Military Review

Yeltsin against Gorbachev - the struggle of the country's destroyers

111
Yeltsin against Gorbachev - the struggle of the country's destroyers

For what purpose are certain forces making more and more "stuffing" about "perestroika" and its "leaders"? To overcome once again the mental wounds of millions of people who became victims of the monstrous betrayal of the country by its leaders and the nightmarish experiments that these figures subsequently carried out on them? Or to whitewash the reputation of those who first destroyed the most powerful world power - the USSR, and then nearly ditched Russia too? Honestly, we are considered either too naive, or completely devoid of memory.


It is clear that in stories of our country, written by Messrs. Liberals, Yeltsin acts as a kind of "messiah" who managed to go beyond the "prophet" of "perestroika" Gorbachev, who still did not find the strength to officially declare that he was taking a course for the collapse of the USSR and the complete dismantling of socialism. A younger, more radical, and more determined leader has succeeded in completing what his forerunner began. It made the process irreversible, which, to the horror of the West that was waiting for the end of the Soviet Union, could still be slowed down, or even stopped altogether.

Boris Nikolaevich is trying to set out approximately this version in his memoirs, an excerpt from which has now become the reason for discussing his relationship with Mikhail Sergeevich. He de "became disillusioned with the General Secretary" because he wanted to lead the country along the "wrong path of changed socialism", and "chattered" the true reforms. Yeltsin, in his foresight, even then dreamed of leading our people to the shining heights of "true democracy" and "market society". Thus, which, as we remember, almost ended in complete destruction of Russia.

Even more fantastic are Yeltsin's assertions that he was "cautious" because he was "afraid of a civil war." It was he, the lamb and the dove of peace, who gave the order to hit the White House from tank guns, afraid of bloodshed? Yeltsin is trying his best to present himself as a "guardian of Russia" who opposed the union state in any form solely because "taxes would again begin to go to the center, and Russia would have no idea what." Let me assume that in reality everything was somewhat different. Even quite differently.

In Yeltsin, who was torn from a certain moment to the supreme power literally at any cost, the classic type of the appanage feudal lord was embodied. A kind of boyar who absolutely does not want to share with anyone his own “holy” right to “reign and rule” over “his” little people. And, by the way, rip them off like sticky - first of all. It is precisely because of this that he became that very destructive leader, on whom from a certain moment he began to rely on the West, "orchestrating" first "perestroika" and then the collapse of the USSR. And Boris Nikolayevich spared no effort to ensure that this stake was placed on him.

In the real history of his confrontation with Gorbachev and the allied party leadership, there is no "nobility" or breathtaking daring, which some adherents attribute to him to this day. Continuous wagging, a series of giveaways and outright deceptions.

Let us briefly recall this chronicle, which is far from coloring Boris Yeltsin. Ascended to the very top of the party career by the same forces that promoted Gorbachev, already at the November 1987 Central Committee Plenum, Yeltsin (at that time the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU) attacks Yegor Ligachev, who more than others has moved him up the career ladder. He is broadcasting about "too slow the pace of perestroika." He loses this round with a bang - "flies out" from a high position, and at the same time from candidates for members of the Politburo.

What happens next? Yeltsin tearfully repent of his "mistakes." He writes pleading letters to Gorbachev personally, begging him to "understand and forgive." The main thing is to restore the first secretaries in the capital. Either he is trying to commit suicide, or he is very skillfully staging such an attempt (which is most likely), he is ill at heart ... Mikhail Sergeevich shows unforgivable gullibility - and in the summer of 1988 Yeltsin finds himself on the rostrum of the XNUMXth All-Union Party Conference, with which ... in spite of all oaths and promises, he repeats his "seditious" performance, and even in a more harsh version. The same Ligachev, he demands to immediately withdraw from the Politburo. Sounds offended and surprised: "Boris, you're wrong!"

This phrase, speaking in modern terms, becomes a popular meme for years. And Yeltsin, meanwhile, feeling a taste for struggle without rules, is shifting his struggle for power from the party plane, where he has not the slightest chance, to the area of ​​"democratic bodies." By truth and, for the most part, by crook, he becomes a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Using the opportunities that have opened up, he continues a natural information and propaganda war against Gorbachev. He hits him with just that weaponswhich Mikhail Sergeevich gave into the hands of the “perestroika” - he does not hesitate to use the so-called “glasnost” opportunity to mix with impunity anyone and anything.

What happened later - we all remember very well. August 1991, GKChP, deposition of Gorbachev, dissolution and ban of the CPSU ... December 1991, collusion in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, collapse of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin's "historic" call to George W. Bush: "We did it!" Yeltsin fought Gorbachev not for "democracy", "freedom" or, even more so, "the future of the country." He pulled out with his teeth the right to become the new governor of the West on the territory of the largest wreck of a great power. In this he succeeded. The destroyers of the country did their job, simultaneously engaging in elements of struggle with each other. The people had to disentangle it - in many ways they still have to.
Author:
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Crowe
    Crowe 30 December 2020 11: 21
    +22
    "who first destroyed the most powerful world power - the USSR"
    Yeltsin, together with Gorbachev, destroyed a great country, so it will be more accurate. Both "fellows".
    1. Anachoret
      Anachoret 30 December 2020 12: 00
      +12
      yes, many venerated little by little, Khrushch and Andropov, and Brezhnev could have made reforms in the spirit of Deng Xiaoping, but he was afraid and conserved
      Well, Gorbach and EBNukhach have already acted as undertakers, earth them with concrete!
      1. Semenov
        Semenov 30 December 2020 15: 38
        +22
        Quote: Anchorite
        Well, Gorbach and EBNukhach have already acted as undertakers, earth them with concrete!

