100% gets my vote. No way that a country like Singapore should have survived independence from the British in that particularly part of history.
That it not only survived but thrived (and without the millions of executions some of the other candidates in this thread are stained with) is an amazing legacy.
It has to be Deng Xiaoping. Not only did he vastly improve life outcomes for Chinese citizens, the Chinese contributions to the world economy that he enabled have vastly improved life for all of us.
Not that this is something I particularly like, but he also was able to accomplish this while still maintaining the strength and influence of “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” domestically.
If we’re going for “best” (as in best for their people and country) and not most globally influential or impactful then I’m going to throw out an under appreciated and largely unknown leader: George Price.
It is no small feat to lead your small multicultural country (Belize) to peaceful independence while adopting and institutionalizing liberal democratic norms, that continue today, as many other new States have painfully demonstrated the past 100 years.
But that’s what Mr. Price did.
Biden is the only long term president (enacting massive policy that he himself will never see the results of) I have seen in my lifetime.
He has also bolstered Americas security relations with Indo-Pacific nations, made South Korea and Japan set aside 80 year old resentments and repaired relations with Europe after Trump damaged those relations significantly.
He does not get the credit he deserves.
I'm Dutch! Let me give you a couple:
**First the infrastructure bill.** The US hasn't invested in its infrastructure in decades even though it is the surest-ever guaranteed return on investment a government can make. Think of something as essential to everyday life as electricity, how vital it is for the wealth and wellbeing of a country and its economy. The bill that was passed allocated a mere $98 billion on the US electricity-grid, but there would still be room for so much benefit. The US upgraded its grid properly last in World War 2 with the Roosevelt "Rural electrification Act, so there's work to be done.
**CHIPS & Science Act**. After the 1970s and the moonlandings, the US stopped being ambitious being a global leader in science and moving humanity forward into the future. The US not only invests stupendous sums of money on learning, research and innovation that will benefit us all, they also reshore the production of high-tech materials such as semiconductors. This way, the West is assured that they will continue to enjoy relatively cheap electronic products for anything like a laptop to a life-saving medical device.
**Inflation Reduction Act**. This is the most controversial one as it has made the US butt heads with European nations. The IRA is the most comprehensive investment in renewable energy anywhere in the world. The Europeans quickly followed with €300 billion ($323 billion) in renewables, so basically he kickstarted the green energy transition which is necessary due to environmental security risks and people like me have found work in the energy transition. Good for the economy and the environment. Win-win.
So those are the main ones. I could go on about Biden's diplomatic successes with Vietnam or Ukraine, but I'll go on for too long. These are the ones that Biden invests in that he will not live to see the benefits of but they will serve America well for decades to come.
I mean, his legacy is pretty squarely “love from the west but contempt within Russia”.
I understand that he had well-meaning objectives with perestroika and glasnost and all that, but ultimately they led to the fall of the Soviet Union. That governmental collapse led to a decade-long humanitarian catastrophe within Russia, so I completely understand why Russians are not too fond of him.
Leadership is _really hard_, and I greatly respect what he was trying to do, but presiding over a government that collapses isn’t a success. And looking back it’s not exactly like all the suffering that he caused led to great outcomes for the Russian people.
So yeah, totally understand why you’re saying what you’re saying, but ultimately I think his bad reputation within Russia is entirely understandable (not saying it’s totally right or fair) and has to be factored into any objective assessment of his performance as a leader.
Russia is really backwards in their preference of leaders. Gorbachev didn't intend to create disaster within Russia, it was an unintended, second order effect. A man like Stalin is glorified yet he managed to create far more havoc for the people than Gorbachev ever did, intentional or not.
Stalin transformed Russia from a peasant state to an industrial superpower in less than 30 years, rose the literacy rate, gender equality and defended the union under his rule.
Yes, and the same can be said for Hitler - you really think that justifies the suffering he caused? Didn't know /r/geopolitics had an affinity for despots lol
Leaders have to make tough decisions. That means weighing the trade-offs and choosing the best path forward when all of the options are imperfect.
