The USSR was a harmonizing start on the planet.

The USSR was a harmonizing start on the planet.

The death of the USSR and the Warsaw Bloc sharply destabilized the situation on the planet. In the opinion of the majority of Russian citizens (according to the VTsIOM study), which the authorities do not take into account, our country lost from the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (ATS), and life was safer at that time. In addition, half of the population believes that Russia needs to create a new international military-political bloc (such as ATS or NATO). Indeed, if the time comes when people on planet Earth will become real sane people, they must erect a giant monument to the Soviet Union in gratitude for its great contribution to creating conditions that made world wars impossible on our planet, and also prevented a host of regional conflicts on religious, national soil.


The foundation of the world system, where a huge number of people forgot about the horrors of war, laid the greatest contribution of the Red Empire to the defeat of Hitler’s Europe led by Germany, as well as its contribution to the defeat of militarist imperial Japan. This created the conditions for long decades of peace on a huge part of the planet. The creation of Soviet nuclear scientists weapons helped to contain the aggressive aspirations of Western civilization, allowed countries and peoples to choose the Western path of development, the Soviet model, or even try to find their own - the “third way”. Several generations of people were born in the world who did not know world war, could live in relative safety.

And the voices talking about the “huge price” that the USSR and its peoples had to pay for this security do not understand the obvious - if the Stalin leadership did not industrialize, collectivize, destroy the “fifth column” as soon as possible, creating a powerful military and economic potential , spent a lot of resources on the creation of nuclear weapons, we would probably have been crushed. Western civilization would win in the middle of the 20 century - and its “New World Order” would lead to a colossal “sweep” of the planet from “handicapped people”.

This great feat of the peoples of the Soviet Union, who saved not only them, but also other nations of the world, also justifies all the difficulties that the citizens of the Union faced in all the post-war years because of the enormous resources and strength they had to spend on increasing the defensive power of sustainability under the most adverse scenarios. Most likely, it is this impossibility to put the peoples of Russia-USSR on their knees, to establish their order on the planet and is the main reason for the terrible hatred of the past Red Empire, the ideals of communism and socialism, the victories of the Red Project. True, there are other reasons for hatred of the USSR: this country and its multinational people showed the whole world with their work that the problems of mass poverty, homelessness, lack of a universal education system, good medicine, make the life of the overwhelming majority of people safe, develop science, etc. can be solved. D. The people of the Soviet Union (not counting its late period) had a goal, their life was meaningful.


This is confirmed by the VTsIOM poll, while the Russian authorities are flirting with NATO to create a common missile defense, the citizens of our country have nostalgic feelings about the time of the ATS existence: 80% of citizens surveyed believe that our state only lost by dissolving this military-political alliance, and only 20% sure that Russia has benefited from this. More and more people do not feel safe seeing an increase in the threat to Russia, according to 55% of respondents (in 2007, those were 47%), in the 60-80-e 20 centuries the world was more secure, and the situation is stable, calm. It is believed that at the time of Yeltsin it was safe, only 4%, and now 28% (in 2007, 34%).

Thus, the Soviet era is considered the safest, and the time of Putin’s rule was calmer than the rule of Medvedev. Although it was under Putin that there was a second war in Chechnya, and Medvedev takes a more compliant position with respect to the West - an agreement on strategic offensive arms was signed, the so-called running "Reset" in relations between the US and Russia, are actively negotiating with NATO on missile defense. There is an understanding that the tougher Russia is against the Western world, the more secure our citizens feel themselves. It was precisely the policy of M. Gorbachev, and after him B. Yeltsin, V. Putin and today - D. Medvedev actually turned out to be a policy of destroying security and stability in the world, in Russia, although all the time politicians spoke, it seemed, to the opposite.

So, 89% of citizens believe that the Warsaw Pact Organization "was of a defensive, peace-loving nature." And even more than that, "thanks to her, she managed to avoid a nuclear war, to maintain peace and stability on the European continent for a long time." It is believed that the police department wore a militaristic, aggressive nature, provoked an arms race, limited the freedom of Eastern European countries, only 6%.

Eight out of ten citizens of Russia are sure that our state only lost from the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact Organization (80%). Only 20% are convinced of the opposite today. After the destruction of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, wars came to Europe, which they had forgotten for as many as four decades. And the events in Kosovo, and tensions in Transnistria, etc. They say that it is likely that there will be new wars. And the North Atlantic Alliance has become the center of a hypothetical threat, a real danger, an aggressive alliance that unleashes and leads wars across the whole territory of Eurasia.

That is why 51% of our citizens believe that it is necessary to create a new “international military-political bloc, similar to the Warsaw Pact”, against this proposal - 23%. Moreover, supporters of the main Russian parties, parliamentary and non-parliamentary, support this proposal. Citizens of Russia believe that it is necessary not to seek an agreement with NATO, but to create their own military-political bloc. True, over the past years we have lost almost all the allies, or even simply betrayed, like Gorbachev, the regimes of the socialist bloc in Eastern Europe.