        But Vladimir Vladimirovich does not think so. That is why the Yeltsin Center appeared.
        1. Anachoret
          Anachoret 30 December 2020 15: 46
          +7
          I would not see the emergence of the Yeltsin Center as an endorsement of his policy as president by the GDP. Rather, as an element of the continuity of power, as such. Nixon centers are being built in the US on the same principle, and memorials and libraries are called other controversial presidents. And VVP, I think, is quite grateful for the fact that it was the EBN and the family who approved it at the time.
          Although, looking at the information and cultural policy pursued by the Yeltsin Center, I would not be surprised if it will be shut down in a few years, if they are not pacified.
          1. Semenov
            Semenov 30 December 2020 15: 51
            +18
            Quote: Anchorite
            I would not consider the emergence of the Yeltsin Center as an endorsement of his policy as president by the GDP

            Nevertheless, many controversial decisions of those times have not been corrected until now. There is, if not approval, but at least agreement.
            1. Anachoret
              Anachoret 30 December 2020 15: 57
              +2
              as Zhvanetsky said, for this you need to "go straight through the list")

              a lot of things would be worth redoing or modifying, at least. the "Gref forest reform" alone is worth a lot, and there have already been many such decisions even with the GDP.
              but many seemingly murderous decisions under EBN do not always make sense to act out, unless this entails even more fatal consequences in the future in other matters

              although, I agree, under EBN there were many rash decisions and even harmful for the country
              1. Vladimir Mashkov
                Vladimir Mashkov 2 January 2021 21: 08
                +1
                Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin are both criminals who jointly destroyed the USSR and caused colossal damage to Russia and the Russians. Yeltsin, moreover, nearly destroyed Russia altogether. The percentage of guilt of each will be determined by the trial, which will certainly take place someday. This trial has simply been postponed.
    2. Cron
      Cron 30 December 2020 12: 01
      -12%
      Quote: Crowe
      "who first destroyed the most powerful world power - the USSR"
      Yeltsin, together with Gorbachev, destroyed a great country, so it will be more accurate. Both "fellows".

      Well, if it took only two people to destroy the most powerful world power, it means that shit was already there, and not the most powerful power
      1. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 30 December 2020 12: 07
        +7
        Quote: Cron
        Well, if it took only two people to destroy the most powerful world power, it means that shit was already there, and not the most powerful power

        Why simplify? The collapse of the USSR is a long process and these two monsters did not play the most important role in it. Is it possible to give sufficient material to understand this process in one short article?
        1. Cron
          Cron 30 December 2020 12: 15
          +3
          Quote: aleksejkabanets
          Why simplify? The collapse of the USSR is a long process and these two monsters did not play the most important role in it. Is it possible to give sufficient material to understand this process in one short article?

          So I'm not oversimplifying, I didn't write about two people.
          The collapse of the USSR is a long process

          Much longer considering how long the Union existed
          Is it possible to give sufficient material to understand this process in one short article?

          Of course not. But if you try, then for me the USSR was great only with one well-known figure, after him everything went only by inertia and very quickly came to its logical end
        2. Blacksmith 55
          Blacksmith 55 30 December 2020 13: 03
          +17
          I want to tell you one case.
          It was, if I'm not mistaken, in 1999. I was invited to the DR to one man, I knew him little, but our wives worked together, and of the guests (50-60) I knew only 8 people.
          As often happens, after the third glass the men went out to smoke. We got into a circle, remembered different incidents in life.
          Next to me was a man a little older than me. For myself, I called him "talker", his tongue was boneless.
          From the conversation, I understood that he worked as a party organizer in one of the state farms in Kazakhstan.
          He talked about how HE, the first secretary of the district committee, military leader and early. militia on a helicopter, from machine guns beat wolves in winter, saigas in summer, caught with nonsense meter-long fish. And how much vodka they drank.
          Then he uttered a phrase, after which everyone fell silent for a while thinking about the "dead man."
          And he said literally the following:
          Yes, it was good under the Soviet Union, but now, now everything has been destroyed there.
          Putting my hand on his shoulder, I said:
          So you destroyed the Soviet Union.
          You should have seen his face at that moment. The eyes went out of their sockets, the mouth was open (like that of the fish that was dragging it around). And only he can say:
          I ? I ?
          The men are laughing all around.
          I tell him: Yes, you. Tell me, was it all legal that you were doing?
          After some thought, I managed to say: Well, probably not.
          To defuse the atmosphere I say:
          Don't worry, there were thousands and thousands of them, and perhaps each of us contributed his share.
          That's how it was.
          Recently, you can often see the call on the net. I want to go back to the Soviet Union.
          I am not against the USSR, I am not against socialism, but I am against the kind of socialism that was in the USSR.
          With an eternal deficit (in the RSFSR anyway)
          Like a satirist, life consists of only joys, got shoes for children, joy, got compound feed for livestock, what kind of joy, took out a coupon for sugar or vodka (with a marked one), joy again.
          I want to live in a country where the LAW prevails.
          Where such "party organizers" should be located in the Magadan region. And there should also be colonels with billions of homes.
          The Bolsheviks created the USSR, and they also destroyed it.
          Enough of that, however.
          There are only a few hours left, and the year 2020 will be left behind, I want to wish all the readers and editors of VO all the best in the year 2021.
        3. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 30 December 2020 14: 41
          +8
          Quote: aleksejkabanets
          Is it possible to give sufficient material to understand this process in one short article?

          The process began after the death of J.V. Stalin, and Khrushchev began it. Certain groups began to work on the collapse of the country since the inception of the USSR, these are the "Prometheans", "Ozetites", the nationalist underground. Before the war, they were partly destroyed, and partly went deep underground. A negative role was played by the accession to the USSR, on the eve of the Second World War, of the western regions of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States, when they received 15 million citizens of other states. It was impossible to track and identify their enemies in a short time, which influenced the initial period of the war. After the Second World War, not everyone had time to expose and catch, and after Khrushchev came to power, they continued their subversive activities. And the result of this work was the collapse of the USSR, which today would have turned 98 years old.
      2. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 30 December 2020 12: 13
        +5
        Quote: Cron
        Well, if it took only two people to destroy the most powerful world power, it means that shit was already there, and not the most powerful power

        Well, for the destruction of the Russian Empire, it took just one - Nicholas II
        1. Cron
          Cron 30 December 2020 12: 22
          -9
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          Well, for the destruction of the Russian Empire, it took just one - Nicholas II

          The destruction of the Russian Empire required the First World War, which was conveniently used by some comrades, and a terrible civil war. Do you seriously want to compare this with the shame of the 90s?
          1. Lannan Shi
            Lannan Shi 30 December 2020 13: 27
            +7
            Quote: Cron
            The destruction of the Russian Empire required the First World War, which was conveniently used by some comrades, and a terrible civil war.

