Call to the gentleman from Belovezhskaya Pushcha. Who and why destroyed the USSR

First point The accusations are based on the fact that in December 1991, Russian President B. Yeltsin committed high treason by preparing and concluding the Belovezhskaya Accords, which finally destroyed the Soviet Union and caused enormous material damage to Russia, its territorial integrity, defense capability, causing numerous human casualties and incalculable suffering.

The conclusion of these agreements was preceded by a number of other unconstitutional actions of Boris Yeltsin related to the violent seizure of union power and the reassignment of union ministries and departments.

He, in pursuance of the Belovezhskaya agreements, finally stopped the activities of the Union legislative and other authorities, reassigned the Armed Forces of the USSR to himself, introduced customs and border barriers to Russian borders.

The signing of the Bialowieza Agreements and the subsequent actions of B. Yeltsin were carried out in the interests of NATO member countries, and primarily the United States of America.

It is no coincidence that immediately after signing the agreements, Boris Yeltsin called not just anyone, but the President of the United States, and reported that the Soviet Union no longer existed.
US President George W. Bush, in his statement on December 25, 1991, emphasized: “The United States applauds the historic choice for freedom made by the new nations of the Commonwealth. Despite the potential for instability and chaos, these developments are clearly in our best interests.”(Izvestia newspaper, December 26, 1991).

That is why the United States of America is making every effort to ensure that the USSR is no longer revived in any form.

These actions of President B. Yeltsin contain signs of serious crimes provided for in Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR or Articles 275, 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Moreover, we do not see any significant difference in the dispositions of the named articles, because they speak of acts committed in the interests of foreign states and causing great damage to the defense capability and external security of the country, as well as the violent seizure of power -ti.

The president’s deliberate actions, and there is no doubt about this, were directed not only against the USSR, but also against Russian Federation, his successor.

Together with other individuals and a number of social and political organizations, Boris Yeltsin destroyed the Soviet Union, which, being one of the founders of the United Nations, ensured reliable external security for all union republics. The USSR was a reliable counterbalance to the hegemonic aspirations of the United States of America, which are increasingly manifested in the world. Recent events in the Balkans are clear evidence of this.

The Belovezhskaya agreements and the subsequent actions of B. Yeltsin not only destroyed a powerful union state, but also destroyed the economic, scientific and technical potential, undermined the defense capability and security of the Russian Federation, which we will discuss in detail below.

Let me remind you that after the conclusion of the Belovezhskaya agreements, 8 out of 16 military districts that existed on the territory of the USSR were outside Russia. Military districts - especially in the west, north-west and south of the Soviet Union - were the most mobilized, saturated with modern military equipment. They remained on the territory of the new states.

On the territory of the former union republics, outside the Russian Federation, there remain 13 combined arms armies and corps, 3 air defense armies. 4 tank armies, 5 air armies.

In the southern, western and northwestern directions we have lost reliable air defense systems. They lost many forward-based and observation facilities and command and control of the armed forces.

Russia has largely lost access to the sea, primarily in the Baltic states. Serious contradictions have arisen regarding the Black Sea Fleet, which today we share with Ukraine. In terms of its parameters, it is generally already inferior by 1.5 times to the navy Turkey, which has always declared its interest in the Transcaucasus and the Black Sea region.

The NATO bloc has already reached almost the walls of the Kremlin. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary became members of this alliance.

There are no guarantees that the Baltic states - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia - will not be accepted into NATO and that nuclear weapons aimed at Russia will not be deployed on their territory.

These are just some of the consequences that we have after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which caused colossal damage to the defense capability, external security and territorial integrity of Russia.

But we see not only in them the criminal nature of Boris Yeltsin’s actions. By signing the Belovezhskaya Accords, Boris Yeltsin aggravated interethnic relations throughout the entire former Soviet Union. About a million people died in ethnic clashes in Russia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Azerbaijan and other regions. More than 10 million former citizens of the USSR became refugees. Such violence against people and such large-scale forced resettlement pales in comparison to Stalin’s deportation of peoples.

B. Yeltsin committed an unheard-of violation of the constitutional rights of all citizens of the Russian Federation. As is known, in accordance with Article 33 of the USSR Constitution, every citizen of Russia was simultaneously a citizen of the Soviet Union. More than 70 percent of citizens of the RSFSR in a referendum on March 17, 1991 confirmed their desire to remain citizens of the USSR.

Belovezhje overnight undermined one of the main foundations of the legal status of the individual - the institution of citizenship, thereby giving rise to the chain reaction that we see today in disputes about it. Suffice it to note that 25 million Russians overnight found themselves foreigners on their own soil.

Later, in his message to the Federal Assembly on February 16, 1995, Boris Yeltsin admits that “The loss of part of the people in the seized territory is the same damage for the state as the loss, for example, of a hand for a person. For the same reason, actions aimed at seizing part of state territory should be considered a crime against the state as a whole.”. Thus, Boris Yeltsin himself assessed his actions, calling them criminal.

The president’s actions destroyed the centuries-old traditions of the peoples of the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, living together, and interpersonal relations, including in the economic, social, scientific and defense spheres. The freedom of citizens of the once united state to move, choose a place of residence, and to have an unhindered, customs-free exchange of labor products was limited. This also revealed Boris Yeltsin’s arrogance and callousness towards people and his abuse of power.

Did the Russian President have any authority to sign the Belovezhskaya Accords, which led to the final destruction of the USSR?

There can be only one answer to this question: no, I didn’t. Soviet people the overwhelming majority refused him this. Therefore, the very violation by Boris Yeltsin of the will of the people expressed at the national referendum in March 1991 is already a criminal act. The president’s actions went far beyond the scope of his powers provided for by the Constitutions of the USSR and the RSFSR, the Law “On the President of the Russian Federation,” and other legislative acts.

Undoubtedly, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, controlled by supporters of the president, played their negative role in the destruction of the union state. However, this in no way diminishes the responsibility of the president himself.
In addition, we note to our opponents that the Declaration on the Sovereignty of the Russian Federation, adopted on June 12, 1990 by the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, states that Russia remains a member of the renewed USSR.

As you know, the Union Treaty of 1922 was signed first by six republics: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, which were part of the Transcaucasian Federation, and then nine more republics joined it, making up the USSR. Moreover, this agreement was fully included as an integral part of the first Constitution of the USSR in 1924. Later, its main provisions were reproduced in the Constitutions of the USSR of 3936 and 1977, and certain provisions were also enshrined in the constitutions of the union republics.

The Union Treaty of 1922 and the constitutional norms corresponding to it never provided for its denunciation, since the treaty was primarily a document of a constituent rather than an international nature. The agreement, and then the constitutions, only provided for the preservation of the right of free withdrawal from the Union for each of the union republics that joined the USSR, the procedure for which was regulated by the USSR Law of April 3, 1990.

The issue of secession from the republic was to be decided by a referendum. If at least two-thirds of the adult population voted for it, then the issue should have been considered further by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, and then in the republics themselves. After this, a transition period of no more than five years was established to clarify all problems of an economic, financial, territorial, environmental nature that may arise in connection with the secession of the republic, as well as to resolve other disputes, especially those claims that citizens could present. And only based on the results of consideration of all these procedures, the issue of the republic’s secession from the Union was finally decided by the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR. This order, established by the USSR Law of April 3, 1990, was completely ignored and discarded by Boris Yeltsin.
It should be noted that following this, the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR adopted on December 24, 1990 three resolutions of exceptional importance, which are now rarely mentioned.

First resolution: on the preservation of the USSR as a renewed Federation of equal sovereign republics.

