What happened to the USSR in 1990, and what will happen to Russia in 2010?

What happened to the USSR in 1990, and what will happen to Russia in 2010?It is widely believed that Russia is the richest country in Europe. Indeed, we have the largest reserves of gas, oil and coal, as well as the second largest reserves of iron ore. We have a large territory, about 70 of millions of able-bodied population, but the people of our country are actually excommunicated from these riches, they are demoralized and are now virtually dying out.

Naive philistines still think that in the 1990s there was a transition to liberalism (among these people there are even respected and reputable scientists), but in fact, the reforms were a veiled form of redistribution of state property between the ruling elites. Who lost, was either imprisoned, or just killed. Those who remained at liberty were forced to play and live by the new rules. And these rules consist in the fact that an authoritarian regime was established under the guise of building a democratic state, in which even the president and the chairman of the government were prepared by the role of political puppets by unknown shadow directors.


In this state, elections are ritual fiction, the authorities do not rule, but in fact the country is ruled by corrupt state and economic clan groups.

Why did it take to arrange the play "Perestroika" and in the forced regime to break the Soviet system? It is no longer doubtful that the USSR had a colossal internal safety margin, and the dismantling of the Soviet system was caused by external, rather than internal, economic factors. Working in the archives of the former KGB in Moscow and Chekhov-2 near Moscow, we were surprised to find evidence of counterintelligence officers who argued that major disasters (an explosion of a train with hexogen in Arzamas, disasters of passenger trains and ships) could well have been sabotage.

After getting acquainted with these materials, my colleagues and I began to have a premonition that stories With the shock of the change of mass consciousness, all is not well. Work and groups of SG helped us. Kara-Murza and his colleagues from the Department of Forensic Medicine of the First Moscow State Medical University. Sechenov in Moscow. It turned out that in many ways the final events of Perestroika resemble a manipulative spectacle. For example, events in Riga and Vilunius very much resemble the rehearsal of the putsch in August 1991.

Forcing an atmosphere of fear, absurdity in society, demonstration of previously forbidden scenes with crime and incidents on central TV, rabid anti-Soviet propaganda - all this is too well and coherently planned to be a random, spontaneous process. It means that as a result of some reasons in the depths of the highest echelons of the USSR, it was decided to dismantle the system, and those forces and systems that supported the stability of the system were used to solve this problem. By these systems we mean the organs of the KGB, the mass media, the system of culture and education.

Most likely, at the beginning of the 1970s, the top political leadership and the State Committee for Science and Technology at the USSR Council of Ministers had a firm belief that the continuation of the Soviet experiment was meaningless. This was well understood by the bosses of the then public health, agriculture, industry and defense. Reports that we saw in the KGB archives very often contain allegations that if they fail to increase the resource efficiency of the economy, the country will face a shortage of raw materials, energy, labor and intellectual power. And in the conditions of the Cold War, this was equivalent to failure.

For example, Yu.V. Andropov in a note to L.I. Brezhnev from 25 of September 1973 of the year writes that "the USSR does not have a scientific and technical basis for creating analogs of computer technology for electric communication networks similar to the systems of IBM, Thomson, Westinghouse Electric." In a note from October 10 1974, he also states that "the security systems of nuclear power plants, including military power, available in the USSR have a limited margin of safety, making major accidents with numerous victims possible."

In 1975, under the leadership of a group of experts of the USSR Ministry of Agriculture, closed work was prepared, in which scenarios of crop and livestock production up to 1990 were calculated, and for the first time the statement was made that, while maintaining yields in the Non-Black Earth region of 15-20 centners of grain per hectare, and in the Chernozem region - 35-40 centners per hectare, the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR will suffer from a shortage of food and feed grains from approximately 1985.

In another report with a "for official use" stamp prepared at the CEMI of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it was stated in the 1975 year that from the 1980 year "we should expect a significant slowdown in economic growth rates". As a result, work began in 1975 on finding a way out of the "impasse". She was engaged in CEMI, IPM and VNIISI USSR Academy of Sciences. These three central institutions that have accumulated the best minds of system analysts have failed to work out a program for modernizing the Soviet regime. Only palliative measures such as "gentle nature management" (N. Moiseyev), "implantation of market elements into the Soviet economy" (L. Abalkin) and other actions that could only delay the end, but not change history, were proposed.

