For two decades now there has not been on the political map of the world of the USSR, and in a number of foreign countries the talk about what kind of heritage the Communist Empire left behind does not abate. Some Western analysts look at the problems associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union, objectively, while others continue anti-Soviet hysteria. The countries of the former socialist camp, as well as representatives of the former Soviet republics, are the last to sin. Often the reasoning goes to the plane of how all the countries of Europe with their communist regimes, as well as the Soviet Republics, lived hungry and cold, being under the scrutiny of Moscow. These moanings that have been going on for already two decades, which, they say, Russia, as it could, oppressed its “smaller brothers”, are, to put it mildly, a frank fiction.
Let's approach the problem of the existence of republics within the USSR and the states belonging to the so-called social camp, if possible, from an independent position. We will not block some due to the infringement of others. Only in this case can an objective picture of the development of events be obtained both before the collapse of the USSR and after August of 1991.
So, as you know, the Soviet Union was 15 Republics. Some jokingly called the 16-th Republic of the Union and once brotherly Bulgaria. If you look at the economic indicators of the development of the majority of the Soviet republics, then the words about the fact that someone was infringed, seem frankly nonsense. The same Baltic republics were financed from the Union budget at such a level that the representatives of Western countries coming there in 80-s wondered what the Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians were fundamentally dissatisfied with. There is even such a legend, according to which Italian tourists who arrived in 1988 in Riga said that if Italy had such a standard of living as in the Latvian SSR, then they would blow dust particles from their prime minister. And, indeed, thanks to the flow of investment from Moscow, the Baltic States by the end of the eighties became real Communist Switzerland, as they called it outside the USSR. And suddenly, after the collapse of the USSR, it turns out that the Russians were conducting a real genocide of the local population, humiliated the honor and dignity of the Balts, stifled freedom of speech and everything. Immediately he heard the words that the Baltic countries were forcibly “drawn out” into the USSR. Here, too, can argue. In the 1940 Balts, they really made an offer that was hard to refuse. However, we note that the "freedom-loving" Baltic people for some reason decided not to stand up to fight the "red aggressor." Maybe not so bad option for the Baltic States at that time was to join the Soviet Union. And all the words about the fact that the “small” people were frightened by the eastern monster and surrendered to it with giblets can be called frank lies and hypocrisy. Why, then, was not the greatest Finnish nation able to find the strength in itself and respond to the Stalinist machine? It turns out that all claims of the Balts in terms of their “occupation” are meaningless. Even the word “occupation”, when residents of “occupied” territories live better than residents of “occupying” Moscow, looks, to put it mildly, inappropriate.
Today - after the Soviet Union ordered to live long, the situation in the “free” Baltic looks much worse than in the prosperous eighties. Some Latvian bankers are already making revolutionary statements, according to which it would be better to move closer to Russia and ask her for a loan of billions in 20 in euro currency. This is so independent of dependence ...
Slavic brothers - Ukraine and Belarus - after the collapse of the Union, rush from the heat into the cold, talking about the unity of all the Slavic peoples and friendship with Russia, then trying to wag the tail, and turn to Russia in a slightly different place. At the same time, some people also say that if in the 17th century Bohdan Khmelnitsky had not decided to become part of the Russian Empire, then Ukrainians would live like cheese in butter ... There are even people who believe that the famine of the twenties and thirties 20- th century, organized by the Russian, to erase from the face of the earth a whole nation. And the name even came up with the "famine." However, these people either do not know storiesor they specifically stamp out those fragments of it that do not fall into the plane of anti-Russian criticism. They clearly do not take into account the fact that entire regions of Russia themselves were starving after a severe drought of the twenties. The infrastructure destroyed by the civil war was extremely difficult to recover in the Volga region, in the Southern Urals, the Black Soil Region. According to the most modest estimates, during the so-called “famine” more than three million people died from lack of food in Russia itself. Is it worth it after this to pay attention to the words about purposeful "famine" in Ukraine and in Belarus, organized by the Russians.
Today, the “intrigues" of Russians are recalled for any convenient reason. So, for example, Alexander Lukashenko, only Moscow should declare an increase in gas prices, speaks of Russian arbitrariness and oppression of the Belarusian people. At the same time, Mr. Lukashenko apparently does not realize that the Russian people are paying for blue fuel at almost the same price. A similar situation with Ukraine. As soon as Russia opened a gas route along the bottom of the North and Baltic Sea, Viktor Yanukovych decided to start "mouse fuss" around the status of the Black Sea fleet and renaming of Ukrnaftogaz. But Belarus and Ukraine are independent states. It turns out that Russia, as if from an old memory, should give its good for nothing, and in return to watch Ukraine trump NATO. No - now the pipes! If you, gentlemen, have decided to live separately and allow yourself Russophobic statements, then you need to pay at the rate that applies to European countries.
Georgia after the collapse of the USSR looks like a real anti-Russian base. Suffice it to say that even in 1995, entire Georgian bases began to appear here, not without the help of the highest Georgian leadership, where the militants were preparing for "campaigns against Russia." Today, Mikhail Saakashvili also speaks of the “Russian yoke”, which did not allow long 70 years to sigh for the Georgian people. However, the same Saakashvili, for some reason, forgets that for a quarter of a century an ethnic Georgian Iosif Stalin stood at the helm of the Soviet Empire. Why the president of Georgia does not say that the orders about executions of innocent Soviet citizens were signed by the Georgian Beria. Of course, Saakashvili hangs all dogs on Russia, not because he does not know the historical facts, but only in order to please the West.
The Central Asian republics also indulge in anti-Russian statements. Why? Because the authorities of the same Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan understand that Russia will tolerate resentment and in the event of anything will help the Asian brothers. At the same time, you need to distinguish themselves in anti-Russian rhetoric and in front of the United States.
In general, the post-Soviet space is now experiencing about the same attack as Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. As soon as they denounced all Roman immediately after the fall of a powerful civilization. However, after centuries of dullness and mutual distrust, respect for Rome began to revive. It was given the name of the Renaissance. So, all claims of the breakaway states are a growing pain. Therefore, it is not necessary to conceal anger at the same Georgia or Estonia, which are amenable to anti-Russian sentiment. They will grow up as separate states - they will understand the true price of cooperation and mutual respect. Let us hope that the growing pains will be cured faster than in the era of the European Middle Ages.