Fate gave this person the right to defend the interests of Russia in the international arena as head of the foreign affairs agency at the moment when she (Russia) was, let's say, open to all political winds. How did Mr. Kozyrev dispose of his right? What foreign policy course was built by this person? Let's try to deal with these complex issues.
Andrey Kozyrev took up his ministerial post in October 1990 of the year, becoming the youngest (39 years) head of the country's foreign affairs agency in all recent years. Only here we need to immediately make a reservation: Mr. Kozyrev, who until October 1990 worked at the USSR Foreign Ministry, becomes not the foreign minister of the USSR, but the head of the RSFSR MFA. As Kozyrev himself says in his “post-ministerial” interviews, the work at the Foreign Ministry of the RSFSR could not be called fully foreign policy. It consisted practically on 100% in establishing contacts with subjects of other states: for example, cultural exchange between the RSFSR and one of the federal states of Germany or some US state. Kozyrev himself calls the level of such work: “drink beer” with Western colleagues ...
At the same time, we should not forget that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bright background for “drinking beer”, because at the time of 1990, the country was at one of the stages of the most powerful political tectonics. The new reform team tried to create for the growing on the ruins of the Union of Russia the image of a great democratic friend of the West, who, in the opinion of the reformers themselves, ceased to be an enemy both for the RSFSR and for the USSR as a whole. The reform aspirations were based on a very prosaic idea: we recognize a great democratic love for the West in general and its political preferences in particular, and the West extrapolates its internal principles of politics to the territory of new Russia, taking it (Russia) under its wing.
Representatives of the reform movement, among whom was Minister Kozyrev (according to Kozyrev), saw the relations of Russia and the West as such that both from one and the other side, citizens and authorities began to feel that they were friends and partners. The head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR in this connection presents itself, no less, the main ideological inspirer of the United States of America to feel in Russia a friend, comrade and even a close relative, and Russia to feel such a friend in the United States. At the same time, the calculation was made on something similar to the implementation of the Marshall plan only for Russia: they say, the authorities of the new Russia completely describe in the final and unconditional rejection of any ideas other than those that are convenient to the United States, and in exchange for this, the same United States with their partners in the "democratic coalition" they are beginning to actively introduce funds into Russia, turning our country into paradise.
To get approval from the Big Brother, the Foreign Ministry of the new Russia conducted such activities that hardly fit into the framework of the activities of the foreign ministry of a sovereign state. One of the examples of such activity can be considered a complete agreement with the policy of NATO expansion to the East, which was actively promoted by Washington.
One of Kozyrev's quotes about this:
I thought that first we need to build new relations with NATO, and then let them expand. But I was not against expansion in principle - it’s absurd to oppose this.
In this regard, a reasonable question arises: but, excuse me, if Russia for the United States and the United States for Russia are positioned by the Foreign Ministry of Russia as the most important allies, for what purpose does NATO require expansion towards the Russian borders? .. It turns out that one of the parties initially plans there was no pacifying friendship. Which one of the parties? - the question is more than strange, considering that in the government circles of the Russian Federation there were people who themselves were asking for friendship on any conditions convenient for the United States ...
Mr. Kozyrev, trying to justify the game in one (Russian) gate, outlined in the first half of 90-s, declares that the United States, expanding NATO, was simply afraid of the possibility of a communist revenge in Russia, the presence of another voice in our country, an alternative view of its future . They say that the Americans needed additional time to assess Russia's desire (or Kozyrev’s desire) to become an actual branch of the West. Washington, according to Kozyrev, did not consider it necessary to destroy the USSR, because he was accustomed to the existence of his opponent in the East, who, after Gorbachev came to power, became truly predictable for the West ... But the appearance on the world map of a dozen new states, in 4- X of which (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan) remained the Soviet nuclear weapon, it added a headache for the USA, which Mr. Kozyrev himself, counting on the “correct” recommendations of the representatives of the US State Department, and tried to minimize.
