How the Soviet Union was broken

11 739 253
How the Soviet Union was broken
USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting with the heads of the Union republics on the draft treaty on the creation of the Union of Sovereign States, Novo-Ogaryovo, 1991


The "Marked One" team against the USSR


When Gorbachev took over the USSR, the US masters, with the help of the Saudis, launched a powerful economic attack – oil prices fell sharply (“Oil War"). The flow of petrodollars, the currency on which supplies of imported equipment and food depended, plummeted. The USSR's economic modernization programs were under threat. The need to support allies, particularly Poland, also ate into the USSR's reserves.



At the same time, Gorbachev's team destroyed the country's domestic source of revenue—the wine monopoly. The anti-alcohol campaign, which outwardly appeared noble and sensible, actually hit the USSR's finances.

It was also a psychological blow to the population of the Red Empire. People who had long been hooked on alcohol and tobacco found themselves in a situation of drug shortages. Naturally, when the Soviet Union began to openly collapse, demoralized crowds in a state of withdrawal (withdrawal is a severe physical and mental condition that occurs in people with addictions when they suddenly stop drinking alcohol, drugs, etc.) became easily swayed by the promises of various liberal democrats, Westernizers, "perestroika" supporters, and nationalist separatists.

The economy, finances, social and military programs were undermined. Ostensibly to overcome the crisis, a campaign of "perestroika and acceleration" was launched. But "acceleration" was quickly forgotten, and "perestroika" somehow quickly degenerated first into socioeconomic and political chaos, and then into the open collapse of the Union.

At the same time, the population was being indoctrinated. They once again recalled Stalin's "exposures," the hundreds of millions of victims of Stalin's terror, the "covered with corpses," and a host of other myths. But now it was all deeper and more vivid. Many generations of people who knew the truth had already passed away or become old, unable to resist this wave of vilification. Bukharin was made a hero, while Zinoviev, Kamenev, and other ardent revolutionaries were rehabilitated.

Only Trotsky had not yet been officially rehabilitated; he was too odious a figure. But unofficially, he too was acquitted, called a victim of Stalinism.

The information warfare methods used were purely Trotskyist and Hitlerite, but without attribution to the real authors. Why invent something new if everything works so well!? After all, the new generations don't know the truth and fall for the same old tricks.

In particular, Gorbachev used Trotsky's methods to suppress his political opponents. They were suppressed under the slogan of "fighting bureaucracy," a return to genuine Leninism, and revolution. Mikhail Sergeyevich, in contrast to the "bureaucrats," considered himself a "revolutionary." He even published a pamphlet: "October and Perestroika: The Revolution Continues. 1917–1985."

The new "fiery revolutionaries," who had once been stopped by Stalin and his team, were now, in the form of Gorbachevites, "perestroika" supporters, democrats, and national democrats, enthusiastically destroying Great Russia (the USSR).

Lenin's Path


Essentially anti-Soviet literature was dumped on the shelves. It was a cunning move. The Soviet people, the most widely read in the world, greedily began devouring literature previously inaccessible to them. Literature that had previously accumulated in the drawers of authors and editors. A body of literature that Russian and Soviet émigrés had created abroad.

In particular, Stalin was branded "Lenin's last will and testament." They said Stalin distorted the USSR's development by suppressing Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP). Gorbachev's team, however, returned the country to the "Leninist path" of development. "Perestroika" is the new economic policy.

Cooperative propaganda was rampant. It was declared a panacea for all ills. A murky patchwork of cooperatives filled the country. These were, for the most part, speculative, huckstering, and semi-criminal enterprises, which allowed the shadow economy that had already developed in the USSR to be legalized. The new NEPmen, the profiteers, began siphoning goods and profits from the state sector through their structures.

Behind the outward glamour and abundance lay the simple plunder of the country and its people, the "primitive accumulation of capital" of the future masters of the post-Soviet republics. Strategic resources and goods, the "party gold," were being siphoned out of the Union.

The collapse of the USSR's economy and treasury required foreign "aid." Gorbachev's team, despite the Union's vast domestic potential and reserves, drove the great power into debt.

During Mikhail Sergeyevich's reign, the external government debt increased, according to various estimates, three- to fourfold, from approximately $25-31 billion (according to various estimates) to over $100 billion. Bankers in West Germany, England, France, and Italy actively opened credit lines for Moscow.

Having fallen into debt bondage—one of the most important instruments of enslavement, the new colonialism of the Western capitalist metropolis against its periphery—Moscow began to cede its global positions one after another. Under the pretext of loans and supplies, "aid," and simply for its kind treatment of Gorbachev, the "best German" himself.

Troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan and Mongolia, from Eastern European countries. Hastily, urgently, as if facing total defeat and capitulation. They abandoned military bases, airfields, strategic warehouses, residential areas, and the entire infrastructure they had built, worth billions of rubles in gold.

They abandoned our most loyal allies, particularly the German Democratic Republic (GDR). In 1989, they allowed the Berlin Wall to fall, and in 1990, they allowed the FRG to swallow up the GDR. They allowed the entire socialist system in Eastern Europe, which had been built at the cost of millions of Soviet soldiers during the Great War, to crumble. A witch hunt began in Eastern Europe: communists and "pro-Soviet elements" were persecuted, imprisoned, and killed.

Thus, the Red Empire lost all military-strategic and economic positions in the western strategic direction, which we had gained after victory in World War II. NATO troops, preparing for a new "crusade" against the Russians, comfortably settled into yesterday's Soviet bases.

"Human rights" and "expanding democracy"


During the information and ideological war against the USSR, they actively used points about “human rights” and “expanding democracy,” which for some reason always went against the strategic and national interests of Great Russia (USSR) and the super-ethnos of Rus-Russians.

The Westerners played on "human rights," rubbing them in the Kremlin's face. Naturally, only in their own interests, with double standards. Gorbachev made concessions again. This was the terrible disease of the Kremlin at that time: a lack of will and determination. A constant readiness to "negotiate," to compromise, a "flexible policy" that expressed itself in the surrender of national and strategic interests.A Deficit of Will in the Kremlin and the Collapse of the USSR).

In 1989, a decree was issued abolishing punishment for anti-Soviet propaganda (Article 70 of the Criminal Code). "Political prisoners" imprisoned under this article were released. The United States directly pressured the USSR to repeal this article. Political prisoners, dissidents, nationalists, activists of the People's Labor Union (NTS), and other anti-Soviet organizations were released. In fact, this was the formation of a “fifth column”, the social base of the future anti-Soviet counterrevolution.

"Expansion of Democracy" also lifted the ban on the penetration of cultural and artistic works from abroad into the USSR. This was the destruction of Soviet civilization by methods of cultural cooperation.

This is where the Russian and Soviet émigrés came in handy for the Westerners. Contact with them was now welcomed by Soviet "revolutionaries." They said that finally, "the two Russias had met," that the "Russia abroad," having preserved "authentic Russian culture," had bided its time and could transfer its hoarded and accumulated wealth back to the Motherland.

In reality, the USSR was flooded with a murky, defamatory stream, like Solzhenitsyn's lies about hundreds of millions of people repressed, about "Soviet slaves-sovok," about a "totalitarian empire of evil," and so on. The lies of Kerensky, Trotsky, former Vlasovites and Banderites, and so on.

Along the way, they began to construct the myth of “lost Russia,” “the crunch of French bread,” “balls, beauties, lackeys, cadets...”Supposedly, there was a beautiful and rich Russia, which was destroyed by the damned Bolshevik commissars and the Red "ghouls." They tore Russia away from its Western partners (the Entente), European civilization, and the main path of development for all of humanity. This was the foundation of the ideology of the future nobility of the new "democratic" Russia.

The Soviet press and cinema, during Perestroika, rapidly restructured themselves, "transformed," and began to "enlighten" and "liberate" Soviet citizens. People were bombarded with all sorts of filth, UFOs, psychics, ghosts, and erotica bordering on pornography.

The press was filled with "progressive" materials that helped destroy the "mossy Soviet Union" and build a "new world" modeled on the "advanced West." A multitude of satirical humorists proliferated, unanimously ridiculing Russian stupidity, drunkenness, laziness, backwardness, and inability to adapt to "civilization." Patriotism was suppressed to the point that "patriotism became the last refuge of scoundrels." Patriotism was equated with communism and reaction.

Under the pretext of "human rights," the Uniate Church, a stronghold of local national separatism and the Petliura-Bandera movement, was restored in Ukraine. Catholic and Uniate emissaries, along with Jesuits, longtime enemies of Russian civilization and the people, came from abroad. In the Ukrainian SSR, the restoration of nationalist structures based on the misanthropic ideology of Bandera-Shukhevych and the OUN-UPA was in full swing. Once again, the united Soviet (Russian) people were being divided, paving the way for future fratricidal slaughter.

Let me remind you that the Western masters are strong in long-term strategy, in the Great Game, which will last for centuries. While our "Slavic brothers" in the 1990s and 2000s thought that a war between Ukrainians (Little Russians) and Russians (Great Russians) was fundamentally impossible, the Westerners carried out informational, ideological, organizational, material, and financial preparations. The result: revolution, unrest, and the split of the former Ukrainian SSR, civil war, and war between the two Russian powers. The extinction of Little Russia—Ukraine—and its transformation into a new "Wild Field."

To be continued ...
253 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 14
    24 August 2026 04: 06
    In 1987, the entire world, and especially the United States, was rocked by yet another economic crisis. It could have been fatal for the United States. Therefore, the United States entered into a mortal struggle with the USSR. Unfortunately for us, the USSR at that time was led by a timid and unprincipled man. It was clear to everyone that the economy needed reform. Had the country been led by someone like Andropov or Gromyko, they would have been achieved. But Gorbachev, under pressure from the United States, descended into treason. He forgot the saying: "Once one claw gets stuck, all the birds get stuck." "Advisors" like Yakovlev appeared, actively lobbying for Western interests. The food situation was artificially created. I was studying at the agricultural institute at the time, and I can say that we had enough livestock, as well as arable land. And crop yields were roughly the same as today. Then, as now, the question often arose: "Who feeds whom?" And each republic believed that it was the one "feeding" the entire country. This was vigorously cultivated by nationalists in the republics. Various "graphs and tables" were cited. Clearly, this was nonsense and stupid. The country needed Andropov's iron will to curb centrifugal forces and implement economic reforms. Gorbachev lacked this will. And then the nationalists in the republics took control of the situation.
    1. 0
      24 August 2026 05: 03
      Quote: fiberboard
      In 1987, the entire world, and especially the United States, was rocked by yet another economic crisis. It could have been fatal for the United States. Therefore, the United States entered into a mortal struggle with the USSR. Unfortunately for us, the USSR at that time was led by a timid and unprincipled man. It was clear to everyone that the economy needed reform. Had the country been led by someone like Andropov or Gromyko, they would have been achieved. But Gorbachev, under pressure from the United States, descended into treason. He forgot the saying: "Once one claw gets stuck, all the birds get stuck." "Advisors" like Yakovlev appeared, actively lobbying for Western interests. The food situation was artificially created. I was studying at the agricultural institute at the time, and I can say that we had enough livestock, as well as arable land. And crop yields were roughly the same as today. Then, as now, the question often arose: "Who feeds whom?" And each republic believed that it was the one "feeding" the entire country. This was vigorously cultivated by nationalists in the republics. Various "graphs and tables" were cited. Clearly, this was nonsense and stupid. The country needed Andropov's iron will to curb centrifugal forces and implement economic reforms. Gorbachev lacked this will. And then the nationalists in the republics took control of the situation.

      I heard this story.
      After the Chernobyl accident, Gorbachev's wife went to see the destroyed reactor and walked around the power unit. As a result, Gorbachev, who had blood cancer, sent his wife to West Germany for treatment and began disarming and dismantling the USSR. Although Western intelligence agencies may have recruited him even earlier.
      Gorbachev sold the USSR, Russia.
      He must be dug up, his remains executed, burned, the ashes loaded into a cannon and fired towards the west, and all his relatives up to the seventh generation must be sent to Chukotka forever.
      1. +3
        25 August 2026 11: 34
        Quote: Bearded
        Although it is possible that Western intelligence agencies recruited him even earlier.

        Haven't you heard about the bribe from Korean President Roh Tae Woo? Two checks for $50,000?
      2. +3
        29 August 2026 00: 09
        You won't believe it, but this actually happened. About three years ago, I found myself in the GON museum—the Special Purpose Garage. They had a bunch of cars on display, cars driven by our country's rulers, starting with Nicholas II. At the end of the exhibit were their photographs. When I saw Gorbachev's photo, I had only one question: Is that bastard still alive?
        And what do you think? I listen to the news this evening – they're announcing Gorbachev's death...
        You can't imagine how surprised I was... Did I curse him?
        1. 0
          31 August 2026 22: 20
          Yeah, right. Coincidence. Most likely, there's nothing, because in that case, all the hunchbacks and Yeltsinoids would have rotted away.
        2. 0
          2 September 2026 17: 20
          If you puzzle over this question every day, then a coincidence is inevitable.
          1. 0
            2 September 2026 20: 33
            No, this thought only came to me when I saw a photo of the marked one
    2. + 13
      24 August 2026 05: 03
      -If the country were led by a person like Andropov.
      It was Andropov who pushed the "resort secretary" to the top, trying to bring order to the ineffective party-administrative system.
      The Komsomol (essentially a replacement) was infected with bureaucracy no less than the CPSU.
      This is also happening in the PRC, where Comrade Xi and Co. will have to put in a titanic effort to purge the younger generation of pro-Western leaders at various levels.
      1. +7
        24 August 2026 10: 54
        How can a system that launched a man into space 16 years after a devastating war, and brought the country to 1st or 2nd place in the world in many positions, how can it be INEFFECTIVE?
        1. +9
          24 August 2026 12: 27
          Quote: Abram Katz
          how can it be INEFFECTIVE
          Russia still thrives on Soviet achievements. Even the destruction of thousands of factories, design bureaus, and research institutes, and the "optimization" of education and healthcare, couldn't completely destroy the country. Now, with the Soviet Military District (SVO), now in its fifth year, why is everything exactly as it is, following the most harmful and costly scenario? Why did they blow all their cards in 2014? Why did they "prepare" so much over the past eight years? If they had to drag Russia into a protracted conflict, ruin and bleed it dry, then their "partners" should be satisfied. If, under good pretexts, they push things to the limit against the economic and military might of the entire West, what's left won won't even be a deal, but an ultimatum. The last thing that needs to be destroyed is the great Soviet legacy, the nuclear missile shield—in the name of peace and humanism, of course. If so, then the gentlemen have sent Russia down the right path.
          Why is this so? Having destroyed the USSR, no one needs a strong Russia. The Union fell because the CPSU itself, filled with opportunistic careerists, rotted from within. It's not hard to guess where they are now—in the new ruling party.
          1. +6
            24 August 2026 21: 54
            Why is this so?

            The answer is obvious: those in power are the followers of those who destroyed the USSR: first the one mentioned in the article, then his ally Judas Yeltsin and his team, and then his protégé and team, who are continuing the work of their ally fathers...
        2. +3
          24 August 2026 12: 42
          Quote: Abram Katz
          How can a system that launched a man into space 16 years after a devastating war, and brought the country to 1st or 2nd place in the world in many positions, how can it be INEFFECTIVE?

          1) SYSTEM couldn't protect my POWER
          2) SYSTEM depended on foreign currency receipts from abroad
          3) SYSTEM was incapable of self-cleaning
          4) SYSTEM became unable to control the population
          5) SYSTEM became unable to feed the population - "Ryazan miracle" is a symptom of an acute illness.
          6)SYSTEM She placed many parasitic countries on her neck, from whom she was unable to fleece and collect.
          7) a bunch more indicators of inefficiency

          The result of inefficiency SYSTEMS - the country is gone...

          Z.Y.
          Quote: Abram Katz
          which launched man into space 16 years after a devastating war,
          unlimited resources and finances + broken ribs + several shot acquaintances = Space.
          Put today's designers in such conditions - and the result will be...
          1. +3
            29 August 2026 00: 14
            your1970
            You're all lying...
            inefficiency of the SYSTEM - the country is gone...
            The country was buried not by an abstract system, but by very specific people.
            Put today's designers in such conditions - and the result will be...
            It seems like they don't build spaceships in prisons these days...
            1. 0
              29 August 2026 00: 31
              Quote: futurohunter
              The country was buried not by an abstract system, but by very specific people.

              These specific people constituted the system that became dysfunctional...

              Quote: futurohunter
              It seems like they don't build spaceships in prisons these days.
              - and for this you need very little - just shoot those who shot those who shot...
              Well, another ten or twenty designers for company...

              For Bekauri alone, with his UAVs, BEKs, and teletanks, the entire NKVD general staff should have been impaled.
              1. +1
                29 August 2026 00: 42
                These specific people constituted the system that became dysfunctional...
                You're confusing cause and effect... "A bad dancer is always hindered by the system"...
                just shoot
                Did they build spaceships in Cambodia too? Did they "shoot" half the country?
                For one Bekauri with his UAVs, BEKs and teletanks
                You might as well mention Kurchevsky... All these back-up tanks and teletanks of yours were built all over the world - the Second World War began - but there weren't many of them... How much fighting was done with teletanks at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War?
                Kalinin, look, built gigantic bombers that fell apart in the air...
                How much money, effort, and time was wasted on the crazy projects of the 30s, of which only the Katyusha rockets "fired"?
                Instead of bringing the very good and necessary I-16s to fruition, they were messing around with Grigorovich's fighters, which would not come out of a tailspin and were unable to conduct aerial combat.
                So there is no need to talk nonsense and at the same time justify all sorts of Tukhachevskys with their pack of adventurers.
                1. 0
                  29 August 2026 01: 08
                  Quote: futurohunter
                  You're confusing cause and effect... "A bad dancer is always hindered by the system"...

