Who destroyed the Soviet Union?
Gorbachev? Yes and no.
Yeltsin? Yes and no.
They both had their hand and their guilt is there too, but it is secondary.
The Soviet Union had long been doomed. 50 years for sure! Let me explain.
Signed in Moscow on December 29, 1922 and entered into force the next day, December 30, 1922, in its clause 26, it explicitly stated that "Each of the union republics retains the right to freely withdraw from the Union." Well, it's kind of natural for contracts. This is normal for international treaties. After all, the Soviet Union was not a federation, but a confederation.
The agreement itself with its adoption was incorporated into the new Constitution and, in fact, "dissolved" in it. And it would seem that it is possible to strengthen the Union, but no: Art. 17 continues the previous line "Every Soviet republic retains the right to freely secede from the USSR." She is echoed by - Art. 72 "Each union republic retains the right to freely secede from the USSR."
Let's go back to the Constitution of the USSR in 1936. On November 25, 1936, at the Extraordinary VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets, Stalin made a report in which he also touched upon this ill-fated Art. 17. I will quote the leader's point of view:
“Next comes the amendment to the 17th article of the draft Constitution. The amendment consists in the fact that it is proposed to exclude from the draft Constitution altogether the 17th article, which says that the Union republics will retain the right of free withdrawal from the USSR. I think that this proposal is wrong and therefore should not be adopted by the Congress. The USSR is a voluntary union of equal Union republics. To exclude from the Constitution the article on the right of free secession from the USSR means to violate the voluntary character of this union. Can we take this step? I think we cannot and should not take this step.They say that there is not a single republic in the USSR that would like to secede from the USSR, that in view of this, Article 17 does not have practical... That we do not have a single republic that would like to secede from the USSR is, of course, true. But it does not at all follow from this that we should not fix in the Constitution the right of the Union Republics to freely secede from the USSR. There is also no Union Republic in the USSR that would like to suppress another Union Republic. But it does not at all follow from this that an article on the equality of rights of the Union Republics should be excluded from the Constitution of the USSR "
.
Years later, I would like to say a human and even a national-Bolshevik "thank you" to the unknown comrade delegates to the Congress of Soviets who made an amendment to exclude Article 17 from the draft, somehow feeling in my gut that this article would not lead to good!
What do we see? Yes, at that stage, indeed, there was not a single republic that would like to leave the Union. Until 1989 it was not. Why? Because even Stalin in the same report noted directly "In the USSR, there is soil for only one party - the Communist Party. In the USSR there can be only one party, the party of communists, boldly and to the end defending the interests of workers and peasants."
... While there was strict party discipline and strict party dictate, Art. 17 was dead. As soon as Gorby began to run into Reagan in Reykjavik, the party began to rapidly lose real power. The party nomenklatura in the union republics no longer wanted to be second in the country, but the first in the republics - to strengthen power, they could only be the first. And the former members of the CPSU Central Committee, who swore an oath of allegiance to the Soviet Union and Marxism-Leninism, began to dig under the Union. Leonid Kravchuk in the Ukrainian SSR, Islam Karimov in the UzSSR, Saparmurat Niyazov in the TurkSSR, Nursultan Nazarbayev in the KazSSR, Boris Yeltsin in the RSFSR ... This group can be conventionally assigned to Heydar Aliyev in the AzSSR and Eduard Shevardnadze in the Georgian SSR. Note, NONE of these leaders, after gaining power, did not begin to build socialism. On the contrary, they began to vigorously cultivate capitalism. Even the Marxist-Leninist Democratic Party of Turkmenistan, transformed from the Communist Party of the TurkSSR and led by President Niyazov, built at best the NEP (state capitalism + private enterprise).
Stalin could not or refused to understand that separatism COULD arise in the union republics, moreover, led by the leaders of the Central Committee of the republican communist parties. He could have stopped this in the bud!
Right blogger arguendi made a post based on one comment - Discussions about the Scoop. You can treat the blogger's position differently, but the post is right! I will quote: "... all the abomination of the Russian Federation comes from there. The oligarchs are all excellent Komsomol members, our pop-whores from the Blue Lights are the pride of the soviet stage and their own children, our women in the republics are the legacy of indigenous peoples, Russophobic Ukraine headed by the Komsomol member Poroshenko is the legacy of the bastard the system of quasi-statehood of the Ukrainian SSR, which was smart enough to make the co-founder of the UN back in 1945 ... " ... Sad but true! These are the consequences Unwise national policy of the USSR.
Stubborn and idealizing Marxist-Leninists and Stalinists, whining about the collapse of the Union, think WHO ensured this collapse?
I already wrote about the consequences, which we are now disentangling.
