Gorbachev and the destruction of Soviet civilization

14 687 110
Gorbachev and the destruction of Soviet civilization


The last hope of the USSR


On March 10, 1985, General Secretary Konstantin Chernenko died after thirteen months in power. A man of principle and honesty, Konstantin Ustinovich had already suggested to Brezhnev in the late 70s to listen to the opinions of Kosygin and Shelepin and begin to correct Khrushchev's "distortions" not selectively, but systematically. To conduct a complete reassessment of Stalin's course, himself and his associates.



In essence, return to Stalin's course of development of the country. Actively fight against the "distortion of socialism" and the "fifth column". Make peace with China, which refused to re-evaluate Stalin and his program. Brezhnev did not dare to do this, although under him Stalin began to be remembered in a positive light.

The former border guard and security officer was a true statesman and an opponent of the course to destroy the USSR. Konstantin Ustinovich had a unique memory, and knew the political, economic and social situation of the country very well. On Chernenko's instructions, a comprehensive program of economic reforms was being prepared, with an emphasis on the plans of Stalin's last five-year plan. In particular, Stalin's work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" (1952) was studied.

Unfortunately, Konstantin Ustinovich did not rule for long. Being an elderly and sick man, he was no longer able to actively oppose that part of the Soviet elite that had staked on the collapse of the Union and the dismemberment of its parts into national Bantustans. Perhaps they helped him die faster. In all, Chernenko's plans and activities were interrupted immediately after his death. They tried to forget him, and during Gorbachev's "perestroika" he was classified as a "co-author of stagnation" and "adept of Stalinism".

"The best German"


On March 11, 1985, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was elected General Secretary. At first, Gorbachev's rise to power was perceived positively in a country tired of the series of deaths of old and decrepit leaders. Hopes for radical changes for the better were associated with him. Modernization and systemic reforms were required to preserve and develop the Union. Relatively young (born in 1931), lively in words and generous with promises, Gorbachev was initially liked by almost everyone.

Only specialists knew that the verbose General Secretary had done practically nothing to distinguish himself in the 8 years since his arrival from Stavropol and his stay in the capital in the highest party positions (except for the unfulfilled "Food Program"). As it later became clear, the windbag and "best German" turned out to be an ideal candidate for the destruction of the USSR from within.

Mikhail Gorbachev's activities are assessed differently. For Russian liberal democrats, Westerners, reformers, effective managers and the collective West, he is a wonderful knight without fear or reproach, who sincerely tried to do something good in the country of the "Soviets". In the West, he is one of their own. The British "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher correctly assessed him: "You can do business with this man!"

Abroad, Gorbachev is an iconic figure who played a key role in the destruction of the Soviet “evil empire,” in the victorious and bloodless end of the “cold war” (essentially the third world war) for the West, and in the total plundering of the Russian world. The man who destroyed the USSR when the West was on the brink of a new Great Depression, a severe crisis. He allowed the Soviet civilization to be plundered, pouring trillions of dollars and solid rubles into the decaying West and East.

To break the Russian world into pieces (by creating three Russian states – the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus). To dismember the super-ethnos of Rus-Russians into parts, creating the foundations of the current Ukrainian front, when the Russian-Great Russians fight with the Russian-Little Russians to the delight of the West (The Price of the Collapse of the Red Empire).

That is why Gorbachev was not stinted with the Nobel Peace Prize, was given the title of "the best German", was awarded the "Medal of Freedom" and a $100 prize in Philadelphia. He also has many other awards, prizes, tokens of attention, etc.

"Catastroika", the collapse of the Red Empire and the subsequent "democracy" with its shock reforms led to the socio-economic, cultural and linguistic genocide of the Russian people, the death and extinction of millions of people (the demographic "Russian cross"), the plundering of the national economy, the seizure of all the wealth of the state by a small group of bourgeois capitalists, bankers-plutocrats, oligarchs, new feudal lords and thieves, to the loss of almost all positions in the world. To the creation of a semi-colonial "pipeline" regime.

Therefore, the majority of the Russian people, when they realized the full extent of the catastrophe of 1985-1993, unequivocally hated the “Marked One” and his gang.

From Andropovism to Gorbachevism


Gorbachev, who was a dummy as a person, was made General Secretary the day after Chernenko's death. At the Politburo meeting, such titans of the USSR as the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Andrei Gromyko and the chairman of the KGB Viktor Chebrikov spoke out for Gorbachev. Other Andropov protégés also supported him: Romanov, Ryzhkov, Ligachev, and others.

Gorbachev, together with Shevardnadze and Aliyev, was put forward by Andropov. All of them were Western-oriented figures. Andropov saw that Brezhnev's USSR was heading for disaster, and put forward a program for the rapprochement of the Soviet and Western worlds, their merger (Andropov's plan»). Andropov and his team were counting on a deal between Moscow and the West. The USSR was included on equal terms in the club of developed Western powers – the core metropolis of the capitalist system. The positive Soviet socio-economic experience was used to modernize the world order. The Soviet top was to become a full-fledged part of the global elite.

Andropov wanted to integrate (converge) the USSR into the Western world on terms favorable to Moscow. Before this, it was supposed to carry out a "cleansing" in the country, to restore order and discipline in the country and in production. The main thing was economic modernization. In the USSR, they wanted to single out a "special economy" (everything that works well): the military-industrial complex, the nuclear and space industries, electronics, academic towns. To form high-tech corporations that, with the support of the special services, would be able to successfully operate in the world (on the world market). It was a kind of "state within a state."

In foreign policy, Andropov first wanted to scare the West, show himself as a tough ruler, and then conclude a deal on favorable terms. To do this, Andropov had to go into the shadows, releasing young politicians, sweet and soft Westerners: Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, and others. Therefore, he actively promoted them, although Gorbachev had no special talents.

At the end of his rule, Andropov, apparently intuitively sensing that he was making a huge mistake, slowed down. But it was too late. Pandora's box had been opened. Andropov died, but the mechanisms of destruction that had been launched under him, which according to the General Secretary's plan were to lead to the future flourishing of Russia, continued to operate. Those people who were prepared for this acted like "zombies". As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

They did not manage to scare the West and drive it into a dead end of the "arms race". They did not create a full-fledged "state within a state", did not carry out economic modernization. They did not rein in the national elites in the republics, did not purge the party and state apparatus.