Second resolution: on preserving the name of the state - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Third resolution: on holding a referendum in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Such a referendum, as you know, took place on March 17, 1991. Of the 185.6 million citizens of the USSR with voting rights, 148.5 million, or 80 percent, participated. Of these, 113.5 million, or 76.4 percent, voted to preserve the USSR.
In accordance with Article 29 of the Referendum Law, its decision was binding throughout the country and could only be canceled or changed by another referendum. The law obliged all government bodies, organization and all officials without exception, for it was the highest and direct expression of the power of the people.

Therefore, the Belovezhskaya agreements signed by Yeltsin, which declared that the USSR as a subject of international law and as a geopolitical reality ceases to exist, are illegal and contrary to the will of the people.
In addition, the Belovezhskaya decisions were signed by only three “founding fathers” of the CIS, and not six, and especially not fifteen. Under such circumstances, they did not have the right to liquidate the USSR as a geopolitical concept.

B. Yeltsin’s actions to destroy the USSR were deliberate, conscious in nature and are not a statement of the natural collapse of the union state, as our opponents claim. This is evidenced by numerous evidence. Let us refer to just a few of them.

The destruction of the great country was carried out by Boris Yeltsin in collusion with the separatists of a number of union republics. It was they who incited national conflicts in Transcaucasia and Central Asia, in the Baltic states and Moldova, and in Russia itself. They turned this national question into an instrument of destruction, not creation, into a weapon for the conquest of power.

B. Yeltsin has long and consistently moved towards the destruction of the USSR, as evidenced by his own statements. Speaking on May 30, 1990 at the first Congress of People's Deputies of Russia, he said: “Russia will be independent in everything, and its decisions should be higher than those of the allies”.

During a visit to Sverdlovsk on August 16 of the same year, Boris Yeltsin said: “The initial version of my program is seven Russian states.” And a day later, speaking in the Komi Republic, he noted that Russia would abandon the union structure of power.

People from the president’s inner circle, his spiritual and ideological mentors, spoke and acted in the same vein.

Odious personalities from among the former people's deputies of the USSR who were part of the notorious interregional deputy group - Gavriil Popov, Galina Starovoy-tova, Gennady Burbulis and others - directly proclaimed the idea of ​​​​creating over 50 independent states on the territory of the Soviet Union.

Former ally of the president Ruslan Khasbulatov, characterizing the collapse of the USSR, said: "We wanted to make this revolution"
"Coup" or “transition to a new qualitative state” These actions were also named by the former chairman of the Yeltsin Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, Ivan Silaev.

Grigory Yavlinsky, who was part of Boris Yeltsin’s team, stated: “Boris Nikolayevich and his immediate circle had clear political guidelines... First of all, the immediate, literally, one day, not only political, but also economic collapse of the Union, the liquidation of all conceivable coordinating economic bodies, including tea financial, credit and monetary spheres. Further, there is a comprehensive separation of Russia from all republics, including those that did not raise such a question at that time, for example, Belarus and Kazakhstan. This was a political order." This revelation of the leader of the Yabloko party can be read in Literary Gazette, No. 44, 1992.

Almost a year before the political destruction of the USSR, the congress of the so-called democratic forces, held on January 21, 1991 in Kharkov, decided to abolish the USSR. Prominent democrats of Russia took part in its work: Yuri Afanasyev, Nikolai Travkin (he is sitting in our hall), Bella Denisenko, Arkady Murashev and others.

The author of this concept, Gennady Burbulis, Boris Yeltsin’s ideological mentor and former Russian Secretary of State, very much regretted that it was not possible to immediately implement the Congress’s guidelines. B. Yeltsin also regretted this, as you can see by reading the Izvestia newspaper of December 17, 1991 and Nezavisimaya Gazeta of January 21, 1992. And if today the procedure for removing the president meets stiff resistance, this is largely due to the fact that here in the hall State Duma, and within the walls of the Federation Council there are still a significant number of people, representatives of parties and movements who, together with Boris Yeltsin, put forward and implemented the idea of ​​destroying the USSR.

Thus, in response to our opponents, we once again declare that the Soviet Union collapsed not as a result of natural and logical processes, not as a result of the August 1991 events, but as a result of a political conspiracy of the “fifth column”, with the connivance of and in a number of cases, with the participation of USSR President M. Gorbachev, the heads of a number of Union ministries and departments, as a result of a conspiracy headed by B. Yeltsin.

In March 1991, at a meeting with Muscovites at the House of Cinema, he openly opposed the referendum on the future of the USSR. And then, hastily, using the powers of the president, he took new steps to destroy the union state.
On August 20 and 22, 1991, he issues a decree on the reassignment of all executive authorities of the USSR, including the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the KGB.
On August 21 and 22, by decrees of Yeltsin, allied media were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Russian Ministry of Press and Mass Information.

On August 22, a decree was issued on certain issues of the activities of the authorities of the RSFSR. Contrary to the Constitutions of the RSFSR and the USSR, this decree granted the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR the right to suspend the validity of resolutions and orders of the USSR Cabinet of Ministers.

On August 24, a decree was issued on the transfer to the jurisdiction of the KGB of the RSFSR of all types of government communications of the USSR, and to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Communications of the RSFSR (it was called Communications, Informatics and Space) - all other communications enterprises of the Union subordination.

On October 1, the government of the RSFSR establishes that decisions of the Union Committee for the Operational Management of the National Economy of the USSR come into force only if they are approved by the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR.

On October 9, 1991, the State Committee for Science and Higher Education was instructed to accept all allied organizations operating in this area under its management.

On November 15, 1991, all structures, divisions and organizations of the former USSR Ministry of Finance were reassigned to the Ministry of Economy and Finance of the RSFSR. At the same time, funding for ministries and departments of the USSR is stopped, except for those to which certain management functions of the Russian Federation have been transferred.
On November 15, all organizations of the Union Prosecutor's Office, including the military prosecutor's office, were reassigned to the Prosecutor General of the RSFSR.

On November 22, the Supreme Council of the RSFSR recognizes the Central Bank of Russia as the sole authority for monetary and foreign exchange regulation on the territory of the republic. The material and technical base and other resources of the State Bank of the USSR are transferred to it for full economic management and management.

Thus, with the personal participation and leadership of Yeltsin, even before the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreements, the main levers of control were taken away from the USSR and its bodies and the basis was prepared for the complete destruction of the union state.
Naturally, this kind of usurpation of the powers of the union bodies by the bodies of the RSFSR and the President of Russia sharply strengthened the centrifugal tendencies in the actions of other republics, which saw this as a threat to themselves and hastened to dissociate themselves even more harshly from the union center. This forced a number of leaders of the union republics, in particular the President of Kazakhstan Nazarbayev, to decisively oppose the transfer of union functions to the Russian parliament and the Russian leadership, and the prerogatives of the union president to the Russian president. Nazarbayev’s speech took place in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on August 26, 1991. Later, he would directly state that without Russia there would have been no Belovezhskaya Document and the Union would not have collapsed. (“Nezavisimaya Gazeta” dated May 6, 1992)
Actions of President Boris Yeltsin, Russian ministries and departments not only strengthened centrifugal tendencies in other union republics, but also, undoubtedly, negatively affected the nature and results of referendums held in the second half of 1991 in Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. In addition, the question put to the Ukrainian referendum was formulated incorrectly. Ukrainian citizens were asked not about their desire to secede from the USSR, but whether they wanted to live in an independent state. Naturally, there are always few or no people willing to live in a colonial or semi-colonial state.

Was it possible to save the Soviet Union? Yes, it is possible - and it had to be done. The will of the majority of the people was expressed at the All-Union referendum on March 17, 1991, and the state leaders of the USSR and Russia, if they were patriots who passionately loved their Fatherland, and not servile minions of the United States of America, were obliged to fulfill people's will. If they couldn’t, they were obliged to resign. This did not happen.

