Who and why destroyed the USSR. Call to the gentleman from Belovezhskaya Pushcha
Historians from all over the world squeal with delight. A unique “Yeltsin Center” has opened in Yekaterinburg, which for lovers of archives and secrets of the past is like a cake shop for kids.
The museum staff is especially proud of the secret transcripts of telephone conversations between Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev with US President George H. W. Bush. Immediately after the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreement (on the creation of the CIS - Ed.), which took place on December 8, 1991, Boris Nikolayevich first called US President George W. Bush. They talked for 28 minutes. And two weeks later, on December 25, Mikhail Gorbachev called George Bush. This happened right before he officially resigned as president of the USSR. The conversation lasted 22 minutes. About the details of these two conversations for a long time one could only guess. Our intelligence services did not record them, but the Americans recorded them, but classified them.
They were kept in the State of Texas in the Presidential Library. And only in 2008, Bush Jr. removed the “Secret” stamp from the papers.
So, unique transcripts.
YELTSIN: “I WANT TO INFORM YOU PERSONALLY, Mister PRESIDENT”
WHITE HOUSE. WASHINGTON. RECORDING A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
PARTICIPANTS: George Bush, US President, Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Republic
President Bush: Hello, Boris. How are you doing?
President Yeltsin: Hello, Mr. President. I am very glad to welcome you. Mr. President, you and I agreed that in the event of events of extreme importance, we will inform each other, I - you, you - me. A very important event took place in our country today, and I would like to personally inform you before you hear about it from the press.
President Bush: Of course, thank you.
This is what the original classified transcript looked like in English
President Yeltsin: We have gathered today, Mr. President, the leaders of three republics - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. We gathered and after numerous lengthy discussions that lasted almost two days, we came to the conclusion that existing system and the agreement that we are being persuaded to sign does not suit us. That’s why we got together and signed a joint agreement just a few minutes ago. Mr. President, we, the leaders of the three republics - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia - while stating that negotiations on a new [Union] treaty have reached a dead end, we recognize the objective reasons why the creation of independent states has become a reality. In addition, noting that the rather short-sighted policy of the center led us to an economic and political crisis that affected everything production areas and various segments of the population, we, the community of independent states of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, signed an agreement. This agreement, consisting of 16 articles, essentially stipulates the creation of a commonwealth or group of independent states.
President Bush: Understand.
President Yeltsin: The members of this Commonwealth have as their goal the strengthening of international peace and security. They also guarantee compliance with all international obligations under agreements and treaties signed by the former Union, including on external debt. We also advocate unified control over nuclear weapons and their non-proliferation. This agreement was signed by the heads of all states participating in the negotiations - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.
President Bush: Fine.
President Yeltsin: In the room from which I am calling, the President of Ukraine and the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus are with me. I also just finished a conversation with the President of Kazakhstan Nazarbayev. I read him the full text of the agreement, including all 16 articles. He fully supports all our actions and is ready to sign the agreement. He will soon fly to Minsk airport for signing.
President Bush: Understand.
President Yeltsin: This is extremely important. These four republics produce 90% of the total gross output of the Soviet Union. This is an attempt to preserve the commonwealth, but free us from total control center, which has been issuing instructions for more than 70 years. This is a very serious step, but we hope, we are convinced, we are confident that this is the only way out of the critical situation in which we find ourselves.
President Bush: Boris, you...
President Yeltsin: Mr. President, I must tell you confidentially that President Gorbachev does not know about these results. He knew about our intention to get together - in fact, I myself told him that we were going to meet. Of course, we will immediately send him the text of our agreement, since, of course, he will have to make decisions at his own level. Mr. President, I was very, very frank with you today. We, the four states, believe that there is only one possible way out from the current critical situation. We do not want to do anything in secret - we will immediately release the statement to the press. We hope for your understanding.
President Bush: Boris, I appreciate your call and your frankness. We will now look at all 16 points. What do you think the center's reaction will be?
President Yeltsin: Firstly, I spoke with Defense Minister Shaposhnikov. I would like to read out Article 6 of the agreement. Shaposhnikov actually completely agrees and supports our position. And now I read the 6th article: ...
Boris Yeltsin during a visit to the United States in 1989.
President Bush: We, of course, want to study all this carefully. We understand that these issues should be decided by the participants and not by third parties such as the United States.
President Yeltsin: We guarantee this, Mr. President.
President Bush: Well, good luck, and thanks for your call. We will wait for the reaction of the center and other republics. I think time will tell.
President Yeltsin: I am convinced that all other republics will understand us and will join us very soon.
President Bush: Thank you again for your call after such a historic event.
President Yeltsin: Goodbye.
President Bush: Goodbye.
As you can see, it looks more like a monologue, a report...Gorbachev’s conversation took place differently...
Back in 1991, when the collapse of the USSR entered its final stage, the country's new leadership, represented by President Boris Yeltsin, tried to keep its US partners informed about events. Former Vice President of the Russian Federation Alexander Rutskoy spoke about this.
“There was intelligence information that the White House was about to be stormed. And as soon as this information passed, Yeltsin immediately went to the American embassy. I stopped him all the time. I said: “Boris Nikolaevich, this cannot be done.” “Do you understand what you’re doing?” Rutskoi recalled. “When the agreements in Belovezhye were signed, the first person Yeltsin reported to that the Soviet Union no longer existed was George Bush.”
According to Rutskoi, Yeltsin regularly communicated with the US leadership and reported on the successes of unilateral surrender in the Cold War.
There are still more questions about the coup than answers. Declassified CIA documents will shed light on events that took place 25 years ago. Journalists from the Zvezda TV channel, together with eyewitnesses, studied the secret mechanisms that led the USSR to disaster, the echoes of which are still felt today.
In the memoirs of George H. W. Bush, which was published as a book entitled “A Changed World,” Boris’s close interaction with the US leadership in the collapse of the USSR is also repeatedly emphasized.
“On December 8, 1991, Yeltsin called me to inform me about his meeting with Leonid Kravchuk and Stanislav Shushkevich, the presidents of Ukraine and Belarus. In fact, he was still in the room with them hunting lodge not far from Brest. “Today a very important event took place in our country. And I wanted to inform you personally before you learn about it from the press,” he said with pathos. Yeltsin explained that they met for two days and came to the conclusion that "the current system and the Union Treaty that everyone is pushing us to sign do not satisfy us. So we got together and a few minutes ago signed a joint agreement," Bush wrote. senior.
As a result, they signed a 16-point agreement to create a “commonwealth or association of independent states.” In other words, he told me that together with the presidents of Ukraine and Belarus they decided to destroy the Soviet Union. When he finished reading the prepared text, his tone changed. It seemed to me that the provisions of the signed agreement he outlined seemed to be specially formulated in such a way as to gain the support of the United States: they directly set out the conditions for which we advocated recognition. I didn't want to prematurely voice our approval or disapproval, so I simply said, "I understand."
“This is very important. Mr. President,” he added, “I must tell you confidentially that Gorbachev does not know about these results. He knew that we were gathered here. In fact, I myself told him that we would meet. Of course, we will immediately We will send him the text of our agreement, and, of course, he will have to make decisions at his level. Mr. President, I was very, very frank with you today. Our four countries believe that there is only one possible way out of the current critical situation. to do anything in secret - we will immediately transmit the statement to the press. We hope for your understanding. Dear George, I have finished, this is extremely, extremely important, I couldn’t wait ten minutes without calling you.” — the former US President spoke about Yeltsin’s actions.
In conclusion, we present a transcript of the conversation between Yeltsin and Bush Sr. on December 8, 1991, the day the Belovezhskaya Accords were signed.
President Bush: Hello, Boris. How are you doing?
President Yeltsin: Hello, Mr. President. I am very glad to welcome you. Mr. President, you and I agreed that in the event of events of extreme importance, we will inform each other, I - you, you - me. A very important event took place in our country today, and I would like to personally inform you before you hear about it from the press.
President Bush: Of course, thank you.
President Yeltsin: We have gathered today, Mr. President, the leaders of three republics - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. We gathered and after numerous lengthy discussions, which lasted almost two days, we came to the conclusion that the existing system and the Union Treaty that we were being persuaded to sign do not suit us. That’s why we got together and signed a joint agreement just a few minutes ago. Mr. President, we, the leaders of the three republics - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia - while stating that negotiations on a new [Union] treaty have reached a dead end, we recognize the objective reasons why the creation of independent states has become a reality. In addition, noting that the rather short-sighted policy of the center led us to an economic and political crisis that affected all production areas and various segments of the population, we, the community of independent states of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, signed an agreement. This agreement, consisting of 16 articles, essentially stipulates the creation of a commonwealth or group of independent states.
Bush: Understand.
President Yeltsin: The members of this Commonwealth have as their goal the strengthening of international peace and security. They also guarantee compliance with all international obligations under agreements and treaties signed by the former Union, including on external debt. We also advocate unified control over nuclear weapons and their non-proliferation. This agreement was signed by the heads of all states participating in the negotiations - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.
Bush: Fine.
Yeltsin: In the room from which I am calling, the President of Ukraine and the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus are with me. I also just finished a conversation with the President of Kazakhstan Nazarbayev. I read him the full text of the agreement, including all 16 articles. He fully supports all our actions and is ready to sign the agreement. He will soon fly to Minsk airport for signing.
Bush: Understand.