More precisely, under Andropov and Gorbachev, a "purge" was carried out, but it was with a minus sign. They purged the armed forces, intelligence, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the state apparatus, the party from those people who could have resisted and opposed the course of convergence-rapprochement with the West, which led to the death of Russian communism and the former USSR.

Chernenko tried to slow down the process of destruction, but he was no longer able to do anything. Gorbachev was a pure destroyer.

To be continued ...
110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +17
    12 March 2025 05: 02
    And Gorbachev was a pure destroyer.
    His name brings to mind so many swear words! am
    1. +3
      12 March 2025 08: 23
      You read the comments and the name of the author of the children's fairy tale "Cockroach" appears - K. Chukovsky/1923/

      And the swear words, that goes without saying. You can't do without them. hi
  2. +11
    12 March 2025 05: 42
    The Gorbachev-Yeltsin tandem worked at full capacity. Gorbachev's task was to destroy the Warsaw Pact. Yeltsin's task was to destroy the USSR. Whether they were independent figures is a big question. The figures who came to power in 1991 were already visible behind their backs. They told the people one thing, but did something completely different.
    1. +3
      12 March 2025 07: 51
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      Yeltsin's goal is to destroy the USSR.

      You're not a young man, but you write all sorts of nonsense. Yeltsin received his powers in June 1991, after the presidential elections.
      By this time, half of the union republics had already declared independence. Nine of the 9 union republics took part in the Gorbachev referendum. Six union republics had by that time effectively left the USSR.
      The collapse of the USSR is entirely Gorbachev's fault.
      The main reason for the collapse is the de-ideologized elite, oriented towards the “West”, and the fact that “perestroika” and “acceleration” turned into an economic catastrophe.
      1. +9
        12 March 2025 09: 01
        You're not a young man, but you write all sorts of nonsense. Yeltsin received his powers in June 1991, after the presidential elections.

        And before that Yeltsin had no power? How did he destroy the USSR if there was no power? You have never heard of Yeltsin's titanic efforts to pull power from the central government to the republican government in the RSFSR by sabotaging the decisions of the central government. And it has long been no secret the name of the specific person in Yeltsin's team who, during the meeting in Viskuli, proposed declaring the USSR as having ceased to exist.
        1. +1
          12 March 2025 12: 23
          Quote from solar
          At a meeting in Viskuli, he proposed declaring the USSR as having ceased to exist.

          Was it any different? For example, in October 1991, Ukraine declared the subordination of the Black Sea Fleet to Ukraine and began to persuade the sailors to take the Ukrainian oath. What did Gorbachev do about it?
          Everyone knows about the "Chechen aviso", but no one remembers that all the "brotherly" republics were doing the same thing throughout 1991. According to Silaev, 46 billion rubles were illegally printed during the year. When, after the New Year in 1992, Russian citizens went to stores and saw new prices, many wondered where the money went. One of the reasons was theft in the Union republics. In order to bring the situation under control, Gorbachev had to be removed.
          1. +1
            13 March 2025 00: 21
            How else would you have wanted it? Following the RSFSR, other republics began to declare the sovereignty of the Soviet republics. The rest is a natural continuation of declarations of sovereignty.
        2. +5
          12 March 2025 19: 30
          Quote from solar
          And before that Yeltsin didn't have any power? How did he destroy the USSR if there was no power?

          Now that's a very good question. But the answer to it usually doesn't please those who blame the collapse of the USSR on a few specific people.
          Because the collapse of the USSR was the fruit of collective efforts. Voronya Slobodka was set on fire from above, from the side, and from below.
          At the top, there were republican leaders of various ranks who dreamed of being first in the province and finally legalize unearned income.
          On the side are the businessmen of the shadow economy. The same one that could process a quarter of the cotton harvest of the entire republic at state enterprises and then dissolve this fabric in documents to zero. And they had the same problem: there is money, but it is impossible to buy anything with it.
          And from below... from below, the Union was destroyed by all those who gave the new leaders the vote of confidence.

          Those who are tired of watching the current government build its own little personal communism and shamelessly lie to the people from the podiums of Congresses and Plenums.
          The people and the Party are one! Only the shops are separate...

          If it weren't for the people's help and faith in the "good fighter against the authorities," EBN would have disappeared after his visit to the US, on that very tape with his drunken speech. But instead, Ostankino was inundated with angry letters from labor collectives demanding that they stop slandering dear Boris Nikolayevich. The nationwide support for EBN was such that the editor-in-chief of the mouthpiece of the CPSU, the newspaper Pravda, lost his post for reprinting an article from the Italian press criticizing EBN.
  3. +12
    12 March 2025 05: 54
    It's been a little over thirty years since the collapse of the USSR, and people still spit on Gorbachev. Another three hundred years will pass, and he will be spit on in exactly the same way. He is not a figure whose scale becomes clear only after several generations. Pah on him!
    1. +8
      12 March 2025 06: 40
      Damn him again..

      Only here - the author somehow very strangely attributes the processes that took place in the USSR to the activities of certain individuals. Who supposedly wanted or did not want something there. But ANY ruler is first and foremost an exponent of the interests of the ruling class. Otherwise, he simply will not become one. And all these Andropovs-Gorbachevs are by no means an exception. It was not they - it was the entire nomenklatura that wanted the collapse of socialism and the USSR.
      1. +7
        12 March 2025 07: 15
        Quote: paul3390
        ...... the author somehow very strangely attributes the processes that took place in the USSR to the activities of certain individuals. ...... the entire nomenklatura wanted the collapse of socialism and the USSR.

        hi Greetings, Pavel! After all, Stalin took into account the betrayal of the nomenklatura even before the Great Patriotic War. And he cleaned and cleaned. The more temporary privileges the nomenklatura received, the more they wanted to secure them forever. Apartments, summer houses, cars and much more. And pass them on to their heirs.
        The nomenklatura itself became a separate closed class, social mobility slowed down, and the nomenklatura moved away from the people as it became richer and probably began to consider itself "relatives" of Western capitalists. In vain.
        1. +1
          12 March 2025 07: 17
          hi In fact, everything went exactly according to Trotsky... It was precisely this inevitable development of events that he wrote about.
          1. 0
            12 March 2025 07: 28
            There were no purges during WWII. Stalin didn't have time to purge everyone, and then ----- Khrushchev...
            The expansion of the socialist camp was removed from the agenda. It was precisely the expansion of socialist countries after the Great Patriotic War that intensified the struggle of capitalism against the USSR
          2. +3
            12 March 2025 10: 00
            Quote: paul3390
            In fact, everything went exactly according to Trotsky... It was precisely this inevitable development of events that he wrote about.