The Belovezhskaya agreements dealt a crushing blow to the economy and threw each union republic far back in its development. They brought incalculable and irreparable losses, troubles and suffering to tens of millions Soviet people who even today want to live freely in a single family of nations. Such a unification would have taken place long ago if it were not for the opposition to it from many political elites in the former Soviet republics, and above all in the Russian Federation.

There are good reasons for the reunification of peoples, and first of all, the legal nullity of the Belovezhskaya Accords and the legal inconsistency of their ratification by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.

Victor Ilyukhin

In the residence, where exactly 15 years ago the history of the Soviet empire was put to an end, the bedrooms of the President of Belarus and members of his family are now located. If after the unification of Germany, fragments of the Berlin Wall became historical symbols, then for us, former citizens of the USSR, the most expensive relic of the period of the collapse of the Soviet Empire, probably, there may be an old typewriter of the director of the Belovezhsky Nature Reserve Sergei Balyuk. It was on it that on December 8, 1991, at Nikita Khrushchev’s residence “Viskuli”, not far from Brest, in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha region, the text of agreements was printed, which subsequently transformed the whole world. These agreements, signed by the President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk, the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus Stanislav Shushkevich and the President of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin and later ratified in the parliaments of the union republics, put an end to the history of the USSR. It is not known for certain where this machine is currently stored. It is quite possible that the President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, who initiated the denunciation of the Belovezhskaya Accords, ordered that this unique symbol of freedom be hidden from Belarusian society. But the memory of those two days when the leaders of the three fraternal Slavic peoples I needed a simple typewriter, live. Fifteen years later, one of the authors of the Belovezhskaya Accords, the first President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk, who had the courage to call a spade a spade and state: the USSR de facto ceased to exist, shared with “FACTS” his memories of the events that made it possible to prevent a possible dangerous situation in those days. bloody scenario.

“On that day, only the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR, Vitold Fokin, returned from hunting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha with his catch.”

Leonid Makarovich, have you been to Viskuli for a long time?

A few months ago, or more precisely, at the end of September. I went to have a look specifically. There is nothing to be known there; Alexander Lukashenko made his residence in Viskuli, everything is in the national color. In green, Belarusian. On the second floor of the residence where Yeltsin and I stayed before signing the agreements are now the bedrooms of the President of Belarus and members of his family, and naturally I was not allowed there…

Is there a memorial sign or plaque in Viskuli today reminiscent of the events of fifteen years ago?

No Unfortunately. After all, Alexander Lukashenko was an ardent opponent of the Belovezhskaya Accords and did not vote for their ratification. In addition, having already become president, he was going to declare me persona non grata. But this year I was allowed into Belarus. Having visited Viskuli, I went to the local tavern, drank a glass, and bought myself a large bottle of Belovezhskaya vodka in memory of those days. By the way, the people I met both in Viskuli and Minsk remember and recognize me. Many simply came up and said: “Thank you, Leonid Makarovich, for Belovezhye.” I am sure that the time will come, and some kind of memorial sign will stand there to emphasize the significance, height and globality of this event.

Rumors that the Belovezhskaya Accords were signed in a drunken stupor, somewhere under the bushes, still do not subside…

What they don’t say now But no one can say that we acted illegally. All agreements on the termination of the existence of the Soviet Union as a subject international law and geopolitical reality were fully consistent with the constitutional norms of the union republics. The Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR clearly defined: “Every people has the right to self-determination, even to the point of secession.” We acted strictly within the framework of the Basic Law of the Republic and international law in force at that time.

I am often asked, and not only by journalists: “Did you drink when you were working on the agreements?” And I always answer: “Yes, we drank water.” Well, what else can six people drink while working at a desk, making a historic decision that will change the whole world?

But as a souvenir, you recently brought a bottle of Belovezhskaya from Belarus.…

Understand, then I arrived in Belarus on December 7, the day before the signing of the agreements. I came unofficially at the invitation of Stanislav Shushkevich. Yeltsin was in Minsk on an official visit that day, working as part of the Russian state delegation. We didn’t wait for him, decided how we would hold the meeting on December 8, and immediately flew from Minsk to Viskuli. There they then went hunting while waiting for Yeltsin.

When we drove through the reserve, I was so hoping to see bison. Unfortunately, they did not appear, only the wild boar came out. So healthy and beautiful. As soon as I started aiming, everyone started giving me advice. While listening to them, the boar left unharmed Then they talked a lot more about this hunt In fact, that day only the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR Vitold Fokin returned with the prey, but he hunted separately, not with me. The Russians did not hunt at all, as they were waiting for Yeltsin from Minsk. He was just summing up the results of the visit, and, apparently, there was a glass there. When Boris Nikolaevich arrived in Viskuli, we were already having dinner. He immediately congratulated me on my election as President of Ukraine (on December 1, 1991, presidential elections were held in Ukraine simultaneously with the referendum on independence. - Author), but we didn’t talk much about signing agreements that evening. Most of the work that night was carried out by the working groups that arrived with us. Although, of course, there was a gala dinner, and we invited all members of the delegations to the table, even the doctor Vitold Fokina Olga Stepanovna was present. There was, of course, “Belovezhskaya”…

And the next morning at breakfast we already discussed what the future union of new states would be called. The actual work on this topic began at 10 o’clock. There were six of us at the table - on the Russian side, Boris Yeltsin and Gennady Burbulis (then first deputy chairman of the government of the Russian Federation - Author), on the Belarusian side - Stanislav Shushkevich and Vyacheslav Kebich (at that time Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Belarus - Author) and I'm with Vitold Fokin from Ukraine. I remember that then everyone immediately said that we needed to decide how we would all work further. And here, before deciding, so to speak, “regulatory” issues, Yeltsin tells me: “Leonid Makarovich, I have Gorbachev’s instructions to ask you: will you sign the Novoogaryovsky Treaty (on reforming the USSR. - Author), if Mikhail Sergeevich and others go to ensure that Ukraine receives more rights and freedoms?” That's what we were talking about back then! Do you think the Belovezhskaya Agreements would have been signed if I had agreed to endorse the so-called Novoogaryovsky Treaty? And could the President of Ukraine, a country whose people voted a week ago, on December 1, 1991, in a referendum for independence, agree to this? On December 8, 1991, at one o'clock in the afternoon, the agreements were signed.

“In the late 90s, the Union of Officers of the USSR wanted to kidnap me”

Later, Yeltsin said that Kravchuk had such problems at that time that if Russia wanted to keep, for example, Crimea and all of Eastern Ukraine, then he would have agreed with everything in Belovezhskaya Pushcha…

Well, here Boris Nikolaevich is somewhat false. If there was talk of territorial claims then, it was only about Crimea. And in those days he could not raise the question of the independence of Ukraine and Crimea. Despite all his authority, which increased after the failure of the State Emergency Committee ( State Committee under a state of emergency. - Author) in Russia and Moscow, it was not his level, but the level of Mikhail Gorbachev. Yeltsin has nothing to do with our independence.

When the agreements were signed, Boris Nikolayevich called US President George Bush via special communications. Their conversation then translated

dil Andrei Kozyrev (at that time the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia. - Author). “Mr. President, the Soviet Union no longer exists,” Yeltsin began. Then he said we're taking control nuclear suitcase, said that all obligations and agreements signed by the Union will remain in force. And he announced the formation of the CIS. Then Shushkevich called Gorbachev. We guessed that the President of the USSR already knew about what happened, and therefore did not want to talk to Shushkevich. He demanded Yeltsin, who told him: “Mikhail Sergeevich! You must understand that we had no other choice!”

On December 7 and 8, the Chairman of the KGB of Belarus, Eduard Shirkovsky (who was present in Viskuli during the signing of the Belovezhskaya Accords), via special communication, regularly, at intervals of several hours, informed Gorbachev about what was happening and suggested that he arrest the conspirators, or as you were called then, “Pushchists.” Weren't you scared for your life?