Yeltsin: This is extremely important. These four republics produce 90% of the total gross output of the Soviet Union. This is an attempt to preserve the commonwealth, but to free us from the total control of the center, which has been issuing orders for more than 70 years. This is a very serious step, but we hope, we are convinced, we are confident that this is the only way out of the critical situation in which we find ourselves.
Bush: Boris, you...
Yeltsin: Mr. President, I must tell you confidentially that President Gorbachev does not know about these results. He knew about our intention to get together - in fact, I myself told him that we were going to meet. Of course, we will immediately send him the text of our agreement, since, of course, he will have to make decisions at his own level. Mr. President, I was very, very frank with you today. We, the four states, believe that there is only one possible way out of the current critical situation. We don't want to do anything in secret - we will immediately release the statement to the press. We hope for your understanding.
Bush: Boris, I appreciate your call and your frankness. We will now look at all 16 points. What do you think the center's reaction will be?
On December 8, 1991, in Viskuli near Brest (Belarus), President of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin, President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk and Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Belarus Stanislav Shushkevich signed an agreement on the dissolution of the USSR and the creation of the CIS.
The heads of the three states emphasized that they decided to form the CIS, “realizing the responsibility to their peoples and the world community and the urgent need for the practical implementation of political and economic reforms».
From the republics former USSR Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were not included in the Commonwealth.
In a statement following the signing of the agreement, USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev qualified the actions of the leaders of the three republics as unconstitutional.
The participants in the Bialowieza Agreement themselves rejected accusations of the destruction of the USSR. However, in 1996, Russian President Boris Yeltsin said that he regretted signing the Belovezhskaya Accord.
Minsk. The leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine signed an agreement to create the Commonwealth of Independent States. Pictured (from left to right): Leonid Kravchuk, Stanislav Shushkevich and Boris Yeltsin after signing the agreement, December 8, 1991.
12/08/1991 Russian President Boris Yeltsin (second from left), Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk (second from right) and Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus Stanislav Shushkevich (right) during a meeting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha to sign the Agreement on the creation of the CIS. Yuri Ivanov/RIA Novosti
Belovezhskaya criminal conspiracy
First point The accusation is based on the fact that in December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin committed high treason by preparing and concluding the Belovezhskaya Accords, which finally destroyed the Soviet Union and caused enormous material damage to Russia, its territorial integrity, defense capability, causing numerous casualties and incalculable suffering.
The conclusion of these agreements was preceded by a number of other unconstitutional actions of Boris Yeltsin related to the violent seizure of union power and the reassignment of union ministries and departments.
He, in pursuance of the Belovezhskaya agreements, finally stopped the activities of the union legislative and other government bodies, reassigned the Armed Forces of the USSR to himself, and introduced customs and border barriers on the Russian borders.
The signing of the Belovezhskaya Accords and B. Yeltsin's subsequent actions were carried out in the interests of NATO member countries, and primarily the United States of America.
It is no coincidence that immediately after signing the agreements, Boris Yeltsin called not just anyone, but the President of the United States, and reported that the Soviet Union no longer existed.
“The United States applauds the historic choice for freedom made by the new nations of the Commonwealth. Despite the potential for instability and chaos, these developments are clearly in our best interests."(Izvestia newspaper, December 26, 1991).
That is why the United States of America is making every effort to ensure that the USSR is no longer revived in any form.
These actions of President B. Yeltsin contain signs of serious crimes provided for in Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR or Articles 275, 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Moreover, we do not see any significant difference in the dispositions of the named articles, because they speak of acts committed in the interests of foreign states and causing great damage to the defense capability and external security of the country, as well as the violent seizure of power.
The president’s deliberate actions, and there is no doubt about it, were directed not only against the USSR, but also against Russian Federation, his successor.
Together with other individuals and a number of socio-political organizations, Boris Yeltsin destroyed the Soviet Union, which, being one of the founders of the United Nations, ensured reliable external security for all union republics. The USSR was a reliable counterbalance to the hegemonic aspirations of the United States of America, which are increasingly manifesting themselves in the world. Recent events in the Balkans are clear evidence of this.
The Belovezhsky agreements and the subsequent actions of B. Yeltsin not only destroyed a powerful union state, but also destroyed the economic, scientific and technical potential, undermined the defense capability and security of the Russian Federation, which we will discuss in detail below.
Let me remind you that after the conclusion of the Belovezhskaya Agreements, 8 out of 16 military districts that existed on the territory of the USSR ended up outside Russia. Military districts - especially in the west, north-west and south of the Soviet Union - were the most mobilized, saturated with modern military equipment. They remained on the territory of the new states.
On the territory of the former union republics, outside the Russian Federation, there remain 13 combined arms armies and corps, 3 air defense armies. 4 tank armies, 5 air armies.
In the southern, western and northwestern directions we have lost reliable air defense systems. We lost many forward-based and surveillance facilities and command and control of the armed forces.
Russia has largely lost access to the sea, primarily in the Baltic states. Serious contradictions have arisen regarding the Black Sea Fleet, which we share today with Ukraine. In terms of its parameters, it is already 1.5 times inferior to the Turkish Navy, which has always declared its interest in the Transcaucasus and the Black Sea region.
The NATO bloc has already reached almost the walls of the Kremlin. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary became members of this alliance.
There are no guarantees that the Baltic states - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia - will not be accepted into NATO and will not be stationed on their territory nuclear weapons, aimed at Russia.
These are just some of the consequences that we have after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which caused colossal damage to the defense capability, external security and territorial integrity of Russia.
But we see not only in them the criminal nature of Boris Yeltsin’s actions. By signing the Belovezhskaya Accords, Boris Yeltsin aggravated interethnic relations throughout the entire former Soviet Union. About a million people died in ethnic clashes in Russia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Azerbaijan and other regions. More than 10 million former citizens of the USSR became refugees. Such violence against people and such large-scale forced resettlement pales in comparison to Stalin’s deportation of peoples.
B. Yeltsin committed an unheard-of violation of the constitutional rights of all citizens of the Russian Federation. As is known, in accordance with Article 33 of the USSR Constitution, every citizen of Russia was simultaneously a citizen of the Soviet Union. More than 70 percent of citizens of the RSFSR in a referendum on March 17, 1991 confirmed their desire to remain citizens of the USSR.
Belovezhje overnight undermined one of the main foundations of the legal status of the individual - the institution of citizenship, thereby giving rise to the chain reaction that we see today in disputes about it. Suffice it to note that 25 million Russians overnight found themselves foreigners on their own soil.
Later, in his message to the Federal Assembly on February 16, 1995, Boris Yeltsin admits that
“The loss of part of the people in the seized territory is the same damage for the state as the loss, for example, of a hand for a person.For the same reason, actions aimed at seizing part of state territory should be considered a crime against the state as a whole.”.
Thus, Boris Yeltsin himself assessed his actions, calling them criminal.
The president's actions destroyed the centuries-old traditions of people living together Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, interpersonal relations, including in the economic, social, scientific and defense spheres. The freedom of citizens of the once united state to move, choose a place of residence, and to have an unhindered, customs-free exchange of labor products was limited. This also revealed Boris Yeltsin’s arrogance and callousness towards people and his abuse of power.
Did you have Does the President of Russia have any powers to sign the Belovezhskaya Accords, which led to the final destruction of the USSR?
There can only be one answer to this question: no, I didn't have it. The overwhelming majority of the Soviet people refused him this. Therefore, the very violation by Boris Yeltsin of the will of the people expressed at the national referendum in March 1991 is already a criminal act. The president’s actions went far beyond the scope of his powers provided for by the Constitutions of the USSR and the RSFSR, the Law “On the President of the Russian Federation,” and other legislative acts.
Undoubtedly, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, controlled by supporters of the president, played their negative role in the destruction of the union state. However, this in no way diminishes the responsibility of the president himself.
In addition, we note to our opponents that the Declaration of Sovereignty of the Russian Federation, adopted on June 12, 1990 by the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, states that Russia remains a member of the renewed USSR.
As is known, the Union Treaty of 1922 was signed first by six republics: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, which were part of the Transcaucasian Federation, and then nine more republics joined it, making up the USSR. Moreover, this agreement was fully included as component to the first Constitution of the USSR in 1924. Later, its main provisions were reproduced in the Constitutions of the USSR of 1936 and 1977, and certain provisions were also enshrined in the constitutions of the union republics.
The Union Treaty of 1922 and the constitutional norms corresponding to it never provided for its denunciation, since the treaty was primarily a document of a constituent rather than an international nature. The agreement, and then the constitutions, only provided for the preservation of the right of free withdrawal from the Union for each of the union republics that joined the USSR, the procedure for which was regulated by the USSR Law of April 3, 1990.
The issue of secession from the republic was to be resolved through a referendum. If at least two-thirds of the adult population voted for it, then the issue should have been considered further by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, and then in the republics themselves. After this, a transition period of no more than five years was established to clarify all problems of an economic, financial, territorial, environmental nature that may arise in connection with the secession of the republic, as well as to resolve other disputes, primarily those claims that citizens could make. And only based on the results of consideration of all these procedures, the issue of the republic’s secession from the Union was finally decided by the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR. This order, established by the USSR Law of April 3, 1990, was completely ignored and discarded by Boris Yeltsin.
It should be noted that following this, the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR adopted on December 24, 1990 three resolutions of exceptional importance, which are now rarely mentioned.
First resolution: on the preservation of the USSR as a renewed Federation of equal sovereign republics.