Without Stalin's mistake, "there would be" neither Gorbachev, nor Yeltsin, nor Krachuk, nor others. Although, for the sake of justice, it should be admitted that Gorbachev. And the August putsch was a desperate attempt by the nomenklatura to stop the torn down on the "republican apartments" of the "all-Union house". Unsuccessful (Gorbachev's "Well, have you played out, assholes?"). But the time bomb laid by Stalin had already been launched ...
At the meeting of the city committee, I said bluntly that you cannot look at the Soviet era through rose-colored glasses and with naked romanticism! There were mistakes and there was no way without them! But they must be recognized and corrected. Even Lenin wrote "Do not be afraid to admit your mistakes, do not be afraid of the repeated, repeated work of correcting them - and we will be at the very top"
(Notes of a publicist (end of February 1922; Collected Works, 5th ed., Vol. 44, p. 423) I would like the new Union (no matter what it will be called) not to allow repetition of what Boulet de la Mert (although the phrase is attributed to Talleyrand) "This is more than a crime, it is a mistake."
This mistake could have been corrected at least in 1977. Or earlier. Or a little later. But it was possible. Not fixed. Those who did not correct (the leadership of the USSR), the collapse of the Union is also on their conscience.
Of course, this would not have saved us from separatism, but the USSR or the Russian Federation had the opportunity to FORCE to restore territorial integrity.
P.S. "The unbreakable union of the free republics ..." In the very first line of the anthem FALSE! Hmm ...
August 19, 2011 marks the 20th anniversary of the events of the August putsch, which served as the beginning of the actual and short-lived agony of the Soviet Union. Kommersant asked its readers who they blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Stanislav Shushkevich, ex-president of Belarus. The USSR was destroyed by those who created it, as well as their heirs, because the ideology was based on a fantastic falsehood. The state was created for the people, but in fact for the hands of the party, which created an experiment on these very people. The authorities ruined millions of the best in the Gulag, forced them to do dirty, dirty work for the sake of their own triumph .. Somewhere, perhaps, it was possible to delay and correct the collapse, but it was difficult to correct the party's behavior. By the way, it was subject to correction, if it was corrected in good faith, without florid Lukyanov's questions, if Gorbachev went to the confederation in good conscience. But after the August putsch nothing could be fixed.
Vyacheslav Gaizer, head of the Komi Republic. Probably no one - the current circumstances are to blame for the collapse of the USSR. The state of the economy, ideology, and the weakness of national policy, the vagueness of the course pursued by the country's top leadership played a role. But there are economic reasons behind everything. People at that time lived very hard, and if people are not fed and given the opportunity to live with dignity, then no talk about perestroika can correct the situation and turn into empty chatter. And when the authorities cannot eliminate the causes, a natural effect is obtained, which leads to such sad consequences.
Kirill Yankov, deputy Head of the Federal Tax Service. The leaders of the USSR, but they just didn't want that. Those who wanted the collapse of the USSR could not destroy it, they only then cling to it. Certain people abroad and elites in some union republics wanted to disintegrate. The Soviet Union collapsed due to objective reasons: the country was inhabited by different peoples who had not passed the stage of creation nation state, as well as the leadership made many mistakes in its national policy, which led to the downfall.
Vasily Zinoviev, deputy Chairman of the State Duma Energy Committee. The Russians themselves destroyed... But they were led by certain circles that were interested in the collapse of the USSR. And everyone wanted to become rich in 500 days. And in the vanguard were people who stood at the head of the state and laid a hand to the collapse of the USSR: Yeltsin, Gorbachev and their colleagues in the CIS. But at first the Russians were happy to destroy the USSR, and then they gladly began to slow down the process of democratization and the transition to market relations.
Gennady Burbulis, president of the Strategy Fund, in 1991-1992 Secretary of State and First Deputy Prime Minister. In fact, it was destroyed by the right-wing reactionary forces of the KGB, as well as the State Emergency Committee and their supporters. Substantially, the decay was inherent in the vulnerability and hopelessness of that order. The putsch became the political Chernobyl of the Soviet empire, the radiation of the totalitarian system, the last agony of communism. It was a painful process, and thanks to Yeltsin that he was able to avoid civil war and massive bloodshed. Descendants will eventually appreciate the importance of those historical events, despite all the speculation with nostalgia for the Soviet era.
Igor Lebedev, leader of the LDPR faction. Communist Party. When a party that held all power in the state in its hands dies, it drags the country along with it into the abyss. The same will happen if United Russia collapses, it collapses - the country collapses. The territorial restoration of the USSR is practically impossible, but the revival of the command-administrative system in the economy, the suppression of human rights and freedoms and the creation of a police state has already taken place, and we can see it.
