US Secretary of State about the death of the USSR: "The main thing, there were traitors"
“One of the memories that will remain with me until the end of my life is the tears of my father, who smoked in the night on the balcony and wiped his eyes with his palm. 1991, the after-match orgy, has just been banned by the Communist Party on TV by Yeltsin. Batya, an ordinary member of the CPSU, the material of Gorbachev, Boris Nikolayevich, party functionaries of all the Union republics and asked the same question, not addressed to anyone: “For what ?! I honestly lived, did not steal, did not kill, fed the family, raised my son, loved and love my wife and loved ones. He believed in Lenin and Stalin, pulled out a "personality cult", doubted something, but we all went forward - with friends and surrounded by enemies! All in vain, all in vain, wrong? "And neither he, nor I, nor the millions of people who inhabited the Soviet Union, nor the millions of people in other countries, even seeing that in an enormous state some strange, but, as usual, great processes occur, they could not assume that December of the same year it will cease to exist. Dad - a former military man who stood guard over the frontiers of a mighty power, by that time would have come to his senses and yet another blow to the past and the present, more crushing force, he would accept without taking horse doses of sedative. ”
These pressing lines of one of his regular authors, Oleg Klimov, are published in the latest issue of the newspaper Belarus Today. They are about today's black jubilee in our stories - 20-th anniversary of the death of a great state, the Soviet Union.
8 December 1991 in the government estate of Viskuli, that in the Belarusian Belovezhskaya Pushcha, the President of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin, the President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk and the Head of the Supreme Council of Belarus Stanislav Shushkevich signed the document entitled “Agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)”, which went down in history as the Bialowieza Agreement. Its preamble read: "The USSR as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist."
Immediately after signing the document, Yeltsin telephoned US President George W. Bush and reported what had happened (which, by the way, put him in an awkward position). Then the signers "smartly sprinkled" the event and went home: on arrival in Moscow, Yeltsin was so drunk that he was literally carried out of the plane. A few days later, the Bialowieza Agreement was ratified by the VOTING parliaments of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus: in the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR voted against either 5, or 6 of two and a half hundred deputies; in the Ukrainian parliament there were even fewer opponents of the document, well, only one Alexander Lukashenko voted against in the Belarusian Supreme Soviet. It should be remembered that the absolute majority in all three parliaments belonged to the Communists.
Today they are trying to convince us that the death of the USSR at the time of the signing of the Belovezhsky Agreement was already predetermined. “One can argue whether the collapse of the USSR was a geopolitical catastrophe caused by the insidious intrigues of the enemy, or a boon to most of the former republics of the Union,” read Vedomosti in today's editorial. - However, the leaders of the three Slavic republics only recorded the death of the state from the rapidly progressing paralysis and the inoperability of bureaucratic structures. Neither the army, nor the KGB, nor the leaders of other republics of the USSR or republican communist parties tried to actively counteract the breakup of the Union. ”
As you can see, in this view there is no place for the tears of Father Oleg Klimov. “It’s possible to argue,” they assure us, but not to lament, all the more so since the collapse of the USSR can be considered “good for most of the former republics of the Union.” It would be true, however, to know the list of these “benefactors”: are there, for example, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Moldavia, the same Georgia? Or any other fragments of the former USSR can be safely recommended to the compilers of international poverty ratings? ..
But the peoples of the USSR are still not so coolly remembered today about the demise of the USSR. For example, the Belarusian historian, political scientist and publicist Nikolai Malishevsky writes today on the pages of the REGNUM news agency:
“This act (the so-called Belovezhsky agreement. - Approx. KM.RU), which recorded the collapse of the Soviet Union, still raises many questions. The fact is that even March 17 of the same year, during the referendum on the question “to be or not to be the USSR”, the overwhelming majority of the population (more than 80%) supported the preservation of the Union.
It should be noted that the very formulation of the question of the necessity of the Union was purely provocative. Destroyers of the state already knew that the majority of the population would unequivocally support the existence of the USSR, therefore it was necessary for them to at least indicate that "a similar problem exists." Thus, public opinion was directed in the right direction, which was also facilitated by the total brainwashing through the media.
But not only was the opinion of the people completely ignored, but the constitutional order of secession from the Union was violated. In accordance with the legislation were required: the holding of a referendum as an application for withdrawal; border, property, army, etc. negotiations over 5 years; in the case of a mutually acceptable outcome of negotiations - the second referendum. The signatories themselves stated in a statement that they “had the right” to dissolve the USSR, since the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR were the founders of the Union, who signed the treaty in 1922. However, among the founders was the Transcaucasian Federation, which then included Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Consequently, at least for the appearance of legitimacy, it was necessary to invite representatives of these republics ...
Immediately after the Viskulyov gatherings, accompanied by abundant libations, the warm company declared in Minsk that “the Soviet Union no longer exists” and that they “formed the Commonwealth of Independent States”, and Mikhail Gorbachev announced that he would cease his functions as the President of the USSR and signed a decree on the addition from the powers of the Supreme Commander. An American journalist (a few years later he will be one of the US Assistant Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) Strobe Talbot writes in his book At the highest level: the backstage story of the end of the Cold War, “rumors reached US officials that when Yeltsin returned to Moscow (from Minsk) a day after the signing of the agreement on the Commonwealth, he was so drunk that he had to be taken out of the plane, and the bodyguards used brute force to prevent photographers from taking pictures. ”
12 December 1991 of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR ratified the Belovezhskaya Agreement (“for” - 285 deputies, “against” - 5, abstained - 6), adopted a decree on the denunciation of the USSR Treaty on Education 30 of December 1922 of the year, and decree about secession from the USSR (“for” - 161 deputy, “against” - 3, abstained - 9, and in total there were 247 deputies).
