The reason for the collapse of the USSR - fear of war

114
Since they began to actively discuss the causes of the collapse of the USSR, I decided to add my thoughts to this topic. This question, which I consider to be one of the most important, has been interesting for me for a long time. How did it happen that a large, very powerful and well-armed country took and fell apart? This question is important because without having an exact answer to it, you can always find yourself in the same situation, and then all the efforts and means put into service will go to dust.

The reason for the collapse of the USSR - fear of war




I outlined my concept of the causes of the collapse of the USSR in my small book "Treason. The collapse of the USSR and Putin's Russia." But now I’ll talk about the root cause of this crash and all the attendant phenomena. This root cause, in my opinion, was the fear of a war with the capitalist world.

Fear arose after the end of World War II. One of its main outcomes was that the capitalist world was consolidated and united under the leadership of the United States, economic and military. In 1949, a phenomenon arose that did not exist before: a common military bloc, uniting all the largest, most developed and strong capitalist countries - NATO. The United States stood at the head of the bloc, at that time possessing a strong army and economy, which gave 60% of world production. The United States very quickly eliminated the sharp contradictions between the countries, and then quite quickly dragged into its recently defeated and defeated opponents: Germany and Japan, with subsequent and also quite quick remilitarization. Suffice it to say that already in the 1960's, the Bundeswehr accounted for more than 60% of the NATO grouping in Western Europe, was equipped with the latest weapons, including American ones.

The USSR emerged from the war greatly weakened. The war with Germany was bloody and destructive, costing tens of millions of people killed (they still argue how many people died, it is clear that there are many), and in the loss of 30% of fixed assets in the economy. And all his allies were the same. The countries of Eastern Europe also suffered enormous damage and themselves were in dire need of economic assistance. China had just emerged from a long war, civil, then with Japan, then again civil, and was utterly ruined.
The Soviet leadership knew all this well and in detail, and in my opinion, they had no doubts about the situation. Apparently, there were two points of view on what to do next. First: to recover and prepare for a new round of power confrontation with the capitalists. This point of view was held by Stalin. Second: to abandon the war with the capitalists completely and use the available forces only for defense, intimidation of the enemy and for maintaining the power of the party. This point of view, apparently, was held by many in the top leadership, most likely, by the majority.

The origin of their point of view is clear and obvious. All of them participated in the war, led and knew perfectly well what it was. For example, political instructor L.I. Brezhnev personally participated in the battles on Malaya Zemlya, one of the most stubborn and fierce battles in the Great Patriotic War. I am sure that his demonstrative peacefulness was connected precisely with this military experience.



The bet on the continuation of the armed confrontation with the capitalists promised a head-on battle with the enemy, who was superior to the USSR and its allies in everything. Most importantly, the enemy now had military-technical and military-economic superiority, and he had at his disposal most of the world's resources. The result was not difficult to predict. The USSR would enter into a fierce and protracted war, in which it would most likely suffer a complete defeat due to the exhaustion of human and economic resources. The capitalists would also have fallen, but their chances of standing on their feet were immeasurably higher. Having won, they would have torn seven skins from the defeated enemy. So it is not surprising that the top Soviet leadership began to incline to abandon the war, to avoid direct force confrontation and frontal combat.
But this also meant a rejection of communist ideology: the class struggle on a global scale, the support of revolutions, and the liberation of workers from the yoke of capital. All this was to become only words, a figure of speech for propaganda use.
Yes, it was an ideological betrayal. What else can you call it? The betrayal, however, was greatly extended in time and went in parts. The first and starting point, the first betrayal, so to speak, was the assassination of Stalin. The fact that Stalin was killed, personally, I have no doubt, and P.G. Balaev also explained how exactly this was done. Indeed, Stalin, with plans for preparing for the next round, posed a very serious danger to them.



The assassination attempt on Stalin, and indeed the very idea that it is possible to encroach on Stalin, emanating from those whom he put forward and who have worked with him for many years, is extremely unbelievable. This was an attempt not only on a person and on a leader, but also on a symbol, on a political banner. There had to be a very good reason for them to decide on this, and such a reason could only be a struggle for their own survival and self-preservation. Moreover, Stalin was killed twice. Once physically, and a second time politically, by the famous report to the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU.



This is so that his ideas will never be revived, so that they are completely discredited. This was subsequently reinforced by rewriting stories and its comprehensive mythologization, with Stalin being crossed out everywhere.

I must say that the people silently supported all this. And for an elementary reason. Nobody then had to be convinced that the war could be brutal, bloody and destructive.

Since then, in the 1950's, party leaders could not openly abandon communism, since this would be the end of the CPSU and their personal power, they took the path of totally emasculating the official ideology, and planting another ideology, actual. I call it ersatz ideology (since it really was a substitute for a real political ideology), and its essence consisted of only two points. Firstly, if only there was no war. Secondly, one must live well. And it is not difficult now to see that the whole post-war life in the USSR, in essence, revolved around these two postulates. It is also turning now, since the collapse of the USSR, the ban of the CPSU and the final rejection of communism were only a dumping of the verbal shell, but the essence remained unchanged.

Many people had to pay for this rejection of a real political ideology, including economic inhibition, which in the USSR became one of the strong preconditions for its inglorious end (the deficit came into conflict with the principle of "one must live well"). The fact is that, in my opinion, economic development requires precisely political ideology. Development is not a pleasant walk at all, but additional work, much beyond what is required for life. This is true both for individuals and for the economy as a whole. Political ideology explains and justifies why you need to work more and more, why you need to give priority to investment, rather than consumption. Replacing communism with its ersatz ideology, the CPSU cut down the very root of the country's economic development.

The same can be said about the war. It is impossible to fight without a political ideology explaining why you need to expose yourself to serious risk and hardship. With an ersatz ideology like: “if only there was no war” and “one must live well”, the USSR became very internally weak and a large-scale war with the exchange of nuclear strikes would undoubtedly collapse for him.

We can talk a lot about this, but I will emphasize one more, the most important moment for today and tomorrow. If an adversary in the person of NATO imposes us, or an ally in the person of China draws us into a large-scale war, then we with such an ersatz ideology, which is still valid today, find ourselves in a very bad position.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

114 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +24
    20 August 2019 15: 17
    ... then we with such an ersatz ideology, which continues to this day, find ourselves in a very bad position.

    Already turned out. And without any war. And the Union ruined the country's leadership for many years. When Gorbachev was the finale.
    1. +29
      20 August 2019 15: 29
      The USSR became very internally weak and a large-scale war with the exchange of nuclear strikes would certainly have collapsed for him.
      Come on, carry nonsense. Exchange of nuclear strikes would be a collapse for the whole world, and not just for the USSR
      1. +39
        20 August 2019 17: 44
        Author ... We lived a real life, no one thought about a possible nuclear war, television and cinemas with wonderful films reminded us of the past war, of its heroes. We were not afraid of nuclear war! And they did not wait for her, did not believe that it was possible. Didn't even think about her. And the saying "if only there was no war" in real life has never been heard from anyone. I believe that if there were people who uttered such words, then the image of the Second World War flashed in their memory, and not a mushroom over Hiroshima. Although who did not know about that mushroom! But he was perceived as detached. Because everyone knew about nuclear parity. Having learned about him once, they did not remember further, they simply lived in the proposed circumstances.
        Now imagine for a minute what would happen if the population was constantly reminded of a possible nuclear strike by the United States. There would be a panic!
        On the contrary, frightened Americans ridiculed in the press, under the influence of journalistic horror stories, massively built bomb shelters. Although bomb shelters were being built here and there and even exercises were conducted, the panic of the Americans caused a smile.
        But the imperialist policy of the United States in the press and on TV was constantly criticized, but without a connection with a possible nuclear strike.
        As for the government ... Yes, its awareness was higher than that of the population, and the responsibility was greater. But his alleged "fear" of a possible nuclear aggression from the United States, about which nothing was said in Soviet times and was suddenly spoken about in the 90s and how the mantra is being repeated now, is surprising. Have our own atomic bombs ever rusted? We had a powerful nuclear arsenal - one of the reasons for our peace of mind! There was even a non-aggression pact. Therefore, government fear as the cause of the death of the USSR looks far-fetched, as a means of justifying the treachery and meanness of the ruling villains.
        1. AUL
          +4
          20 August 2019 21: 07
          Quote: depressant
          And the saying "if only there was no war" in real life has never been heard from anyone.

          Well, it's you in vain!

          Asterisk dropped from the sky
          Straight to the darling in the pants.
          Let it burn there
          If only there was no war!

          This, of course, is just a ditty, but many of the smarter ones said it quite seriously!
        2. +2
          21 August 2019 09: 15
          Quote: depressant
          We were not afraid of nuclear war! And they did not wait for her, did not believe that it was possible. Didn't even think about her. And the saying "if only there was no war" in real life has never been heard from anyone.