            Do not enlighten, as a result of what kind of civil war the Russian Empire collapsed? laughing No, I understand. Difficult childhood, two visits to school, the first call in the first grade, and a trip for help after the eighth, but any illiteracy should be limits?
            1. Cron
              Cron 30 December 2020 14: 22
              -6
              Quote: Lannan Shi
              Quote: Cron
              The destruction of the Russian Empire required the First World War, which was conveniently used by some comrades, and a terrible civil war.

              Do not enlighten, as a result of what kind of civil war the Russian Empire collapsed? laughing No, I understand. Difficult childhood, two visits to school, the first call in the first grade, and a trip for help after the eighth, but any illiteracy should be limits?

              Well, so you would be engaged in enlightenment, why leave this vyser and try to pose something of yourself?
              Do you want to push aside about the revolution and the abdication of the throne in 1917, and the further adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Peoples?
              By destruction I meant exactly destruction, not disintegration. If the USSR ceased its own in 1991, then it was destroyed for a very long time, the same privatization, for example. And this destruction continues to this day.
        2. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 30 December 2020 14: 42
          +2
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          Well, for the destruction of the Russian Empire, it took just one - Nicholas II

          And plus the Anglo-Saxon empire with comrades.
      3. BMP-2
        BMP-2 30 December 2020 14: 22
        +8
        Quote: Cron
        Well, if it took only two people to destroy the most powerful world power, it means that shit was already there, and not the most powerful power

        Interesting logic. That is, if two drunken overgrowths smash, for example, a Lamborghini or Ferrari costing Euro-green, then it turns out in your opinion that they are not to blame, but the car is bad :?)))
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 30 December 2020 15: 09
          -2
          Quote: BMP-2
          That is, if two tipsy overgrown people smash, for example, a Lamborghini or a Ferrari

          Do you not understand the difference between the margin of safety that a superpower should have and a machine?
          1. BMP-2
            BMP-2 30 December 2020 18: 18
            +2
            Dart, I saw people who managed to smash a tank! And at the same time, they did not differ in any extraordinary mind, or special malicious intent ... It's not a matter of safety. Isn't it clear?)
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 30 December 2020 20: 09
              -3
              Quote: BMP-2
              It's not about the safety margin. Isn't it clear

              And in what? A superpower that can be broken up together is not a superpower, but a parody.
    3. sniperino
      sniperino 30 December 2020 12: 17
      +19
      Quote: Crowe
      Yeltsin, together with Gorbachev, destroyed a great country, so it will be more accurate. Both "fellows".
      Probably, a dictator, an "absolute monarch" could betray the country so that it collapses ... Then one cannot write about democracy. The country was betrayed by those who slandered Stalin in a narrow circle, hung their crimes on him, making him a scapegoat, liquidated the NKVD, creating a manual KGB, practically excluded any public discussion of the Communists, began to ruin the Soviet system of managing the national economy, and later wrote off too obvious shoals of this breakdown. to voluntarism, stagnation of the next scapegoats. Since that time, the USSR was doomed. It's time to put an end to the tradition of appointing the guilty, living or leaving for another world, so as not to reveal the problem. If there is no desire to ruin everything.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 30 December 2020 14: 51
        +3
        Quote: sniperino
        The country was betrayed by those who slandered Stalin in a narrow circle, hung their crimes on him, made him a scapegoat, liquidated the NKVD,

        And all this was not spontaneous, but the results of a large conspiracy, it was not easy to break a well-oiled mechanism. This means that it was an organization that thought out its actions well, which included party-state structures, law enforcement agencies and, of course, as the main force, there were the armed forces. Many of us know, and some remember, how it happened.
    4. credo
      credo 30 December 2020 12: 30
      +11
      Quote: Crowe
      "who first destroyed the most powerful world power - the USSR"
      Yeltsin, together with Gorbachev, destroyed a great country, so it will be more accurate. Both "fellows".

      In terms of reproaching the authors-politicians of their memoirs for their insincerity, deceit and crookedness, we will not advance one iota in changing our life for the better.
      I can only remember the interviews of the still alive Yeltsin, Gaidar, the son of Khrushchev Sergei or the still alive Gorbachev, Chubais and smaller politicians who participated in the collapse of the USSR or had a hand in this.
      Yes, there was not and still is not a single gram of admission of their wrongness, viciousness of actions and falsity of words. There is no remorse for the collapse of the country, in hundreds of thousands of ruined lives, in a ruined economy and the hopes of millions of citizens that collapsed overnight.
      Of course, you need to know the history of your country and its leaders, but remembering the spineless, liars, scum and destroyers of your country before the holiday is not the best idea. Probably it is better to do this on the next anniversary of their birth or death, so that life on earth and the afterlife does not seem like paradise and a place of serene pastime to them.
  2. lucul
    lucul 30 December 2020 11: 24
    -18%
    Personally, I respect Yeltsin only for the fact that he was able to relinquish power himself, voluntarily handing it over to Putin.
    In all other respects, I have a negative attitude towards Yeltsin. I don't even want to talk about Gorbachev.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 30 December 2020 11: 43
      +9
      Quote: lucul
      Personally, I respect Yeltsin only for the fact that he was able to relinquish power himself, voluntarily handing it over to Putin.

      Voluntarily? Is it after coronary bypass surgery or when the liver has stopped functioning? Who so skillfully let Putin down in front of "clear eyes" of EBN, who changed the prime ministers before that, like gloves? What did Putin promise to the EBN family and how is the widow of this state criminal being kept today (because to recognize the Bialowieza conspiracy - the hand does not rise as a legal agreement), with a stroke of the pen doomed the country to plunder, and the people to extinction (in millions)?
      History will dot the "E" and tell these buffoons all the "grateful" words that begin with this letter.
      1. Cron
        Cron 30 December 2020 11: 58
        -1
        Quote: ROSS 42
        History will dot the "E" and tell these buffoons all the "grateful" words that begin with this letter.

