Yeltsin vs. Gorbachev: who really ruined the USSR and how perestroika was replaced by “shock therapy. World history in faces

For those in whom the remnants of memory and conscience are still alive, today's headlines of publications look extremely strange. As if not the greatest destroyer in the history of Russia had died, but some bright genius who raised it from the ashes. Alas, such are the grimaces of history, distorted before our eyes for the sake of politics.

As an epitaph

On December 8, 1991, Boris Yeltsin, Stanislav Shushkevich and Leonid Kravchuk signed agreements in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, according to which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist. Political, administrative and cultural ties between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan and other now independent countries were forcibly interrupted. A unified economy and a unified defense system ceased to exist. Millions of relatives found themselves on different sides of the borders.

On January 1, 1992, a massive price liberalization suddenly began. At that time, about 500 billion rubles were on deposits in savings banks. Within a few weeks, inflation reduced all these savings to nothing. Millions of Russian citizens have lost their funds accumulated for many years.

Following this, a voucher privatization was organized, redistributing state property in favor of a small group of people close to Yeltsin, Gaidar, Chubais. More than 150,000 enterprises, including the main giants of Russian industry, were sold for next to nothing.

The war began in Nagorno-Karabakh, during which about 30 thousand people died, the civil war began in Transnistria, in which about one and a half thousand people died, the Georgian-Abkhaz war began, during which about 8 thousand people died, the civil war in Tajikistan, in which killed over 100,000 people.

Following the collapse of Russia, the collapse of Yugoslavia began, leading it to a bloody civil-ethnic war, hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed and destitute.

During the years of Yeltsin's reforms, the strength of the Russian Armed Forces was reduced to 1.7 million servicemen. A wave of suicides of officers swept across the country, who had nothing else to feed their families.

On October 4, 1993, the White House, a meeting of people's deputies who dared to oppose the government's suicidal course, was shot down. 143 dead at the White House in Moscow, according to official figures, according to unofficial numbers - thousands.

Due to the fact that Russian troops withdrew from Chechnya in 1992, leaving dozens of weapons depots there, a powerful terrorist movement arose in this Caucasian republic. In 1994, the war began. During the war years, only according to official data, 2,355 soldiers died, about 6,000 became crippled. Even before the start of the war, the Russian genocide in Chechnya claimed the lives of at least 20 thousand people, while about 400 thousand people lost their homes and became refugees.

In the mid-90s, the falling solvency of the population led to a two-fold decrease in the consumption of basic foodstuffs. The lives of ordinary people were devalued. Direct population losses amounted to more than 4 million people, and taking into account potential parents who were not born due to difficult living conditions, more than 10 million. . All social ills sharply worsened: alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution. The number of AIDS patients in 1996-1997 alone increased 7 times. The spread of syphilis has increased 50 times. Families began to collapse en masse. During the 10 years of Yeltsin's rule, the number of births decreased by almost 2 times. By 2000, 30% of children were born out of wedlock. Abortions have tripled the birth rate. Child neglect has increased to 3.5 million - a fantastic figure for peacetime.

All this time, Yeltsin's behavior abroad made Russians blush for their country.

In August 1994, while in Germany on the occasion of the completion of the withdrawal of Russian troops from it, Boris N. Yeltsin, in a state of deep intoxication, in the presence of many journalists and television cameras, tried to conduct a German military orchestra. When Yeltsin arrived in Washington in September 1994, dead drunk, he wandered through the rooms of the Blair House residence in his underwear, molested secret service agents and shouted “Pizza! Pizza!" until the bodyguards took him by the elbows. Returning from the United States, Yeltsin for several hours was unable to get off the plane for prearranged talks with the Irish Prime Minister, who met him at Shannon Airport.

In recent years, Yeltsin did not participate in politics - seriously ill, he was clearly not up to it. And then he finally died.

We have nothing to mourn or rejoice about today. The destroyer and murderer died, whether through drunken stupidity, or through sober intent - what's the difference? - destroying what was built with the sweat and blood of millions of Russians, and not only Russians, people.

But the political situation is forcing the official authorities to put on a mask of grief, and not only to pull on themselves, but in general on everyone. That's the etiquette. To obey it or not is your own business, reader.

Yeltsin's chief lawyer provided him with legal cover for the collapse of the Union, the shooting of the parliament and the war in Chechnya

The unprofessional, unpatriotic, mediocre and criminal actions of the Russian authorities in the 90s had to be legally protected. It was necessary to provide legal cover for the Belovezhskaya Accords in 1991, the unconstitutional dispersal of the Supreme Council in 1993, and write a new Constitution.

This required a person experienced in legal subtleties, devoted, not burdened with moral complexes and timid thinking. Such a person for Yeltsin and his team became Sergei Shakhrai.

