Military Review

Confrontation at a new stage of evolution

59
Confrontation at a new stage of evolution



At the Valdai Forum held in Sochi, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that "the collapse of the USSR is the greatest humanitarian catastrophe." At the same time, he noted that “at the basis of the collapse of the USSR, there were internal causes. The failure of the political and economic system of the former Soviet Union was the basis of the collapse of the state. Who contributed to this is another matter. I do not think that our geopolitical opponents stood by. ”

The opponent was the former US ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock (1987 – 1991), who denied external influence and called Boris Yeltsin and the forces behind him the main driving force behind the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The USSR disappeared from the map of the world by no means as a result of reforms or as a result of complicated diplomatic negotiations and conspiracies. Just because of all the circumstances, he could no longer exist. However, its collapse cannot be considered outside the context of American politics. Former chairman of the KGB of the USSR, member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Vladimir Kryuchkov, in his memoirs, notes that it was during the period in which Ronald Reagan was in power in the United States that destructive processes developed in the Soviet Union. At the same time, he observes that it can hardly be said that it was the policy of the United States that was decisive: “But the fact that its creators and performers did not stand aside is historical fact".

DOCTRINE GORBACHEVA AND THE “END OF HISTORY”

Turning to history, in December 1988, a significant event occurred. Mikhail Gorbachev, addressing the UN General Assembly, proclaimed the end of the Cold War and announced a number of proposals for world reforms and steps towards disarmament. In particular, he said the following: “Threats can no longer ... be an instrument of foreign policy. First of all it concerns the nuclear weapons... I would like to talk about the main thing - about disarmament, without which it is impossible to solve a single problem of the coming century ... The USSR decided to reduce its armed forces ... by 500 thousand people ... we decided to withdraw six tank divisions from the GDR, Czechoslovakia and Hungary and disband them ... Soviet troops in these countries will be reduced by 50 thousand people, and 5 thousand tanks will be removed from service. "

The New York Times called Gorbachev's unexpected hourly speech the greatest act of the statesman since Woodn Wilson’s 14 points in 1918 and Roosevelt and Churchill’s Atlantic Charter in 1941 — a complete restructuring of international politics. "He promised to take action unilaterally," noted the New York Times. - Incredible. It's risky. Bravely. Naively. Awesome. Heroically ... his ideas deserve - and in fact they require the most serious response from the newly elected President Bush and other leaders. "

It is noteworthy that before his speech at the UN General Assembly, Gorbachev turned to Reagan and Bush Sr. for support in arms control and withdrawal. However, the American side reacted to his proposals with considerable skepticism. Earlier, at the Moscow summit in May 1988, Gorbachev suggested that Reagan sign a joint declaration on peaceful coexistence and the rejection of military intervention in the internal affairs of other states. Reagan rejected these proposals. The Americans called the course conducted by Gorbachev the doctrine of non-intervention.

Ultimately, this approach only gave Washington a carte blanche regarding its policies in the third world countries. The United States continued to stir up Islamic radicalism. Many American-backed jihadists who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan joined the Islamic movements in Chechnya, Bosnia, Algeria, Iraq, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Kashmir, and many other regions. Inter-ethnic and tribal conflicts erupted in Africa and the Balkans. In September, 1990, Michael Mendelmbaum, who led the study of the problems of East and West in the Council on Foreign Relations, declared: “The Soviets ... made it possible to end the Cold War, which means that for the first time in 40 years we can conduct military operations in the Middle East Third World. Soon the US will verify this statement.

Gorbachev considered restructuring the beginning of a new era (the policy of new thinking), but apologists of American politics saw in it the main evidence of the victory of the capitalist West after decades of the Cold War. Peter Schweitzer, author of the book “Victory. The role of the secret US strategy in the collapse of the Soviet Union "emphasized:" Most of the literature on American politics and the end of the Cold War ... is devoted almost exclusively to the finer points of diplomacy. This approach speaks more about the authors of these books than about the Reagan administration. Reagan himself did not at all consider that the agreement on arms control or international treaties could measure the success of his foreign policy. He didn’t spend much time on most arms race control agreements; he saw the battle between East and West as a great battle between Good and Evil. ”