Freedom and independence are very high concepts for me, they are higher than fear. I want to say that it was then that there was no fear in Belovezhya, but there was a huge sense of responsibility. The choice of the people of Ukraine, confirmed in a referendum, stood behind me. The Ukrainian people had their say and, having elected me President, instructed me to carry out their will.

And the threat that we could be arrested was, not real, but potential.

Did Yeltsin tell you after signing the agreements: “It’s time to get out of here as quickly as possible”?

There was something similar. For safety reasons, it really made sense for everyone to disperse to their capitals. Back then they said that one battalion would be enough to destroy us. But I think that Boris Nikolaevich’s fears were then too exaggerated in the press. After all, on December 8, after a telephone conversation with Gorbachev, Yeltsin called back the former Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, the new Minister of Defense of the USSR, Shaposhnikov, and enlisted his support.

We had a similar situation when, in August 1991, a representative of the State Emergency Committee, General Varennikov, flew to Kyiv and demanded that a state of emergency be introduced in Ukraine. During a conversation with him, an assistant informed me about a special communications call from an unknown person: “Tell Leonid Makarovich that we are with him” I established that it was the commander

17th Air Army Konstantin Morozov. I called him back and asked: “Why are you hiding?” Morozov replied: “Well, you know, such a time!..” He became the first Minister of Defense of Ukraine.

How many people guarded you in Viskuli?

Two people flew with me, another one was on the plane. Security in Belovezhskaya Pushcha was organized by the Belarusian side. The situation was amazing in the evening

December 8, when I returned to Ukraine. I arrive at the dacha in Koncha-Zaspa, it’s dark, cold, and then at the gate I see armed people. I froze. Then their boss, covered in machine guns, stepped up to me and reported, saluting: “Mr. President, we have come to bury you.” Can you imagine how I perceived this then? We did not yet have our own special services, our own communications and intelligence, but we already had an army that stood up to protect the President of the country.

Didn't those dreaming of the revival of the USSR make an attempt on your life?

In 1997 or 1998, I don’t remember exactly, just when the Russian State Duma was trying to denounce the Belovezhskaya Accords, and in Belarus they had already done this, the President of Ukraine Leonid Danilovich Kuchma provided me with additional security, since there was information that the Union of Officers of the USSR was preparing a special operation on my abduction from Ukraine. I was then a deputy from Ternopil, and often traveled to my constituency. So, the Union of Officers even had a plan to remove me directly from the Ternopil train using a helicopter…

“I will never forgive Lukashenko for the fact that Shushkevich receives a pension of 12 dollars”

Really? Members of the Union of Officers of the USSR can work as screenwriters both in American Hollywood and in Indian Bollywood…

Yeah. But they didn’t know that I don’t travel on trains, but always use a car. Apparently, their goal was to force me to withdraw my signature from the Belovezhskaya Agreements.

But if you were kidnapped, it doesn’t matter with or without a helicopter, would you withdraw your signature?

What is the point of this if the USSR no longer exists? Of course, I wouldn’t recall it. To remove a signature means to submit to fear and remain unknown in history.

Well, they would have taken me to Moscow, and what would there be: pressure, torture?.. - Leonid Kravchuk continues the story. - Well, if I had withdrawn my signature They would have let me go And how to continue to live? In principle, it’s probably better not to live at all after this. Life, after all, is long and short. If a person has done something in life, he must preserve it.

Of course, it’s easy to talk about this while sitting in your office. If such a situation actually arose, I don’t know if I would have withstood the torture. In addition, today there are drugs that make a person weak-willed. They will bring them in, take your hand - and sign!

Since then they say you sleep with a gun?

Yes, I always have a small Colt in my nightstand. Given to me in the USA by an American millionaire Ukrainian origin Bogdan Misko, who returned to his homeland.

But were there any attempts on your life?

In Kharkov in November 1991, there was a case when a man tried to stab me with a knife at a market during a meeting with voters. Security guard Viktor Palivoda shielded me in time. The blow hit him in the armpit, but, fortunately, there was a holster with a pistol hanging there, so he received a minor injury. By the way, the attacker was never found.

The three of you still meet now, the group of authors and signatories of the Belovezhskaya Accords - Kravchuk, Shushkevich, Yeltsin?

No, the three of us did not meet after that. I sometimes see Stanislav Shushkevich, but Boris Nikolaevich does not join our company.

Does Yeltsin really regret what he did?

I don't think he has any regrets. But he takes some kind of strange position In general, Russia, I would say so gently, treats the USSR with nostalgia. In one of his speeches, Putin even said that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a big mistake.” Somewhere this is a strategic position. After all, Russia’s role in the Soviet Union was decisive. Hence the “greatness”, and scale, and claims to global solutions…

Before the signing of the Bialowieza Accords, there were two superpowers - the USSR and the USA. Now Russia understands that no matter how much it strives to take a dominant position, one country remains the hegemon. In the West. And China is rising in the East Between them, Russia is looking for balances and balances. Of course, Putin seeks to somehow maintain the former imperial greatness. Yeltsin probably takes the same position. Maybe. I don't know because he doesn't talk about it publicly. And perhaps, since the majority of Russians today are tuned in to such an imperial wave, his position simply will not be understood. Or he doesn’t want to get involved in a discussion in his later years…

But I often talk on the phone with Stanislav Shushkevich. In Belarus, the official authorities treated him extremely rudely. Stanislav Shushkevich is an intellectual, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus, a real Belarusian who speaks an excellent language. He is involved in one of the greatest historical events the end of the 20th century. And I will never forgive Lukashenko for the fact that Stanislav Stanislavovich receives a pension of 12 dollars. I believe that every person should have the right to their word and be provided for as they should be. In the government of Belarus, ministers and deputy prime ministers, I was told, receive very high salaries - up to four thousand dollars. If Lukashenko has any complaints against Shushkevich, then let him present them. But to humiliate a person the way he humiliates the former Belarusian speaker is unworthy! That's why I say: Lukashenko is a man of low political culture! One thing.

They say that in the early 90s, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine in 1963-1972, Pyotr Shelest, found himself in the same dire situation in Moscow?

Yes, he had a bad time in those days. When I found out what situation Pyotr Efimovich was in, I asked the then head of the SBU, Yevgeny Marchuk, to organize help. We carried food and meat to Shelest's dacha in the Moscow region. In general, we carried it solidly. Helped a person.

How do you feel about the fact that historians in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia today interpret the events in Belovezhskaya Pushcha differently?

I believe that not enough time has passed for historians, political scientists and sociologists to truly appreciate this event. Fifteen years is very little for a real transformation of society, which, although it lived more or less in the last and one of the most cruel empires, did not think about the future.

Change this slave way of life, adapt to new wave when you are responsible for yourself more than the state is for you, it is incredibly difficult. I’ll tell you honestly, I felt it myself. It wasn't easy!

A year ago, for the transformation processes you initiated in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, some radical politicians appealed to the Russian Orthodox Church to anathematize the authors of the agreements signed in Viskuli. Aren't you afraid of a repeat of the events of the 18th century, when the effigy of Prince Mazepa was dragged around Moscow and beaten with sticks?

It is more important to me that I am not anathematized by my people. And I am not afraid of the anathemas of certain political forces, even if they are in robes! With all my deep respect for the church, for religion, I know: the church is not Christ! But Christ would not anathematize anyone for a godly action, for action for the sake of the freedom of his people.

Historians from all over the world squeal with delight. A unique “Yeltsin Center” has opened in Yekaterinburg, which for lovers of archives and secrets of the past is like a cake shop for kids.