Together with Burbulis and Gaidar, he participated in the development of documents stating that the USSR "as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist." Shakhrai wrote the text of Yeltsin's Decree No. 1400, which opened the way for tank fire in parliament. Shakhrai tried for a long time and unsuccessfully to pacify the rebellious Chechnya, then to overthrow the recalcitrant Dudayev by proxy, and in 1995 he defended the legitimacy of Yeltsin's decision to start a shameful military campaign in the Constitutional Court.

“Everything else was somehow not discussed”

Shakhrai was appointed Deputy Prime Minister on December 12, 1991, exactly on the day of the denunciation of the Union Treaty, which legally sealed the collapse of the USSR. This underscores his personal involvement in terminating the document signed by the four republics when the Soviet Union was created in 1922. Moreover, an incident arose during the voting.

Shakhrai and other authors of the Belovezhskaya Accords had to patiently explain in the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR why they needed to be ratified, and the Union Treaty - on the contrary, denounce. Shakhrai argued that the Union Treaty, strictly speaking, was never concluded by the representatives of the parties, and if it was valid, it became invalid after the entry into force of the Constitution of 1936, but it still needs to be denounced just in case, "for legal clarity" because the parliaments of Ukraine and Belarus did so. In other words, something that never happened, and then ceased to exist, needs to be finished off again, just in case, in order to be sure that everything is now for sure.

When the deputies had doubts about whether they had the right to ratify agreements that contradicted the Constitution of the RSFSR, without the decision of the Congress of People's Deputies, Shakhrai reassured them by issuing a clever formula that when concluding agreements, the state "undertakes obligations to then bring the norms of national law, including constitutional ones, into line with the concluded agreement."

Shakhrai assures that Russia's sovereignty was a forced means in order to preserve its integrity. In the 72nd article of the Constitution of the USSR, the right of free exit for the union republics was recorded, and in 1991 Gorbachev was ready to conclude union agreements with the republics and autonomies that were part of Russia, and to communicate with them already " over the head» Yeltsin. The autonomization plan thus threatened the RSFSR with a potential loss of 20 million people, 51% of the territory and almost all strategic resources.

According to Shakhrai, the collapse of the USSR and the agreement on the creation of the CIS without a union government was a forced maneuver aimed at to outplay Gorbachev with his autonomy plan.

Moreover, the circumstances under which these new agreements on the creation of the CIS were concluded, if you delve into the memoirs of Shakhrai himself, were to put it mildly, strange. Having gathered “just to talk”, without any intentions to make any decisions, during an official visit to Minsk, word for word, three presidents with retinues agreed to the point that the country no longer exists. It happened after dinner, when Kravchuk returned from hunting, and Yeltsin and Shushkevich arrived from Minsk.

And the topic sounded (I don’t remember who voiced it, but it somehow caressed the ear) - “Slavic Union,” Shakhrai said in an interview with Forbes magazine. - Although it quickly became clear that the effect would be the opposite. But the phrase itself attracted: “Slavic Union”.

When neither the "Slavic" nor the "union" suited anyone, they settled on the "commonwealth of independent states." And they gave the task to the assistants - to figure out what it means by morning.

Gaidar and Shakhrai wrote the agreement. According to the latter, they were guided by the following: "We felt that in the commonwealth there should be unity, and what cannot be united." Today, there is little logic in what these two felt: for example, the reformers believed that nuclear forces, currency, money emission should be united in the new commonwealth, but foreign policy, for example, was to become independent and be coordinated between the republics only at the level coordination.

Concocted overnight, on the knee, with such a clear level of incompetence of the performers, the commonwealth, of course, could not be realized, and it was not realized.

Army? recalls Shakhrai. - Only nuclear forces, everything else was somehow not discussed ... No, we had a headquarters, a single joint headquarters.

According to the former chief of the presidential guard Alexander Korzhakov, the ideologists of the Belovezhskaya Accords were Burbulis, Shakhrai and Kozyrev.

Before the meeting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, Boris Nikolayevich discussed with Shushkevich, and with Kravchuk, and with Nazarbayev, the options for disengagement. But few people even in their thoughts admitted that the separation would happen so soon and thoughtlessly, he says.

"As much sovereignty as you want"

Sergei Shakhrai met Boris Yeltsin at the first session of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR in July 1990, at which he was elected chairman of the most important Legislation Committee. Under the EBN, he became the chief legal consultant, the head of the State Legal Administration, which under him turned into a super-department, under the influence comparable to the presidential administration, parliament and government. The texts of presidential decrees were composed in the GPU, which were then directly, without the mediation of third parties, delivered to Yeltsin on the table. Sergei Shakhrai was not only Yeltsin's right hand, he also wrote decrees to him.

Shakhrai supervised the Federal Security Agency of the RSFSR, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR, the State Committee of the RSFSR on National Policy, from February 1992 he managed the activities of the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. The army and law enforcement agencies are structures that in Yeltsin's Russia were mercilessly destroyed, became the forge of criminal structures, and then got bogged down in the endless conflict in Chechnya. One of the main reasons for this conflict was just the destruction of the state-forming structures, which were in charge of Shakhrai.