                  A bad dancer created a system for himself.


                  Quote: futurohunter
                  So there is no need to talk nonsense and at the same time justify all sorts of Tukhachevskys with their pack of adventurers.

                  Where do I justify them? Can I quote?

                  Quote: futurohunter
                  All these back-up tanks and teletanks of yours were being built all over the world – World War II began – but there weren’t many of them in sight...

                  Because the level of electronics was insufficient. After the victory, having received the electronic technology of the Reich, they could have fired.
                  But Bekauri's fate loomed...
                  1. 0
                    30 August 2026 13: 51
                    Bad dancers appeared after Stalin.
                    You defended Bekauri. But where did all those teletanes go in 1941? All those monstrous DRPs? Did they even fire a single shot at the enemy?
                    What kind of electronic technologies did the Reich have? The same vacuum tubes as everyone else! Radar and radio control were far more developed in the USA and Britain. Jet aircraft – yes. Missiles – yes. But the Germans were never able to develop solid propellant for rockets similar to the Soviet one. All German cruise and ballistic missiles remained a waste of resources, having no impact on the course of the war. Jet aircraft were also of little use, and burned four to five times more fuel. The victors over Germany took advantage of developments in swept wings and high speeds. The USSR had the best armor. The Japanese had better submarines and surface ships. Don't exaggerate. Wars are won by workhorses, not wunderwaffes.
                    1. -1
                      30 August 2026 18: 38
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      What kind of electronic technology did the Reich have? The same vacuum tubes everyone else had!

                      Nevertheless, they managed to make tank night vision sights, radars, normal radio stations, guidance devices for V-25s, devices for jet aircraft, and a list of a bunch of other electronic things.
                      Once again, I’m saying that if Bekauri had been alive, having received German electronics technology after the war, he would have calmly brought an entire military direction to fruition.
                      The state received benefits from the fact that he was shot - NOTHINGMoreover, the designers were cautious, knowing that they could get hit by a bullet.
                      1. 0
                        30 August 2026 20: 42
                        Many countries, including the USSR, were working on infrared night vision devices, but the Second World War prevented them from being fully developed. The British and Americans had superior radar, electronic warfare, radio communications, and overall electronics to the Germans. V-1 missile guidance systems were quite primitive and inaccurate, with misses of up to several kilometers. Furthermore, most of the V-1 and F-2 missiles launched missed their targets, either crashing or simply missing. The Germans were ahead of everyone else only in jet aircraft, missile technology, acoustic torpedoes, and combined-cycle submarines, which, however, were not further developed after the war.
                        Bekauri is no more a genius than the fantasist Grokhovsky and the "brilliant Marshal" Tukhachevsky, or the charlatans Kalinin and Kurchevsky. A great deal of money and effort, which could have been directed toward something more useful, was wasted on fantastical and fruitless projects before the impending war. Let me remind you that the USSR won the Great Patriotic War not with miracle weapons, but with pre-war developments—good though they were, but not at all "super-fantastic." But these wonder weapons were of no help to Nazi Germany. And even nuclear weapons didn't particularly help the United States, while it was the Red Army that ended the war.
                        And by the way, how are the Katyusha MLRS and its brethren not superweapons? The formidable T-34, KV, and IS-2? The Il-2 flying tanks? After all, they were the ones that put an end to all the Nazi "super-developments."
                      2. -1
                        30 August 2026 20: 59
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        And by the way, how are the Katyusha MLRS and its brethren not superweapons?

                        This isn't a discussion about wunderwaffe—it's about the development of electronics. It was significantly more advanced in Germany.
                        It's one thing to develop something everywhere, but it's a completely different story when it's a standard serial sight for the Panther.
                        And further development of unmanned technology based on German electronics would have allowed the USSR to take the lead.

                        Z.y
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        The armor in the USSR was the best.
                        There were 2 articles about armor here.
                        One contained documents on the quality of the armor - by 1945 its quality had increased to 52% of the production volume, i.e. every second sheet was defective.
                        The second involved a chemical analysis of the armor of a museum T-34 tank from 1944. The armor's composition did not comply with either the GOST standard or the simplified standard adopted during the war (with wide tolerances for composition). It wasn't armor at all, just thick iron—nothing more.
                      3. 0
                        30 August 2026 21: 20
                        How was German electronics superior to British or American technology? And didn't the USSR inherit a significant portion of ALL German developments after the war?
                        I highly doubt IR sights were standard equipment. And they had a lot of problems.
                        Work on remote control and homing yielded real practical results in the form of guided weapons only towards the end of the 50s.
                        As for Soviet armor, back in 44, German armor was much worse than Soviet armor...
                        I don't deny the importance of research and development work in the 30s. But don't shout about "the genius Bekauri." ONCE AGAIN: similar work was being conducted at the time in all industrialized countries. But it wasn't until the 50s that they reached real practical application. Of all the developments of the 30s, only the MLRS (and not only in the USSR), jet aircraft, radar/electronic warfare systems, tanks with projectile-resistant armor, and mass-produced automatic weapons actually reached the front.
                      4. 0
                        30 August 2026 22: 40
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        ONCE AGAIN: similar work was being carried out at that time in all industrially developed countries of the world.

                        I'm about 30 cm above the knee ALL The industrially developed and underdeveloped countries of the world at that time. Moreover, if a billion people in Europe, the USA, and Japan had perished back then, that would have been perfectly acceptable to me.
                        I'm interested in the development of our country - that's what I'm writing about.
                        Quote: your1970
                        And further development of unmanned technology based on German electronics would have allowed the USSR to get ahead.

                        Quote: your1970
                        Once again, I’m saying that Bekauri, even if he were alive, After the war, having received German electronics technology, he would have calmly brought an entire military sector to fruition.


                        Quote: futurohunter
                        I highly doubt that IR sights were standard equipment.

                        Read it.

                        Quote: futurohunter
                        And after the war, didn’t the USSR inherit a significant portion of ALL German developments?
                        and wrote about this -
                        Quote: your1970
                        The state got NOTHING from the fact that he was shot, moreover, the designers were cautious, knowing that they could get shot.

                        You will construct what - for what ALREADY They shot the designer for this idea, knowing that the "sharashkas" are operating right now?
                        Queens who work despite a 10-year sentence and broken ribs are a rare commodity.
                      5. 0
                        31 August 2026 09: 34
                        I am interested in the development of our country.
                        Is that why you admire Nazi technology?

                        I'm about 30 cm
                        But our scientists and designers of the time, as well as our intelligence services, cared about this absolutely. But, forgive me for getting personal, you're sitting at your computer arguing about who knows what and why, while these people were ACTUALLY WORKING and competing with the best designers in the world!

                        Bekauri, may he liveYou stubbornly ignore the fact that, besides Bekauri, the "genius of all times and nations," there were countless other designers who worked and created real products. Only lying journalists aren't interested in them. "Ugh, how disgusting: counting rivets or engine oil temperature." Yet it was precisely this kind of menial and "uninteresting" work that provided our army with the best technology in the world, the one that won!

                        Because he was shot
                        1. History does not know the subjunctive mood
                        2. By executing Kalinin and Kurchevsky, the state saved a ton of money, and at the same time, they stopped engaging in science fiction and instead began to create the equipment needed for the coming war.

                        Queens - ... - a rare commodityBesides the "Korolevs," there were many less famous and less "unique" designers who contributed to the victory. And it couldn't have happened without it! And without "swarf in the engine," peeling skin, machine guns that wouldn't fire, and so on, and so on, and so on—it couldn't have happened either. Just read about how hard it was to create the Su-27...
                        And what else did you expect from a country that was recently a peasant country, where a significant portion of the workers only recently learned to read, and during the war, in general, women with children stood at the machines
                      6. 0
                        31 August 2026 13: 06
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Is that why you admire Nazi technology?

                        belay belay belay belay belay
                        And you have difficulty understanding texts...
                        Are you disputing the bare statement of fact – the high level of Germany’s electronics industry?
                        The fact that all the Reich's tanks and planes were radio-official - and ours were waving flags?
                      7. 0
                        31 August 2026 13: 09
                        I'm not disputing it. I'm saying he wasn't the tallest, and the Third Reich's electronics weren't the most advanced. I've been saying this for a dozen times now.
                        You seem to have abandoned Bekauri, but not the Third Reich yet.
                      8. 0
                        31 August 2026 13: 28
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        I'm saying that he wasn't the tallest, and the Third Reich's electronics weren't the most advanced.

                        And we, the US, won and were able to obtain part of the US electronic industry?
                        What's wrong with her.....

                        I say again that if Bekauri had not been killed, having received the Reich's industry, there was a possibility an integrated development of an entire military sector. We could be leading the way, not trailing behind...
                        And you started to point out the Panther's shortcomings and praise our tanks...
                      9. 0
                        31 August 2026 14: 18
                        I know perfectly well who has what shortcomings. It's important to remember that industrialization in the USSR only began in the 30s, and in just 10 years, the country had to cover the same ground that it took Europe and the United States over 100 years to achieve. The factories were filled with masses of former peasants who had only recently learned to read and write. Naturally, both our production culture and the qualifications of our production workers were inferior to those in Europe and the United States. And then there was the war... I wrote about "swarf in oil" here... But I didn't write about the effort required to operate the T-34's levers... About overheating aircraft engines, etc. And you're here talking about Bekauri and his schemes...
                        But by the end of the war, through heroic efforts, we were able to overcome most of the shortcomings. After the war, we were able to produce missiles, including guided missiles and nuclear weapons, and much more. And the designers worked on this no less hard than your Bekauri.
                        We got some electronics from the US during the war. But we didn't get much more. We had to make our own. And we did. By the end of the 50s, without Bekauri and the Germans, we were making technology and weapons no worse than foreign ones, and in many ways even better. Who made the first thermonuclear bomb? And launched a satellite?
                        You are simply in captivity of all these vile scribblers, who say that Stalin shot everyone, or Tukhachevsky is "the most brilliant commander of all times and peoples", or Kurchevsky "made guns more powerful than the atomic bomb", or Kalinin "built a superbomber", or Bekauri is "the most brilliant genius".
                        Let me repeat: this is all lies and fabrications. The truth is that the labors of a large number of scientists, engineers, and designers, none of whom were better or worse, built the USSR's potential, enabling it to win the brutal war against Germany and endure the Cold War. And along the way, there were failures—major ones, like the Tupolev superbombers, and less so, like the ITP and I-185 fighters. There were also outright adventurers, like Kurchevsky or Silvansky, or simply designers with big heads, like Kalinin, Grigorovich, or Shpitalny. I don't at all deny the role of intrigue and denunciations, which nearly ruined the future Katyusha rockets. Nevertheless, development continued, difficult, but it did, and it's completely unfair to glorify one person and belittle others. We approached the war with perfectly adequate technology, which was at least no worse, and in some ways even better, than foreign equipment. Another issue is that it was lacking, and in many ways, it was raw. And once again, don't be held captive by myths. And, once again: history knows no subjunctive mood...
                      10. 0
                        31 August 2026 15: 26
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        I know perfectly well who has what shortcomings. It's important to remember that industrialization in the USSR only began in the 30s, and in just 10 years, the country had to cover the same ground that it took Europe and the United States over 100 years to achieve. The factories were filled with masses of former peasants who had only recently learned to read and write. Naturally, both our production culture and the qualifications of our production workers were inferior to those in Europe and the United States. And then there was the war... I wrote about "swarf in oil" here... But I didn't write about the effort required to operate the T-34's levers... About overheating aircraft engines, etc. And you're here talking about Bekauri and his schemes...
                        But by the end of the war, through heroic efforts, we were able to overcome most of the shortcomings. After the war, we were able to produce missiles, including guided missiles and nuclear weapons, and much more. And the designers worked on this no less hard than your Bekauri.
                        We got some electronics from the US during the war. But we didn't get much more. We had to make our own. And we did. By the end of the 50s, without Bekauri and the Germans, we were making technology and weapons no worse than foreign ones, and in many ways even better. Who made the first thermonuclear bomb? And launched a satellite?
                        You are simply in captivity of all these vile scribblers, who say that Stalin shot everyone, or Tukhachevsky is "the most brilliant commander of all times and peoples", or Kurchevsky "made guns more powerful than the atomic bomb", or Kalinin "built a superbomber", or Bekauri is "the most brilliant genius".
                        Let me repeat: this is all lies and fabrications. The truth is that the labors of a large number of scientists, engineers, and designers, none of whom were better or worse, built the USSR's potential, enabling it to win the brutal war against Germany and endure the Cold War. And along the way, there were failures—major ones, like the Tupolev superbombers, and less so, like the ITP and I-185 fighters. There were also outright adventurers, like Kurchevsky or Silvansky, or simply designers with big heads, like Kalinin, Grigorovich, or Shpitalny. I don't at all deny the role of intrigue and denunciations, which nearly ruined the future Katyusha rockets. Nevertheless, development continued, difficult, but it did, and it's completely unfair to glorify one person and belittle others. We approached the war with perfectly adequate technology, which was at least no worse, and in some ways even better, than foreign equipment. Another issue is that it was lacking, and in many ways, it was raw. And once again, don't be held captive by myths. And, once again: history knows no subjunctive mood...

                        Have you tried to read what I wrote?
                        Quote: your1970
                        Once again, I’m saying that if Bekauri had been alive, having received German electronics technology after the war, he would have calmly brought an entire military direction to fruition.

                        What does it have to do with the USSR coming to war with good or bad technology, and Tukhachevsky and Kalinin?
                        Israel fought in the 1980s using UAVs, and we, forty (!!!!!) years later, somehow, with great difficulty, admitted that UAVs are an effective weapon.
                        Although they could have obtained fully combat-ready UAVs by the early 1960s – and the country had everything necessary for this – except for a designer capable of bringing it all to fruition...
                      11. 0
                        31 August 2026 15: 31
                        If only, yes, mushrooms grew in your nose... Have you forgotten what it was like "in the early 60s"? When they hoped to solve all "issues" with missiles and nuclear weapons. And how is a missile not a UAV to you? Yes, dear. So what? Drones appeared in the USSR in the 70s and 80s. By the way, the Strizh, Reyes, and La-15 appeared, I think, in the early 70s.
                        the country had everything necessary for this - except for the designer
                        Except for the generals and ministers who commissioned it. There was no problem with the designers. We've done worse...
                        Look at how hard it was for our aircraft carriers to make their way...
                      12. 0
                        31 August 2026 15: 51
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        And how is a rocket not a UAV to you? Yes, dear. So what?
                        - about the difference in quantities, right?
                        Don't you understand that such UAVs would have made the mujahideen war in Afghanistan extremely difficult? It was one thing when a Krokodil flew in to pummel a convoy—and they were expecting it with a Stinger—but it was a completely different story when 10 UAVs arrived with ordinary 82mm mortar shells with additional striking elements. And the convoy would have been wiped out right then and there.
                        And it would have been more difficult for Ahmad Shah Massoud to fight.
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Except for the generals and ministers who order it.
                        Didn't you know that the generals also heard - what kind of bad ideas can get you in trouble along with the designer?

                        I'm talking about Forma, and you're talking about Yarema.
                      13. 0
                        31 August 2026 17: 24
                        You reason very strangely.
                        Were there any UAVs at that time that you advocate so much?
                        You're talking about Israel here, but they had purely reconnaissance UAVs, and quite large ones at that. Let me remind you that at the end of the Afghan war, we also had the Pchela UAV and some other similar ones—I can't remember now. And all UAVs, including the American ones, were exactly like that!!!
                        Let me also remind you that FPV kamikaze UAVs only started appearing around 2015-16, in Syria, when cheap Chinese boards with cheap motors appeared. In the 80s, such a UAV would have been about the size of a "Pchela" and would have cost more than an ATGM. Everything in its time.
                        Su-25s were also successful in dealing with convoys in Afghanistan, but shooting them down with Stingers was more difficult. Let me remind you that Rutskoy was shot down twice not by Stingers, but by Sidewinders launched from Pakistani fighters.
                        I'm talking about Forma, and you're talking about Yarema.
                        That's exactly it! Actually, "Eremu" laughing Unclear thoughts, coupled with ignorance, lead to absurd conclusions.
                      14. 0
                        31 August 2026 17: 38
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Unclear thoughts, coupled with ignorance, lead to absurd conclusions.