          I had to. And this is in Bulgaria, where the war did not go through such a fire rink, as in Russia.
          We weren't afraid ... I remember being a first-grader, and a poster drawn by children's hands on the wall newspaper at school - Jimi Carter riding a nuclear rocket. I still remember when Brezhnev died - we kids asked adults - "And now, surely there will be a war?" Perhaps the girls did not pay attention, but the boys were preparing for war at that time.
          And fundamentally - here everyone confuses his personal memories of that time with a real picture. Do not. Our life is just a small piece of mosaic. The thesis put forward by the author is quite justified. The ideological impasse and confrontation with the West are quite serious reasons for the collapse of the country.
        3. +1
          22 August 2019 21: 26
          Quote: depressant
          Didn't even think about her. And the saying "if only there was no war" in real life has never been heard from anyone.

          why so? but from the Party, as an excuse for various weak political steps, wasn’t it?
      2. +8
        20 August 2019 18: 22
        Nonsense is for sure!
        Just some kind of "voluntarism".
        The collapse of the USSR did not come from
        fear of war, which, by the way, is even more present in the United States and other powers: the present war is terribly terrible.
        But from the fact that it is impossible to drive a person by force to happiness, he has not changed dramatically since the creation of the world and wants both under capitalism and under communism, in general, the same thing: good to eat, sleep, have good things and, most importantly , be significant, respectable in society. The Communist leaders were exactly the same people.
        1. +1
          21 August 2019 09: 27
          Quote: Alekseev
          that under communism, in general, the same thing: good to eat, sleep, have good things and, most importantly, to be significant, inspiring respect in society.


          And comes ... emptiness of the soul. Why is the West the mental state of those who eat well, sleep well, have good things, etc. at least unstable. And swallow antidepressants like sweets?
      3. +5
        20 August 2019 19: 06
        Quite rightly noticed, Anatoly. hi True, our country was destroyed and without any exchange of blows. Alas.
      4. +2
        20 August 2019 21: 26
        I absolutely agree with you !!! +++++++++++
    2. +2
      20 August 2019 16: 50
      Actually, the reason for the destruction of the SOVIET UNION is the betrayal of the KGB, which was transformed into the defense of ministries and their employees, and the betrayal of the government.
      It all started back in 1944, when the shooting of war criminals was replaced by deportation. Then all sorts of traitors got the opportunity to avoid punishment. With * darling * Khrushchev massively rehabilitated both war criminals and ordinary criminals who had the brain to declare themselves * political * or those from whom * had * kicked out any evidence of a criminal offense.
      I believe that it was precisely in this humanity that the basis for the destruction of the SOVIET UNION was found, the traitors always had the opportunity to avoid punishment, it was enough to loudly complain to imported * goodwill * and as a rule the punishment became conditional. .....
      Tolley is the case in Europe, if there were fears of noise, then ALWAYS something happened, such as an air-car of a cactastrophe or an attack of criminal drug addicts, then something else ...
    3. +13
      20 August 2019 16: 53
      It seems to me that the author is wrong, what has changed with the collapse of the USSR? The NATO bloc has remained as it was. Only part of the former Union republics, the Baltic States, Georgia joined it. And Russia was left alone against everyone, with a ruined economy and army. And now it opposes not only NATO members, but also former "brothers" like Ukraine.
      1. +15
        20 August 2019 17: 55
        author, do not write more ... not yours.
        1. +2
          21 August 2019 13: 28
          author, do not write more ... not yours.

          You shouldn’t be so, the person stated his opinion quite coherently. Has the right to. And generally interesting.
          Another thing is that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS OPINION.
          But this is at least original, and after all, a lot of people will write on a carbon copy without thinking: "this is a betrayal (Gorbachev, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the KGB ...)" Not realizing that no betrayal can be the CAUSE of the collapse of such a huge and powerful country, an instrument, yes , the reason - no.
          And in general, there was no and could not be one reason, always a complex.
          And the root cause, I personally believe that the global goal has been lost (as the national idea is now saying). I remember very well the beginning of the 80s and was already old enough to ask the question of where we were going, pwhy to sacrifice something? Communism, so no one believed in it. The next stage of the very very very developed socialism, so why strain and so build. Just the fear of losing it all (for example, because of the war) was not enough in the USSR.
          After all, if we knew how all this would turn out, would we be allowed to do this? Well, something like that, there would certainly not have been demonstrations against the Emergency Committee in 91 and the shooting of the white house in 93.

          The trouble is that the situation is exactly the same now. Well, unless there is a thought, let us live calmly, do not meddle with us (it consolidates us), but once the West understands this and be patient and after 10 years everything will happen again.
      2. DPN
        -7
        20 August 2019 21: 41
        But Russia was left alone against all, with a destroyed economy and army.

        Russia is just the territory that went to the people living in this territory, so it was not Russia alone left, but the people living in it who showed the instinct of the beast of the one-man individual.
        1. +2
          21 August 2019 11: 40
          Personally, my family, friends and acquaintances didn’t ruin anything. And we don’t have to call us animals, we worked and just survived.
          1. DPN
            +1
            23 August 2019 09: 38
            we worked and just survived.
            WE simply did not intercede for the country as in 1941, but surrendered everything else, justification is justified, it’s easier to live this way and we live.
      3. +2
        22 August 2019 21: 31
        Quote: machinistvl
        But Russia was left alone against all, with a destroyed economy and army.

        I don't think so. The people found themselves without leaders, without a goal. The goal is imposed - consume. Nobody needed the bablonauts of Russia either in the West or in the fraternal republics, the Army protects the interests of these very "big capitals" and no one takes their towers and pipes from them.
    4. 0
      24 August 2019 14: 33
      The USSR emerged from the war, the Second World War, greatly weakened, so NATO or the United States spared the Soviet power and decided that it was not worth the attack. They could capture the whole of Europe, Naglia with a fright, and they were ready to divide the USA in two by making a strait between Mexico and Canada.
  2. -2
    20 August 2019 15: 18
    An interesting point of view.
    Thanks to the author.
    1. -11
      20 August 2019 15: 31
      Everything is given to us from the Lord

      From Matthew 7 chapter 24:

      So everyone who hears these words of mine and does them,
      I will liken to a prudent man who built his house on a stone;
      25. And it began to rain, and the rivers spilled, and the winds blew, and rushed toward the house,
      and he did not fall, because it was based on a stone.
      26.А everyone who hears these My words and does not fulfill them will be likened to a foolish man who built his house on the sand;
      27. And it began to rain, and the rivers spilled, and the winds blew, and lay down on that house;
      and he fell and there was his great fall.
      28. And when Jesus finished these words, the people marveled at His doctrine,
      29. For He taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.

      This is the answer to the question "Why did the Soviet Union collapse?" But the USSR held on, and now Russia, only on the blood of the martyrs and their prayers.

      "Development is not a pleasant walk at all, but additional work, far beyond what is required for life."

      And we, for the most part, have reduced life to consumerism and nothing to do, but with great demands for "manna from heaven" and a saucer with a blue border.
      1. +13
        20 August 2019 16: 16
        Quote: Alena Frolovna
        And we, for the most part, have reduced life to consumerism and nothing to do, but with great demands for "manna from heaven" and a saucer with a blue border.

        If you, Alena, are a consumer and a loafer, you don’t need to spread your attitude towards everyone else.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +1
        22 August 2019 21: 33
        Quote: Alena Frolovna
        But the USSR stayed, and now Russia is only on the blood of the martyrs and their prayers.

        The USSR was built on stone, only these stones with their own hands were removed. Judah has always been. And communism is a real attempt to continue the work of Jesus Christ!
  3. +14
    20 August 2019 15: 28
    The United States stood at the head of the bloc, at that time possessing the strongest army and economy, which accounted for 60% of world production

    At the expense of the strongest army at the time of the founding of NATO, I believe that the author has grown hot. All the power of the United States at that time was in possession of the atomic bomb and that’s it. And I also disagree about the economic power of the United States. The USSR alone restored the territory of eastern Europe destroyed by the war, while in Western Europe most of it was not destroyed and was not affected by the war at all.
    There is no way to fight without a political ideology explaining why you need to expose yourself to serious risks and hardships. With an ersatz ideology of the type: "if only there was no war" and "one must live well," the USSR became very weak internally and a large-scale war with an exchange of nuclear strikes would undoubtedly become a collapse for it.

    And with this I completely disagree. The USSR in the 70-80 years possessed the most powerful armed forces in the history of mankind. No one has ever had such an army and navy as the USSR. In the USSR, almost the entire economy and industry was put to a possible war with NATO, maybe this was one of the reasons, besides the betrayal of the labeled and his company, that industry and the economy were imprisoned for a possible war, why did the USSR collapse?
    1. -1
      20 August 2019 15: 56
      USSR in 70-80 years possessed the most powerful armed forces in the history of mankind
      Well, I don’t know, I think that the point is not how much tanks you have in service with, but how much you can produce in a real war
      1. +11
        20 August 2019 17: 29
        And in a real nuclear war, it is the number of tanks in service and in "warehouses" that matters, because tank factories (and not only) are among the priority targets. High-tech and mass production will not be a word at all.
    2. +3
      20 August 2019 21: 15
      Quote: solzh
      All the power of the United States at that time was in possession of the atomic bomb and that’s it.