            Trotsky didn't come up with this, it was and is the way throughout the history of mankind to rise, to gain a foothold, to pass it on to descendants. The Church has been trying to change man for the better for two thousand years, there is progress, but it is minimal. And then the guys burst in with burning eyes and swords at the ready and started building a shining city on a hill in one or two generations, naturally blood flowed like a river.
            1. +1
              12 March 2025 10: 02
              And no one says it was him. It was just he who predicted the future events with the utmost precision.
              1. +1
                12 March 2025 12: 27
                Both Trotsky and Stalin foresaw that as the USSR continued to exist, the bourgeoisie would intensify measures to destroy the socialist state. Especially if we recall the attitude of the West towards the Russian Empire, which they always wanted to plunder, subjugate, and destroy.
                1. +1
                  12 March 2025 12: 31
                  It was not in vain, oh it was not in vain that Stalin postulated the thesis, which caused such controversy, that as we move towards communism, the class struggle will only intensify. But he didn’t have time to do anything...

                  And Trotsky, back in the 30s, warned about the inevitable degeneration of the Soviet nomenklatura and its betrayal of the working class...
                  1. +4
                    12 March 2025 14: 16
                    Quote: paul3390
                    It was not in vain, oh it was not in vain that Stalin postulated the thesis, which caused such controversy, that as we move towards communism, the class struggle will only intensify... But he didn't have time to do anything...

                    Most people probably somehow primitively reasoned about classes within the country. And about the class struggle with the classes of other countries, or something. And it is understandable. They understood the class unification of the proletarians of different countries too primitively. Not everything turned out to be so simple, and the initial idea of ​​the World Revolution led to a mistake, in this case.
        2. +4
          12 March 2025 10: 27
          Well, who did Stalin purge? He eliminated competitors, nothing more, and if Stalin had lived another year, Beria (the Mingrelian affair) and Molotov (the affair of Molotov's wife) would have been next.
          1. +1
            12 March 2025 12: 40
            Quote: Oldrover
            Well, who did Stalin clean out? He eliminated competitors, nothing more...

            Not so. You forget that after the Revolution, both monarchist secret organizations and simply bandit and White Guard ones remained on the territory of the country. In addition, there were rural secret organizations against the Soviets. Not to mention foreign spies. First of all, English, Japanese .... which were always in abundance in the Russian Empire.
            Not to mention Trotskyist organizations, which often united with criminals. After all, sabotage and terrorism occurred at enterprises. Innocent people died.
            1. +4
              12 March 2025 16: 43
              There were probably spies and saboteurs, but let's be honest, the most large-scale repressions were in 37-38, under the leadership of the then recognized enemies, the people, spies, etc., Yezhov and Yagoda, almost all the compositions of the NKVD troikas were convicted, the work of these troikas themselves was recognized, to put it mildly, as ineffective and harmful (Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) No. P 4387 of 17.11.1938/XNUMX/XNUMX "On arrests, prosecutorial supervision and the conduct of investigations"). Then look who, besides Stalin, was not shot from the first compositions of the Politburo, Orgburo, Council of People's Commissars.
              This is precisely a struggle to eliminate any possible competitors; Stalin didn’t even bother to raise conversations about a successor.
              For all of Stalin's merits, he also has his shortcomings, his desire to remain in power until his death is one of them.
              1. 0
                12 March 2025 18: 02
                You know, of course, that Khrushchev wanted to repress more than Stalin allowed him. Out of zeal? And so did others. And the name YEZHOVSHCHINA? About those who were shot. There were Trotskyists, there were the so-called "Leninists", professional revolutionaries from the first... there was an internal party struggle. And these were not Stalin's competitors, but his ideological, principled opponents. For example, can any of the Trotskyists be called competitors? It was not a matter of personal competition, but of a different path for the country's development.
                1. +4
                  12 March 2025 18: 44
                  You know, of course, that Khrushchev wanted to repress more than Stalin allowed him to.


                  Are you talking about the "calm down" myth?

                  It was not about personal competition, but about a different path for the country’s development.


                  This is all from the category, if Rykov had been more agile, then Stalin would have been called a Trotskyist and a spy, and then Rykov would have been exposed after his death, despite the fact that Rykov's merit in industrialization and the first five-year plan is obvious. In my opinion, reading the materials that are open, the protocols of trials and interrogations, there was simply a fierce squabble that had nothing to do with the purge.
                  1. -1
                    12 March 2025 19: 53
                    This is all from the category of would

                    wink Well, yours, above, is also from the same category. request
              2. The comment was deleted.
      2. +2
        12 March 2025 15: 52
        Quote: paul3390
        But ANY ruler is first and foremost an exponent of the interests of the ruling class. Otherwise, he simply will not become one. And all these Andropovs and Gorbachevs are by no means an exception. It was not they, but the entire nomenklatura who wanted the collapse of socialism and the USSR.

        It is for such words like "slander against socialism" - I get minuses, and you get pluses.
        You see, how much propaganda has ingrained our brains - what people judge by label(Trotskyist, deviationist, utopian...) on the person, and not on the words (in this case, deeds are not visible)?
        As proof, my loyal minus-users will now give me minuses lol
        1. 0
          12 March 2025 18: 09
          What do you care about these minuses, Sergey? My respected opponent. You write what you think is necessary. Me too. As does Pavel. Since we live in places far from each other, we have different understandings. But tell me, has today's capitalism brought you anything good that was not there under the USSR? I want to understand this for myself. It was bad then, but now, how does it compare?
          1. +3
            12 March 2025 20: 15
            Quote: Reptiloid
            Sergey, why do you need these minuses?