Second resolution: on preserving the name of the state - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Third resolution: on holding a referendum in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Such a referendum, as you know, took place on March 17, 1991. Of the 185.6 million citizens of the USSR with voting rights, 148.5 million, or 80 percent, participated. Of these, 113.5 million, or 76.4 percent, voted to preserve the USSR.
According to Article 29 of the Referendum Law, its decision was binding throughout the country and could only be canceled or changed by another referendum. The law obligated everyone to implement the referendum decision. government bodies, organizations and everyone without exception officials, for it was the highest and direct expression of the power of the people.
Therefore, the Belovezhskaya Agreements signed by Yeltsin, which declared that the USSR as a subject of international law and as a geopolitical reality ceases to exist, are illegal and contrary to the will of the people.
In addition, the Belovezhskaya decisions were signed by only three “founding fathers” of the CIS, and not six, and especially not fifteen. Under such circumstances, they did not have the right to liquidate the USSR as a geopolitical concept.
Boris Yeltsin’s actions to destroy the USSR were deliberate, conscious in nature and are not a statement of the natural collapse of the union state, as our opponents claim. Numerous pieces of evidence support this. Let us refer to just a few of them.
The destruction of the great country was carried out by Boris Yeltsin in collusion with the separatists of a number of union republics. It was they who fueled national conflicts in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia, in the Baltic states and Moldova, and in Russia itself. It was they who turned the national question into a weapon of destruction, not creation, into a weapon for gaining power.
B. Yeltsin has long and consistently moved towards the destruction of the USSR, as evidenced by his own statements. Speaking on May 30, 1990 at the first Congress of People's Deputies of Russia, he said:
“Russia will be independent in everything, and its decisions should be higher than those of the allies”.
“The initial version of my program is seven Russian states.”
And a day later, speaking in the Komi Republic, he noted that Russia would abandon the union structure of power.
People from the president’s inner circle, his spiritual and ideological mentors, spoke and acted in the same vein.
Odious personalities from among the former people's deputies of the USSR who were part of the notorious interregional deputy group - Gavriil Popov, Galina Starovoitova, Gennady Burbulis and others - directly proclaimed the idea of creating over 50 independent states on the territory of the Soviet Union.
Former ally of the president Ruslan Khasbulatov, characterizing the murder of the USSR, said:
“We wanted to make this revolution.”
"Coup" or “transition to a new qualitative state” — These actions were also named by the former chairman of Yeltsin’s Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, Ivan Silaev.
Grigory Yavlinsky, who was part of Boris Yeltsin’s team, stated:
“Boris Nikolaevich and his inner circle had clear political guidelines...
First of all, the immediate, literally, one day, not only political, but also economic collapse of the Union, the liquidation of all conceivable coordinating economic bodies, including the financial, credit and monetary spheres.
Next is a comprehensive separation of Russia from all republics, including those that did not raise such a question at that time, for example, Belarus and Kazakhstan. This was a political order."
This revelation of the leader of the Yabloko party can be read in Literaturnaya Gazeta, No. 44, 1992.
Almost a year before the political destruction of the USSR, the congress of the so-called democratic forces, held on January 21, 1991 in Kharkov, decided to abolish the USSR. Prominent democrats of Russia took part in its work: Yuri Afanasyev, Nikolai Travkin (he is sitting in our hall), Bella Denisenko, Arkady Murashev and others.
The author of this concept is Gennady Burbulis, ideological mentor of B. Yeltsin and former Secretary of State Russia, very much regretted that it was not possible to immediately implement the guidelines of the Congress. Boris Yeltsin also regretted this, as you can see by reading the Izvestia newspaper of December 17, 1991 and Nezavisimaya Gazeta of January 21, 1992. And if today the procedure for removing the president meets stiff resistance, this is largely due to the fact that here in the hall State Duma, and within the walls of the Federation Council there are still a significant number of people, representatives of parties and movements who, together with Boris Yeltsin, put forward and implemented the idea of destroying the USSR.
Thus, in response to our opponents, we once again declare that the Soviet Union collapsed not as a result of natural and logical processes, not as a result of the August 1991 events, but as a result of a political conspiracy "fifth column", with the connivance, and in some cases, the participation of USSR President M. Gorbachev, the heads of a number of Union ministries and departments, as a result of a conspiracy headed by B. Yeltsin.
In March 1991, at a meeting with Muscovites at the House of Cinema, he openly opposed the referendum on the future of the USSR. And then, hastily, using the powers of the president, he took new steps to destroy the union state.
On August 20 and 22, 1991, he issues a decree reassigning all executive authorities of the USSR, including the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the KGB.
On August 21 and 22, by decrees of Yeltsin, allied media were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Russian Ministry of Press and Mass Information.
On August 22, a decree was issued on certain issues of the activities of the authorities of the RSFSR. Contrary to the Constitutions of the RSFSR and the USSR, this decree granted the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR the right to suspend the validity of resolutions and orders of the USSR Cabinet of Ministers.
On August 24, a decree was issued on the transfer to the jurisdiction of the KGB of the RSFSR of all types of government communications of the USSR, and to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Communications of the RSFSR (it was called Communications, Informatics and Space) - all other communications enterprises of the Union subordination.
On October 1, the government of the RSFSR establishes that decisions of the Union Committee for the Operational Management of the National Economy of the USSR come into force only if they are approved by the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR.
On October 9, 1991, the State Committee for Science and Higher Education was instructed to accept all allied organizations operating in this area under its management.
On November 15, 1991, all structures, divisions and organizations were reassigned to the Ministry of Economy and Finance of the RSFSR former Ministry finance of the USSR. At the same time, funding for ministries and departments of the USSR is stopped, except for those to which certain management functions of the Russian Federation have been transferred.
On November 15, all organizations of the Union Prosecutor's Office, including the military prosecutor's office, were reassigned to the Prosecutor General of the RSFSR.
On November 22, the Supreme Council of the RSFSR recognizes the Central Bank of Russia as the sole authority for monetary and foreign exchange regulation on the territory of the republic. He is transferred to full economic management and material management technical base and other resources of the State Bank of the USSR.
Thus, with the personal participation and leadership of Yeltsin, even before the signing of the Belovezhsky Accords, the main levers of control were taken away from the USSR and its bodies and the basis was prepared for the complete destruction of the union state.
Naturally, this kind of usurpation of the powers of the union bodies by the bodies of the RSFSR and the President of Russia sharply strengthened the centrifugal tendencies in the actions of other republics, which saw this as a threat to themselves and hastened to disassociate themselves even more harshly from the union center. This forced a number of leaders of the union republics, in particular the President of Kazakhstan Nazarbayev, to resolutely oppose the transfer of union functions to the Russian parliament and the Russian leadership, and the prerogatives of the union president to the Russian president. Nazarbayev’s speech took place in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on August 26, 1991. Later, he would directly state that without Russia there would have been no Belovezhskaya Document and the Union would not have collapsed. (“Nezavisimaya Gazeta” dated May 6, 1992).
Actions of President Boris Yeltsin, Russian ministries and departments not only strengthened centrifugal tendencies in other union republics, but also, undoubtedly, negatively affected the nature and results of referendums held in the second half of 1991 in Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. In addition, the question put to the Ukrainian referendum was formulated incorrectly. Citizens of Ukraine were asked not about their desire to secede from the USSR, but whether they wanted to live in an independent state. Naturally, there are always few or no people who want to live in a colonial or semi-colonial state.
Was it possible to save the Soviet Union? Yes, it is possible - and it had to be done. The will of the majority of the people was expressed at the All-Union referendum on March 17, 1991, and the state leaders of the USSR and Russia, if they were patriots who passionately loved their Fatherland, and not servile minions of the United States of America, were obliged to fulfill the people's will. If they couldn’t, they were obliged to resign. This did not happen.
The Belovezhskaya agreements dealt a crushing blow to the economy and threw each union republic far back in its development. They brought incalculable and irreparable losses, troubles and suffering to tens of millions of Soviet people who, even today, want to live freely in a single family of nations. Such a unification would have taken place long ago if it were not for the opposition to it from many political elites in the former Soviet republics, and above all in the Russian Federation.
There are good reasons for the reunification of peoples, and first of all, the legal nullity of the Belovezhskaya Agreements and the legal inconsistency of their ratification by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.
George Bush, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. New York, 1988.
About the referendum for the preservation of the USSR
On March 17, 1991, a referendum called the “Referendum for the Preservation of the USSR” took place.
The turnout was 80.03%: out of 185.6 million USSR citizens with voting rights, 148.6 million took part. Of these, 113.5 million (78%) answered “Yes” to the question about preserving the USSR.
The question of what kind of referendum it was, who and why it was held, and why it ultimately contributed not to the preservation of the USSR, but the exact opposite, remains relevant.
Counter-revolution from above.
First, let’s remember what the situation was at the time of the referendum.
Second The most powerful blow to the USSR was dealt by Khrushchev in 1956 as a result of his lying, treacherous anti-Stalin report at the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
Gradually, the party leadership of the USSR, as a result of its irresponsibility to the people, rotted and eventually decided to “build communism” not for all citizens, but for themselves personally. The Union prevented this, which means it had to be destroyed.
With Gorbachev’s coming to power, a complete bacchanalia began, the details of which are remembered by many, so we will not describe everything.