Adolf Shaevich, Chief Rabbi of Russia. GKChP. Simply, if it were not for the putsch, Gorbachev could have carried out perestroika to the end and in the manner in which he conceived it. The higher authorities also took part in the collapse, and the personal ambitions of individual politicians who wanted to get rid of Gorbachev were also to blame. Perhaps there would be some representatives who never wanted to be part of the Soviet Union and were formally part of it, for example, the Baltic countries, but mostly people did not want collapse, and, as always, no one listened to them. Personally, I rather regret the collapse of the USSR and that a lot of good things have been lost over these years, and that no one has learned any lessons from this story in twenty years.
Dmitry Torbinsky, football player of FC Lokomotiv, member of the Russian national team. It collapsed because people wanted to be independent, republics disunited, became states... The same fate befell Yugoslavia, this process has affected many multinational countries. For young people, this topic has become history; in my environment, few people are interested in it. Russia lives its own life, and so does young citizens. Although I personally respect people who lived in the Soviet Union, it would be very difficult for our generation to adapt to life in the USSR, because we are too used to freedom. On the other hand, our people have lost a strong and powerful country, having received in return a democratic Russia. This has both pros and cons.
Andrey Klychkov, head of the Communist Party faction in the Moscow City Duma. A number of Communist Party leaders who considered it necessary to seize full power for themselves. The opinion of the people was not taken into account, but simply ignored, justifying this decision with future prospects. better life... These expectations were not met, and the situation of the country's population only worsened. Even now in Russia there is a small possibility of collapse, in some republics there are separatist sentiments. But I think that the experience of the collapse of the USSR sobered many people, showing how destructive the processes of disintegration are, and only certain groups of people think about independence and separation.
Oleg Sysuev, first deputy chairman of the board of directors of Alfa-Bank, in 1997-1998 - deputy prime minister. Stalin built it, Stalin destroyed it... Vertical political systems are not viable, and Stalin created such a vertical model of government that it collapsed, demonstrating this theory in practice. The coup did not affect this, it was more an attraction, a show, which was a kind of frame for meaningful things. United Russia and the ONF are an attempt to create a dominant political force, and this is very reminiscent of the USSR. If the Russian Federation falls apart, the consequences will be much worse.
Dmitry Yazov, 1987-1991 - Minister of Defense of the USSR, member of the State Emergency Committee. Those who have been preparing this counter-revolution for many years... A new party was operating in the USSR, which fought against the leadership all the time. And Gorbachev himself wanted a change. So with his help the USSR was destroyed by those who are now the masters of the country. In addition, the Americans claimed they used several trillion dollars to destroy the Soviet Union. The forces of democracy have won and look at the picture among the people: millionaires and beggars have appeared, the village has practically ceased to exist, agriculture ruined, factories do not work. What have you achieved?
Valeria Novodvorskaya, leader of the Democratic Union party. This is not the fault, but the merit of Yeltsin, who cut this Gordian knot... And the fault of those who organized it, because the Soviet Union was not viable from the very beginning, like any empire. And if the Roman Empire existed for some time, because it had something to give to humanity, then the Soviet Union had nothing but anger and fear. And as soon as the barbed wire rusted and holes appeared in it, as soon as the violence subsided, everyone immediately escaped. Russia was the first to perform on June 12, 1991 - the Day of Independence of Russia. Independence from their colonies. For the first time in history, the metropolis did not wait for the start of wars and conflicts with it, just as India and Great Britain dissolved their colonies, throwing them out by force. Without blood, without a third world war.
Ksenia Sobchak, tV presenter. And he himself fell apart... People could no longer live in a closed, deceitful and hypocritical system that in every possible way put pressure on bright and talented people speaking about the real situation in the country. At some point, society ceased to be afraid to be silent and to act, and the Soviet system collapsed under the weight of its flaws. It is difficult to single out specific people who played the greatest role in this, it seems to me that communism has exhausted itself and discredited itself, and society, with its protest, has brought down this colossus.
Georgy Bovt, member of the Federal Political Council of the Right Cause Party. Everything... The leadership of the Union republics, from the RSFSR to Tajikistan, is to blame .. Everyone wanted autonomy, because main role the desire of the republican nomenklatura to gain as much power as possible played. The fault is the leadership of the USSR, headed by Gorbachev, which at some point lost control of the situation, the people who did not take to the streets to defend the results of their March referendum. In August, there was a putsch, although the process of the collapse of the USSR began before it and ended after it. But the putsch played a decisive role in this process.