            The issue is not about the minuses - it's about the attitude to words. People don't want to listen to arguments, to delve into them, to think - they've hung a label on themselves - ".....chick" or "....ism" - and everything is simple and clear for them.
            In their minds, "MSG and EBN destroyed the USSR" - that's it, enough, little kids, two idiots came, went around 300 million sheep and destroyed it.
            When you point out to them that the status of sheep is somewhat offensive to the people, and the army of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the KGB is portrayed not even as suckers, but as idiots, and that at least the country's elite was for it!! - they get offended and shout that I am anti-Soviet...
            1. +1
              12 March 2025 20: 26
              Quote: your1970
              ..... in the brains of "MSG and EBN destroyed the USSR" - that's it, enough, little kids, two blockheads came, bypassed 300 million sheep and destroyed it.
              When you point out to them that the status of sheep is somewhat offensive to the people, and the army of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the KGB is portrayed not even as suckers, but as idiots, and that at least the country's elite was for it!! - they get offended...
              Probably, the mental pain has not yet passed. These are emotions. For someone. And for someone, it is precisely from the mind.
      3. +4
        12 March 2025 19: 38
        Quote: paul3390
        Only here - the author somehow very strangely attributes the processes that took place in the USSR to the activities of certain individuals. Who supposedly wanted or did not want something there.

        Because most of those who lived in the USSR at that time find it very uncomfortable to remember that time. How they listened to the Congress of Soviets. How they believed in the Interregionals. How they denounced the CPSU. How they believed that the new leaders would lead the country to a better life. How they supported EBN and his team. How they voted in the elections. And how bitterly disappointed they were just six months later...
        Nobody wants to remember what a sincere loser he was back then. So they try to shift the blame onto others - like, it wasn't me, it was the evil Yeltsin and Gorbachev who ruined everything themselves.
        1. +2
          12 March 2025 20: 01
          Quote: Alexey RA
          ..... Because most of those who lived in the USSR at that time find it very uncomfortable to remember that time. How they listened to the Congress of Soviets. How they believed in the Interregionalists. How they denounced the CPSU. How they believed that the new leaders would lead the country to a better life. How they supported EBN and his team. How they voted in the elections. And how bitterly disappointed they were just six months later...
          Nobody wants to remember what a complete loser he was back then.....

          I don't think it's that
          doesn't want to remember
          For many survivors, it is pain and trauma. For others, it is the loss of loved ones, property, work, and other painful events.
  4. +9
    12 March 2025 05: 59
    As for Andropov's KGB, the paradox was that it saw the "activities" of all sorts of black marketeers and exposed them, arrested them and put them in prison, but Andropov's KGB point-blank didn't see or expose the activities of Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Kravchuk, Shushkevich, Yakovlev, and all sorts of Landsbergises "on the ground", and even Yeltsins and Sobchaks, while they were crawling up the career ladder to power back in the golden Brezhnev era for the country. But don't blah blah that those aforementioned persons were very good at hiding. Andropov himself lifted Gorbachev up the career ladder to the Kremlin, so... the exploits of the Chekists are one thing, and the betrayal of the leadership is something else. What, you'll say that Andropov's KGB, during Brezhnev's time, didn't know who Bakatin was and what he "breathes"? People like Bakatin and Kozyrev don't become traitors overnight!
    Here, of course, then, in Brezhnev's time, the main thing was to give these destroyers of the USSR the opportunity from time to time on central and local TV to sweetly chatter about successes and, supposedly, shortcomings. And the Soviet people had enough. They believed these windbags and chatterboxes! But now times have changed. Now, in order to strike a blow at, for example, the communists-Zyuganovites, for this they need to be given the floor live on TV. This is what Vladimir Solovyov does, for example, inviting Kalashnikov to his evening TV programs. Well, you can't think of more harm for the communists-Zyuganovites than from the speeches of this windbag Kalashnikov, more harm can't be imagined. Viewers immediately ask themselves - maybe all the current communists are like this, since they are even on the central TV channels. Their leader sends people like him to speak... And TV viewers have developed immunity against windbags and chatterboxes since the time of Gorbachev!
    1. +5
      12 March 2025 07: 57
      Well, you can't think of any greater harm for the Zyuganovite communists than from the speeches of this windbag Kalashnikov. Viewers immediately ask themselves - maybe all the current communists are like that, since their leader sends such people to speak on the central TV channels...
      In the fall of 1993, Uncle Zyu called on everyone to stay home, while the grassroots organizations of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation went to defend the Supreme Council.
      1. +3
        12 March 2025 08: 13
        And in the same 90s, either before 1993 or after, Uncle Zyu asked to join the Socialist International, declaring that the CPRF were not even communists at all, but pure social democrats. Yes
        1. +5
          12 March 2025 12: 09
          And in 1996 I just sold out and got scared... Zyu
      2. +3
        12 March 2025 19: 39
        Quote: Aviator_
        In the fall of 1993, Uncle Zyu called on everyone to stay home, while the grassroots organizations of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation went to defend the Supreme Council.

        You should also remember the 1996 elections...
  5. +2
    12 March 2025 06: 44
    May they all be damned forever and ever. Nothing more to say.
  6. +4
    12 March 2025 06: 48
    The enemies of the USSR, on the one hand, betrayed this leader of their anti-Soviet/anti-communist counter-revolution, on the other hand, they diligently cover him up for responsibility for the destruction of the USSR and their seizure of its territory, they threw out a bunch of lies, nonsense, fakes, like “the USSR collapsed by itself, because it rotted, because it was not viable from the beginning”, “the USSR fell apart by itself”, but in all these 33 years, not one of them has been able to prove how the USSR could have been destroyed without Gorbachev, and how they were able to seize its territory.
    1. +8
      12 March 2025 10: 29
      You, as an enemy of the USSR, know for sure that Gorbachev is only the tip of the iceberg, you, the enemies of the USSR, chose Gorbachev and you, the enemies of the USSR, rushed to implement all the ideas of perestroika under universal approval.
  7. +9
    12 March 2025 06: 50
    How interesting. They spit on Gorbachev, but the Yeltsin Center stands
    1. +2
      12 March 2025 07: 39
      Quote: Gardamir
      They Spit on Gorbachev, but the Yeltsin Center Stands

      Yeltsin is worse. Gorbachev brought him to the edge, and the drunk pushed him away.