      Sergey, what do you think. Why did the stripes not take advantage of her against us as soon as she appeared with them.
      1. +4
        20 August 2019 22: 48
        Good question. But I can’t answer you. I do not know the answer to the question why they did not use it against us. I can only guess ... Maybe because the USSR had very strong positions in Western Europe in the person of the communist parties of France, Italy and the Americans needed to first strengthen their positions in Western Europe? Here you can recall the operation of Gladio, such as the secret operation was called. Maybe because the Americans remembered 1945 when the Red Army shackled it for a short time, defeated the Kwantung army or parade in Berlin when they showed IS-3 tanks whose analogues were not in the west, maybe because they were impressed by the capabilities of our industry to produce various types of weapons in large volumes, perhaps because the United States was impressed by our citizens, who, in difficult years, could withstand a strong adversary, unlike the Europeans, or maybe they hoped that the USSR would not be able to raise the country's destroyed national economy and the Soviet the regime will fall ... Why are there many options ...
      2. +5
        21 August 2019 07: 41
        Quote: shura7782
        Why the stripes didn’t use it against us

        By the fact that they did not have the required number of charges, and there was no certainty that the available charges would be enough to suppress the military and economic potential of the USSR. And later nuclear weapons appeared with us.
        1. 0
          21 August 2019 21: 56
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          ... there was no certainty that the available charges would be enough to suppress ......

          For many years after the war, striped aviation furrowed our airspace with impunity. We got a bomb in '49. The Japanese experience was indicative. It was enough to strike Moscow and other significant objects, but they did not. At the expense of our potential, they all know for sure. Apparently, the reason is still different.
          ?
          1. -1
            22 August 2019 10: 26
            Quote: shura7782
            It was enough to strike Moscow and other significant objects, but they did not. At the expense of our potential, they all know for sure. Apparently, the reason is still different.

            How could they strike Moscow with heavy bombers if we already had radars then, and fighter pilots in Korea showed what war veterans are capable of? The Americans would lose all their bombers before they reached Moscow, especially since they would not have serious cover because of the limited range of their fighters. That is why their plans failed - and the main reason is the powerful system of Soviet air defense.
      3. +4
        21 August 2019 22: 04
        What for? Firstly, it was possible only to inflict damage, but not to destroy a country that was already partially destroyed and which, after such Truman, would not be very different from Hitler and would only live on revenge. Secondly, it is very likely that then the whole world would immediately take up arms against the United States. Third, what about the Americans themselves? Quite recently, the entire population of the United States read news from the fronts with bated breath and rejoiced at every victory of the Soviets over Nazi Germany, and then suddenly our (theirs, in the sense) government throws off an atomic bomb on the former allies ... Even with all the naivety of the population, this is very difficult would explain. And finally, the most important thing. An atomic strike on the USSR would mean the loss of Western Europe within a week, maximum two. And she became a major debtor to the United States as a result of the Second World War ... So, the surviving, most of the population of the USSR moves from the Soviet territories contaminated with radiation to Western Europe "liberated" by the Soviet army, whose population had thinned out before that, by the way, and working hands and brains there is where to apply. Now a big friendly family of the peoples of the Old World, from Tokyo to London, are beginning to think about how to quickly rid the world and history of the "power is, no need for mind" cowboy with a nuclear whip who has lost his head ... To begin with, they say that debts are to be paid will not be and dollars are no longer accepted. Then the Soviet armored divisions occupy the Middle East with its oil, and they are not hindered, but even helped. In the United States, any emigration, exchange of technology, knowledge, etc., and even trade, stops from Europe. Facts about the help of Hitler's Germany from some American banks, about trade "on two fronts", etc., are emerging, and thus, the real culprit of the disasters of the Second World War (and at the same time the first) - Wall Street - becomes clear! Somehow, everyone suddenly realizes that these white Americans almost completely massacred the native Indians, and the Negro population is subjected to severe discrimination ... The best minds of Europe and Asia, united, very quickly create their own bomb, and a young and promising amateur deep-sea swimming and surfing, the Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov offers his own version ...
        1. 0
          21 August 2019 23: 05
          Alex, thanks for the detailed answer.
          ..... which after such a Truman would not be much different from Hitler and would live only on revenge .....

          They do not care about revenge. Disarm, relocate to the east., And carry out constant monitoring.
          ........ it is very likely that then the whole world would immediately take up arms against the USA ......


          ......... what to do with the Americans themselves? .......

          These watered technologists would have found words and "proofs" for them that they would have no choice in the face of the growing communist threat ..
          ......... surviving, most of the population of the USSR is moving from the Soviet territories contaminated with radiation to Western Europe "liberated" by the Soviet army, ......

          No. For the Urals., As planned.
          ....... "there is power, no mind is needed" .......
          The new president of America would have nullified all claims against his predecessor.
          Sorry for such a confused answer. (Technical reasons) So far, as you can see, that I do not quite agree, but ..... Plus.
          1. +1
            21 August 2019 23: 47
            To give a damn about thoughts of revenge would be hindered by the example of Napoleon and the very fresh example of Hitler at that time. "Disarm, relocate beyond the Urals ..." How? Are you confusing anything? They could drop bombs, yes. But nothing else! Moreover, the Ardennes and Kiska showed it well ... And the next president is the next, the decisions are made by the current one. The next one might just turn over that jerk as a war criminal, than fight the whole world ... who is hunting? And most importantly - for what? To reset all your conquests and trophies in WWII? World communism, of course, was feared, but a madman throwing atomic bombs left and right would still be more dangerous.
            1. 0
              23 August 2019 20: 12
              ........ thoughts of revenge would have been hindered by the example of Napoleon and the very fresh example of Hitler at that time ......... "To disarm, resettle beyond the Urals ..." How? Are you confusing anything?

              Alexey, I did not consider these two examples because there are more recent illustrative historical examples. Example 1. Poland. Resettlement of people from eastern Poland to eastern Germany. Even the word "relocation" hurts the ear.
              Example 2. Japan. After surrender, the country developed and developed, but without the armed forces. There are American bases and striped do not shoot. This is me about revenge.
              ....... The next one could just surrender that moron as a war criminal .......,
              Mind you, Alexei, for some reason they prefer to keep silent about their war crimes, but they raise a big fuss about if it does not concern them. It is unlikely that surrender could have happened at all. I am missing their moral component. They have a simple principle "The winner is not judged"
              Therefore, for myself, I still did not find the answer "Why did the striped people not throw a bomb on the USSR?" If you have other reasons, I will be glad to discuss. Thank you for participating.
              1. +1
                26 August 2019 01: 38
                Quote: shura7782
                For myself, I still did not find the answer "Why did the striped people not throw a bomb on the USSR?"

                The reason is simple: "Do we need it?"
                Just understand that the Americans were preparing for DEFENSE. Yes, it meant, when the first signs that Throw for the English Channel were being prepared, to deliver a preemptive strike. The Americans were really afraid that the USSR, having somehow recovered after the war, would again remember the world revolution. Support for the capture of China by the Maoists, Kim's attempts to annex the south of Korea, and other communist and socialist coups somehow did not reassure, but on the contrary. And even more so, Khrushch's statements in the style of "We will bury you" did not lead to peaceful thoughts, and who Kuzkina Mother was, did not figure it out. There was, however, a version that this was the name of the bomb exploded on Novaya Zemlya, again not a reason for reassurance.
                Nobody tried to underestimate the strength of the Soviet, former Red, Army, on the contrary, they were often overestimated. And largely because of these reassessments, they prepared an adequate response to the Soviet threat, which on the Soviet side did not look adequate. Accordingly, an answer was prepared for this answer. And so on, a vicious circle.
                And no one planned to start the Third World War simply for the sake of "capture and enslavement", even if it is called "liberation from the oppression of the communists / imperialists". We calculated and saw that the losses would be unacceptable. So it is largely to blame for each side's misunderstanding of the goals and actions of the other side.
              2. +1
                21 September 2019 01: 51
                Maybe the Americans just missed the moment with the edge. AND
                their analysis said that the Soviets themselves would not be able to create such a bomb for at least a long time and were complacent, and we didn’t make them nervous, and then we simply stole their secrets and the advantage was lost. Alexander, the fact is that in battle or in political struggle you may have an advantage in something, but it is not only an opportunity, but also psychological complacency. There is a type of it, and if necessary it is possible to apply, but the fact that time kills any advantage, as in chess, is not taken into account. The arrow defeats the queen! In general, the Americans profiled their hegemony in short.
                And then the Americans are not Germans, this is not their method of domination. They are a sea power, and for the occupation of the USSR a large land army is needed. The American interest at that time was in the Pacific Ocean, and that was to rob its debtors of the British and Europeans. A new war was out of place. It was necessary to take a break, enjoy the victory!
                1. +1
                  21 September 2019 13: 27
                  Alex, thanks for the opinion. The arguments are interesting. It would seem that everything is logical and understandable, but nevertheless, the example with Japan bothers me.
                  They are a sea power, and for the occupation of the USSR a large land army is needed.
                  In that conventional sense, the word "an occupation" had a different meaning in Japan, a large army was not required. Striped only controlled the processes at the top. "Live and multiply, but only without an army." There they managed to make striped the state loyal to them. Now, despite all their contradictions, they have more definite plus than minus.
                  In general, profuca ......
                  It's like our Avos I think, nevertheless, that with regard to the USSR they had their own clear strategy.
                  In our case, it turns out that they are absolutely sure that Russia will disintegrate by itself, without any massacre and large expenses. The most important thing is to expand the top and thereby cause popular discontent, and there only skillfully manage the processes. " Divide and rule !!!" Now we have something that we observe in ourselves and in our neighbors. But this is the topic of another discussion ..
                  1. +2
                    21 September 2019 21: 04
                    All the same, it seems that you probably think too highly of them (the Americans)! As if these were not people but some kind of terminators! If you saw the Russian film "The White Tiger" directed by Shaknazarov, which I really liked, then the main character of the tanker said the following about the German tank: "The tank is dead, there is no crew in it! An ordinary person will either chicken out or miss, but this one does not coward and does not miss ! " The ideal weapon and more! Don't try to idealize them! The enemy can make a mistake, even a very prepared one! The Germans built the Wehrmachtmashinen car for that and screwed it up!
                    Here's a similar question for you: "Why did the Germans turn to Kiev in 1941 and did not take naked Moscow?" The answer is obvious, they were afraid that Tymoshenko's group would hit them in the rear and surround them! The Germans did the right thing in terms of their pedantry and academicism, but in the end they missed the time when their tanks were fast, that is, summer! And Tymoshenko would hardly have been able to effectively strike, most likely he would have gotten what he had been doing all summer! Inefficient and costly! As a result, the Germans lost their time and the Russian capital! And give them back what they missed and they would have acted differently! Read the tears of General Goth, he is crying about it! But this is life! The Americans then were not yet experienced in matters of hegemony, they were just learning how they knew that the Russians were so insidious and good !! They had new weapons, they trained in Japan, it kind of worked out !! They installed puppets there, well, this is the first experience! They trained on the island and here the USSR is a giant! The Americans were just getting started and you now think of them in the past as if they were today's Americans! But the Amrians now and then are not the same thing! Then they just grew up and tried! If they had the same chance now, they would have given it, do not hesitate! They started small and then moved on to great! And they didn't see such a competitor in us. After all, the USSR never had overseas ambitions and a powerful fleet !! The Japanese are another matter! British! These are naval powers with aircraft carriers, colonies, claims to colonialism.
                    The sea and the land are different elements in the words of Dugin! They needed a nuclear baton to maintain a bridgehead in Europe! Like Russian Isa and we bomb them!
                    Stalin was not the kind of person who would make himself hara-kiri !! He would go all the way to the hilt, especially with such an army that went through fire, water and copper pipes !! I would have to bomb Europe, Britain, France!
                    But Roosevelt respected the Russians! It is not that simple! There are many answers to your question! What outweighed I do not know! The main thing is that we survived and can still defeat them!
                    1. +1
                      21 September 2019 21: 57
                      Alexey, you write thoroughly and interestingly. Thank you for responding. This is not often found. On VO, more and more cheers patriots are hunting for pluses. Objectivity is not enough. I went to read and was surprised that for such a short time, it’s not clear what a huge minus. Is it with us that Tarquemoda is operating?
                      1. +1
                        21 September 2019 22: 09
                        Yes, here, among other opinions, your question seemed to me very interesting! I myself sometimes ask such questions. And the minuses put me so for the truth. Or for a different opinion from others. But you know there are people who think like you. I found you! It's nice!
        2. 0
          23 August 2019 13: 30
          Quote: Alexey LK
          What for? Firstly, ..... ..... the Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov offers his own version ...