Since 1985, a crazy campaign began to brainwash the population, discredit the Soviet Union, communism and everything connected with it. Someone will say that the people were not happy with life. Where there! Life for the people, as it now turns out, was not much worse than in Europe and much better than now. And the economic growth rate was good. It was just that a counter-revolution was carried out from above, nuclear propaganda attacks were inflicted on the population with fakes, frame-ups, American films and jeans, tons of lies and deliberate acts of discredit (like hiding consumer goods in warehouses, etc.). The entire powerful propaganda machine worked for this. External enemies, naturally, helped and applauded the “fifth column” in every possible way. The people were disoriented and confused, the country found itself defenseless against enemies at the very top.
Destruction under the guise of renewal.
In December 1990, the elite already openly raised the issue of destroying the USSR under the guise of reorganization.
On December 3, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR supported the concept proposed by the President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev of a new draft of the Union Treaty and submitted it for discussion at the IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR.
On December 24, 1990, at the initiative and persistent demand of the Traitor of the USSR M. S. Gorbachev, deputies of the IV Congress voted for a resolution (1,677 deputies voted for, 32 against, 66 abstained), which stated that:
In connection with numerous appeals from workers expressing concern about the fate of the USSR, and taking into account that the preservation of a single Union State is the most important issue of state life, affecting the interests of every person, the entire population of the Soviet Union, the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR decided:
1. Conduct a referendum of the USSR to resolve the issue of preserving the renewed Union as a federation of equal sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics, taking into account the voting results for each republic separately.
2. Instruct the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to determine the date of the referendum and measures to ensure it.- Resolution of the SND of the USSR dated December 24, 1990 No. 1856-1
So what happens? The Soviet people do not understand what is happening. He sees how his country is being destroyed, but does not know what to do, and turns to the authorities:
“What are you doing, you bastards! Save the country! And what do the traitor Gorbachev and the deputies answer to the people:
“Here you go, not the country! Renewed, federation, equal, sovereign... Get it.”
That is, it is clear that it was not possible to completely pollute the brains, the people demand from the authorities to save the Motherland, so the authorities decided to finish off the Motherland under the guise of the will of the people.
See how irresponsible deputies of the Supreme Council vilely shift responsibility for the country from themselves to the people:
“Based on the fact that no one other than the people themselves can take upon themselves historical responsibility for the fate of the USSR, in pursuance of the decision of the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and in accordance with the legislation on the referendum of the USSR,” on January 16, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decided:
1. To hold a USSR referendum on the entire territory of the USSR on Sunday, March 17, 1991 on the issue of preserving the USSR as a federation of equal republics.
2. Include in the ballot for secret voting the following wording of the question submitted to the referendum and the options for the voters’ answers:
"Yes" or "No".- Resolution of the USSR Supreme Council of January 16, 1991 No. 1910-1
You, deputies of the Congress and the Supreme Council, are obliged to defend the country by the very fact of your existence, without asking anyone about it. Why a referendum? This is what the Constitution requires of you:
Article 31. The defense of the socialist Fatherland is one of the most important functions of the state and is the work of the entire people.
However, this is the result of the fact that there was no mechanism for accountability to the people for the results of government for the highest elected authorities in the USSR. If deputies at the end of their term of office could be sent to prison for poor work results, if the people were dissatisfied with them, then such insanity would not exist.
What thoughts arise when reading such a question? What kind of vile formulation is this “renewed federation of equal sovereign republics.”
1. Firstly, such a question gave legitimacy to the question of the existence of the USSR in general. Previously people and could not think, “How is it possible that there will be no Union?” Here's how! Such a question destroyed the USSR in people's minds.
Imagine that during the war it was not Stalin who was at the head of our country, but some irresponsible bastard, like Gorbachev or Yeltsin. The Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus has been taken, the Germans are already near Moscow, the country is in extreme tension, inspiration is needed, but it doesn’t sound like something like Order 227 “Not a step back!”, and the following:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?” You can even add:
"including German".
2. Secondly, as you have already noticed, the issue is not even about preserving the USSR. Here he is, by the way, to lull vigilance. This is precisely the question of destruction(replaced by the word "update") of the Soviet Union and the formation of something new, some kind of federation. What is this “new”? Has this been explained to people? No, they were basely deceived.
3. Thirdly. Having read the question, we have already begun to think whether this “new Union” should exist or not (and why not, because the Union is better than not the Union), and here they also explain to us why this “new Union” will be better, than our Native Union, our Motherland, which is being destroyed: it will be “renewed” (which means the Native Union is backward, not modern), human rights and freedoms will be fully guaranteed in it (which means that in our Native Union the rights and freedoms of citizens or this was not done to the fullest extent, everyone was deceived), and even of any nationality (this means that there was no friendship of peoples in our homeland, everyone lied).
After the referendum, already in the spring-summer of 1991, Gorbachev’s working group within the framework of the so-called In the Novo-Ogaryovo process, a project was developed to conclude a new union - Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics How soft, decentralized federation .
The draft of a new agreement on the creation of the Union was initialed twice - on April 23 and June 17, 1991. The final version of the “Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States” was published in the Pravda newspaper on August 15. It stated:
“The states forming the Union have full political power, independently determine their national-state structure, system of authorities and management, they can delegate part of their powers to other states party to the Treaty...”
“This agreement... comes into force from the moment of signing... by authorized delegations. For the states that signed it, from the same date the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR of 1922 is considered to have lost force.”
As M. S. Gorbachev said, on August 20, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the RSFSR, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were supposed to sign a new union treaty, and in the fall Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Turkmenistan could join them.
But State Committee under a state of emergency, on August 18-21 he made an unsuccessful attempt to forcibly remove M. S. Gorbachev from the post of President of the USSR, disrupting the signing of the Union Treaty and thereby the liquidation of the Soviet Union:
“...Taking advantage of the freedoms granted, trampling on the newly emerging sprouts of democracy, extremist forces arose that set a course for the liquidation of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the state and the seizure of power at any cost. The results of the national referendum on the unity of the Fatherland have been trampled.”
- From the “Address to the Soviet people” of the State Emergency Committee of the USSR dated August 18, 1991
On September 5, 1991, the V Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR did not let up, having adopted the “Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms”, declared a transition period for the formation of a new system state relations, preparation and signing of the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States.
On September 6, three Baltic republics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) left the USSR.
In the fall of 1991, with the sanction of the central and republican authorities, the working group of the Novo-Ogaryovo process developed new project Agreements - on the creation Union of Sovereign States (SSG) like (already!) confederation independent states (“confederal state”).
Preliminary consent to conclude an agreement on December 9, 1991 on the creation of the GCC with its capital in Minsk was given on November 14, 1991 by only seven republics (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan). Two republics in which referendums on independence were held the day before (Armenia and Ukraine) refused to join the confederal union.
However, on December 8, 1991, the heads of three states (the Republic of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) at a meeting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, “noting that negotiations on the preparation of a new Union Treaty had reached a dead end, the objective process of the republics leaving the USSR and the formation of independent states became a real fact”, and concluded the Belovezhskaya Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States - an intergovernmental and interparliamentary organization that does not have the status of a state.
Thus treacherous Belovezhsky conspiracy the three ghouls Shushkevich, Kravchuk and Yeltsin only stayed ahead of Gorbachev’s team and consolidated the results of the systematic destruction of the Soviet Union. Moreover, they did as the people “asked” them to do in the referendum. Well, almost like that.
Did you want a “renewed federation of equal sovereign republics”? Get your signature!
Article 62. A citizen of the USSR is obliged to protect...
So, there is no doubt that this referendum was another incredibly vile subversive action of the enemies of the people against the USSR.
But there is also no doubt that the majority of the people in the referendum were in favor of preserving the old Native USSR, their Motherland, and went to vote precisely for this.
On March 17, 1991, a referendum was held in which the majority of citizens voted to preserve the USSR.
In six republics (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia) perestroika has already done everything that is needed, so higher authorities the authorities refused to hold a referendum. That is, they thereby committed high treason and did not allow the people to express their will.
In other republics the results were as follows.
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”
Our Central Asian brothers have become a model of possession strong feeling statehood. They, who still preserved their communal traditions, had a much higher understanding of the need to live in a united and therefore strong country than the Russians. Unfortunately, but true.
Belarusians were not far behind, with 83% of the votes also in favor of preserving the USSR.
Where were there more traitors?
In terms of the level of betrayal, the capitals and Bespaly’s homeland, the Sverdlovsk region, were ahead of everyone.
Below is a table where republics and regions with a higher share of YES voters than the average for the Union are indicated in red, and lower ones in blue.
As you can see, the hatred of the rest of Russia for Muscovites is quite natural. That’s where the main responsibility lies—the capital.
Please note that even in Checheno-Ingushetia, the percentage of those who voted for preserving the Union turned out to be higher than the national average and almost the same as in the USSR. So much for the Chechen separatists. By that time, the democrats had not yet led the scumbags by the hand and put them at the head of Chechnya.
We know from history that capturing the minds of the capital is key.
Let me give you an unfortunate comparison in terms of motives and goals, but still an illustrative one. In the elections to the Constituent Assembly of 1817, the Bolsheviks throughout Russia gained 22.4% (the Social Revolutionaries were the first - 39.5%), but they won by a large margin in Moscow (47.9%), Moscow region (55.8%) , Petrograd (48.7%), Minsk (63.1%).
In 1991, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Sverdlovsk region. were among the leaders who voted for the introduction of the post of President of the RSFSR, and later among the leaders who voted for Yeltsin in the elections. By the way, in the 1991 presidential elections, 77% of Chechens really liked Yeltsin.
It is clear that the propaganda blow was primarily aimed at the capitals. There was more money allocated, more bribes, more falsifications. But still, there are actually more sincere idiots who did not want to “feed unnecessary republics.”