        How did you dot the "K" and tell these buffoons all the "grateful" words that begin with this letter?
      2. for
        for 30 December 2020 12: 31
        +2
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Who so skillfully let Putin down before EBN's “eyes are clear”,

        The same (the same) who put EBN. Yeltsin muddied the water in order to catch fish (by poaching), and Putin defended the water (Lake) so that poachers could swim in it. And he left the mud and swamp to the people.
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 30 December 2020 15: 11
          -1
          Quote: for
          The same (the same) who put EBN.

          I agree.
    2. Baloo
      Baloo 30 December 2020 11: 49
      +4
      Quote: lucul
      Personally, I respect Yeltsin only for the fact that he was able to relinquish power himself, voluntarily handing it over to Putin.
      In all other respects, I have a negative attitude towards Yeltsin. I don't even want to talk about Gorbachev.

      Polite people came and politely made an offer, which the alcoholic degenerate could not refuse. And what about B. Pacioli, who snatched away the contract to repair the Kremlin? And who paid for the bank card on which the bruliks were purchased. The plotter was repeatedly broadcast on our channels. And how much money did Pacioli transfer from the Kremlin repairs to the Kosovar Albanians - there is nothing about that in his memories? sad
      1. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 30 December 2020 12: 14
        +2
        Quote: Balu
        Polite people came and politely made an offer, which the alcoholic degenerate could not refuse.

        Do you still think that Yeltsin alone decided everything there? Tell me, who brought Putin to the Kremlin? Remember Putin's campaign headquarters in 1999?
        1. sniperino
          sniperino 30 December 2020 15: 56
          +1
          Quote: aleksejkabanets
          Remember Putin's campaign headquarters in 1999?
          Grudinin never told in an interview, did not write his memoirs, how did he become Putin's surety? I would read it.
          1. sniperino
            sniperino 30 December 2020 17: 30
            +1
            Quote: sniperino
            I would read it.
            Was Grudinin approached with this question of confidence in Putin from the FSB or from Berezovsky? How he became a confidant. The members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation do not know whom they shouted at the kingdom?
    3. Anachoret
      Anachoret 30 December 2020 11: 51
      +7
      aha) proletarians of all countries sorry! )
      and now what? understand, forgive and encourage? )))
    4. YOUR
      YOUR 30 December 2020 11: 53
      +6
      Are you sure you volunteered?
      And look at the attitude to the entire Yeltsin team, everything has remained as it was, all the same people are at the helm.
    5. vitvit123
      vitvit123 30 December 2020 16: 39
      +1
      I could not even imagine that one could believe in this ... if he had refused in 96, then YES, and so he already had no other way and so he was breathing badly ..
  3. Sibguest
    Sibguest 30 December 2020 11: 25
    +13
    With all due respect to the site moderators: why post articles about the obvious?
    If I were a religious person, I would tell Gorbachev and Yeltsin to burn in the most terrible place of hell!
    But as a Russian Orthodox atheist, I will say differently: their names will be cursed by their contemporaries and their descendants, and in time they will become common nouns - like Judas!

    To the site moderators and visitors: my congratulations on the holidays and I wish everyone - health, health and .... health!
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 30 December 2020 15: 14
      0
      Quote: Sibguest
      But as a Russian Orthodox atheist, I will say differently: their names will be cursed by their contemporaries and their descendants

      As well as those who unleashed the Second World War.
  4. Woodman
    Woodman 30 December 2020 11: 27
    +8
    It does not leave the feeling that in the twentieth century all the worst happened to Russia that could be imagined: two world wars, a civil war, the state collapsed twice ...
    1. shubin
      shubin 30 December 2020 11: 54
      +5
      Be optimistic, the worst is yet to come!
      1. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 30 December 2020 12: 20
        +2
        Quote: shubin
        Be optimistic, the worst is yet to come!

        Yes, the alarm bells before the "new 90s" are getting louder.
    2. tatra
      tatra 30 December 2020 11: 55
      +5
      That is why my crown "enemies of the communists". All the troubles of Russia and the Russian / Russian people are from the enemies of the communists. Nicholas II plunged Russia and the Russian people into the First World War, which they did not need, immediately after the October Revolution, external and internal enemies of the Communists unleashed a Civil War with the aim of capturing Russia, in 1941 they attacked the USSR / Russia. During Perestroika, a counter-revolution was staged, the consequences of which caused enormous material and human damage to Russia and the Russian people. Therefore, they all chorus and cowardly discard responsibility for what they did in the Soviet period, after the capture of Russia, and categorically refuse to take responsibility for their capture of Russia during their Perestroika. Because they themselves admit to what they have done — by their crimes against Russia and the Russian people.
      1. Woodman
        Woodman 30 December 2020 12: 51
        -8
        Quote: tatra
        Nicholas II plunged Russia and the Russian people into the First World War, which they did not need

        And Comrade Stalin "plunged Russia and the Russian people into the Second World War, which they did not need," right? And then you somehow modestly bypassed this moment. Or, considering that Comrade Stalin will not turn one's tongue to call "the enemy of the communists", then Russia's participation in World War II automatically becomes "necessary for Russia and the Russian people"? Or the consequences of the Second World War did not cause
        Quote: tatra
        huge material and human damage to Russia and the Russian people
        ?
        Oh yes - here's the difference:
        Quote: tatra
        in 1941 - attacked the USSR / Russia

        Although on the other hand, then Nicholas II did not plunge Russia into war
        July 18 (August 1) 1914 Germany declared war on Russia

        PS It’s even interesting, will you answer me point by point or, as usual, call me “the enemy of communists” and limit yourself to this?
        1. tatra
          tatra 30 December 2020 13: 03
          +6
          "As usual" I, in contrast to the enemies of the communists with your anti-Soviet manuals, the meaning of which you yourself do not understand, justify and prove everything. Nicholas II plunged Russia and the Russian people into the First World War only for the sake of the help of France and Serbia. And the German ambassador 3 times suggested that Russia refuse to mobilize the Russian army on the border with Austria-Hungary, and only after the third refusal on behalf of Germany declared war on Russia. In 1941, the USSR did NOT plunge into the war, it was the external and internal enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people who attacked the USSR. The fact that the enemies of the Communists, after their capture of Russia, inflicted enormous material and human damage on Russia and its people, you do not care, which you have proved.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 30 December 2020 15: 13
            0
            Quote: tatra
            And the German ambassador 3 times suggested that Russia refuse to mobilize the Russian army on the border with Austria-Hungary

            which began mobilization on the border with Russia. Well, about the fact that Nikolai IIlj gjcktlytuj gsnfkcz eujdjhbnm rfqpthf yf gthtujdjhs Ds rjytxyj yt gjvybnt /
          2. Woodman
            Woodman 30 December 2020 15: 34
            +1
            Quote: tatra
            ... And the German ambassador 3 times suggested that Russia refuse to mobilize the Russian army on the border with Austria-Hungary