          ready-made script, you can shoot a movie
      4. The comment was deleted.
    3. -1
      21 August 2019 12: 20
      Quote: solzh
      while in Western Europe most of it was not destroyed and was not affected by the war at all.

      Germany lay in ruins. Fighting took place in Holland, Belgium, Italy, and France. Great Britain was bombed throughout the war. Doesn’t that affect the war?
      1. +3
        21 August 2019 13: 37
        Quote: Sergey1987
        Germany lay in ruins.

        Especially the eastern part of Germany, which was part of the Soviet zone of occupation.
        Quote: Sergey1987
        In Holland, Belgium, Italy

        Tell me how many cities and villages were destroyed in these countries, and at the same time compare with the number of destruction in eastern Europe.
        Quote: Sergey1987
        France went through hostilities. Great Britain was bombed throughout the war

        Please remind me in France how many weeks there were battles in 1940 and in 1944 and at the same time which cities were destroyed there?
        At the expense of the UK ...
        Minsk lost 89 percent of all pre-war buildings as a result of the war. 
        Dresden - Destroyed 23 percent of industrial buildings, 56 percent of non-residential and non-industrial buildings (those that represented just the greatest cultural value) and about 50 percent of the residential area.
        Warsaw - the city was destroyed by 84 percent.
        Kaliningrad (formerly Konigsberg) - was destroyed by 90 percent.
        Stalingrad, Kharkov - do these cities talk to you about anything?
        So what was there to restore in the UK?
  4. The comment was deleted.
    1. +7
      20 August 2019 19: 15
      You have probably never read either Pravda or Krasnaya Zvezda. This article is most likely a la, Voice of America, or at least Speed ​​Info.
      1. -3
        20 August 2019 19: 23
        Voice of America, or at least Speed ​​Info.

        I wonder what you have in common with Voices and Speed ​​Info?
        And as for Pravda, you are almost right - there was absolutely nothing to read in it except for an interview with Leonid Brezhnev. Preferred "Izvestia" and "Komsomolskaya Pravda"
        1. +1
          21 August 2019 17: 00
          Quote: Amateur
          What did you find in common with Voices and Speed ​​Info?

          I explain, both that and other organization (or edition) are crap in the media space. The first, because the work is such, the second, because there is not enough intelligence for more.
  5. +3
    20 August 2019 15: 30
    In general, I will not write that - nonsense. But I will say that I do not agree.
    Quote: Silvestr
    Already turned out. And without any war. And the Union ruined the country's leadership for many years. When Gorbachev was the finale.

    And here I agree, with the only addition that the leadership did not collapse, but the established elite, because not only the leadership participated in the collapse, but also the group of people from which this leadership was formed (party nomenclature? Mb, call it convenient for you)
    As I see this situation ... after the revolution, a whole class in the system of society was destroyed, but the system of society does not tolerate emptiness and it filled it, after all, world history knows a lot of examples of the formation of national "Elites" and the Soviet Elite does not stand out in any way ( perhaps with the pathos of self-deception)
    1. +1
      20 August 2019 21: 54
      And here I agree, with the only addition, that it was not the leadership that collapsed, but the established elite, since not only the leadership participated in the collapse, but also the group of people from which this leadership was formed


      Now look around. As if our children did not have to discuss the problem - who destroyed the Russian Federation.
  6. +1
    20 August 2019 15: 31
    Wonderful article. One point I disagree with:
    I must say that the people silently supported all this. And for an elementary reason. Nobody then had to be convinced that the war could be brutal, bloody and destructive.

    The people did not support anything, they were confronted with the fact, Khrushch prepared to pour out a bunch of lies to justify their own criminal cowardice and involvement in the murder.
    But in general, it’s very interesting, accessible, and this certainly makes sense, for myself, at least, I got food for thought ..
  7. +14
    20 August 2019 15: 39
    Something is very wrong in the author's assumptions. He is probably a young man and thinks too creative in the modern way; he wants to find a novelty. The union was broken in the trash after the war, I only remember broken bricks and crowds of cripples near the pubs. And in the end he swam with fat and was the MOST RICH COUNTRY OF THE WORLD, we just didn’t appreciate what we had. I ate black caviar with SPOONS and I did not like it. And so many. And Soviet weapons are strong and numerous still. The reason is that we did not learn how to live rich. Poor and in difficulty were like a fish in water. A new psychology was needed, but it still cannot be. Our people are stronger both physically and spiritually and mentally, but while they are sleeping. And it ends badly. The cunning catch him on simplicity. So it’s impossible. one must be cunning and right. See that theft and corruption are worse than nuclear war. Only then will it be possible to live calmly and better than anyone. We need a new ultramodern psychology and the whole world will follow it.
  8. +9
    20 August 2019 15: 46
    I read to the assassination of Stalin ...
    Further flow of consciousness is not worth reading
  9. +6
    20 August 2019 15: 46
    With an ersatz ideology of the type: "if only there was no war" and "one must live well," the USSR became very weak internally and a large-scale war with an exchange of nuclear strikes would undoubtedly become a collapse for it.

    This thought (albeit not so, but similar) has been visiting me from time to time since the mid-80s, when we "tirelessly fighting for peace" began to receive slaps in the face (one humiliation of the Soviet embassy in Lebanon is worth something). We needed firmness, adherence to principles and action, it is still needed and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was left with bad habits.
  10. +5
    20 August 2019 15: 53
    I will say simply: an interesting point of view, but I do not agree with her.
  11. +13
    20 August 2019 16: 08
    again another article that imposes an absolutely deadlock discussion on the issue
    what nafig fear of war? Whom did the Soviet man fear in the last couple of decades in the USSR?
    fear, real fear was 3 times - when the Germans were near Moscow in the 41st
    after ww2 several years when the United States really threatened a total nuclear bombing
    and the Cuban crisis. Nothing frightened society anymore.
    and fear to consider the cause of the collapse? Have you seen how the United States intimidated the terrible USSR and the work of CIA agents of the FBI KGB? Especially espionage endured the brain Americans seem under Nixon.
    that's where there was fear
  12. +3
    20 August 2019 17: 37
    The Union was planning 82 launches at 51m, Buran was launched at 88m, another three years - tales of US military power became a dummy. In 82m Andropov became Secretary General, in 91 from under the Union, his protege Gorbachev pulled out a stool.
  13. +1
    20 August 2019 17: 37
    Well .. Started for health ... Yes, the betrayal of the elite. That's all the reasons. They traveled to the west to see how you can live with money. And there was a lot of money in the USSR .. I do not want to steal. They were afraid of everything .... It was would be the end for everyone ...
  14. +4
    20 August 2019 17: 40
    Interesting article, but no. When was it feared in the Union war? They didn’t want to - yes, but to be afraid? Moreover, many did not doubt that if anything, we will go through Piccadilly and other Champs Elysees a victorious march smile
  15. -5
    20 August 2019 17: 47
    What a fear of war fool In the USSR, people lived poorly and poorly in comparison with the leading countries of the capitalist world, nuclear war was more beneficial to the USSR, we would be equal. The same thing today, Russia which speculates in natural resources and the USA which have a bunch of world famous brands and more developed infrastructure. Who will lose more with mutual nuclear strikes?
  16. +1
    20 August 2019 17: 58
    Quote: v_bueff
    Ndropov became Secretary General, in 91 from under the Union, his protege Gorbachev

    why did you decide that Gorbachev is Andropov's protege?
    many voted for Gorbachev as a person without charisma and his own will, driven by an energetic representative. In a way, it was a compromise like Putin.
    1. +1
      20 August 2019 18: 56
      Quote: yehat
      many voted for Gorbachev as a person without charisma and his own will

