Military Review

Chronicles of Russia dive

74
Discussion of my short article under the provocative title “Who is Mr. Putin»Revealed for me the need to show the mechanism of the collapse of Russia, which was destroyed as a result of the operation" Successor ".


I want to immediately make a reservation. I am not for Putin and not against Putin. I am FOR my family and my three children. Mainly because, as I indicated in the last article, nothing can be changed now anyway. “They have more trunks,” well, having a family and children greatly reduces the revolutionary expectations, since the revolutionary vicissitudes have a very negative effect on the civilian population. Also I can not say that I have all the evidence of my theory. No one has them, because the actions of state structures are often secret, and the actions of people standing above government structures, in principle, do not have supporting documents, because they operate outside the state or international legal field and they do not need to compile and leave relevant documents. Therefore, the main tool that I used to build this theory is logic. And as a basis for building conclusions, I take the facts and chronology from publicly available sources (for example, the all-knowing Vika), or those that I observed myself at the philistine level or learned from those people whom I trust for reasons known to me. Several sites, the data that I also used, I will give below. Therefore, those who want “numbers of laws” and “filming with a hidden camera of meetings of the Bildelberg Club” can safely close the page with this article.

So, we will have to start from the moment of the death of Comrade Stalin, who destroyed the past mechanism of the collapse of Russia. By this time, the USSR, as Russia was then called, had taken such a powerful start after the hardest war that it threatened to leave Western "democracies" far behind. Thoughtful host I. Dzhugashvili understood that large-scale production should be built by state forces and belong to the state, which can, if necessary, carry out their modernization by attracting budgetary funds. At the same time, the satisfaction of retail demand of the population is better dealt with by a small private trader, who is more flexible, adapts to the conjuncture of consumer demand and does not require large capital investments for the modernization of production. That is why on a par with the five-year construction projects and giant factories in the Stalinist economy private entrepreneurs and small artels worked. However, such an approach to economics went against the spirit of classical Marxism, whose postulates were professed by the party nomenklatura, which helped Stalin deal with the Trotskyists. Before the death of the leader, who closed the whole range of questions on himself and rigidly suppressed everything that interfered with the execution of his tasks, the discussion did not go beyond the limits of theoretical reflections and disputes. But his sudden death sharply intensified the confrontation along the party nomenklatura - the production workers. The prominent representatives of the first were Malenkov, Khrushchev and Bulganin. They were opposed by the so-called "production workers", headed by L. AP Beria. What would be the situation if they won, we can only guess. But the winners were party agents, who were able to attract to their side the military led by G. TO. Zhukov and such "extrablock" representatives of the Soviet elite, like V. М. Molotov. In the course of further struggle, N. C. Khrushchev. However, there could not have been much difference from the change of personalities, since even at the August session of the USSR Armed Forces Malenkov had declared “a turn of industry to the well-being of the people”. T. e. about the accelerated development of the production of consumer goods. The new leaders did a great service to the West, hampering the development of the USSR (repealed by a decree of the USSR Council of Ministers on 21.03.1953 No.149 significant number of Stalinist infrastructure and industrial projects) and throwing significant resources to re-establish large enterprises, which were to replace the abolished "small business". The dispute between the two major socialist powers — Russia and China — was no less successful for the West. This allowed the West to relieve tensions in relations with the USSR, putting down the vigilance of the Soviet leadership in the division of spheres of influence (the creation of the Warsaw Pact Organization) and moving from drawing up plans for USSR nuclear bombing to their favorite plan to gradually surround and strangle the enemy. However, Khrushchev's “honeymoon” with the Americans did not last long and ended with a loud Caribbean crisis that put the world on the brink of a nuclear conflict, and so ... “Kuz'kina mom”. But if, in the military-political sphere, Khrushchev's heirs were able to correct the consequences of “Perestroika No. XXUMX” and even go over to the offensive, staging a bloody bath in Vietnam for the Americans, strengthening themselves in the Arab world and in many African countries, breaking off tons. about. the grip of the enemy encirclement did not succeed in correcting the economic consequences of the Khrushchev reforms. And they did not try to do this, except for the far from complete attempt of the Kosygin reforms. As a result, despite the rapid growth rates, especially in the real sector of the economy, the USSR was too slowly catching up with its opponents. And it was especially manifested in the provision of the population with goods attributable to non-essential items: household appliances and electronics, furniture, and cars. Also, there was insufficient attention to the production of clothing; large industrial enterprises simply did not keep pace with fashion and consumption patterns. As well as the fast-growing electronics. It can be said that the leadership of the country tried to carry out another industrialization on the rolled up Stalin track, but only in the area of ​​providing the population. But the results of this industrialization No. XXUMX turned out to be too late and not always competitive with Western counterparts. And for this they paid a general decrease in the rate of growth of industry. At the same time, Western countries actively pursued a social policy, creating a powerful layer of the middle class, whose lives were envied by citizens of the late USSR, who were not shown the slums of the Big Apple, but showed only advertising views of Manhattan. The betrayal of a young party elite like Yeltsin or Gorbachev, who did not conceal his desire to destroy the socialist USSR, helped the West win the ideological war, powdering Soviet citizens with the brains of an advertisement for the Western way of life.

In this situation, with the beginning of the rule of R. Reagan, an operation began to be conducted on dismembering Russia. I recall briefly the situation in which the West found itself by this time. In the middle and at the end of 70, the West fell into a crisis lane. The cause of the crisis was precisely that very middle class, which was raised to oppose the Soviet standard of living. Representatives of the middle class consumed too much and at the same time, in order to fulfill their task, they had to constantly increase this consumption in order to maintain the gap from the rapidly growing population of the USSR. At the same time, thanks to the successful foreign policy expansion of the USSR, the possibilities for pumping out resources from developing countries were reduced. In this situation, in the coming 10-20 years, the West faced the prospect of a defeat in the race for living standards of the population, having lost the conditions for victory over the USSR in the Cold War. West had to use the last opportunity. Suppress the crisis by unwinding the economy by increasing public debt (now called “quantitative easing”) and use trained traitors from the Soviet elite. Strikes on Russia were carried out from various directions. The endless war in Afghanistan, the victory in which it was impossible to achieve, because the anti-Soviet forces received generous funding and assistance from the West through Pakistan. The fall in oil prices. The attack on the allies of the USSR, for example, an operation against Libya in 1983 year. To this was added the opening of the fifth column of the information field of the USSR for Western propaganda and the initiation of economic difficulties. Organized crime, which was supposed to terrorize the population, divide it and distract from what is happening in political life, was not forgotten either. For the rapid development of organized crime, the dry law already tested in the USA was used. For those who are still not distracted, an informational sabotage about restructuring was launched, which will make it possible to reach Western abundance, of course, through democratic changes.

I will not describe the mechanism of the collapse of the USSR itself, it is well known to everyone. But the question is: why was the collapse not complete? Why is it allowed to preserve the core of the country - the RSFSR? The biggest problem was the nuclear weapon THE USSR. With the collapse of the country, it could fall into the hands of uncontrollable politicians like “Lukashenka’s Old Man,” or spread out around the world altogether. It was nuclear weapons that saved the country from the final collapse. Since it was necessary to calmly concentrate it in the hands of a managed politician and gradually dispose of it, reducing the potential to a safe one that could be destroyed with one blow. The RSFSR-RF under the leadership of Yeltsin became such a gravedigger of the USSR nuclear potential. So, we have come to the fatal year for the USSR 1991, when the first stage of the destruction of the country was completed in Belovezhskaya Pushcha.

Confirmation that the cold war against Russia has not ended after the collapse of the USSR is all that happened at the beginning of 90's. Yeltsin’s gang continued Gorbachev’s policy of weakening the country. Galloping inflation, reaching 2000% per year, non-payment of wages, non-payment crisis between enterprises, a real rampage of organized crime. The population was terrorized by banditry, befuddled by the propaganda of capitalist success at any cost — while simultaneously lowering the standard of living of most people. All this led to a break in social ties. As a result, protests, for example, of miners or pensioners, strikes, were scattered, uncoordinated, and were either stopped by promises to restore the situation or suppressed by the forces of law and order. And all this was done under the strict guidance of foreign "advisers" who occupied the offices of top officials of the Russian Federation.

Also, the implementation of a policy aimed at reducing the country's nuclear potential began. Until 1996, all nuclear weapons from the former Soviet republics were concentrated in the Russian Federation. And at the same time, an START-2 agreement was adopted, which intensified the reduction in the number of weapons as compared to START-1 and should have led to the destruction of all carriers with multiple warheads. It was on the ratification of this agreement that already in 1992 for the first time, the plan for the 2 stage of the destruction of Russia stumbled. However, the reduction continued under START-1. Also in 1992, a bomb was laid under the Russian Federation in the form of the non-alignment of Chechnya and Tatarstan to a federal treaty.

As I said above, the first attempt of internal forces to thwart the plans of foreigners for the final destruction of Russia is connected with the START-2 agreement. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation did not support the ratification of this treaty. And then escalation of tension between the legislative and executive authorities began. The official causes of the crisis indicate the so-called “diarchy” and the refusal of the Supreme Council and the Congress to exclude from the Constitution of the Russian Federation references to the Constitution of the USSR. However, I propose to treat the second critically. Since the same deputies have not done anything recently to defend the USSR. Therefore, in the Constitution, they clearly defended not references to the USSR, but their own power. Thus, it can be said that those circles that decided to take advantage of the collapse of the USSR to their own advantage stood for R. Khasbulatov and A. Rutsky. Naturally, their plans did not include nuclear disarmament of Russia, either. I remember how 3 of October 1993 of the year on Moscow channels showed a truck entering Ostankino and angry frightened comments from corrupt Yeltsin journalists. And I remember well my joy that the hated gravedigger of the country receives what he deserves. Unfortunately, the next day already showed footage of the shooting of the White House. It was not only the defeat of the Armed Forces, not only the failure to fight for the power of a group of politicians. It was a failure to prevent the collapse of Russia. Which occurred mainly because it was carried out in essence by the same traitors as Yeltsin and his liberal team were. They did not receive sufficient support from the masses, who did not see the difference between them and their opponents. And as a result, despite the shedding of considerable blood, suffered a crushing defeat. And when they talk about patriotism of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation now, I ask, where was the patriotism of these people two years ago? Of course, at that time I did not understand all this and, of course, supported them with all my heart and very much regretted that I had not been to Moscow, and that nothing had happened in Khabarovsk.

How long the West has measured out the agony of Russia is rather difficult to say. On the one hand, prerequisites for the further disintegration of Russia in the form of de facto recognition of Chechnya’s independence were created already in 1995, and Tatarstan earlier refused to sign a federal treaty. The growth of risky mortgage loans in the United States, the so-called “mortgage bubble,” which then broke in 2008, falls on the 1998 year. This may indicate that the positive effect on the economy of the USA from the robbery of Russia through a fraud called “Privatization” was by this time already running out. And that means it was calculated to the end of 90-x. On the other hand, the contract of START-2 lasts up to 2003, and the agreement "HEU-LEU" lasts until 2013. My subjective opinion is that Russia would not be allowed to live up to the new millennium. Still, it is a milestone. Yes, and everything was ready at the end of 90's. I remember how seriously the creation of the FER was discussed and I cannot say that I myself was completely against it, because I saw what was going on around me. And sometimes a mean little thought appeared. And, maybe, it is true, at least for a while, until they bring order. Indeed, in 20, they were able to return ... The vague “associative” accession of Tatarstan to the federal treaty at a time when the army, despite the betrayal and / or stupidity of command and the venality of many commanders and commissaries, was able to take control of rebellious Chechnya. And she received, like a knife in the back, a stop order, and the broken terrorists dictated their conditions of federal authority in Khasavyurt. In fact, Chechnya became independent, being legally part of the Russian Federation, and at any time could become the first stone that would bring down an avalanche of sovereignties prepared even 10 years ago. The main production has already been destroyed or bought up in the bud with a ricket. So what else to pull?

But back a bit. The presidential election 1996 of the year is considered by many to be rigged. However, there is no documentary evidence of this, and therefore everyone can resolve this issue for themselves. Moreover, it does not affect anything. And really. Is the difference between Yeltsin and Zyuganov great, the events of 93 of the year showed well. But I would like to draw attention to such a thing, how could Yeltsin even think about going to the elections in just a year or so after the bloody bath of the first Chechen campaign and the Khasavyurt disgrace? And all this against the backdrop of the hardest domestic economic situation. Who could vote for him in this situation? Except, perhaps, the liberals, the defenders. Can a politician so compromised himself even hope for success? These were the first elections in which I participated, and I remember very well how campaigning took place in only one EBN in all media. Zyuganov practically did not appear on the screen. All banners in the city were filled only with this hated person. Administrative resource was used to its fullest. The patriotic electorate was distracted by the duck - General Lebed. Is it important in this situation that people think? Of course not. And even if the counting of ballots was crystal clear, by no means you would call these elections honest, because the entire Klama of liberasts, oligarchs and officials took up arms against the Russian people. But these elections, perhaps, became the frontier for which the new stage of the struggle against the collapse of Russia began.