Apparently, the KGB of the USSR was well aware that there were only two options for action. The first was to save the country, to carry out radical reforms that would dramatically increase labor productivity, liberalize economic relations, and promote the intensive development of science, education and culture. The second option was well known by the example of Chile and a number of African states, where coups took place quite often in the 1970s.

The essence of this scenario was that the state, faced with insurmountable difficulties, was enslaved by criminal groups, which extended their well-being by destroying the economic freedoms of the subordinate classes and by forceful withdrawal of their resources. This is exactly the second option that was attractive to Yu.V. Andropov and his entourage.

The KGB of the USSR was one of the strongest counterintelligence agencies in the world, so he could easily take control of the country's communications, strangle the opposition and make possible the inconspicuous dismantling of the Soviet ideological machine. And the destruction of the ideology of equality, universal earthly happiness, so-called socialism, opened the way to the imposition of capitalist values, the bourgeois way of life. What was done in 1980-e years.

Andropov tried to create the appearance of strengthening discipline (it reached the point of absurdity: customers were arrested in the shops to find out if someone had left work outside office hours). In fact, this strengthening of discipline undermined the credibility of the Soviet state, which worked for the purpose of the conspirators.


Having received, as head of state, a weak-willed, politically unreasonable MS Gorbachev, Kremlin puppeteers approached their goal. Gorbachev sincerely believed that the so-called "Perestroika" would allow the USSR to make a breakthrough, but in fact, almost all the provisions of the program, as we can judge from the book “Perestroika: New Thinking”, were aimed at dismantling the Soviet system. And in return, nothing was offered. And in 1990-ies, the project started 15 years before, was completed. The USSR state collapsed, the republican elites received the property of their countries in real ownership, Gorbachev, unnecessary to anyone, went to rest on the presidential dacha, and B. N. came to power. Yeltsin quickly restored authoritarianism, similar to that of Chile under Pinochet.

Strictly speaking, the resemblance was literal: Pinochet shot Allende Palace, and Yeltsin ordered to fire cannons at parliament. The events of 1998, when the middle class was robbed as a result of the programmed crisis, only completed the redistribution of property.

In Russia, formed two oversight. The first is the subordinate estate, the second is the subordinate. The estates have all the signs of estate: status is passed from generation to generation, economic well-being is based on the redistribution of the rent from the sale of resources, the members of the estates have signs of differences, are characterized by different "weights" in the state, etc.

The main problem of the authoritarian regime B.N. Yeltsin was programmed into his structure. The estate state does not have the resources for the reproduction of intellectual potential and innovative development. It exists only as long as the mechanism of rent withdrawal and redistribution works. If, as a result of the economic crisis, the prices of the main export commodity — hydrocarbon energy carriers fall, the Russian Federation will collapse. Its disintegration will take place, in contrast to the USSR, according to the scenario uncontrolled by the authorities.

YES. Medvedev acts as a conservative, although in words he speaks of the need for reform. He does not propose actions that could break the class corrupt system, but maintains the current order of things.

The Kremlin team is reminiscent of the heroes of staff exercises, who expect to use nuclear weaponknowing that they are guaranteed to be able to sit out in the bunker, where they will have enough food and drink for the rest of their lives. And the interests and lives of the rest of the people who will be burnt by the fire of nuclear explosions are of little interest to them.

The current system is stable only as long as the reserves accumulated in Soviet times remain. When these reserves are exhausted, the country will no longer be an intellectual bankrupt, but a financial bankrupt. And this will be a clear indication that the team in the Kremlin is incompetent, and it must be re-elected. And then there will be no other way of political development, except through changing the foundations of the political system., that is, the dismantling of a federal state, the transformation of the country into a confederation or a parliamentary unitary republic.

ТSuch a transformation will be able to undermine the economic soil of parasitic estates, but it will be the worst option, because it will stop economic and social development. Apparently, this is what awaits us in dashing 2010-s.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in