      These "many" understood perfectly well that the authorities had compromising evidence on them. Demonstration trials have already been carried out, compromising Brezhnev's entourage and ending with executions. Gorby is definitely a creature of Andropov. Most likely, Gorby and Shevardnadze provided incriminating evidence against the first secretary of the Krasnodar Territory, Medunov, which the "authorities" had no right to collect. Andropov himself from the Stavropol Territory rested in the resorts of almost exclusively the Stavropol Territory, and Raisa was his company. Medunov, Shevardnadze and Gorbi distributed high-ranking officials and their families to their "own" resorts. This is a responsible and difficult business.
  17. +2
    20 August 2019 18: 16
    I agree with those comments that the USSR as a whole was not afraid of war and people didn’t think about it, but in the USA there was hysteria pumped by the media.
    Just as there was no wild militarization of society, and in the presence of continuous deviators without a military-accounting specialty - hat-capturing mood. You watch a Hollywood movie about the Union - some are military men on the streets, but in realities you will not find them in the daytime with fire, I remember for us guys to meet a military man or a sailor was happiness.
    I would not want to boast of claiming that the reason was not just this, but this. Somehow not seriously.
    The given version has the right only on one side, as it seems to me, the leadership of the USSR since 1985 has overestimated American capabilities, primarily SDI. Perhaps they believed in part the warriors who were inclined to strengthen the threat, which was perhaps justified. That’s the guide to isolate reality from different information, and not rely on experts.
    And headed for ill-conceived, unprepared, and then chaotic reforms.

    At the same time, trying to "separate" real socialism from "Stalinist" socialism, they threw out water with the child: they split the sterile consciousness of the citizens of the USSR, the old demons woke up: nationalism, etc., and it started off. Don't stop. Plus, the local Stenka Razin appeared, which also began to fight for its piece, torpedoing the Union with Russia.
    The root of the problems in key figures, simply put, they don’t understand anything in the management of the country, all the rest are factors that could and never have appeared, do not create a reason for them to lead.
  18. VLR
    +4
    20 August 2019 18: 20
    Stalin died of a hemorrhagic stroke. None of the normal specialists (who have no connections with Ren-TV) have the slightest doubt. Stalin woke up, got out of bed, walked around the rooms, and only then fell. We would like to poison (and dare to do it) - Stalin would not have woken up, you can have no doubt. The only way to blame colleagues is the failure to provide timely assistance, but at that level of medicine this had no effect on the course of the disease - there were no effective treatment methods. They would call doctors right away - the agony would drag on for a few more days. For some reason, people do not want to understand that even the great politicians are biologically no different from ordinary people. They also die from ordinary diseases without any outside interference. But no, it is necessary to poison Alexander the Great with Styx water, delivered in a goat's hoof, Napoleon with arsenic, Stalin - in general it is not clear what, because there is no poison that causes with 100% guarantee 100% the symptoms of hemorrhagic stroke. Even warfarin, coumarin derivatives, etc., can cause any bleeding - gastric, nasal, from the rectum - but brain - are not described.
  19. +1
    20 August 2019 18: 29
    Quote: There is no way to fight without a political ideology explaining why you need to expose yourself to serious risks and hardships. With an ersatz ideology of the type: "if only there was no war" and "one must live well," the USSR became very weak internally and a large-scale war with an exchange of nuclear strikes would undoubtedly become a collapse for it. End of quote.
    The trouble, since the shoemaker and tailor begin to engage in history and ideology. In the right mind, having a higher education (any), this is impossible to write. The USSR had a very serious ideology, on the basis of which a policy was pursued, thanks to which the USSR was a superpower.
    And the last thing. Question: Can the author explain to us what "political ideology" is ?? Come on, author, study the political or philosophical vocabulary. It's never too late to learn (you can be sure of that)!
  20. +4
    20 August 2019 18: 30
    I'm out - the USSR collapsed at the peak of its nuclear missile dominance (45000 nuclear weapons) and conventional (60000 tanks) dominance in the world, and the author broadcasts about the alleged fear of the Soviet leadership about possible foreign aggression laughing
    1. +7
      20 August 2019 18: 40
      Quote: Operator
      The USSR collapsed

      The USSR did not disintegrate, but was dissolved from Moscow, more specifically, from the Lubyanka. The goal is a subsequent counter-revolution that has no precedent in history. The essence of counter-revolution is the appropriation of socialist property, which was created, in particular, under the leadership of the "authorities." When this idea was formulated (some evidence indicates that Andropov), personnel were selected who this idea took possession of, and the task was set to formalize this case as a purely economic catastrophe.
      1. -1
        20 August 2019 18: 47
        Disintegrated or dissolved - this is a separate question, I’m talking about another - the logical message of the author that the USSR, having created the world's largest nuclear missile potential, was allegedly frightened of external aggression laughing
        1. 0
          20 August 2019 19: 04
          I agree with you completely: this message of the author indicates his complete incompetence. The fact that he writes so fearlessly on a topic in which he knows nothing means only one thing: he is sure that we are no longer alive.
          As for being dissolved or broken up, this is a separate question about the betrayal of government officials who swore allegiance to ideology and never before their betrayal did not declare their disagreement with it even after that.
          Not only Soviet people were betrayed. Our brothers from the GDR had very serious ideological problems.
          Quote:
          Ober-lieutenant Udo Besser, who served in the NNA, and then in the Bundeswehr, says: “I basically don’t go to any meetings of the former military NNA because you are very warmly welcomed there at first, nice to welcome, but after the third beer called a traitor! " Those who were thrown out of the army after reunification still cannot forgive this.
          End of quote.
  21. +4
    20 August 2019 18: 50
    I lived in the USSR for thirty years, got an education. There was no fear of war; people simply lived and hoped for the leadership of the country. In cinemas in rural and pioneer camps, documentaries on almost all weapons of mass destruction and chemical attacks almost always showed documentaries before the main film. People believed that the country was preparing to protect the population and did not forget about them. And as taught in a simple Uzbek school of NVP, reserve lieutenant colonels. We still remember our Nikolai Ivanovich Zelenko with friends. How he drove us, taught us to shoot. Mosinki, DP, PPSh knew no worse than AKM. Normal education was, everyone considered themselves Soviet people. And everyone would defend
  22. +1
    20 August 2019 18: 54
    There must have been more than one reason, but fear was just in the 33rd penultimate place!
    Betrayal, counter-revolution, is what fell on top of us!
    True, we blundered from below ...... now it’s obvious, but then ..........
    1. +1
      21 August 2019 22: 41
      The people were simply "prepared" for this.
  23. +1
    20 August 2019 19: 52
    "The reason for the collapse of the USSR is fear of war" - and there is a rational grain in the title.
    I highly recommend the articles of a prominent military analyst, Soviet intelligence officer Vitaly Vasilyevich Shlykov.
    He believed that the economy of the USSR was ruined by an excessive "mobilization reserve", popularly see:
    "Back to the Future, or Economic Lessons of the Cold War" (https://globalaffairs.ru/number/Nazad-v-buduschee-ili-Ekonomicheskie-uroki-kholodnoi-voiny-19196),
    "The invisible hand of mobilization" (https://www.forbes.ru/forbes/issue/2006-03/14009-nevidimaya-ruka-mobilizatsii).
  24. +1
    20 August 2019 20: 39
    The bet on the continuation of the armed confrontation with the capitalists promised a head-on battle with the enemy, who was superior to the USSR and its allies in everything. Most importantly, the enemy now had military-technical and military-economic superiority, and he had at his disposal most of the world's resources. The result was not difficult to predict. The USSR would enter into a fierce and protracted war, in which it would most likely suffer a complete defeat due to the exhaustion of human and economic resources. The capitalists would also have fallen, but their chances of standing on their feet were immeasurably higher. Having won, they would have torn seven skins from the defeated enemy. So it is not surprising that the top Soviet leadership began to incline to abandon the war, to avoid direct force confrontation and frontal combat.

    And here is a list of events that the author’s words directly refute.
    We were so "afraid" that we got in where we should and where we shouldn't.
    Fighting in and against China:

    - from March 1946 of the year to April 1949 of the year;
    - March - May 1950 of the year (for the personnel of the air defense forces group);
    - in the area of ​​Damansky Island: March 1969 of the year;
    - Lake Zhalanashkol region: August 1969 of the year.