                        It is you who are drawing your own conclusions - for some unclear reason, bringing into a specific issue either Soviet tanks or workers at machine tools
                        And in the end you draw strange conclusions - and try to attribute them to me.
                      15. 0
                        31 August 2026 17: 42
                        And for some reason you have exalted Bekauri, multiplying it by drang nach osten.
                        I wrote you a simple thing: many people worked there, no worse, and in some ways even better, than Bekauri. And don't invent an alternative history—did I ever do that?
                      16. 0
                        31 August 2026 15: 38
                        You, with your reasoning, belong not here, but on an alternative history website. Incidentally, the topic discussed here is the destruction of the USSR, not the mythical super-constructors of the bygone power.
                      17. 0
                        31 August 2026 16: 00
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        You, with your reasoning, belong not here, but on an alternative history website. Incidentally, the topic discussed here is the destruction of the USSR, not the mythical super-constructors of the bygone power.

                        Korolev simply had a lazy investigator—he was too lazy to hit harder and longer. He could have even dragged it out to the point of anti-Soviet activity...


                        Quote: futurohunter
                        By the way, the topic of the destruction of the USSR is also being discussed here.

                        That's how it's been going ever since - if you're being shot for responsibility, why take it upon yourself?
                        If only one of the USSR's Ministers of Internal Affairs made it to a quiet retirement without scandal, will this eccentric take responsibility for Rust?
                        And then - "So what if the Union is falling apart - there's no order from Moscow!! And without an order, it's impossible!!! Without an order, all you can do is hem a blanket and pile snowdrifts on a rope around the parade ground" (C)
                      18. 0
                        31 August 2026 17: 26
                        I no longer have the strength to argue with absurdity. Read serious history books and analysis. And if you like your strange ideas, once again: welcome to alternative history websites.
                      19. 0
                        31 August 2026 17: 39
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        I no longer have the strength to argue with absurdity. Read serious history books and analysis. And if you like your strange ideas, once again: welcome to alternative history websites.

                        You are talking nonsense by bringing something like this into a specific issue. hi including the Panther and T-70 chess rinks
                      20. 0
                        31 August 2026 17: 43
                        You've simply elevated some "super-duper-weapon" and "super-geniuses" to a cult.
                      21. 0
                        31 August 2026 17: 49
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        You've simply elevated some "super-duper-weapon" and "super-geniuses" to a cult.

                        I repeat -
                        Quote: your1970
                        The state received benefits from the fact that he was shot - NOTHINGMoreover, the designers were cautious, knowing that they could get hit by a bullet.

                        If he had remained alive, he could have done a lot, but a corpse does not. nothing.
                        As for whether it's a "super weapon" or not, that's a question for the Air Defense Forces. They'll say the drone is crap—no question.
                        Somehow they tell me the opposite...
                      22. 0
                        31 August 2026 18: 05
                        I'm already tired of proving the obvious to you.
                        If he had stayed alive, he could have done a lot.
                        It's unknown. Of what he actually accomplished, not much was put into practice. The time for that hadn't yet come, and much more practical things were needed. In fact, one of the reasons we arrived so poorly prepared for war was the dissipation of our efforts on various fantasy projects.
                        to the fighters of the SVO
                        You're jumping from Afghanistan to the SVO. Apparently, it's due to ignorance. Do you even know how the electronic components of the 1980s differed from those of the 2020s? Can you even imagine that the electronics you can now fit into a drone that takes off from the palm of your hand took up the volume of a rather large rocket in the 80s? Have you seen the first cell phones? Those that didn't yet have a camera or artificial intelligence? Compare those "bricks" to today's flat gadgets that girls stuff in their back pockets. And onboard electronics have come a long way.
                        This drone of yours from the 80s is a Malyutka ATGM with a launch range of up to 3 km and a weight of 10 kg.
                        I think it's time to end this pointless debate. You boast about your erudition and have picked up some big, buzzwords, but, in fact, you don't have a clue about the topic. And don't cite VO. There are many more reliable and professional sources.
                      23. 0
                        31 August 2026 18: 39
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        I'm already tired of proving the obvious to you.
                        If he had stayed alive, he could have done a lot.
                        It's unknown. Of what he actually accomplished, not much was put into practice. The time for that hadn't yet come, and much more practical things were needed. In fact, one of the reasons we arrived so poorly prepared for war was the dissipation of our efforts on various fantasy projects.
                        to the fighters of the SVO
                        You're jumping from Afghanistan to the SVO. Apparently, it's due to ignorance. Do you even know how the electronic components of the 1980s differed from those of the 2020s? Can you even imagine that the electronics you can now fit into a drone that takes off from the palm of your hand took up the volume of a rather large rocket in the 80s? Have you seen the first cell phones? Those that didn't yet have a camera or artificial intelligence? Compare those "bricks" to today's flat gadgets that girls stuff in their back pockets. And onboard electronics have come a long way.
                        This drone of yours from the 80s is a Malyutka ATGM with a launch range of up to 3 km and a weight of 10 kg.
                        I think it's time to end this pointless debate. You boast about your erudition and have picked up some big, buzzwords, but, in fact, you don't have a clue about the topic. And don't cite VO. There are many more reliable and professional sources.

                        hi
                      24. 0
                        30 August 2026 22: 14
                        I'll add something about the Panther. Even the presence of some kind of super-scope didn't outweigh the Panther's shortcomings:
                        1. There were few of them
                        2. The Panther cost as much as 3-4 Pz IVs, which bore the brunt of the fighting and were not much worse than this Panther.
                        3. The Panther's ammunition load consisted only of armor-piercing rounds. It had nothing to fire at infantry and fortifications.
                        4. The Panther burned beautifully, as did all German tanks.
                        5. Only the lazy have not made fun of the chess chassis
                        6. The Panther's weight exceeded that of the heaviest Soviet tanks, with all the ensuing consequences
                        7. Despite the Panther's thick armor, it had a thin section of the roof right in front of the turret, which was easily penetrated by any armor-piercing shells.
                        Finally, let me remind you how a single T-70 (!) shot down an entire column of Panthers with all their night sights
                      25. 0
                        30 August 2026 22: 59
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        I'll add something about the Panther. Even the presence of some kind of super-scope didn't outweigh the Panther's shortcomings:

                        What do the Panther's shortcomings have to do with the 3rd Reich's UAVs/UCAVs and electronics?

                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Finally, let me remind you how a single T-70 (!) shot down an entire column of Panthers with all their night sights

                        MMM, of which 8200 were produced in 2 years (1942-43) and by 1947 the troops did not have them? Where did they go, huh?
                      26. 0
                        31 August 2026 12: 03
                        What does the Panther's shortcomings have to do with it?
                        The topics have become mixed up. You yourself have written about both drones and the Panther.
                        Now, examples of not isolated, but widespread use of drones during World War II? Not only Germany, but also the US and USSR used them sporadically. Japan had plans, too, but they failed.
                        Regarding the Panthers, the labor intensity and complexity of Panther production was twice that of the well-developed Pz IVs. And it was the "fours" that bore the brunt of the fighting.
                        Similarly, in the USSR, the brunt of the fighting in the second half of the war was borne by the T-34 and Su-85/100, and not by the latest versions of the KV and the IS super-tanks.
                        8200 pieces and by 1947
                        Are you talking about the T-70? It's all mixed up. The T-70 essentially filled the gaps caused by the tank shortage. Again, simple light tanks assembled on automobile components, during those difficult years of 42-43, were almost twice as labor-intensive as the T-34. With the T-34's mass production ramping up, the T-70 was no longer needed, and they were discontinued. But the Su-76, built on the same components as the T-70, was produced almost until the end of 1945, and served until the mid-50s.
                        Tanks don't last long in war, and damaged or disabled T-70s weren't repaired but sent for disposal.
                        I wrote about the T-70 only because your vaunted Panthers were beaten even by the T-70.
                        By the way, where did all that German menagerie go after the war? Everything went to museums, firing ranges, and for study. The Tigers were immediately written off. The Panthers saw very little service and were quickly scrapped. But the seemingly quite boring Pz IVs continued to serve for quite a while and even saw combat.
        3. 0
          29 August 2026 00: 12
          You'd better answer how such a system allowed the country's gravediggers, from Kukuruznik to Marked One, to come to power? And how did it allow the emergence of a huge number of "foremen of the catastrophe"—"successful businessmen"?
    3. +3
      24 August 2026 12: 22
      Quote: fiberboard
      In 1987, the whole world, and especially the United States, was shaken by another economic crisis.
      and the flow of currency into the USSR sharply decreased, after which the flow of feed grain from the USA and Canada also decreased - which began to lead to a reduction in the livestock population, despite
      Quote: fiberboard
      I will say that we had enough livestock and enough arable land.
      - on the sufficiency of crop areas.
      To understand - for 10 million people in Moscow, 100 grams of meat per day =1000 tons meat in DAY(!!!!).
      As soon as the livestock population dropped even slightly, they started taking every last bit of meat from the provinces. And so it went—the provinces, having learned from life, began to grab everything in sight. Everyone remembers what it was like with Covid—I know three families who still eat the grains they bought back then.
      And trade, seeing such agility, began to create a deficit at an accelerated pace and accumulate initial capital.
      1. +7
        24 August 2026 12: 36
        1000 tons per day is a laughable figure for the USSR. Buryatia, during Soviet times, had 5 million sheep, and the Chita region 8 million. And then there was the sheep-farming regions of Kazakhstan, Orenburg, Omsk, and Chelyabinsk. And there were also huge numbers of cattle and millions of pigs on pig farms. Today, none of this exists, yet there's a glut of meat. Why? Such a shortage was artificially created.
        1. +2
          24 August 2026 13: 10
          Quote: fiberboard
          In Buryatia, there were 5 million sheep during Soviet times.

          40 kg of meat * 5 million = 200,000 tons of meat = 200 days of food for Moscow. - when cutting to zero.
          Now remember Leningrad, Kyiv, Sverdlovsk and other cities with populations of millions.
          And also about simple cities - with a population of 1 million.
          And also about the army of 3.5 million (with all branches like PV) - and there are 175 grams per soldier.
          And we still need to at least leave the provinces with their bones.
          And yes, it is impossible to cut out these "5,8 and so on million herds" to zero - it will be very difficult to replenish them later.

          Quote: fiberboard
          Why? They created such a shortage artificially.
          There was never any meat in the provinces - I hope you remember "Eat liver pies!" (C) - and this was a big city...
          But I agree with you-
          Quote: your1970
          And trade, seeing such agility, began to create a deficit at an accelerated pace and accumulate initial capital.
          1. +2
            24 August 2026 13: 26
            - and there are 175 grams per fighter.
            Is this really about SA? I don't recall seeing such an attraction of unprecedented generosity!
            1. +4
              24 August 2026 13: 35
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              - and there are 175 grams per fighter.
              Is this really about SA? I don't recall seeing such an attraction of unprecedented generosity!

              Since 1988 - I just happened to fall under this rise, before that it was 150 grams

              But even if it’s 100 grams, it doesn’t matter – it’s all the same 350 tons of meat per day
          2. +5
            24 August 2026 13: 49
            There's no need to make things up—there was plenty of meat in the provinces at market prices, the only shortages were at the state (subsidized) price. And if you know the provinces so well, just count the number of ransacked cowsheds in your area that stood there during Soviet times. Where do they get their milk and meat from now? Only at market prices, mind you!
            1. +6
              24 August 2026 14: 07
              Quote: Boris Sergeev
              There's no need to make things up - at market prices there was enough meat in the provinces.
              And how much could the provinces afford with 7 rubles a kilo of beef at the market? With an average salary of 120 rubles?

              Quote: Boris Sergeev
              There were only shortages in the supply of meat at the state (subsidized) price.

              There are gas shortages now, but back then there was simply no meat in the stores. We had certified bones, and that was it, even the offal was obtained through connections...

              Quote: Boris Sergeev
              Where do they get milk and meat these days? Only at market prices, mind you!
              Where does the harvest in the Saratov region, on half of the sown areas from the USSR, come from - comparable to the USSR era?
              There is no theft (at the grassroots level) and no padding (from the collective farm chairman) - that's the whole story.
              1. 0
                24 August 2026 14: 16
                Your narrow-mindedness is simply astounding.

                Loot: Russia's grain harvest in 2025 will amount to 144,6 million tons


                USSR, 1978, 213,7 million tons

                The rest of your statements are at the level of gossip.
                1. +3
                  24 August 2026 14: 27
                  Quote: Boris Sergeev
                  Your narrow-mindedness is simply astounding.

                  Now ATTENTIVELY(!!!!!) read my post.
                  Quote: your1970
                  on HALF of the sown area of ​​the USSR

                  And also - if it's not too much trouble for you fool - remember what suddenly happened in the Russian Federation NOT Ukraine and Kazakhstan are included with their sown areas
                  We must have 1/3 harvest from the USSR times - and we have half of The area of ​​the RSFSR era was half of the USSR's harvest.
                  Which in fact means a 2-fold increase compared to the USSR.



                  Quote: Boris Sergeev
                  The rest of your statements are at the level of gossip.
                  Have you ever bought meat for 7 rubles at the market? Have you ever seen Moslov in stores?
                  So, "Maaskvich" - what can you expect from you...
                  Moscow has always lived in abundance and thought that the whole country lived like that.
                  For your memory
                  1. +3
                    24 August 2026 14: 50
                    You're mistaken. Today, Russia doesn't have the same amount of cultivated land as the RSFSR. Many fields are simply overgrown and abandoned. I'd estimate between a third and a half. Add to that the much poorer land reclamation. Pumping stations and canals don't work, fertilizer isn't applied as much as in the Soviet Union, snow retention and forest reclamation aren't carried out to the same extent. So the growth is even greater. There's simply no need to steal anymore.
                    1. +3
                      24 August 2026 15: 03
                      Quote: fiberboard
                      You are mistaken; today in Russia we do not have the same amount of cultivated land that we had in the RSFSR.

                      Where did you see that I write about EQUALITY sown areas????!!!
                      Quote: your1970
                      + HALF(!!!) sown areas from the USSR



                      Quote: fiberboard
                      There is simply no need to steal now.

                      A ton of grain now costs us 9-10,000.
                      A pig needs a ton per year.
                      People would steal it, but the owner would break their head. This isn't the Soviet era, when it belonged to no one and was sold for a liter.
                      It's just that no one understands that the criminal offence of feeding bread didn't just arise out of nowhere.
                      12 kopecks per loaf * a ton per pig = 120 rubles per year for bread. And they accepted 200-220 rubles per live pig at meat processing plants.
                      That is, there is no particular point in raising a pig for change.
                      And there are only two options here - either it's a pig for yourself, and then even with bread it's 2 times cheaper than meat in the store (which isn't available), or grain stolen from combines.
                      1. +2
                        24 August 2026 15: 13
                        12 kopecks per loaf * a ton per pig = 120 rubles per year for bread. And they accepted 200-220 rubles per live pig at meat processing plants.
                        Prosenka still needs to be bought for something...
                      2. 0
                        24 August 2026 15: 28
                        Quote: 3x3zsave
                        12 kopecks per loaf * a ton per pig = 120 rubles per year for bread. And they accepted 200-220 rubles per live pig at meat processing plants.
                        Prosenka still needs to be bought for something...

                        And that too.
                        And all this without taking into account the spewing of manure all year round, the meager yards, the eternal scandals between neighbors - who, how and where should store their manure so that it doesn’t stink...
                        Romance..
                        But I know how to stab pigs in the face alone - when there's no one to help and blood is not needed. You bend the left front leg firmly - the pig stands, there is no support, and then you stab him in the armpit with a long knife. You release the leg and that's it - he's ready.
                      3. +1
                        24 August 2026 15: 46
                        But I can stab pigs in the face - when there is no one to help and blood is not needed.
                        Yeah, I know that in theory. My uncle used to work as a tattoo artist when he was younger, he told me...
                      4. +2
                        24 August 2026 20: 01
                        Quote: 3x3zsave
                        Yeah, in theory I know.

                        I'm a practical person - my grandfather showed me. I've definitely slaughtered about 20 pigs.
                        Chickens, ducks, geese - regularly earlier.
                        I've never slaughtered cows or rabbits - it's a shame....
                      5. 0
                        24 August 2026 20: 23
                        I never feel sorry for the rabbits...
                        I really feel sorry for the rabbits! But! Understanding the need comes with age.
                      6. +4
                        24 August 2026 16: 29
                        No, you're mistaken. To raise a 100 kg pig, you need about 500 feed units. That's 500 kg of oats, a little less wheat and barley. But it's clear you can't feed pigs on concentrates alone. You also need succulent feed. Well, with a ton of grain, you can raise 2,5-3 pigs weighing up to 100 kg. We once sold pigs to the state, but the price was low. It's better to slaughter and sell them; it's much more profitable.
                      7. +1
                        24 August 2026 20: 12
                        Quote: fiberboard
                        No, you're mistaken. To raise a 100 kg pig, you need about 500 feed units. That's 500 kg of oats, slightly less wheat and barley. But it's clear you can't feed pigs just concentrates. You also need succulent feed.

                        In the Saratov region, there was no succulent fodder at all, so we always fed them only grain. They only got potatoes if the harvest was really big and they dug up a lot. About once every 7-10 years.
                        On grain per year - if the piglets are purebred - pigs could yield up to 150 kg.
                        But in any case, even if they are small, they are very greasy because of the grain.
                      8. +1
                        24 August 2026 16: 38
                        Well, you can still grow it today on bread. Let's take three- or four-day-old bread from the market for 25 rubles. Let's say four loaves are needed per pig. A hundred a day total. Three thousand a month. Ten months, a total of thirty to thirty-five thousand spent on bread. I grew it to a hundred kilograms and slaughtered it. I sold about 80 kilograms of meat and lard. So, based on the price of pork, calculate whether there's a profit or not. Grain and feed are now readily available, but in the Soviet Union, that was a big problem.
                      9. 0
                        24 August 2026 20: 19
                        Quote: fiberboard
                        So, based on the price of pork, calculate whether there is a profit or not.