He is echoed by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuzik, the authors of the book The Untold Story of the USA: “But what was the legacy of Reagan? One of the most ignorant and indifferent heads of state in US history, he helped revive the ideas of far-right anti-communism that led to the militarization of American foreign policy and the resumption of the Cold War ... declaring adherence to the ideals of democracy, and at the same time arming and supporting repressive dictators. He turned local and regional conflicts in the Middle East and Latin America into the battlefields of the Cold War, as a result of which terror reigned there, and popular movements were suppressed. He spent a lot of money on military spending, cutting social programs for the poorest segments of the population. He drastically cut taxes for the rich, tripling the national debt of the United States and turning the country from a world lender in 1981 to the largest borrower in 1985 ... He missed a chance to rid the world of offensive nuclear weapons ... Therefore, despite all the praise that he gave to the cold the war, the lion’s share of merit in this business ... belonged to his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev. "

From the point of view of Henry Kissinger, described by him in the monograph “Diplomacy”, “both Reagan and Gorbachev believed in the victory of their own side. However, there was a significant difference between these unexpected partners. Reagan understood what forces were driving his society, while Gorbachev completely lost contact with them ... Gorbachev sharply accelerated the death of the system he represented, calling for reforms that he was not capable of. ”

By the summer of 1991, the United States CIA and RUMO submitted to the president a report on the state of the Soviet economy. It noted, in particular, that “six years after the USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev began to pursue a policy of reforms that became known as perestroika, the Soviet economy was in crisis. Product output is declining at an ever-increasing rate, inflation threatens to spiral out of control, interregional trade ties are broken, and the center and the republics are embroiled in a fierce political struggle for the future of the entire multi-ethnic state. ” Vladimir Kryuchkov in his book "The Personal File" writes that, in general, the CIA correctly assessed the course and results of the restructuring in the USSR. As he recalls, in 1990, Robert Gates (director of the CIA in 1991 – 1993) visited Moscow. During the meeting, he directly asked if Kryuchkov wanted to know the CIA’s point of view on what would happen to the Soviet Union in 2000, the beginning of the next century. From his words one could understand that he doubted whether the USSR would remain by that time. At the same time, he expressed his intention to transfer the corresponding analytical forecast to the CIA. But the document was never transmitted.

Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book “The Great Chessboard” vividly described the beginning of the era of America’s domination as “the first, the only and the last truly world superpower”, and with it came the “end of history”. This topic was most clearly expressed in an article by the American political analyst Francis Fukuyama, published in 1989 in the National Interest magazine entitled “The End of History”. It proceeds from the postulate that “the end of history” means that there will be no more progress in the development of principles and institutions of social organization, since all major issues will be resolved. ” Fukuyama believes that the world reached such a state at the end of the 20th century: “What we are probably witnesses to is not just the end of the Cold War or another period of post-war history, but the end of history as such, the end of the ideological evolution of humanity and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of government. " The main thing is that world communism was defeated - spiritual and material - and there were no forces left on earth capable of challenging the liberal democracies led by the United States of America.

CARE OF THE USSR FROM EASTERN EUROPE


“The Gorbachev Doctrine,” which he announced at the UN, writes Valentin Falin (head of the international department of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1989 – 1991), meant: “The USSR is leaving Central and Eastern Europe.” The result of the implementation of the “Gorbachev Doctrine” was, in the words of the famous historian Anatoly Utkin, “the flight from Europe”.

The countries of Eastern Europe since the end of the Second World War have been the main priority of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. A new approach towards its allies was outlined at the first meeting of Gorbachev with the top leaders of the Warsaw Pact countries, held after the funeral of Konstantin Chernenko. In his speech, he said: “... we are for equal relations, respect for the sovereignty and independence of each country, mutually beneficial cooperation in all spheres. Recognition of these principles means at the same time the full responsibility of each party for the situation in their own country. ” Alexander Yakovlev was sent to clarify the Soviet position after the April Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU. He writes: “Mikhail Sergeyevich specifically sent me to go round all the leaders of the socialist camp and explain ... From now on, they had to rely on themselves and build their lives as they see fit.”

Professor of St. Petersburg State University Matvey Polynov in the article “The Gorbachev Doctrine and the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Eastern Europe” emphasizes that, unlike the Soviet policy of non-intervention, the American policy was exactly the opposite: drive a wedge between the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies, gradually oust the ruling parties and facilitate the arrival to the power of pro-Western opposition forces. In the spring of 1988, a seminar of the “American Intellectual Elite” was held with the participation of Henry Kissinger and Gene Kirkpatrick, at which subversive plans regarding the socialist countries were discussed and, above all, they talked about stimulating opposition camps. There is ample evidence that during the 1989 events of the year, American ambassadors in Warsaw, Budapest and Prague played a very active role. There was a lot of material and propaganda support for Solidarity in Poland, other protest movements and dissident circles.

