Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.
The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.
Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?
Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.
Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.
But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.
No he typically tries to stabilize economies, thats his expertise. He tried to argue that the US should have helped russia economically. His advice was mostly ignored by soviets and later by Yelstin during the horrendous privatization.
But he is diplomatic, so yes he filters what he says.
I dont think that he is particularly upset.
No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.
Quote of whom?
First where does security concern equal “standing up to something”. Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?
edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.