                        A ton of grain now costs 9-10 thousand, resellers charge 300 rubles. Standing by yourself is not an option.
                        So there is no point.
                      10. +1
                        25 August 2026 02: 46
                        Dealing with resellers means you're working for someone else. He'll buy it for three hundred, sell it for seven hundred. It only makes sense if you're worth it, then yes, there's profit.
                  2. ANB
                    +1
                    24 August 2026 19: 00
                    Have you ever bought meat for 7 rubles at the market?

                    No, it was expensive. Bones in the store and grandparents had a couple of pigs and a duck. Then they gave them to the children in the city.
                    Leningrad surprised me. At the store, they asked for 200 grams of sausage and sliced ​​it.
                  3. -1
                    25 August 2026 10: 00
                    Also, if you don't mind me asking, remember that Ukraine and Kazakhstan, with their arable lands, are suddenly NOT part of the Russian Federation.
                    We should have 1/3 of the harvest of the USSR era - but on half the area of ​​the RSFSR era - we have half the harvest of the USSR.
                    Which in fact means a 2-fold increase compared to the USSR.


                    If you consider rudeness an argument, you are very much mistaken.

                    There has been no doubling of harvests in the Russian Federation since Soviet times – everything is very modest.

                    A record grain harvest in Russian history was collected in 2017—135,5 million tons in processed weight. The best Soviet harvest and the second-highest in history was the 1978 result, 127,4 million tons (data on grain in processed weight published by Rosstat).


                    Rosstat's data on 127,4 million tons refers, it must be understood, specifically to the RSFSR, since for the USSR the figure was 213,7 million tons.

                    Grain harvest growth also occurred in the Soviet Union—check out the statistics! So it's not surprising that these figures have also increased in Russia over the past 30 years, but this in no way indicates more "efficient management."
                    1. -1
                      25 August 2026 10: 26
                      Quote: Boris Sergeev
                      There has been no doubling of harvests in the Russian Federation since Soviet times – everything is very modest.

                      Let me explain again: these harvests were collected from areas twice as small as those in the RSFSR.
                      And even from your figures it is clear that it is at least equal to those times.
                      Quote: Boris Sergeev
                      This in no way indicates more "efficient management".
                      with THE SAME productivity and 2 times SMALLER areas - this is precisely about the fact that now the efficiency of management is at least 2 times ABOVE, than under the USSR.
                      Now let's remember that the USSR still bought grain to feed countless herds of cattle - but there was no meat in the stores.
                      And now the grains too for some reason There is enough meat on sale - and for every taste.
                      And this also relates to the issue of economic efficiency.
                  4. +2
                    25 August 2026 10: 05
                    Alaverdy!

                    30% of cheeses on St. Petersburg shelves turned out to be counterfeit.


                    https://spb.aif.ru/society/-falsifikatom-okazalis-30-syrov-na-peterburgskih-prilavkah
                    1. -2
                      25 August 2026 10: 35
                      Quote: Boris Sergeev
                      Alaverdy!

                      30% of cheeses on St. Petersburg shelves turned out to be counterfeit.


                      https://spb.aif.ru/society/-falsifikatom-okazalis-30-syrov-na-peterburgskih-prilavkah

                      Bugaga ...
                      Palm oil imports began under Khrushchev. And the entire Soviet Union ate a 50% palm oil-based fat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
                      Now you can buy or not buy a counterfeit - and then ALL Soviet men ate palm oil for two years in the army. automatically and forcibly
                      And in civilian life, we ate margarine in Soviet confectionery shops - remember the cream roses?

                      And the only cheese available anywhere in the USSR is "sausage" cheese. feel - so it's not cheese at all and yes - by today's standards it would also be considered counterfeit.
                      1. -2
                        25 August 2026 10: 50
                        Watch Episode 4 of "The Guilty Head Doesn't Slash" from "Investigations Led by Experts" at your leisure and you'll learn a lot of interesting things.
                      2. -2
                        25 August 2026 11: 17
                        Quote: Boris Sergeev
                        Watch Episode 4 of "The Guilty Head Doesn't Slash" from "Investigations Led by Experts" at your leisure and you'll learn a lot of interesting things.

                        Look up the recipe online - butter wasn't used in the cream for the cakes; it melts even in refrigerated display cases in the sun.
                        There are many episodes about the theft of social property on an insane scale.
                      3. -1
                        25 August 2026 14: 58
                        There is a saying: Let's crow, and then maybe the dawn won't break!


                        A classic Soviet eclair, made according to GOST, is made from choux pastry with butter and filled with a delicate butter cream. Ingredients: For the dough: Water - 250 ml Butter - 100 g Salt - 1/4 tsp Wheat flour - 150 g Eggs (large) - 4-5 pcs. For the butter cream ("Charlotte" or condensed milk cream): Butter - 200 g Condensed milk.
                      4. -2
                        25 August 2026 15: 54
                        Quote: Boris Sergeev
                        There is a saying: Let's crow, and then maybe the dawn won't break!

                        And so all the Sovietophiles - without looking for GOST - asked Alice and alga!!!!
                        And there’s a nuance and the same Alice writes:
                        "There was no separate GOST standard specifically for éclairs (choux pastries) in the USSR. At that time, the food industry had uniform state standards that regulated the production of many confectionery products, but éclairs were not specifically designated as a separate category.
                        How did they prepare according to GOST back then?
                        The éclair recipe, now often referred to as the "USSR GOST recipe," is more of a culinary tradition, developed from standard recipes found in Soviet cookbooks (for example, I. Chadeeva's "Baking According to GOST"). These recipes specified precise proportions of ingredients for choux pastry and butter cream, as well as the baking technique.

                        And suddenly it turns out that the eclairs were made according to the technological charts for a specific pastry shop
                      5. -1
                        25 August 2026 15: 44
                        The largest theft of socialist property took place in the 90s, but for some reason, films are not made about it.

                        By the way, you didn’t take part in it?
                      6. -1
                        25 August 2026 16: 41
                        Quote: Boris Sergeev
                        The largest theft of socialist property took place in the 90s, but for some reason, films are not made about it.

                        By the way, you didn’t take part in it?

                        I know more in terms of volumes - due to the longer duration.
                        A trivial example: you can go to a flea market in your city right now and buy Soviet-era taps and drill bits there, cheaper than new ones. People hoarded so many of them from factories—35 years have passed since the USSR disappeared, and they're still in demand.
                        And so in everything.
                        And this isn't a year or a decade—Littlepage describes this in his book back in the 1920s and 30s. The second-largest gold miner in the USSR, an American awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, wrote that they were stealing everything from work.

                        Quote: Boris Sergeev
                        The largest theft of socialist property took place in the 90s, but for some reason, films are not made about it.

                        Why would you suddenly think that? There are plenty of films about this theft of public property—I'm watching "The Yellow Eye of the Tiger" on "Mir" right now, about how the Kaliningrad amber factory was divided up in the 1990s.
                2. -5
                  24 August 2026 15: 35
                  Quote: Boris Sergeev
                  USSR, 1978, 213,7 million tons

                  Alice said: In 1978, the USSR harvested 127,4 million tons of grain.
                  Who is lying, you or Alice?
                  1. +2
                    25 August 2026 09: 46
                    Google argues with Alice, citing statistical references:

                    In 1978, the gross grain harvest in the USSR reached a record 213,7 million tons (according to FAOSTAT, excluding legumes – about 213,69 million tons).

                    That's it, "poking"!
                    1. +2
                      25 August 2026 10: 09
                      Quote: Boris Sergeev
                      In 1978, the gross grain harvest in the USSR reached a record 213,7 million tons (according to FAOSTAT,

                      Yes, in 1978, 127,4 million tons of grain is not the USSR, it is the RSFSR.
              2. +5
                24 August 2026 14: 42
                But you could easily buy meat at the market. In the USSR, there was still a lot of private livestock. For example, we always kept pigs, chickens, rabbits. Sometimes even ducks.
                1. +1
                  24 August 2026 15: 05
                  Quote: fiberboard
                  But at the market you could easily buy meat.

                  Of course, it's easy - 7 rubles per kg for beef then is like 3-4 thousand per kg now
                  1. ANB
                    +2
                    24 August 2026 19: 01
                    It's like 3-4 thousand per kg now.

                    Already 7000.
                  2. +1
                    25 August 2026 10: 30
                    Quote: your1970
                    Quote: fiberboard
                    But at the market you could easily buy meat.

                    Of course, it's easy - 7 rubles per kg for beef then is like 3-4 thousand per kg now

                    A kilogram of veal was 4-5 rubles at the market, maybe even 7, but this is possible in the north or equivalent areas.
                    1. -2
                      25 August 2026 10: 49
                      Quote: Konnick
                      Quote: your1970
                      Quote: fiberboard
                      But at the market you could easily buy meat.

                      Of course, it's easy - 7 rubles per kg for beef then is like 3-4 thousand per kg now

                      A kilogram of veal was 4-5 rubles at the market, maybe even 7, but this is possible in the north or equivalent areas.

                      Saratov Trans-Volga region 1970-1980s. Lamb 6 each, pork 4-5 each
                      1. +1
                        25 August 2026 10: 57
                        Quote: your1970
                        Saratov Trans-Volga region 1970-1980s

                        A land of eternal hunger, drought and pestilence
                      2. -2
                        25 August 2026 11: 09
                        Quote: Konnick
                        Quote: your1970
                        Saratov Trans-Volga region 1970-1980s

                        A land of eternal hunger, drought and pestilence

                        Ryazan, Penza, Sverdlovsk - that's what I saw myself during my trips.
                        I won't say anything about the south - there was 10 rubles at the market

                        And yes - weren't we just people living here? Or was our USSR the wrong kind?
          3. +2
            24 August 2026 22: 07
            There was never any meat in the provinces - I hope you remember

            And now where does it come from, if there is no farm with thousands of head of cattle, for example, where I was born and raised there were thousands of head of cattle on the collective farm alone, and the same number among private owners, and now the collective farm has at most 200, and the private owners have only a few...
          4. 0
            28 August 2026 17: 50
            200,000 tons of meat = 200 days of food for Moscow.

            Ukraine alone produced 4.5 million tons of meat annually. Without any "cutting to zero." That's enough to supply 17 (seventeen) cities the size of Moscow. Belarus produced 124 kilograms of meat per capita!!! While eating only 70 kilograms per person.
            1. 0
              28 August 2026 22: 48
              Quote: ammunition
              Ukraine alone produced 4.5 million tons of meat annually. Without any "cutting to zero."

              Yeah, Soviet collective farm chairmen could write anything they wanted, just off the cuff.
              The additions are called...
              But even if it is true - so be it!!
              Divide 4.5 tons by 45 million people = 100 kg per year = less than 300 grams per day
              And this is the most food-producing region of the USSR.
              What could she supply?!!! What
              Quote: ammunition
              17 (seventeen) cities like Moscow
              - To hell?!!! With less than 300 grams a day???!
              Old song 'Nenka to feed Rus'' (c)
    4. 0
      29 August 2026 00: 05
      Gorbachev was Andropov's fosterling. Andropov had already led the USSR to collapse. And Khrushchev had sent Yakovlev to the West for "training." Gorbachev possessed the will... to betray the country. Was it a coincidence that the Americans paid him a huge "pension" right up until his death?
      1. 0
        29 August 2026 05: 20
        I don't think Andropov could have imagined the "result of his choice" even in his wildest dreams. Gorbachev didn't possess the "will to betray the country." He simply didn't possess the will and strength of character required of a head of state. Gorbachev was "one of" Andropov's chosen ones. And after Andropov came Chernenko. Don't forget that Gromyko played a major role in Gorbachev's appointment, apparently heading a faction within the CPSU Central Committee. Gromyko later deeply regretted this. If Putin or Lukashenko had been in Gorbachev's place, the collapse of the USSR would never have happened.
        1. 0
          30 August 2026 13: 57
          Andropov, while still a KGB chief, launched a "war" against the police. Under Andropov, the collapse was already in full swing, but it just wasn't as noticeable yet. Andropov was already afraid of the West.
          And don't think Gorby is such a fool. No one asked him to cut up the Oka missiles, which weren't covered by the treaty. He voluntarily and deliberately curried favor with the West. And again, the question: did the Americans pay him a huge pension for nothing?
          Gromyko is, in fact, from the party of defeatists who supported the vicious idea of ​​convergence, i.e., surrender to the West.
          There's no point in discussing Putin and Lukashenko in those days... History knows no subjunctive mood.
  2. +6
    24 August 2026 04: 11
    Here Samsogov described everything correctly...That's how it was.
    1. 0
      24 August 2026 04: 30
      Yeah, the one about the "crust-baked" Tsarist Russia is especially well written. Apparently, they remember how it was, whiling away their long life. Let them share the "secret to longevity"—two people here want to live to 150.
    2. +6
      24 August 2026 09: 45
      Quote from Uncle Lee
      Here Samsogov described everything correctly...That's how it was.

      Alexander Prkhanov's opinion:
      But what is clear to me today? The State Emergency Committee was the final act of a grandiose special operation to destroy the Soviet Union. The USSR was dismantled according to a strategic plan that consisted of two phases. The first phase was the grinding of all the codes, all the symbols on which the Soviet state was founded, in the minds of the Soviet people. All notions of its greatness and historical significance were ground up. As a result, the state that had achieved a great Victory in the most terrible war, the first to send a man into space, began to transform in the eyes of the people into a monstrous, anti-human monster, a terrible rapist who filled execution pits with bloody bones. It was the state of the Gulag, the state that destroyed the great Russian peasantry... Under the powerful influence of so-called glasnost, the people believed in this, were horrified by it, and renounced their state. In the minds of the Soviet people, it ceased to be the highest achievement..
  3. +7
    24 August 2026 04: 57
    The USSR was destroyed earlier by our party nomenklatura.
    We were told that developed socialism had been built.
    Only people made up jokes about the long green one.
    Which smells like sausage.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. -5
      24 August 2026 05: 28
      Quote: Andrey Krutilin
      The USSR was destroyed earlier by our party nomenklatura.

      The plunder and collapse of the USSR began historically with the signing of the Washington Accords in September 1977 by a group of individuals. To carry out this operation, dubbed "Photon," a special group of traitors and enemies of the USSR, codenamed "Z," was initially organized between 1982 and 1984 under the direction of employees of the US Federal Reserve System and the Masonic Order of the Illuminati. The group, controlled by the UD of the Central Committee of the CPSU, was organized under the codename "Z."
      1. 0
        24 August 2026 12: 46
        Quote: carpenter
        The plunder and collapse of the USSR began historically with the signing of the Washington Accords in September 1977 by a group of people

        So when "Eat liver pies" (c) and people went to smash the regional committee, that wasn't the beginning of the collapse, just something like that? A joke?
        1. +4
          24 August 2026 13: 17
          Quote: your1970
          This isn't the beginning of a collapse, just like that? A joke?

          Dig very deeply, then you will understand where the roots are coming from.
          And we need to start with where the documents for the so-called "Philippine gold" went, where part of it is the USSR's share after the division of capital by the victors in World War II.
          1. -3
            24 August 2026 13: 33
            Quote: carpenter
            "Philippine gold"

            65,000 tons of gold? Well, well...

            Quote: carpenter
            as the share of the USSR after the division of capital by the victors in World War II

            If, during the 8 years of work during Operation Cross, no significant volumes of gold were found, then none existed.
            The Third Reich was initially a pauper - it had no gold reserves at all - and everything it plundered later was a pittance by any standards.
            1. +2
              24 August 2026 13: 41
              Quote: your1970
              If, during the 8 years of work during Operation Cross, no significant volumes of gold were found, then none existed.

              That's why they (the volumes) weren't there—they simply weren't being looked for. Incidentally, some of the funds were stolen.
              1. -3
                24 August 2026 13: 54
                Quote: carpenter
                Quote: your1970
                If, during the 8 years of work during Operation Cross, no significant volumes of gold were found, then none existed.

                That's why they (the volumes) weren't there—they simply weren't being looked for. Incidentally, some of the funds were stolen.

                So, were the Soviet MGB agents during the 8-year period (1945-1953, during Operation Cross) simply parasites eating up the people's money? Or were they thick-headed idiots incapable of doing anything in an occupied country?
                1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        29 August 2026 00: 22
        Don't make things up. The collapse of the USSR began with Stalin's assassination. It was during Khrushchev's time that the ties (even family ties—see Gvishiani) between the Soviet elite and the Western elite began to strengthen. By the time Gorby arrived, everything was already in place—he just had to finish the job.
        1. 0
          29 August 2026 09: 15
          Quote: futurohunter
          The collapse of the USSR began with Stalin's assassination. It was during Khrushchev's reign that ties (even family ties—see Gvishiani) between the Soviet elite and the Western elite began to strengthen.