In parallel with the death of the Soviet Union, which was falling apart into pieces as a result of deliberate actions from the outside and from within, there was a process of formation (of course, for “fighting the system”) of “democratic forces” in the new independent states. The democrats who seized power in the center looked at what was happening with a condescending smile, actually encouraging what was happening, quickly turning from the pillars of the system into “fighters” with it. Psychologists have long noted that a person brought up on stereotypes and “cultural truisms” is very vulnerable: once in the field of dissonant information, the stereotype tends not to collapse, but to roll over, i.e. it remains, changing only the valence (emotional sign); unconditionally good turns into unconditionally bad and vice versa. It only played into the hands of the newly-minted "democrats" of nationalist and frank fascist victory.
To seize power, these "principled" people were ready for anything. The Union still existed, and on its outskirts, hysteria grew and spread, swelling with all sorts of “national” leaders who, waving their arms, shouted from the balconies and steps of the party committees and Supreme Soviets of the former Soviet republics about “freedom” and “democracy”. It was not for nothing that Machiavelli, five centuries ago, noted that “the word“ freedom ”always serves as a pretext for rebellion,” therefore, of course, none of these “freedom-lovers” even remembered that even the church does not speak of human freedom, since There is no "pure". About such "freedom" ("equality and fraternity") speak only revolutionary-minded demagogues and mentally ill.
Printed on by the Academy of Social Sciences, through the Department of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, etc., structures under the paternal supervision of the chief ideologist of the Central Committee of the CPSU and at the same time “foreman of perestroika” A. Yakovlev, nationalist “heralds of freedom”, yesterday yesterday licked the seats of the Center’s representatives, who taught them to read and write and replaced donkeys with them to cosmodromes and the Academy of Sciences, they suddenly thought of themselves as the bearers of some kind of "democratic mission."
But after a very short period of time, all of them, barely trying to put into practice the basic principles and postulates advanced by democracy, immediately dropped them, leaving only the name "democracy". The fact is that even people like Zviad Gamsakhurdia (then Saakashvili) who had drawn their republic into the bloody conflicts eventually realized that true democracy is possible only where the economy is able to replace politics and provide the people with a normal, calm and full life. And in order to put this into practice, the fascist “democrats” rushed to power did not have the necessary knowledge and skills or opportunities.
In order to fill the ideological vacuum that arose after the rapid decomposition of the supranational idea (more precisely, so that some of the already formed "sovereign states" would not begin, in turn, to be divided into tens and hundreds more "sovereign"), as well as In order to actually stay in power, self-styled "democrats" needed some instantly acting ideology. And the only such ideology was and remains nationalism. Its manifestations in the USSR have long been strongly encouraged by the West, since any nationalism within the state weakens superethnic and civilizational ties.
The idea of nationalism is very simple. For the consolidation of society and its subsequent consolidation around the leader, a visible enemy is needed. It is the existence of the enemy that allows the group that exploits the national idea to exist and hold power. Adolf Hitler, the greatest nationalist of “all times and peoples,” wrote in his book “My Struggle”: “The masses consist not of professors and diplomats. A small amount of abstract knowledge that they possess, directs their sentiments rather to the field of feelings .... At all times, the driving force of the most important changes in this world has never been contained in any scientific ideas that suddenly mastered the masses, but always consisted in fanaticism dominant in the masses and in hysteria which drives these masses forward ... ”
So, in order to remain in power, the national-chauvinists needed a visible enemy. And almost everywhere this “enemy” was found. In addition to the “colonialist” Russian, they became yesterday’s neighbors: an Armenian for an Azerbaijani, an Abkhaz for a Georgian, etc. In addition, they needed emotions (that notorious fanaticism about which Hitler wrote) capable of distracting people from of life. They could not, and were not able to give the ubiquitous "revival" of "cultures", "national languages", including those that never existed, either gradually dying off or already imperceptibly dead. Only blood, a lot of blood, could evoke stronger emotions. And this blood flowed, flowed in streams: Karabakh, Ossetia, Moldavia, the Caucasus ... Trickles and streams, which began to drain by the time of the final collapse of the Soviet Union into one big river.
In the meantime, December 25 1991 Russia was renamed the Russian Federation. In the evening of the same day, Gorbachev phoned US President George Bush Sr. and assured him in a telephone conversation: “You can safely celebrate Christmas. The USSR no longer exists. ” The next day, the Council of the Republic of the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted a declaration on the termination of the existence of the USSR as a state and object of international law. Resolutions were issued to dismiss the judges of the Supreme and Supreme Arbitration Courts and members of the board of the USSR Prosecutor's Office and the resolution to dismiss the chairman of the State Bank and his first deputy.
After that, President Bush spoke on radio and television in the United States, declaring that the USSR had been defeated by the Cold War, and the then US Secretary of State James Baker openly stated: “We have spent trillions of dollars over the past 40 years to win the Cold War against the USSR. Most importantly, there were traitors. ”
Information