Finally, from the end of 1992, he was responsible for the implementation of the state of emergency on the territory of the North Ossetian and Ingush republics and was supposed to coordinate the activities of the bodies, forces, means and armed formations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Security, the Ministry of Defense stationed in the territories of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Karachayevo -Cherkess SSR, the Republic of Adygea, the Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories and the Rostov Region.

"Shakhrai demonstrated a new Russian regional policy in the North Caucasus - pragmatic, flexible, combining a readiness for lengthy negotiations with the ability to act by force," the United Russia website says today.

Despite the fact that Chechnya adopted the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the Chechen-Ingush Republic back in 1990, oil was supplied to the local refinery from different regions of Russia, which separatists and bandits sold abroad.

Only on November 5, 1993, Shakhrai prepared proposals for Yeltsin to resolve the situation around Chechnya. He proposed to act through negotiations, combined with forceful pressure on the authorities of the republic, in order to force them to abandon the idea of self-determination outside of Russia. The note said that the Chechen authorities use the proceeds from the oil trade to purchases of weapons and armaments of their supporters, creating the appearance of free distribution of fuel to the population, paying for flour supplies and artificially maintaining low prices for bread, bribing religious authorities, paying mercenaries from the Baltic states and Georgia.

In addition, the note said: trading in Russian oil, Dzhokhar Dudayev creates for foreigners the image of an independent oil country, while the republic is turning into a transshipment base for drugs and weapons.

Oil supplies to Chechnya were stopped only in 1994, when the separatist regime was armed to the teeth and ready for war.

There are many suggestions about where Dzhokhar Dudayev, the only Chechen general in the Soviet army, came from in Chechen politics - a man, according to his colleagues, quick-tempered, emotional, prone to authoritarianism, in general, ready for a small but cruel war. According to one version, he was in his republic a protege of Moscow, and in particular Shakhrai. However, there is another opinion - that at some point Shakhrai simply encouraged such conversations in order to give himself weight.

According to the former head of the GPU and the Minister for Nationalities, Russia's trouble was not the absence of a national policy towards Chechnya, but " plurality of such policies».

The then Minister of Defense Pavel Grachev spoke about the same thing in his last interview with Forbes - albeit in an unflattering context for Shakhrai. In November 1994, the anti-Dudaev Chechen opposition, armed by the federals and reinforced by volunteers from the Russian military, made a rush to Grozny. The tanks reached the city center without any problems, but there they were shot from grenade launchers. Many tankers died, dozens were captured, after which it turned out that they were Russian servicemen, which was the last step towards an unprepared and mediocre military operation. According to many testimonies, neither before nor after the Russian authorities were not ready for negotiations with Dudayev.

Our government ... through the efforts of our friends Seryozha Shakhrai and Andryukha Kozyrev, convinced Boris Nikolaevich not to talk to Dudayev, Grachev argued. - Here is Dudayev, when he was elected president, and started talking about independence. He started talking about independence not because he wanted to secede from Russia. He, as a mountain man, was simply offended by the fact that he, popularly elected, is not considered, they are not invited to the Kremlin and they say that you are a 100 percent reject of society.

Alexander Korzhakov also mentions that while separatist Tatarstan was given the broadest powers by Moscow, they were not ready to talk in the Kremlin with Chechnya about the same, and precisely because of the “multiplicity of politicians” and the struggle of vanities:

Dudayev went out to Yeltsin eight times, tried to talk to him. Especially since they hit Russia in the teeth in this failed operation. And who is to blame for the events of November 1994, which provoked the war? After all, it turns out that Russia received a slap in the face, and Yeltsin, naturally, as an ambitious person, said: “We must answer ...”

“Sergei Shakhrai did not want to give up the laurels of the main peacemaker. The minister prepared a State Duma resolution adopted last Friday, according to which Dudayev is invited to hold democratic elections before the start of negotiations. This condition is completely unacceptable for Dudayev, but but quite satisfied with the Chechen opposition. <...>Shakhrai is banking on the Chechen opposition, while the Kremlin is ready to make contacts with Dudayev himself. The question seems to be about who, on the eve of the presidential elections, will receive the title of “collector of Russian lands,” the Kommersant newspaper wrote on March 31, 1994.

Eight months later, having drank, pissed each other in slippers and bumped their asses to their heart's content, the "gatherers of Russian lands" will send troops into Chechnya. In the first Chechen campaign, they will die, according to various sources, from 4,103 to 14,000 Russian soldiers, 19,794 will be injured.

Why the surrender of the USSR was accepted by Malta and the Vatican. AndreyFursov

Dugin's directive: Belovezhskaya agreement

TV news about the collapse of the USSR (09.12.1991)

Fight: Sergey Shakhrai - 20th Anniversary of the Constitution of the Russian Federation

More detailed and a variety of information about the events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet conferences, constantly held on the website "Keys of Knowledge". All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite all interested...