Now, the newly-minted native oligarchs have joined the game against the West. In the case of the collapse of Russia, they could lose their goods stolen from the people. They sharpened their fangs in criminal squabbles, amassed the necessary contacts among top officials. And, using their need for power, they were able to pull the Family over to their side. What makes you think so? The time between 1996 and 1998 for years is remembered as some lull before the storm. At this time, inflation was fairly low, the situation with the payment of wages more or less stabilized. At the beginning of 98, a denomination began. I remember how my father said that now that the oligarchs had stolen, they would try to restore order. However, the order was rather relative. Meanwhile, the same time is marked by the cooling of relations between the regime of the Russian Federation and the West. Then it was written off to the fact that Western liberals rinse EBN due to the inertia of the war in Chechnya. This is the background, the feelings that the population of the Russian Federation had in those years. Why did some recovery of the economy happen? After all, no special prerequisites for this were observed. Government debt was high, industry stood, oil prices were at the level of 25-30 dollars per barrel. The “GKO pyramid” became a wonderful magic wand for the domestic economy, which poured into it real money and launched it. In general, the beginning of this system dates back to the 93-th year. But first, trading volumes were low. AT stories GKO had two revival, or rather, a sharp increase in the volume of the system. The first fell on the 95 year - the year of the abolition of the floating dollar against the ruble. In the T-bills came the players on the currency exchange. And the second falls on the 96-97 biennium. In the 96 year before the elections, both the volume of the GKO market and the yield, which reached the record 250 percent, sharply increased. The government took the money for the election campaign, but at an unprecedentedly high, in fact, bonded percentage, because the T-bill had to be repaid. Moreover, after the elections, although the yield dropped to 60%, however, the market continued to grow. Where did these golden rivers come from? The answer is simple, the GKO market was monopolized by several commercial banks owned by oligarchs since 93. And in 96, it was they who, as we remember, financed the electoral campaign of EBN. But after the election, funding was not over. And this suggests that the oligarchs and the government came to a definite agreement. Those. The oligarchs managed to force the Family to accept their conditions, because they had a real instrument of pressure on the government - the GKO pyramid. But at the same time, they continued to finance this system, from which money was directed towards the recovery of the Russian economy. That also speaks of the focus of the agreement: it was aimed at strengthening the country, which is the opposite of the process of disintegration. In principle, under those conditions, it was the only option for financing the economy, since the Central Bank was independent from 1995, and refused to print unsecured gold reserves.

Naturally, the nouveau riche free money was not so much. Their main wealth was businesses bought for pennies. Therefore, for a long time they could not support the GKO pyramid independently. And so they began to borrow money in the West. Naturally, for them it was also beneficial because of incomparable percentages. But in the middle of 97, the shop with loans, apparently, was covered, and foreign investors were allowed into the T-bills market, which flooded the market with a large amount of finances (only the Soros fund lost 2 billion on the collapsed T-bills pyramid) dollars). There was an explosive growth of the GKO market, and this despite the decline in yield to 9-10%. But it did not last long. The dollar river suddenly dried up at the start of 98. At the same time, oil prices collapsed, dropping from 26 to 10 dollars per barrel. Sound familiar? The intervention of foreign capital inflated the GKO market; the government could no longer refuse to play, since it was necessary to pay off the already sold bonds. Then a sharp collapse of the market, which should lead to its collapse. At the same time, the government and its supporting oligarchs are deprived of the main revenue item - petrodollars. And they cannot even support the falling pyramid even in fire mode. At the same time, Berezovsky’s media began a powerful harassment of the Kiriyenko government, which increased the outflow of capital from the T-bills market. Well, the last blow to the pyramid was dealt by the “Russian” Central Bank, when it refused to buy back the T-bills surplus (unlike the Fed, which regularly “buys out” US government bonds). As a result, the Family and the oligarchs acknowledged themselves defeated and went to the IMF for a loan of 26 billion. dollars to save the pyramid. True, they got just 4 more than a billion. But with the help of these funds, the capitals of the main oligarchs and some foreign investors were saved. And the Russian economy collapsed. Given the loss of Soros, all this is very similar to the “kick” of foreigners, for the saving of money which the IMF funds were allocated. Thus, the struggle continued. After the events of August 1998, the government attempted to conduct an extraordinary audit of the Central Bank, encroaching on its independence. Prosecutor General Y. Skuratov initiated an investigation into the crash of the GKO market. E. was nominated for the post of prime minister. М. Primakov, a hardliner in relation to the West. But the most interesting thing is that the Russian economy recovered very quickly after the default. Launched earlier with cash infusions of 96-98, it began to rise again after a crisis drawdown. Still, Russia could not economically fight with the West. And so the main activity was chosen foreign policy. What is reflected in the support of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, the bet on Milosevic was a bit. The attempt of this Serbian politician to sit on two chairs, receiving help from Moscow and at the same time flirting with the West, led to the fact that he did not receive any help or understanding with the West. The military operation against Yugoslavia became the apogee of the opposition of the Yeltsin team against the West. As an external manifestation, we could see the turn of the Primakov aircraft over the Atlantic. But Yugoslavia was crushed. In May 1999, Primakov was dismissed, Skuratov lost his post as a result of the orgy of a “person resembling the Attorney General” on TV. The foreign policy defeat, coupled with the economic defeat forced the Family to go to the surrender.

As we have seen, the operation to destroy Russia, most likely, was entering the final phase. The separatists were ready, the people were neutralized, the comprador elite, who tried to resist the defeat of the country, also suffered a defeat. The NATO military machine after Yugoslavia was ready to strike at the fragments of Russia if one of them dares to resist the destruction of nuclear weapons. Force majeure, of course, was the need to change the performer. Since the West could not be sure that EBN will not throw out any more trick. Therefore, B. A. Berezovsky, who was faithful to his Western masters, was to become the main grave digger of Russia. But the problem was that the BAB could not legally head Russia, it’s not even Yeltsin. No propaganda could force Russians to vote for him. They didn’t risk it and decided to choose a new chairman. Which led to the operation "Successor". Further I will not repeat what I wrote in the last article. I will dwell only on one point, since it is an important point in the chain of logical conclusions.

According to BAB, his disagreements with the protégé (ie, VVP) began after the completion of the operation to squeeze Chechen terrorists out of Dagestan. V.V.P. on his own initiative, he continued the operation in Chechnya itself, which was opposed by BAB. Naturally, it was Chechen terrorists who should have become the ram that was supposed to begin the destruction of the country. And to destroy them in the plans of the BAB was not at all. For the “Successor” it was enough just to win. And during the time of powerlessness after Yeltsin’s departure, the operation could enter its final phase. But the native oligarchs and the VVP. there were other plans ...

Network sources:
http://www.xliby.ru/istorija/zabytaja_istorija_russkoi_revolyucii_ot_aleksandra_i_do_vladimira_putina/p7.php
http://politicon1.at.ua/forum/34-2339-2
http://expert.ru/expert/2013/37/kredit-ryichag-ili-puzyir/
http://magazines.russ.ru/oz/2003/3/2003_3_31.html
http://www.srinest.com/book_1247_chapter_3_2._Istorija_razvitija_infljaionnogo_proessa_v_Rossii_v_90-e_gody.html
http://fraudsa.ru/glavnaya/92-obval-piramidy-gko.html
http://www.usoff.narod.ru/ref/gko.htm
Author:
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Boris55
    Boris55 27 December 2013 09: 31
    +3
    Eustace - Alex: "The implementation was successful, I'm starting to act"

    1. sledgehammer102
      sledgehammer102 27 December 2013 09: 52
      +4
      Also, I can’t say that I have all the evidence for my theory. No one has them, since the actions of government agencies are often secret

      Well ... actually, the article is not bad for interest, but the lack of facts, as the author himself speaks of, makes it insignificant for memorization. The 9 / 11 theory has much more evidence, direct or indirect, including the latest law in the United States, which equated people who do not share the official version with terrorists.

      http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/358624
      Quote:
      Also, in this very FBI instruction, it is explicitly stated that “support for“ conspiracy theories ”about the events of September 11 is among the list of signs of“ sleepers ”. I explain, "Sleepers" - this is what the US intelligence agencies call members of the "sleeping cells" of terrorist organizations, that is, conspiratorial members of terrorist structures that are temporarily not engaged in vigorous activity.
      1. ATATA
        ATATA 27 December 2013 16: 45
        +2
        The first 2 comments make more sense than the whole article.
        Therefore, thanks to the author of the article, thanks to him I read these 2 interesting comments. hi
        1. alone
          alone 27 December 2013 19: 52
          0
          I agree. A lot of words and a little specificity. Tired of having read everything.
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 27 December 2013 22: 16
            +1
            the main tool that I used to build this theory is logic.

            Just as an incorrect conclusion can be brilliantly justified, so a right one can have no justification. This is from the foundations of political science.
            1. alicante11
              28 December 2013 07: 55
              0
              I do not argue. But I haven’t seen specific criticism from you.
  2. small
    small 27 December 2013 09: 32
    +11
    The article is big and nothing. Didn’t read (tired of empty to empty)
    1. LaGlobal
      LaGlobal 27 December 2013 09: 36
      +2
      I would say - she’s too much control! Looks like a man, wants to get out of this country. Or already dumped. But we know that this is not so.

      PS:
      Quote: small
      The article is big and nothing. Didn’t read (tired of empty to empty)
      1. Canep
        Canep 27 December 2013 09: 51
        +4
        If there is nothing about the article, then there is nothing to comment on, I also have no comments, except that this is a long statement of fact. And why did not Stalin leave the receiver?
        1. RBLip
          RBLip 27 December 2013 10: 19
          +2
          Quote: Canep
          And why did not Stalin leave the receiver?

          excuse me. still a successor. but on the question ... probably did not give? the then elite was tired of working for the country. I wanted to work less and get more benefits.
        2. Yarosvet
          Yarosvet 27 December 2013 13: 07
          0
          Quote: Canep
          And why did not Stalin leave the receiver?

          Because it was impossible in principle.

          Because the sole rule and omnipotence of Stalin, as well as the comparison of the USSR with the empire, is bullshit, designed to give birth to the desire of the inhabitant to return feudalism (in one form or another).
          1. alicante11
            27 December 2013 14: 33
            +1
            Because the sole rule and omnipotence of Stalin, as well as the comparison of the USSR with the empire, is bullshit, designed to give birth to the desire of the inhabitant to return feudalism (in one form or another).


            You should at least know what the Empire is. Before talking about such matters. However, this is not spelled out in "Law No. from such and such a date." For reflection, the British Empire is a constitutional monarchy, the German Empire is a constitutional monarchy. Austrian Empire. In general, she had two parliaments. Well, the USA is also an Empire. Although generally a republic.
            1. Yarosvet
              Yarosvet 27 December 2013 16: 18
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              Would you even know what Empire is
              Definitely not a union of republics, with the right of the latter to withdraw from the union and with the right of peoples to self-determination.

              For thought
              For him, my dear, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Constitution of the 36 year.
              1. alicante11
                28 December 2013 07: 59
                0
                M-yes, everything is very neglected here. The USSR was quite an Empire. An empire is a multinational state in which one of the peoples is state-forming and, in one way or another, keeps the rest in its orbit.

                For him, my dear, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Constitution of the 36 year.


                You would first understand what the Empire is. And then they tried on the constitution for it :).
                1. Yarosvet
                  Yarosvet 28 December 2013 15: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: alicante11
                  An empire is a multinational state in which one of the peoples is state-forming and in one way or another keeps the rest in its orbit.

                  An empire is formed by force, the center is gaining neighbors. The USSR was formed on the ruins of an empire, preserving the bulk of the territories with the support of the overwhelming majority of the population.
                  In the empire, the periphery works for the center. In the USSR it was the other way around.
                  The empire is to one degree or another a monarchy. The USSR is a democracy with a parliamentary form of government (not even a parliamentary-presidential one).
                  Power in the empire consists of representatives of the state-forming people. Power in the USSR was international.
                  In the empire as such, there is no right of peoples to self-determination and the possibility of separation. In the USSR, on the contrary.

                  The USSR is a union of republics that formed a single state, resembling an empire only in moments, only in appearance, and having nothing to do with the empire.
                  1. alicante11
                    29 December 2013 03: 08
                    0
                    An empire is formed by force, the center is gaining neighbors.


                    Absolutely not necessary. An example is the entry of Georgia and Armenia into the Russian Empire.

                    The empire is to one degree or another a monarchy.


                    Where is that written? The USA is also a democracy. Will you deny that this is an Empire?

                    In the empire as such, there is no right of peoples to self-determination and the possibility of separation. In the USSR, on the contrary.


                    On the fence, you can write anything you want. Even the right to self-determination. But exercising this right is another matter, and while the USSR as an Empire was strong, no one was able to leave the Union. And even wider - from the Warsaw Pact.
                  2. alicante11
                    29 December 2013 03: 10
                    -1
                    An empire (from lat. Imperium - power) is a powerful military power uniting different peoples and territories into a single state.


                    See the definition of Empire and the "omniscient wiki" at least. Damn lawyer.
                    1. Yarosvet
                      Yarosvet 29 December 2013 14: 13
                      +1
                      Quote: alicante11
                      Absolutely not necessary. An example is the entry of Georgia and Armenia into the Russian Empire
                      Also by military means, just from the opposite - Georgia and Armenia jumped into the Republic of Ingushetia for security reasons because of the military threat from Turkey and Iran.