          That's also a true thought, Khrushchev was a supporter of Trotsky.
          1. 0
            30 August 2026 14: 03
            Khrushch was simply a recruited scoundrel.
    3. +5
      24 August 2026 05: 45
      The "destroyer faction" within the party nomenklatura was a minority and operated covertly for a time, pushing for "Lieberman's reforms" or securing the USSR's entry into the Club of Rome through Kosygin's son-in-law. It also—on the "advice of friends"—ensured the circulation of the jokes you cited, paving the way for the arrival of the "reformer" Gorbachev. Incidentally, the appearance and dissemination of such jokes is now actively blocked, in particular by blocking Telegram.
      1. Eug
        +3
        24 August 2026 10: 39
        Note that the "Lieberman reform," joining the "Vienna Club," and the founding of the Institute for Systems Analysis in Vienna (graduates included Gaidar, Chubais-Aven, and Glazyev) are all connected, one way or another, to A.N. Kosygin. So who was he really, besides the well-known member of the Politburo of the Central Committee and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR?
        1. +5
          24 August 2026 13: 19
          It is noteworthy that the wave of renamings carried out by the anti-Soviet authorities did not affect Kosygina Street in Moscow.
      2. 0
        24 August 2026 17: 33
        And what about films, what about films? For example, who personally skipped most of Gaidai's films? Or did Brezhnev also skip them "at the request of friends" in enemy intelligence? Or aren't "Kidnapping, Caucasian Style," "Ivan Vasilyevich," and Shurik's other adventures satirizing Soviet reality?
        1. +1
          25 August 2026 09: 40
          These films are still watched because they're positive and funny, and not because they "ridicule Soviet reality." So Brezhnev's sanction merely demonstrates how confident the Soviet leadership was. Now, name films that satirize the current "stability"—there are plenty of reasons, from "The State Duma is no place for debate" to the quarrel between Boris Abramovich and Roman Arkadyevich in an English court. However, nimble screenwriters and directors prefer to churn out crafty films about the "bloody KGB"!
          1. -1
            25 August 2026 09: 58
            You don't understand what I'm talking about... I'm saying that no one in the Soviet Union could even imagine a reality other than one where a party leader, a minister, a factory director, and a mechanic lived in different states in terms of rights and benefits. This was the norm, equally recognized, accepted, and amused by all social strata. And by the way, yes, the highest-grossing film in the USSR wasn't a Soviet production, or even from a Warsaw Pact country... and, in general, many Western films that did manage to make it to Soviet screens had quite a wide audience, not much inferior to Soviet ones, so there are many reasons for their popularity.
            Regarding today, we have a choice of what to watch and what not. Just yesterday, there was an article about how the "tight little bun" pushed aside the "pernicious spider." So today, our filmmakers have two choices: either use public funds to make unprofitable material (but at least either praiseworthy or neutral), or simply fail to find a niche in the market. Which would you choose?
            1. +3
              25 August 2026 10: 12
              No need to prevaricate! The "filmmakers" recently obstructed Beroev's film about the Soviet Military District (SVO) at a competition. They're a completely rotten bunch, who don't even bother to hide their figs in their pockets. They're supported by oligarchic and state money, yet they haven't produced anything comparable to the Soviet classics in 30 years. Incidentally, without Glavlit or censorship, Ryazanov and Gaidai produced empty films like "Old Nags" and "Deribasovskaya."
    4. +6
      24 August 2026 07: 58
      "Nor can one expect that the bureaucracy will peacefully and voluntarily abandon itself in favor of socialist equality. If now, despite the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has found it possible to introduce ranks and orders, then at a later stage it will inevitably have to seek It can be argued that a large bureaucrat does not care what the prevailing forms of property are, as long as they provide him with the necessary income. This reasoning ignores not only the instability of the bureaucrat's rights, but also the question of the fate of posterity. The newest cult of the family did not fall off Privileges are only half the price if they cannot be inherited by children. But the right of will is inseparable from the right of ownership. It is not enough to be a director of a trust, you need to be a shareholder. A victory for the bureaucracy in this crucial area would mean turning it into a new possessing class. "
      (“What is the USSR and where is it going”, 1936) Trotsky.
      1. +1
        24 August 2026 12: 49
        Quote: paul3390
        "Nor can one expect that the bureaucracy will peacefully and voluntarily abandon itself in favor of socialist equality. If now, despite the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has found it possible to introduce ranks and orders, then at a later stage it will inevitably have to seek It can be argued that a large bureaucrat does not care what the prevailing forms of property are, as long as they provide him with the necessary income. This reasoning ignores not only the instability of the bureaucrat's rights, but also the question of the fate of posterity. The newest cult of the family did not fall off Privileges are only half the price if they cannot be inherited by children. But the right of will is inseparable from the right of ownership. It is not enough to be a director of a trust, you need to be a shareholder. A victory for the bureaucracy in this crucial area would mean turning it into a new possessing class. "
        (“What is the USSR and where is it going”, 1936) Trotsky.

        Lev Davidovich, whatever one may say, was a genius and was able to foresee a century ahead
        1. +2
          24 August 2026 18: 50
          Well, actually, almost everyone understood that. Davidych was right, and, alas, that's exactly what happened. But he was asked a reasonable question: what are you proposing? Immediately transfer all power to the workers' councils? Yeah, they'll do the trick, especially in view of the imminent war. Those who can be entrusted with power first need to be educated! Like now: what do you think would happen if the Soviets were declared again? Of course, the same old characters would be there. Who could have taken on industrialization and collectivization, except the bureaucracy at that time? No one. And by the way, Stalin's nomenklatura did manage to accomplish its task.

          Another matter is that after the war, for many reasons, they failed to remove her from power, which led to the collapse of the Union. But that's another story.

          Trotsky always did it this way: he wrote correctly, to the point, but how to put it into practice—who the hell knows? Permanent revolution is a sure thing; experience has shown that it's impossible to live with the bourgeoisie; it's either them or us. But how are we going to achieve this revolution? On a machine gun or something? No—first we need to build a powerful industrial state. And here we return to the first question: Who will command the construction?
        2. 0
          29 August 2026 00: 25
          Yeah, but he just created his own bureaucracy, no better than any other
          1. 0
            29 August 2026 00: 33
            Quote: futurohunter
            Yeah, but he just created his own bureaucracy, no better than any other

            Any leader of a state - good or bad - it doesn't matter!!! - always creates a bureaucracy for himself and his tasks.
            1. 0
              29 August 2026 00: 43
              I'll tell you more: without bureaucracy, there can be no state, nor any company of any size. The only question is its size and effectiveness. And control over it...
      2. +2
        24 August 2026 13: 42
        However, alas and alack!, not a single Soviet bureaucrat was found among the "Seven Bankers," nor even among the "Forbes List." Yes, they may have become shareholders in some institutions, but others skimmed the cream of the Soviet property grab.
        1. 0
          29 August 2026 00: 28
          There were no Soviet bureaucrats, not only among the "seven-bankers"
          I don't know about bankers, but there were plenty of them among the "successful businessmen." And those who were "not old enough" also received a good "pension."
          And in the republics of the USSR, bureaucrats have become local kings, and they pass on power by inheritance.
          1. 0
            29 August 2026 10: 24
            "Successful businessman" is a flexible concept. Naturally, Soviet leaders had the connections and experience to "go into business," but none of them steered, or steers, the current economy, trailing behind Chubais and Deripaska.

            The "local tsars in the Soviet republics" argument is also a dubious generalization: yes, that's true in Central Asia and Azerbaijan, but these weren't the people at the forefront of privatization; they simply took advantage of the collapse, since they already had power. In other Soviet republics, the Soviet bureaucrats had long since been pushed aside by the "sincere."
            1. 0
              30 August 2026 14: 02
              You're forgetting that people don't actually get younger over time. It's just that ruling dynasties have formed in Central Asia and Azerbaijan. Although the "Elbasy" were pushed away from the trough. Elsewhere, more brazen individuals have taken over. But initially, most of them were, if not communists, then Komsomol activists. Incidentally, in the "territory" of 404, before the current drug addict, the entire top brass were local communist elites.
              1. 0
                30 August 2026 17: 54
                Typical misrepresentation: passing off party cardholders as communists. Stauffenberg was a Wehrmacht colonel, but that didn't stop him from planting a bomb under Hitler. This is about 404, and also about Chubais and Putin, who even took an oath to crush the enemies of Soviet power, and now boards up the Mausoleum on Victory Day.
                1. 0
                  30 August 2026 20: 22
                  These weren't just party card holders! They held very high positions and wielded enormous power. And they earned these opportunities by making careers in the CPSU and the Komsomol.
                  Stauffenberg was a committed Nazi and NSDAP member until his death. It was a conspiracy against a specific individual—a Nazi—with the goal of changing the Nazi state's leadership, and nothing more.
                  1. 0
                    31 August 2026 07: 59
                    This is what they tell you, but you don’t want to understand: Putin, Medvedev, Chubais, and Gaidar never had any convictions; they only joined the CPSU for their careers, which is why they hold party membership cards.
                    And this is a problem for any ruling party that is overgrown with "stick-ons".
                    1. 0
                      31 August 2026 12: 10
                      Putin never had any convictions with Medvedev, Chubais or Gaidar
                      This is not true. Medvedev is well known as a liberal.
                      Chubais and Gaidar always looked to the West and did everything on the advice of their Western masters.
                      Putin is a unique figure. A man "without conviction" simply couldn't have joined Soviet intelligence. His personality could be discussed at length; it's been done for me many times already. I can say that he stopped Russia's collapse and began the fight for its sovereignty. Overall, during his years in power, Putin stopped the chaos and strengthened the state and the armed forces. I remember very well what happened before his arrival, and I certainly wouldn't want to go back to those times.
                      There are always careerists, no matter the party or government. In the 40s, for example, there were a lot of physicists... And in the 90s, most "communists" rebranded themselves as "democrats."
                      1. 0
                        31 August 2026 16: 07
                        What were those "liberals" and Western-looking people doing in the CPSU? Were they betraying their convictions?

                        Putin, however, publicly declared that at the end of the USSR, which he was sworn to defend, he began looking for a "backup airfield." So, alas! there were unconvinced officers in the KGB—take, for example, F. Bobkov, who oversaw domestic affairs but quickly found himself in Gusinsky's employ.
                      2. 0
                        31 August 2026 17: 38
                        You want a simple answer? I certainly won't give you one. Maybe I will... I don't have the time or desire to write 200 pages—enough has already been written about this without me.
                        There are no people without convictions—everyone is guided by something. Some simply want power and money. Others want to stay employed. And so on. Only history can provide an objective assessment of our President's performance. We don't know everything, and we haven't been told everything. But it's a fact that he stopped Russia's collapse and ruin and ensured at least some kind of recovery.
                        Gusinsky
                        Who rose to prominence thanks to the support of the Zionist mafia and the Jewish elements of the former Communist Party nomenklatura. As for Bobkov, I don't know; I haven't looked into it.
                        There were a lot of activists back then. Bakatin basically gave everything to the Americans and fled to the US.
                        I read some general's books—I can't remember his name now—who wrote that in the final years of the USSR, the KGB wrote desperate memos to the very top almost every day about the impending catastrophe, but they were simply ignored. They'd already decided everything and given up everything.
                        The betrayal began back in Stalin's entourage, back in the 40s. But it took more than 20 years to break such a strong country...
        2. 0
          29 August 2026 00: 49
          Quote: Boris Sergeev
          However, alas and alack! - not a single Soviet bureaucrat was found not only among the "seven bankers", but also among the "Forbes list". Yes, they may have become shareholders in some establishments, but other people skimmed the cream from the plundering of Soviet property.

          Heydar Aliyev, Shevardnadze, Nazarbayev, Yeltsin - people got themselves states whole.
          Against their background, there are the "seven bankers" - small-time homeless people near garbage bins, nothing more.
          1. 0
            29 August 2026 10: 28
            Your principle, apparently, is "everything counts!" Typical of chronic anti-Sovietists or those who are paid for being anti-Soviet. It's as if you haven't heard Deripaska, who said that the president is simply a manager, and they are the ones making the decisions.
            1. 0
              29 August 2026 11: 27
              Quote: Boris Sergeev
              It seems like you didn't hear Deripaska when he said that the president is just a manager and they decide.

              Do you take seriously people who say pompous things to raise their own value?
            2. 0
              29 August 2026 11: 34
              And I will continue
              Where is the BAB who opens doors with his foot?
              Where are the Seven Bankers robbing the Russian budget? They're sitting overseas and quietly whining...
              A bunch of oligarchs have been excommunicated from the tit - the Russian budget, and are also starting to squeal abroad.

              And yes, you can change the manager in 10 minutes - but they don't seem to be able to do that.
              1. 0
                29 August 2026 13: 09
                How do you know what the "seven bankers" are up to? It's the fifth year of the war, and the number of billionaires is growing, so it's hardly worth mentioning "excommunication."

                And if you're suggesting we ignore Deripaska's words about taking government members on a yacht with "Nastya the Fish," then what's the point of listening to you?
                1. 0
                  29 August 2026 15: 09
                  Quote: Boris Sergeev
                  How do you know what the "seven bankers" are up to!

                  Potanin is the only member of the "Seven Bankers" in Russia who is under sanctions. The others aren't here, and they aren't under sanctions—they're automatically excluded from the budget.


                  Quote: Boris Sergeev
                  And if you're suggesting we ignore Deripaska's words about taking government members on a yacht with "Nastya the Fish," then what's the point of listening to you?

                  All oligarchs with access to the budget were subject to sanctions and lost access to accounts and real estate.
                  Weren't they punished too harshly for the actions of "their manager"?
                  If they were in power, we would have peace in 2022-2023.
                  And you understand perfectly well that the population would limit itself to grumbling, nothing more...
                  1. 0
                    29 August 2026 15: 29
                    I'm not answering you - it's useless for you - but rather those who read VO:

                    Friedman's condition

                    2021 - 15,5 billion
                    2024 $13,1 billion

                    Aven
                    2021- 5.3
                    2024- 4,3

                    Deripaska

                    2021- 3,8
                    2024- 2,8

                    Michelson

                    2021-24,9
                    2024- 27,4
                    Clearly, the "sanctions" haven't reduced any of the oligarchs to dust, even if they did lose something. Mikhelson, the "budget" businessman (Transneft), actually gained 3 billion. Aven's son works for Palantir (ever heard of that?)—apparently he's taking revenge for his father.
                    1. 0
                      29 August 2026 15: 43
                      Quote: Boris Sergeev
                      I'm not answering you - it's useless for you - but rather those who read VO:

                      Friedman's condition

                      2021 - 15,5 billion
                      2024 $13,1 billion

                      Aven
                      2021- 5.3
                      2024- 4,3

                      Deripaska

                      2021- 3,8
                      2024- 2,8

                      Michelson

                      2021-24,9
                      2024- 27,4
                      Clearly, the "sanctions" haven't reduced any of the oligarchs to dust, even if they did lose something. Mikhelson, the "budget" businessman (Transneft), actually gained 3 billion. Aven's son works for Palantir (ever heard of that?)—apparently he's taking revenge for his father.

                      Slowly - the conversation went on NOT about increasing the money, access to the budget, and the removal of the "manager"
                      The "manager" could have been removed by people who control the Russian budget and 67% of the Russian economy.
                      Now the Seven Bankers are ordinary billionaires from whom sanctions have been lifted из-за lack of connections with the Russian Federation and Putin.
                      Under capitalism, billionaires periodically get rich and go bankrupt - in the Seven Bankers, 2 practically went bankrupt.
                      I repeat
                      Quote: your1970
                      If they were in power, we would have peace in 2022-2023.
                      And you understand perfectly well that the population would limit itself to grumbling, nothing more...
                      1. 0
                        29 August 2026 16: 05
                        Stop repeating yourself! The question is posed in such a way that all these "oil and gas supply intermediaries" could lose everything and end up on the street. Energy exports to the West are ensured by a framework called the "Russian Federation"—without this framework, they won't exist. The management of the "SVO"—the bridges across the Dnieper, for example—and the fact that we still have the "SVO," which no one will give a legal definition to, suggests that the "manager" is forced to heed the wishes of the RSPP, whose events he regularly attends.
                      2. 0
                        29 August 2026 23: 04
                        Quote: Boris Sergeev
                        The "SVO" is conducting - standing bridges across the Dnieper, for example-

                        Tricky question: who owns the free bridges in Ukraine and Russia? The answer is no one; they have no owners.
                        For any oligarch, destroyed bridges are significantly more profitable than intact ones – a huge amount of budget money will go towards their restoration.
                        Therefore, the slogan "Bridges are built because of the oligarchs" is far-fetched.

                        Quote: Boris Sergeev
                        the fact that we still have "SVO", which no one will give a legislative definition

                        Have you read the law on martial law? It's there. total censorship provided.
                        Which can be achieved only complete shutdown of cellular Internet and cellular communications.
                        Are you mentally prepared for this?
                        Or did you think that during WWII they confiscated radios for fun?
                        And yes, Iran simply shot everyone who barked against the government like dogs.
                        Are you ready for the fact that no one will sort it out?
                      3. 0
                        31 August 2026 12: 01
                        A naive way of putting the question: bridges are needed by those who transport goods across them, in particular by American companies that have seized Ukraine.
                        TG Stalingrad:
                        For example, before the war, there were 28 capital bridges and dams with roadways across the Dnieper.
                        All these bridges were supposed to be destroyed back in 2022. This would have immediately led to the defeat of the entire Banderite group fighting the Russian Armed Forces on the left bank of the Dnieper. This would represent 90% of the enemy's personnel. After the bridges were destroyed, their supplies would simply run out, and command and control would be completely disorganized. Instead, tens of thousands of Geraniums, Iskanders, Parcels, and other types of UAVs and missiles are flying anywhere but the bridges. This situation alone provides grounds for allegations of a staged military operation.


