequent election. The 1990s turned out "turbulent" because former "communist" bosses now longer had control. Though, many f them found ways to enrich themselves as Russia sold off what was controlled by the USSR. Yeltsin had his issues, and it showed. Putin, on the other hand, was a loyal Soviet; however he could not bring back the USSR. By 1999, Russia was a capitalist state. So, Putin took the alternative, embraced the Russian Orthodox Church and try to become Czar. Even having the blessing similar to what the Czar's had. Now, Russia has its autocrat, state control, with capitalism on the surface. But, unlike China which has been successful with this model, Russia is still "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Also, Russians can't wait for the end of the Putin Era. While there is stability, and security, it came at a cost. Russia still has a chance, post Putin, to embrace true democracy and stability.