                      Where is that written? The USA is also a democracy. Will you deny that this is an Empire?
                      Of course - this is an exaggeration for a red word from the "evil empire" series.

                      On the fence, you can write anything you want. Even the right to self-determination. But exercising this right is another matter, and while the USSR as an Empire was strong, no one was able to leave the Union. And even wider - from the Warsaw Pact.
                      Did not succeed, or in general there was no desire?
                      You have an amazing logic: "if no one came out, then they could not, if someone hypothetically could have a desire to conduct an extraordinary audit of the Central Bank, then it must have appeared."
                      It doesn’t matter that even indirect facts that speak in favor of your imagination are 0.

                      Quote: alicante11
                      An empire (from lat. Imperium - power) is a powerful military power uniting different peoples and territories into a single state.


                      See the definition of Empire and the "omniscient wiki" at least. Damn lawyer.
                      Take an interest in the meaning of the concept of "military power".
                      1. alicante11
                        29 December 2013 16: 58
                        0
                        Also by military means, just from the opposite - Georgia and Armenia jumped into the Republic of Ingushetia for security reasons because of the military threat from Turkey and Iran.


                        Demagogy. They were not conquered.

                        Of course - this is an exaggeration for a red word from the "evil empire" series.


                        Denying the obvious is your problem.

                        Did not succeed, or in general there was no desire?
                        You have an amazing logic: "if no one came out, then they could not, if someone hypothetically could have a desire to conduct an extraordinary audit of the Central Bank, then it must have appeared."
                        It doesn’t matter that even indirect facts speak in favor of your imagination - 0


                        Can you imagine such a "regret" from either Georgia or sprotland in the 48th year. Although in the 60s-70s the result would have been no better.
                        But at the expense of the Central Bank audit - yes, it did. But ... a log. As I said in the last article.

                        Take an interest in the meaning of the concept of "military power".


                        But so enlighten, the wisest of lawyers.
                      2. Yarosvet
                        Yarosvet 30 December 2013 18: 17
                        +1
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Demagogy. They were not conquered
                        But they did not rush into the arms of RI because of great love for the latter. And with what joy are you trying to draw conclusions not on trends, but on rare exceptions?

                        Denying the obvious is your problem
                        This is not an argument.

                        Can you imagine such a "pity" from either Georgia or sprotland in the 48th year. Although in the 60s-70s the result would have been no better
                        Why should I introduce him? Such desires arise among narrow groups of separatists, and not among the people as a whole.

                        But at the expense of the Central Bank audit - yes, it did. But ... a log
                        Exactly that log: let's say you have an acquaintance with whom you accidentally intersect on average once a month. Let's say it so happens that you have not crossed paths for 2 months. What is the probability that you are out of the "meeting schedule" due to the fact that a log fell on your friend's head (not a disease, not an affair, not some other injury caused for example by a brick - just a log)?
                        So with your unscheduled audit - the probability of an attempt about which no one knows is almost zero: you have no clues, not even indirect facts, that speak of such an attempt - this is your fantasy.

                        So enlighten, wisest of lawyers.
                        No, dear man — let us do it all the more since the meaning of this concept completely refutes your fabrications about the peaceful expansion of empires.
                      3. alicante11
                        31 December 2013 06: 42
                        -1
                        But they did not rush into the arms of RI because of great love for the latter. And with what joy are you trying to draw conclusions not on trends, but on rare exceptions?


                        Demagogy.

                        This is not an argument.


                        You don’t have them at all.

                        Why should I introduce him? Such desires arise among narrow groups of separatists, and not among the people as a whole.


                        Who cares? The main thing you imagine what would be.

                        Namely, that log: let's say you have a friend with whom you accidentally meet on average once a month.


                        Do you even understand the delusionality of your examples? Hope so.

                        No, dear man — let us do it all the more since the meaning of this concept completely refutes your fabrications about the peaceful expansion of empires.


                        Yes, you sho, I myself have to refute my thoughts? Can't you iron the laces? Would you go if you can not lead the discussion.
                        HOW can you refute the facts? Georgia and Armenia were included in the Russian Empire voluntarily. At the same time, all the colonies of Great Britain were annexed to it by force of arms. The empire unites peoples in various ways. Both war and the benefits of joining. Only you do not understand. This is not written down in the Constitution.
    2. evgenm55
      evgenm55 27 December 2013 14: 18
      +1
      Why didn’t Peter leave? In my opinion, I didn’t have time either - I did not think, in spite of my whole remarkable mind and suspicion, that they would kill him so quickly, meanly and vilely ... The history of the Great is repeated ...
    3. ATATA
      ATATA 27 December 2013 17: 03
      +1
      Quote: Canep
      And why did not Stalin leave the receiver?

      This is the most important question!
      And the answer to it is needed before Putin leaves.
  3. Ascetic
    Ascetic 27 December 2013 11: 16
    +20
    Quote: LaGlobal
    I would say - she’s too much control! Looks like a man, wants to get out of this country. Or already dumped. But we know that this is not so.

    Example
    only the Soros Foundation lost $ 2 billion on the collapsed GKO pyramid)

    Actually
    In 1992 ... 1993 as George Soros, Permanent Consultant to the President and Government of the Russian Federation, initiated the idea of ​​the GKO pyramid. The payment of high (but not secured by real income) interest to holders of T-bills was ensured by the forced imposition of their purchase by Russian enterprises and financial institutions. Operations with T-bills were carried out under the decisive role of such members of the Chernomyrdin government and consultants of mondialist organizations as A. Chubais, G. Burbulis, A. Shokhin, B. Fedorov, A. Livshits.
    With the exhaustion of organizations and institutions to which the T-bills could be imposed, the collapse of this financial adventure was also approaching. Soros, who invested considerable capital in T-bills, earlier than others determined the moment of the onset of this collapse. In the spring and summer of 1998, he and the dealers and senior state officials connected with him, gradually get rid of T-bills through frontmen, thereby provoking their even greater depreciation. The main speculative source of revenue for the Russian government is collapsing. According to data published by Western investigators and experts, more than 700 major Russian figures, including government leaders, participated in a scam with GKOs. On the day of default on August 17, many senior government officials sold their T-bills at an extremely favorable rate for money from the International Monetary Fund, thus crediting billions of dollars to their personal accounts in the West, leaving worthless T-bills in the state treasury. On August 17, the government rejects payments on T-bills. For banks and enterprises that have concentrated a significant amount of T-bills in their hands, a real financial catastrophe ensues, causing the ruble to devalue three times, rapid price increases and the ruin of enterprises.

    The "charitable" Soros Foundation, which has branches throughout Russia, organized in the 90s a number of large-scale operations to undermine the Russian economy, throwing it back several decades. who put hundreds of millions of dollars in the pocket of J. Soros, as well as A. Chubais, G. Burbulis and other accomplices and brought grief and suffering to many millions of Russian people; at the same time, under the guise of philanthropic activity, George Soros created in Russia a ramified subversive organization that became a legal "cover" for many CIA and Israeli intelligence officers. Major subversive operations initiated by the Soros Foundation:

    1) the so-called "privatization", which transferred the overwhelming part of the property of the Russian people into the hands of international financial swindlers;
    2) the collapse of the ruble on October 11, 1994 ("Black Tuesday"), which caused the collapse of the Russian financial system and the ruin of many enterprises;
    3) a financial fraud with the GKO pyramid, which led to a new ruin of Russian enterprises, a deception of foreign investors and a large external debt
    1. alicante11
      27 December 2013 13: 39
      -1
      The fact that Soros participated in the creation of T-bills at the early stages of its work does not in any way refute the losses of Soros during the collapse of the pyramid. The issues of dropping T-bills by the Russian top for a loan from the IMF fit into my theory. At the expense of Western accounts, I would doubt it. Unless these were accounts in Switzerland or offshore, where before the funds were safe from any direction.
    2. Same lech
      Same lech 28 December 2013 08: 46
      0
      I agree STANISLAV - I would add if the BRZHEZINSKY theoretician on the destruction of RUSSIA then SOROS has more practices and its destructive activity is not so noticeable as the work of BRZHEZINSKY. (Very dangerous enemies)
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 27 December 2013 09: 54
    +8
    I read .. We all know the conclusion for a long time.! Russia at all times in its history are trying and will try to destroy to destroy .. (by any means) so far no one has succeeded! (a hint at Putin that he is a "zaslanets" is also being exaggerated by all and sundry ..) I'm tired of reading all this ..
  • makarov
    makarov 27 December 2013 10: 45
    +1
    Not learned anything new for himself. Maybe something for the young generation will discover?
    1. alicante11
      27 December 2013 13: 40
      0
      Well, as I said, the facts are well known. Although the issues of T-bills were for me personally a discovery.
    2. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 27 December 2013 15: 44
      0
      Quote: makarov
      Not learned anything new for himself. Maybe something for the young generation will discover?

      hardly. very messy.
  • matross
    matross 27 December 2013 12: 08
    +6
    Quote: small
    Big article

    Quote: small
    I didn’t read

    You would not be able to come up with a more shameful post for yourself! Do you read by syllables? Or having read to the middle, do you forget the beginning? Do not read so no need to comment! Children of the exam and comics will destroy us.
    However, forgive me, for the hurt, apparently ...
  • RBLip
    RBLip 27 December 2013 09: 37
    0
    many letters. minuscule facts. much pulled and turned upside down. in short, sloppy article.
    PS Pu is far from the messiah.
    1. alicante11
      27 December 2013 13: 42
      0
      If you read the article, you would understand that the Messiah does not smell there. I think that then your opinion about the article would have changed :).
    2. matross
      matross 27 December 2013 15: 03
      +1
      Quote: RBLip
      Pu is far from the messiah.

      Got Fart already. There is nothing to breathe from the "fighters against the regime."
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Yarosvet
          Yarosvet 27 December 2013 16: 20
          0
          Quote: RBLip
          for today's Russia - the least evil. but evil.

          Why the smallest? It’s quite a strong middle peasant (at least)
  • valokordin
    valokordin 27 December 2013 09: 51
    0
    I read the article, but with great difficulty, only one conclusion to us without the president of St. Vladimir is nowhere.
    1. alicante11
      27 December 2013 13: 43
      +1
      I’m afraid you didn’t master the article. Since there is no such conclusion and not even a hint of such a conclusion.
      1. cayman gene
        cayman gene 27 December 2013 15: 35
        +1
        the trouble is that your article is unreadable. by a terrible effort of will he forced himself to read, and to discuss is beyond my powers.
        1. Just Vasilich
          Just Vasilich 27 December 2013 23: 48
          0
          Cayman Gene: the trouble is that your article is unreadable.

          I do not agree with the crocodile Gena. The fact is that it should not be taken as a separate article, but in a compartment with the author’s previous article (he refers to it at the beginning). But this is already a question of the culture of working with texts.

          The tactical miss of the author is in the order of the articles in the cycle. The present article, in my opinion, was supposed to be the first, preceding, and the first, which caused abundant comments, and not only critical ones, the second.

          The author's opinion regarding the essence of modern Russian power has a right to exist, since it explains many of the phenomena of post-Soviet politics and economics. For objectivity, I note that this opinion is not exclusive - it is also stated in the book "Corporation Russia" (http://flibusta.net/b/184107).

          At least two articles by Alik Kontor deserve bОless attention than some cheers-patriotic articles and comments.
  • user
    user 27 December 2013 09: 56
    +8
    Perhaps the listed events occurred in the order in which the author presented them.
    But I already spoke out somehow that there is a certain group of comrades behind the arrival of the VP (you can call them siloviki or representatives of big business - whoever you like, but this group is part of the business and government structures - at the decision-making level), but this group belongs to Berezovsky has an indirect relationship. And judging by recent events, this group does not play on the side of the Anglo-Saxons or has stopped playing on their side, although judging by the actions it is moderate enough and tries not to enter into an open confrontation with the oligarchic business.
    This gives some certainty that the prospects for the development of Russia as an independent and financially independent country has a rather big chance of success.
    1. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 27 December 2013 13: 18
      +2
      Quote: user
      And judging by recent events, this group does not play on the side of the Anglo-Saxons or has stopped playing on their side
      Or she always played only for herself.

      This gives some certainty that the prospects for the development of Russia as an independent and financially independent country has a rather big chance of success.
      This gives confidence only that these guys will not give up their interests.

      But if the benefits of surrendering the country to them one day turn out to be higher than its preservation (and this will happen sooner or later - the resources are finite), then goodbye Russia.

      And it can be absolutely unequivocally said that these comrades have long put on the people.
    2. evgenm55
      evgenm55 27 December 2013 14: 14
      +1
      If it exists, this group (and apparently there is) it plays, of course, against the Americans, but not for the happiness and blogging of Russia and the people. They have their own, selfish, excuse me, commercial interests. Well, and their representative is ours supreme. I think so.
      1. Yarosvet
        Yarosvet 27 December 2013 16: 24
        +1
        Quote: evgenm55
        If it exists, this group (and apparently there is) it plays, of course, against the Americans, but not for the happiness and blogging of Russia and the people. They have their own, selfish, excuse me, commercial interests. Well, and their representative is ours supreme. I think so.