                        And there is no need to scare people with total censorship; martial law is not being introduced because mortgage payments are being suspended.
                      4. 0
                        31 August 2026 13: 18
                        Quote: Boris Sergeev
                        martial law is not introduced because mortgage payments are suspended

                        And the law clearly states, "When martial law is introduced, mortgages will not be repaid"???!!! belay
                        I need to reread it - maybe I forgot something?....
                        So the loans will be repaid - at most, there will be a separate suspension for military personnel.
                        But censorship is prescribed by law.
    5. ANB
      0
      24 August 2026 19: 03
      People made up jokes

      Capitalism, socialism, communism, queue and sausage.
      1. +3
        25 August 2026 10: 48
        Capitalism, queues and gasoline
        1. ANB
          0
          25 August 2026 10: 57
          This is already today's topic.
  4. +4
    24 August 2026 05: 22
    When discussing this topic, authors tend to go into detail and fail to come to the overall picture.
    In essence, the entire post-Stalin leadership actively and deliberately abandoned the USSR. This is somehow difficult to accept, but any revolution involves both ideologically motivated people and those who want to take the place of the previous princes/tsars. And it was the same with us. Our ideologically motivated people created the most powerful Soviet Union, but they almost physically disappeared during WWII and the post-war reconstruction.
    The first generations of post-Stalin leaders desperately wanted to join the "global elite" and surrendered the country little by little, one step back, one step forward. Later generations dreamed of changing Russia's political system so that they could legally own and transfer the spoils. They surrendered the Union in a big way, but pretended to be patriots. And in the end, they raised a generation of Russophobic managers whose rise was in the West.
    The most important thing is that this ruling corps, in many ways, continues to govern Russia. For some reason, very few people understand this basic thing... No one stops the military from fighting; half of them are fighting for Russia, and the other half are fighting for Russia. Expensive missiles aren't being sent to the dumps out of stupidity: some are simply carrying out orders from the government, while others are carrying out orders from the US embassies.
    1. +2
      24 August 2026 07: 47
      Quote: codetalker
      The first generations of post-Stalin leaders were eager to join the “global elite” and gradually gave up the country,

      It seems to me that it was precisely the first post-Stalin leaders who did not strive to join any global elite.
      They simply didn’t have time for it - there was a real animal fear for their lives and power.
      And, for the sake of preserving their power, real madness began - the very perpetrators of the repressions and executions began to kick and poison the dead Stalin.
      As a result, the world communist movement died out, and then convulsions began - Soviet, Chinese, Albanian, Romanian, Yugoslav.
    2. +2
      24 August 2026 08: 00
      The political forecast is of an alternative nature: either the bureaucracy, increasingly becoming an organ of the world bourgeoisie in a workers' state, will overthrow the new forms of property and throw the country back to capitalism, or the working class will defeat the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism. Trotsky
    3. -2
      24 August 2026 08: 30
      Lord... how tired I am of this nonsense about gradual betrayal and the surrender of interests... Do you really believe that in the USSR, where there were constant behind-the-scenes games and where every high-ranking party member tried to "devour" his comrade, someone was plotting a slow seizure and transfer of power? Remember Khrushchev and how he was removed—he actually came to Moscow from vacation to give a dressing-down for taking time off, but he left the meeting without a position and, essentially, a nobody. The article correctly points out that the USSR couldn't feed itself without foreign currency injections; it also lagged technologically in many industries, and Afghanistan and the Warsaw Pact drained enormous resources. Therefore, there was no conspiracy to "plunder and appropriate the national economy," because the members of the Central Committee simply couldn't imagine what it was like to be "owners of factories and ships," since they were already de facto owners! Any whim was fulfilled, even without property rights! The Union had been in a permanent crisis since its inception, but before Gorbachev (and even slightly earlier), it had managed to patch this crisis with improvised means. But when the size of the "patch" became critical, and the oil crisis ceased to be a lifesaver, everything began to crumble. The problem was that Gorbachev had tried to ride the wave of populism but failed. He had opened "Pandora's box" by allowing criticism of the government with his glasnost, but he had failed to close it. By the time he tried to close it, it was too late; the flood of criticism had washed up on Olympus with Yeltsins of all kinds, who had simply done what the party had essentially taught its new recruits—devoured their neighbor for power and a higher position. And no damned Western spies were needed; the spiders in the jar had done the job perfectly well.
      Look at Soviet films, there are plenty of examples of the reality of that time, and no one hid it, everyone understood everything perfectly well and took it calmly.
      1. +2
        24 August 2026 12: 36
        Quote: parma
        Look at Soviet films, there are plenty of examples of the reality of that time, and no one hid it, everyone understood everything perfectly well and took it calmly.

        The 1956 film "Different Fates" is very revealing...
    4. +4
      24 August 2026 09: 56
      Quote: codetalker
      The most important thing is that this governing body, in many ways, continues to govern Russia. For some reason, very few people understand this basic fact…

      During the period 1985-1995, the "Z" group, under the general control of the Rothschilds,
      a huge number of USSR assets in the form of
      money supply, gold, platinum, palladium, hundreds of millions of tons of oil,
      diamonds and other material assets.
    5. 0
      29 August 2026 00: 29
      Finally, some common sense and cause and effect...
  5. +3
    24 August 2026 05: 36
    Good material, I'm waiting for the continuation.
  6. -1
    24 August 2026 05: 36
    The marked man's wife was a British agent of influence. She advised her husband on what to do.
    1. 0
      29 August 2026 00: 31
      Marked One himself was an agent... The Americans paid him a huge pension until his death.
  7. +3
    24 August 2026 06: 20
    The new "fiery revolutionaries" who were stopped at the time by Stalin and his team,
    The only thing that matters in this phrase is this: "HIS TEAM." His team was at the very top of the state apparatus in 1956. Others simply didn't make it. And this "team" of his unanimously supported N.S. Khushchev when he delivered his report at the 20th Congress. Not a single marshal, admiral, or aircraft designer stood up and said, "Nikita, you're wrong!" Stalin had chosen a good team for himself... Reliable... Loyal...
    1. +9
      24 August 2026 06: 30
      You probably haven't heard anything about the "anti-party group," and Khrushchev was hanging by a thread at the time. He was saved by the naive G.K. Zhukov, whom Khrushchev would dismiss a year later ("The Moor has done his job").
      1. -1
        24 August 2026 12: 58
        Quote: Boris Sergeev
        Saved him NAIVE lol lol lol lol G.K. Zhukov
        A naive commander is like a ballerina without legs. Naive people in the army are dismissed at the senior lieutenant level.
        There were such raging underhanded games there - wow...
        Before 1934, there were three groups in the cavalry, and it was practically impossible for one commander to serve in another - the "first cavalrymen" erased the "reds", etc.
        This is discussed at a meeting with Stalin and he says that “Yes, he knows about this and about the difficulties of serving as commanders in another group.”
        And you are "naive".....
        1. +4
          24 August 2026 14: 11
          In June 1957, organizing the transportation of Central Committee members by military planes to help Khrushchev, only to lose all his posts and be expelled from the Central Committee in October 1957 under accusations of "Bonapartism" - does this speak of profound political wisdom?
          1. -1
            24 August 2026 14: 15
            Quote: Boris Sergeev
            In June 1957, organizing the transportation of Central Committee members by military planes to help Khrushchev, only to lose all his posts and be expelled from the Central Committee in October 1957 under accusations of "Bonapartism" - does this speak of profound political wisdom?

            And no one is immune from diarrhea...
            A victory under the carpet today doesn't mean a victory there tomorrow. Or in a month...
    2. +4
      24 August 2026 06: 56
      Quote: kalibr
      And this “team” of his unanimously supported N.S. Khushchev when he delivered his report at the 20th Congress

      Absolutely right!.. This is where the beginning was - the recognition of the dollar, the destruction of the artels and the "consolidation" of collective farms, monetary reform with the emergence of party distributors and packages - the foundation of the future collapse
      1. +3
        24 August 2026 08: 17
        Quote: Rodez
        the foundation of future collapse

        The film "Seventeen Moments" puts it very well. "You get tired of fanaticism." So our elite was tired of the fanaticism of building a new world. They wanted to be free of the fear of the "black raven," they wanted... lots of women and cars... they wanted... after all, 80% of them were peasants, raised by yesterday's slaves, or at best, the day before yesterday's. Hence all this... "We've had enough of heroism!" that's what every silent member of the "team" thought at Congress Number 20.
    3. +2
      24 August 2026 10: 03
      Quote: kalibr
      And this "team" of his unanimously supported N.S. Khushchev when he delivered his report at the 20th Congress. Not a single marshal, admiral, or aircraft designer stood up and said, "Nikita, you're wrong!" Stalin had assembled a good team... Reliable... Loyal...

      And after that, Khrushchev "threw this team overboard", recruiting his own team, which also betrayed Khrushchev.
      1. +1
        24 August 2026 10: 09
        Quote: carpenter
        And after that, Khrushchev "threw this team overboard", recruiting his own team, which also betrayed Khrushchev.

        Exactly. People saw that it could be done. And if it could be done, then why not do it? "Personal peace," said A. Raikin, "comes first!"
  8. +4
    24 August 2026 06: 34
    Quote: Boris Sergeev
    You probably haven't heard of the "anti-party group," and Khrushchev was hanging by a thread. He was saved by the naive G.K. Zhukov, whom Khrushchev would dismiss a year later.

    You're a terrible fortune teller. I taught CPSU history for almost ten years and defended my thesis on it. But what does HE HANGING BY A THREAD, what does it have to do with it? What does "Zhukov saved him" have to do with it? What does this have to do with it? Think before you write... Was it Zhukov who silenced everyone at the congress? Shut everyone's mouths and kept silent himself? Created a "team of silent types." And Khrushchev was "hanging by a thread," yet he said everything he wanted!
    1. +6
      24 August 2026 06: 53
      Have you heard much criticism at United Russia congresses? The organizers select the delegates to the congress.

      A. Fadeev, shot himself after the 20th Congress, in
      "In his suicide note, he directly accused the "self-confident and ignorant leadership of the party" of destroying Soviet culture and art, to which he gave his life."
      And more:
      https://vatnikstan.ru/history/xx_syezd_dnevniki/
      1. 0
        24 August 2026 08: 12
        Quote: Boris Sergeev
        Have you heard much criticism at United Russia congresses? The organizers select the delegates to the congress.

        A. Fadeev, shot himself after the 20th Congress, in
        "In his suicide note, he directly accused the "self-confident and ignorant leadership of the party" of destroying Soviet culture and art, to which he gave his life."
        And more:

        Boris! Enough with this nonsense. Fadeyev shot himself... oh, the poor thing. But he kept quiet at the congress...
        Quote: Boris Sergeev
        The organizers select delegates to the congress.

        So, Zhukov, Yakovlev... and many other "selected" people weren't there, right? From the "team." Don't try to "wash a dog's black coat white!"
        1. +5
          24 August 2026 08: 41
          Did you really teach CPSU history for ten years? Where would Fadeyev, Zhukov, and Yakovlev have spoken if there was no debate on the report? They weren't even allowed to ask questions.
          1. +1
            24 August 2026 09: 29
            Quote: Boris Sergeev
            Where would Fadeev, Zhukov and Yakovlev have spoken if no debate on the report had taken place?

            They should have just gone up to the podium and said it. Do you think anyone would have dared to stop the Marshal of Victory? What kind of debate is this? People went on the offensive against the Germans during the war. And here they were so timid as to show a little willpower?
            Quote: Boris Sergeev
            Did you really teach the history of the CPSU for 10 years?

            Did you know that people don't lie on the Internet?
  9. 0
    24 August 2026 06: 53
    The West has truly succeeded in developing social sciences such as sociology and psychology. In the USSR, everything was tied to the dogmas of Marxism-Leninism. Faith in these dogmas and Slavic brotherhood precluded a bloody conflict between Little Russians and Great Russians. Many social processes and the power of propaganda were ignored. In modern Russia, the power of the gas pipeline was overly reliant, and they paid the price.
    1. +3
      24 August 2026 07: 16
      It's unlikely that those who line their pockets with the gas pipeline have much faith in its power. It's business and nothing to do with society.
      1. +1
        24 August 2026 07: 46
        Some people simply thought that this gas grace would last forever, but a little bit of good stuff.
  10. +6
    24 August 2026 06: 58
    the population of the Red Empire. People who alreadyThey have long been hooked on alcohol and tobacco, found themselves in conditions of drug shortage. Naturally, when the processes of the open collapse of the Soviet Union began, demoralized crowds in state of withdrawal syndrome (withdrawal syndrome is a severe physical and mental condition that occurs in people with addiction when they suddenly stop drinking alcoholI, drugs, etc.) became easily led by the promises of various kinds of liberal democrats, Westerners, “perestroika” supporters and nationalist separatists.

    The population of the USSR grew by 30% from 1940 to 1985, and wine production increased by 1000%. According to the author, this had to be continued for "success and happiness." Drunk means happy?

    Many generations of people who knew the truth have already passed away or become old, unable to resist this wave of vilification. Bukharin was made into a hero.
    Lenin:
    Bukharin is my son
    And where is the truth, as the elders know it? Yezhov, Yagoda, Beria, and the like—are they heroes of the country, as the Pravda "truths" wrote, or enemies of the people, as those same Pravdas wrote? belay request

    currency from which supplies of imported food depended on

    and this is the country with the largest arable land in the world.

    And who destroyed the country?
    1. +9
      24 August 2026 08: 11
      and this is the country with the largest arable land in the world.

      In the RSFSR - record harvest in 1978 - 127,4 million tons and 1973 - 121,5 tons
      In the Russian Federation - 2017 - 135,5 million tons; 2020 - 133,5 million tons;

      As we can see, grain harvesting hasn't changed much under capitalism, has it? And if we take into account the obvious warming of the climate over the past 40 years, new grain varieties, and overall advances in agricultural technology, we get a curious picture.
      Meanwhile, the USSR was buying grain, while the Russian Federation is actively selling it. What's the catch? Can you figure it out yourself, or should I tell you? Although, explaining anything to a staunch anti-Soviet is pointless.

      And by the way, does today's bourgeois Russian Federation buy no food at all? Not a single gram? What about seeds? What about agricultural machinery? Anything else?
      1. +1
        24 August 2026 08: 24
        Quote: paul3390
        Other?

        Dear Pavel! I really appreciate your comments. They're usually always reasonable and well-informed. Evidence-based. But there's one "but." The RSFSR in the USSR was a cash cow for everyone else, ensuring their well-being and loyalty to the ideas of the brotherhood of all great and mighty nations. Roughly speaking, it bought them like... So there wasn't enough for all the record harvests. And now... things are not quite like that. So, overall, we have a much better grain situation than we did back then. We even have enough for bananas... to fill our bellies, not 1 kg per hand, as was the case in those years.
        1. +8
          24 August 2026 08: 37
          You're not taking into account that the figures are only for the RSFSR. But in the Soviet Union, there were also, say, the Ukrainian SSR and Kazakhstan...
          Grain isn't just bread. A significant portion is feed grain, used for livestock feed. Incidentally, it wasn't allowed to be used in bread during the Soviet era. Now, it is. Thanks to all sorts of chemical additives.
          So, the USSR primarily purchased durum wheat, not considering it feasible to supply its citizens with crappy bread. Then there were pasta products, which required specific varieties. And we're still not exactly great with those varieties. We buy those, too. But most importantly, a significant portion of the harvest went directly to livestock farming. And here, the ill-wishers would have been justified in citing data on domestic meat production in the RSFSR and the Russian Federation... specifically beef. But—as always, silence.

          Because otherwise—a reasonable question arises: how can this be? Harvests are comparable, but now they're selling grain and there's plenty of meat on the shelves, while the USSR bought grain and there was a shortage of meat? Where does all this food come from these days? The answer is simple: we're essentially trading grain, oil, and gas for meat. Instead of raising livestock ourselves. That's all.
          1. -1
            24 August 2026 09: 23
            Quote: paul3390
            And the answer is simple - we are essentially exchanging grain, oil and gas for meat.

            But the goal is one – to satisfy needs. Was that the slogan back then? Yes, it was! And what about satisfaction... for some reason, there was a problem with that. Now there's no such slogan. But satisfaction is...
            1. +5
              24 August 2026 10: 04
              Well, yes. A well-known liberal thesis. However, this begs the question of the primacy of needs. What's more important: 100 varieties of sausage, pants of every color, and trips abroad—or housing, education, healthcare, street safety, and, most importantly, the certainty that the future will be a formidable improvement over the present? What do you think?
              1. +1
                24 August 2026 10: 07
                Quote: paul3390
                What do you think?