Evgeny Shevchuk, second Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika. The system of governance, which was predetermined by the irremovability of power, and external factors are to blame... In Transnistria, we felt all the consequences of these events. According to opinion polls, every fifth Pridnestrovian of retirement age has never left the republic since the collapse, but when everything fell apart, about two hundred thousand people left Pridnestrovie. And the overwhelming majority of citizens even now call the Soviet Union their homeland.
Ivan Artsishevsky, representative of the association of members of the Romanov family in Russia
As a rule, an accident is a combination of factors; there is no accident due to any one factor.
In Russia, it was disunity, an ideological misunderstanding of the common people by the aristocracy: it was very far from the people. A weak king, of course: he was wonderful personbut a very weak manager. The disunity of the military: when the disaster struck, it began february revolution, everyone wanted changes, wanted the tsarist power to change, acquiring a more democratic, more liberal form. But a completely unsuccessful person came, and Russia ceased to be governed.
Indecision of the generals. I remember a wonderful anecdote: when a Russian got to a desert island, he had one house, one vegetable garden, but always two churches. When asked why two, he replied: I do not go to that one.
The world will discuss for a long time why the collapse occurred Russian Empire
And so it happened: everyone wanted to be heroes or to condemn each other. This absurdity, indecision of the generals, of course, played a role, because the army did not act as a united front.
The impudence of the terrorists, whose names our streets are named today. The indecision of politicians who tried to show that one of them is better than the other, without thinking about Russia. It is in this combination of factors that this tragedy happened, which, of course, is a tragedy not only for Russia, but for the whole world. The world will understand for a long time and collect a completely wild harvest after what happened a hundred years ago.
Andrey Zubov, Doctor of Historical Sciences
The most important thing that led to the downfall of the Russian Empire was the greatest social injustice of old Russia, especially the 18th and 19th centuries, before the great reforms.
Then most The Russian population was made up of peasants who were actually slaves for the upper class, that is, the nobility. People were smart enough to understand this, and they strove for freedom, understanding injustice.
The death of the Russian Empire - social injustice of old Russia
This injustice was never completely resolved until the 1905 revolution. This injustice was played by the Bolsheviks and other radical parties that led Russia to revolution and disaster. So the fact that a revolution took place is primarily to blame for the old order and not very skillful attempts to overcome it from Alexander II to Nicholas II.
Stanislav Belkovsky, political scientist
The elite of this empire is always to blame for the collapse of any empire.
One hundred more factors can be cited, but all of them will be auxiliary and not even secondary, but tertiary. Likewise, the Soviet Union collapsed because the socialist elite no longer wanted to build communism. The Russian empire collapsed because the elite of the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not formulate any new goals for this empire.
First of all, there were supposed to be some reforms that would transform the Russian Empire in the direction of the European state, but this did not happen. The last emperor, Nicholas II, was extremely inconsistent in his decisions, he had no specific concept, except for one: the preservation of his own God-given power.
Belkovsky: the elite of the empire is always to blame for the collapse of any empire
He was too weak to maintain this power by brute military force, and at the same time he could not offer any reform program that would transform Russia politically, economically, and technologically. Formally, it is Nicholas II who bears full responsibility, because if he had not abdicated the throne (under pressure, by the way, not by some oppositionists, but by his own generals, as well as prominent representatives of the State Duma, and pro-monarchist ones), he would not have disappeared the very institution of monarchy, and the Empire could have existed for some time.
Evgeny Pchelov, candidate of historical sciences, researcher of the history of the Russian nobility
I believe that both internal and external factors led to the death of the Russian Empire.
As for the internal life of the country, it is quite obvious that there is some delay and lagging behind the political system of the state economic development and generally from overall development European civilization during this period. In other words, the political system of the autocratic monarchy did not meet the tasks of modernizing the country and time. If some reforms were made, the Russian monarchy could turn into a constitutional monarchy following the example of England, and the revolution might have been avoided.
Both internal and external factors led to the death of the Russian Empire
Secondly, the foreign policy situation also played a role: First World War accelerated the process of revolutionary heat. Indeed, before the war, in the last peaceful year of Russia, it was the year of the Romanov anniversary, it seemed that the state was extremely stable, and no outbursts of discontent were observed. The war exacerbated the situation inside the country. The war dragged on, was not successful for Russia, was fraught with very great hardships, revealed problems in the system government controlled and the economy, and, of course, contributed to the creation of what in Soviet times was called the "revolutionary situation". Third, it is, of course, radicalization revolutionary movement, which set itself the task of not just transforming the state system, but breaking down the entire state machine and creating an absolutely new system, a new social system. The combination of all three factors played a detrimental role in this sad phenomenon, which is the death of the Russian Empire.