The museum staff is especially proud of the secret transcripts of telephone conversations between Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev with US President George H. W. Bush. Immediately after the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreement (on the creation of the CIS - Ed.), which took place on December 8, 1991, Boris Nikolayevich first called US President George W. Bush. They talked for 28 minutes. And two weeks later, on December 25, Mikhail Gorbachev called George Bush. This happened right before he officially resigned as president of the USSR. The conversation lasted 22 minutes. For a long time one could only guess about the details of these two conversations. Our intelligence services did not record them, but the Americans recorded them, but classified them.

They were kept in the State of Texas in the Presidential Library. And only in 2008, Bush Jr. removed the “Secret” stamp from the papers.

So, unique transcripts.

YELTSIN: “I WANT TO INFORM YOU PERSONALLY, Mister PRESIDENT”

THE WHITE HOUSE. WASHINGTON. RECORDING A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

PARTICIPANTS: George Bush, US President, Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Republic

President Bush: Hello, Boris. How are you doing?

President Yeltsin: Hello, Mr. President. I am very glad to welcome you. Mr. President, you and I agreed that in the event of events of extreme importance, we will inform each other, I - you, you - me. A very important event took place in our country today, and I would like to personally inform you before you hear about it from the press.

President Bush: Of course, thank you.

This is what the original classified transcript looked like in English

President Yeltsin: We have gathered today, Mr. President, the leaders of three republics - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. We gathered and after numerous lengthy discussions that lasted almost two days, we came to the conclusion that existing system and the agreement that we are being persuaded to sign does not suit us. That’s why we got together and just a few minutes ago signed a joint agreement. Mr. President, we, the leaders of the three republics - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia - while stating that negotiations on a new [Union] treaty have reached a dead end, we recognize the objective reasons why the creation of independent states has become a reality. In addition, noting that the rather short-sighted policy of the center led us to an economic and political crisis that affected all production areas and various segments of the population, we, the community of independent states of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, signed an agreement. This agreement, consisting of 16 articles, essentially stipulates the creation of a commonwealth or group of independent states.

President Bush: Understand.

President Yeltsin: The members of this Commonwealth have as their goal the strengthening of international peace and security. They also guarantee compliance with all international obligations under agreements and treaties signed by the former Union, including on external debt. We also advocate unified control over nuclear weapons and their non-proliferation. This agreement was signed by the heads of all states participating in the negotiations - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

President Bush: Fine.

President Yeltsin: In the room from which I am calling, the President of Ukraine and the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus are with me. I also just finished a conversation with the President of Kazakhstan Nazarbayev. I read him the full text of the agreement, including all 16 articles. He fully supports all our actions and is ready to sign the agreement. He will soon fly to Minsk airport for signing.

President Bush: Understand.

President Yeltsin: This is extremely important. These four republics produce 90% of the total gross output of the Soviet Union. This is an attempt to preserve the commonwealth, but to free us from the total control of the center, which has been issuing orders for more than 70 years. This is a very serious step, but we hope, we are convinced, we are confident that this is the only way out of the critical situation in which we find ourselves.

President Bush: Boris, you...

President Yeltsin: Mr. President, I must tell you confidentially that President Gorbachev does not know about these results. He knew about our intention to get together - in fact, I myself told him that we were going to meet. Of course, we will immediately send him the text of our agreement, since, of course, he will have to make decisions at his own level. Mr. President, I was very, very frank with you today. We, the four states, believe that there is only one possible way out of the current critical situation. We don't want to do anything in secret - we will immediately release the statement to the press. We hope for your understanding.

President Bush: Boris, I appreciate your call and your frankness. We will now look at all 16 points. What do you think the center's reaction will be?

President Yeltsin: Firstly, I spoke with Defense Minister Shaposhnikov. I would like to read out Article 6 of the agreement. Shaposhnikov actually completely agrees and supports our position. And now I read the 6th article: ...

Boris Yeltsin during a visit to the United States in 1989.

President Bush: We, of course, want to study all this carefully. We understand that these issues should be decided by the participants and not by third parties such as the United States.

President Yeltsin: We guarantee this, Mr. President.

President Bush: Well, good luck, and thanks for your call. We will wait for the reaction of the center and other republics. I think time will tell.

President Yeltsin: I am convinced that all other republics will understand us and will join us very soon.

President Bush: Thank you again for your call after such a historic event.

President Yeltsin: Goodbye.

President Bush: Goodbye.

As you can see, it looks more like a monologue, a report...Gorbachev’s conversation took place differently...

1.The collapse of the USSR: the story of the betrayal of Gorbachev and Yeltsin

This year marks two interrelated events: the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the USSR and the 80th anniversary of its first and last president, Mikhail Gorbachev. How to evaluate these dates? For some, the collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. In modern Russia, 56% of people are nostalgic for the USSR, in Ukraine - from 46% to 54%, according to various opinion polls. Others, who unexpectedly gained independence in 1991, claim the triumph of democracy and national self-determination of nations, pompously celebrating the days of their independence.

“The Soviet Union did not collapse due to internal failure,” says the famous philosopher and writer Alexander Zinoviev. - This is nonsense, the Soviet system was viable, it could exist forever. This was a grand sabotage operation by the West. I have stated this and insist on this. I studied this sabotage operation for 20 years, I know the technique - how it was all done. And the final operation of this sabotage was to promote Gorbachev to the post of Secretary General. It was sabotage. He was not just chosen, but carried out, and all the activities of Gorbachev, and then Yeltsin, were the activities of traitors. They destroyed the party apparatus, destroyed the party, destroyed the state apparatus."

There is information that Gorbachev and his wife were recruited by the CIA back in 1966. during their trip to France. The notorious Z. Brzezinski, who occupies one of the leading posts in the United States, hinted at this. By at least, Gorbachev’s anti-Soviet activities began immediately after coming to power, which indicates his preliminary “preparation.

Now take the elections of the Secretary General themselves. The fact that they were clearly part of the operation of the relevant US services was well understood even in the West by many. Everything was deliberately set up so that only 8 people were chosen. Under some pretext, the flight from the United States of Politburo member Shcherbitsky, who would have voted against Gorbachev, was delayed. Another Politburo member who was on vacation was not informed about the elections. It was Romanov, who would also probably have voted against Gorbachev. If at least these two had voted, Gorbachev would not have become General Secretary - he passed with a margin of one vote!

At the end of the 1980s, the term “incubator” appeared among specialists in European social democracy in relation to the process of pro-American leadership coming to power. This system of creating leaders who can be controlled has received special development in the 90s...

In the “incubator” system there is a continuous process of selecting relatively young people who do not occupy high positions. They must satisfy two main requirements. Firstly, have ambition, be able to present yourself and please the public. Secondly, to be controllable, for example, to have incriminating evidence in the past or hidden vices, so that, if necessary, it is possible to control their actions.

Within the framework of the “incubator” system, the CIA, through well-established channels, establishes contact with promising individuals and subsequently coordinates actions to promote the intended candidate to the top, and also eliminates rivals. The entire operation can be carried out unnoticed, in halftones, but the right person wins. There is always a choice. There remains no direct evidence of the process of forming a pro-American leadership. This is how the creation of quislings occurs, who serve the United States and are ready to surrender their peoples for personal gain... At the origins of the “incubator” system was a high-class professional - Allen Dulles. It was tested in the USSR...
The promotion of Gorbachev to the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee was actually the first operation to implement the Soviet counter-revolution. Gorbachev was simply bought: in addition to the $80 billion in loans collected and stolen by his administration, I remember an anecdotal incident when Chancellor Kohl offered the USSR 160 billion marks for the withdrawal Soviet troops from Germany. Gorbachev agreed to 16 billion... It’s hard to believe that the rest of the money was not paid to him.