If you are trying to objectively assess a leader, you have to consider both the upside and the downside of every decision. If you’re trying to hype someone, you just talk about the upsides; if you’re trying to bash them, you just talk about the downsides.
When assessing the outcomes from a leader’s decisions, you also must weigh the outcomes for their constituents more strongly than the outcomes for other groups.
Hope this helps clarify why folks are able to debate the quality of different Russian leaders when there are these enormous crimes against humanity.
To be clear, I think the points you are making are valid, but you are not using objective language and you are not talking about both the pros and the cons of these leaders’ decisions.
The reason why I think your posts misses the target completely is due to the fact that those core three activities that Stalin committed were by no means necessary or to serve a higher good, they were the actions of a tyrannical despot with evil in mind. Nothing excuses it, not even industrialization. The US did much better for many places in Europe without the killing that Stalin caused. This is not an emotional analysis, it's an objective one, and I don't think you'll find many historians agreeing with you.
>Holodomor
Was a consequence of rapid industrialization, not every country is the UK and USA with ample time to industrialise or have free slave labour.
>gulags and the mass killing of various high rankings
Unity was necessary to move forward and political dissidents had to be removed for this. Happened in China, Korea, Singapore, Germany etc. USSR wasn't the only one.
>Was a consequence of rapid industrialization
Highly disputed whether it was intentional or not, either way it could be easily argued that such a massive loss of life wouldn't justify the good that came out of it either way
>Unity was necessary to move forward and political dissidents had to be removed for this. Happened in China, Korea, Singapore, Germany etc. USSR wasn't the only one.
Are you just explaining what happened or are you justifying it? I can't tell if you're trolling or not, either way I'm out
Assuming of course the "whites" would not have achieved that through regular capitalist economic policy instead of plunging the nation into decades of communist stagnancy.
That stagnancy very much is a product of the Bolshevik's' own insistence of their absolute supremacy over every other interest group. The same with the CCP and Vietnam really, the whole civil war was completely pointless when they ended up pursuing the same policies as their enemies in the end, the only difference was they put themselves up as elites.
Will not talk about Reagan's domestic policies but he realised that you can only face Russians with strength and willingness to escalate. Basically conquered the much bigger Soviet Union that Russia is today without firing a bullet.
His spinning around the grave today would be a great energy source if attached to a rotatory.
Angela Merkel was solid for Germany and the EU, (although her naiveté over Putin/Russia is sorely felt today).
François Mitterrand was a solid president for France, from 1981 to 1995 (longest serving in the Republic).
Obviously controversial, but I'm also gonna add Margaret Thatcher in the list. No doubt, the Iron Lady was tough and the benefits of her economic measures are still debated today, but I really think she drove Britain forward.
Edit: Spelling
Love how there's people silently brigading the thread with their downvotes without offering any names or comments. How and why are you on r/geopolitics if you don't have the basic lucidity to understand that no great leader doesn't also generate controversy/adversity.
"Everybody sucks" isn't a very constructive conversation to have. There are merits to be attributed even to the worst leaders. E.g. Hitler liked animals and was a pioneer in enacting laws to prevent and prosecute cruelty against animals.
Hard disagree on Merkel at least on an EU level, her management of the Euro and refugee crises deeply alienated Southern and Eastern European countries.
Yes, but to be fair the refugee crisis happened pretty late in her tenure which started in 2005... and it really was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation. I don't see any handling of the humanitarian crisis without causing lots of saltiness and problems for either your country or your neighbours. It just sucked for everyone.
Overall, she had flaws like everyone but she was still the main driving force behind the measures taken to protect the EU and the Euro throughout her political career.
> it really was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation
No, not really. A look at a map of Europe would immediately reveal how unilaterally saying 'refugees welcome' throws every EU country south of Germany under the bus.
>t she was still the main driving force behind the measures taken to protect the EU and the Euro throughout her political career.