If we analyze the words of Andrei Kozyrev, then we can come to an amazing conclusion: the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the state (1990-1996) actually makes it clear that the Soviet Union was destroyed, mainly with the active participation of supporters of this destruction within the Union itself. This time. And two - that if the United States so advocated the spread of democratic institutions on the territory of the USSR (or the former USSR), then why was Washington so puzzled by the presence in Russia of alternative opinions on the development of its political life - isn’t this the salt of democracy ?. .
So, analysis of the words of Mr. Kozyrev, leads to the fact that the US did not want to destroy anything (they allegedly wanted pragmatic relations at the level of “you are my enemy, but I understand you”), and the country was destroyed by certain forces from the inside and its bloodied corpse was thrown under feet of the West ... They say, look: we have destroyed ourselves, so that you now fill our skin with dry and clean straw and put up our democratic achievements in the museum. "Razrushentsov", and truth, there was more than enough inside the country ...
Such destruction was justified by transferring the country to the rails of freedom and democracy under the banner of the West, which Mr. Kozyrev himself first saw in 1975 in the form of an American supermarket, in which ordinary American citizens acquired numerous goods. That visit to the American store during one of the trips abroad and served as a starting point for the young Andrei Kozyrev for his “moderate dissidence”. The dissidence was strange, after all, after that trip, Andrei Vladimirovich did not refuse to work for Soviet diplomacy and generally tried to take everything from life to the maximum.
Dissidence, working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and not speaking out against an objectionable policy, you will agree, is very strange for a person who is trying to position himself as a defender of Russian interests.
If this protection of interests on the part of Mr. Kozyrev really took place, then how can we explain the unconditional support of Yeltsin’s decision to disperse the country's Supreme Soviet in 1993? Then Andrei Kozyrev not only supported the idea of overclocking the Armed Forces, but also expressed himself in the spirit that Boris Yeltsin delayed with this decision ...
In fact, there is no mystery here, and this support expressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs can be explained very simply, except that Kozyrev’s expressed patriotism here doesn’t smell like that. The Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR (later RF) 1990-1993 is the body that was elected in a truly democratic way for the first time in the long years of existence of the Armed Forces Institute itself. Various political forces tried to defend their positions in it. It would seem that the triumph of Western-style democracy: the people themselves elected their representatives in power, who should participate in governing the country.
At the same time, again referring to Kozyrev’s words, a situation appears when the United States was not satisfied with the presence of various political forces in the new Russia, one of which actively advocated the reconstruction of the Soviet Union. Again - an incident ... Kozyrev contradicts himself. Why was the US so opposed to the presence of democratic pluralism of opinions in the new Russia and did not want to see people in the Supreme Council who were widely spread about the possibility of a great Soviet restoration if they themselves advocated the existence of a “predicted adversary” in the form of the USSR (according to Andrei Vladimirovich) ?. It turns out that Kozyrev’s judgment that no one in Washington thought of destroying the USSR is a delusion (or, frankly, a big lie). If you didn’t think, then why did you support the shooting of parliament from tanks in 1993? Note: there is no hysteria in the American press about the fact that in Russia there is an anti-democratic lawlessness on authoritarian Yeltsin principles ... No! The aggressive interference in the work of the Russian parliament by the forces gathered by President Yeltsin was explained to American citizens as a continuation of the struggle for freedom and democracy against the “communist gang” that was seated in the Supreme Council building.
So, then, the United States was still delighted with the collapse of the USSR, and wanted to see a country on the ruins that would be entirely subject to the decisions of Washington. And Andrei Vladimirovich Kozyrev and others like him did everything so that Russia would turn into the 51 state of the USA with a miserable likeness of domestic authorities. Who would doubt ... And, admittedly, Mr. Kozyrev played his role just brilliantly ...