In addition to all this, they created an incredibly positive image for him in the Western media. There is also information that during the Malta meeting, Gorbachev was “gifted” 300 million dollars, Shevardnadze - 75 million. Countless universities and foundations gave Gorbachev awards, prizes, diplomas, and honorary degrees. The more Gorbachev sold out the country, the more he was praised. He even received the Nobel Prize. For peace".

To give Gorbachev the Prize for Peace at a time when he was waging war in Afghanistan, killing our children and destroying the Afghan people - normal people are not capable of doing this.

A remarkable touch. The famous meeting in Malta, December 1989. General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and US President George H. W. Bush said at the end of the meeting that their countries were no longer adversaries. And on the eve of the historic visit, a terrible storm broke out at sea. It seemed as if nature itself was preventing something, trying to prevent some terrible tragedy. But what? Knowledgeable people they tell how, during negotiations, a frantic American journalist appeared on the deck of a Soviet ship and said to his colleagues in the purest Russian: "Guys, your country is over...

If we recall what exactly Gorbachev did, then without much effort it will become obvious that all of his activities were a systematic and deliberate destruction of the party apparatus of the CPSU. After this, the process of destruction of the entire system of Soviet statehood began with amazing speed. And the whole society collapsed with lightning speed: primary groups, economy, ideology, culture, etc. There was no way this could have happened in some natural way. This became possible only insofar as the destruction of Soviet statehood was carried out by its leaders themselves under the dictation of Western manipulators.

It is also reliably known that Gorbachev knew about the existence of special institutions for training agents of influence, and he also knew the lists of their “graduates.” But, having received information from the leadership of the KGB of the USSR about the identified agents of influence, Gorbachev prohibits counterintelligence from taking any measures to suppress criminal attacks. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, although officially political opponents, both received money from the same source - the American Hugo Humphrey Foundation."

As soon as Rajiv Gandhi met with Gorbachev and outlined a plan for the USSR's strategic turn to the East and strengthening the USSR-India connection, Gorbachev reported to his masters about this dangerous initiative. His masters decided to completely destroy the Gandhi family.

In December 1989, Gorbachev personally authorized the establishment of branches of the Masonic lodge "B'nai B'rith" (Sons of the Covenant) in Moscow, Vilnius, Riga, St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Odessa, and N-Novgorod.
Everyone, including Gorbachev, knew what kind of box it was. Here, for example, are the statements of some of the leaders of this lodge. Henry Kissinger: “I prefer chaos in Russia and civil war tendencies of reunification into a single, strong, centralized state". Z. Brzezinski: “Russia will be fragmented and under tutelage.” A. Dulles (from the report) “Such a concept as the “Russian people” must disappear altogether.” But it disappears! There is no such concept in the Russian Constitution, and the denationalized media persistently drum the word “Russians” into the heads of ordinary people.

B. Didenko is absolutely right when he wrote in his book “The Civilization of Cannibals”: ​​“Perestroika is a very cunning and far-sighted move of the predatory government. The Soviet Union was deliberately prevented from moving in the right direction, at least following the example of China."

And here is the confession of B. Clinton: “Using the mistakes of Soviet diplomacy, the extreme arrogance of Gorbachev and his entourage, including those who openly took a pro-American position, we achieved what President Truman was going to do with the Soviet Union through the atomic bomb.”

Before perestroika, the USSR had virtually no debt. The loans taken during perestroika were given the name “party money”, although in fact they were used by the top “democrats”, who came from the ranks of the degenerated leadership of the CPSU, headed by M.S. Gorbachev, A.N. Yakovlev, E.A. Shevardnadze...

The paradox is that borrowed funds were used to destroy the country, plunder its wealth, and appropriate national property by those who came to power in Russia and their foreign masters. The money was also used to organize the extinction of the Russian population and create a smoke screen with the help of the media. The biggest robbery in human history took place. The total damage from the destruction of the country's potential, the robbery of its wealth, and the transfer of funds abroad, according to various sources, amounts to a trillion dollars or more.

At the end of July 1991, Georges Bush Sr. visited Moscow for a short visit. During which he had a “no tie” meeting with Gorbachev, who reported to his master about events in the country. This was three weeks before August 19, 1991. Gorbachev's international masters organized a putsch. The behind-the-scenes goal was to establish a state of emergency and dictatorship. The role of the “poor victim” of this Gorbachev putsch is very suspicious. He himself, when asked by the press, once stated that he would not tell the full truth to anyone. This was the main scenario for the development of the process planned by the world mafia. But this option did not work. But the world behind the scenes never puts “all its eggs in one basket.”

In May 1993, Gorbachev was on a private visit to France and answered questions about possible “external assistance” in eliminating the USSR. He initially claimed that external influences took place - but as an objective factor. But the fundamental trends were still within the country. However, he finally let something slip, and this allowed the Le Figaro newspaper to title the interview with Gorbachev in a very strange way: "You have to give Ronald Reagan credit."

In this interview, according to Le Figaro correspondents, Gorbachev admits for the first time that at a meeting with Reagan in Reykjavik, he actually surrendered the USSR to the mercy of the United States. Here are his words: “Reykjavik was actually a drama, a big drama. You will soon find out why. I believe that without such strong personality, like Ronald Reagan, the process would not have progressed... At that summit meeting, we, you know, went so far that it was impossible to turn back...""

The West does not abandon its heroes. Gorbachev, responsible for the death and impoverishment of millions of people, lives happily on the money of all kinds of Western organizations, especially American and German. He is constantly “fed” with fees for speaking anywhere and for any reason.”

On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president of the USSR. In the form of compensation, he put forward a list that almost entirely consisted of material demands. A pension in the amount of the presidential salary with subsequent indexation, a presidential apartment, a dacha, a car for his wife and for himself, but most importantly - the Fund... former Academy social sciences.

By this time, for Soviet democrats and their Western masters, Gorbachev had become waste material. For the further collapse of the USSR, a new figure was selected - Yeltsin. A demagogue who was unable to say even three sentences coherently, a builder by education and a destroyer by nature, a democrat who strived for a personal dictatorship, who suffered from alcoholism and many other illnesses, Yeltsin was an ideal puppet. He could change his surroundings many times and make the most ridiculous statements, but he carried out the orders of the Politburo (only now located in Washington) unquestioningly. The democratic press, which was so fond of criticizing Stalin's personality cult, actually created a personality cult of Yeltsin.

To increase Yeltsin's popularity, the democrats did not hesitate to resort to outright fraud. Thus, a false text of the speech that Yeltsin allegedly delivered at the October (1987) plenum of the CPSU Central Committee was widely distributed among the population. The result of the propaganda was remarkable: Yeltsin became truly unsinkable. The reputation of any politician in the West would have remained at the bottom of the river into which Yeltsin was once thrown.

Yeltsin's failure to appear at televised debates with other presidential contenders in any other country would have been considered disrespectful to voters. In the conditions of Russia in mid-1991, the stupefied electorate did not pay any attention to these debates. At the same time, Yeltsin had no program other than demagogic discussions about his fight against the privileges of the party nomenklatura and deliberately vague slogans about Russian sovereignty.

However, the union referendum on March 17, 1991 showed that the majority of USSR citizens still wanted to live in single state. Moreover, by the spring of 1991 it became clear that having appeared only a few years ago, despite all the difficulties caused by the information pressure of the liberal media, while remaining organizationally fragmented, the patriots were clearly winning over the masses.

This was clearly demonstrated by the presidential elections of the RSFSR on June 12, 1991. The Russian election campaign lasted only 15 days! This was a real record of brevity.