On December 8, 1991, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, the leaders of the three union republics: Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the "Agreement on the Establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States", which in fact was the "death sentence" of the last empire on the planet - the USSR.
Recently, President V. Putin called the collapse of the USSR the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century and his personal tragedy. Today in Russian society there is a lot of talk about the treacherous role of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, who allegedly destroyed the USSR on the orders of the USA and Western countries. At the same time, many recall that the majority of the inhabitants of the USSR in the referendum spoke in favor of preserving the integrity of the state.
But is it really so? Is Gorbachev and Yeltsin, who "sold out to the Americans," is it really the responsibility for the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century"? And was the collapse of the USSR really a disaster for all Soviet people?
I will not delve into the chronology of the events that preceded the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreement - those who wish can find a lot of information on this topic on the Internet. I want, as an ordinary witness, to express my personal attitude and vision of those events.
First of all, I would like to point out the main thing that in 1990 most of the Soviet republics adopted declarations of state sovereignty, and some (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia and Moldova) declared their full independence. Moreover, the inhabitants of the autonomous republics also "remembered" their right to self-determination. For example, on August 30, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Tatar ASSR adopted the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the Tatar SSR. The declaration, in contrast to similar acts of other autonomous Russian republics, did not indicate the location of the republic either in the RSFSR or the USSR. Ethnic armed conflicts raged in many parts of the former empire. The Soviet Union was bursting at the seams. That is, already a year before the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreement, the USSR actually did not exist and it was necessary to do something about it.
In an attempt to save the country, President Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev staged an All-Union Referendum on the Preservation of the USSR, which took place on March 17, 1991. Today, the results of this very referendum are nodded by the "sufferers", saying: "The people then spoke for the preservation of the USSR, and Gorbachev and Yeltsin betrayed" Is it really so?
This referendum can only be called "all-Union" at a stretch. All the Baltic republics, as well as Georgia, Moldova and Armenia refused to hold it on their territories. As a result, 148 million (79.5%) of 185 million (80%) citizens of the USSR with the right to vote took part, of which 113 million (76.43%), having answered “Yes”, spoke in favor of preserving the “renewed USSR”.
The question of the referendum sounded like this:
"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 a person of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"
That is, even those who supported the questions of the referendum did not support the preservation of the old communist USSR, but actually supported the creation new country... And another very curious little-known fact. The Sverdlovsk region is the only region of the Soviet republics where a referendum was held, voted against the preservation of the USSR and in an updated form. In Moscow and Leningrad, the opinions of the townspeople were also divided almost equally.
After the referendum, the President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev, having some shaky, but still support, began preparations for the conclusion of a new Soviet treaty, the signing of which was scheduled for August 20.
But all the plans were ruined by the putschists of the State Emergency Committee, having carried out an attempt to forcibly remove Mikhail Gorbachev from the post of President of the USSR on August 21, 1991 and thereby disrupting the signing of a new Union Treaty.
After the putsch, anarchy actually ensued in the USSR. The central government ceased to control even those regions that advocated the preservation of the USSR. Anarchy for a country with a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons was already a threat to the entire planet. The collapse of the USSR was watched with horror throughout the world. The leaders of the founding republics of the USSR could not fail to understand this: the RSFSR, Ukraine and Belarus. And in order to end the anarchy on the huge ruins of the Soviet empire, it was decided to urgently sign an agreement on the creation of the Union of Independent States (CIS). This was done on December 8, 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. So the end was put on the existence of the USSR.
Today one can argue a lot about the possibility of preserving the USSR at that time. You can blame Gorbachev and the leaders of the republics for cowardice and for not keeping the country by force.
It seems to me that the main merit of Gorbachev and Yeltsin is that they did not allow the situation to develop into a full-scale war. Blood was spilled, of course, but incomparably less than it could have been. I'm not even talking about the past threat of nuclear war.
I believe that the collapse of the USSR is a natural historical process, which was laid down already at its creation, because it was based on crazy communist ideas and terror. The people themselves put an end to the USSR, and Gorbachev and Yeltsin only formalized a fait accompli.
To all those who are now accusing Gorbachev and Yeltsin, I would advise first of all to ask themselves, "What did I do then to preserve the USSR?"
The collapse of the USSR brought not only negative consequences, but also gave the citizens of the Soviet republics a chance to build their independent democracies. How this was used later is another topic.