      Gorbachev is a narrow-minded person. A wimp. He couldn't hold on to power. And he ceded it to a determined democrat, who, for this power, subsequently shot up the people's elected parliament in the center of the capital with tanks. This alcoholic democrat handed over power to his successor. To the main liberal, who tame the Duma, tightened the screws, changed the Constitution to suit himself... So that he could sit there forever. In rose-colored glasses. And listen to the nonsense of his secretary.
      1. +3
        12 March 2025 08: 15
        Gorbachev is a narrow-minded person. A whiner. He couldn't hold on to power.

        Don't make him an innocent lamb. It was he who began to restore capitalism, it was his economic reforms that began to destroy the planned economy, it was his political reforms (the law on the election of people's deputies) that put an end to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
        1. +2
          12 March 2025 12: 47
          Worse, the creation of cooperatives, which legislatively had advantages over state enterprises, immediately created people competing with state enterprises, albeit at the everyday level. The same can be said about MPA, SP. That is, a small-proprietor ideology quickly began to form.
        2. +2
          12 March 2025 18: 46
          Well, the example of China shows that it chose the right path, but the execution is crooked. It was necessary to get on the capitalist rails back in the distant 60s.
          Look at China, normally, under the leadership of the Communist Party, the country is developing within the framework of a market economy and capitalism.
          1. -1
            12 March 2025 21: 01
            Look at China, normally, under the leadership of the Communist Party, the country is developing within the framework of a market economy and capitalism.

            You are mistaken. Read their constitution.
            Article 6. The basis of the socialist economic system of the People's Republic of China is socialist public ownership of the means of production, namely, public ownership and collective ownership.

            Article 7. The driving force of the national economy is the state economy, i.e. the socialist economy with public ownership. The state ensures the strengthening and development of the national economy.
            ...
            Article 11. ...The State allows the private sector of the economy to exist and develop within the framework established by law....
            1. +2
              13 March 2025 09: 52
              The constitution of constitutions, and China is not far behind the United States in the number of billionaires, China has a market economy, private enterprise is allowed. If the Internet does not lie, then according to data for 2024, 96,4% of economic entities in China belong to the private sector. 12 In particular, in the manufacturing sector, private business accounts for 96,1% of the total number of manufacturing companies, and in the scientific research and technical services sector - 94,4%.
              1. -1
                13 March 2025 10: 15
                If the Internet does not lie, then according to data for 2024, 96,4% of economic entities in China belong to the private sector.

                He's lying. Study the NEP, with amendments for the 21st century and China.
                1. +1
                  13 March 2025 11: 06
                  Well, in fact, in China there are almost a thousand billionaires, huge private corporations, a market economy, no NEP even close, pure capitalism which gave China a huge boost.
                  1. -1
                    13 March 2025 13: 07
                    a thousand billionaires, huge private corporations, market economy

                    Read what NEP is and don't forget to look at the Chinese constitution
                    1. +1
                      13 March 2025 16: 07
                      Why read about the NEP, if I see with my own eyes what China has, this is normal capitalism, the NEP is not the NEP, this is your stretching an owl onto a globe, but the reality is that China has capitalism, 60% of GDP comes from the private sector.


                      CHINA'S PRIVATE SECTOR is often summed up with a combination of four numbers: 60/70/80/90. Private firms contribute approximately 60% of China's GDP, 70% of its innovative capacity, 80% of urban employment and 90% of new jobs. Given the clear centrality of private enterprise to the vibrancy, growth, and stability of China, it is therefore difficult for many to grasp the logic of the Chinese government's acceleration of placing state power over private enterprise. Are we witnessing a fundamental pivot in the industrial recipe for the nation's success, in which privately owned market drivers will be muted? How will the CCP's relationship with the private sector evolve in the medium term?


                      https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/international-relations-security/what-future-chinas-private-sector
                      1. -1
                        13 March 2025 18: 37
                        https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/international-relations-security/what-future-chinas-private-sector

                        Yes, bourgeois propaganda specialists are a great thing.
                        If you decide to learn about what the NEP is and what is happening in China, you can watch, for example, this series about the fight against poverty
                        [https://russian.cgtn.com/specials/2023/%C2%AB%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%C2%BB.html]
                        No capitalism has ever dreamed of such a struggle. I consider the question of capitalism in China closed for now.
                        Look for the series "Discovering China" 50 episodes, filmed by a Russian journalist who lives in China.
                      2. +1
                        13 March 2025 19: 06
                        Why should I look for TV series if I can personally see what it’s like in China, and there is exactly the blatant capitalism that saved China after all of Mao’s monstrous experiments.
                      3. 0
                        14 March 2025 07: 11
                        Why should I look for TV series if I can personally see what it's like in China

                        I don't know what you personally see, but I personally see the opposite. And yes, I am always surprised by people who believe that the law works (more or less) only in a capitalist ("legal") society.
                      4. +2
                        14 March 2025 09: 27
                        Well, yes, 60% of GDP is provided by private companies, but this is not capitalism. The example of China perfectly shows that capitalism can work in a communist country.
                      5. -1
                        14 March 2025 10: 28
                        Well, yes, 60% of GDP is generated by private companies, but this is not capitalism.

                        Your persistence in ignorance is, unfortunately, not worthy of respect.
                        If you don't know what NEP is and don't want to know, just say so. But to bring your ignorance into the world as the only truth in the last resort is, to put it mildly, ugly.
                        I think there is nothing more to say here. Goodbye.
                      6. +2
                        14 March 2025 10: 47
                        I see your stubbornness, you want to call capitalism NEP, call it your right, but the example of China shows how the USSR should have acted. Now China is the leading country with a capitalist economy.
                      7. 0
                        14 March 2025 12: 12
                        you want to call capitalism NEP

                        Answer the question: how does the NEP differ from capitalism?
                      8. +1
                        14 March 2025 12: 14
                        The NEP used elements of a market economy, and China built a virtually 100% market economy.
                      9. 0
                        14 March 2025 13: 07
                        NEP used elements of a market economy

                        These are general phrases; there are specific signs that distinguish the NEP from capitalism.
  8. +4
    12 March 2025 07: 27
    And Gorbachev was a pure destroyer.