16 January 1989 arrived in Moscow by the personal representative of the American President Kissinger, who was supposed to understand how far the Soviet leadership was ready to go in defense of their interests in Eastern Europe. On the same day, he met with a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, A.N. Yakovlev and in a conversation with him demanded that the Soviet Union not interfere with the development of events in Eastern Europe. In exchange, Kissinger guaranteed the development of normal US relations with the USSR. Otherwise - the aggravation of the US-Soviet relations. The next day he was received by Gorbachev. The assessments of this meeting, given by different scientists and diplomats, practically coincide. Karen Brutents, who at that time worked in the international department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, notes: “Back in January 1989, he visited Moscow and met with Gorbachev Henry Kissinger. In fact, he proposed a deal, the meaning of which was as follows: we will expand political contacts with you, help ease the burden of military spending, as well as other “ways”, but in exchange for changes in Eastern Europe. In fact, by offering himself as a mediator, he put forward the idea that Bush and Gorbachev agree on joint actions to liberalize the situation in Eastern Europe based on the US commitment not to act against the legitimate security interests of the Soviet Union. ”

On his visit to the USSR, Kissinger presented a detailed report to the White House, in which he noted: “... Gorbachev's perestroika is stalling, and the Soviet leader is looking for success in the field of foreign policy. Gorbachev is willing to pay a reasonable price for it. " 12 February 1989, after Kissinger’s visit to Moscow, in the White House, George Bush convened a meeting at which an analysis was made of the internal situation in the USSR and the problems of its foreign policy. The conclusion was that the Soviet leader agreed to changes in Eastern Europe and that these changes would themselves lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet leadership, headed by Gorbachev, as if not noticing the US policy towards the allies of the USSR, continued to pursue its previously chosen course. During his visit to Helsinki on 25 – 27 in October 1989, Gorbachev publicly stated that the Soviet Union “has neither moral nor political right to interfere in the events of Eastern Europe,” and added: “We presume that others will not interfere” .

At the 2 – 3 Maltese Summit in December 1989, which included events in Eastern Europe, Gorbachev reassured Bush Sr. that the USSR would not interfere in Eastern European affairs: “We are for peaceful change, we don’t want intervention and not intervene in future processes. Let the people themselves, without outside intervention, decide how they should be. ”

George Bush (and in fact, the whole West), having received such guarantees, continued to contribute to the opposition anti-Soviet forces to destroy the socialist regimes of these countries.

It would be wrong to link the causes of the events that took place only with the influence of an external factor - the position of Moscow and Washington in this region. These events had serious internal reasons. All countries in the region are in a position of socio-economic crisis. As a result, in 1989, the socialist regimes were eliminated in all countries that were military and political allies of the USSR, and forces oriented toward the West came to power.

Doctrine of Reygan


The tragic fate of the Soviet Union was forged under sweet speeches and fervent laughter. Reuters Photos

The Reagan Doctrine was aimed at assisting movements from anti-Communist positions in the third world countries. 8 March 1983 in his speech about the notorious “evil empire” Reagan said: “I believe that communism is another sad and strange section of human history, the last page of which is being written now.”

At the beginning of 1982, the Reagan administration began to develop a strategy based on attacking the main, weakest points of the political and economic Soviet system. “For these purposes,” recalls then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, “a broad strategy was adopted, including also an economic war. It was a super secret operation conducted in cooperation with the allies, as well as using other means. ”

The goals and means of this attack on the Soviet bloc and the USSR were plotted in a series of secret national security directives (NSDDs) signed by President Reagan in 1982 – 1983, official documents of the president sent to advisers and departments dealing with key foreign policy issues. These directives in many ways meant giving up the policy that America had recently been pursuing. NSDD-32, signed in March 1982, recommended the "neutralization" of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and the use of covert measures and other methods of supporting anti-Soviet organizations in the region. NSDD-1982, adopted by Reagan in November 66, in turn, declared that the goal of the United States policy was to undermine the Soviet economy by attacking its "strategic triad", that is, the basic foundations of the Soviet national economy. Some of these directives had as their goal the pursuit of an offensive policy by America, which should result in the weakening of Soviet power, as well as economic warfare, or a war for resources.