    Fighting in Korea: from June 1950 of the year to July 1953 of the year (for personnel of military units taking part in the fighting in North Korea from the territory of China).

    Fighting in Hungary: 1956

    The fighting in Laos:
    - from January 1960 year to December 1963 year;
    - from August 1964 of the year to November 1968 of the year;
    - from November 1969 to December 1970.

    Combat operations in Vietnam: from January 1961 to December 1974, including for personnel of the Pacific Fleet reconnaissance ships, which solved the tasks of military service in the South China Sea.

    The fighting in Algeria: 1962 - 1964.

    Fighting in Egypt (United Arab Republic):
    - from October 1962 to March 1963;
    - June 1967;
    - 1968 year;
    - from March 1969 to July 1972;
    - from October 1973 to March 1974;
    - from June 1974 to February 1975 (for personnel of minesweepers of the Black Sea and Pacific Fleets who participated in the clearance of the Suez Canal zone)

    Fighting in the Yemen Arab Republic:
    - from October 1962 to March 1963;
    - from November 1967 to December 1969.

    The fighting in Syria:
    - June 1967;
    - March - July 1970;
    - September - November 1972;
    - October 1973 year.

    The fighting in Mozambique:
    - 1967 - 1969 years;
    - from November 1975 to November 1979;
    - from March 1984 to August 1988.

    Fighting in Cambodia: April - December 1970 of the year.

    Fighting in Bangladesh: 1972 - 1973 (for the personnel of ships and auxiliary vessels of the Navy of the USSR).

    The fighting in Angola: from November 1975 to November 1992.

    The fighting in Ethiopia:
    - from December 1977 to November 1990;
    - from May 2000 to December 2000.

    The fighting in Afghanistan: from April 1978 to February 15, 1989.

    The fighting in Syria and Lebanon: June 1982.

    Well, what does the author say?
    Sat quietly, like a mouse under a broom?
    Why, but I didn’t notice cowardice among our people.
    1. 0
      21 August 2019 00: 27
      And then what prevented the defeat of the main ideological and political opponent?
      With such courage and valor.
      1. 0
        21 August 2019 06: 28
        The statement sounded like this - the leadership of the USSR was afraid.
        And you are interested in what interfered.
        I did not realize the relationship.
        1. +1
          21 August 2019 12: 35
          So what prevented us from taking and defeating the main enemy - the USA?
          All the wars you have listed are not wars with the United States, this is not a direct attack on the United States. In addition, the Soviet Union often sent their officers there with forged documents, or even completely limited to the supply of weapons.
          You all know this very well. Why then juggle? These examples do not refute my thesis.
          1. +1
            21 August 2019 15: 47
            Beat the US?
            But was the question on the agenda of the USSR?
            Peaceful coexistence of two systems.
            Peaceful.
            We did not preach war as the only means to achieve our goals.
            But the army was, weapons and weapons were.
            And it was tested in real combat conditions.
            And our geopolitical opponents knew about this and made conclusions.
            The second "interesting" message of your comment is the sending of Union officers with forged documents.
            I don’t even want to comment on your statement
            It is somehow not serious, not adult, or something.
            We - the USSR, sent a lot of things.
            But the background was completely different.
            The goal of everything that our deceased state carried out was determined by the form of society.
            Though declarative, but declared - the construction of a classless society.
            That's it.
            1. 0
              21 August 2019 15: 55
              "Peaceful coexistence" is already a betrayal of the communist ideology. Communism demanded a struggle to free the working people from exploitation. And "peaceful coexistence" is, in essence, the slogan of the coexistence of the exploited with the exploiters, the slaves with the slave owners, and so on.
              And the promise to build communism with "peaceful coexistence" with the exploiters was thus an obvious lie.

              The USSR was created to overthrow capitalists all over the world and build world communism. The proclamation of "peaceful coexistence" meant that the USSR was an ideological corpse.
              1. 0
                21 August 2019 16: 59
                The USSR was created as a creative rethinking of the utopianism of the emergence of the idea of ​​the World Revolution.
                When even the likelihood of such a development of events began to strive for "0", then comrades Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Martov, Zinoviev, Kamenev and others like them, simply lost their heads and dropped their hands.
                And Comrade Stalin came, with his team.
                And he created the USSR.
                But for a long time, Stalin supported in his comrades-blasted ideologies the weak hope that the World Revolution is inevitable, just a little put off.
                He also proclaimed the thesis (Lenin) previously sounded about the coexistence of two systems.

                The topic is interesting, but dualistic.
                This is what occurred to me.
                The export of communism cost us significantly more (in absolute units) than the intervention of democracy cost the west.
                An example before our eyes - 200 billion dollars to Ukraine, in the form of gas preferences, and 5 billion dollars to "the right people" in the hand.

                Those. we, the USSR, Russia, always play fair.
                But forget that we play with cheaters and crooks.
                Therefore, we lose.
                1. -1
                  21 August 2019 20: 05
                  A vile habit of building high moral ones.
                  Lost because the weaklings, because they themselves did not believe in what they claimed, and did not seek to achieve goals, but only imitated activity.
                  Because such results.
                  1. 0
                    21 August 2019 20: 09
                    It can be - it can be.
                    I can not judge the ethical side of the issue, about vile habits.
                    Not my diocese.
                    And I will not judge weakness.
                    For I see in you too peculiar opponent.

                    With the last statement - an imitation of efforts to achieve a goal - I agree wholeheartedly.
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. The comment was deleted.
              4. 0
                26 August 2019 12: 55
                What a dope.
  25. 0
    20 August 2019 20: 57
    The collapse of the USSR was based on a lot of reasons.
    But each of them is controlled by one another.
    The late USSR is a bureaucratic model of society management in the region.
    I'll tell you about the industry.
    My father worked in the Roskolkhozstroy system.
    He built roads for collective farms and state farms.
    For they produced products, but there was no way to bring them out.
    And 30-40% of the crop simply died.
    Established a plan. Money was allocated.
    But!
    There were priority tasks that might simply not be included in the plan of the enterprise, but they had to be fulfilled first of all.
    For example: building a school in an area.
    The secretary of the krai committee called out and for fear of party penalties forced to carry out this work.
    But besides money, you must have funds.
    Foundations for glass, brick, cement, sand, etc.
    But the funds "knocked out" in Moscow. In the Gossnab.
    And Gossnab without the resolution of the State Planning Commission could not allocate anything.
    And you also need fuel for equipment, roofing material, bitumen, nails and a hundred or two more product names.
    And Moscow is letting go.
    So you need to have connections in Moscow, keep gifts there. And money, respectively.
    Without money, Moscow will not let go of a rusty nail.

    And drove. And he gave. I ask - and if they catch me? They will plant, he says.
    And if you don’t take it away, you won’t get funds.
    Then you will not fulfill the plan. You will fly out of the party. And they will start looking for violations. And they can plant.
    I ask him, but weren't you afraid?
    He replied that he was afraid, but most of his colleagues did the same.

    That's how it was arranged in our society during the time of stagnation sung by many.
    And this state of affairs could not but affect the psychology of the Communists.
    And his father joined the party in 1944 at the front.
    And he was a convinced communist.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. +1
    20 August 2019 21: 56
    It turns out that at the head of the country before 1991 there were not only traitors, and very stupid people, since they did not understand that in a situation of nuclear parity there could be no clash.
  28. -1
    20 August 2019 22: 25
    And now a question to everyone who mentioned the "most powerful in the world", "invincible" and so on, the Soviet army. If she really was so powerful, then why was she not allowed into the business?
  29. +2
    20 August 2019 23: 03
    This author’s article is custom-made, provocative and defeatist, withholding key, important, historical, well-known facts.
    As you know, the most effective lie is half-truth.
    Where did the author of this article get that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries were weaker than the US and NATO?
    There was military parity = equality of forces, even with the superiority of the USSR in certain types of strategic nuclear forces and in conventional weapons in the European theater of operations (we recall at least 60 tanks at that time).
    From the point of view of economic development in Western countries, at that time another protracted economic crisis began and only the collapse of the USSR allowed it to be stopped = it is known that the dashing 90s in Russia = were accompanied by a decade of economic recovery in the United States due to trillions of dollars received from "new Russians" = rolled out of Russia. And it could be the other way around, if the USSR had not collapsed, then the United States might not have survived the next protracted economic crisis.
    Western economists themselves, comparing the USSR of the period of early Brezhnev and the USA with Western Europe, said that the Western economic model had no superiority to the socialist economy and everything for them hung in the balance - only a miracle could save them.
    The economic competition of the two systems was completed by other ways found.
    The USSR collapsed when the United States and Saudi Arabia collusively brought down the world oil price and the West managed to introduce a group of its agents of influence into the Central Committee of the CPSU, who later, during the time of perestroika, openly excitedly told how they hated their own country and how they wanted to destroy it .
    It is clear that these leaders were not going to fight for their country.
    They had another task - to capitulate and disarm in one direction under the pretext of universal humanity and sacrificial humanism at the tempting offer of the West.
    Such a decision ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR with disastrous consequences for both the population and the economy.
  30. +2
    20 August 2019 23: 06
    What did all this have to do with the collapse of the USSR? The union fell apart due to internal contradictions! And what is written here is about how the country surrendered its foreign policy positions. In the garden elderberry, and the uncle you know where.
  31. 0
    20 August 2019 23: 50
    Amateurishness and self-conceit, multiplied by an irresistible physiological need to empty the reservoir of boiling thoughts. Plus a painful dependence on comments, which maintains a sense of self-worth in the "author". A wonderful, delicious, amazing scent ..
  32. +1
    21 August 2019 03: 23
    How did it happen that a large, very powerful and well-armed country took and fell apart?