    VVP treated him with respect. They apparently do one thing.
    There is probably no other explanation.
    1. +2
      12 March 2025 09: 25
      Quote: Million
      And Gorbachev was a pure destroyer.

      VVP treated him with respect. They apparently do one thing.
      There is probably no other explanation.

      So he also treats Yeltsin with respect.
      1. +1
        12 March 2025 09: 49
        Quote from Kartograph
        So he also treats Yeltsin with respect.

        All three of these people are of the same breed.
        1. -2
          12 March 2025 09: 55
          And the enemies of the USSR have already betrayed two of these benefactors, planting them on the Soviet communists and their supporters, and they have already begun to plant the third on the Soviet security officers.
          And at the same time, the leader of the October Revolution, Lenin, both during his life and 100 years after his death, had and still has a huge number of supporters. This is one of the cardinal differences between the Soviet and anti-Soviet peoples on the territory of the USSR.
  9. +2
    12 March 2025 07: 48
    There is no need to even blame the enemies of the USSR, they themselves admit that they did badly, that they admit to being their crimes - EVERY time they shift responsibility onto others for what they themselves did.
    And by the fact that for all 33 years they have been cowardly blaming the communists for the seizure of the USSR, they themselves admitted that they seized it for criminal purposes - to the detriment of their country and people.
  10. +3
    12 March 2025 07: 52
    in the past 24 hours - this is the second article: WHAT IS IT FOR?
    In the previous article, I wrote that his election is a Black Day for our country...
    What is there to chew on here? - to collect the bile of readers?
    1. +2
      12 March 2025 12: 53
      WHAT FOR?
      recourse recourse who knows, maybe it would become clear that he is guilty exactly marked and no one else request sarcasm.
      Otherwise, it is difficult to build a line of succession and talk about the "holy 90s". After all, there are those who want them to be included in modern history textbooks in this way.
  11. +6
    12 March 2025 07: 54
    You can't spoil the mood in the morning, these marked ones. It immediately came flooding in - a troika is rushing across the country: Mishka, Raika, Perestroika. May they be devastated, the descendants of Judas, after all, Gorbachev did to the USSR what Hitler wanted to do - this fact , from which, no matter how you look at it, there is no escape. This is what it means when a windbag, a henpecked husband, comes to govern the state by chance. And we don’t need this, like, the Union would have fallen apart on its own, etc. Here is his statement. He said this in a speech at a seminar at the American University in Turkey.
    “The purpose of my whole life was the destruction of communism, the unbearable dictatorship of people.

    I was fully supported by my wife, who realized the need for this even earlier than I did. It was to achieve this goal that I used my position in the party and country. That is why my wife kept pushing me to consistently occupy an increasingly higher position in the country.
    When I personally met the West, I realized that I could not retreat from the goal. And to achieve it, I had to replace the entire leadership of the CPSU and the USSR, as well as leadership in all socialist countries. My ideal at that time was the path of the social democratic countries. The planned economy did not allow to realize the potential that the peoples of the socialist camp had. Only the transition to a market economy could enable our countries to develop dynamically.
    I managed to find associates in the implementation of these goals. Among them, A.N. Yakovlev and E.A. Shevardnadze occupy a special place, the merits of which in our common business are simply invaluable.
    His wife directed him. With what part of her? May he burn in hell forever, the scoundrel! Millions of human lives were broken, hundreds of thousands were killed, refugees from interethnic conflicts, even now it gives back, and how.
  12. +3
    12 March 2025 08: 35
    Author, perhaps we need to talk about the fact that Gorbachev did not come to power in the USSR, but Gorbachev led the bourgeois counterrevolution in the USSR that led to its destruction!
  13. +4
    12 March 2025 08: 40
    He was a good talker. Most people in the country believed him back in 1989-1990. But the elite was weak, otherwise they would have overthrown him, like Khrushchev, without waiting for what they waited for.
    1. +1
      12 March 2025 08: 46
      Who believed him? The supporters of the USSR did not believe him, and the enemies of the USSR "liberated" by him simply understood that without the communists they would be able to commit crimes and enrich themselves with impunity. And as soon as they captured the USSR thanks to him, they immediately overthrew him.
      And he dreamed of ruling a new pro-Western, anti-Soviet capitalist State at their head.
      1. +3
        12 March 2025 09: 32
        From today's perspective, it's clear. I remember that time, people believed in their country and hoped for the leadership that sold them out.
        1. +2
          12 March 2025 09: 50
          And I remember that time well. And I remember that when in August 1991 Gorbachev was “locked up” in Foros, not one of the enemies of the USSR remembered him, as if he did not exist.
          They rushed to defend Yeltsin at the White House in Moscow.
          1. +1
            12 March 2025 18: 47
            And who are you then, an enemy of the USSR and also forgot about Gorbachev, or a friend of the USSR and went to Red Square and demanded Gorbachev’s release, or did you waver along with the party line?
            1. +1
              12 March 2025 19: 34
              Quote: Oldrover
              And who are you then, an enemy of the USSR and also forgot about Gorbachev, or a friend of the USSR and went to Red Square and demanded Gorbachev’s release, or did you waver along with the party line?

              Here's what I'll say about August 19-20, 91, then Russia and Moscow killed ALL Russians in the republics of the Union, gave up the Riga and Vilnius OMON, gave up in Transnistria, gave up the Russians everywhere possible. As Gorky said, Tambov doesn’t have a headache because of the crop failure in Pskov. So no, no need, where who was.
              1. +4
                13 March 2025 09: 00
                Quote: Unknown
                Here's what I'll say about August 19-20, 91, when Russia and Moscow gave up ALL the Russians in the republics of the Union, gave up the Riga and Vilnius OMON, gave up in Transnistria, gave up the Russians everywhere possible.