            The German ambassador "suggested Russia 3 times" not to abandon mobilization, but to fulfill the requirements of the German ultimatum. And so that Russia would not be drawn into the war, it was enough for the German emperor to demand from Austria-Hungary to moderate the appetites of his ultimatum for Serbia. Moreover, Serbia accepted all the conditions of the Austrian ultimatum with the exception of the requirements leading to the actual occupation of Serbia. This is called "I substantiate and prove everything."
            And then a little bit of logic. Russia accepts the demands of the ultimatum, the Serbian army is destroyed - Germany and Austria-Hungary have a strong rear in the Balkans and an additional 200 thousand soldiers who participated in the defeat of Serbia. Who is next? France or Russia. Let's say France. And the German ambassador to Russia once again "proposes three times" to refuse mobilization. Well, why not? After all, now the position of Russia has worsened - the Serbian army has been destroyed, and the armies of Germany and Austria on the border with Russia can be reinforced by those very 3 thousand soldiers. And if Russia once again accepts the ultimatum, so that Nicholas II does NOT plunge Russia and the Russian people into the First World War, France dies rather quickly. With our help, she was constantly balancing on the brink of defeat, and with Germany having a second front, she had almost a 200% chance of destroying France. And as a result, the situation in 100 - against Russia all of Europe plus Turkey. And the gain in time is a maximum of a year. Well, and the standard - "Nikolai merged all his allies as he needs" in the appendage.
            So the timing is right for the introduction. And Russia had every chance to win that war, if not for the activity of various kinds of revolutionary movements that shook the country from the inside. And victory in the war would have ruled out a civil war.
            So the real alternative to entering the war could be to enter into an alliance with Germany. But there was no such proposal from Germany. Only an ultimatum came from Germany. And in fact it was Germany who declared war on Russia, and not Nicholas II "plunged Russia into the First World War"
            Quote: tatra
            In 1941, the USSR did NOT plunge into war, it was the external and internal enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people who attacked the USSR.

            Exactly the same way, Nikolai was left with no choice.
            Suppose Hitler would have presented Stalin with an ultimatum (in his speech of June 22, he spoke about his claims), do you think that Stalin should have satisfied this ultimatum? After persuading the ambassador?
            One cannot speak with Russia in the language of ultimatums. If Russia allowed to talk to itself in this way, then Crimea would have remained Ukrainian. If at all Russia would still be preserved as a state.
            1. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic 12 January 2021 14: 28
              0
              demand from Austria-Hungary to moderate the appetites of its ultimatum for Serbia.

              Why did AVI have to "moderate appetites"? Let me remind you that the monarch was killed in the monarchy. casus belli of all times and peoples, and ultimatums were not needed here. And the AVI did not demand anything over the top.
              Moreover, Serbia accepted all the conditions of the Austrian ultimatum with the exception of the requirements leading to the actual occupation of Serbia.

              "Everything" in a bundle "except" is not everything. And what kind of occupation are we talking about? Who launched this nonsense on the Internet? Serbia refused to AVI so that a commission arrived from AVI to control the course of the investigation. Talking about "occupation" is all the more absurd since Serbia agreed to the previous point of the ultimatum on joint suppression of the subversive Serbian movement against the monarchy with representatives of the AVI authorities. That is, for some reason, they are not against the presence of representatives of the AVI authorities, but against the investigation of Ferdinand's murder. Maybe it is trite because then it would not have been possible to hide the participation of members of the Serbian Cabinet of Ministers in the assassination attempt, thereby losing international intercession?
              And the German ambassador to Russia once again "proposes three times" to refuse mobilization. Well, why not?

              Absolutely not identical situations. There was no legal document on military assistance between RI and Serbia. Between RI and France was. As was the case between AVI and Germany. Therefore, Germany's intervention in a possible conflict between AVI and Serbia is explainable, but RI is not. From the point of view of international law - "no", but from the point of view of changing the main player in the grain trade on the Danube - also like "yes".
              By the way, RI provoked Germany not only by mobilization. The day after Serbia rejected the ultimatum, Russia began to withdraw money from German banks. What do you think Germany should have thought about this?
              And Russia had every chance to win that war

              After that, the expression "Pyrrhic victory" would have changed the character.
              And victory in the war would exclude a civil war

              Yeah, just like the winner of WWI England, which lost Ireland as a result of the civil war (the loss of Iran and Afghanistan will no longer be attributed to the internal civil conflict)
              But there was no such proposal from Germany.

              You are in international relations at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. don't understand at all.
              Let's say Hitler would present an ultimatum to Stalin (in his speech of June 22, he spoke about his claims)

              And what kind of ultimatum would he have presented in your opinion? - all the "claims" in the speech on June 22 - noodles for domestic consumption "why did we suddenly attack a trading partner."
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 30 December 2020 15: 22
        +4
        Quote: tatra
        Nicholas II plunged Russia and the Russian people into the First World War, which they did not need

        Nicholas II was not the only one who plunged Russia into WWI. There is no need to blame everything on one Russian emperor, and we must not forget that Germany, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, France are equally to blame for WWI. All the Empires of Europe are to blame, no less than the Russian Empire, and all of them, except for Britain, went into oblivion after WWI. Whose fault is it more or less? But fact one the British Empire is still alive.
  5. paul3390
    paul3390 30 December 2020 11: 28
    +17
    The question arises - who, then, is the character who builds huge centers of memory type and rewards outright traitors and Judas Yeltsin and Gorbachev?