Reviews
Before the USSR collapsed, a very strange fashion appeared among the people. Now this will seem ridiculous, but then it was in all seriousness: everything foreign was held in high esteem. Moreover, it doesn't even matter what, the main thing is that it was. It's just that if you're wearing a T-shirt with a foreign inscription, then you're cool. If with a Russian inscription, you are behind. And it doesn't matter that it is made of high-quality Uzbek cotton; even from cheap synthetics, but the main thing is that there is a foreign word. If "LADA" is written on the upper part of the windshield of your Lada in big stretched letters, then you are an advanced fashionable dude. Well, if it's just a Lada, it sucks. About all sorts of tape recorders, gum, jeans and other consumer goods - the same thing. There is nothing to say about foreign cars - when they looked at them, they thought "what a beauty." All this formed the opinion among the people of at least half of the society "We were lied all the time that the West is rotting, and their goods are incomparably better than ours." But most of all, this was spurred on by the fact that for an ordinary honest Soviet worker, all this was, in principle, inaccessible: to show off all this was the prerogative of exceptionally shabby people who had travel abroad. And a simple Soviet citizen was deprived of his right to go where he wanted to and buy what he wanted there. And the right to change currency, change currency at the bank and go buy it at "Birch". He could only buy it in the market from speculators at a ripping price. The shovel type of citizen for the youth of that time became a "sucker", and this, of course, played a role.
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 that 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 renounced power?
Was the USSR doomed or ruined? What caused the collapse of the USSR? Who is to blame for this?
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was created in December 1922 through the unification of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR and the ZSFSR. It was the most large country, which occupied 1/6 of the earth's land. According to the agreement on December 30, 1922, the Union consisted of sovereign republics, each retained the right to freely withdraw from the Union, the right to enter into relations with foreign states, and participate in the activities of international organizations.
Stalin warned that such a form of alliance was unreliable, but Lenin reassured: as long as there is a party that holds the country together like a reinforcement, the country's integrity is out of danger. But Stalin was 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 establishment of the CIS in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8, 1991. The Belovezhskaya agreements did not dissolve the USSR, but only ascertained its actual disintegration by that time. Formally, Russia and Belarus did not proclaim independence from the USSR, but only recognized the fact of its termination.
The secession from the USSR was a collapse, since, legally, none of the republics fulfilled all the procedures prescribed by the law "On the procedure for resolving issues related to the secession of the union republic from the USSR."
The following reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union can be distinguished:
1 \\ the 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 a shortage of consumer goods
3 \\ interethnic conflicts and corruption of elites
4 \\ "cold war" and the US conspiracy to lower world oil prices in order to weaken the USSR
5\ afghan war, man-made and other large-scale disasters
6 \\ "sale" to the West of the "socialist camp"
7 \\ subjective factor, expressed in the personal struggle of Gorbachev and Yeltsin for power.
When I served in the Northern Fleet, in those years of the Cold War, I myself guessed and explained through political information that the arms race serves not to defeat us in the war, but to economically undermine our state.
80% of the USSR budget expenditures went to defense. Alcohol was drunk more than under the king, about 3 times. The state budget received vodka every 6 rubles.
Perhaps the anti-alcohol campaign was and was needed, but as a result, the state did not receive 20 billion rubles.
In Ukraine alone, people have accumulated 120 billion rubles in savings books, which it was impossible to buy. It was necessary in any way to get rid of this burden on the economy, 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 speak not of disintegration, but of the deliberate collapse of the country.
The collapse of the USSR was a Western Cold War project. 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 lower 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 containing 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 that, prices fell 6.1 times.
In the United States, in order to constantly monitor the development of events in the Soviet Union, the so-called "Center for the Study of the Course of Perestroika" was created. It included representatives of the CIA, DIA (military intelligence), the Intelligence and Research Directorate of the State Department.
US President George W. Bush said at the August 1992 Republican Party convention that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to "the foresight and decisive leadership of presidents from both parties."
The ideology of communism turned out to be just a bogey of the Cold War. “They aimed at communism, but they hit 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 the surveyed residents of Belarus regret the collapse of the Soviet Union, 68% - Russia and 59% - Ukraine.
Even Vladimir Putin admitted that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. For the Russian people, it has become a real drama. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and compatriots found themselves outside the Russian territory. "
It is obvious that the chairman of the KGB Andropov was mistaken 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 settled issue. Ruined ... "
Someone considers Gorbachev an outstanding figure of the era. He is credited with democratization and publicity. But these are only means of carrying out economic reforms that have not been implemented. The purpose of "perestroika" was to preserve power, as well as Khrushchev's "thaw" and the famous XX Congress to debunk Stalin's "personality cult".
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, urging the republics to take as much sovereignty as they could.
Similarly, at the beginning of the 13th century in Kievan Rus appanage princes destroyed the country, placing the thirst for personal power above national interests.
In 1611, the same elite (boyars) sold out to the Poles, letting false Dmitry into the Kremlin, if only they would retain their privileges.