Back in 1991, when the collapse of the USSR entered its final stage, the new leadership of the country, represented by President Boris Yeltsin, tried to keep the US partners up to date. This was told by the former vice-president of the Russian Federation Alexander Rutskoi.

“There was intelligence information that the White House was about to be stormed. And as soon as this information passed, Yeltsin immediately took it and was going to the American embassy. I stopped him all the time. I say: “Boris Nikolaevich, this cannot be done. Do you understand what you are doing?, - Rutskoi recalled, - When the agreements were signed in Belovezhye, George W. Bush became the first to whom Yeltsin reported that the Soviet Union was no more.
According to Rutskoy, Yeltsin spoke regularly with the US leadership and reported on the success of the unilateral surrender in the Cold War.
Today there are more questions about the putsch than answers. Declassified CIA documents will shed light on the events of 25 years ago. The journalists of the Zvezda TV channel, together with eyewitnesses, studied the secret mechanisms that led the USSR to a catastrophe, the echoes of which are still being felt.
In the memoirs of George W. Bush, which was published in a book called "The Changed World", Bory'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 announce his meeting with Leonid Kravchuk and Stanislav Shushkevich, the presidents of Ukraine and Belarus. In fact, he was still with them in the room of a 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 hear about it from the press,” he said with pathos. Yeltsin explained that they held a two-day meeting and concluded that “the current system and the Union Treaty, which everyone is pushing us to sign, do not satisfy us. Therefore, we got together and signed a joint agreement a few minutes ago,” writes Bush-senior.
As a result, they signed a 16-point agreement on the creation of 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. But it seemed to me that the provisions of the signed agreement he set out seemed to be specially worded in such a way as to obtain the support of the United States: they directly set out the conditions for the recognition of which we advocated. I didn't want to prematurely express our approval or disapproval, so I simply said, "I understand."
"It is very important. Mr. President,” he added, “must tell you in confidence that Gorbachev is not aware of these results. He knew we were here. In fact, I myself told him that we would meet. Of course, we will immediately send him the text of our agreement, and, of course, he will have to make decisions at his own 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. We don't want to do anything in secret - we will release the statement to the press immediately. We hope for your understanding. Dear George, I have finished. This is extremely, extremely important. According to the tradition that has developed between us, 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. dated December 8, 1991, the day the Belovezhskaya Accords were signed.
The president Bush : Hello, Boris. How are you doing?
The president Yeltsin : Hello, Mr. President. I am very glad to welcome you. Mr. President, we agreed that in case of events of extreme importance we would inform each other, I - you, you - me. A very important event has taken place in our country today, and I would like to personally inform you before you hear about it from the press. The president Bush : Of course, thank you.
The president Yeltsin : We have gathered today, Mr. President, the leaders of three republics - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. We got together and after numerous lengthy discussions that lasted almost two days, we came to the conclusion that the existing system and the Union Treaty, which we are being urged to sign, do not suit us. That is why we got together and just a few minutes ago signed a joint agreement. Mr. President, we, the leaders of the three republics - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, stating that negotiations on a new [Union] treaty have reached an impasse, are aware of 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 conditions the creation of a commonwealth or a group of independent states.
Bush: Understand.
The president Yeltsin : The members of this Commonwealth aim at strengthening 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 stand for 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 where I am calling from, the President of Ukraine and the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus are with me. I also just finished talking with President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan. 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 the airport in Minsk for the signing.
Bush: Understand.
Yeltsin A: This is extremely important. These four republics produce 90% of the entire gross output of the Soviet Union. This is an attempt to preserve the commonwealth, but free us from the total control of the center, which has been giving instructions for more than 70 years. This is a very serious step, but we hope, we are convinced, we are sure 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 in confidence that President Gorbachev is not aware of these results. He knew about our intention to meet - 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 this 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.
Bush: Boris, I am grateful for your call and your frankness. We will now look at all 16 points. What do you think the reaction of the center will be?

Original classified transcript in English

At the current stage of development of the Russian Federation and neighboring states, which are the successors of the former USSR, there are a lot of political, economic and cultural problems. Their solution is impossible without a thorough analysis of the events connected with the disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This article contains clear and structured information about the collapse of the USSR, as well as an analysis of events and personalities directly related to this process.

Brief background

The years of the USSR are a history of victories and defeats, economic rise and fall. It is known that the Soviet Union as a state was formed in 1922. After that, as a result of many political and military events, its territory increased. The peoples and republics that were part of the USSR had the right to voluntarily withdraw from it. Repeatedly, the ideology of the country emphasized the fact that the Soviet state is a family of friendly peoples.