        I agree with you - this is the logic of organized crime groups: we protect interests and controlled territories, and try to bite them off from competitors (at the same time, they do not care about suckers living in controlled territories - the main thing is that they do not unite and not rebel)
  • Averias
    Averias 27 December 2013 10: 01
    +1
    The "good" oligarchs defeated the "bad" oligarchs, at first they stole together, then separately. Someone put someone somewhere, "families". And so on and so ... ... I read the first article of the author in full, I did not master this one, a lot of empty, conjectures, speculation, sheer conspiracy theories. The fact (I don't know if Putin is a merit or who is behind him) that the country was "stopped at the edge of the abyss", or rather, they were not allowed to fall to the bottom of this abyss (since we fell there together) is a fact and it is useless to argue ... And guessing on coffee grounds - why? Somehow in a conversation with serious retired people (big stars on epaulets, patriots to the ends of their hair), as it was in a conversation with them I heard - there are still normal people THERE, few but there are and they are becoming more and more.
    1. evgenm55
      evgenm55 27 December 2013 14: 22
      0
      What is minusanuli for? +
  • Stinger
    Stinger 27 December 2013 10: 06
    +3
    Hard -. Although the cantor in translation means the main singer of the synagogue, but this does not mean that you need to sing the same song.
  • duchy
    duchy 27 December 2013 10: 07
    +3
    Informative article. A man laid out his view on the events of the recent past, summarized a fairly large amount of material and set out clearly, simply and intelligibly. Honestly, for the first time I am reading such a review, without unnecessary boltology and abstruse phrases. I think that someone else will express another point of view, on the other hand. hi
    1. Son
      Son 27 December 2013 13: 11
      0
      The article, like your comment, is solid. The main "currents" are shown correctly, without distracting details.
  • rugor
    rugor 27 December 2013 10: 39
    +3
    You can argue about the conclusions of the author, but the article is interesting anyway.
  • Magadan
    Magadan 27 December 2013 10: 44
    0
    Everything was as the author described, but this does not prove that Putin is a traitor! The group that Putin nominated could simply outwit the liberal-comprador-oligarchs. Outwit, then, playing on their contradictions, slowly get rid of them with their own hands. Those gentlemen, like spiders in a jar, so they would have bitten each other's throats.
    Most likely, Stalin also outplayed the Lenin-Trotskyists. Only then was everything even more brutal.
    I myself do not know who Putin is and let it be so. We will judge by the fruits. So far, the fruits, no matter how you twist on his side, when compared with EBNom. But, he is inferior, whatever one may say, to the success of the USSR.
    But if anything, I’ll go to the revolutionaries myself (though I myself hate Edrossov and our bureaucrats). Enough of the revolutions. You can learn to crush reptiles and one by one.
    1. alicante11
      27 December 2013 13: 46
      -3
      No one talks about betrayal. IMHO, GDP is too solid for betrayal. He just serves or is friends with the wrong people - with the oligarchs.
      1. evgenm55
        evgenm55 27 December 2013 14: 24
        +1
        Did you understand what you wrote?
        1. alicante11
          27 December 2013 14: 29
          0
          What bothers you?
  • major071
    major071 27 December 2013 11: 05
    +7
    The author is certainly a plus, but only because he printed so many letters. I wouldn’t cut it off my shoulder, and the church has not yet ranked the GDP as a saint. laughing Or do I not know something?
    1. alicante11
      27 December 2013 13: 47
      0
      Have you tried to read the article? Then they would understand that it is not necessary to rank the saints of GDP.
  • Gorinich
    Gorinich 27 December 2013 11: 07
    +2
    The analysis is apparently close to the truth ...
  • Candy wrapper
    Candy wrapper 27 December 2013 11: 15
    +6
    Putin, however, frankly says: they say first we will become strong, and then we will enter the Western community on much more favorable terms. He says this about the CU and the EU, but given that the power in the CU and the EU does not belong to the people, but to the big capitalists ... Local oligarchs will win or not - the people will not get any good. We need the USSR (state owned by the people), there is no other way.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 27 December 2013 12: 53
      +2
      Quote: Fantik
      Putin, however, frankly says: they say first we will become strong, and then we will enter the Western community on much more favorable terms.

      Tanks this time will be equipped with air conditioning ... smile
      The meaning (even if it is one) of Putin's words becomes clear much later than they are said, as a rule.
      We need the USSR (state owned by the people), there is no other way

      I do not know about the USSR, but a social system aimed at creation and development, rather than consumption and degradation, will be needed by the whole planet very soon. We have a chance to lay the first stone.
      IMHO
    2. alicante11
      27 December 2013 13: 48
      0
      You are certainly right. But here I have no answer to the question of HOW to return the USSR to us. One of the motives for writing articles is precisely the attempt to initiate a search by others for such an answer.
      1. Candy wrapper
        Candy wrapper 27 December 2013 18: 54
        +1
        I have already written that for the revival of the USSR, one single condition must be observed: the overwhelming majority of the working people in our country must wish for the revival of the USSR. And for this it is necessary that the majority knew the simple difference between the USSR and the Russian Federation. And this difference is not in communism mixed with dirt or its absence, it is very simple, and was lucidly stated in the article: "On the fundamental difference between the USSR and Russia, or What exactly did the Soviet people lose" (http://strejndzher.livejournal.com /52506.html). The USSR is a state owned by the people (the people received dividends from the activities of their state, the use of its natural resources, in the form of free education, medicine, housing, the right to work (state guarantee of employment), the people were the main wealth of the state; RF is a state owned by oligarchs in which the people are a hired labor force that does not have such rights and is gradually deprived of even their appearance that has remained from Soviet times.When people, for the most part, understand that the USSR is not a state belonging to communists, but a state belonging to the people mental environment in the CIS will change completely by making the revival of the USSR irreversible Thus, the question of the revival of the USSR is the question of how to convey this simple difference to the attention of the majority of the people.
        Only this time, it seems to me, it is not worth strangling the truth with a cumbersome ideological extension to a kind of communism. To hell with them, with the names: communism, democracy, liberalism, Christianity ... let us leave these verbiage for philosophical debates. The USSR is a state owned by the people and the point. Killing the bare truth is much more difficult and much easier to convey to people. Take the main and the best and build the USSR again. Better and stronger!
        1. alicante11
          28 December 2013 08: 05
          0
          I think that the majority of workers will vote "FOR" the return of the USSR with both hands. But here's how to make them COULD express their opinion, which no one asks us? The question is on a practical level.
          1. Candy wrapper
            Candy wrapper 28 December 2013 18: 13
            0
            Now supporters of the return of the USSR do not have a majority, the vast majority of us. This is the main obstacle. People do not understand, do not seek.
            1. Garrin
              Garrin 28 December 2013 18: 16
              0
              Quote: Fantik
              Now supporters of the return of the USSR do not have a majority, the vast majority of us. This is the main obstacle.

              Sorry, but they just said stupidity.
            2. alicante11
              29 December 2013 03: 12
              0
              You are deeply wrong. Of course, I cannot prove this. But look at least at the change of attitude towards Stalin. And if it’s already, then to the return of the name of Stalingrad to Volgograd.
              1. Candy wrapper
                Candy wrapper 29 December 2013 21: 23
                0
                I see a change in attitude towards Stalin on patriotic sites on the Internet (although here, too, supporters of the revival of the USSR do not have a majority). In reality, not virtual, I do not see any changes.
  • Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 27 December 2013 11: 28
    +3
    I read it, thought it over. There is a rational kernel. In any case, I completely agree with the interpretation of the events of the 50s presented by the article.
    The rest must be considered.

    The article is a plus anyway.
  • andrey777
    andrey777 27 December 2013 11: 33
    +4
    I would call the article "Chronicles of Russia in the 90s"
    1. Cherdak
      Cherdak 27 December 2013 12: 53
      +2
      Quote: andrey777
      "Chronicles of Russia 90s"
  • itr
    itr 27 December 2013 11: 53
    +1
    I am NOT FOR Putin and NOT AGAINST Putin. I FOR my family and my three childrenI'm not here not there, I'm not not them
    It's time to decide!
  • ovgorskiy
    ovgorskiy 27 December 2013 12: 28
    -1
    Chronicles of Russia divewhat a loud title of the article. It remains to find out Russia by what parameters it is diving. Both the title and the article itself are completely empty. One gets the impression that the author of this opus wrote on the headlines of articles in newspapers, without reading the articles themselves. You could just as well rewrite newspaper headlines and add at the end "Putin destroyed Russia." All.
  • Cherdak
    Cherdak 27 December 2013 12: 47
    0
    The next kitchen hamster, ako Vasisualiy Lokhankin, is aware of his significant role in world history. And he does it boldly, considering that "... since the actions of state structures are often secret, and the actions of people standing above state structures, in principle, do not have supporting documents, because they operate outside the state or international legal field and they do not need to draw up and leave significant documents." bully
    1. alicante11
      27 December 2013 14: 04
      0
      Creative class, in a way, is about you.
  • CALL.
    CALL. 27 December 2013 12: 52
    +2
    Over the past year, Putin's rhetoric and policies have begun to change dramatically. I follow this with approval rather than disapproval. Perhaps, indeed, all of Putin's previous activities were an implementation operation. Or they again sell us a "doll". As if, again, do not @ bali.
    Everything is correctly written in the article.
  • dmb
    dmb 27 December 2013 12: 59
    +2
    The essence of the article, it seems to me, is in the phrase about Putin, and although he is practically not mentioned further, the drawing of parallels is obvious. After Stalin, everything was bad for us until Putin came, and then everything began to flourish. To begin with, not everything was smooth under Stalin, but that is not the point. The main thing is that all subsequent rulers up to Bald. continued to build socialism, and not engage in personal enrichment and the enrichment of their household. "Combiner" simply did not have time, although it laid the foundation. Putin and his associates continue the work of Misha and Bori, not Stalin. And the people do not care. who is enriched at his expense, the Zionist Rothschild or the "true Orthodox" Yakunin. They are worth each other. I did not understand why the author kicked Malenkov, who proposed increasing the output of a group of consumer goods. Malenkov was not mad about fat. Comrade Kantor apparently does not know that after the war people sometimes not only had no pants from Cardin, but pants in general. I would like to note that Comrade Kantor himself is a fairly well-to-do person today; he and his family do not care much about tariffs, prices for housing, food, education and medicine. Therefore, such "stability" suits him. Why would he need a revolution. And the fact that others do not have this is because they are "non-creative".
    1. alicante11
      27 December 2013 14: 05
      -1
      The essence of the article, it seems to me in the phrase about Putin, and even though it is not mentioned further, drawing parallels is obvious. After Stalin, everything was bad with us until Putin came, and then everything began to flourish.


      Not true. I expressed my opinion on this in a previous article. Therefore, I did not repeat myself.
  • alicante11
    27 December 2013 13: 35
    +1
    I am touched by some comments. In the comments to the article they managed to rank me as both Putinophiles and Putinophobes.
    I am neither one nor the other. I think that if anyone has read the article, then they already understood it. Previously, I was more for it, now, more likely, I was disappointed. As you can see in the last article. In general, this article is not about GDP. And about how they destroyed my country. Rereading it here on the site, I realized that in the last article it was not necessary to deduce VVP as the main "hero". Since there is really only one hero here - Russia. Which survived so many misfortunes, but still stands under the blows of internal and external enemies. And I am very sorry that I can do so little to help Her.
    1. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 27 December 2013 14: 12
      +3
      but because your article is akin to a song:

      Gypsies rode
      they sang a song you won’t understand.
      they had a guitar you can’t tune,
      in a word, you will not understand anything.
  • explorer
    explorer 27 December 2013 13: 55
    0
    Well, the ice ax was replaced with a creative "scarf" - which is also probably a kind of ellipsis in the struggle of the "elites". - and then the conclusion about reaching the level of world confrontation at the end of the 30s of the twentieth century.
  • vlad.svargin
    vlad.svargin 27 December 2013 14: 50
    +2
    But his sudden death sharply intensified the confrontation along the line of party nomenclature - the production workers. Bright representatives of the first were Malenkov, Khrushchev and Bulganin. They were opposed by the so-called "production workers" led by L.P. Beria. What would be the situation if they won, we can only guess. But the party apparatchiks turned out to be the winners, who were able to win over the military, led by G.K. Zhukov, and such "non-aligned" representatives of the Soviet elite as V.M. Molotov. In the course of further struggle, N. S. Khrushchev found himself at the top of power.