The strategy was created and began to be implemented at the very beginning of Reagan's work as president. It was directed against the core of the Soviet system and contained: secret financial, intelligence and political assistance to the Solidarity movement in Poland, which ensured that the opposition remained at the center of the “Soviet empire”; significant military and financial assistance to the resistance movement in Afghanistan, as well as the supply of weapons for the Mujahideen, enabling them to extend the war to the territory of the USSR; campaigns to sharply reduce the inflow of foreign currency to the Soviet Union as a result of lower oil prices in cooperation with Saudi Arabia, as well as restricting the export of Soviet natural gas to the West; comprehensive and elaborate psychological warfare, aimed at sowing fear and uncertainty among the Soviet leadership; comprehensive global actions with the use of secret diplomacy in order to limit the access of the Soviet Union to Western technologies; widely organized technical misinformation in order to destroy the Soviet economy; the growth of the arms race and maintaining them at a high technical level, which was supposed to undermine the Soviet economy and aggravate the crisis of resources,

In connection with the decision taken to support Solidarity in Poland, the president ordered the National Security Council (SNB) to draw up documents outlining American targets in Eastern Europe. As noted by the performers themselves, the prepared document was very radical. “As a result, we found the Yalta Conference invalid,” recalls Edwin Meese, a former member of the National Security Council.

“NSDD-32 prescribed a more proactive stance and broke with the past,” recalls William Clark (adviser to the US president on national security in 1982 – 1983). - Ronald Reagan clearly stated the position of the United States, which did not agree with the Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe. We sought to create a large-scale strategy aimed at weakening Soviet influence, as well as strengthening the internal forces fighting for freedom in this region. In comparison with countries such as Bulgaria, Romania and Czechoslovakia, Poland created a unique opportunity to resist the regime. This does not mean that in other countries we did not look for opportunities either to openly or secretly weaken the influence of Moscow. ”

The US embargo on the construction of the USSR gas pipeline was assessed in Europe as a declaration of economic war against the Soviet Union. However, Western Europe continued to trade with the Kremlin. President Reagan insisted that the United States take a decisive stance that tends European allies to cut off Moscow from new gas and oil production technologies. The Americans proposed, in the light of current events, the introduction of three changes to the Coordinating Committee on Export Controls (COCOM). COCOM was created in 1949 year to unite the views of the West on technology trading with the social camp.

First, the United States wanted to further emphasize the ban on the sale of strategic technologies of the USSR, including the latest computers and electronic equipment, semiconductors and technology of metallurgical processes. In addition, they wanted to limit the construction of Western industrial enterprises in the Soviet block.

Secondly, the United States proposed that all contracts with the Soviet bloc in the amount of 100 million or more be automatically submitted for approval to COCOM in order to avoid the possible transfer of secret technologies. This, in fact, would give Washington the right of veto with all European trade agreements with Moscow.

The third proposal was the first since the emergence of COCOM, an attempt to embrace as many technologies and goods as possible. The United States sought to create a special closed list of goods. France and England agreed to join the American proposals, but West Germany did not show any desire.

At the NATO meeting on the issue of sanctions for the construction of the gas pipeline, the foreign ministers took a middle position. They agreed that Europe would participate in the gas pipeline construction project, however, without violating the US sanctions. In other words, terminated contracts of Americans will not be concluded by European firms. European foreign ministers assumed that the Reagan administration would not really seek compliance with this agreement and that this is a dubious success that will remain only on paper and will satisfy the Americans. But everything turned out just the opposite.

The United States also directed efforts towards achieving another important goal — to tighten the credit loop around the USSR. Western Europe not only gave Moscow big loans, but in addition did it below the market rate. Interest on loan subsidies was very low for the Kremlin. The French government financed part of the enterprise for the construction of a gas pipeline while prorating 7,8%, or less than half of what the USSR would have paid at current market rates.

In general, it can be stated that the Reagan administration did not provoke a crisis of the Soviet system, but only seriously aggravated it.

SIGNS OF THE BEGINNING OF A NEW COLD WAR


The period of uncertainty in relations between Russia and the West, when the parties did not see each other neither friends nor enemies, ended. The crisis in Ukraine has led the parties to cross the red line and enter into relations that are not mitigated by the ambiguity characteristic of the last years after the collapse of the USSR and the elimination of ideological "isms." In May 2014, Alexander Vershbow, Deputy Secretary General of NATO, said that NATO was forced to begin to consider Russia "more an enemy than a partner."