Regarding the leadership of such a huge country, it is not difficult to predict that it was centralized. The main organ of state administration was the CPSU party. And the leaders of the republican governments were appointed by the central Moscow leadership. The main legislative act regulating the legal state of affairs in the country was the Constitution of the USSR.

Reasons for the collapse of the USSR

Many powerful powers are going through difficult times in their development. Speaking about the collapse of the USSR, it should be noted that 1991 in the history of our state was very difficult and controversial. What contributed to this? There are a huge number of reasons that led to the collapse of the USSR. Let's try to focus on the main ones:

authoritarian power and society in the state, the persecution of dissidents;
nationalist tendencies in the union republics, the presence of ethnic conflicts in the country;
one state ideology, censorship, a ban on any political alternative;
economic crisis of the Soviet system of production (extensive method);
the international fall in the price of oil;
a number of unsuccessful attempts to reform the Soviet system;
colossal centralization of state authorities;
military failure in Afghanistan (1989).

These, of course, are far from all the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, but they can rightfully be considered fundamental.

The collapse of the USSR: the general course of events

With the appointment of Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev to the post of General Secretary of the CPSU in 1985, the policy of perestroika began, which was associated with sharp criticism of the previous political system, the disclosure of archival documents of the KGB and the liberalization of public life. But the state of affairs in the country has not only not changed, but worsened. The people became more active politically, the formation of many organizations and movements, sometimes nationalistic and radical, began. MS Gorbachev, the President of the USSR, repeatedly came into conflict with the future leader of the country, B. Yeltsin, over the withdrawal of the RSFSR from the Union.

nationwide crisis

The collapse of the USSR occurred gradually in all sectors of society. The crisis has come both economic and foreign policy, and even demographic. This was officially announced in 1989.

In the year of the collapse of the USSR, the age-old problem of Soviet society became apparent - the shortage of goods. Even the essentials are disappearing from store shelves.

Softness in the country's foreign policy turns into the fall of regimes of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Romania loyal to the USSR. New nation-states are being formed there.

On the territory of the country itself, it was also quite restless. Mass demonstrations begin in the union republics (a demonstration in Alma-Ata, the Karabakh conflict, unrest in the Ferghana Valley).

Rallies are also taking place in Moscow and Leningrad. The crisis in the country plays into the hands of the radical democrats headed by Boris Yeltsin. They are gaining popularity among the discontented masses.

Parade of Sovereignties

In early February 1990, the Central Committee of the Party announced the annulment of its dominance in power. Democratic elections were held in the RSFSR and the union republics, which were won by radical political forces in the form of liberals and nationalists.

In 1990 and early 1991, a wave of speeches swept through the entire Soviet Union, which later historians called the "parade of sovereignties." Many of the union republics during this period adopted Declarations of Sovereignty, which meant the supremacy of republican law over the all-union law.

The first territory that dared to leave the USSR was the Nakhichevan Republic. It happened back in January 1990. It was followed by: Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Lithuania and Armenia. Over time, all the allied states will issue a Declaration of Independence (after the putsch of the State Emergency Committee), and the USSR will finally collapse.

The last president of the USSR

The central role in the process of the collapse of the Soviet Union was played by the last president of this state - MS Gorbachev. The collapse of the USSR took place against the backdrop of the desperate activities of Mikhail Sergeevich to reform Soviet society and the system.

M. S. Gorbachev was from the Stavropol Territory (the village of Privolnoye). The statesman was born in 1931 in the simplest family. After graduating from high school, he continued his studies at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University, where he headed the Komsomol organization. There he met his future wife, Raisa Titarenko.

In his student years, Gorbachev was engaged in active political activity, joined the ranks of the CPSU and already in 1955 took the post of secretary of the Stavropol Komsomol. Gorbachev moved up the career ladder of a civil servant rapidly and confidently.

Rise to power

Mikhail Sergeevich came to power in 1985, after the so-called "epoch of the deaths of general secretaries" (three leaders of the USSR died in three years). It should be noted that the title "President of the USSR" (introduced in 1990) was worn only by Gorbachev, all previous leaders were called General Secretaries. The reign of Mikhail Sergeyevich was characterized by thorough political reforms, which were often not particularly thought out and radical.

Reform attempts

Such socio-political transformations include: prohibition, the introduction of cost accounting, money exchange, the policy of publicity, and acceleration.

For the most part, society did not appreciate the reforms and treated them negatively. And there was little benefit to the state from such radical actions.

In his foreign policy course, M. S. Gorbachev adhered to the so-called "policy of new thinking", which contributed to the detente of international relations and the cessation of the "arms race". For this position, Gorbachev received the Nobel Peace Prize. But the USSR at that time was in a terrible position.

August coup

Of course, attempts to reform the Soviet society, and in the end to completely destroy the USSR, were not supported by many. Some supporters of the Soviet government united and decided to oppose the destructive processes that were taking place in the Union.