And until Russia creates its military-political alliance, capable of equal resistance to Western civilization, its military alliance, and will also naively believe in the possibility of agreements with the North Atlantic Alliance, security, tranquility and stability on the planet and in Europe will be possible only nostalgically recalled as part of the Soviet past.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Evgan
    Evgan 2 August 2011 10: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It's funny "they believe that the police department was militaristic, aggressive, provoked an arms race, limited the freedom of Eastern European countries, only 6%." Aggressive yes, she didn’t wear it, but militaristic - for sure, because it was a MILITARY-political bloc. Did he limit the freedom of the countries of Eastern Europe? Yes, of course, remember Berlin-1953, Hungary-1956 and Prague-1968.
    But the collapse of the USSR really led to a number of humanitarian disasters ... It seems to me that the main mistake of the late Soviet leadership was that a legally binding treaty between NATO and the ATS on mutual dissolution was not drawn up. Although even such an agreement would not affect the Transnistrian conflict mentioned in the article. And the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, perhaps, too - what would prevent the United States, Britain, France, etc. from agreeing on joint military operations outside of NATO?
    As for the reincarnation of ATS - nonsense. Now Russia does not have such opportunities.
  2. AlexiusKit 2 August 2011 11: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Nevertheless, an alliance with the above listed countries is really necessary ...
  3. Max79 2 August 2011 12: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author is really right here. But it’s useless to reach out to our government bosses. Armenia, Transnistria, Belarus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, other countries of Latin America, India. I wouldn’t put anything on China. -so the neighbor is dangerous, he can have a lot of complaints! A NATO counterweight is necessary. There really is a threat-there is no joint defense, which upsets ...
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 2 August 2011 13: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba ... I also have "allies." Dear ones, the union of countries is not a hat-making fraternization and a kiss of the first persons, they say, we are so strong together. After all, imagine: we are allies with Venezuela, and the States decide to conduct there any next operation to impose freedom. So what? Will you send your children to VENEZUELA to defend this country? And this despite the fact that I'm not talking about the purely military aspect of such operations - failure, given the weakness of our Armed Forces, is guaranteed. And do not give me the Caribbean crisis as an example - there, thank God, our troops were delivered without military operations.
      Another thing is the countries close to us, like the same Belarus or Serbia.
      If we talk about any alliance with Venezuela and similar countries, then, in my opinion, we can talk only about a political (but not at all military-political) bloc, without guarantees of "mutual assistance in the event of direct aggression." Otherwise, we risk being left with the notorious glory of Great Britain and France, which de facto did not come to the aid of Poland in 1939, although they declared war on Germany.
      In general, the Juche idea - self-reliance - in terms of foreign policy is the most rational policy for a country with such enormous human and natural resources as ours.
  4. Kazakh 2 August 2011 14: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All the minor ones will join the strong one in order to collect dividends, and in the case of a specific batch they will also have to be saved as Romanians in World War 1 should be counted
  5. nnz226 2 August 2011 18: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Russia has only two allies - its army and its fleet!" - Emperor Alexander 3 "Peacemaker"
  6. figwam 2 August 2011 20: 54 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Yes, the USSR IS STRENGTH.
  7. Stiffmaister
    Stiffmaister 2 August 2011 21: 26 New
    • -4
    • 0
    -4
    Again it began, how could the events of the 30s have a positive effect? , Industrialization, collectivization, all this took place simply in terrible conditions - inhuman !!! How many officers were destroyed during the Great Purge ... But the war began and immediately there was a shortage of personnel, there was no one to lead the battle! How did collectivization go? Yes, people were forcibly driven into these collective farms, they were taken from them to the last thread! In this connection, the famine of the 30s began. The entire domestic policy pursued by the Kremlin in the 30s went in the right direction, but could be carried out more humanly, smarter, looking a little bit into the future ... A huge number of people died in the 30s and 40s, almost 50 million !!!!! And all this in one state, in the USSR !!!
    1. dmitri077
      dmitri077 28 January 2012 00: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      true to 100
  8. stas 4 August 2011 08: 38 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Russia has three allies, people, army and navy. And first of all, our rulers should take care of strengthening this union, and not pay people miserable pensions and salaries, etc.
  9. raf
    raf 4 August 2011 09: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The new Warsaw Pact is nonsense! Who to negotiate with? Former allies? They are not up to us, pushing each other with their elbows and polishing their American ass with their tongues! Polished as you can look in the mirror! With Ukraine? No, does it seem that it will nevertheless join NATO. With Belarus? There, too, not everything is clear, like ours, sort of agreed, but no. As they say: ,,, and things are still there; All other countries cautiously look back at the USA. So we do not have allies except ourselves.
  10. Marat
    Marat 4 August 2011 23: 18 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In fact, both Belarus and Kazakhstan have already ceased to be allies - and (as the pro-American media write with us) have already partially lost their sovereignty and are integrating. The CU has already passed the reality - and next year the CES will become a common economic space - when our citizens no longer have a place to live where to move or send goods or transfer funds, etc. - this is actually one country - a small step will remain before the political unification (I think that just "buy the elite" - well, let it be - the methods are not important).

    Kazakhstan is the largest "donor" of the CRRF, having allocated the largest units after Russia - KSOR is a small prototype of the future army of a new common country. We already have common air defense and Belarus as well.

    And Russia has allies - these are CSTO countries (except for Kazakhstan and Belarus)
    but we must complete the integration - the assembly of the country - to become stronger, and they will reach for prosperity and security themselves

    After that, Vietnam and Syria with Iran, India and Cuba will be ready to become our allies - it all depends on us - if we return the power of the USSR, then in Venezuela there may be a benefit as an ally. Now of course it’s too early to talk about this - say thanks to the enemies of the traitors and fools who destroyed the great country.

    And the worst thing is that the "war in the head" continues - the enemies with the "Pindos program in the head" - opponents of the revival of the Union here are among us