    Practically N. Khrushchev (hidden Trotskyist) began "the first perestroika" (it seems to me under the influence of the West), when the socialist principle was replaced by state capitalism. Stalinist economists and production workers were retired or destroyed. A stream of completely random and distant careerists poured into not only the party nomenklatura, but also the KGB. The ministries, the army, the navy, aviation, and agriculture were destroyed. Only thanks to the policy of "enlarging agriculture", closing MTS, destroying personal subsidiary farms and raising unjustified taxes, the country was dealt such a blow that even under Leonid Brezhnev (who practically no longer ruled) we bought wheat and other food abroad (for gold) And then the old people in the Politburo were no longer able (because of insanity) to stop the "dive" and pressure of "agents of influence" (at the very top of power) of the West, not only in Eastern European countries, but also in our republics.
    For the rest, I agree with the author of the article, although some forum users criticize her. The collapse of the USSR simply happened due to external influence in the presence of a fifth column (it’s disgusting to pronounce the names of the leaders of the second perestroika, with them the Western influence increased a hundredfold)
  • duchy
    duchy 27 December 2013 15: 44
    +1
    Guys! Let's proceed from what we have to do now for our happy life. What has happened, we will not change at the moment (we don’t have a time machine, or is there?). What we have at the moment. We are all cogs, grains of sand in this life and honestly from each of us individually doesn’t depend on anything, as chemists say, a catalyst is needed, in this case in society it is a leader, a leader, a leader who will be able to direct the efforts of each of us in the general channel of our desires. so that a powerful stream would turn out that will sweep away the old channel and build a new one according to our desires. Who will call him right now? Personally, I believe that no one can answer at the moment. The rest is all chatter, "if only, if only." Yes, there are many things, personally I am not satisfied with the current way of life and the course of life in my country, but analyzing it, you understand that a bad peace is better than a good war. Everything in the past is for historians. "Will live" drinks
  • Yarosvet
    Yarosvet 27 December 2013 16: 05
    -2
    "... Stalin, who destroyed the past mechanism of Russia's collapse." - a battered mythology that was not confirmed by anything, designed to separate Stalin from Lenin.
    "... this approach to economics went against the spirit of classical Marxism ..." - KOBovskaya mythologeme that has nothing to do with reality.
    "... who closed the whole circle of questions on himself and harshly suppressed ..." - Another myth, designed to convince the layman in the need for the Russian Federation of sole authority and leadership.
    Leader? Locked on a whole range of issues? Toughly overwhelming? And all this in a republic with a parliamentary form of government? laughing
    "... lulling the vigilance of the Soviet leadership ..." - another mythologeme from the series "the West destroyed, won, etc.": there were no idiots in the Soviet leadership.
    "The betrayal of the young party elite ... to win the ideological war, powdering the brains of Soviet citizens ..." - what did the YOUNG PARTY "elite" decide independently? What was the Committee doing during the betrayal? Did the advertisement of the Western way of life take place not at the level of official politics, did the West win the ideological war, and not the party bosses, with whose approval the Western ideology was broadcast?
    "... with the beginning of R. Reagan's rule and the beginning of an operation to dismember Russia." - and right there: "In the mid and late 70s, the West fell into a period of crisis" - Well, how much should Americans be cool, that in addition to solving internal problems, are they even able to divide the USSR? Well, how much should the leadership of the USSR be inadequate, that it is not only unable to take advantage of the crisis of the West in its own interests, but also manages to flaunt its positions?
    "Suppress the crisis by spinning the economy ... and use trained traitors ..." - who prepared? When and where? Did the Committee have a cup of tea at this time?
    "The attacks on Russia were delivered from various directions." - And this despite the crisis? Why couldn't we / can't? We don’t know where the traitors took us to Afghanistan, and the patriots drove the teas along with the Committee at that time? Could a fall in oil prices affect a country that is actually self-sufficient? The 5th column independently opened the information field - did the Committee have tea with the patriots at that time? Prohibition passed bypassing the patriotic leadership?
    "... under the strict guidance of foreign advisers ..." - Advisers climbed into the offices themselves? Were they leaders, or advisers in particular?
    "Already in 1995 ... in the form of de facto recognition of the independence of Chechnya ..." - what recognition of independence ?! belay With Tatarstan, in general, everything was decided back in '93 (as well as with the Ural republic).
    "... the terrorists dictated their terms in Khasavyurt ..." - which had a legal form defining the CR as a subject of the Federation? Class conditions "dictated" laughing
    "... the oligarchs and the government have come to a certain agreement." - And what prevents us from assuming that the oligarchs and the authorities are initially one group, some of whose representatives decided to be independent (which they did not succeed in doing)?
    "... forced the Family to surrender." - who gave up?
    1. alicante11
      28 December 2013 08: 26
      0
      "... Stalin, who destroyed the past mechanism of Russia's collapse." - a hackneyed, unconfirmed mythologeme designed to separate Stalin from Lenin.


      And for you, everything that does not coincide with your views is a mythologeme.

      "... this approach to economics went against the spirit of classical Marxism ..." - KOB's mythologeme, which has nothing to do with reality.


      And at least did not try to analyze? After all, talk nonsense.

      "... who closed the whole circle of questions on himself and harshly suppressed ..." is another myth, designed to convince the layman of the need for the Russian Federation of sole power and leaderism.


      Refute if you can.

      Leader? Locked on a whole range of issues? Toughly overwhelming? And all this in a republic with a parliamentary form of government? laughing


      Hmm, a lawyer is not a profession - it is a diagnosis. Lawyers along the way - they are like children. Believe everything that is written.

      "... lulling the vigilance of the Soviet leadership ..." - another mythologeme from the series "the West destroyed, won, etc.": there were no idiots in the Soviet leadership.


      generally in the manual are very rare. But for some reason, in wars there is always a winner and a loser.

      "The betrayal of the young party elite ... to win the ideological war by screwing up the brains of Soviet citizens ..." - what did the YOUNG PARTY "elite" decide independently? What was the Committee doing during the betrayal? Did the advertisement of the Western way of life take place not at the level of official politics, did the West win the ideological war, and not the party bosses, with whose approval the Western ideology was broadcast?


      The same representatives of the "young party elite" sat on the Committee. You constantly spread rot on one of them.

      "... with the beginning of R. Reagan's rule and the beginning of an operation to dismember Russia." - and then: "In the mid and late 70s, the West fell into a period of crisis" - how cool should the Americans be, that in addition to solving internal problems, they also manage to dismember the USSR?


      So what bothers you? The British Empire was also in crisis. From which came out in two wars. You just need to start overcoming the crisis in time, when there is still strength for this. You should at least learn the story. And not just codes of laws.

      "The attacks on Russia were delivered from various directions." - and this despite the crisis?


      Are Americans not in crisis now? But in Libya and Syria, they did not strike? Before you write something. Just think that it’s not so stupid to blurt out.

      It’s not known where the traitors took us to Afghanistan, and the patriots at that time, along with the Committee, drove the teas


      You dreamed about traitors and idiots. Traitors and withdrew troops from Afghanistan. The results of this we are reaping a huge increase in drug addiction.
    2. alicante11
      28 December 2013 08: 27
      0
      Could a fall in oil prices affect a country that is actually self-sufficient?


      One thing could not. This is just one of the hits. Far from the main one. Well, the truth is, you need to think about what you are reading, or already be silent in a rag.

      The 5 column opened the information field on its own - did the Committee have tea with the patriots at that time? Prohibition passed bypassing the patriotic leadership?


      Continue trolling hard. And I gave the answer to this above. At the expense of "patriotic leadership" - are you talking about Gorby? Why dry law is indicated there, even if they thought ...

      "... under the strict guidance of foreign advisers ..." - did the advisers themselves climb into the offices? Were they leaders, or were they just advisers?


      Advisers. What bothers you? In my opinion, you deny the dominant role of the fifth column, which occupied the leading seats.

      "Already in 1995 ... in the form of the actual recognition of the independence of Chechnya ..." - what recognition of independence ?! belay In general, everything was decided with Tatarstan back in 93 (as well as with the Ural republic).


      Yeah What is the difference between legal and factual in the dictionary, look, plz. Such obvious truths as the actual independence of Chechnya after Khasavyurt are not even convenient to paint. Learn the materiel.

      "... the terrorists dictated their conditions in Khasavyurt ..." - which had a legal form defining the Chechen Republic as a subject of the Federation? Cool conditions "dictated" laughing


      And on the fence is also written "H ... Y". And behind the fence, not he - but firewood.

      ... the oligarchs and the government have come to a certain agreement. "- what prevents us from assuming that the oligarchs and the government are initially one group, some of which decided to be independent (which they did not manage to do)?


      Imagine. Am I disturbing you?
      1. Yarosvet
        Yarosvet 28 December 2013 15: 47
        +1
        Quote: alicante11
        And for you, everything that does not coincide with your views is a mythologeme.
        And at least did not try to analyze? After all, talk nonsense.
        Analyzed: you repeated the nonsense, the roots of which are the same as the roots of the tales of tens of millions of innocent victims of Stalinist repressions.

        Refute if you can
        The constitution of the 36 year — or do you assume that Stalin violated the laws he had written (and anyone could write, including exclusively in his own interests)?

        Hmm, a lawyer is not a profession - it is a diagnosis. Lawyers are welcome - they are like children. Believe everything that is written
        Refute if you can.

        generally in the manual are very rare. But for some reason, in wars there is always a winner and a loser
        This is in wars. In our case, everything happened due to the fact that the country's leaders pursued a policy not just idiotic - clinically schizophrenic, but this is no longer a mistake.

        The same representatives of the "young party elite" sat on the Committee. One of them you constantly spread rot
        The guys of this level then did not decide anything, and the inaction of the KGB leadership and other structures suggests that they consciously participated in the process.

        So what bothers you? The British Empire was also in crisis. From which came out two wars
        The Britons, like the states, fought only with the weak - they did not fight with us. "Cold War" (just like war) is a myth: Cold War is an ordinary showdown between states, going on as long as there are states. This is normal competition - just like competition between companies / firms that produce similar products.

        Are Americans not in crisis now? But in Libya and Syria, they did not strike? Before you write something. Just think that it’s not so stupid to blurt out
        Are Libya and Syria able to compete with the United States? laughing

        You dreamed about traitors and idiots. Traitors and withdrew troops from Afghanistan. The results of this we are reaping a huge increase in drug addiction.
        The results you have indicated are the result of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and not even the result of the US presence there: they are the result of a deliberate lack of adequate policy in this matter.
        1. Yarosvet
          Yarosvet 28 December 2013 16: 06
          +1
          Quote: alicante11
          One thing could not. This is just one of the blows.
          This is not a blow at all. You would ask how the USSR used dollars and why.

          Continue trolling hard. And I gave the answer to this above. At the expense of "patriotic leadership" - are you talking about Gorby? Why dry law is indicated there, even if they thought ...
          And before the labeled one was not? Or did he, a parasite, crawl to power himself and single-handedly decide everything?

          Advisers. And what bothers you? In my opinion, you deny the dominant role of the fifth column, which occupied the leadership seats
          I deny that she was bribed by the West.

          Yeah What is the difference between legal and factual in the dictionary, look, plz. Such obvious truths as the actual independence of Chechnya after Khasavyurt are not even convenient to paint. Learn materiel
          Learn to think: no agreements play a role for actual independence, and you always blame the Khasavyurt agreement as the main reason for actual independence.
          The actual independence of Chechnya specifically is determined solely by the political situation - Chechnya will not last six months if the REAL goal is set once and for all to put an end to the bearded frostbite.

          And on the fence is also written "H ... Y". And behind the fence, not he - but firewood
          You come for firewood, and there is a man with a berdana who says - ..... to you, not firewood.

          Imagine. Am I disturbing you?
          I showed you inconsistencies in your version: you write about the consequences of betrayal and loss in a mythical war, but you need to write about the consequences of a conspiracy, coup d'etat and counter-revolution.
          1. alicante11
            29 December 2013 03: 34
            0
            This is not a blow at all. You would ask how the USSR used dollars and why.


            Well, then enlighten ...

            And before the labeled one was not? Or did he, a parasite, crawl to power himself and single-handedly decide everything?


            At such high posts - no.

            I deny that she was bribed by the West.


            You can immediately feel the "swamp spirit". Then what did the CIA officers do as advisers to the leadership of the Russian Federation?

            Learn to think: no agreements play a role for actual independence, and you always blame the Khasavyurt agreement as the main reason for actual independence.


            You learn how to move your brain. I do not rest against the agreement as a legal document, unlike you, but indicate only the dates for the beginning of the actual independence of Ichkeria, which coincide with the signing of these agreements.

            You come for firewood, and there is a man with a berdana who says - ..... to you, not firewood


            But this does not deny the presence of firewood when the sign is inappropriate. This is just the legal and factual provisions.

            I showed you inconsistencies in your version: you write about the consequences of betrayal and loss in a mythical war, but you need to write about the consequences of a conspiracy, coup d'etat and counter-revolution.


            You haven't shown anything yet. Only one Ascetic raised a real objection. You have the same "myths" and, as usual, the requirement to "prove with documents" what documents cannot be. I have given the chronological factology and explained why it is so. If you want to dispute, challenge either the facts or the conclusions.
        2. alicante11
          29 December 2013 03: 24
          0
          Analyzed: you repeated the nonsense, the roots of which are the same as the roots of the tales of tens of millions of innocent victims of Stalinist repressions.


          Two of you, you need not look at the end of the textbook answer, but give its solution. Moreover, millions of Stalinist repressions dragged on here, a generally left-wing example.

          The constitution of the 36 year — or do you assume that Stalin violated the laws he had written (and anyone could write, including exclusively in his own interests)?


          I say it again. It’s also written on the fence. Or are you so stupid that you think that Stalin did not break the laws? What laws justify the eviction of Chechens or Crimean Tatars? Nothing but the vital need for the state.

          Refute if you can.


          What to refute? What is a lawyer diagnosed with? Why, I’m talking about this.