                I think "confidence" is precisely that quality that's partly harmful. We had "Confidence" and how did it end? In complete uncertainty! So everything should be... in moderation. Both confidence and uncertainty! For example, I was completely confident that I could get along just fine even in the middle of the Sahara with the Tuaregs. And... that's exactly what happened.
                1. +6
                  24 August 2026 10: 10
                  Poor Tuaregs!! laughing

                  I agree – one of the Soviet regime's mistakes was allowing us to become too complacent. We basically knew nothing about capitalism and firmly believed in the rationality of humanity. Which played a fatal role.
                  1. -1
                    24 August 2026 10: 12
                    Quote: paul3390
                    I agree – one of the Soviet regime's mistakes was allowing us to become too complacent. We basically knew nothing about capitalism and firmly believed in the rationality of humanity. Which played a fatal role.

                    How well you wrote, Pavel! Although it wasn't just this that played a fatal role, but also something you wrote about in a comment to me quite a while ago.
          2. ANB
            +1
            24 August 2026 19: 14
            .raise livestock ourselves

            We have almost no imported meat available in the Moscow region.
            Except maybe elite steaks, but I don’t buy them.
        2. +2
          24 August 2026 08: 53
          Read the expert's opinion on "Food Production and Consumption in the RSFSR and the Russian Federation 1950-2016."
          [https://riskprom.ru/publ/43-1-0-393].
          Not an archive, of course, but still.
          According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in the mid-1980s the USSR was among the top ten countries in the world with the best nutrition[1].

          This is from the article I gave you a link to.
        3. +3
          24 August 2026 09: 02
          Speaking of cash cows, okay, the USSR had 15 republics; we could go on and on about who fed whom. But there's no USSR, and there's not even an equivalent of the RSFSR, yet yesterday they were bragging on TV about how all of Russia supports Chechnya, even Dagestan, which is subsidized. And the new nationalities policy—in the USSR, with 48% of the population being ethnic Russian—the entire Union was Russian; let's agree not to count the remote villages. Now, out of nowhere, they're starting to cultivate Islam and republican nationalism...
      2. 0
        24 August 2026 11: 49
        In the RSFSR - record harvest in 1978 - 127,4 million tons and 1973 - 121,5 tons
        In the Russian Federation - 2017 - 135,5 million tons; 2020 - 133,5 million tons;

        Comparing these data, do you admit that in 2017, agricultural life was similar to the best years of the USSR?
        I don't understand, is this criticism or a compliment?
      3. -3
        25 August 2026 07: 29
        Quote: paul3390
        A record harvest in the RSFSR in 1978

        Across the RSFSR and beyond, a third of the harvest was lost under the snow, in the mud of roads, and to rot—this was the normal rate of losses from Stalin until the end—nobody cared about anything.

        Zhuravlev V.V. (ed.). On the Threshold of Crisis. Growing Stagnation in the Party and Society. Moscow: Politizdat, 1990
        "Grain losses amount to 20%, potatoes – 40%, vegetables – 1/3 of what we produce. With a severe shortage of meat products, meat losses amount to 1 million tons."
        .

        It's hard to imagine something like this in Russia.

        Quote: paul3390
        grain for fodder, for livestock feed.

        Only the Tebils feed mainly on grain instead of hay (it was lost under the snow, millions of hectares were abandoned), roughage and feed.

        Brezhnev-
        we overspending of 30 million tons of grain annually

        "The owners" you were "noble, yes...." lol
    2. +2
      24 August 2026 08: 25
      Drunk means happy?

      This is a complex issue. For example, here's a chart. It doesn't take into account personal alcohol production, specifically moonshine, which has seen a significant increase in recent years. Again, I highly doubt they include all the canned alcohol substitutes, like gin and tonics and other such junk.
      1. +3
        24 August 2026 10: 05
        Quote: paul3390
        Drunk means happy?

        This is a complex issue. For example, here's a chart. It doesn't take into account personal alcohol production, specifically moonshine, which has seen a significant increase in recent years. Again, I highly doubt they include all the canned alcohol substitutes, like gin and tonics and other such junk.

        Pavel! Again, personal memories: Penza, 1963. The "Strela" store had just opened. Across the street was a sobering-up station. And one of our boyish pastimes was watching how they loaded drunks in there. Especially on holidays and after payday... And they sang, "15 men on a dead man's chest and a bottle of rum - ha-ha-a." And on my Proletarskaya street they would walk... and fall down by the front gardens, one "daddy" would come to my friends' place. My mother used to scare me: "While you'll be celebrating your payday, if you go to the factory, you'll fall down by the fence and I'll tear you from my heart..." It really scared me, I've already written about it, but mostly because I saw exactly those kinds of people... and a lot of them. Now I see five tipsy men on our street, too, all the time. But I don't care about the situation... I see how much vodka people buy at the Magnit store... Much less than before...
        1. +4
          24 August 2026 10: 08
          I still have plenty of bruises like that around my house! I have to admit, the drinking has really gotten better in recent years. I mean, in recent years. But the question is, are people really drinking less, or have they simply moved to drinking establishments and slacking off at home?
          1. +2
            24 August 2026 11: 45
            simply moved to drinking establishments
            Lately, drinking establishments in St. Petersburg haven't been doing so well either. Remember the "50 square meter" law?
          2. 0
            25 August 2026 11: 52
            Quote: paul3390
            or did he just move to drinking establishments and go home and get high?

            Just going from house to house and drinking moonshine... My street has been almost entirely "horned" on Fridays for the last couple of years... 5 years ago, this didn't happen... well, or maybe they just met each other)))
    3. +3
      24 August 2026 10: 31
      Quote: Olgovich
      And who destroyed the country?

      They, all of them!
  11. +1
    24 August 2026 07: 34
    Stop telling us how it was, tell us when they'll remove the memorial plaques, close the museums, deprive people of their private dachas and federal pensions, and simply jail all these traitors.
    1. +2
      24 August 2026 08: 20
      Quote: Plowman
      Stop telling us how it was, tell us when they'll remove the memorial plaques, close the museums, deprive people of their private dachas and federal pensions, and simply jail all these traitors.

      Want a one-word answer: NEVER! Think about it for yourself...
      1. +2
        24 August 2026 08: 37
        Want an answer in one word: NEVER!
        Mr. Shpakovsky, please be consistent:
        Never say NEVER! A commandment of smart people!
        wink laughing
        1. +2
          24 August 2026 09: 26
          Quote: Gomunkul
          Mr. Shpakovsky, please be consistent:

          It's good you reminded me. But why "monsieur"? I'm not French... It just goes to show that nothing human is alien to me. Including mistakes...
  12. 0
    24 August 2026 08: 33
    When Gorbachev took over the USSR, the US rulers, with the help of the Saudis, launched a powerful economic attack – oil prices plummeted (“Oil War”).

    "On the stake, start over." Children's proverb
  13. +2
    24 August 2026 08: 43
    At the same time, Gorbachev's team destroyed the country's domestic source of revenue—the wine monopoly. The anti-alcohol campaign, which outwardly appeared noble and sensible, actually hit the USSR's finances.

    Well, yes, the USSR, which produced 20% of the world's industrial output, was based solely on oil and a wine monopoly...
    The author has a complete lack of logic.
  14. +3
    24 August 2026 08: 45
    and for some reason, “perestroika” quickly developed first into socio-economic and political chaos, and then into the open collapse of the Union.

    If gradual, then the author hasn't properly researched the history of the process. Gorbachev took the bull by the horns right off the bat...
  15. +4
    24 August 2026 08: 59
    Was Gorbachev alone? And when, in '91, the entire country's leadership gathered, afraid to crush just Yeltsin? It was a general crisis, with opportunists taking over the country's leadership rather than talented people. And how many security officials came out on December 1, '91, when the Union was destroyed.
    1. -1
      24 August 2026 10: 14
      Was Gorbachev alone? And when, in '91, the entire country's leadership gathered, afraid to crush just Yeltsin? It was a general crisis, with the country's leadership being taken over by opportunists rather than talented people.

      Before you write something like that, familiarize yourself with Gorbachev's personnel policy. Incidentally, I could also respond to those who bring up Trotsky and his bureaucracy:
      The beginning of the perestroika policy was the radical transformation of the personnel of state authorities by M. Gorbachev.
      Personnel Revolution
      The personnel purge affected primarily political figures who obstructed the implementation of social and economic reforms and who did not support the Secretary General in initiating friendly negotiations with the capitalist West.
      Between 1985 and 1987, more than 80% of the Communist Party's regional committee leaders were dismissed. Half of the ministers lost their government positions. At the 1989 Central Committee Plenum alone, 110 of the 460 members of the CPSU Central Committee were dismissed.
      Under the slogan of combating the old conservatism, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, V. Shcherbitsky, and the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, D. Kunayev, were removed from their leadership positions. Within a short time, all key positions in the party and state were occupied by Gorbachev's appointees.


      After which the posts showed footage like this:
      Диссидент, антикоммунист, клеветник на советскую власть - Рой Медведев [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87?ysclid=mojo7c8oqn644247112]
      Under Gorbachev he was a member of the CPSU Central Committee (!!!!!!!!!!!) and a deputy
      [https://studfile.net/preview/4414704/]
    2. The comment was deleted.
  16. +3
    24 August 2026 09: 33
    Quote: October
    In the mid-1980s, the USSR was among the top ten countries in the world with the best nutrition.

    Judging by how my family ate after 80, I wouldn't say so. And why did they adopt the Food Program in 1982? And if we had the best nutrition back then, then...is it the same now, the worst, or something? And, by the way, yes, our nutrition today is bad, but for people who aren't particularly smart, and for others, it's very bad. So, not everything is so simple, even according to UN statistics.
    1. +1
      24 August 2026 10: 08
      Why then did they adopt the Food Program in 1982?

      There's no logic to your words. Just because he was good doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for better.
      And, by the way, yes, we have a bad type today, but for not very smart people, and for others - very bad.

      Especially if you have a couple of billions in your pocket. In other words, good nutrition is not for the masses right now.
      1. +5
        24 August 2026 10: 11
        Quote: October
        Especially if you have a couple of billions in your pocket. In other words, good nutrition is not for the masses right now.

        A typical, not very high pension, plus a little extra income from books and articles. Not billions or millions. Just a head on my shoulders.
    2. +3
      24 August 2026 12: 20
      In the USSR, food shortages were enormous. You had to go to the market for chilled meat, and it cost 8-10 rubles per kilogram, with a monthly salary of 170 rubles. So, with the average Soviet salary, you could buy 17-20 kg of decent meat. In today's Russia, that's over 100 kg, well, except for beef tenderloin. Meat is plentiful everywhere, of all kinds. And what about those famous sausage trains? In regional centers, there was no sausage for sale—you had to go to Moscow to buy it, creating long lines. Dairy! Soviet people didn't even know yogurt existed. Fruit options included apples, tangerines, a few grapes and cherries. And watermelons two months a year. It was a meager, poor selection of low quality. But now it's so fashionable to praise the USSR and denigrate today.
      1. +1
        24 August 2026 12: 24
        Quote: Glagol1
        The Soviet people did not even know that yogurt existed.

        My wife and I bought a set of postcards featuring cuisines around the world, sometime around 1976. They had photos and recipes for Bulgarian dishes, and it said, "Add yogurt." That's what we called it, with the stress on the "y." We had no idea what it was! Now we have a yogurt maker at home, and we make our own yogurt (excellent) from the starter we get on AliExpress.
        1. +3
          24 August 2026 16: 17
          There were photos and recipes. Bulgarian cuisine and it was written - "add yogurt"".

          For Bulgarians, yogurt has always been almost a swear word - they have it everywhere: "kiselo mlyako"...
        2. 0
          26 August 2026 02: 08
          Yogurt is the same as matsoni, matsun, and katyk. It's a common drink in Tatarstan, Bashkiria, Chuvashia, Mari El, the North Caucasus, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, including in the USSR. It's easy to make from milk if you "have a head on your shoulders," as you put it.
          You could find out about all this in culinary postcards
          1. -1
            26 August 2026 05: 50
            Quote: Sergey Mitinsky
            You could find out about all this in culinary postcards

            So we found out. But we never tried it. We also knew from school that Paris and Vienna existed. But we only visited them in 2017.
            1. 0
              26 August 2026 06: 16
              It's great that you visited Paris. The collapse of the USSR was worth it for you.
              But was it worth it for millions of Ukrainians and Russians and for billions of people on the planet if this collapse is the root cause of the most brutal current war and the upcoming 3rd world war?
              May all who were involved in this collapse and those who danced and continue to dance on the bones of a vanished great country be cursed.
              I hope they get rewarded for everything.
              1. -1
                26 August 2026 17: 14
                Quote: Sergey Mitinsky
                May all who were involved in this collapse be damned.

                You curse all citizens of the USSR, Sergei, right?
                1. 0
                  31 August 2026 12: 16
                  Well, not everyone... Personally, I voted against the collapse of the USSR in the referendum... And I wasn't the only one...
      2. +3
        24 August 2026 12: 25
        Quote: Glagol1
        But now it is so fashionable to praise the USSR and belittle today.

        It's not fashionable. It's just that 80% of the population has a short memory. All the bad stuff is forgotten, and only the good remains. Alas, that can't be changed!
        1. +1
          24 August 2026 12: 58
          You are probably right, this is a property of memory, especially for Russian people.
      3. +2
        24 August 2026 13: 34
        In today's Russia it is more than 100 kg,

        A blatant lie. Open [https://riskprom.ru/publ/43-1-0-393] and look at the table.
        Russia only reached the level of the USSR in the 2010s, and that's only in terms of meat. However, if we look at consumption based on income, it hasn't even reached the Soviet level.
        For chilled meat you had to go to the market and it was 8-10 rubles per kg

        Name where and when this happened.
        In the USSR there were huge problems with feeding the population.

        And they were solved.
        You, sir, are a liar and anti-Soviet.
      4. -2
        24 August 2026 13: 47
        Quote: Glagol1
        For chilled meat you had to go to the market and it cost 8-10 rubles.

        Moose meat probably sold for those prices. Pork was 3-4 rubles. Prices dropped, especially in the fall and winter, when private owners slaughtered large numbers of animals. Today, I can buy 3-4 kg of meat once a month, mostly pork. I don't have enough money for more.
        1. +1
          24 August 2026 16: 19
          Especially in the autumn-winter periodDuring the mass slaughter, prices for it dropped among private owners.

          Half a carcass was bought, then stewed and you could always open a can...
        2. +1
          24 August 2026 16: 22
          Quote: Prometey
          Today, I can buy myself 3-4 kg of meat once a month, mostly pork. Because I don't have enough money for more.

          I'm a pensioner and I don't like pork. I like beef tongue, but I can't eat more than 3-4 kg a month. wink
      5. +1
        24 August 2026 13: 49
        Quote: Glagol1
        In the USSR, there were huge problems with feeding the population. For chilled meat, you had to go to the market, and it cost 8-10 rubles per kilogram, when the average salary was 170 rubles.

        Write about fish. Why was fish available to everyone in Soviet times? Now it's more expensive than meat.
        1. +2
          24 August 2026 16: 21
          Why was fish available to everyone during Soviet times?

          In the spring, during the spawning season, they bought smelt - they always sold it in buckets: they dried it and it lasted the whole year...
        2. -2
          24 August 2026 20: 46
          Quote: Prometey
          Why was fish available to everyone during Soviet times?

          Depends on which one!
      6. +1
        25 August 2026 00: 56
        Quote: Glagol1
        But now it is so fashionable to praise the USSR and belittle today.

        And it's not just him; right now, against the backdrop of the current system's crisis, we've seen extremes on all fronts. There are the monarchists, who see the Russian Empire as heaven on earth, and the communists, who see the USSR as a wonderful place where there were no problems other than spies and enemies of the people (a very dangerous logic, by the way), and the liberals, who see a liberal end to history and all that, and all of them are completely incapable of accepting criticism of their idols. There's simply no discussion, no compromises, only binary logic, only "if you're not with us in absolutely everything, you're against us" (by the way, I was just thinking that politics and the people within it are the best argument against communism. I just can't believe for the life of me that anything social and altruistic can be built with people who are practically incapable of self-criticism or compromise). It's all sad, you understand that this growing radicalism will not lead to anything good, but it seems there is no way out and in the next decades, at least, the world will have to suffer a lot of this in all its forms and shapes.
      7. 0
        26 August 2026 02: 17
        You obviously had huge problems with nutrition, just as you now have huge problems with distorting facts.
        It's worth mentioning that fish was everywhere and cost pennies back then.
        There were public catering canteens, including departmental ones, on every corner. Bread, milk, and canned goods were always available; there were no problems with vegetables.
        And everything cost pennies, by the way, and no one went hungry.
        And here you are, as usual, ranting like Soviet propaganda about how good life is in the USSR, because in 1913 there were no televisions, refrigerators, or washing machines.
  17. 0
    24 August 2026 10: 12
    Quote: kalibr
    Our top brass is tired of the fanaticism of building a new world.
    By 1985, there was no fanaticism left. It hadn't existed in the 1960s and 1970s either.
  18. +2
    24 August 2026 12: 04
    Yet another endless rehash of a tired old theme. It's not interesting. Everything is well-known and understood. Now, if they'd brought up the backroom meetings between Gorbachev and Shevardnadze and the Americans in 1989-1991, where they ceded the oceanic territories—that would have been quite something.
  19. -1
    24 August 2026 12: 09
    There are a lot of conspiracy theories and thoughts about the collapse of the USSR.
    The author simply cannot accept the fact that the Union collapsed not because of the US, NATO, or the West in general. It was the party nomenklatura and the people themselves that broke the Union. Ethnic conflicts throughout the country, technological backwardness, enormous spending, and a decline in foreign exchange earnings. The dawn of this "oil painting" began back in the early 80s. All this led to internal conflicts within the country itself. The nouveau riche of all stripes seized this opportunity.
    1. 0
      24 August 2026 12: 28
      Quote: a.shlidt
      and the people themselves.