                Ahem... the Russians in the national republics themselves had a hand in the collapse of the USSR.
                Remember the Russians who stood shoulder to shoulder with local Nazis in the Baltics in a human chain in support of independence. Or the miners of Donbass who then spoke out for independence, against the new Moscow yoke - the Union Treaty.
  14. +9
    12 March 2025 09: 16
    Samsonov, it seems, had never heard of Yeltsin’s existence.
    He only knows about Gorbachev.
    In fact, the fate of the USSR was decided on May 29, 1990, when Yeltsin, a populist already known to the whole country, received 4 votes (with 531 required, he got 535) to become the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR - the de facto leader of the largest union republic. And he immediately rushed to pull power away from the center, shaking the system of state governance and simultaneously destroying the USSR. Just two weeks after Yeltsin's election, the Declaration of Sovereignty of the RSFSR was adopted - the beginning of the end of the Union. And a year later, at a small meeting in Viskuli, during the discussion of the issue of an agreement on gas supplies, which Gorbachev could have prevented, since Yeltsin was pulling union competencies onto himself, it was in Yeltsin's team that a specific person, whose name has long been known, came up with the idea to declare the USSR as having ceased to exist. And so, in passing, while resolving an economic issue, the existence of the Union was terminated by Yeltsin's team :((
  15. -3
    12 March 2025 09: 23
    What trillions of dollars? Where did he get them from? The USSR was actually divided under Yeltsin, after the coup. Reducing military spending was also necessary. So it's not all that clear-cut.
  16. 0
    12 March 2025 10: 51
    did not carry out a purge of the party and government apparatus.

    What kind of system is this that constantly produces such a quantity of rot? request

    Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Shevardnadze and the like are rare scoundrels, but where are the others? The tremorous Yanayevs?

    Everything rotted, no one did their job....
    1. -2
      12 March 2025 12: 50
      Well, the enemies of the USSR, thanks to Gorbachev, captured the USSR and created such a System, full of rot.
      1. 0
        12 March 2025 13: 00
        Quote: tatra
        Well, the enemies of the USSR, thanks to Gorbachev, captured the USSR and created such a System

        Let me remind you that we cleaned the system from "rot" constantly, all 70 years - take a list of the country's top leadership, the Central Committee, the party - how many of them are there - today a hero - tomorrow an enemy of the people
    2. +1
      12 March 2025 12: 59
      What kind of system is this that constantly produces such a quantity of rot?

      We can also remember the Russian Empire, and other countries in the past, either in the West or in the East.
      And at the present time it is impossible to count
      1. -1
        12 March 2025 13: 03
        Quote: Reptiloid
        You can also remember the Russian Empire, and other countries in the past.

        Please remember where else in the world- a- It was hi
        1. 0
          12 March 2025 14: 23
          Every country at different times had its own perverts and traitors of interests. And, of course, some considered them the most vile.
          It seems you don't know about secret sabotage organizations in the USSR before WWII. And I didn't mention the Church's opposition. (My comment above) Search engine to help you
          1. -3
            13 March 2025 10: 29
            Quote: Reptiloid
            Every country at different times had its own perverts and traitors of interests. And, of course, some considered them the most vile.

            i.e. you don't have an answer. And this is natural - nothing like this anywhere and never.
            Quote: Reptiloid
            It’s as if you don’t know about the secret sabotage organizations in the USSR before WWII.

            everyone is justified - search engine to the rescue.
            1. +1
              13 March 2025 10: 33
              Quote: Petrovich
              ...... everyone is justified - search engine to the rescue.

              And when were all the wreckers, saboteurs, spies and Trotskyists acquitted?? All of them? During their lifetime or posthumously? After how many years.
  17. +2
    12 March 2025 10: 55
    Gorbachev had very influential patrons in Moscow - Gromyko, Suslov, Andropov.
    Back in the 60s, Gorbachev was considered by Andropov as the deputy chairman of the Union KGB.
    And who then destroyed the Union?
  18. -1
    12 March 2025 10: 56
    And what is this thing called Soviet civilization? Civilization is based on national principles, not ideological ones.
  19. +8
    12 March 2025 11: 25
    I remember at our work after Gorbachev's election, many older people - then, still out of habit, looking around, whispered - "And Mishka is marked - it's not a good sign." We, the young ones, laughed. We believed in "perestroika", "the new "we" and that "the process has begun." But the old ladies turned out to be right. The process not only "began", but also completely got out of Gorbachev's control.
  20. +5
    12 March 2025 12: 47
    Gorbachev is the worst ruler of Russia in 1000 years. He destroyed the superpower from within. By betrayal. The Monomakh's cap is not enough. Blood is flowing like a river across the expanses of the former union because of him. It will take a long time to sort it out.
  21. +2
    12 March 2025 15: 39
    I am afraid that the elite that took the course of destroying the USSR came to power not under Gorbachev, but long before him. And perhaps greatly contributed to his rise. So it is wrong to blame the collapse of the country on Gorbachev alone.
  22. +4
    12 March 2025 19: 00
    In the USSR there was a cult of the first persons, it was good under Stalin, but under Gorbachev it led to the destruction of the country. In Russia a lot depends on the first person, whether he is a successful leader like Stalin, or an ignoramus and a failure like Gorbachev.
    1. +2
      13 March 2025 11: 18
      Quote: sergey backgrounds
      In the USSR there was a cult of the first persons, it was good under Stalin, but under Gorbachev it led to the destruction of the country. In Russia a lot depends on the first person, whether he is a successful leader like Stalin, or an ignoramus and a failure like Gorbachev.