In his speech at the 70 th, anniversary, session of the UN General Assembly regarding the sanctions imposed by Washington and its allies, President Barack Obama noted that "this is not a desire to return to the Cold War." At the same time, many politicians and commentators in the United States believe that the new cold war has, in fact, already begun.

First of all, the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies are aimed at limiting and depleting resources for the development of Russia. As before, campaigns are being conducted to sharply reduce the flow of foreign currency to Russia as a result of maintaining low oil prices, as well as restricting the export of natural gas to the West. The credit loop around Russia is also delayed. Terminated military technical cooperation. Prohibited the export of dual-use products and goods related to weapons. In fact, the COCOM rules have been renewed, providing for a ban on the transfer of technology and goods to strategic sectors of the Russian economy. Thus, they are striving to weaken the economic and military power of modern Russia and reduce its political influence in the world as a world power.

The legal regulation of the sanctions imposed by the US administration is carried out on the basis of the provisions of the US Public Law of April 3 of 2014 of the year “On support of sovereignty, integrity, democracy and economic stability in Ukraine”. In its development, the executive orders of the President of the United States on blocking the property of persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine have been adopted.

The documents are based on “targeted” sanctions against any individuals and legal entities entered by the Ministry of Finance in coordination with the State Department in the list of “Specially designated persons” and “Identification list of sectoral sanctions”. Their implementation is carried out through the following basic mechanisms: the freezing of all assets under American jurisdiction; a ban on transactions (through loans, credit guarantees, etc.) and on any type of business activity with specified entities; ban on entering the United States.

For the first time, Americans used the so-called sectoral order, which specified a list of sectors of the Russian economy: finance, metallurgy, energy, mining, engineering, the military-industrial complex, against which enterprises sanctions can be used. The specially developed by the Ministry of Finance "Identification list of sectoral sanctions" included mainly banks and concerns of the fuel and energy complex.

In March, 2015, the US president extended the sanctions by one year. The US State Department at the same time noted that the issue of lifting the sanctions will be considered only after the implementation of the Minsk agreements on Ukraine. The issue of extending European sanctions will be resolved at the EU Summit 17 – 18 December 2015.

An important feature of the confrontation is that if the epicenter of the first cold war was in the heart of Europe, now, as a result of NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe, it has moved to a dangerous proximity to the borders of Russia. Today, the US and NATO are consolidating at this key outpost, deploying their military bases there, including the means of the global missile defense system. The outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis was a catalyst to accelerate the process of reviving the confrontation between the West and Russia. It must be noted that the actions taken by the countries members of the North Atlantic Alliance lead to the accumulation of a critical mass of hostility between NATO and Russia. This, apparently, manifested itself in the incident with the downed Russian Su-24 bomber in Syria by the F-16 fighter of the Turkish Air Force.

The honorary professor at Columbia University, Robert Legvold, moderator of the Valdai Forum, in the article “How to cope with the new cold war” in 4, wrote: “You should not call the current confrontation between Russia and the West a new cold war. In the end, the current crisis is hardly comparable in depth and scope with the fact that it defined the system of international relations in the second half of the 20th century. The suggestion that Russia and the West are again doomed to such a confrontation may induce politicians to choose the wrong and even dangerous strategy. Using a shortcut is a serious matter.

At the same time, it is important to call a spade a spade, and the collapse of relations between the West and Russia really deserves to be called a new cold war. The cruel reality is that, regardless of the outcome of the crisis in Ukraine, communications will not return to normal business as it was after the 2008 war of the year between Russia and Georgia. ”
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2015-12-11/1_coldwar.html
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avvg
    avvg 13 December 2015 06: 54 New
    21
    We are convinced that no one is waiting for us in the West. We have always been, are and will be a potential adversary for them.
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 13 December 2015 07: 39 New
      -21
      We have always opposed ourselves to the West. Already, most likely, in the West they were convinced that we will never be their "potential friend" ...
      laughing
      1. yuriy55
        yuriy55 13 December 2015 10: 41 New
        +3
        Quote: yuriy55
        We have always opposed ourselves to the West. Already, most likely, in the West they were convinced that we will never be their "potential friend" ...
        laughing


        Why are there so few who have always been drawn to the West? You would be tensed, kids who want to make themselves "cute potential (active and passive) friends" ... I give one more chance to show will and citizenship.
        wink
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 13 December 2015 11: 17 New
          +6
          Dear, you do not understand. You are minus for the "contrast." Russia always had nothing more to do than to oppose itself to someone else. We could not develop our territory, where can we oppose it. The problem is different. Russia is too big and rich, which makes the West regard us as a threat (they judge by themselves). And, accordingly, try to eliminate. So far, fortunately (for us), it doesn’t work out.
          1. yuriy55
            yuriy55 13 December 2015 12: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: alicante11
            Dear, you do not understand. You are minus for the "contrast." Russia always had nothing more to do than to oppose itself to someone else. We could not master our territory ...