The GKChP putsch was a political uprising that took place in August 1991. Its goal is the restoration of the USSR. The putsch of 1991 was regarded by the official authorities as an attempted coup d'état.

The events took place in Moscow from 19 to 21 August 1991. Among the many street clashes, the main bright event, which ultimately led the USSR to collapse, was the decision to create the State Committee for the State of Emergency (GKChP). It was a new body formed by state officials, headed by the vice-president of the USSR Gennady Yanaev.

The main reasons for the putsch

The main reason for the August coup can be considered dissatisfaction with Gorbachev's policies. Perestroika did not bring the expected results, the crisis deepened, unemployment and crime grew.

The last straw for the future putschists and conservatives was the desire of the President to transform the USSR into the Union of Sovereign States. After the departure of M. S. Gorbachev from Moscow, the dissatisfied did not miss the opportunity of an armed uprising. But the conspirators failed to retain power, the putsch was suppressed.

Significance of the GKChP coup

The putsch of 1991 launched an irreversible process of disintegration of the USSR, which was already in a state of continuous economic and political instability. Despite the desire of the putschists to preserve the state, they themselves contributed to its collapse. After this event, Gorbachev resigned, the structure of the CPSU collapsed, and the republics of the USSR began to gradually proclaim their independence. The Soviet Union was replaced by a new state - the Russian Federation. And 1991 is understood by many as the year of the collapse of the USSR.

Belovezhskaya agreements

The Belovezhskaya Accords of 1991 were signed on 8 December. The officials of three states - Russia, Ukraine and Belarus put their signatures under them. The agreements were a document that legislated the collapse of the USSR and the formation of a new organization of mutual assistance and cooperation - the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

As mentioned earlier, the GKChP putsch only weakened the central authorities and thus accompanied the collapse of the USSR. In some republics, separatist tendencies began to mature, which were actively promoted in the regional media. As an example, consider Ukraine. In the country, at a nationwide referendum on December 1, 1991, almost 90% of citizens voted for the independence of Ukraine, and L. Kravchuk was elected president of the country.

In early December, the leader issued a statement that Ukraine was renouncing the 1922 treaty establishing the USSR. The year 1991 thus became the starting point for Ukrainians on the way to their own statehood.

The Ukrainian referendum served as a kind of signal for President B. Yeltsin, who began to more persistently strengthen his power in Russia.

Creation of the CIS and the final destruction of the USSR

In turn, in Belarus, a new chairman of the Supreme Soviet, S. Shushkevich, was elected. It was he who invited the leaders of neighboring states Kravchuk and Yeltsin to Belovezhskaya Pushcha to discuss the current situation and coordinate subsequent actions. After minor discussions among the delegates, the fate of the USSR was finally decided. The treaty on the creation of the Soviet Union of December 31, 1922 was denounced, and instead a plan for the Commonwealth of Independent States was prepared. After this process, many disputes arose, since the treaty establishing the USSR was reinforced by the Constitution of 1924.

However, it should be noted that the 1991 Belovezhskaya Accords were adopted not by the will of three politicians, but by the will of the peoples of the former Soviet republics. Already two days after the signing of the agreement, the Supreme Soviets of Belarus and Ukraine adopted an act on the denunciation of the union treaty and ratified the agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. On December 12, 1991, the same procedure took place in Russia. Not only radical liberals and democrats, but also communists voted for the ratification of the Belovezhskaya Accords.

Already on December 25, the President of the USSR M. S. Gorbachev resigned. So, relatively simply, they destroyed the state system, which lasted for years. Although the USSR was an authoritarian state, there were certainly positive aspects in its history. Among them are the social security of citizens, the presence of clear state plans in the economy and excellent military power. Many people still remember life in the Soviet Union with nostalgia.

December 25 marks twenty years since the famous "renunciation" 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 disintegration with all the means at his disposal.
Why did Mikhail Gorbachev refuse to defend the USSR and renounce power?

Was the USSR doomed or destroyed? What caused the collapse of the USSR? Who is to blame?

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was created in December 1922 by the unification of the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, BSSR and ZSFSR. It was the largest country, occupying 1/6 of the earth's land. According to the agreement of December 30, 1922, the Union consisted of sovereign republics, each retained the right to freely secede 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 union was unreliable, but Lenin reassured him: as long as there is a party that holds the country together like reinforcement, the integrity of the country is out of danger. But Stalin was more far-sighted.

On December 25-26, 1991, the USSR ceased to exist as a subject of international law.
This was preceded by the signing in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8, 1991 of an agreement on the creation of the CIS. The Belovezhskaya agreements did not dissolve the USSR, but only stated its actual disintegration by that time. Formally, Russia and Belarus did not declare independence from the USSR, but only recognized the fact of the termination of its existence.