So what happens? In general, the Soviet people, some to a lesser extent, some to a greater extent, withstood the nuclear attack on their consciousness and intuitively understood that they were being deceived, and therefore supported the preservation of the Soviet Union.
But it was not enough to vote, what does it even mean to vote for the preservation of the Union, when “the Germans are already near Moscow,” or rather in the Kremlin, at the very top. It's pointless. It was necessary to fight for the Union, including with arms in hand. After all, this was required of all citizens by the Constitution of the USSR.
Constitution.
Article 62. A citizen of the USSR is obliged to protect the interests of the Soviet state and help strengthen its power and authority.Defense of the socialist Fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the USSR.Treason to the Motherland is the gravest crime against the people.
It’s clear that there were no leaders, this didn’t happen, that didn’t happen, and Yanaev’s hands were shaking... And you, so brave, why did everything shake then? Or, what’s worse, why didn’t you care? Why did everyone unanimously forget about their main duty as a Citizen?
WHY THE USSR DIEDDecember 25 marks twenty years since the famous “abdication” of the first and last president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, from power. But few people remember that a few days before this there was another speech by Gorbachev, in which the President of the USSR firmly and decisively said that he would protect the country from collapse with all the means at his disposal.
Why did Mikhail Gorbachev refuse to defend the USSR and abdicate power?
Was the USSR doomed or destroyed? What caused the collapse of the USSR? Who is to blame for this?
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was created in December 1922 by uniting the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, BSSR and ZSFSR. It was the largest country, occupying 1/6 of the earth's landmass. According to the agreement of December 30, 1922, the Union consisted of sovereign republics, each retaining the right to freely secede from the Union, the right to enter into relations with foreign states, and to participate in the activities of international organizations.
Stalin warned that this form of union was unreliable, but Lenin reassured: as long as there is a party holding the country together like reinforcement, the integrity of the country is not in danger. But Stalin turned out to be more far-sighted.
December 25-26, 1991 USSR as a subject international law ceased to exist.
This was preceded by the signing of an agreement on the creation of the CIS in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8, 1991. The Bialowieza Agreements did not dissolve the USSR, but only stated its actual collapse at that time. Formally, Russia and Belarus did not declare independence from the USSR, but only recognized the fact of the end of its existence.
The exit from the USSR was a collapse, since legally none of the republics complied with all the procedures prescribed by the law “On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR.”
The following reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union can be identified:
1\ totalitarian nature of the Soviet system, extinguishing individual initiative, lack of pluralism and real democratic civil liberties
2\ imbalances in the planned economy of the USSR and shortages of consumer goods
3\ interethnic conflicts and corruption of the elites
4\ "Cold War" and the US conspiracy to reduce world oil prices in order to weaken the USSR
5\ Afghan war, man-made and other large-scale disasters
6\"sale" to the West " socialist camp»
7\ subjective factor, expressed in the personal struggle of Gorbachev and Yeltsin for power.
When I served in the Northern Fleet, during those years of the Cold War, I myself guessed and explained through political information that the arms race does not serve the purpose of defeating us in the war, but of economically undermining our state.
80% of the USSR's budget expenditures went to defense. They drank about 3 times more alcohol than under the Tsar. The state budget allocated vodka every 6 rubles.
Perhaps the anti-alcohol campaign was necessary, but as a result the state did not receive 20 billion rubles.
In Ukraine alone, people had 120 billion rubles accumulated in their savings books, which were impossible to buy. It was necessary to get rid of this burden on the economy by any means, which was done.
The collapse of the USSR and the socialist system led to an imbalance and caused tectonic processes in the world. But it would be more correct to talk not about collapse, but about the deliberate collapse of the country.
The collapse of the USSR was a Western project of the Cold War. And the Westerners successfully implemented this project - the USSR ceased to exist.
US President Reagan set his goal to defeat the “evil empire” – the USSR. To this end, he agreed with Saudi Arabia about reducing oil prices in order to undermine the economy of the USSR, which was almost entirely dependent on the sale of oil.
On September 13, 1985, Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Yamani said that Saudi Arabia was ending its policy of curbing oil production and was beginning to regain its share of the oil market. Over the next 6 months, Saudi Arabia's oil production increased 3.5 times. After which prices decreased by 6.1 times.
In the United States, in order to constantly monitor developments in the Soviet Union, the so-called “Center for the Study of the Progress of Perestroika” was created. It included representatives of the CIA, DIA (military intelligence), and the State Department's Office of Intelligence and Research.
US President George W. Bush at the convention Republican Party in August 1992, stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to "the vision and decisive leadership of presidents from both parties."
The ideology of communism turned out to be just a bogeyman of the Cold War. “They aimed at communism, but ended up hitting the people,” admitted the famous sociologist Alexander Zinoviev.
“Whoever does not regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And the one who wants to restore the USSR has neither mind nor heart.” According to various sources, 52% of surveyed residents of Belarus, 68% of Russia and 59% of Ukraine regret the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Even Vladimir Putin admitted that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. For the Russian people it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory.”
It is obvious that KGB Chairman Andropov made a mistake in choosing Gorbachev as his successor. Gorbachev failed to carry out economic reforms. In October 2009, in an interview with Radio Liberty, Mikhail Gorbachev admitted his responsibility for the collapse of the USSR: “This is a resolved issue. Destroyed..."
Some people think Gorbachev outstanding figure era. He is given credit for democratization and openness. But these are only means of carrying out economic reforms that were never implemented. The goal of “perestroika” was to preserve power, just like Khrushchev’s “thaw” and the famous 20th Congress to debunk Stalin’s “cult of personality.”
The USSR could have been saved. But the ruling elite betrayed socialism, the communist idea, its people, exchanged power for money, Crimea for the Kremlin.
The “Terminator” of the USSR, Boris Yeltsin, purposefully destroyed the Union, calling on the republics to take as much sovereignty as they could.
In the same way, at the beginning of the 13th century in Kievan Rus appanage princes ruined the country, putting the thirst for personal power above national interests.
In 1611, the same elite (boyars) sold themselves to the Poles, letting the false Dmitry into the Kremlin, as long as they retained their privileges.
I remember Yeltsin’s speech at the higher Komsomol school under the Komsomol Central Committee, which became his triumphant return to politics. Compared to Gorbachev, Yeltsin seemed consistent and decisive.
Greedy “young wolves”, who no longer believed in any fairy tales about communism, began to destroy the system in order to get to the “feeding trough”. This is precisely why it was necessary to collapse the USSR and remove Gorbachev. In order to gain unlimited power, almost all republics voted for the collapse of the USSR.
Stalin, of course, shed a lot of blood, but did not allow the country to collapse.
What is more important: human rights or the integrity of the country? If we allow the collapse of the state, then it will be impossible to ensure respect for human rights.
So or dictatorship strong state, or pseudo-democracy and the collapse of the country.
For some reason, in Russia, the problems of the country's development are always a problem of the personal power of a particular ruler.
I happened to visit the CPSU Central Committee in 1989, and I noticed that all the talk was about the personal struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev. The worker of the CPSU Central Committee who invited me said exactly this: “the gentlemen are fighting, but the lads’ foreheads are cracking.”
Gorbachev regarded Boris Yeltsin's first official visit to the United States in 1989 as a conspiracy to seize power from him.
Is this why, immediately after the signing of the CIS agreement, the first person Yeltsin called was not Gorbachev, but US President George Bush, who apparently promised in advance to recognize Russia’s independence.
The KGB knew about the West’s plans for the controlled collapse of the USSR, reported to Gorbachev, but he did nothing. He has already received Nobel Prize peace.
They just bought the elite. Former secretaries The West bought the regional committees with the presidential honors they were given.
In April 1996, I witnessed US President Clinton's visit to St. Petersburg, I saw him near the Atlantes near the Hermitage. Anatoly Sobchak got into Clinton's car.
I am against totalitarian and authoritarian power. But did Andrei Sakharov, who fought for the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution, understand that the ban on the CPSU, which formed the backbone of the state, would automatically lead to the collapse of the country into national appanage principalities?
At that time, I published a lot in the domestic press, and in one of my articles in the St. Petersburg newspaper “Smena” I warned: “the main thing is to prevent confrontation.” Alas, it was “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.”
On July 29, 1991, a meeting between Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Nazarbayev took place in Novo-Ogaryovo, at which they agreed to begin signing a new union Treaty on August 20, 1991. But those who headed the State Emergency Committee proposed their own plan to save the country. Gorbachev decided to leave for Foros, where he simply bided his time to join the winner. He knew everything, since the State Emergency Committee was formed by Gorbachev himself on March 28, 1991.
During the days of the August putsch, I was vacationing in Crimea next to Gorbachev - in Simeiz - and I remember everything well. The day before, I decided to buy an Oreanda stereo tape recorder in the store there, but they didn’t sell it with a USSR bank checkbook, due to local restrictions at that time. On August 19th, these restrictions were suddenly lifted, and on August 20th I was able to make a purchase. But already on August 21, restrictions were introduced again, apparently as a result of the victory of democracy.
The rampant nationalism in the Union republics was explained by the reluctance of the local leaders to drown along with Gorbachev, whose mediocrity in carrying out reforms was already understood by everyone.
In fact, the discussion was about the need to remove Gorbachev from power. Both the top of the CPSU and the opposition led by Yeltsin strived for this. Gorbachev's failure was obvious to many. But he did not want to hand over power to Yeltsin.