    "Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, together with the new Russia, went through the path of the most difficult, but necessary transformations. He headed the process of cardinal changes that brought Russia out of the impasse," Vladimir Putin said. ...

    According to V. Putin, under Boris Yeltsin "Russia received a second birth." "It has become a civilized open state, and the role of the first president in the formation of this state is enormous," the prime minister stressed.
    negative

    And taking this opportunity:

    1. Crowe
      Crowe 30 December 2020 11: 32
      +18
      Happy Birthday, Great Country!
      1. marchcat
        marchcat 30 December 2020 11: 44
        +3
        The question arises - who, then, is the character who builds huge centers
        I hope that descendants will answer this question.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 30 December 2020 11: 46
          +3
          Why pull something? 20 years is quite enough time for it to be possible to sum up the results of the reign.
      2. Malyuta
        Malyuta 30 December 2020 12: 26
        +20
        Quote: Crowe
        Happy Birthday, Great Country!

        I support !!!!
      3. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 30 December 2020 15: 25
        +2
        Quote: Crowe
        Happy Birthday, Great Country!

        I wrote about this in a previous article, but only one visitor understood me - Lipchanin.
    2. 7,62h54
      7,62h54 30 December 2020 11: 41
      +7
      What else can a character say who was not elected, but dragged to the throne as a successor? Twenty years has led the country into trouble, struggling with the welfare of citizens
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 30 December 2020 11: 44
        +8
        Well, yes .. But alas - it is passed to admit that even the past 30 years have not brought to their senses some liberal citizens ..

        1. marchcat
          marchcat 30 December 2020 11: 48
          +4
          Why pull something?
          I would of course give a definition, but after all "dragged in"!
          1. paul3390
            paul3390 30 December 2020 12: 01
            0
            ―Who said "shame of the All-Around"? the Bogey hissed.
            “Of course, no one said this out loud, but when many people think the same thing at once, it’s the same as out loud.
            wink
            1. Rosko
              Rosko 30 December 2020 12: 28
              +4
              This is which bubbling sulfur? ...
          2. aleksejkabanets
            aleksejkabanets 30 December 2020 12: 24
            +2
            Quote: marchcat
            I would of course give a definition, but after all "dragged in"!

            Get used to the "Aesopian language", otherwise there will be problems.
            1. paul3390
              paul3390 30 December 2020 12: 43
              0
              Get used to the "Aesopian language

              The chairman of the meeting said that Aesop is a counter-revolutionary and an agent of the Entente, and I am Aesop's agent. (C) wink
    3. Van 16
      Van 16 30 December 2020 11: 49
      +9
      The country was really great. We were proud of both the country and the fact that we were "born in the USSR". It is very good that we remembered.
  6. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 30 December 2020 11: 31
    +20

    People's Yeltsin Center
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 30 December 2020 15: 26
      +1
      Quote: 7,62x54
      People's Yeltsin Center

      Yes, a good monument to EBN, better than a memorial.
  7. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 30 December 2020 11: 33
    +9
    It is hard to believe that, starting its restructuring, the HMS "just like that" came up with the idea of ​​fighting drunkenness and alcoholism ... Who stood behind him? Yes, the same ones who introduced him to the Politburo. It was necessary to switch to the rationing system with such agility, without wars and cataclysms ...
    December 1991, collusion in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, collapse of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin's "historic" call to George W. Bush: "We did it!" Yeltsin fought Gorbachev not for "democracy", "freedom" or, even more so, "the future of the country." He pulled out with his teeth the right to become the new governor of the West on the territory of the largest wreck of a great power. In this he succeeded.

    You would, mister author, saying "A", would say "B". Who is EBN for the USSR and Russia is known to everyone who was born before the 70th year. It is all the more surprising to look at this building in Yekaterinburg against the background of the absence of even a small fraction of the historical memory of the leader of the country, whose name has already been immortalized by the Battle of Stalingrad alone.
    There is no choice between two evils. The first "idiot" was PR before the West, surrendering all the achievements of the USSR, following the lead. The second - finished off the country with his ambitions and "stupidity", relying on sycophants who betrayed their Motherland, the people and all their exploits and achievements.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 30 December 2020 15: 30
      0
      Quote: ROSS 42
      The first "idiot" was PR before the West, surrendering all the achievements of the USSR, following the lead.

      Yes, it does not seem that he was promoting himself, but simply surrendering the country, as Vlasov surrendered the army. (although he surrendered it, the army fought).
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 30 December 2020 18: 51
        +1
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Yes, it doesn't look like he was promoting

        Yes, you remember all these trips of the GMC and Raisa, and then you say ... And how much shit did he do for his country to please the West? It was PR ...
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 30 December 2020 21: 34
          +1
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Yes, you remember all these trips of the HMS and Raisa and then you say ..

          He handed over in Iceland and Malta. And the trips, just a designed cover, the owners of which he worked.
          The owner will not allow the slave to promote himself. PR is allowed to the owner (see Obama, Trump).
  8. 416D
    416D 30 December 2020 11: 36
    +3
    [lucul] Personally, I respect Yeltsin only for the fact that he was able to relinquish power himself, voluntarily, handing it over to Putin.
    In all other respects, I have a negative attitude towards Yeltsin. I don't even want to talk about Gorbachev.

    I wish you good health. I am plagued by vague doubts that EBN made an offer from which he could not refuse, and "voluntary" this transfer of power can be called a stretch
    1. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 30 December 2020 11: 44
      +7
      made an offer from which he could not refuse, and "voluntary" this transfer of power can be called a stretch

      Everything is much more commonplace. In the 2000 presidential elections, the victory of either Zyuganov or Primakov was very likely. Both of the aforementioned candidates openly declared that to recognize the results of the so-called. "loans-for-shares auctions" are not going to, and give any guarantees of immunity from criminal investigation of the activities of the so-called. The "family" is also not going to.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 30 December 2020 12: 00
        +2
        Quote: Terran Ghost
        In the 2000 presidential elections, the victory of either Zyuganov or Primakov was very likely

        Are you confusing something, was Primakov considered a candidate for President of Russia?
        About any victory of Zyuganov in 2000. and there could be no question - the enthusiasm of the masses evaporated.
        1. Terran ghost
          Terran ghost 30 December 2020 12: 28
          +4
          In general, it was precisely that such a probability was then taken into account. That such an alignment is possible if the elections were held as expected in the summer of 2000.
          As for the enthusiasm of the masses .... for 1999-2000, for obvious economic reasons, there was a strong demand in society for a "left" political agenda. At the same time, the "left" part of the political spectrum (from the social-liberal to the communist) had ... a consensus about at least non-recognition of the results of the so-called. "loans-for-shares auctions".
        2. paul3390
          paul3390 30 December 2020 12: 36
          -3
          Was Primakov considered a candidate for President of Russia?