            I absolutely do not care, unlike those who are eager to get something, get higher ... I am from the category for which the truth is proved by facts ...
            You, dear, maybe tell us, we needed antithesis yourself to the French (along with the national army) in 1812? Or did you have to applaud to lie under the army of Napoleon?
            Continue? Yes, the whole period of Soviet power, we only did what we proved to the West the advantages of the socialist system ... And we proved it. Otherwise, we would not be ruined with such perseverance and would not have danced with happiness on the ruins of the USSR. They thought that we would enter into a common life and rush into open arms ...
            And the whole new period? No contrast? Are we on a short leash of the EU, the IMF ... or are we developing independently, with mistakes and miscalculations, with successes and victories ???

            I won’t talk about morality. We had such concepts as a pederast (sexual perversion) and * as (character trait) ... The rest of the LGBT people simply did not care. This was the opposition of our morality to Western morality, the opposition of human norms and values ​​to Western ...
            A bit long, but intelligibly ... hi
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 13 December 2015 14: 32 New
              +1
              You, dear, perhaps tell us, did we need to oppose ourselves to the French (together with the combined army) in 1812? Or did you have to applaud to lie under the army of Napoleon?


              So we did not resist, we fought back.
              Explain to you what a confrontation is? This is when two forces try to solve certain problems at the expense of each other. The only task of Russia that it solves is self-defense from those who are trying to solve their problems at our expense.
        2. Lelek
          Lelek 13 December 2015 12: 14 New
          +1
          Quote: yuriy55
          . I give one more chance to show will and citizenship.


          Thank you, you are our generous, have made happy.
          Russia is a self-sufficient state ready to trade and make friends, but not "with anyone." Remember the dogma - "friends must be able to choose"? We too often made the mistake of choosing the wrong ones, and gradually come to the conclusion that there will be friends “less but reliable” and business partners “more but also reliable”.
          As regards “citizenship”, I don’t think that the demonstration of one’s sores all over the world is a manifestation of this very citizenship. If this process of masochism is so close and dear to you, then the flag is in your hands, but do not demand it from others. yes
          1. yuriy55
            yuriy55 13 December 2015 13: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Lelek

            Thank you, you are our generous, have made happy ...
            ... Remember the dogma - "friends must be able to choose"? ...
            As regards “citizenship”, I don’t think that the demonstration of one’s sores all over the world is a manifestation of this very citizenship. If this process of masochism is so close and dear to you, then the flag is in your hands, but do not demand it from others. yes

            I crumpled your dogma and understood why some traded on the market, while others chose ...
            But this option is closer to me:
            It's no secret that friends do not grow in the garden,
            Do not sell and buy friends


            Tell your doctor about your sores. And for me, the concept of citizenship - first of all, means awareness of one's involvement in the Motherland, its people, its origins and roots. And, like her own son, I rejoice when she is healthy and happy, and I hate the people who make her feel pain and humiliation ...

            I do not demand anything from others. What is due to me will be given. I do not try to communicate with empty people who have nothing to learn from ...
            hi
      2. APASUS
        APASUS 13 December 2015 18: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: yuriy55
        We have always opposed ourselves to the West. Already, most likely, in the West they were convinced that we will never be their "potential friend" ...
        laughing

        And when we did not oppose ourselves to the West under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, Western economists advised our government, Western lawyers wrote laws, military attaches sat in the Moscow region.
        Why didn't the west meet us?
        But we are still feeling the results in our own skin !! The West did not disdain to take advantage of our intentions and made us a country of 3 if not 4 grades standing in line for humanitarian aid.
        Does modern Ukraine remind you of anything?
        They just threw themselves into the arms of the West and what they got, another Singapore or South Korea ???
    2. oldseaman1957
      oldseaman1957 13 December 2015 08: 56 New
      +6
      ... the collapse of relations between the West and Russia really deserves to be called the new Cold War ...
      - And there is everything in Russia now: a new perfect weapon, and patriotism, and a clear concept of the situation. That's just NORMAL domestic economic policy is not! And now, at this pain point, they will begin to beat us. Are the current liberal ministers ready for this? I do not believe!
    3. berkut9737
      berkut9737 13 December 2015 11: 38 New
      0
      We are convinced that no one is waiting for us in the West. We have always been, are and will be a potential adversary for them.