    Gorbachev became the catalyst for the fall of the USSR.

    Two character traits of the leader of the time of cardinal changes lead to disaster: ADVENTURE AND CARE.

    —- To change something is always beyond strength in comparison with a new building.
    —- Change, i.e. to break before you build any, requires action, skill and courage.
    —- Action without skill is adventurism.
    —- And cowardice is the antithesis of courage.

    Gorbachev was not a specialist in at least one area of ​​human activity (party work does not count).
    And in fact, he turned out to be a coward. At least by the fact that he did not stop Yeltsin.

    Objective reasons played a role in the collapse of the USSR.
    But power during the "catastrophe" revolved around Gorbachev - a man who is not smart enough, loving flattery, an adventurer and a coward.

    Betrayed as a result, millions of honest people.
  33. 0
    21 August 2019 04: 39
    Somewhat straightforward. No, the war itself was not frightening. After creating parity and realizing the power received, it would be possible to completely reduce the potential. But inertia, but a created "defense" economic model ... Conversion would bring unrealistic benefits in terms of life support. But it would also require unreasonable costs (unreasonable, but inevitable). Confrontation itself frightened us as a principle. The translation of the situation into a "liability" was seen as an economic solution. And under Khrushchev, while the "everyday" technological gap was small and the economies of the whole world were still "pushed" in the real sector, the idea of ​​the reality of "overtaking" capitalism through an extensive economy came to mind. Stalin then really led the case towards an "unequivocal" solution to the confrontation. And he even began to take steps to weaken it, periodically drawing imperialist capitalists into conflicts on the periphery (Korean war, colonial clashes). There is a grain of truth in this. Such a policy could lead to a global conflict in the coming years with an incomprehensible ending. And she could not but frighten those who have already received a share of the power pie on the Kremlin Olympus.
  34. 0
    21 August 2019 06: 40
    Author!
    You, with your nasty, defeatist libel, have spat in the soul of the whole Great Soviet people!
    And for some reason they dragged here the Great Stalin IV!
    Stalin did something bad to you? You did not live with him.
    The article is a clear minus !! - - - - - - - - - - -
    1. -1
      21 August 2019 12: 39
      Why defeatist? laughing It is, rather, a historical pathological anatomy, an autopsy in order to find out the causes of death. The "great Soviet people" have already suffered defeat, thirty years ago, if they did not notice, and long ago disintegrated into pieces.
      You can’t spit in the soul of what has long been dead.
  35. +1
    21 August 2019 10: 18
    When you chose shame between war and shame, now you will get a war, not verbatim, but there weren’t stupid people in the Politburo and they knew that no one who respects them only uses traitors. So minus.
  36. 0
    21 August 2019 11: 46
    Author:
    Dmitry Verkhoturov
    With an ersatz ideology of the type: "if only there was no war" and "one must live well," the USSR became very weak internally and a large-scale war with an exchange of nuclear strikes would undoubtedly become a collapse for it.

    The author forgot to add that the nuclear strike also meant the collapse of the entire Western world, and they knew it better than us, and therefore, so eagerly since the seventies went to various treaties on strategic offensive arms, etc.
    And purely from a military point of view, I can add one touch that best proves that the West was not going to attack us at all, realizing that it would be doomed itself. This sign was that all NATO forces on the European theater of war on Saturday and Sunday went home, leaving only those on duty in the units, and it was usual for them to go to another country to rest. On the weekend, they stopped all the exercises and were simply enraged when we started the FSHU on Thursday or Friday at the GSVG, which forced them to somehow limit their vacation on the weekend.
    So I do not quite understand the "fear" that the author saw from our leadership in the later period of the USSR's existence - it simply did not exist. But the miscalculations of the economic justification of the maintenance of the army of two types are obvious to me - this was one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR.
  37. -2
    21 August 2019 13: 34
    The USSR collapsed only because the Soviet regime collapsed. But the Soviet government collapsed because no one believed in it, nor in it, and nobody needed it anymore. This is best described by Zhvanetsky in his monologue on the relationship of people and power. But in order to understand this, it was necessary to live the USSR, at least for up to twenty years. I was 27 - and I understood and saw all this.
  38. The comment was deleted.
  39. The comment was deleted.
  40. 0
    21 August 2019 22: 56
    Quote: wehr
    "Peaceful coexistence" is already a betrayal of the communist ideology. Communism demanded a struggle to free the working people from exploitation. And "peaceful coexistence" is, in essence, the slogan of the coexistence of the exploited with the exploiters, the slaves with the slave owners, and so on.
    And the promise to build communism with "peaceful coexistence" with the exploiters was thus an obvious lie.

    The USSR was created to overthrow capitalists all over the world and build world communism. The proclamation of "peaceful coexistence" meant that the USSR was an ideological corpse.

    How to put a couple more advantages to the author?
  41. -1
    21 August 2019 23: 20
    They say that as the turmoil began in Afghanistan, thousands of volunteers came to the military registration and enlistment offices throughout the country ... Were they really afraid of war? The author's version would have had at least some logic if the USSR had not become in 1953-54. But between the death of Stalin and the collapse of the country passed a huge time by the standards of modern history - how so? The author writes - ersatz ideology, hence all the troubles. I have always thought that the basis is economic, military, scientific and technical, resource power, and ideology goes as an informational and psychological cover and supplement - but here it turns out that the opposite is true ... And for some reason the author does not write anything about everything , which was associated with the "conquest" of space, with the rapid post-war reconstruction, with the development of atomic weapons and energy, with the development of remote regions of the country, with the destruction of the colonial system, the "liberation" of the countries of Asia and Africa and the role of the Union in this, finally, population growth in the 50s-70s and about many, many other things and, most importantly, about the enthusiasm and upsurge that accompanied all this - was it really all based on "rotten ideology"? Or maybe it was just a fantasy of the Soviet newspapermen?
  42. +1
    22 August 2019 11: 19
    Ideological sabotage did not pass. Readers fought back. I ask you to send the fee for publication to the Hunger Children Fund of Germany. Or do you not sympathize with the starving children of Germany?
  43. +1
    22 August 2019 18: 27
    Out of fear of war, brought the situation to the Caribbean crisis? Vietnam, Afghanistan ... were they so afraid of war?
    The USSR had its own interests in the world, and lagged behind them. Another thing is how the internal politics and the economy were conducted, where financial means were spent and the "party elite" was rolling.
    The idea in the article about the collapse of the Union is dubious and not thought out.
  44. +3
    22 August 2019 18: 58
    This root cause, in my opinion, was the fear of a war with the capitalist world.

    Perhaps, but evidence .....
    In 1949, a phenomenon arose that did not exist before: a common military bloc, uniting all the largest, most developed and strong capitalist countries - NATO.
    Ku-ku. Was not 1940 a united Europe?
    The USSR emerged from the war greatly weakened. The war with Germany was bloody and destructive, costing tens of millions killed
    Yes, but why didn’t he raise his legs then, but raise, after 40 years? So the theory is wrong, to say the least.
    For example, political instructor L.I. Brezhnev personally participated in the battles on Malaya Zemlya, one of the most stubborn and fierce battles in the Great Patriotic War. I am sure that his demonstrative peacefulness was connected precisely with this military experience.
    . This is a liberalist reasoning. Brezhnev was from generation winners, they went through this school and were not afraid of anything.
    the enemy now had military-technical and military-economic superiority, and he had at his disposal most of the world's resources. The result was not difficult to predict. The USSR would enter into a fierce and protracted war, in which, most likely, it would suffer a complete defeat due to the exhaustion of human and economic resources.
    Crap. There are no global resources. China, India, Africa, who threatened us from their depths. At the beginning, Brezhnev did not give up, and at the end of his generation, we were ahead of the rest, on missiles, and on planes, we didn’t sag very much, we still fly, but how many were cut and handed out. Surrendered, 5 column betrayed and still grows fat and argues that they surrendered correctly. And they were weak, and poor and wretched.
    rewriting history and its comprehensive mythologization, with Stalin being crossed out everywhere. I must say that the people silently supported all this.
    What are you lying! "The people were silent"
    And for an elementary reason. Nobody then had to be convinced that the war could be brutal, bloody and destructive.
    We spit on the war and were not afraid of it, it was the Americans who jumped out the windows, and we conducted GO classes.
    Firstly, if only there was no war.
    Ready to give up? This is how the story corresponds. There was such an expression among the people, but the meaning was different. We all tolerate the pier, work, exertion of forces, to strengthen the army. A strong CA army is a guarantee of peace on earth.
    It is impossible to fight without a political ideology explaining why you need to expose yourself to serious risk and hardship.
    The only true thought in the whole opus.
    The USSR became very internally weak and a large-scale war with the exchange of nuclear strikes would certainly have collapsed for him.
    Who said? We would win and sunbathe on the Caribbean.
  45. 0
    22 August 2019 22: 01
    To be honest, first I read the introduction and then the ending, paragraph three, and then, after carefully reading all (at the moment) 86 comments, and the rest of the article! I absolutely disagree with the author in his summarizing "messages"!
    And about the "political instructor Leonid Brezhnev, who personally participated in the battles on Malaya Zemlya," it even became a little funny, since he finally understood that the author had learned about this from the compulsory "bestseller" of the late 70s-brochure "Malaya Zemlya" ...
    Still living then, during the debut publication of this "legendary" booklet, our local veterans of the 18th Army, survivors of the "landless", who traveled annually to the Kremlin for veteran meetings with "Daragim Leonid Ilyich" - he was a hospitable comrade, in their circle, amicably laughed at this journalist-fabulous "book episode" with the head of the political department, Colonel Brezhnev, allegedly in the midst of battles on Malaya Zemlya, who had been there with an inspection and allegedly even replaced the killed machine gunner in the first trench, helping to repel the attack of the Fritzes .. ...
    They said this: “FOR ALL THE TIME OF THE FIGHTS on Malaya Zemlya, commanders with a rank higher than Major, our commander Caesar Kunikov, were not with us, and even more so from the political department, because we were all suicide bombers for them and Death was everywhere here ... "and I still believe these people, wounded soldiers of the war from the advanced trenches, than the" revelations of generals and marshals "censored by Glavpur, who sensitively changed their" hillock of vision "along with the" party line "...
    I liked the comments in some places, but the article itself was not! In my opinion, the author is clearly "underinformed" and therefore could not comprehensively cover the topic he undertook, therefore the "conclusions" are superficial. IMHO