          This is in wars. In our case, everything happened due to the fact that the country's leaders pursued a policy not just idiotic - clinically schizophrenic, but this is no longer a mistake.


          What am I talking about? Where do I deny the main role of the 5 column in the manual? Windmills tortured? Or have the polemic lost?

          The guys of this level then did not decide anything, and the inaction of the KGB leadership and other structures suggests that they consciously participated in the process.


          Yes, Gorby and EBN did not decide anything? You are delusional. Who then destroyed the Union? Or did the "evil PU" try again?

          The Britons, like the states, fought only with the weak - they did not fight with us.


          Yap-s, however. We recall the Crimean campaign ... Just do not say that they were not alone at war. The insolents against the USSR also mobilized the entire civilized world.

          "Cold War" (just like war) is a myth: Cold War is an ordinary showdown between states, going on as long as there are states. This is normal competition - just like competition between companies / firms that produce similar products.


          This is not a myth - it is one of the elements of preparation for the hot phase of the war. In order to gain advantages in its conduct before the outbreak of hostilities. A good example is the British encirclement policy pursued by Britain after the Franco-Prussian War and before the WWII.

          Are Libya and Syria able to compete with the United States? laughing


          Oops, I cut, taking into account the finished 5 column in the leadership, the resistance of the USSR to the Nuggest Saxons is no worse than the Libyan C-200 for the Needles.

          The results you have indicated are the result of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and not even the result of the US presence there: they are the result of a deliberate lack of adequate policy in this matter.


          Well, and you say that there are no idiots in the manual. And around you have an inadequate policy. Head need to think. There are no fools in the top leadership of countries. They simply do not reach the top posts.
          1. Yarosvet
            Yarosvet 29 December 2013 16: 07
            0
            Quote: alicante11
            Well, then enlighten ...
            You will have to write a lot, so fire.

            Just look at what the State Bank is, what Vneshtorgbank is, remember that the ruble was not convertible, was the currency for domestic use and was not a financial instrument, that imports were minimal, and the USSR provided for itself with 90 percent of the goods (and as a result did not depend on petrodollars, and even within the CMEA framework, calculations were made in transferable rubles) that goods produced by the USSR could disappear from the shelves only if they ceased to be produced (and this is a decree from above), or if they began to hide (and this is an automatic criminal case, slow down which can only be a decree from above).

            At such high posts - no
            What not? Who pulled the tagged?

            Oh, you immediately feel the "swamp spirit"
            Apparently something went bad in your refrigerator.

            Then what did the CIAshniki do in advisers to the leadership of the Russian Federation?
            They advised on issues in which, due to Soviet education, the leadership was not a boom bub.
            Again - how did they end up there? They climbed into the insolent, or were they invited on certain conditions?

            And here’s what you’ll think about:
            1 let's assume your goal is the usurpation of power and the public domain, as well as the possibility of unhindered movement through the territory of fashionable countries, and for this you need to arrange a mess in the country with partially unpredictable consequences. To ensure yourself free movement around the world, will you be forced to negotiate with the West on mutually beneficial conditions, or not?
            2 The above-mentioned mess will cause tension around the world, since the dismantled USSR is a nuclear power. Do you agree in advance with the West in case of possible crisis situations, and will constantly consult and resolve a number of issues together, or will you not agree, thereby risking a run-up of a preventive nuclear strike from the panicked West?

            I indicate only the start dates of the actual independence of Ichkeria, which coincide with the signing of these agreements
            Actual independence began with the decision to reign in the kadyrka, and the Khasavyurt agreement was actually implemented by Vova on a much larger scale than originally anticipated (outwardly it looks like a tribute, but this is not a tribute - payment for the ulug).

            But this does not deny the presence of firewood when the sign is inappropriate. This is just the legal and factual provisions
            Therefore, the accuracy of the wording is paramount in law - where did you get the idea of ​​firewood?

            Only one Ascetic brought a real objection
            After I several times on the facts demonstrated the stupidity of his writings, Ascetic hid from me, having driven me to the black list.

            You have the same "myths"
            Can you point them out?

            that for which there can be no documents
            What documents cannot be supported is compensated by logic, and in your version there is a cloud of assumptions and logical inconsistencies.
            1. Yarosvet
              Yarosvet 29 December 2013 16: 47
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              Two of you, you need not look at the end of the textbook to answer, but give its solution. Moreover, millions of Stalinist repressions dragged here, in general, the left example
              To this he added that tales of repression and tales of the confrontation between Marxism and Stalin are berries from the same field.

              What laws justify the eviction of Chechens or Crimean Tatars? Nothing but a vital need for the state
              He asked himself - he answered laughing

              What to refute? What is a lawyer diagnosed with? Why, I'm talking about this
              This is an argument ...

              What am I talking about?
              On the primary role of the West, which was not.

              Yes, Gorby and EBN did not solve anything?
              I'm actually talking about the "evil Pu". And the marked one and the FUCK ... Did they do everything alone?

              Yap-s, however. We recall the Crimean campaign ... Just do not say that they were not alone at war. The insolents against the USSR also mobilized the entire civilized world
              Mdya ... Why not recall the war of the Neanderthals from the British Isles and the Cro-Magnons from the territory of the current Russian Federation? Fought in the 20th century? Were there any direct "hot" conflicts?
              The whole world was mobilized and he flooded with tanks in the USSR?
              Do not mix war, which is the last stage of competition, and competition as such.

              This is not a myth - it is one of the elements of preparation for the hot phase of the war. In order to gain advantages in its conduct before the outbreak of hostilities. A good example is the British encirclement policy pursued by Britain after the Franco-Prussian War and before the WWII
              If you accept the XV precisely for the war - you have to admit that the world war has been and does not end already since the tribal system.
              All the same, let's graduate a little.

              Oops, I cut, taking into account the finished 5th column in the leadership, the resistance of the USSR for the Naglosaxons is no worse than the Libyan S-200 for the Needles
              There is the 5-th column and the 5-th column. Both that and another acts in own interests. But in one case, the 5 column receives its gesheft in the form of a percentage of the enemy gesheft, and in the other, the enemy gesheft is a percentage of the gesheft of the 5 column - do you understand the difference?

              Well, and you say that there are no idiots in the manual.
              Do not try to turn what I said inside out - did you see the word "purposefully"?
              1. alicante11
                29 December 2013 17: 21
                0
                To this he added that tales of repression and tales of the confrontation of Marxism and Stalin are berries from the same sex


                They didn’t stand nearby.

                He asked himself - he answered laughing


                so you spoke about laws. And not about the need. And I show you that Stalin, if necessary, completely violated his laws.

                On the primary role of the West, which was not.


                There, all the dogs rummaged. And who is the first, who is the second in degree - this is the tenth question.

                I'm actually talking about the "evil Pu". And the marked one and the FUCK ... Did they do everything alone?


                Well, if two freaks were born in the family, then others can be found, not without it. And the higher the status, the more freaks are born, somehow it turns out.

                Mdya ... Why not remember the war of Neanderthals from the British Isles and Cro-Magnons from the territory of the present


                In general, merged over the war with the Angles? So let's write it down.

                The whole world was mobilized and he flooded with tanks in the USSR?


                Worse, economically and ideologically.

                If you accept the XV precisely for the war - you have to admit that the world war has been and does not end already since the tribal system.
                All the same, let's graduate a little.


                And in essence it is. Until only one political force remains on Earth, it will be so. Although your employers were very close to "finishing the story".

                There is the 5-th column and the 5-th column. Both that and another acts in own interests. But in one case, the 5 column receives its gesheft in the form of a percentage of the enemy gesheft, and in the other, the enemy gesheft is a percentage of the gesheft of the 5 column - do you understand the difference?


                Who cares what the 5 column is? The main thing is that she is selling her homeland.

                Do not try to turn what I said inside out - did you see the word "purposefully"?


                And what are the "goals" of provoking drug trafficking? This makes no sense. He also says that there are no idiots.
            2. alicante11
              29 December 2013 17: 10
              0
              You will have to write a lot, so fire.


              No problem. You have already written 3 articles "debunking". And then suddenly you quit. Pay little? I understand that there is a crisis in the State Department now.

              What not? Who pulled the tagged?


              That is not. The CIA beat the old men and pulled them up the mountain.

              Apparently something went bad in your refrigerator.


              yes, a similar smell. But only much worse comes from your marsh mates.

              They advised on issues in which, due to Soviet education, the leadership was not a boom bub.
              Again - how did they end up there? They climbed into the insolent, or were they invited on certain conditions?


              Hmm, democratic assistance. I have never heard such nonsense. Well, they, of course, advised on the complete collapse of the economy in 90.

              1 let's assume your goal is the usurpation of power and the public domain, as well as the possibility of unhindered movement through the territory of fashionable countries, and for this you need to arrange a mess in the country with partially unpredictable consequences. To ensure yourself free movement around the world, will you be forced to negotiate with the West on mutually beneficial conditions, or not?


              Let it be. They agreed. That they will destroy Russia about the end, and for this they are "free to move."

              2 The above-mentioned mess will cause tension around the world, since the dismantled USSR is a nuclear power. Do you agree in advance with the West in case of possible crisis situations, and will constantly consult and resolve a number of issues together, or will you not agree, thereby risking a run-up of a preventive nuclear strike from the panicked West?


              And you would have thought. From what side did the USSR begin to dismantle it? That's right, because the wishes of the corrupt elite and the CIA coincided. So he began to be dismantled.

              Actual independence began with the decision to reign in the kadyrka, and the Khasavyurt agreement was actually implemented by Vova on a much larger scale than originally anticipated (outwardly it looks like a tribute, but this is not a tribute - payment for the ulug).


              M-yes, I have not heard such nonsense ...

              Therefore, the accuracy of the wording is paramount in law - where did you get the idea of ​​firewood?


              Yes, in law, you can specify anything you want. Only if you have no power behind you, then you have no right.

              Can you point them out?


              And what to designate? Only words that "myth", "myth". And you will ask for specifics "thank you".

              What documents cannot be supported is compensated by logic, and in your version there is a cloud of assumptions and logical inconsistencies.


              That's exactly what is being compensated. And not a single discrepancy, except for the legal definition of the Empire, which you yourself do not know, you have not yet brought.
              1. Yarosvet
                Yarosvet 30 December 2013 19: 02
                +1
                Quote: alicante11
                Did not stand nearby
                Really? That is, no one is trying to separate Stalin from Lenin and Marxism, no one is trying to sow in their minds the stereotype that the USSR is an empire, no one is trying to declare Stalin a cruel but fair sovereign ruler who was not written the law, and who almost personally repressed never?
                You do not observe such a trend?

                Meanwhile, Stalin in the consciousness of the majority is a personification of justice, and the above substitutions, replicated including by you, are called upon to fix in the consciousness of the majority a stereotype that says that if you want justice and the benefits characteristic of the USSR, then you must accept the excessively inflated power of one person (actually a monarchy), to create an empire regardless of their own well-being, to remain silent in a rag (or to be subjected to repression for political reasons), put up with violations of the current Constitution, etc. And if you go for it, the sole ruler will make you happy, though it will not do it on the basis of communist ideas of equality and social guarantees, but somehow in your own way (how exactly do you need to know - the main thing is to say what you say).

                so you spoke about laws. And not about the need. And I show you that Stalin, if necessary, completely violated his laws
                What laws did he break?

                who is second in degree - this is the tenth question
                If you just state, then yes, the tenth.

                Well, if two freaks were born in the family, then others can be found, not without it. And the higher the status, the more freaks are born, somehow it turns out
                It is important.

                In general, merged over the war with the Angles?
                After the USSR showed its power by tearing Germany’s ears, not a single scum openly climbed into it - write it down.

                Worse, economically and ideologically
                Economically and ideologically, the USSR was self-sufficient, it was impossible to get it from the outside.

                And it is essentially so
                Then there is no need to allocate exactly XB.

                Until there is only one political force on Earth, it will be so
                Perhaps the question is in the form of this power (communism or feudalism).

                Although your employers were very close to "finishing the story"
                Are the "arguments" over? laughing

                Who cares what the 5th column?
                As a statement - no, as an understanding of what happened and the foundation of a strategy for the future - is huge.

                And what are the "goals" of provoking drug trafficking?
                The destruction of the state-forming people for his own money.
                1. Yarosvet
                  Yarosvet 30 December 2013 19: 46
                  +1
                  Quote: alicante11
                  No problem. You have already written 3 articles "debunking". And then suddenly you quit
                  I gave the bastards - think.

                  Pay little? I understand that the State Department is in crisis
                  You know better.

                  That is not. The CIA beat the old men and pulled them up the mountain
                  It was not the old men who played with the CIA, but those whom you outwit: it was unrealistic to undermine the Union from the outside (including through a hypothetically possible introduction).

                  But only much worse from your marsh mates comes
                  Do you have an obsession syndrome, obsession, or fix idea?

                  Well, they, of course, advised on the complete collapse of the economy in the 90s
                  High-tech production was destroyed, but not the economy as such - the "pipe" and related enterprises were not touched.
                  So where did they come from and who made them advisors / consultants?

                  Let it be. They agreed. That they will destroy Russia about the end, and for this "free movement"
                  Until the end only after "bankruptcy" becomes more profitable than "enterprise work".

