She can't be a mere figurehead, she has to be the one calling the shots. By long-running, I mean longer than six months or a year, on the scale of Nikita or even 'Joe Steel'. By successful, I mean leaving the USSR in a better state than when she found it (Stalin, for all the nastiness he did, left the Soviet Union protected by a mixture of vanquished-enemies-turned-buffer-zones and an ever-increasing stockpile of nuclear weapons).
With that sorted, what are the implications of the USSR at the fingertips of a woman? Would the West see it as proof that women are as capable of running a state as men, or would the idea of women in power be tinged too Red for their liking, for example?
Of course, possibilities and reactions will vary wildly depending on the era. A women alongside Roosevelt and Churchill will have a different experience than one alongside Reagan and Thatcher.
With that sorted, what are the implications of the USSR at the fingertips of a woman? Would the West see it as proof that women are as capable of running a state as men, or would the idea of women in power be tinged too Red for their liking, for example?
Of course, possibilities and reactions will vary wildly depending on the era. A women alongside Roosevelt and Churchill will have a different experience than one alongside Reagan and Thatcher.