Surprisingly, Kozyrev’s work as Russian foreign minister often surprised even the Americans themselves. Many of the authorities later expressed their words about the work of Andrei Kozyrev, sincerely not understanding how to conduct foreign policy in such a toothless manner, actually sagging under the interests of another state.
From the memoirs of Richard Nixon (ex-US President) about the meeting with Kozyrev:
At a time when I was the vice-president of the United States and then the president, I wanted everyone to know that I was a “son of a bitch” and would fight to the end for the interests of America. And this (Kozyrev), when the Soviet Union has just collapsed, when a new Russia needs to be defended and strengthened, wants to show everyone what a wonderful, pleasant person he is.
Nixon expressed these words after answering the question of the former US president about Russia's interests, said he was ready to listen to the ideas of the former and current US authorities about what they would like to see the national interests of the Russian Federation ... They say our interests will be as you want them to be. It is difficult to say how this relates to the desire to build a new Russia.
The ex-minister himself answers this question in one of his interviews. He declares that all his desires to move closer to the United States were necessary for the United States from impoverished Russia to make a kind of Canada ... New Marshall Plan (now for the restoration of Russia).
However, Kozyrev himself admits that the USA has thrown him (and all of Russia), going only to allocate humanitarian aid and loans with impressive interest rates. Like, he wanted it better ... True, even after that Kozyrev blames not himself at all, but those who prevented him from pursuing pro-American policies. In particular, the famous Belovezhsk agreements, according to the ex-minister, were prepared by him and his associates only as a new agreement on the transformation of the USSR into a new union, but Boris Yeltsin made a mistake by bringing the letter of Empress Catherine II with him and trying to quote how she (Empress) took the Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples "under their hand". Like, everything would be fine, and the USSR would unite almost all former Soviet republics on a new democratic basis, but Yeltsin's trick spoiled everything, scaring the neighbors with a wave of "Great Russian imperialism." As a result, a statement on the CIS was signed. Only about the CIS ... At the same time, Kozyrev does not say where the other agreement came from, and who and why in general gave Yeltsin a document from two hundred years ago, which so frightened all those who had gathered ... That Yeltsin decided to withdraw into historical reflections about the fate of Russia during an epochal meeting in Belarus - honestly, it is hard to believe.
The expansion of NATO, the Belovezhsky "incident", support for the dispersal of the Supreme Council - this is only part of the "achievements" of Andrei Kozyrev "for the good of Russia." But there is also a vote for the introduction of sanctions against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1992, preparation of decisions on the transfer of Russian territory to a number of neighboring states (including China), agreements on the closure of Russian military bases around the world ( from Estonia to Cuba), work to promote the interests of American companies during the barbarous privatization of the start of 90, strange agreements with the Norwegian side on the territories of the Barents Sea.
Russians continue to evaluate all these “achievements” years after the end of Andrei Vladimirovich’s foreign policy career. At the same time, the former minister himself claims that Russia did not understand his good ideas, and the corrupting influence of the West can only be seen by those who have an inferiority complex ...
If so, then it turns out that the majority of Russian people have problems with this complex, because the very last influence came to us not only in the form of supermarkets with shelves littered with goods, but in the form of dirty slurry of cultural and moral alienation.
Andrei Vladimirovich himself, naturally, doesn’t blame him for anything: what to do, since the people got so close - only notorious ... E-eh ... If it were not for our complex, you would have already been 51-m state of the USA.
Quote from Andrei Kozyrev:
... I think that there is no other human interest besides living well. And they live well in the West. Look at the countries with a market economy and a democratic system - these are the countries in which everyone could live ... The whole Russian aristocracy, merchants, intellectuals - they all lived in Western Europe. This is not by chance. All the rest is demagogy for the unfortunate. If you do not have money to buy a villa on the southern coast of France, then you begin to write a fairy tale that you do not need it, you live here, in Aziop.
This, perhaps, is the whole point of the Kozyrev ministerial mission, clearly patriotic, clearly constructive, clearly benevolent ...