On your Lenin-vs-Ataturk remark (in the after-edit): It's really an interesting line of thought to compare both leaders and draw some analogies - same historic

On your Lenin-vs-Ataturk remark (in the after-edit): It's really an interesting line of thought to compare both leaders and draw some analogies - same historic time, post-imperial after-war revival and consolidation of the states, including massive social change, setting new economic policies, etc. But I find it dubious that there is a direct link between some comparatively superior statesmanship back then - even if there really was such, I don't know, to be frank - and Turkey's relatively recent economic upturn and regional political aspirations. (It is yet to be seen if Turkey's growth and development won't be just a temporary miracle - just like Ireland's or some other proclaimed "tiger"-economies.) And especially dubious it is in the perspective of the whole 20-th century. In those decades Russia gained such high points which Turkey can only dream about - just think the space/rocket sector as one example (back in the Gagarin's times, and also nowadays). The really state-wise thing Turkey did in the 20-th century is that they stayed out of the World War II that devastated the main rivals in continental Europe. Russia didn't have such a chance - they were invaded. After WWII Turkey was a strict American/US satellite, not so European-centric in its international politics, and, until recently, the US/NATO-backed Turkish chief-of-staff generals were the real guarantors for a seeming democracy. P.S. BTW, you can check the wikipedia page on Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy) at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy. From it is clear that originally socialism/communism wasn't entirely hostile to private businesses and entrepreneurship - this had its fine economic policy results at the time when Lenin was still in charge.