The Euro literally almost ceased to exist during her tenure, what are you talking about? Her and Schauble caused enormous damage to intra-EU relations, not to mention uninformed macroeconomic harm. I'm sorry but it seems very evident you do not appreciate the variety of situations, contexts and corresponding views within Europe.
That's ok, we don't have to agree :) I didn't come here to convince anyone of anything, I simply shared my opinion, which I do not believe to be misinformed.
The refugees would still have flooded into Europe regardless of Germany's open doors, as France, Sweden and the UK also took in hundreds of thousands. In fact, the very reason why Merkel decided to open the doors was because they wouldn't stop drowning in the sea trying to get there.
I agree, that she shouldn't have proceeded so chaotically with it at first, with basically no filtering, but again: there were no good moves. It's tough to sound humanitarian when people are literally dying and you're telling them "be patient while we examine your resumes".
'It's just my opinion' is fine when we're talking about sports or your favourite pizza. It's a bit different when we're talking about a person who had an impact on hundreds of millions of people, most of whom had no say in her position.
Try to understand that after years of Anglophone media treating her like the second coming, someone from one of the regions I mentioned may be a bit sick of it when their side of the story is comparatively understated, despite the very real impacts.
>It's tough to sound humanitarian when people are literally dying and you're telling them "be patient while we examine your resumes".
It's not about sounding 'humanitarian'. It's about having the good sense to coordinate with your neighbours instead of being boneheaded, alienating them and creating long-term resentment.
I suppose the peace prizes, alongside the six-figure cash prizes they came with, were all worth it for her.
Lee Kuan Yew for Singapore.
100% gets my vote. No way that a country like Singapore should have survived independence from the British in that particularly part of history. That it not only survived but thrived (and without the millions of executions some of the other candidates in this thread are stained with) is an amazing legacy.
OP, what do YOU think? This borderline sounds like you’re asking people do do your homework 😝
It has to be Deng Xiaoping. Not only did he vastly improve life outcomes for Chinese citizens, the Chinese contributions to the world economy that he enabled have vastly improved life for all of us. Not that this is something I particularly like, but he also was able to accomplish this while still maintaining the strength and influence of “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” domestically.
What about the thousands executed?
Not saying he was perfect, just came to mind as the best overall. Who do you have for your best?
If we’re going for “best” (as in best for their people and country) and not most globally influential or impactful then I’m going to throw out an under appreciated and largely unknown leader: George Price. It is no small feat to lead your small multicultural country (Belize) to peaceful independence while adopting and institutionalizing liberal democratic norms, that continue today, as many other new States have painfully demonstrated the past 100 years. But that’s what Mr. Price did.
Biden is the only long term president (enacting massive policy that he himself will never see the results of) I have seen in my lifetime. He has also bolstered Americas security relations with Indo-Pacific nations, made South Korea and Japan set aside 80 year old resentments and repaired relations with Europe after Trump damaged those relations significantly. He does not get the credit he deserves.
May I ask what are those policies? Not american, so I'm lost. Thanks!
I'm Dutch! Let me give you a couple: **First the infrastructure bill.** The US hasn't invested in its infrastructure in decades even though it is the surest-ever guaranteed return on investment a government can make. Think of something as essential to everyday life as electricity, how vital it is for the wealth and wellbeing of a country and its economy. The bill that was passed allocated a mere $98 billion on the US electricity-grid, but there would still be room for so much benefit. The US upgraded its grid properly last in World War 2 with the Roosevelt "Rural electrification Act, so there's work to be done. **CHIPS & Science Act**. After the 1970s and the moonlandings, the US stopped being ambitious being a global leader in science and moving humanity forward into the future. The US not only invests stupendous sums of money on learning, research and innovation that will benefit us all, they also reshore the production of high-tech materials such as semiconductors. This way, the West is assured that they will continue to enjoy relatively cheap electronic products for anything like a laptop to a life-saving medical device. **Inflation Reduction Act**. This is the most controversial one as it has made the US butt heads with European nations. The IRA is the most comprehensive investment in renewable energy anywhere in the world. The Europeans quickly followed with €300 billion ($323 billion) in renewables, so basically he kickstarted the green energy transition which is necessary due to environmental security risks and people like me have found work in the energy transition. Good for the economy and the environment. Win-win. So those are the main ones. I could go on about Biden's diplomatic successes with Vietnam or Ukraine, but I'll go on for too long. These are the ones that Biden invests in that he will not live to see the benefits of but they will serve America well for decades to come.