But it would be wrong to assume that everything went off without a hitch for Yeltsin. In these virtually uncontested elections, Yeltsin received 45,552,041 votes out of 106,484,518 voters. The main sensation of the presidential elections was not Yeltsin’s victory, which everyone expected anyway, but the appearance of Zhirinovsky. The main thing that attracted 7.8% of the electorate to Zhirinovsky was his one phrase: “I will protect the Russians.” As we see, despite Yeltsin’s victory, despite all the disorientation through the media, the Russian people were ready to fight for the preservation of historical Russia.

In such conditions, Western prompters and their Russian puppets needed to organize a large-scale provocation, known as the “August putsch.”

In conclusion, let us ask ourselves why Boris Yeltsin signed the infamous “Declaration of State Sovereignty of Russia” on June 12, 1990? Why, a year later, was the predetermined election of Yeltsin for the President of Russia scheduled on this day, and why was this day (and, for example, not the day of the arrest of the State Emergency Committee) designated a national holiday for all Russians?

The answer is simple and almost indisputable. June 12 is the birthday of George W. Bush - US President, Vice President under Ronald Reagan and ex-head of the CIA, who had much more to do with the destruction of the USSR than even Yeltsin or Gorbachev.

Thus, the American curators, who in June 1991 confidently and almost without hindrance promoted Yeltsin to seize power, twice, with an interval of a year, immortalized the role of their boss in the victory of the “Crusade against the USSR.” And at the same time, they placed an indelible master’s brand (a mark on cattle) on the entire puppet Russian statehood.

Member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation Georgy Fedorov sent a request to Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika (the document is available to the Republic of Belarus) with a request to check the content of negotiations between senior officials of the USSR and the President of the United States for compliance with such articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as “Treason” and “Disclosure of State Secrets” ", and, if necessary, take prosecutorial response measures. We are talking about declassified transcripts of telephone conversations in which the country's top political leadership - Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin - essentially report to George Bush Sr. about the destruction of the USSR.

The media (in particular, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper) published transcripts of telephone conversations that took place on December 8 and 25, 1991. According to KP, immediately after the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreement (on the creation of the CIS), which took place on December 8, 1991, Boris Yeltsin first called US President Bush and had a conversation with him lasting more than 28 minutes. Two weeks later, on December 25, the first (and last) President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, called George Bush, and the conversation lasted 22 minutes.

Georgy Fedorov believes that the content of these conversations directly indicates that Yeltsin and Gorbachev consciously worked for the United States and for the destruction of the USSR. These people are traitors and traitors. In this regard, he turned to the Prosecutor General's Office with a request to conduct an investigation and initiate criminal cases under articles of “Treason” and “Disclosure of State Secrets.”

Even Vladimir Putin admitted that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. For the Russian people it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory».

It is obvious that KGB Chairman Andropov made a mistake in choosing Gorbachev as his successor. Gorbachev failed to carry out economic reforms. In October 2009, in an interview with Radio Liberty, Mikhail Gorbachev admitted his responsibility for the collapse of the USSR: “This issue is resolved. Destroyed..."

Some consider Gorbachev an outstanding figure of the era. He is given credit for democratization and openness. But these are only means of carrying out economic reforms that were never implemented. The goal of “perestroika” was to preserve power, just like Khrushchev’s “thaw” and the famous 20th Congress to debunk Stalin’s “cult of personality.”

The USSR could have been saved. But the ruling elite betrayed socialism, the communist idea, its people, exchanged power for money, Crimea for the Kremlin.
The “Terminator” of the USSR, Boris Yeltsin, purposefully destroyed the Union, calling on the republics to take as much sovereignty as they could.
In the same way, at the beginning of the 13th century in Kievan Rus appanage princes ruined the country, putting the thirst for personal power above national interests.
In 1611, the same elite (boyars) sold themselves to the Poles, letting the false Dmitry into the Kremlin, as long as they retained their privileges.

I remember Yeltsin’s speech at the higher Komsomol school under the Komsomol Central Committee, which became his triumphant return to politics. Compared to Gorbachev, Yeltsin seemed consistent and decisive.

Greedy “young wolves”, who no longer believed in any fairy tales about communism, began to destroy the system in order to get to the “feeding trough”. This is precisely why it was necessary to collapse the USSR and remove Gorbachev. In order to gain unlimited power, almost all republics voted for the collapse of the USSR.

Stalin, of course, shed a lot of blood, but did not allow the country to collapse.
What is more important: human rights or the integrity of the country? If we allow the collapse of the state, then it will be impossible to ensure respect for human rights.
So or dictatorship strong state, or pseudo-democracy and the collapse of the country.

For some reason, in Russia, the problems of the country's development are always a problem of the personal power of a particular ruler.
I happened to visit the CPSU Central Committee in 1989, and I noticed that all the talk was about the personal struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev. The worker of the CPSU Central Committee who invited me said exactly this: “the gentlemen are fighting, but the lads’ foreheads are cracking.”

Gorbachev regarded Boris Yeltsin's first official visit to the United States in 1989 as a conspiracy to seize power from him.
Is this why, immediately after the signing of the CIS agreement, the first person Yeltsin called was not Gorbachev, but US President George Bush, who apparently promised in advance to recognize Russia’s independence.

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

They just bought the elite. The West bought former regional committee secretaries with presidential honors.
In April 1996, I witnessed US President Clinton's visit to St. Petersburg, I saw him near the Atlantes near the Hermitage. Anatoly Sobchak got into Clinton's car.

I am against totalitarian and authoritarian power. But did Andrei Sakharov, who fought for the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution, understand that the ban on the CPSU, which formed the backbone of the state, would automatically lead to the collapse of the country into national appanage principalities?

At that time, I published a lot in the domestic press, and in one of my articles in the St. Petersburg newspaper “Smena” I warned: “the main thing is to prevent confrontation.” Alas, it was “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.”

On July 29, 1991, a meeting between Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Nazarbayev took place in Novo-Ogaryovo, at which they agreed to begin signing a new union Treaty on August 20, 1991. But those who headed the State Emergency Committee proposed their own plan to save the country. Gorbachev decided to leave for Foros, where he simply bided his time to join the winner. He knew everything, since the State Emergency Committee was formed by Gorbachev himself on March 28, 1991.

During the days of the August putsch, I was vacationing in Crimea next to Gorbachev - in Simeiz - and I remember everything well. The day before, I decided to buy an Oreanda stereo tape recorder in the store there, but they didn’t sell it with a USSR bank checkbook, due to local restrictions at that time. On August 19th, these restrictions were suddenly lifted, and on August 20th I was able to make a purchase. But already on August 21, restrictions were introduced again, apparently as a result of the victory of democracy.

The rampant nationalism in the Union republics was explained by the reluctance of the local leaders to drown along with Gorbachev, whose mediocrity in carrying out reforms was already understood by everyone.
In fact, the discussion was about the need to remove Gorbachev from power. Both the top of the CPSU and the opposition led by Yeltsin strived for this. Gorbachev's failure was obvious to many. But he did not want to 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 proven by the dispersal of the Supreme Soviet of Russia in 1993.

Alexander Rutskoy called the State Emergency Committee a “spectacle.” While the defenders were dying on the streets of Moscow, the democratic elite held a banquet on the fourth underground floor of the White House.

The arrest of members of the Emergency Committee reminded me of the arrest of members of the Provisional Government in October 1917, who were also soon released, because this was the “agreement” on the transfer of power.

The indecisiveness of the State Emergency Committee can be explained by the fact that the “putsch” was only a staged act with the goal of “exiting gracefully”, taking with it the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves.

At the end of 1991, when the Democrats seized power and Russia became the legal successor of the USSR, Vnesheconombank had only $700 million in its account. The liabilities of the former Union were estimated at $93.7 billion, assets at $110.1 billion.