    PS Yes, in Soviet times in Eastern Ukraine we wished each other, verbally and in writing, imitating our relatives, who miraculously survived the Great War and accomplished the Post-War Renaissance, who always said this, mine never forgot to say, "AND PEACEFUL SKY ABOVE HEAD!"
    And for the rest, the too large and voluminous information layer of History and Social Science with his tiny "scoop" only "scratched" the author in an attempt, far-fetched (IMHO), rather controversial (in my opinion, but I am not even going to discuss, I see that our views with the author on the "reasons" practically do not touch and lie on different planes) to justify the collapse of our common Soviet Union with the "statement".
    PPS Regarding the "desire to live well", I can advise interested parties to find a Russian translation of the American intelligence report of the mid-1940s, on the potential and prospects for the economic and political development of the Stalinist Soviet Union in the post-war period (which American analysts then evaluated even as excellent, considering depending on the probable options for the "investment of resources" and the political and economic "approaches" of the Soviet leadership!), in comparison with the development prospects of the United States and Western countries, and possible obstacles to this, external and internal, including slowing down its own development, which could lead the USSR to decline, in the case of excessive "resource enthusiasm" for the leadership of "the processes of anti-capitalist world order" and "Bolshevik aid" to other countries, to the detriment of the outstripping all-round improvement of the life and life of its own citizens ... ten years ago I came across it either in a print publication or on the Web , and maybe now lies somewhere amongpaper trash not yet discarded ?!
    1. 0
      22 August 2019 22: 19
      Shyness is a shameful thing, but it has objective reasons.

      But when people claim that they had the strongest army in the world and excellent economic prospects, and their country fell apart, what should they be called? Probably extremely narrow-minded people (we will respect print propriety).
      And it’s completely unclear to me why people so stubbornly and persistently expose themselves to be extremely narrow-minded people.
      1. 0
        22 August 2019 22: 51
        Dear author, do you want to talk about this psychological phenomenon, "when people claim that they have the strongest army in the world and excellent economic prospects, and their country has collapsed" ?! And it is so necessary to "call them" somehow - "brand", straight in the Soviet way, or what ?! smile
        In Soviet times, when I was still a young factory manager, I said about this "unfounded assertions" to all party and communist adaptants - "hit with a factual argument (of course, backing it up with verbal quotations of the" classics of Marxism-Leninism " smile ) "Although it was" fraught with anti-Soviet ", but this" word of truth "was young and hot for me and cost a lot!
        As they told me then, "Your language is your enemy!", Although in an informal setting these "comrades" agreed with me and even kind of apologized: "You yourself understand, we have to react at work," but that didn't make it easier for me , and my relatives, because of me, "troubles" came out sideways - party apparatchiki were in force ...
        In order not to be offended and not to expose yourself to be "narrow-minded (I omit the" extremes "- I am sure you are not hopeless, since you react to criticism and ask yourself what is wrong?!)", In my opinion, you, as a "writer of books and articles ", you need to develop systemic thinking and think holistically, trying to cover the" question "from all sides and penetrate into the essence, comprehensively weighing the" beautiful phrases "that come to mind, and not grabbing hastily at the first ones that come across, something" liked ", trying fit your "texts" under them - that's how it is now in the article! Yes
        Creative Success to you, dear Dmitry Verkhoturov, I expect from you a more serious approach and a thorough study of the declared topical topic, Be Persistent and Inquisitive, and never give up, do not give up, even under a hail of derogatory criticism, strive to learn useful lessons from everything!
        1. +1
          23 August 2019 00: 15
          Thank you for your wishes!

          That is, softer and easier? What for? I know the power of words, and I know that words can be shot like a submachine gun.
          And this is such a question in which such a method is more than appropriate.
          1. 0
            23 August 2019 00: 29
            Sincere! Yes
            No, not "softer and easier" smile , and not to waste on trifles, with strong words "shooting from a machine gun." wink
            1. +1
              23 August 2019 01: 22
              I have many books in which I elaborate on the issues to be dealt with.
  46. 0
    23 August 2019 16: 40
    I imagine:
    Gathered the governors of California, Texas, "and the mayor of New York who joined them," and broke up drunkenly on the hunt for the United States.
    Of course, nonsense. A healthy system is not ruined by the decision of three people.
    The USSR was sick and doomed. What was born of it now is a moot point, but unequivocally, healthier
  47. 0
    23 August 2019 19: 49
    One of the reasons for the collapse of the country is that Nikita abolished the People’s Commissariats (the People’s Commissar was led by a specialist with specialized education), and the regional committees began to lead the economy. And there are many such reasons, all as if by notes.
  48. 0
    25 August 2019 12: 40
    The reason for the collapse of the USSR - fear of war

    If like this "The reason for the collapse of the USSR is the fear of its leadership before the war," then the main thesis is still justified.
    The leadership of the USSR (Gorbachev) was frightened (believed) in the new Western myths about neutron bombs, "atomic winter", SDI. The logic of the Soviet elite. Suddenly, the United States (NATO) has crushing weapons, and the USSR is simply defenseless (and there is no possibility of retaliation). And if a war starts, then we will all perish, and in vain (some of the army's successes are offset by the loss of the war).
    Although the fear of the Atomic War (in my opinion) is just an excuse for surrendering to the West.
  49. 0
    26 August 2019 12: 42
    I don’t know where such scribblers come from and why this nonsense is brought up for general discussion.
  50. +1
    2 September 2019 12: 07
    They lost the Cold War because everything that sounded from across the ocean was believed, taking everything at face value. in fact, it was a big swindle. in the 90s, America calmed down that Russia was no longer a competitor and in vain now they have in arms what they have, and we had something in storehouses, there was only the question of implementation. Implementation began and America twitched, stole what is called the lunar race (circled around the finger the whole world but continue to swagger) Reagan's "Star Wars". and Hollywood didn't help them. Yes, and with the nuclear bombs of 1945, the question was, captured the German developments, brought to mind and removed the fruits.
  51. 0
    30 September 2019 23: 16
    Nonsense. Our generation, which went through the war, was not afraid of it. The reason was within the leadership. Stalin was warned back in 1950 (see Vol. 15 of his writings) about the possible betrayal of four members of the Politburo. And so it happened. In 1956-1957, Khrushchev carried out a coup d'etat, putting an uncontrolled party apparatus at the head of the country, and then destroying the entire system of planned economic management. The result was an imbalance in the economy, rising prices, default, and a drop in efficiency. He slandered Stalin and quarreled with the PRC. After his resignation, the Dnepropetrovsk mafia did not restore the economy and put the country on an oil needle: the share of oil in exports then doubled. The people were against it, but in 1962 there was an execution in Novocherkassk when people protested against rising prices. The gap between the words and deeds of the country's leadership led to betrayal and the collapse of not only the USSR, but also the entire socialist camp.
  52. The comment was deleted.
  53. 0
    3 November 2019 17: 56
    Interesting thoughts, not indisputable of course, but deep and simple at the same time!
  54. 0
    18 November 2019 16: 28
    I think the main reasons for the collapse of the USSR were the wrong national policy. For example, I worked in 1955 in Chisinau, office work, legal proceedings, etc. were conducted in Russian, although at that time there were 80% of Moldovans according to statistics. I am like a Tatar in communication. I didn’t experience any difficulties. I think this is absolutely wrong. They were supposed to speak Moldavian there. After all, education at technical schools and universities was conducted only in Russian. Another example, in 1951 I graduated from a purely Tatar school and experienced great difficulties when entering the Technical School; I took the exam Russian, studied in Russian. I think I have the right to study in my Republic in my own language, I don’t demand this either in Moscow or in any other city of the Russian Federation. This is how this matter stood in the USSR. Now these Union Republics are gradually moving away from this, someone with Noise, someone quietly like Kazakhstan. Maybe I didn’t explain it very clearly, I think some who have experienced difficulties studying in Russian at national universities will understand me.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"