      Because the system itself was unviable. All the congresses only nodded in agreement. Take the US now. The president can do nothing without the approval of the Congress and the Senate. And he can get impeached if his actions are detrimental to the system.
  23. 0
    13 March 2025 04: 05
    I hate this nasty .
    It would be worth analyzing the role of his squaw; it was probably she who was the agent of influence.
  24. 0
    13 March 2025 08: 28
    Apart from swear words when mentioning the names of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevich and many others, nothing more liquid and a feeling of disgust arises... Although no - there is also a desire to take revenge, to wipe them off the face of the earth and from memory...
  25. -1
    13 March 2025 08: 38
    my grandfather was a political officer in the Kirovograd tank brigade from 42 to 45, he served in 93, he died, how he spat when Gorbachev was put on the throne, I was still young, stupid and hung around far from him, but when I came on leave, I remember the most unpleasant expression was the helplessness that they could do, those who understood that it was treason in those years, since then I have had a strong antipathy to absolutely everyone who came after
  26. +2
    13 March 2025 09: 08
    The funniest thing is that this character was the leader of the most powerful state in the world, in fact, the most influential person in the world. So there is practically nothing to give up for... A fantastic idiot.
    1. 0
      14 March 2025 12: 49
      Quote: AK-1945
      So there is actually nothing to hand over for... A fantastic idiot.

      No need... he arranged his personal affairs in a completely non-idiotic way. Unlike those who twice recognized the alcoholic who ruined their country as president. These are definitely idiots. hi
  27. -1
    13 March 2025 09: 56
    Even the Germans know that "Russia is personally ruled by the Lord God Himself". His ways are inscrutable. The Fugitive Convict Tsar becomes great. And the Fool Tsar destroys greatness... Rus' cannot be described within the framework of science-philosophy or everyday logic. Rus' is the Kingdom of Kingdoms with a superhuman meaning. Which, however, is quite comprehensible... LOVE.
  28. -1
    13 March 2025 16: 48
    When mentioning the marked hunchback, it would be necessary to add (cursed by ordinary people throughout the territory of the former USSR)... negative
    1. 0
      14 March 2025 02: 39
      "A people dependent on the will of one man cannot survive. Nor does it deserve to survive." /R. Sheridan/
  29. -1
    14 March 2025 17: 21
    The economic policy that led to the collapse of the socialist bloc and then the USSR was not created by Gorbachev, he only had to try to save face. The GDR was already heavily in debt in 1983 (1 billion marks from the FRG to avoid bankruptcy), although they were considered the most successful economy in the socialist bloc. Judging by everything, there was nothing to help the Union with. This is the reason for the destruction of the Berlin Wall - the economy. Of course, it is easiest to blame Gorbachev now.
    1. +1
      14 March 2025 17: 50
      Quote from bob03
      The GDR was already heavily in debt in 1983
      And who isn't head over heels?
      And what is the US's external debt today? For example, Russia's external debt today is about 300 billion dollars. But even this is insignificant compared to the US. And nothing, so to speak... At least the GDR had an excess of income over expenses in the late 80s.

      Quote from bob03
      Apparently, the Union had nothing to help with.

      I doubt that "on everything". For example, in 1992, "Gaidar saved the country" and the Soviet deficit disappeared. A biblical miracle happened. Everything that "didn't exist in the USSR" suddenly appeared, although at the same time production began to rapidly fall apart. And the outflow of capital from the Russian Federation in the 90s remained at the level of 10-20 billion dollars per year. Again, where did all that "didn't exist" in the USSR come from?
      1. -1
        14 March 2025 18: 18
        At least the GDR had an excess of income over expenditure in the late 80s

        Debts had to be serviced and paid. There was nothing to pay with....
        G. Kohl, recalling those events, wrote: “At the beginning of 1983 we had information about
        financial situation of the GDR. Trade with the West amounted to approximately
        30% of the GDR's foreign trade was financed primarily by credit
        from the West. This resulted in the high indebtedness of the East Ber-
        front to the West. Without receiving new loans, the GDR was not in a so-
        standing to pay off their debts"
      2. 0
        14 March 2025 18: 30
        And the outflow of capital from the Russian Federation in the 90s remained at the level of 10-20 billion dollars per year.

        I read somewhere that after the collapse of the Union, only 15 million dollars remained in the state bank reserves. You need to look for the source, I think it was Aleksashenko who wrote it. It's all pure economics here. Gaidar tried to speak out in his own defense, but he was quickly sent away and accused of all the sins, just like Gorbachev. Whether they could have done anything in those conditions is a big question.
        1. +1
          15 March 2025 14: 27
          "I read it somewhere" is certainly a strong argument. laughing

          But the question of where the Russian Federation got everything that the USSR “didn’t have” from remains unanswered.
          AgainWhere did the Russian Federation get the capital that, according to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, was annually leaving abroad in the 90s in the tens of billions of dollars?
          Where did the "market saturation" come from under Yeltsin, if according to Rosstat, and not "somewhere" - in the 90s. The country's GDP (and specifically - meat production) decreased by one and a half times compared to 1989 in the RSFSR?
          1. -1
            15 March 2025 18: 33
            Childish question. The monopoly on foreign trade was abolished, businessmen exported raw materials, brought goods back. I'm too lazy to look for a link on Aleksashenko, if you really need it I'll send it.
          2. -1
            15 March 2025 19: 05
            Personal for you wink from the 13th minute about currency reserves
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Wtv3NG0Pw
  30. -1
    Yesterday, 09: 17
    China also never built Stalinism. And then a simple man came to power, not a dogmatist, who said quite sensible things and tried to build a society of equal opportunities according to the Western model. I think that this is progress compared to unfinished communism and fits in well with Stalin's thesis about the development of living matter. Therefore, Gorbachev deservedly received a bunch of awards as a humanist. Well, there was no need and impoverished Russia could not control half of Europe and 1/6 of the land. Russia is an extremely poor country with a zone of risky agriculture, and all these technical achievements are extremely expensive and do not particularly improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
    1. 0
      Yesterday, 14: 17
      Well, there was no need and impoverished Russia could not control half of Europe and 1/6 of the land.

      USSR did it, read history. Where do people like you come from?
      1. 0
        Yesterday, 19: 13
        From the Murmansk region, where during the USSR there was simply nothing to eat.
        1. 0
          Yesterday, 22: 59
          This is what you call nothing to eat [https://pikabu.ru/story/chem_kormili_murmanchan_v_sovetskie_godyi_10090034?ysclid=m8dhlz5hed855028476]?
          You are a liar