I remember Yeltsin's speech at the higher Komsomol school at the Central Committee of the Komsomol, which was his triumphant return to politics. Compared to Gorbachev, Yeltsin seemed consistent and determined.
The greedy "young wolves", who no longer believed in any fairy tales about communism, began to destroy the system in order to get to the "trough". For this it was necessary to destroy the USSR and remove Gorbachev. Almost all republics voted for the collapse of the USSR to gain unlimited power.
Stalin, of course, blew a lot, but did not allow the collapse of the country.
What is more important: human rights or the integrity of the country? If the collapse of the state is allowed, then it will be impossible to ensure the observance of 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 problem of a country's development is always a problem of the personal power of a particular ruler.
I happened to be in the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1989, and I noticed that all the talk was about the personal struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev. The employee of the CPSU Central Committee who invited me directly said: "the gentlemen are fighting, but the lads' foreheads are cracking."
The first official visit of Boris Yeltsin to the United States in 1989, Gorbachev regarded as a conspiracy to seize power from him.
Is it because, immediately after the signing of the agreement on the CIS, the first to whom Yeltsin called was not Gorbachev, but US President George W. Bush, who apparently promised in advance to recognize the independence of Russia.
The KGB knew about the West's plans for a controlled collapse of the USSR, reported to Gorbachev, but he did nothing. He has already received the Nobel Peace Prize.
The elite was simply bought. Former secretaries of regional committees were bought by the West with presidential honors.
In April 1996, I witnessed a visit by US President Clinton to St. Petersburg, saw him near the Atlanteans near the Hermitage. Anatoly Sobchak got into the car next to Clinton.
I am against totalitarian and authoritarian government. But did Andrei Sakharov, who fought to abolish Article 6 of the Constitution, understand that the ban on the CPSU, which constituted 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 "a voice crying in the wilderness."
On July 29, 1991, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Nazarbayev met in Novo-Ogaryovo, at which they agreed to begin signing a new union treaty on August 20, 1991. But those who headed the Emergency Committee proposed their own plan to save the country. Gorbachev decided to leave for Foros, where he simply waited to join the winner. He knew everything, since the GKChP was formed by Gorbachev himself on March 28, 1991.
During the days of the August putsch, I rested in the 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 local store, but they did not sell it using the checkbook of the USSR Bank, due to the local restrictions at that time. On August 19, these restrictions were suddenly lifted, and on August 20, I was able to make a purchase. But on August 21, the restrictions were again introduced, 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 with Gorbachev, whose mediocrity in carrying out reforms was already understood by everyone.
In fact, it was about the need to remove Gorbachev from power. This was the goal of both the top of the CPSU and the opposition, headed by Yeltsin. The failure of Gorbachev was obvious to many. But he did not want to transfer 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 proved by the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet of Russia in 1993.
Alexander Rutskoy called the GKChP 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 the GKChP members reminded me of the arrest of the members of the Provisional Government in October 1917, who were also soon released because that was the "agreement" on the transfer of power.
The indecision of the GKChP can be explained by the fact that the "coup" was only a staging with the aim of "leaving nicely", 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 Soviet 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 pipe only if it refused to feed its allies.
The new rulers had no 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 recognized as acceptable.
But it was not economic factors that dominated. If private property were allowed, the USSR would not have collapsed. The reason is different: the elite stopped believing in the socialist idea and decided to cash out their privileges.
The people were a pawn in the struggle for power. Commodity and food shortages were created deliberately in order to displease people and thus 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 displease Gorbachev's government.
It was a war for power, where the people served as a bargaining chip.
The conspirators in Belovezhskaya Pushcha did not think about preserving the country, but about how to get rid of Gorbachev and gain unlimited power.
Gennady Burbulis - the one who proposed the formulation of the termination of the USSR as a geopolitical reality - later called the collapse of the USSR "a great disaster and tragedy."
Co-author of the Belovezhskaya agreements Vyacheslav Kebich (in 1991 the Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus) admitted: “If I were Gorbachev, I would send a group of riot police and we would all sit quietly in Matrosskaya Tishina and await amnesty.”
But Gorbachev only thought about what position he would be left in the CIS.
And it was necessary, without hiding his head in the sand, to fight for the territorial integrity of our state.
If Gorbachev had been elected by the people and not by the deputies of the congress, it would have been more difficult to deprive him of legitimacy. 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. As a result, the struggle between the two vanities led to the collapse of the country.
If it were not for Yeltsin's maniacal desire to seize power and topple Gorbachev, to avenge his humiliation, then one could still hope for something. But Yeltsin could not forgive Gorbachev for publicly discrediting, and when he “knocked down” Gorbachev, he gave him a humiliatingly low pension.