That is why Yeltsin was not arrested, hoping that he would join the conspirators. But Yeltsin did not want to share power with anyone, he wanted complete autocracy, which was proven by the dispersal of the Supreme Soviet of Russia in 1993.
Alexander Rutskoy called the State Emergency Committee a “performance.” While the defenders were dying on the streets of Moscow, the democratic elite held a banquet on the fourth underground floor of the White House.
The arrest of members of the State Emergency Committee reminded me of the arrest of members of the Provisional Government in October 1917, who were also soon released, because this was the “agreement” on the transfer of power.
The indecisiveness of the State Emergency Committee can be explained by the fact that the “putsch” was only a staged act with the goal of “exiting gracefully”, taking with it the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves.
At the end of 1991, when the Democrats seized power and Russia became the legal successor of the USSR, Vnesheconombank had only $700 million in its account. The liabilities of the former Union were estimated at $93.7 billion, assets at $110.1 billion.
The logic of the reformers Gaidar and Yeltsin was simple. They calculated that Russia could survive thanks to the oil pipeline only if it refused to feed its allies.
The new rulers did not have money, and they devalued the monetary deposits of the population. The loss of 10% of the country's population as a result of shock reforms was considered acceptable.
But they didn't dominate economic forces. If private property had been allowed, the USSR would not have collapsed. The reason is different: the elite stopped believing in the socialist idea and decided to cash in their privileges.
The people were a pawn in the struggle for power. Commodity and food shortages were created deliberately to cause discontent among people and thereby destroy the state. Trains with meat and butter stood on the tracks near the capital, but they were not allowed into Moscow in order to cause dissatisfaction with Gorbachev’s power.
It was a war for power, where the people served as bargaining chips.
The conspirators in Belovezhskaya Pushcha were not thinking about preserving the country, but about how to get rid of Gorbachev and gain unlimited power.
Gennady Burbulis, the same one who proposed the formulation of the end of the USSR as a geopolitical reality, later called the collapse of the USSR “a great misfortune and tragedy.”
Co-author of the Belovezhskaya Accords Vyacheslav Kebich (Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus in 1991) admitted: “If I were Gorbachev, I would send a group of riot police and we would all sit quietly in Sailor’s Silence and wait for amnesty.”
But Gorbachev was only thinking about what position he would be given in the CIS.
But it was necessary, without burying our head in the sand, to fight for the territorial integrity of our state.
If Gorbachev had been elected by the people and not by congress deputies, it would have been more difficult to delegitimize him. But he was afraid that the people would not elect him.
In the end, Gorbachev could have transferred power to Yeltsin, and the USSR would have survived. But, apparently, pride did not allow it. As a result, the struggle between two egos led to the collapse of the country.
If it were not for Yeltsin’s manic desire to seize power and overthrow Gorbachev, to take revenge on him for his humiliation, then one could still hope for something. But Yeltsin could not forgive Gorbachev for publicly discrediting him, and when he “dumped” Gorbachev, he assigned him a humiliatingly low pension.
We have often been told that the people are the source of power and the driving force of history. But life shows that sometimes it is the personality of this or that political figure that determines the course of history.
The collapse of the USSR is largely the result of the conflict between Yeltsin and Gorbachev.
Who is more to blame for the collapse of the country: Gorbachev, unable to retain power, or Yeltsin, uncontrollably striving for power?
In a referendum on March 17, 1991, 78% of citizens were in favor of maintaining the renewed union. But did politicians listen to the opinions of the people? No, they were pursuing personal selfish interests.
Gorbachev said one thing and did another, gave orders and pretended that he knew nothing.
For some reason, in Russia, the problems of the country's development have always been a problem of the personal power of a particular ruler. Stalin's terror, Khrushchev's thaw, Brezhnev's stagnation, Gorbachev's perestroika, Yeltsin's collapse...
In Russia, a change in political and economic course is always associated with a change in the personality of the ruler. Is this why terrorists want to overthrow the leader of the state in the hope of changing course?
Tsar Nicholas II would have listened to advice smart people, would have shared power, made the monarchy constitutional, would have lived like a Swedish king, and his children would have lived now, and not died in terrible agony at the bottom of a mine.
But history teaches no one. Since the time of Confucius, it has been known that officials need to be examined for positions. And they appoint us. Why? Because it is not the official’s professional qualities that are important, but personal loyalty to his superiors. Why? Because the boss is not interested in success, but primarily in maintaining his position.
The main thing for a ruler is to maintain personal power. Because if power is taken away from him, then he won’t be able to do anything. No one has ever voluntarily renounced their privileges or recognized the superiority of others. The ruler cannot simply give up power himself, he is a slave to power!
Churchill compared power to a drug. In fact, power is the maintenance of control and management. Whether it is a monarchy or a democracy is not so important. Democracy and dictatorship are just a way to most effectively achieve the desired goals.
But the question is: democracy for the people or the people for democracy?
Representative democracy is in crisis. But direct democracy is no better.
Management is complex look activities. There will always be those who want and can manage and make decisions (rulers), and those who are happy to be executors.
According to the philosopher Boris Mezhuev, “democracy is the organized distrust of the people in power.”
Managed democracy is being replaced by post-democracy.
When they say that the people have made a mistake, it is those who think so who are mistaken. Because only the one who says such things definitely does not know the people about whom he has such an opinion. People are not that stupid in general, and they are not rednecks at all.
In relation to our soldiers and athletes, and all others who fought for the victory of our country and its flag with tears in their eyes, the destruction of the USSR was a real betrayal!
Gorbachev “voluntarily” abdicated power not because the people abandoned the USSR, but because the West abandoned Gorbachev. “The Moor has done his job, the Moor can leave...”
Personally, I support the trial of exes. politicians: French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Chilean dictator Pinochet and others.
Why is there still no trial of those responsible for the collapse of the USSR?
The people have the right and MUST know who is to blame for the destruction of the country.
It is the ruling elite that is responsible for the collapse of the country!
Recently I was invited to the next meeting of the “Russian Thought” seminar at the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy in St. Petersburg. The report “USSR as a Civilization” was made by Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg state university Vladimir Aleksandrovich Gutorov.
Professor Gutorov V.A. believes that the USSR is the only country, where the elite conducted an experiment, destroying their own people. It ended in complete disaster. And we now live in a situation of catastrophe.
Nikolai Berdyaev, when interrogated by F. Dzerzhinsky, said that Russian communism is a punishment to the Russian people for all the sins and abominations that the Russian elite and the renegade Russian intelligentsia have committed over the past decades.
In 1922, Nikolai Berdyaev was expelled from Russia on the so-called “philosophical ship”.
The most conscientious representatives Russian elite who found themselves in exile admitted their guilt for the revolution that had taken place.
Does our current “elite” really admit its responsibility for the collapse of the USSR?..
Was the USSR a civilization? Or was it a social experiment on an unprecedented scale?
The signs of civilization are as follows:
1\ The USSR was an empire, and an empire is a sign of civilization.
2\ Civilization is distinguished by high level education and high technical base, which obviously existed in the USSR.
3\ Civilization forms a special psychological type, which develops over about 10 generations. But during 70 years of Soviet power it could not take shape.
4\ One of the signs of civilization is beliefs. The USSR had its own belief in communism.
Even the ancient Greeks noticed a cyclical pattern in the succession of forms of power: aristocracy - democracy - tyranny - aristocracy... For two thousand years, humanity has not been able to come up with anything new.
History knows numerous social experiences of people's democracy. The socialist experiment will inevitably repeat itself. It is already being repeated in China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and other countries.
The USSR was a social experiment of unprecedented scale, but the experiment turned out to be unviable.
The fact is that justice and social equality come into conflict with economic efficiency. Where profit is the main thing, there is no place for justice. But it is inequality and competition that make society efficient.
Once I saw two men, one of whom was digging a hole, and the other was burying the hole after him. I asked what they were doing. And they replied that the third worker, who was planting trees, had not come.
The specificity of our mentality is that we do not see happiness in progress and do not strive for development like a Western person. We are more contemplative. Our national hero Ivanushka the Fool (Oblomov) lies on the stove and dreams of a kingdom. And he gets up only when he has the urge.
We develop from time to time only under the pressure of the vital need for survival.
This is reflected in our Orthodox faith, which evaluates a person not by works, but by faith. Catholicism speaks of personal responsibility for choice and calls for activism. But with us everything is determined by the providence and grace of God, which is incomprehensible.
Russia is not just a territory, it is an Idea! Regardless of the name - USSR, USSR, CIS or Eurasian Union.
The Russian idea is simple: we can only be saved together! Therefore, the revival of great Russia in one form or another is inevitable. In our harsh climatic conditions what is needed is not competition, but cooperation, not rivalry, but community. And therefore external conditions will inevitably restore the union form government structure.
The USSR as an Idea in one form or another is inevitable. The fact that the communist idea is not utopian and quite realistic is proven by the successes of communist China, which managed to become a superpower, overtaking the idealess Russia.
The ideas of social justice, equality and brotherhood are ineradicable. Perhaps they are embedded in the human consciousness as a matrix that periodically tries to come true.
What's wrong with the ideas of freedom, equality and brotherhood, the universal happiness of people, regardless of religion or nationality?
These ideas will never die, they are eternal because they are true. Their truth lies in the fact that they correctly capture the essence of human nature.