                  And you would have thought. From what side did the USSR begin to dismantle it? That's right, because the wishes of the corrupt elite and the CIA coincided. So it began to be dismantled
                  Not so: the USSR posed a threat to the West and an inconvenience for the nomenclature not as a territory (by the way, it is easier to manage one large system than several small ones), but as a socialist system - as an ideology, if you like. It was socialism / communism that was trying to destroy, and for this it was necessary to discredit it - hence the hit on Stalin as a personification of justice (hence the current division of Stalin with Lenin and Marxism), hence the nurturing of national ideologies, which led to an increase in separatist sentiments and the secession of the republics from the USSR , plus the opinion of some national nomenclatures that "it is better to rule in hell ...".
                  In this, the desires of the nomenclatures and the West basically coincided, but then again, who was the initiator? The West, which feared the USSR, or the nomenclature that wanted to legitimize in the form of ownership and inherit what it previously controlled, and not in its own interests?


                  M-yes, I have not heard such nonsense ...
                  You have amazing arguments ...

                  Only if you have no power behind you, then you have no right
                  And if there is no right, then there is no power behind.

                  And what to designate? Only words that "myth", "myth". And ask for specifics "thank you"
                  Yes, do not be shy - label.

                  And not a single discrepancy
                  Dofiga - only the main thing was highlighted by me.
                  1. alicante11
                    31 December 2013 09: 00
                    0
                    I gave the bastards - think.


                    No, I'm still out of my mind. To understand your bastards.

                    You know better.


                    Of course, it’s more visible from the outside.

                    It was not the old men who played with the CIA, but those whom you outwit: it was unrealistic to undermine the Union from the outside (including through a hypothetically possible introduction).


                    For example?

                    Do you have an obsession syndrome, obsession, or fix idea?


                    Do not judge others by yourself.

                    High-tech production was destroyed, but not the economy as such - the "pipe" and related enterprises were not touched.
                    So where did they come from and who made them advisors / consultants?


                    Well, how to explain to the swamp lawyer that high-tech industries are part of the economy, and what is more, their advanced part.

                    Until the end only after "bankruptcy" becomes more profitable than "enterprise work".


                    It has always been more profitable in d.s.

                    Not so: the threat to the West and the inconvenience to the nomenclature of the USSR was not as a territory (by the way, it’s easier to manage one large system than several small ones), but as a socialist system - as an ideology if you like


                    Where are you, these fools are recruited? Or you pretend to be so good. You have been blamed about the struggle against socialism, and you have hung ears. And what, in the Russian Empire, which they tried to tear all the time, was also socialism. Well, when will you think with your head, and not your ass?

                    You have amazing arguments ...


                    Given the level of your argument, you do not deserve others, although you sometimes have to bring normal ones. Since adequate people read.

                    And if there is no right, then there is no power behind.


                    Damn, I'm talking about. A lawyer is a diagnosis. Those. did NATO have the right to bomb Libya? How soon did they have the strength to realize it? Amers had the right to bomb peaceful cities with a nuclear bomb, that they had the power to implement it? Or did the Naglomaxons have the right to arrange a "fire storm" in Dresden, that they had the power to realize it? Or did the fascists have the right to wipe Poland off the face of the Earth, as soon as they realized it? With such arguments, you, Yarosvet, are simple.

                    Yes, do not be shy - label.


                    You check your posts on the word "myth". What to designate something? This is all you have that others say - "myths", not me. Along the way, you didn't even get it. Or just pretended to be a loaf.

                    Dofiga - only the main thing was highlighted by me.


                    None.
                2. alicante11
                  31 December 2013 08: 48
                  0
                  Really? That is, no one is trying to separate Stalin from Lenin and Marxism, no one is trying to sow in their minds the stereotype that the USSR is an empire, no one is trying to declare Stalin a cruel but fair sovereign ruler who was not written the law, and who almost personally repressed never?


                  Lenin and Stalin are two different people. two different forces. Lenin was a romantic of the revolution and a diligent Marxist. The second is proved by the NEP initiated by him, which, judging by Marx, was supposed to create capitalist relations in order to then, with the maturity of PS and PO, move to a higher stage of development - communism. Whereas Stalin did not give a damn about Marxist dogmas and began to build a Power, not a social system. It was Stalin who turned the NEP. Who was right? I do not know. Leninist development did not happen and we do not know how it would end. Therefore, rinsing Lenin is also not worth it. Without Lenin, there would have been no Stalin.

                  What laws did he break?


                  On the basis of what law was the eviction of Chechens and Krymchaks carried out?
                  The question has already gone in a circle. The first time you did not answer him.

                  After the USSR showed its power by tearing Germany’s ears, not a single scum openly climbed into it - write it down.


                  In the open - yes. But the Cold War was not invented by me. Americans even reward for winning it.

                  Economically and ideologically, the USSR was self-sufficient, it was impossible to get it from the outside.


                  "The professor, of course, is a burdock" (c), and even without equipment.

                  Then there is no need to allocate exactly XB.


                  I forgot to ask you what to allocate and what not. War is war. Cold or hot.

                  Perhaps the question is in the form of this power (communism or feudalism).


                  Yes, not in form, but in the personification of the elite that will represent it.

                  Are the "arguments" over? laughing


                  Do not wait. However, they did not start with you.

                  As a statement - no, as an understanding of what happened and the foundation of a strategy for the future - is huge.


                  Like demagoguery - yes, a huge difference. Then I agree.

                  The destruction of the state-forming people for his own money.


                  Well, then it turns out that the policy is quite adequate :).
                  1. Yarosvet
                    Yarosvet 1 January 2014 22: 43
                    0
                    Quote: alicante11
                    No, I'm still out of my mind. To understand your bastards
                    Then you are welcome to a specialized university.

                    Of course, it’s more visible from the side
                    Of course, on the other side of the ocean you know better - who is arguing?

                    For example?
                    For example"?

                    Do not judge others by yourself
                    I'm not at ease, I'm on symptoms.

                    Hmm, well, how to explain to the swamp lawyer that high-tech industries are part of the economy, and its advanced part
                    Words are not tired of playing?

                    Until the end only after "bankruptcy" becomes more profitable than "enterprise work".


                    It has always been more profitable in d.s.
                    Really?

                    And what, in the Russian Empire, which they tried to tear all the time, was also socialism
                    Poor RI - they tried to tear it apart, even "... the upper classes can't - the lower classes don't want ..." to cover up these attempts they invented (as well as the separatism of the conquered territories) laughing
                    All the same, the syndrome of obsessive states, because they went in cycles.

                    Given the level of your argument, you don’t deserve others
                    Biaadaaaa ...

                    Damn, I'm telling you. Lawyer is a diagnosis
                    do not be nervous.

                    Those. NATO had the right to bomb Libya? Since they had the power to realize this?
                    Formally, they created this right, and the pilots flew only because their leadership had the right to give them such an order.

                    bomb peaceful proud with a nuclear bomb
                    arrange a "fire storm" in Dresden
                    wipe Poland off the face of the earth
                    The examples listed are outside the category of law, while not abrogating it.
                    You are so hyped that you interfere in one pile at all.

                    Or just pretended to be a loaf
                    None.
                    I highlighted inconsistencies that I can explain in the comment format. If you have no idea how the monetary system of the USSR worked, how the foreign currency was used, how it was associated with the ruble, etc. - you need to sit down for textbooks or feature articles, and not require me to give you a course of lectures on economics, and refute with facts (which you do not understand) a paradigm in which you simply like to believe.
                    1. Yarosvet
                      Yarosvet 1 January 2014 23: 30
                      0
                      Quote: alicante11
                      Whereas Stalin did not give a damn about the Marxist dogmas and began to build a Power, not a social system
                      I didn’t spit on dogmas - they weren’t, I didn’t refuse Marxism, I built both of them.

                      It was Stalin who turned the NEP
                      In many respects it is forced, since the results were very different from the expected.

                      Leninist development did not happen and we do not know how it would end
                      We know about the goals for which everything was conceived: the difference in the methods of solving the tasks set does not oppose Stalin to Lenin and Marxism.

                      On the basis of what law was the eviction of Chechens and Krymchaks carried out?
                      58 Criminal Code adjusted for special circumstances.

                      In the open - yes. But the Cold War was not invented by me. Americans even reward for winning her
                      The wild degree of mythologization of consciousness ... Horror.
                      1 We have already found out that ХВ and state competition are the same thing, and that ХВ is ongoing, never ending, and is an ordinary phenomenon.
                      2 See already the status of this trinket.
                      3 (again) Shaving and states came out of the crisis fighting with the weak, and this is natural - only complete morons, with whom neither the states nor the shaving had ever been, can try to solve their problems by running into someone who is able to bury them. You say the opposite.

                      "Professor, of course, a burdock" (c), and even without equipment
                      Wit?

                      War is war. Cold or hot
                      Well, no difference ... laughing

                      Yes, not in form, but in the personification of the elite that will represent it
                      In the shape of. The minority works in the interests of the majority not because it consists of paws, but because it is forced.
                      Your elitism in half with leaderism always leads to feudalism.

                      Like demagoguery
                      Again on the word stuck?

                      Well, then it turns out that the policy is quite adequate :).
                      Politics is always adequate - the main thing is to look from the point of view of the guys who initiated this policy.
                      1. alicante11
                        3 January 2014 10: 58
                        0
                        I didn’t spit on dogmas - they weren’t, I didn’t refuse Marxism, I built both of them.


                        Well, I can agree with the second. But Marxism does not mean "both".

                        In many respects it is forced, since the results were very different from the expected.


                        Well, actually, the results were just what was expected. Economic recovery. But for the industrialization of the NEP was already bad. would not provide the necessary pace.

                        We know about the goals for which everything was conceived: the difference in the methods of solving the tasks set does not oppose Stalin to Lenin and Marxism.


                        We know what we were told. Well, then see "on the fence".

                        58 Criminal Code adjusted for special circumstances.


                        An entire nation on 58? What point does the people say there? Are there such circumstances in the article?

                        3 (again) Shaving and states came out of the crisis fighting with the weak, and this is natural - only complete morons, with whom neither the states nor the shaving had ever been, can try to solve their problems by running into someone who is able to bury them. You say the opposite.


                        Yes, at least 10 times. They just used those areas in which they were STILL strong, and the USSR IS STILL and / or ALREADY weak. This, in part, is the economy and most of all - the propaganda and work of the 5 column.

                        Well, no difference ... laughing


                        Well, Russia's losses in population over 90 = e are quite comparable to a high-intensity war.

                        In the shape of. The minority works in the interests of the majority not because it consists of paws, but because it is forced.
                        Your elitism in half with leaderism always leads to feudalism.


                        The elite NEVER works in the interests of the majority. You have to be a fool to assume that the elite, which has a repressive apparatus and propaganda in its hands, will look back on the "opinion of the majority." This is like assuming that the plant manager is working in the interests of the workers. Not their own. It is just that sometimes the elite realizes that taking into account the majority opinion is much more effective / safe than suppression and deception. This is exactly what the elite of the USSR did from Lenin to Brezhnev (I cannot say with certainty about Andropov and Chernenko, since Humpbacked them inherited them). This is exactly what the oligarchic elite of the Russian Federation did in the early 2000s.

                        Again on the word stuck?


                        All claims to yourself, stop demagoguery, stop not to indicate.

                        Politics is always adequate - the main thing is to look from the point of view of the guys who initiated this policy.


                        In-in, that's why I'm talking about the betrayal of those who withdrew troops from Afghanistan without finishing the job.
                    2. alicante11
                      3 January 2014 10: 36
                      0
                      Then you are welcome to a specialized university.


                      Yes, in order to understand the issues of politics and economics, specialized universities do not have to complete. Moreover, both the classical and the industry provide economics in technical universities. So I understand perfectly that you are now simply merging with a smart look.

                      Of course, on the other side of the ocean you know better - who is arguing?


                      Are you from your own experience?

                      For example"?


                      Who exactly "played against the CIA" of the "non-strikers"?

                      I'm not at ease, I'm on symptoms.


                      In its own way, it’s not worth it :).

                      Words are not tired of playing?


                      And it’s just you who do such things, not me. And this is not called a game of words, but demagogy.

                      Really?


                      Exactly! If you give yourself the trouble to think, you will understand.

                      Poor RI - they tried to tear it apart, even "... the upper classes can't - the lower classes don't want to ..." to cover up these attempts they invented (like the separatism of the conquered territories) laughing
                      All the same, the syndrome of obsessive states, because they went in cycles.


                      And what, in 1905, too, the upper classes could not, but the lower classes did not want. And ... a log, nothing came of the "lower classes". But in the 17th it is quite itself. because they helped.

                      Formally, they created this right, and the pilots flew only because their leadership had the right to give them such an order.


                      Hmm ... Cool ... This is HOW they created their right? On the basis of which section of international law do we have one state or group of states that can create international law? Which, I recall your agrumentation, gave them STRENGTH. No need to talk about pilots. Nuremberg was tried for executing criminal orders. But here the pilots did not at all. Since it was a question of law, which in your opinion gives rise to force.
                      And just do not talk about the resolution. The resolution was about a no-fly zone, not about bombing.