The exit from the USSR was a collapse, since legally none of the republics did not fulfill all the procedures prescribed by the law "On the procedure for resolving issues related to the exit of a 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, the absence of pluralism and real democratic civil liberties
2\disproportions of the planned economy of the USSR and the shortage of consumer goods
3\ interethnic conflicts and venality of elites
4\ "cold war" and the US plot 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 between Gorbachev and Yeltsin for power.

When I served in the Northern Fleet, in those years of the Cold War, I myself guessed and explained in political information that the arms race serves the purpose not to defeat us in the war, but to economically undermine our state.
80% of the budget expenditures of the USSR went to defense. They drank alcohol more than under the king by about 3 times. In the state budget from vodka were 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 accumulated 120 billion rubles in their savings books, which it was impossible to redeem. It was necessary to get rid of this burden on the economy in any way, 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 is more correct to speak not about the 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 made it 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 economy of the USSR, which was almost entirely dependent on the sale of oil.
On September 13, 1985, Saudi 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 by 3.5 times. After that, prices decreased by 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 consisted of representatives of the CIA, DIA (military intelligence), the Office of Intelligence and Research of the State Department.
US President George W. Bush said at the Republican Party Convention in August 1992 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 were aiming at communism, but they hit the people,” admitted the well-known 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 respondents in Belarus regret the collapse of the Soviet Union, 68% in Russia and 59% in Ukraine.

Even Vladimir Putin acknowledged 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 ended up outside Russian territory.”

Obviously, the chairman of the KGB, 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 acknowledged his responsibility for the collapse of the USSR: “This issue has been resolved. Ruined…”

Someone considers Gorbachev an outstanding figure of the era. He is credited with democratization and glasnost. But these are only means of carrying out economic reforms that have not been implemented. The goal of "perestroika" was to preserve power, as well as the "thaw" of Khrushchev 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, their people, they exchanged power for money, Crimea for the Kremlin.
The "terminator" of the USSR Boris Yeltsin deliberately destroyed the Union, urging the republics to take as much sovereignty as they could.
In the same way, at the beginning of the 13th century, in Kievan Rus, the appanage princes ruined the country, placing the thirst for personal power above national interests.
In 1611, the same elite (boyars) sold out to the Poles, letting the false Dmitry into the Kremlin, if only they would retain their privileges.

I remember Yeltsin's speech at the higher Komsomol school under the Komsomol Central Committee, which became his triumphant return to politics. Against the background of Gorbachev, Yeltsin seemed consistent and resolute.

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". It was for this that it was necessary to destroy the USSR and remove Gorbachev. To get unlimited power, almost all the republics voted for the collapse of the USSR.

Stalin, of course, let out a lot of blood, 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 problems of the country's development are always a problem of the personal power of a particular ruler.
I happened to visit 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 worker of the Central Committee of the CPSU who invited me said directly: “the gentlemen are fighting, and the lads are cracking their foreheads.”

Boris Yeltsin's first official visit to the United States in 1989 was regarded by Gorbachev as a plot to seize power from him.
Is it because, immediately after the signing of the CIS treaty, the first person Yeltsin called was not Gorbachev, but US President George W. Bush, who had apparently promised in advance to recognize Russia's independence.

The KGB knew about the plans of the West for the controlled collapse of the USSR, reported to Gorbachev, but he did nothing. He has already won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Elite just bought. The West bought the former secretaries of the regional committees with the presidential honors accorded to them.
In April 1996, I witnessed a visit by US President Clinton to St. Petersburg, I saw him near the Atlanteans 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 was the backbone of the state, would automatically lead to the collapse of the country into national specific 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, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Nazarbayev met in Novo-Ogaryovo, at which they agreed to start signing a new Union Treaty on August 20, 1991. But those who led the GKChP proposed their 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 coup, 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 didn’t sell it with a USSR bank checkbook, due to 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 already on August 21, restrictions were again introduced, apparently as a result of the victory of democracy.

The rampant nationalism in the Union republics was explained by the unwillingness of the local leaders to sink along 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. Both the top of the CPSU and the opposition, led by Yeltsin, aspired to 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 proved by the dispersal of the Supreme Soviet of Russia in 1993.

Alexander Rutskoi called the GKChP a "spectacle". While the defenders were dying on the streets of Moscow, on the fourth underground floor of the White House, the democratic elite arranged a banquet.

The arrest of members of the GKChP reminded me of the arrest of members of the Provisional Government in October 1917, who were also released soon after, because such was the "agreement" on the transfer of power.

The indecision of the State Committee for the State of Emergency can be explained by the fact that the "putsch" was only a staging with the aim of "getting off 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 dollars, the assets - at 110.1 billion dollars.

The logic of the reformers Gaidar and Yeltsin was simple. They calculated that Russia could survive on the oil pipeline only if it refused to feed its allies.
The new rulers had no money, and they devalued the money 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 from this. 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 deliberately created to cause people's discontent 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 arouse dissatisfaction with Gorbachev's power.
It was a war for power, where the people served as a bargaining chip.