The logic of the reformers Gaidar and Yeltsin was simple. They calculated that Russia could survive thanks to the oil pipeline only if it refused to feed its allies.
The new rulers did not have money, and they devalued the monetary deposits of the population. The loss of 10% of the country's population as a result of shock reforms was considered acceptable.

But it was not economic factors that dominated. If private property had been allowed, the USSR would not have collapsed. The reason is different: the elite stopped believing in socialist idea, and decided to cash out my privileges.

The people were a pawn in the struggle for power. Commodity and food shortages were created deliberately to cause discontent among people and thereby destroy the state. Trains with meat and butter stood on the tracks near the capital, but they were not allowed into Moscow in order to cause dissatisfaction with Gorbachev’s power.
It was a war for power, where the people served as bargaining chips.

The conspirators in Belovezhskaya Pushcha were not thinking about preserving the country, but about how to get rid of Gorbachev and gain unlimited power.
Gennady Burbulis, the same one who proposed the formulation of the end of the USSR as a geopolitical reality, later called the collapse of the USSR “a great misfortune and tragedy.”

Co-author of the Belovezhskaya Accords Vyacheslav Kebich (Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus in 1991) admitted: “If I were Gorbachev, I would send a group of riot police and we would all sit quietly in Sailor’s Silence and wait for amnesty.”

But Gorbachev was only thinking about what position he would be given in the CIS.
But it was necessary, without burying our heads in the sand, to fight for the territorial integrity of our state.
If Gorbachev had been elected by the people and not by congress deputies, it would have been more difficult to delegitimize him. But he was afraid that the people would not elect him.
In the end, Gorbachev could have transferred power to Yeltsin, and the USSR would have survived. But, apparently, pride did not allow it. As a result, the struggle between two egos led to the collapse of the country.

If it were not for Yeltsin’s manic desire to seize power and overthrow Gorbachev, to take revenge on him for his humiliation, then one could still hope for something. But Yeltsin could not forgive Gorbachev for publicly discrediting him, and when he “dumped” Gorbachev, he assigned him a humiliatingly low pension.

We have often been told that the people are the source of power and 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, uncontrollably striving for power?

In a referendum on March 17, 1991, 78% of citizens were in favor of maintaining the renewed union. But did politicians listen to the opinions of the people? No, they were pursuing personal selfish interests.
Gorbachev said one thing and did another, gave orders and pretended that he knew nothing.

For some reason, in Russia, the problems of the country's development have always been a problem of the personal power of a particular ruler. Stalin's terror, Khrushchev's thaw, Brezhnev's stagnation, Gorbachev's perestroika, Yeltsin's collapse...
In Russia, a change in political and economic course is always associated with a change in the personality of the ruler. Is this why terrorists want to overthrow the leader of the state in the hope of changing course?

Tsar Nicholas II would have listened to advice smart people, would have shared power, made the monarchy constitutional, would have lived like a Swedish king, and his children would have lived now, and not died in terrible agony at the bottom of a mine.

But history teaches no one. Since the time of Confucius, it has been known that officials need to be examined for positions. And they appoint us. Why? Because what is important is not the official’s professional qualities, but personal loyalty to his superiors. And why? Because the boss is not interested in success, but primarily in maintaining his position.

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

Churchill compared power to a drug. In fact, power is the maintenance of control and management. Whether it is a monarchy or a democracy is not so important. Democracy and dictatorship are just a way to most effectively achieve the desired goals.

But the question is: democracy for the people or the people for democracy?
Representative democracy is in crisis. But direct democracy is no better.
Management is complex look activities. There will always be those who want and can manage and make decisions (rulers), and those who are happy to be executors.

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

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

In relation to our soldiers and athletes, and all others who fought for the victory of our country and its flag with tears in their eyes, the destruction of the USSR was a real betrayal!

Gorbachev “voluntarily” abdicated power not because the people abandoned the USSR, but because the West abandoned Gorbachev. “The Moor has done his job, the Moor can leave...”

Personally, I support the trial of former political figures: French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Chilean dictator Pinochet and others.

Why is there still no trial of those responsible for the collapse of the USSR?
The people have the right and MUST know who is to blame for the destruction of the country.
It is the ruling elite that is responsible for the collapse of the country!

Recently I was invited to the next meeting of the “Russian Thought” seminar at the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy in St. Petersburg. The report “USSR as a Civilization” was made by Dr. philosophical sciences, Professor of the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University Vladimir Aleksandrovich Gutorov.
Professor Gutorov V.A. believes that the USSR is the only country where the elite conducted an experiment, destroying its own people. It ended in complete disaster. And we now live in a situation of catastrophe.

Nikolai Berdyaev, when interrogated by F. Dzerzhinsky, said that Russian communism is a punishment to the Russian people for all the sins and abominations that the Russian elite and the renegade Russian intelligentsia have committed over the past decades.
In 1922, Nikolai Berdyaev was expelled from Russia on the so-called “philosophical ship”.

The most conscientious representatives of the Russian elite who found themselves in exile admitted their guilt for the revolution that had taken place.
Does our current “elite” really admit its responsibility for the collapse of the USSR?..

Was the USSR a civilization? Or was it a social experiment on an unprecedented scale?

The signs of civilization are as follows:
1\ The USSR was an empire, and an empire is a sign of civilization.
2\ Civilization is distinguished by a high level of education and a high technical base, which obviously existed in the USSR.
3\ Civilization forms a special psychological type, which develops over about 10 generations. But in 70 years Soviet power it couldn't work out.
4\ One of the signs of civilization is beliefs. The USSR had its own belief in communism.

Even the ancient Greeks noticed a cyclical pattern in the succession of forms of power: aristocracy - democracy - tyranny - aristocracy... For two thousand years, humanity has not been able to come up with anything new.
History knows numerous social experiences of people's democracy. The socialist experiment will inevitably repeat itself. It is already being repeated in China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and other countries.

The USSR was a social experiment of unprecedented scale, but the experiment turned out to be unviable.
The fact is that justice and social equality come into conflict with economic efficiency. Where profit is the main thing, there is no place for justice. But it is inequality and competition that make society efficient.

Once I saw two men, one of whom was digging a hole, and the other was burying the hole after him. I asked what they were doing. And they replied that the third worker, who was planting trees, had not come.

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

This is reflected in our Orthodox faith, which evaluates a person not by works, but by faith. Catholicism speaks of personal responsibility for choice and calls for activism. But with us everything is determined by the providence and grace of God, which is incomprehensible.

Russia is not just a territory, it is an Idea! Regardless of the name - USSR, USSR, CIS or Eurasian Union.
The Russian idea is simple: we can only be saved together! Therefore the revival great Russia in one form or another is inevitable. In our harsh climatic conditions, what is needed is not competition, but cooperation, not rivalry, but community. And therefore external conditions will inevitably restore the union form government system.

The USSR as an Idea in one form or another is inevitable. The fact that the communist idea is not utopian and quite realistic is proven by the successes of communist China, which managed to become a superpower, overtaking the idealess Russia.

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

What's wrong with the ideas of freedom, equality and brotherhood, the universal happiness of people, regardless of religion or nationality?
These ideas will never die, they are eternal because they are true. Their truth lies in the fact that they correctly capture the essence of human nature.
Only those ideas are eternal that are in tune with the thoughts and feelings of living people. After all, if they find a response in the souls of millions, it means there is something in these ideas. People cannot be united by one truth, since everyone sees the truth in their own way. Everyone cannot be mistaken at the same time. An idea is true if it reflects the truths of many people. Only such ideas find a place in the recesses of the soul. And whoever guesses what is hidden in the souls of millions will lead them.”
LOVE CREATES NECESSITY!
(from my novel “Stranger Strange Incomprehensible Extraordinary Stranger” on the New Russian Literature website

In your opinion, WHY DID THE USSR DIDN'T?

© Nikolay Kofirin – New Russian Literature –