          Why then did he start party building in those days? I don't know why he backed up, but I can say one thing - if Primakov wanted to, he would have been the president of Russia in 2000. No options. For the people - Maksimych fiercely respected. There was a reason ..

          This is by the way to the question of Putin's alleged lack of alternatives for Russia .. There was an alternative, oh there was.
          1. Terran ghost
            Terran ghost 30 December 2020 14: 03
            +2
            Well, you will be surprised. At one time (89-91), people also respected Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin very much. Moreover, at that time the public demand was precisely for the "market-monetarist" political agenda.
            By the way, the explanation of the latter fact is very simple - many then thought that "it would not fit into the market" ... a neighbor. But he himself will be well, if not among the "sharks of private business", then in the prosperous and prosperous "upper part of the middle class."
            And then, in practice, for the majority, it turned out somewhat differently - in Russia, the collapse of the economy in 1992-1994, then the crisis of 1998, at the lowest point of the crisis, GDP calculated in PPP was about 59 percent of the GDP of the RSFSR for 1990. In Ukraine - a landslide fall in 1992-1996, then a slow one in 1997-1999. At the bottom of the crisis, PPP-based GDP was 41 percent of the Ukrainian SSR's 1990 GDP. The rest of the countries of the former Soviet Union also did not escape a deep economic crisis, including Kazakhstan and Latvia and Lithuania. The exceptions were EMNIP Estonia and definitely Belarus. But there is a special case ...
            ====
            PS: By the way, the story about "it will be with a neighbor, but with me, no, no" is very similar to how some individuals deny basic human rights and freedoms or welcome political repression. In both cases, at least on a subconscious level, a reservation is always made that oppressing and violating the rights will be the neighbor, and repression will come for the neighbor. And not for yourself, loved;)
          2. Dart2027
            Dart2027 30 December 2020 15: 15
            0
            Quote: paul3390
            if Primakov wanted, he would have been the president of Russia in 2000. No options. For the people - Maksimych fiercely respected. Was for what

            True, he would have lived for a couple of months, maximum.
          3. sniperino
            sniperino 30 December 2020 15: 28
            -1
            Quote: paul3390
            I can say one thing
            And say, for some reason, different.
  9. parusnik
    parusnik 30 December 2020 11: 40
    +9
    He pulled out with his teeth the right to become the new governor of the West on the territory of the largest wreck of a great power.
    .... For this, the receiver, the Yeltsin Center gave him away ... And today, the holiday on December 22 was formed by the USSR, which over the past 30 years, those who destroyed it have poured mud no further ... And they continue to water ..
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 30 December 2020 11: 46
      +3
      Quote: parusnik
      And today the holiday on December 22 was formed by the USSR, which over the past 30 years

      You have an annoying inaccuracy - not on December 22, but on December 30, the USSR was formed.
      The comrade recalled that he uploaded the picture.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 30 December 2020 12: 18
        +4
        Yes, annoying December 30, 1922 ... did not finish printing ...
  10. svp67
    svp67 30 December 2020 11: 43
    0
    The former Chairman of the KGB of the USSR, one of the "putschists", Kryuchkov, in one of his interviews admitted that he was developing a plan to remove Gorbachev and transfer all power to Yeltsin in order to preserve the USSR. Remembering the ambitions of EBN, I am sure that he would not have stopped at nothing, but would have saved the USSR.
    But, but ... "something went wrong" and the plan was not implemented.
  11. Terran ghost
    Terran ghost 30 December 2020 11: 49
    +4
    I’ll ask two awkward questions again.
    1) Do you believe that communism (which according to Marx - with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", the right of each to free development, the withering away of the state as a political entity, consumer goods abundance) can in principle be built?
    2) If the answer to the first question is "yes" - do you think that communism can be built by the methods used by the RSDLP (b) / RCP (b) / VKP (b) / KPSS?
    It is just that the truth, perhaps unpleasant for many, is that without the Marxist-Leninist ideology the Soviet Union does not exist and cannot exist in principle.
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 30 December 2020 12: 09
      0
      Why is that inconvenient? Clear stump - positive answers to both questions. And without the Marxist-Leninist ideology, only what we have now can be obtained. Zheppa is hopeless.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 30 December 2020 12: 21
        +4
        Quote: paul3390
        Zheppa is hopeless.

        I disagree, this very hopeless ass began when the famous Trotskyist Khrushchev very stupidly declared the imminent coming communism. That was the zheppa.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 30 December 2020 12: 25
          -3
          He could declare anything. But the fact that he and the subsequent type of Lieberman's reforms brought down the entire socialist economy, distorting its essence - yes, it was like that. And at the same time, he knocked down people's faith in the righteousness of their cause, shamelessly slandering the great Stalin.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 30 December 2020 12: 31
            0
            Quote: paul3390
            And at the same time - I knocked down people's faith in the righteousness of their work