Only those ideas are eternal that are in tune with the thoughts and feelings of living people. After all, if they find a response in the souls of millions, it means there is something in these ideas. People cannot be united by one truth, since everyone sees the truth in their own way. Everyone cannot be mistaken at the same time. An idea is true if it reflects the truths of many people. Only such ideas find a place in the recesses of the soul. And whoever guesses what is hidden in the souls of millions will lead them.”
LOVE CREATES NECESSITY!
(from my novel “Stranger Strange Incomprehensible Extraordinary Stranger” on the New Russian Literature website
In your opinion, WHY DID THE USSR DIDN'T?
© Nikolay Kofirin – New Russian Literature –
December 25 marks twenty years since the famous “abdication” of the first and last president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, from power. But few people remember that a few days before this there was another speech by Gorbachev, in which the President of the USSR firmly and decisively said that he would protect the country from collapse with all the means at his disposal.
Why did Mikhail Gorbachev refuse to defend the USSR and abdicate power?
Was the USSR doomed or destroyed? What caused the collapse of the USSR? Who is to blame for this?
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was created in December 1922 by uniting the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, BSSR and ZSFSR. It was the largest country, occupying 1/6 of the earth's landmass. According to the agreement of December 30, 1922, the Union consisted of sovereign republics, each retaining the right to freely secede from the Union, the right to enter into relations with foreign states, and to participate in the activities of international organizations.
Stalin warned that this form of union was unreliable, but Lenin reassured: as long as there is a party holding the country together like reinforcement, the integrity of the country is not in danger. But Stalin turned out to be more far-sighted.
On December 25-26, 1991, the USSR as a subject of international law ceased to exist.
This was preceded by the signing of an agreement on the creation of the CIS in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8, 1991. The Bialowieza Agreements did not dissolve the USSR, but only stated its actual collapse at that time. Formally, Russia and Belarus did not declare independence from the USSR, but only recognized the fact of the end of its existence.
The exit from the USSR was a collapse, since legally none of the republics complied with all the procedures prescribed by the law “On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR.”
The following reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union can be identified:
1\ totalitarian nature of the Soviet system, extinguishing individual initiative, lack of pluralism and real democratic civil liberties
2\ imbalances in the planned economy of the USSR and shortages of consumer goods
3\ interethnic conflicts and corruption of the elites
4\ "Cold War" and the US conspiracy to reduce world oil prices in order to weaken the USSR
5\ Afghan war, man-made and other large-scale disasters
6\ “selling” the “socialist camp” to the West
7\ subjective factor, expressed in the personal struggle of Gorbachev and Yeltsin for power.
When I served in the Northern Fleet, during those years of the Cold War, I myself guessed and explained through political information that the arms race does not serve the purpose of defeating us in the war, but of economically undermining our state.
80% of the USSR's budget expenditures went to defense. They drank about 3 times more alcohol than under the Tsar. The state budget allocated vodka every 6 rubles.
Perhaps the anti-alcohol campaign was necessary, but as a result the state did not receive 20 billion rubles.
In Ukraine alone, people had 120 billion rubles accumulated in their savings books, which were impossible to buy. It was necessary to get rid of this burden on the economy by any means, which was done.
The collapse of the USSR and the socialist system led to an imbalance and caused tectonic processes in the world. But it would be more correct to talk not about collapse, but about the deliberate collapse of the country.
The collapse of the USSR was a Western project of the Cold War. And the Westerners successfully implemented this project - the USSR ceased to exist.
US President Reagan set his goal to defeat the “evil empire” – the USSR. To this end, he negotiated with Saudi Arabia to reduce oil prices in order to undermine the Soviet economy, which was almost entirely dependent on oil sales.
On September 13, 1985, Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Yamani said that Saudi Arabia was ending its policy of curbing oil production and was beginning to regain its share of the oil market. Over the next 6 months, Saudi Arabia's oil production increased 3.5 times. After which prices decreased by 6.1 times.
In the United States, in order to constantly monitor developments in the Soviet Union, the so-called “Center for the Study of the Progress of Perestroika” was created. It included representatives of the CIA, DIA (military intelligence), and the State Department's Office of Intelligence and Research.
US President George W. Bush said at the Republican National Convention in August 1992 that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to "the vision and decisive leadership of presidents from both parties."
The ideology of communism turned out to be just a bogeyman of the Cold War. “They aimed at communism, but ended up hitting the people,” admitted the famous sociologist Alexander Zinoviev.
“Whoever does not regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And the one who wants to restore the USSR has neither mind nor heart.” According to various sources, 52% of surveyed residents of Belarus, 68% of Russia and 59% of Ukraine regret the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Even Vladimir Putin admitted that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. For the Russian people it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory.”
It is obvious that KGB Chairman Andropov made a mistake in choosing Gorbachev as his successor. Gorbachev failed to carry out economic reforms. In October 2009, in an interview with Radio Liberty, Mikhail Gorbachev admitted his responsibility for the collapse of the USSR: “This is a resolved issue. Destroyed..."
Some consider Gorbachev an outstanding figure of the era. He is given credit for democratization and openness. But these are only means of carrying out economic reforms that were never implemented. The goal of “perestroika” was to preserve power, just like Khrushchev’s “thaw” and the famous 20th Congress to debunk Stalin’s “cult of personality.”
The USSR could have been saved. But the ruling elite betrayed socialism, the communist idea, its people, exchanged power for money, Crimea for the Kremlin.
The “Terminator” of the USSR, Boris Yeltsin, purposefully destroyed the Union, calling on the republics to take as much sovereignty as they could.
In the same way, at the beginning of the 13th century in Kievan Rus, appanage princes ruined the country, putting the thirst for personal power above national interests.
In 1611, the same elite (boyars) sold themselves to the Poles, letting the false Dmitry into the Kremlin, as long as they retained their privileges.
I remember Yeltsin’s speech at the higher Komsomol school under the Komsomol Central Committee, which became his triumphant return to politics. Compared to Gorbachev, Yeltsin seemed consistent and decisive.
Greedy “young wolves”, who no longer believed in any fairy tales about communism, began to destroy the system in order to get to the “feeding trough”. This is precisely why it was necessary to collapse the USSR and remove Gorbachev. In order to gain unlimited power, almost all republics voted for the collapse of the USSR.
Stalin, of course, shed a lot of blood, but did not allow the country to collapse.
What is more important: human rights or the integrity of the country? If we allow the collapse of the state, then it will be impossible to ensure respect for human rights.
So, either the dictatorship of a strong state, or pseudo-democracy and the collapse of the country.
For some reason, in Russia, the problems of the country's development are always a problem of the personal power of a particular ruler.
I happened to visit the CPSU Central Committee in 1989, and I noticed that all the talk was about the personal struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev. The worker of the CPSU Central Committee who invited me said exactly this: “the gentlemen are fighting, but the lads’ foreheads are cracking.”
Gorbachev regarded Boris Yeltsin's first official visit to the United States in 1989 as a conspiracy to seize power from him.
Is this why, immediately after the signing of the CIS agreement, the first person Yeltsin called was not Gorbachev, but US President George Bush, who apparently promised in advance to recognize Russia’s independence.
The KGB knew about the West’s plans for the controlled collapse of the USSR, reported to Gorbachev, but he did nothing. He has already received the Nobel Peace Prize.
They just bought the elite. The West bought former regional committee secretaries with presidential honors.
In April 1996, I witnessed US President Clinton's visit to St. Petersburg, I saw him near the Atlantes near the Hermitage. Anatoly Sobchak got into Clinton's car.
I am against totalitarian and authoritarian power. But did Andrei Sakharov, who fought for the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution, understand that the ban on the CPSU, which formed the backbone of the state, would automatically lead to the collapse of the country into national appanage principalities?
At that time, I published a lot in the domestic press, and in one of my articles in the St. Petersburg newspaper “Smena” I warned: “the main thing is to prevent confrontation.” Alas, it was “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.”
On July 29, 1991, a meeting between Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Nazarbayev took place in Novo-Ogaryovo, at which they agreed to begin signing a new union Treaty on August 20, 1991. But those who headed the State Emergency Committee proposed their own plan to save the country. Gorbachev decided to leave for Foros, where he simply bided his time to join the winner. He knew everything, since the State Emergency Committee was formed by Gorbachev himself on March 28, 1991.
During the days of the August putsch, I was vacationing in Crimea next to Gorbachev - in Simeiz - and I remember everything well. The day before, I decided to buy an Oreanda stereo tape recorder in the store there, but they didn’t sell it with a USSR bank checkbook, due to local restrictions at that time. On August 19th, these restrictions were suddenly lifted, and on August 20th I was able to make a purchase. But already on August 21, restrictions were introduced again, apparently as a result of the victory of democracy.
The rampant nationalism in the Union republics was explained by the reluctance of the local leaders to drown along with Gorbachev, whose mediocrity in carrying out reforms was already understood by everyone.
In fact, the discussion was about the need to remove Gorbachev from power. Both the top of the CPSU and the opposition led by Yeltsin strived for this. Gorbachev's failure was obvious to many. But he did not want to hand over power to Yeltsin.
That is why Yeltsin was not arrested, hoping that he would join the conspirators. But Yeltsin did not want to share power with anyone, he wanted complete autocracy, which was proven by the dispersal of the Supreme Soviet of Russia in 1993.
Alexander Rutskoy called the State Emergency Committee a “performance.” While the defenders were dying on the streets of Moscow, the democratic elite held a banquet on the fourth underground floor of the White House.
The arrest of members of the State Emergency Committee reminded me of the arrest of members of the Provisional Government in October 1917, who were also soon released, because this was the “agreement” on the transfer of power.