                      The examples listed are outside the category of law, while not abrogating it.
                      You are so hyped that you interfere in one pile at all.


                      No, it’s just that it seems that you have verbiage and lost the thread. The conversation was about law, which gives rise to power. The stupidity of whom the statement of intelligent people is clear, but you have to clarify.

                      If you have no idea how the monetary system of the USSR worked, how the foreign currency was used, how it was associated with the ruble, etc. - you need to sit down for textbooks or feature articles, and not require me to give you a course of lectures on economics, and refute with facts (which you do not understand) a paradigm in which you simply like to believe.


                      I can imagine it all very well. It's just that the connection between the fall in oil prices and the ruble (what is this connection) is not at all related to business. And what was used and where - it is necessary to take specific budget items. otherwise everything is at blah blah level.
                      1. Yarosvet
                        Yarosvet 3 January 2014 15: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: alicante11
                        But Marxism does not mean "both"
                        Why? It is not a rigid system - it is rather a methodology, a tool.

                        Well, actually, the results were the expected ones. Economic recovery. But for the industrialization of the NEP was already bad. would not provide the necessary pace
                        It led not to economic recovery, but to widespread growth of eagerness - the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s in the USSR, the actual repetition of the NEP, with the only difference being that in the 20s the country was moving towards socialism, and in the late 80s .

                        We know what they told us
                        We know in practice.

                        The whole nation on the 58th? What item does the people say there? Such circumstances are provided for in the article.
                        The basis was the 58th, and special circumstances - martial law (on the basis of this GKO already had extraordinary powers) and the mass work of the population on the enemy (hence the soft version of the link). Have you read Ordinance 5073?

                        They just used those areas in which they were ALREADY strong, and the USSR IS ALREADY and / or ALREADY weak. This is, in part, the economy and most of all - the propaganda and work of the 5th column
                        1 To whom was propaganda directed and how was it carried out?
                        2 What was the 5th column?
                        3 Why was the USSR weak in "these areas" and the states strong?

                        Well, Russia's loss in population over 90 = e is quite comparable to a high-intensity war
                        If you put it on the time factor (which creates this intensity) and score on the cause-effect relationship (the greatest losses always occur during the period of hostilities) - then yes, they are comparable (though it is not clear why it is necessary to artificially distort the natural system and adjust the facts to the conclusion).

                        The elite NEVER works for the majority
                        That is why financial and political "elites" should not exist.

                        You have to be a fool to assume that the elite, which has a repressive apparatus and propaganda in its hands, will look back on the "opinion of the majority."
                        Therefore, the Bolsheviks insisted on the power of the Soviets, in other words, real democracy, and we must be a fool to abandon the very real ability of the majority to engage in goal-setting.

                        All claims to yourself, stop demagoguery, stop not to indicate
                        My "demagoguery" lives in your mind.

                        In-in, that's why I'm talking about the betrayal of those who withdrew troops from Afghanistan without finishing the job.
                        We are talking about the same thing in many ways, but there is a serious difference: you give the West the main role in the destruction of the Union, I cannot agree with this, because for a number of reasons this could not be - the West in this case could only play pickup.
                      2. Yarosvet
                        Yarosvet 3 January 2014 17: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: alicante11
                        you are now just merging with a smart look
                        I explain for the third time - the fall in oil prices could not affect the USSR because the ruble was not convertible, was not tied to the dollar, fluctuations in financial markets and oil prices did not affect it at all. The issue / remission of the ruble was carried out on the basis of planned calculations to ensure trade turnover within the country. The USSR completely provided itself with essential goods, only occasionally purchasing nyashki within the social camp (settlements in transferable rubles) or in the West (settlements in dollars). In the latter case, imports were scanty, dollars were used to finance Cube / Vietnam / Iraq, etc.
                        A drop in oil prices could hypothetically affect the financing of Vietnam / Iraq, but not the USSR, and the deficit inside the USSR could only be caused artificially (you should understand how economic planning is going on)

                        Are you from your own experience?
                        Yeah - from the experience of the discussion with you.

                        Who exactly "played against the CIA" of the "non-strikers"?
                        Committee.

                        In its own way, it’s not worth it :)
                        My symptoms are different.

                        And this is not called a game of words, but demagogy
                        I do not give false promises and I do not pervert the facts - you are repeating this in the case of Zhenya Fedorov.

                        If you give yourself the trouble to think, you will understand
                        I do not agree: it would be beneficial - it would already happen.

                        And what, in 1905 the tops also could not, but the lower classes did not want
                        Also - the system collapsed, still holding on to inertia: part of the aristocracy wanted a Western option, parts did not care, each rowing with impunity for itself, the discontent of the lower classes grew.

                        nothing came of the "lower classes". But in the 17th it is quite itself. because they helped
                        In the 17th, something like what happened at the end of last year with "Aksakal", who on the website was an ardent defender of Putin, and now calls him a bitch.
                        Of course, outside influence was also there, but it is always and never is critical (with the exception of open war).

                        This is how they created their right?
                        For example, the presence of chem. weapons in Iraq, thereby creating a foundation.
                        International law is an agreement and principles, compliance with which is a voluntary matter.

                        gave them power
                        Their strength lies in the global economy - to impose sanctions against states for other countries means to impose sanctions against themselves.

                        Since it was a law that, in your opinion, gives rise to force
                        I wrote that law and power are interconnected and paramount in turn - depending on the situation: UN powers (law) and sanctions, embargo, peacekeeping contingent (force) - what is fundamental in this case?

                        need to take specific budget items
                        Well, look at the level and structure of imports of Western goods in the 60s, and then in the 80s.
                      3. Normal
                        Normal 3 January 2014 22: 23
                        +2
                        Quote: Yarosvet
                        what happened at the end of last year with "Aksakal", who on the site was an ardent defender of Putin, and now calls him a bitch.

                        Yeah! laughing Aksakal nobly changed his shoes. He showed what all his statements were worth. As he did not believe in what he wrote a year and a half ago, so now I do not believe him. As soon as the authorities push through another successful PR campaign, the elder will again begin to pray for GDP (although he needs it, he is in Kazakhstan).
                      4. Yarosvet
                        Yarosvet 3 January 2014 23: 19
                        +2
                        Quote: Normal
                        Yeah! laughing Aksakal nobly changed his shoes

                        It's only the beginning laughing

                        So you look, and in a year or two he will already rob river ships from Putin laughing
  • zvereok
    zvereok 27 December 2013 16: 41
    +1
    Well, well, I have a dad in the 85-th dog at his cottage having a five-room apartment given by the state, called Reagan. I called the cat in my mortgage odnushka 2008 th Crisis. I would know the fate of the cat, I would probably call Medvedev. If someone does not know Medvedev, this is the same prime minister whose government is satisfactorily coping with his duties. Although to my side, our government is a good illustration of the principle of Patrick (incompetence).
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 27 December 2013 18: 16
      +2
      Quote: zvereok
      I would know the fate of the cat, I would probably call

      In rural areas in the 90s of the last century, most male piglets were called "wrestlers", and ginger cats - "Chubais".
      1. alicante11
        28 December 2013 08: 25
        0
        I confirm :).
  • Volkhov
    Volkhov 27 December 2013 17: 34
    0
    The article is quite informative - that is, the bird in the photo with good aerodynamics and maneuverability is a model for designers, but it’s better for the author to write about politics later - after 20 ocher on the rocky wall of the cave ... it can remain centuries old if the author and the cave are lucky.
  • Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 27 December 2013 18: 24
    0
    Quote: MIKHAN
    I read .. We all know the conclusion for a long time.! Russia at all times in its history are trying and will try to destroy to destroy .. (by any means) so far no one has succeeded! (a hint at Putin that he is a "zaslanets" is also being exaggerated by all and sundry ..) I'm tired of reading all this ..

    And yet I’ve thought it read ... I’ll put the author plus nevertheless (the analysis is not bad), the main thing is that Russia is sick of the soul.! Let him write ..
  • w2000
    w2000 27 December 2013 19: 18
    +3
    The article ends at the most interesting place. And where is the traditional whitening of a black male? Where are the odes to the great PZ, leading us to a happy future, to the victory of capitalism, overcoming the evil Western adversaries and lifting the country from its knees?
    1. alicante11
      28 December 2013 08: 28
      0
      There is a link at the beginning of the article. You can find on it what you were missing in this article :).
  • Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 27 December 2013 19: 27
    0
    Quote: w2000
    The article ends at the most interesting place. And where is the traditional whitening of a black male? Where are the odes to the great PZ, leading us to a happy future, to the victory of capitalism, overcoming the evil Western adversaries and lifting the country from its knees?

    Well got down heh heh .. (plus you)))
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 27 December 2013 19: 34
    +4
    Auto RU.
    Not tired of "good again"?
    "... dear transmission! ... sometimes your dogs bark, then your ruins say ...".
  • cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 27 December 2013 19: 57
    +2
    Guys, forgive me for .... hm, but I read the name of aFtora and did not read it, suddenly everything became clear, like in the afternoon, I read the comments and it became even clearer, and I thought: - "I did the right thing that I did not read it" drinks .
    1. alicante11
      28 December 2013 08: 30
      0
      You are already the sixth person who is attached to a surname, which is actually not a surname, but an alias :). It’s better to read it, and if there is something constructive, criticize it.
  • hawk
    hawk 27 December 2013 20: 29
    +1
    Quote: small
    The article is big and nothing. Didn’t read (tired of empty to empty)


    True, after the second paragraph I read diagonally. I read it with difficulty. The author has neither a sense of proportion, nor time - I'm here for five minutes, and you stir every half hour ...
  • xorgi
    xorgi 27 December 2013 21: 43
    0
    I disagree with many conclusions, in particular, "The NATO military machine after Yugoslavia was ready to strike at the fragments of Russia, if any of them dared to resist the destruction of nuclear weapons."
    1. alicante11
      28 December 2013 08: 31
      0
      Are there any specific objections? The key word there is "shards".
  • corn
    corn 27 December 2013 23: 01
    0
    That the author of the article, that part of the commentators are fixated on the idea that Russia, the USSR is falling apart, some people are falling apart or will be falling apart and are trying to find this someone, accusing him of all mortal sins.
    If you lose to any opponent, then you are to blame, first of all yourself. Wrong place, time, method, etc.
    As soon as the axiom (an axiom position accepted without requiring proof) is that someone is guilty of your defeat, you will lose further.
    Therefore, as soon as an axiom appears in any statement “they are to blame for this, the choice: communists, capitalists, liberals, Stalin, Yeltsin, etc., you can calculate with a high degree of confidence what the article is about.
    And the last thing: in a speech in the video at the beginning (boris55), Efimov makes a statement at the end about the low intelligence of the West. When you think that the intelligence of your opponent is lower than yours, you will certainly lose in the intellectual confrontation. You should consider the enemy, at least as good as yourself , then there is a chance to defeat him, because You will begin to take adequate measures and try to prevent the fight. One of the wisdom of martial arts says: Prevented fight, already won fight.
    1. alicante11
      28 December 2013 08: 33
      0
      You are contradicting yourself. If we lost, then did Russia fall apart? On account of the fact that "woe to the loser," I, of course, agree with you. As with "intelligence".
      1. corn
        corn 28 December 2013 19: 31
        0
        Dear alikante!
        I don’t contradict myself. If a person drinks vodka and then burns away from it, it is not the vodka that is to blame, not the one who offers it, vodka, but the one who drinks.
        1. alicante11
          29 December 2013 03: 37
          0
          Sorry, but the comparison is not entirely correct. The causes of the lesion may be objective. For example, the defeat of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam or Milosevic. To consider that they had the opportunity to resist aggression is pointless. Although, of course, there is still some part of the loser for the poor preparation for the war, in the case of Milosevic and Gaddafi - the maneuvering policy between the Russian Federation and NATO (and Milosevic simply has prostitution), Saddam has blind trust in the amers.
  • Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 27 December 2013 23: 04
    0
    Remember ... "Uri Uri .. button .. Uri find the button .." (Electronics Adventure) Didn't find Uri button .. yet bully That's how we live in Russia .. They are looking for a button and can not find ..! We even have robots want to be human too ..! My one of my favorites was and is movies (I’m watching it differently now ..) it’s kind of childish and makes me think about many things (now they haven’t been removed for a long time, alas ..) .. When such films will appear again in our country .. that means Russia will be alive .!
  • ars_pro
    ars_pro 28 December 2013 01: 54
    0
    "It seems that the old Russian proverb" the law is not written for fools "and the concept of" parliamentary immunity "are somehow connected." but in general we will break through gentlemen !!!
  • kelevra
    kelevra 29 December 2013 11: 10
    -3
    It seems to me that it’s enough to criticize Putin !!! No one has yet been able to do as much as Putin did. If it weren’t for him, Yeltsin and his followers would have surrendered the country to the Americans a long time ago. We have a lot of problems, many of them remained from the time of the USSR, it’s so easy to do everything right away, even with pressure from the outside. It would be better to criticize less and support your Homeland by simply purchasing our Russian goods! At least some benefit than scratching your tongues! As soon as we ourselves begin to love our Motherland, then it will be easier for the state. We will corrode corruption, we only need time, the oligarchs have too many assets in their hands, if everyone is transplanted, Russia will go bankrupt and fall into a crisis hole.