            Here I agree, in words, one thing, in fact, quite another.
            By the way, around this time, the general drunkenness began.
    2. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 30 December 2020 15: 35
      0
      As I understand it, in the second question, a hint about the impossibility of what is being asked in the first, in principle? smile But I think you yourself understand that such a formulation of the question is essentially wrong and even demagogic.
      1. sniperino
        sniperino 30 December 2020 18: 17
        -1
        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
        As I understand it, in the second question, there is a hint about the impossibility ... the formulation of the question is incorrect in essence and even demagogic
        Forgive me for interfering, because you could take the "hint" outside the brackets and answer directly. But they preferred to avoid answering through a formal somersault into "informal logic." This, in your opinion, is not demagoguery?
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 30 December 2020 21: 29
          0
          Well, first of all, the question was not asked to me. And secondly, even if I am also obliged to answer demagogic questions? "This is a free country." laughing
  12. Anachoret
    Anachoret 30 December 2020 11: 56
    +6
    Well, yes, EBN was still that dove of peace, he did not fly, but he shit perfectly)
    the Chechen war, in fact, was a war against Khasbulatov, to whom Borya would have lost the election with one goal.
    And the EBN2 elections were staged with the money of the State Department according to the scenario of "threats of red revenge" (war against a wolf with a sheep's head) and with the songs "Vote and you will win" (well, or "don't vote and you will lose"). People were eating, unfortunately)
  13. tatra
    tatra 30 December 2020 12: 05
    +5
    In October 1917, some people staged a revolution, during the anti-communist Perestroika, other people staged a counter-revolution, but with directly opposite goals and results. Therefore, the former and their supporters have always been proud and proud of the October Revolution, while the latter cowardly blame the former on the responsibility for their counter-revolution, because they organized it for criminal purposes, to the detriment of their country and people.
  14. rocket757
    rocket757 30 December 2020 12: 07
    +4
    Well, what can I want to say ... put it more precisely ???
    As you want, you can't ... as you can, it doesn't work!
  15. Runway
    Runway 30 December 2020 12: 27
    +2
    The article is not finished, since not a word has been said about the twice traitor.
  16. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 30 December 2020 12: 30
    +2
    For the "saints of the 90s" alone - execution without trial or investigation.
  17. Ros 56
    Ros 56 30 December 2020 12: 34
    +2
    Both are worthy only of the gallows. negative
  18. nikvic46
    nikvic46 30 December 2020 12: 57
    +1
    It would seem that 1947 and 2021 are not similar. But next year, these years will mean 30 years of both states. And in this comparison, everyone can find their preferences. I have already found.
  19. zenion
    zenion 30 December 2020 15: 55
    0
    They had different visions as to where the horse should be while pulling the cart. The marked man spoke firmly - from the left side of the wagon. And Yeltsin said - this is wrong, the horse should be on the right side. While they were arguing, the horse ran away, and the cart broke. The fact that from time immemorial the horse was in front of the wagon did not occur to these charioteers. By the way, a cabby in Yiddish is called a furer. That is, the two Fuhrer did not know where to put the horse. While they were swinging the horse the cart broke down.
  20. Catholic
    Catholic 30 December 2020 16: 41
    +15
    Yeltsin against Gorbachev - the struggle of the country's destroyers

    It was racing. Races who will destroy the USSR faster.
  21. Catholic
    Catholic 30 December 2020 16: 43
    +16
    Or to whitewash the reputation of those who first destroyed the most powerful world power - the USSR, and then nearly ditched Russia too?

    It will not work to whitewash the reputation of the destroyers. The people's memory is strong ...
  22. Catholic
    Catholic 30 December 2020 16: 46
    +16
    we are considered either too naive, or completely devoid of memory.

    Apparently we are considered "Ivans who do not remember kinship"
    1. sniperino
      sniperino 30 December 2020 18: 47
      -1
      Quote: Catholic
      apparently we are considered "Ivans ..."
      Who could think such a thing on Catholic Arthur ... request Ara, inc cassez?
  23. Catholic
    Catholic 30 December 2020 16: 47
    +11
    Yeltsin acts as a kind of "messiah" who managed to go beyond the "prophet" of "perestroika" Gorbachev

    Both Judas and Satan's minions
  24. Catholic
    Catholic 30 December 2020 16: 49
    +17
    Gorbachev, who still did not find the strength to officially declare that he was taking a course towards the collapse of the USSR and the complete dismantling of socialism

    He didn't speak. He did his dastardly work under the tales of perestroika, publicity and acceleration.
  25. samarin1969
    samarin1969 30 December 2020 17: 29
    0
    Yeltsin, and most of the “current” and “former,” have a completely communist past. Their "communism" is of a very high degree. And let the bourgeois deputy Zyuganov deal with their "democratic centralism".
    "Our" Thiers is not much better. The same "Humpty-Valdai".
  26. Iskazi
    Iskazi 30 December 2020 18: 44
    +1
    What did the author want to say? Another remixing of the bones of the deceased - EBN, USSR. To blame everything on the GMS, Khrushchev, Brezhnev ... - the same does not work, it is necessary to include the founders - Lenin, Stalin and many others ... The fall of the USSR was expected, but not necessary. Perestroika was 30 years late ... , few people already remember, but even in school textbooks they wrote about possible socio-economic reforms ..., echoes of real research and calculations of "accursed Stalinism". The party elite of the USSR, and the organs of their ilk, were not going to build communism, for them it had already come, and Stalin's death simply untied their hands, perhaps Stalin was really the LAST BOLSHEVIK .... And the more I learn about the "comrades" from Stalinist entourage, the more I understand all the need to shoot them and the genius of a loner who managed to keep all this "company" in his fist and still make it work, well, their "gratitude" was appropriate ..., and the result of their activities was perestroika - the same State-Monopoly - Capitalism ..., and the Kremlin cannot build anything else ...,
    1. sniperino
      sniperino 30 December 2020 19: 10
      -2
      Quote: Iskazi
      the Kremlin cannot build anything else
      Strange ending. The Kremlin is here from what side. Don't you like the fortified center of the Russian city?
      1. Iskazi
        Iskazi 30 December 2020 19: 15
        0
        its inhabitants
  27. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 30 December 2020 22: 27
    0
    Humpbacked to the wall. Yeltsin too ... to dig up to the wall.
  28. Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin 31 December 2020 12: 02
    0
    Strongly written. Apparently, the author stated the essence accurately. And particulars - they are particulars, you can drown in them if you start considering each separately.
  29. IL38
    IL38 1 January 2021 06: 53
    -5
    Thank you, eat it yourself ....
  30. 777_kas
    777_kas 4 January 2021 18: 02
    0
    Who did he vote for, "destroyer"?
    Liars.
  31. Mahony
    Mahony 5 January 2021 21: 21
    0
    Now Yeltsin's successor continues to plunder the country to the delight of the damned bourgeoisie.