The indecisiveness of the State Emergency Committee can be explained by the fact that the “putsch” was only a staged act with the goal of “exiting gracefully”, taking with it the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves.
At the end of 1991, when the Democrats seized power and Russia became the legal successor of the USSR, Vnesheconombank had only $700 million in its account. The liabilities of the former Union were estimated at $93.7 billion, assets at $110.1 billion.
The logic of the reformers Gaidar and Yeltsin was simple. They calculated that Russia could survive thanks to the oil pipeline only if it refused to feed its allies.
The new rulers did not have money, and they devalued the monetary deposits of the population. The loss of 10% of the country's population as a result of shock reforms was considered acceptable.
But it was not economic factors that dominated. If private property had been allowed, the USSR would not have collapsed. The reason is different: the elite stopped believing in the socialist idea and decided to cash in their privileges.
The people were a pawn in the struggle for power. Commodity and food shortages were created deliberately to cause discontent among people and thereby destroy the state. Trains with meat and butter stood on the tracks near the capital, but they were not allowed into Moscow in order to cause dissatisfaction with Gorbachev’s power.
It was a war for power, where the people served as bargaining chips.
The conspirators in Belovezhskaya Pushcha were not thinking about preserving the country, but about how to get rid of Gorbachev and gain unlimited power.
Gennady Burbulis, the same one who proposed the formulation of the end of the USSR as a geopolitical reality, later called the collapse of the USSR “a great misfortune and tragedy.”
Co-author of the Belovezhskaya Accords Vyacheslav Kebich (Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus in 1991) admitted: “If I were Gorbachev, I would send a group of riot police and we would all sit quietly in Sailor’s Silence and wait for amnesty.”
But Gorbachev was only thinking about what position he would be given in the CIS.
But it was necessary, without burying our head in the sand, to fight for the territorial integrity of our state.
If Gorbachev had been elected by the people and not by congress deputies, it would have been more difficult to delegitimize him. But he was afraid that the people would not elect him.
In the end, Gorbachev could have transferred power to Yeltsin, and the USSR would have survived. But, apparently, pride did not allow it. As a result, the struggle between two egos led to the collapse of the country.
If it were not for Yeltsin’s manic desire to seize power and overthrow Gorbachev, to take revenge on him for his humiliation, then one could still hope for something. But Yeltsin could not forgive Gorbachev for publicly discrediting him, and when he “dumped” Gorbachev, he assigned him a humiliatingly low pension.
We have often been told that the people are the source of power and the driving force of history. But life shows that sometimes it is the personality of this or that political figure that determines the course of history.
The collapse of the USSR is largely the result of the conflict between Yeltsin and Gorbachev.
Who is more to blame for the collapse of the country: Gorbachev, unable to retain power, or Yeltsin, uncontrollably striving for power?
In a referendum on March 17, 1991, 78% of citizens were in favor of maintaining the renewed union. But did politicians listen to the opinions of the people? No, they were pursuing personal selfish interests.
Gorbachev said one thing and did another, gave orders and pretended that he knew nothing.
For some reason, in Russia, the problems of the country's development have always been a problem of the personal power of a particular ruler. Stalin's terror, Khrushchev's thaw, Brezhnev's stagnation, Gorbachev's perestroika, Yeltsin's collapse...
In Russia, a change in political and economic course is always associated with a change in the personality of the ruler. Is this why terrorists want to overthrow the leader of the state in the hope of changing course?
Tsar Nicholas II would have listened to the advice of smart people, would have shared power, made the monarchy constitutional, would have lived like a Swedish king, and his children would have lived now, and not died in terrible agony at the bottom of a mine.
But history teaches no one. Since the time of Confucius, it has been known that officials need to be examined for positions. And they appoint us. Why? Because it is not the official’s professional qualities that are important, but personal loyalty to his superiors. Why? Because the boss is not interested in success, but primarily in maintaining his position.
The main thing for a ruler is to maintain personal power. Because if power is taken away from him, then he won’t be able to do anything. No one has ever voluntarily renounced their privileges or recognized the superiority of others. The ruler cannot simply give up power himself, he is a slave to power!
Churchill compared power to a drug. In fact, power is the maintenance of control and management. Whether it is a monarchy or a democracy is not so important. Democracy and dictatorship are just a way to most effectively achieve the desired goals.
But the question is: democracy for the people or the people for democracy?
Representative democracy is in crisis. But direct democracy is no better.
Management is a complex activity. There will always be those who want and can manage and make decisions (rulers), and those who are happy to be executors.
According to the philosopher Boris Mezhuev, “democracy is the organized distrust of the people in power.”
Managed democracy is being replaced by post-democracy.
When they say that the people have made a mistake, it is those who think so who are mistaken. Because only the one who says such things definitely does not know the people about whom he has such an opinion. People are not that stupid in general, and they are not rednecks at all.
In relation to our soldiers and athletes, and all others who fought for the victory of our country and its flag with tears in their eyes, the destruction of the USSR was a real betrayal!
Gorbachev “voluntarily” abdicated power not because the people abandoned the USSR, but because the West abandoned Gorbachev. “The Moor has done his job, the Moor can leave...”
Personally, I support the trial of former political figures: French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Chilean dictator Pinochet and others.
Why is there still no trial of those responsible for the collapse of the USSR?
The people have the right and MUST know who is to blame for the destruction of the country.
It is the ruling elite that is responsible for the collapse of the country!
Recently I was invited to the next meeting of the “Russian Thought” seminar at the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy in St. Petersburg. Vladimir Aleksandrovich Gutorov, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University, delivered a report on “The USSR as a Civilization.”
Professor Gutorov V.A. believes that the USSR is the only country where the elite conducted an experiment, destroying its own people. It ended in complete disaster. And we now live in a situation of catastrophe.
Nikolai Berdyaev, when interrogated by F. Dzerzhinsky, said that Russian communism is a punishment to the Russian people for all the sins and abominations that the Russian elite and the renegade Russian intelligentsia have committed over the past decades.
In 1922, Nikolai Berdyaev was expelled from Russia on the so-called “philosophical ship”.
The most conscientious representatives of the Russian elite who found themselves in exile admitted their guilt for the revolution that had taken place.
Does our current “elite” really admit its responsibility for the collapse of the USSR?..
Was the USSR a civilization? Or was it a social experiment on an unprecedented scale?
The signs of civilization are as follows:
1\ The USSR was an empire, and an empire is a sign of civilization.
2\ Civilization is distinguished by a high level of education and a high technical base, which obviously existed in the USSR.
3\ Civilization forms a special psychological type, which develops over about 10 generations. But during 70 years of Soviet power it could not take shape.
4\ One of the signs of civilization is beliefs. The USSR had its own belief in communism.
Even the ancient Greeks noticed a cyclical pattern in the succession of forms of power: aristocracy - democracy - tyranny - aristocracy... For two thousand years, humanity has not been able to come up with anything new.
History knows numerous social experiences of people's democracy. The socialist experiment will inevitably repeat itself. It is already being repeated in China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and other countries.
The USSR was a social experiment of unprecedented scale, but the experiment turned out to be unviable.
The fact is that justice and social equality come into conflict with economic efficiency. Where profit is the main thing, there is no place for justice. But it is inequality and competition that make society efficient.
Once I saw two men, one of whom was digging a hole, and the other was burying the hole after him. I asked what they were doing. And they replied that the third worker, who was planting trees, had not come.
The specificity of our mentality is that we do not see happiness in progress and do not strive for development like a Western person. We are more contemplative. Our national hero Ivanushka the Fool (Oblomov) lies on the stove and dreams of a kingdom. And he gets up only when he has the urge.
We develop from time to time only under the pressure of the vital need for survival.
This is reflected in our Orthodox faith, which evaluates a person not by works, but by faith. Catholicism speaks of personal responsibility for choice and calls for activism. But with us everything is determined by the providence and grace of God, which is incomprehensible.
Russia is not just a territory, it is an Idea! Regardless of the name - USSR, USSR, CIS or Eurasian Union.
The Russian idea is simple: we can only be saved together! Therefore, the revival of great Russia in one form or another is inevitable. In our harsh climatic conditions, what is needed is not competition, but cooperation, not rivalry, but community. And therefore, external conditions will inevitably restore the union form of government.
The USSR as an Idea in one form or another is inevitable. The fact that the communist idea is not utopian and quite realistic is proven by the successes of communist China, which managed to become a superpower, overtaking the idealess Russia.
The ideas of social justice, equality and brotherhood are ineradicable. Perhaps they are embedded in the human consciousness as a matrix that periodically tries to come true.
What's wrong with the ideas of freedom, equality and brotherhood, the universal happiness of people, regardless of religion or nationality?
These ideas will never die, they are eternal because they are true. Their truth lies in the fact that they correctly capture the essence of human nature.
Only those ideas are eternal that are in tune with the thoughts and feelings of living people. After all, if they find a response in the souls of millions, it means there is something in these ideas. People cannot be united by one truth, since everyone sees the truth in their own way. Everyone cannot be mistaken at the same time. An idea is true if it reflects the truths of many people. Only such ideas find a place in the recesses of the soul. And whoever guesses what is hidden in the souls of millions will lead them.”
LOVE CREATES NECESSITY!
(from my novel “Stranger Strange Incomprehensible Extraordinary Stranger” on the New Russian Literature website
In your opinion, WHY DID THE USSR DIDN'T?
© Nikolay Kofirin – New Russian Literature –