      To understand this, it was necessary to destroy a huge power, lose eastern Europe, ruin the army and economy. This is how much you need not to love your country to allow all this? Still in power are the descendants of those who at 17 made a coup in the Russian Empire. A distinctive feature of these "people" - hatred of Russia and all Russian. Having such an “elite” at the head of state, Russia is doomed to yet another betrayal. Otherwise, I cannot explain the collapse of the USSR.
      1. Boos
        Boos 13 December 2015 12: 05 New
        0
        You mixed cutlets with flies, in my opinion ... The ideas of the USSR were ahead of time, and the future lies with socialist principles.
        Quote: berkut9737
        We are convinced that no one is waiting for us in the West. We have always been, are and will be a potential adversary for them.

        To understand this, it was necessary to destroy a huge power, lose eastern Europe, ruin the army and economy. This is how much you need not to love your country to allow all this? Still in power are the descendants of those who at 17 made a coup in the Russian Empire. A distinctive feature of these "people" - hatred of Russia and all Russian. Having such an “elite” at the head of state, Russia is doomed to yet another betrayal. Otherwise, I cannot explain the collapse of the USSR.
        1. berkut9737
          berkut9737 13 December 2015 12: 34 New
          0
          The ideas of the USSR were ahead of time, and the future lies with socialist principles.

          And who should be the guarantor of socialist principles? I think power is loving its homeland and its people.
      2. bovig
        bovig 13 December 2015 20: 26 New
        0
        What kind of coup are you talking about? In the year 17, there were TWO!
  2. Teberii
    Teberii 13 December 2015 06: 57 New
    +7
    It is precisely not the collapse of the USSR, but the deliberate collapse and support of separatist sentiment in the republics that became the main reason.
  3. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 13 December 2015 06: 59 New
    +4
    Philosophy is good when there is nothing to do! The situation in the world is changing in such a way that we cease to control the whole world mess and there comes a time when there will be no opportunity to get involved in local wars like the elimination of terrorists in Syria, and then in Afghanistan, possibly Iraq, etc., and as he said President, I really would not want to use nuclear weapons. This, in essence, may be necessary, otherwise a large army of mercenary or ideological bandits, the number of which can reach hundreds of thousands, can overwhelm us. It is accordingly unreasonable to turn a peaceful life into Russia.
    1. bovig
      bovig 13 December 2015 20: 41 New
      0
      Quote: dchegrinec
      Philosophy is good when there is nothing to do! .


      Philosophy is the word that came to us from the Greek language. It consists of two words: fileo - love; sophos is wisdom. Taken together means - love of wisdom. Therefore, it is good to show love for wisdom when there is nothing to do, and when there is something to do, you have to do it stupidly! Did I understand you correctly?))
  4. venaya
    venaya 13 December 2015 07: 10 New
    +3
    In fact, the COCOM rules have been renewed, providing for a ban on the transfer of technologies and goods for strategically important sectors of the Russian economy.

    In this case, no more words are needed anymore, as it doesn’t matter, all that matters is the real attitude to our country, as to the enemy’s country. The West was convinced that we do not want to be their slaves, therefore they no longer need us in any form. Slave owners need only slaves and no one else, everyone else does not represent value for them and, in their opinion, should disappear.
  5. afdjhbn67
    afdjhbn67 13 December 2015 07: 11 New
    +9
    As he recalls, in 1990, Robert Gates (director of the CIA from 1991-1993) visited Moscow.

    After which he marched alone on Red Square, thereby marking victory in the Cold War ..
    And the words belong to him - “if you only knew who we were in touch with and at what level ...” (not verbatim)
    then they could afford such frankness, according to their concepts, we were defeated and crushed to dust and no longer posed a threat to the states ..
    Our enemies inside, rather than from outside, are much more dangerous ..
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 13 December 2015 07: 33 New
      +3
      Quote: afdjhbn67

      After which he marched alone on Red Square, thereby marking victory in the Cold War ..