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 one who proposed the wording about the termination of the USSR as a geopolitical reality - later called the collapse of the USSR "a great misfortune and tragedy."

The co-author of the Belovezhskaya Accords, Vyacheslav Kebich (in 1991, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus) admitted: “If I were Gorbachev, I would send a group of OMON and we would all sit quietly in Matrosskaya Tishina and wait for an amnesty.”

But Gorbachev thought only about what position he would be left in the CIS.
And it was necessary, without hiding your head in the sand, to fight for the territorial integrity of our state.
If Gorbachev had been elected popularly, 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.
After all, Gorbachev could have handed over power to Yeltsin and the USSR would have survived. But, apparently, pride did not allow. As a result, the struggle of two vanities led to the collapse of the country.

If 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 public discrediting, and when he "dumped" Gorbachev, he appointed 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, unrestrainedly striving for power?

In a referendum on March 17, 1991, 78% of citizens voted in favor of maintaining the renewed union. But did the politicians listen to the opinion of the people? No, they realized personal selfish interests.
Gorbachev said one thing and did another, gave orders and pretended to know 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. Stalinist terror, Khrushchev's thaw, Brezhnev's stagnation, Gorbachev's perestroika, Yeltsin's collapse...
In Russia, a change in the political and economic course is always associated with a change in the personality of the ruler. Is this why the terrorists want to topple 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 now live, and not die 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 a position. And we are assigned. Why? Because it is not the professional qualities of an official that are important, but personal devotion to the authorities. And why? Because the chief is not interested in success, but, above all, in maintaining his position.

The main thing for the ruler is to maintain personal power. Because if the power is taken away from him, then he will not be able to do anything. No one has ever voluntarily renounced their privileges, has not recognized someone else's superiority. The ruler cannot simply give up power himself, he is a slave of power!

Churchill compared power to a drug. In fact, power is about maintaining control and management. Whether it's a monarchy or a democracy, it doesn't matter. Democracy and dictatorship are just a way to most effectively achieve the desired goals.

But the question is: 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 will be happy to be the executor.

According to the philosopher Boris Mezhuev, "democracy is an organized distrust of the people in power."
Managed democracy is being replaced by post-democracy.

When they say that the people made a mistake, then those who think so are mistaken. Because only the one who says such a thing definitely does not know the people about whom he has such an opinion. People are not so stupid in their mass, and they are not at all rednecks.

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 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 politicians: French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Chilean dictator Pinochet and others.

Why is there still no trial of those who are guilty of the collapse of the USSR?
The people have the right and SHOULD 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 Academy for the Humanities in St. Petersburg. Vladimir A. Gutorov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Philosophy of St. Petersburg State University, made a presentation 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 their own people. It ended in complete disaster. And now we live in a situation of catastrophe.

Nikolai Berdyaev, when F. Dzerzhinsky interrogated him, 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 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 ended up in exile, admitted their guilt for the revolution that had taken place.
And does our current "elite" really recognize its responsibility for the collapse of the USSR? ..

Was the USSR a civilization? Or was it a social experiment of 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 were in the USSR.
3\ Civilization forms a special psychological type, which takes about 10 generations. But for 70 years of Soviet power, he could not develop.
4\ One of the signs of civilization are beliefs. The USSR had its own belief in communism.

Even the ancient Greeks noticed the cyclicity in the change 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 being repeated in China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and elsewhere.

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 the main thing is profit, there is no place for justice. But it is inequality and competition that make a 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 is planting trees, did not come.

The specificity of our mentality is that we do not see happiness in progress and do not strive for development like a Westerner. We are more contemplative. Our national hero Ivan the Fool (Oblomov) lies on the stove and dreams of a kingdom. And he only gets up when he wants to.
We develop from time to time only under the pressure of the vital necessity of survival.

This is also 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 the providence and grace of God, which is incomprehensible.

Russia is not just a territory, it is an Idea! Regardless of the name - the USSR, the SSG, the CIS or the 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 commonwealth. 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 proved by the successes of communist China, which managed to become a superpower, overtaking Russia without an idea.

The ideas of social justice, equality and fraternity are ineradicable. Perhaps they are embedded in the human mind as a matrix that periodically tries to come true.

What is wrong with the ideas of freedom, equality and fraternity, the universal happiness of people, regardless of religion and nationality?
These ideas will never die, they are eternal because they are true. Their truth lies in the fact that they truly grasp the essence of human nature.
Eternal are only those ideas that are consonant with the thoughts and feelings of living people. After all, if they resonate in the souls of millions, then there is something in these ideas. People cannot be united by someone's one truth, because everyone sees the truth in their own way. Everyone cannot be wrong 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 along.”
LOVE TO CREATE A NEED!
(from my novel "Alien Strange Incomprehensible Extraordinary Stranger" on the site New Russian Literature

And in your opinion, WHY did the USSR die?