We were often told that the people are the source of power and driving force stories. 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, unrestrainedly striving for power?
In a referendum on March 17, 1991, 78% of citizens spoke in favor of preserving the renewed union. But did the politicians listen to the opinion of the people? No, they were pursuing personal selfish interests.
Gorbachev said one thing, but did another, gave orders and pretended not to know anything.
For some reason, in Russia, the problems of the country's development have always been the 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 it because of this there is a desire among terrorists to overthrow the leader of the state in the hope of changing the 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 the mine.
But history teaches no one. Since the time of Confucius, it has been known that officials need to be examined for office. And we appoint. Why? Because it is not the professional qualities of an official that are important, but personal loyalty to the authorities. And why? Because the boss is not interested in success, but primarily in maintaining his position.
The main thing for the ruler is to maintain personal power. Because if power is taken away from him, then he will not be able to do anything. No one has ever voluntarily renounced their privileges, did not recognize someone else's superiority. A ruler cannot simply give up power himself, he is a slave to power!
Churchill compared power to a drug. In fact, power is about maintaining control and management. And whether it is a monarchy or a democracy is not so important. Democracy and dictatorship are just the most effective way to 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 the executor.
According to the philosopher Boris Mezhuev, "democracy is the organized distrust of the people in power."
Post-democracy is replacing managed democracy.
When they say that the people were wrong, then those who think so are wrong. Because only the speaker like that definitely doesn't know the people he thinks about. People are not that stupid in their mass, and they are not cattle 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” renounced 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 over those who are guilty of 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 a regular session of the Russian Thought seminar at the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy in St. Petersburg. Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Philosophy of St. Petersburg state university Vladimir Alexandrovich 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 are now living in a catastrophic situation.
Nikolai Berdyaev, when he was interrogated by F. Dzerzhinsky, said that Russian communism is a punishment for the Russian people for all those sins and abominations that the Russian elite and the renegade Russian intelligentsia have done in recent decades.
In 1922 Nikolai Berdyaev was expelled from Russia on the so-called "philosophical steamer".
The most conscientious representatives of the Russian elite, who found themselves in exile, admitted their guilt for the revolution.
But does our current "elite" really recognize its responsibility for the collapse of the USSR? ..
Was the USSR a civilization? Or was it an unprecedented social experiment?
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 takes about 10 generations. But over 70 years of Soviet power, it could not develop.
4 \\ One of the hallmarks of civilization is beliefs. The USSR had its own belief in communism.
Even the ancient Greeks noticed the cyclical nature of the alternation of forms of power: aristocracy - democracy - tyranny - aristocracy ... For two thousand years, mankind 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 repeated in China, in Cuba, North Korea, in Venezuela and in other countries.
The USSR was an unprecedented social experiment, but the experiment turned out to be unviable.
The point is that justice and social equity conflict with economic efficiency. Where the main thing is profit, 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 digging a hole after him. I asked what they were doing. And they answered that the third worker who plants trees had not come.
The specificity of our mentality is that we do not see happiness in progress and do not strive for development as a Western person. We are more inclined to contemplation. Our national hero Ivan the Fool (Oblomov) lies on the stove and dreams of a kingdom. And he gets up only when he wants to.
We develop from time to time only under the pressure of the vital necessity of survival.
This is reflected in our Orthodox faith, which evaluates a person not by deeds, but by faith. Catholicism speaks of personal responsibility for choice and calls for activity. And with us, everything is determined by providence and the grace of God, which is incomprehensible.
Russia is not just a territory, it is an Idea! Regardless of the name - USSR, SSG, CIS or Eurasian Union.
The Russian idea is simple: you 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 state 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 proved by the successes of communist China, which has managed to become a superpower, overtaking unprincipled Russia.
The ideas of social justice, equality and fraternity are ineradicable. Perhaps they are embedded in human consciousness as a matrix that periodically tries to be realized.
What's wrong with the ideas of freedom, equality and brotherhood, universal happiness for people, regardless of religion and nationality?
These ideas will never die, they are eternal because they are true. Their truth is that they correctly grasp the essence of human nature.
Only those ideas are eternal that are consonant with the thoughts and feelings of living people. After all, if they find a response in the souls of millions, it means that there is something in these ideas. People cannot be united by someone's one truth, because everyone sees the truth in his own way. All at the same time cannot be delusional. 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 along. "
LOVE TO CREATE A NECESSITY!
(from my novel "A strange strange strange strange unusual stranger" on the site New Russian Literature
And in your opinion, WHY KILLED THE USSR?
© Nikolay Kofyrin - New Russian Literature -