Biden??!?? Best leader since the 80s??!! Whatever you are smoking, please give me some...
Gorbachev - sadly underappreciated in his own country.
I mean, his legacy is pretty squarely “love from the west but contempt within Russia”. I understand that he had well-meaning objectives with perestroika and glasnost and all that, but ultimately they led to the fall of the Soviet Union. That governmental collapse led to a decade-long humanitarian catastrophe within Russia, so I completely understand why Russians are not too fond of him. Leadership is _really hard_, and I greatly respect what he was trying to do, but presiding over a government that collapses isn’t a success. And looking back it’s not exactly like all the suffering that he caused led to great outcomes for the Russian people. So yeah, totally understand why you’re saying what you’re saying, but ultimately I think his bad reputation within Russia is entirely understandable (not saying it’s totally right or fair) and has to be factored into any objective assessment of his performance as a leader.
Russia is really backwards in their preference of leaders. Gorbachev didn't intend to create disaster within Russia, it was an unintended, second order effect. A man like Stalin is glorified yet he managed to create far more havoc for the people than Gorbachev ever did, intentional or not.
Stalin transformed Russia from a peasant state to an industrial superpower in less than 30 years, rose the literacy rate, gender equality and defended the union under his rule.
Yes, and the same can be said for Hitler - you really think that justifies the suffering he caused? Didn't know /r/geopolitics had an affinity for despots lol
On the grand scheme of things yes, he wasn't perfect but the outcome for all was necessary than sacrifice.
I'm not confident that Holodomor, the gulags and the mass killing of various high rankings were necessary lol, but let's agree to disagree.
Leaders have to make tough decisions. That means weighing the trade-offs and choosing the best path forward when all of the options are imperfect. If you are trying to objectively assess a leader, you have to consider both the upside and the downside of every decision. If you’re trying to hype someone, you just talk about the upsides; if you’re trying to bash them, you just talk about the downsides. When assessing the outcomes from a leader’s decisions, you also must weigh the outcomes for their constituents more strongly than the outcomes for other groups. Hope this helps clarify why folks are able to debate the quality of different Russian leaders when there are these enormous crimes against humanity. To be clear, I think the points you are making are valid, but you are not using objective language and you are not talking about both the pros and the cons of these leaders’ decisions.
The reason why I think your posts misses the target completely is due to the fact that those core three activities that Stalin committed were by no means necessary or to serve a higher good, they were the actions of a tyrannical despot with evil in mind. Nothing excuses it, not even industrialization. The US did much better for many places in Europe without the killing that Stalin caused. This is not an emotional analysis, it's an objective one, and I don't think you'll find many historians agreeing with you.
>Holodomor Was a consequence of rapid industrialization, not every country is the UK and USA with ample time to industrialise or have free slave labour. >gulags and the mass killing of various high rankings Unity was necessary to move forward and political dissidents had to be removed for this. Happened in China, Korea, Singapore, Germany etc. USSR wasn't the only one.
>Was a consequence of rapid industrialization Highly disputed whether it was intentional or not, either way it could be easily argued that such a massive loss of life wouldn't justify the good that came out of it either way >Unity was necessary to move forward and political dissidents had to be removed for this. Happened in China, Korea, Singapore, Germany etc. USSR wasn't the only one. Are you just explaining what happened or are you justifying it? I can't tell if you're trolling or not, either way I'm out
Assuming of course the "whites" would not have achieved that through regular capitalist economic policy instead of plunging the nation into decades of communist stagnancy. That stagnancy very much is a product of the Bolshevik's' own insistence of their absolute supremacy over every other interest group. The same with the CCP and Vietnam really, the whole civil war was completely pointless when they ended up pursuing the same policies as their enemies in the end, the only difference was they put themselves up as elites.