      And the people themselves. I've written about this, I've chewed it over and over again, and the last time wasn't that long ago, but... "the mare still grazes in the same swamp..."
      1. +1
        24 August 2026 13: 06
        chewed it over and over again

        Are the photographs presented Illuminati agents, US and NATO spies, or ordinary people?
        Yes, perhaps they were egged on with fine words. But these words fell on fertile soil, and the people followed the slogans. After all, everyone has a head on their shoulders. Or is this just a case of "we were deceived"?
        In 1991, Donetsk miners protested for "Ukrainian independence" and "separation from Moscow," and in 2014, they were protesting for Russia. If your theories are followed, then in 2014, the Kremlin carried out an operation similar to the US operation.
        1. +1
          24 August 2026 13: 18
          Quote: a.shlidt
          If we follow your theories,

          What theories of mine? I've already written everything without any "my" theories. And, apparently, I'll have to write again in a clipped, "telegraphic style"... And don't talk about "illuminators." The role of the individual in history has not been abolished, but it is still the masses who forge it, and they themselves produce leaders they understand.
        2. -1
          24 August 2026 13: 37
          Yes, perhaps they were egged on with fine words. But these words fell on fertile soil.

          If you don't get paid, you'll run away too. And the fact that this situation was deliberately provoked from above—why should you, the new bourgeois anti-Sovietists, bother to figure it out?
          1. 0
            25 August 2026 12: 04
            Quote: October
            Why do you, the new bourgeois anti-Sovietists, need to understand this?

            If you approach the issue pragmatically, then there is no point in getting into it at all.. just for the sake of historical truth.. but the USSR no longer exists and will never exist, so whether you are anti-Soviet or pro-Soviet has no bearing on that.. What's the point of "tearing each other's hair out?" I say this as a representative of the post-Soviet generation, since I only managed to go to kindergarten in the USSR.. but in my opinion, as for the essence of the article, the same USA, for example, the President "all by himself", cannot collapse - well, that is a sign of greater stability of the system.. so if one "bald guy with a spot" could bring down a house in 5-7 years without directly breaking anything, it means the house was weak.. unrest, crises - happened in many places, but nothing except the USSR collapsed on its own..
            1. 0
              25 August 2026 12: 11
              then there is no point in figuring this out at all


              Yes. When building socialism in the future, it is necessary to take into account the mistakes of the past.

              A one-man president will not be able to destroy it, and this is a sign of greater stability of the system.

              You're wrong. This single person had the power to replace 90% of all officials. And with the computing power behind him to help him make the "right" choice, this is completely obvious.

              As for the sustainability of socialism.
              1) Capitalism wasn’t established on the first try either; see, for example, the restoration in France.
              2) The Great Patriotic War, the construction of the 1930s, the achievements of the USSR - all this speaks in his favor.
              3) We are learning, next time it will be more difficult for such a Gorbachev.
              1. 0
                25 August 2026 12: 44
                Quote: October
                When building socialism in the future, it is necessary to take into account the mistakes of the past.

                ah.. You are one of those who, after all, still believe in the future of communism.. despite the collapse of its stronghold.. Well, there is no point in talking about faith, it is blind... And what indicates the approach of this wonderful time? As for me, it is further and further every year, with a decline in the number of those who remember the USSR and believe in communism.. And I, for example, don’t need communism, I rather want something like developed capitalism with elements of socialism... and my friends don’t need it, especially if it comes through revolution and the Civil War.. And among the youth, if there are 5 percent who want it, then good.. who will build it then?
                Quote: October
                You're wrong. This single person had the power to replace 90% of all officials. And with the computing power behind him to help him make the "right" choice, this is completely obvious.

                That's exactly what I'm talking about. What's so good about the system? Where is it possible? Where is the mistake in my words?
                Quote: October
                1) Capitalism wasn’t established on the first try either; see, for example, the restoration in France.
                2) The Great Patriotic War, the construction of the 1930s, the achievements of the USSR - all this speaks in his favor.
                3) We are learning, next time it will be more difficult for such a Gorbachev.

                This isn't about the Russian Federation, but about another country, the USSR. And so far, there isn't even a country where it could be built, theoretically speaking, based on today's realities. Or what would have to happen for it to be built? I don't see such a widespread desire among the population, nor any tendency toward communism. The people want social benefits, but they want to go back to the USSR—no, the vast majority don't. I'm talking about the post-Soviet generation, of course.
                1. 0
                  25 August 2026 20: 07
                  Ah... You are one of those who, after all, still believe in the future of communism... despite the collapse of its stronghold... well, there's no point in saying anything against faith, it's blind...

                  Well, actually, it's a science called historical materialism. And if you're not familiar with it, then
                  blind
                  - this is about you. And yours
                  blindness
                  doesn't give you the right to make such a bunch of inadequate statements. Well, you're not the first one down this path.

                  That's exactly what I'm talking about. What's so good about the system? Where is it possible? Where is the mistake in my words?

                  Actually, you initially claimed that "one person" is not capable of doing this at all. Now you've made a substitution - as if you were claiming
                  What's good about the system? Where is it possible?
                  Such a substitution of the original thesis is called demagoguery.

                  This isn't about the Russian Federation, but about another country, the USSR. And for now, there isn't even a country where it could be built, in theory, based on today's realities.

                  But Russia didn't declare itself the successor to the USSR, did it? So why not build there too?
                  I don't see such a mass desire among the population yet

                  If you're willing to believe it yourself, you're not the first, and you probably won't be the last.
                  The people want social benefits, again in the USSR - no, the overwhelming majority do not.

                  But no one gave you the right to speak on behalf of the entire people.
                  1. 0
                    25 August 2026 21: 24
                    Quote: October
                    Well, actually, it's a science called historical materialism. And if you're not familiar with it, then

                    Historical materialism is a school of thought in the philosophy of history developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. So, is the philosophy of history a science? Well, in a sense, of course it is—a mixture of history and philosophy. Yes, there have been dozens of these philosophers of history, only among the well-known ones, each with their own philosophy. You believe that Karl Marx's philosophy of history is true. For example, I would say that I believe that Hempel's philosophy of history is true. And in this case, we would stand on the same level of truth, since not a single philosophy of history among them will be confirmed by practice, but will remain a philosophy of history. request
                    You said -
                    Quote: October
                    Actually, you initially claimed that "one person" is not capable of doing this at all. Now you've made a substitution - as if you were claiming

                    I said -
                    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                    In the US, for example, a single President simply can't destroy it, and that's a sign of the system's greater stability. So, if one "bald guy with a spot" could bring down a building in 5-7 years without breaking anything, it means the building was weak.

                    And here I just said that he did it alone, which means the system was unstable. Where is the assertion that he's incapable? In the US—incapable, in the USSR—he proved capable. And there's no substitution of the thesis, just read more carefully...
                    Quote: October
                    But Russia didn't declare itself the successor to the USSR, did it? So why not build there too?

                    Just because someone is their father's heir doesn't mean they're equal or the same. Does a world champion's son necessarily have to be a world champion? Especially since we haven't declared ourselves heirs or legal successors in everything, only in "places"... in property and contracts. This doesn't mean the Russian Federation equals the USSR, and it's actually kind of strange to even say that.
                    Quote: October
                    If you're willing to believe it yourself, you're not the first, and you probably won't be the last.

                    I don't argue, I'll just note that you are neither the first nor the last follower of some historical philosophy that you consider to be true, nothing extraordinary, this has happened at all times...
                    Quote: October
                    But no one gave you the right to speak on behalf of the entire people.

                    So be it... but no one gave you the right to say that everyone dreams of starting again, again, to implement the attempt to build a state "according to Marx", which ended so unsuccessfully last time...
                    P.S. I responded to you in your style... approximately in this format, you respond to those who disagree with you.
                    1. 0
                      26 August 2026 09: 22
                      Historical materialism is a school of thought in the philosophy of history developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

                      You've made a mistake. Historical materialism is a theory of the historical process, not a philosophy.

                      So, is the philosophy of history a science? Well, in some sense, of course—a mixture of history and philosophy.

                      Philosophy is the science of the most general laws of development of nature, society and human thinking,
                      which simultaneously serves as a guide to action.

                      Yes, there were several dozen of these philosophers of history in history, only among the famous ones, and each with his own philosophy...

                      When speaking about physics (I'll follow your beloved Hempel), do you limit physics to just Newton? Einstein? And so on? Each made their own contributions, and each had their own misconceptions. However, the edifice of physics encompasses both Newton's and Einstein's discoveries, and so on.
                      The same thing applies to philosophy. Dialectical materialism (that same Marxist philosophy) takes from each of these philosophers the positive elements they created and discards their errors. The result is a coherent, modern theory.
                      When you talk about a bunch of different philosophers, unconnected to one another, you get a mosaic, incoherent picture of the world. And if you add in their countless misconceptions, you'll end up with complete chaos, which is precisely the characteristic of bourgeois philosophy, whose role among other sciences you haven't even been able to accurately define.


                      You believe that K. Marx's philosophy of history is true, for example, I will say that I believe that Hempel's philosophy of history is true.
                      and we will stand on the same level of truth.

                      We won't. Because your Hempel didn't even bother to formulate the laws of history from which he supposedly derives historical processes.
                      So, a set of common truths applied to the current moment, from which one can deduce whatever he pleases.

                      since none of their philosophy of history will be confirmed by practice, but will remain a philosophy of history request

                      In fact, historical materialism has been confirmed by practice, as evidenced by the achievements of the USSR, China and other socialist countries.

                      I said -
                      Quote: 2 level advisor
                      In the USA, for example, the President is "one-man" and will not be able to destroy it...

                      Here I must apologize, I did not read you carefully enough.
                      But regarding stability, I answered you, see 3 points above.
                      I'll add a fourth point. Socialism benefits the overwhelming majority of the people, and this gives it stability. And this is the basis for the instability of US power. One can recall numerous cases where the US government simply shot strikers and eliminated leaders.
                      left-wing movements, sponsored fascism, etc.
                      But any dictatorship that stands on bayonets ends sooner or later.
                      And here point 5 arises: Propaganda. The bourgeoisie has vast experience in duping the population. This, along with bayonets, is one of the foundations of US power. And Gorbachev used this same weapon when he came to power ("glasnost"), thus forcing part of the population
                      support the new bourgeoisie.
                      The struggle of forces is a complex and multifaceted process.

                      If someone is his father's heir, it doesn't mean that he is equal to his father or the same.
                      Does a world champion's son have to be a world champion? Especially since we haven't declared ourselves in everything,
                      and not even as heirs - legal successors, but only in "places"... in property and in contracts...
                      This doesn't mean at all that the Russian Federation = the USSR, and it's strange to say such a thing in essence...

                      I don't understand why you're writing this at all. Yes, the Russian Federation is not the USSR. Tsarist Russia wasn't the USSR either, but the USSR grew out of it.

                      I don’t argue, I’ll just note that you are neither the first nor the last follower of some history of philosophy,
                      which he considers to be the truth, there is nothing extraordinary, this has happened at all times.

                      But not a single bourgeois philosopher has ever found contradictions in Marxism. But in bourgeois works, they've been found in abundance.

                      Let it be so... but no one gave you the right to say that everyone dreams of starting to implement things again,
                      repeating the attempt to build a state "according to Marx", which ended so unsuccessfully last time.

                      And I didn't even mention everyone. I'm sure everyone, like the Abramovichs, will be against it. And people like you, too.

                      P.S. I responded to you in your style... approximately in this format, you respond to those who disagree with you.

                      I always try to speak in the language of facts, knowledge, and logic. It's very rare that any of my ideological opponents respond to me in this way.
                      As for the dose of sarcasm, after the 100th repetition of hackneyed (for me, at least) facts, it is necessary...
  20. +3
    24 August 2026 13: 42
    I don't understand something about alcohol? Why this cliché that the population went into withdrawal after the anti-alcohol campaign? Well, there were alcoholics, but I don't recall anyone becoming depressed after it.
  21. +2
    24 August 2026 16: 06
    The extinction of Little Russia – Ukraine, its transformation into a new “Wild Field”.

    "Great Russia" isn't lagging behind here either. It even exceeds the plan for settling Russian lands with alien savages.
  22. +3
    24 August 2026 16: 39
    Quote: fiberboard
    If the country had been led by a person like Andropov or Gromyko, they would have been able to get away with it.

    They all had the same type: "member of the Politburo." They were tarred with the same brush. A unique phenomenon in history: a change in social formation without a change in power. They wanted to get de jure what they had de facto. And they got it. And the personalities are irrelevant here.
    1. 0
      31 August 2026 12: 13
      This is not true. In 1991, the USSR was destroyed, and the Yeltsin clique seized power in Russia. Formations are a very arbitrary concept, and the boundaries between them are arbitrary...
  23. 0
    24 August 2026 16: 43
    Quote: Prometey
    Why was fish affordable to everyone in Soviet times? Now it's more expensive than meat.

    It depends heavily on the type of fish and meat. Some have even become more accessible...
  24. +1
    24 August 2026 16: 45
    Quote: October
    You, sir, are a liar and anti-Soviet.

    And you, comrade, are you a communist and just a liar?
  25. +1
    24 August 2026 19: 00
    The hunchback made reforms on paper and this was the main mistake

    But he started some things, tried, here it must be emphasized 100 times, he tried to start absolutely correctly - dispersing crowds of conspirators (Balts, Tbilisi, etc.)

    Regarding the Belovezh Accords, of course he should have had an "alpha" directly subordinate to him for the physical elimination of direct agents and enemies of the people such as Yeltsin and his ilk - after all, back then they openly and brazenly sabotaged the Kremlin's orders
    1. +1
      29 August 2026 00: 46
      The hunchback made reforms on paper
      But he didn’t destroy everything on paper...
  26. +2
    24 August 2026 19: 11
    Quote: Boris Sergeev
    She, on the “advice of friends,” ensured the churning out of the jokes you cited, preparing the arrival of the “reformer” Gorbachev.

    Sits Ukrainian At the Christmas tree, a man passes by and asks: So, can't you see the dawn of communism? No, it's all black all around!
  27. +2
    24 August 2026 19: 13
    Quote: Prometey
    Well, there were alcoholics, but I don’t remember people becoming depressed after that.

    Vodka costs 6 and 8, we still won’t stop drinking, tell Ilyich I’ll pay 10, Well, if it’s 25, we’ll buy winter again...
  28. 0
    24 August 2026 19: 17
    Quote: ANB
    People made up jokes

    Capitalism, socialism, communism, queue and sausage.

    Ear, throat, nose, pussy, tits, tail. It's all been twisted and wrapped in shit...
  29. +3
    24 August 2026 19: 43
    Quote: October
    If you are not paid your salary, you will run away too.

    Who in the USSR didn't get paid? Are you sure you're not mistaken?
  30. -1
    24 August 2026 19: 48
    Quote: Per se.
    Russia still lives on Soviet achievements.

    Why not the Petrovskys? Or even the Rurikovskys?
    1. 0
      29 August 2026 00: 44
      Peter I, in essence, took the first steps towards 1917...
  31. +1
    31 August 2026 13: 04
    Quote: futurohunter
    Well, not everyone... Personally, I voted against the collapse of the USSR in the referendum... And I wasn't the only one...

    Dear Anatoly... Come on, you're acting like a child, honestly, whether I voted or not. That's not the point at all. ABSOLUTELY! Nothing depends on the voting... Don't be naive. You voted against. Great! So what? What was the result? We have a Victory locomotive on a pedestal in Penza. Last week I tried to move it... I was practically sweating... But I couldn't move it. Same thing with you...
  32. 0
    31 August 2026 16: 19
    Hunchbacked Judas and Yeltsin supported by Lebedenko and other traitors
    1. -1
      1 September 2026 16: 52
      And all of them, without exception, are ardent communists!
  33. -2
    1 September 2026 16: 51
    On the one hand, "The flow of petrodollars, the currency on which supplies of imported equipment and food depended, has plummeted. The USSR's economic modernization programs are at risk." On the other, "The collapse of the USSR's economy and treasury required foreign 'aid.' Gorbachev's team, despite the Union's HUGE internal capabilities and reserves, is driving the great power into debt." So, has the flow of petrodollars plummeted, or were there huge reserves? Comrade Ulyanov-Lenin began playing on human rights in 1917, promising land to the peasants (which they never saw) and factories to the workers, with the same result. He declared Russians an oppressor nation, deprived of their rights, and destroyed their national state. No one did as much as Lenin to destroy the Russian patriotic tradition. 1991 is the logical outcome of a 70-year social experiment under the leadership of a banal Asian autocracy. If you read how Gorbachev was appointed, you'll feel sick from all the fuss at the top.