If I remember correctly (and please correct me if I’m wrong) his ascent was influenced by his predecessor Andropov, which was one of the original revolutionaries but like Gorby he had a more liberal approach. Andropov’s health was really bad and Gorby being his right arm ended up as chairman of the union.

Andropov was absolutely not liberal. I don't think it was that Gorbachev was Andropov's favourite, but that the politburo realized it was a problem to keep a appointing elderly leaders in bad health. Gorbachev was "only" 54, and since he lived to 2022 I'd say they made a pretty good bet on his health, too.

The way I remember as a far off observer was the Soviet Union went through a few very old and ineffective leaders after Brezhnev died, while their war in Afghanistan drained resources so they couldn't possibly keep up with Reagan's Star Wars initiative. Gorbachev was a young, vital fresh face with new ideas that they had to go with to try to reform and survive.

It was a gerontocracy, with old dryed husks dying on the throne pre gorbachev. It was also mostly resource exporting back then, econimically dependent on the west. The oil prices during the gulf war killed them.

We call it a gerontocracy, but all those guys were considerably younger than the current and previous US presidents, at 79 and 76 respectively.

But with the Soviet healthcare regime of the time (mainly, I'd guess, smoking like fucking chimneys), their effective age was probably at least that of Drumpf and Biden.

To take a President more contemporary to Andropov and Gorbachev: Jimmy Carter is still around, at 97.

No doubt the opinions of Americans here on HN will do a swift 180 once they realize Gorbachev supported the annexation of Crimea and that he condemned the growing NATO presence in eastern europe.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crimea-gorbachev-...

He was not. He send tanks to crush protests, arresting killing and wounding people. He has his own massacre's. It is just that they did not happened in west.