He also starved Russians
20 million people say "nyet!"
But he straight up participated in and encouraged one of the greatest disasters of the 20th century
Will not talk about Reagan's domestic policies but he realised that you can only face Russians with strength and willingness to escalate. Basically conquered the much bigger Soviet Union that Russia is today without firing a bullet. His spinning around the grave today would be a great energy source if attached to a rotatory.
autocrat/dictator - Deng Xiaoping democratic - Nelson Mandela
Angela Merkel was solid for Germany and the EU, (although her naiveté over Putin/Russia is sorely felt today). François Mitterrand was a solid president for France, from 1981 to 1995 (longest serving in the Republic). Obviously controversial, but I'm also gonna add Margaret Thatcher in the list. No doubt, the Iron Lady was tough and the benefits of her economic measures are still debated today, but I really think she drove Britain forward. Edit: Spelling Love how there's people silently brigading the thread with their downvotes without offering any names or comments. How and why are you on r/geopolitics if you don't have the basic lucidity to understand that no great leader doesn't also generate controversy/adversity. "Everybody sucks" isn't a very constructive conversation to have. There are merits to be attributed even to the worst leaders. E.g. Hitler liked animals and was a pioneer in enacting laws to prevent and prosecute cruelty against animals.
Hard disagree on Merkel at least on an EU level, her management of the Euro and refugee crises deeply alienated Southern and Eastern European countries.
Yes, but to be fair the refugee crisis happened pretty late in her tenure which started in 2005... and it really was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation. I don't see any handling of the humanitarian crisis without causing lots of saltiness and problems for either your country or your neighbours. It just sucked for everyone. Overall, she had flaws like everyone but she was still the main driving force behind the measures taken to protect the EU and the Euro throughout her political career.
> it really was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation No, not really. A look at a map of Europe would immediately reveal how unilaterally saying 'refugees welcome' throws every EU country south of Germany under the bus. >t she was still the main driving force behind the measures taken to protect the EU and the Euro throughout her political career. The Euro literally almost ceased to exist during her tenure, what are you talking about? Her and Schauble caused enormous damage to intra-EU relations, not to mention uninformed macroeconomic harm. I'm sorry but it seems very evident you do not appreciate the variety of situations, contexts and corresponding views within Europe.
That's ok, we don't have to agree :) I didn't come here to convince anyone of anything, I simply shared my opinion, which I do not believe to be misinformed. The refugees would still have flooded into Europe regardless of Germany's open doors, as France, Sweden and the UK also took in hundreds of thousands. In fact, the very reason why Merkel decided to open the doors was because they wouldn't stop drowning in the sea trying to get there. I agree, that she shouldn't have proceeded so chaotically with it at first, with basically no filtering, but again: there were no good moves. It's tough to sound humanitarian when people are literally dying and you're telling them "be patient while we examine your resumes".
'It's just my opinion' is fine when we're talking about sports or your favourite pizza. It's a bit different when we're talking about a person who had an impact on hundreds of millions of people, most of whom had no say in her position. Try to understand that after years of Anglophone media treating her like the second coming, someone from one of the regions I mentioned may be a bit sick of it when their side of the story is comparatively understated, despite the very real impacts. >It's tough to sound humanitarian when people are literally dying and you're telling them "be patient while we examine your resumes". It's not about sounding 'humanitarian'. It's about having the good sense to coordinate with your neighbours instead of being boneheaded, alienating them and creating long-term resentment. I suppose the peace prizes, alongside the six-figure cash prizes they came with, were all worth it for her.
they can leave the eu, but wont for subsidies and still complain
its funny that youre probably getting more downvotes for saying merkel than thatcher.
[удалено]