      It’s generally McKein marching
      Nicolai hi
      1. afdjhbn67
        afdjhbn67 13 December 2015 08: 08 New
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        It’s generally McKein marching

        I remember that the CIA deer needs to be clarified, otherwise it's ugly ..
        made the old man google dig .. laughing
        If in 1991 CIA Director Robert Gates, standing on Red Square, single-handedly held the US victory parade in the Cold War with the USSR,

        http://www.rv.ru/content2.php3?id=3215
      2. Lelek
        Lelek 13 December 2015 12: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        It’s generally McKein marching


        And yet it was Robert Gates, Nikolai was right. yes
    2. SPACE
      SPACE 13 December 2015 07: 44 New
      +1
      At different ends of the chain, there are always two prisoners, and it is not always clear which of them is a slave and who is a tyrant.
      Z.Y. Enemies sometimes, can be used very effectively;)
  6. tanit
    tanit 13 December 2015 07: 30 New
    +6
    Come on, comrades and (or) gentlemen ...
    "And do not rush to bury us, but we still have things to do here ... At home, the children are small, small, and I just wanted to live" (c) laughing
  7. yuriy55
    yuriy55 13 December 2015 07: 34 New
    +3
    The USSR disappeared from the map of the world by no means as a result of reforms or as a result of complicated diplomatic negotiations and conspiracies. Just because of all the circumstances, he could no longer exist.


    The USSR destroyed the most common phenomenon - separation. We were deliberately divided into national and territorial apartments, climatic zones, workers, collective farmers and the intelligentsia ... where everyone was given their place in life. Remember the joke:
    The son of a general asks his father:
    - Dad, will I be the captain?
    - You will, son!
    - Dad, will I be a colonel?
    - You will, son!
    - Dad. will I be a general?
    - You will, son!
    “Dad, will I be a marshal?”
    - No son, the marshal has his own son!

    There were people who were hindered by the system itself, proclaiming social justice, in which there was no place for parasites and speculators (on a propagandized, open scale). They skillfully used all their capabilities to ruin this statehood (what was it based on? Nobody remembers? I remind you - the unity of the party and the people !!!). What was suggested in return? The same hell, only the profile view and the property is different ...

    Confrontation in a new round of evolution? It’s just this new - the well-forgotten old and the tools correspond to the times. If we begin to recall the failures in politics that occurred with the easy supply of people who are not living in our country:
    Gorbachev publicly stated that the Soviet Union "there is no moral or political right to intervene in the events of Eastern Europe, ”and added:“ We proceed from the assumption that others will not interfere. ”
    -
    then our moral right will always depend on the amount of payment from the respective funds, and political rights will be ridiculed and neglected ...

    In a world where it has become the rule to establish double-triple standards, only a united and strong people can survive. And forever rallying the people can only the idea of ​​a decent life for all ... or common death ...

    C'est la vie as the French say ...
    what
    1. tanit
      tanit 13 December 2015 07: 41 New
      -1
      Quote: yuriy55
      Remember the joke:
      The son of a general asks his father:
      - Dad, will I be the captain?
      - You will, son!
      - Dad, will I be a colonel?
      - You will, son!
      - Dad. will I be a general?
      - You will, son!
      “Dad, will I be a marshal?”
      - No son, the marshal has his own son!

      Something an old Soviet anecode is not linked to social justice, is it? laughing
      1. cap
        cap 13 December 2015 14: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: tanit
        Quote: yuriy55
        Remember the joke:
        The son of a general asks his father:
        - Dad, will I be the captain?
        - You will, son!
        - Dad, will I be a colonel?
        - You will, son!
        - Dad. will I be a general?
        - You will, son!
        “Dad, will I be a marshal?”
        - No son, the marshal has his own son!

        Something an old Soviet anecdote is not linked to social justice, is it? laughing

        You correctly found one of the nails in the lid of the coffin of what was called the USSR. (It has a small font on the hat ordered by the CIA)
        As you see, it worked. In the absence of denial of State ideology, other levers will work at the present time.
        Now a good trump card, kids on gold toilets in state offices hi .
      2. cap
        cap 13 December 2015 14: 49 New
        0
        But this is not a joke.
        Dmitry Nikolaevich Patrushev was born on October 13, 1977 in St. Petersburg.
        In 1999 he graduated from the State University of Management with a degree in Management.
        In 2002-2004 completed training in
        Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with a degree in World Economy
        Doctor of Economic Sciences.
        From 1999 to 2002 (22 years) since worked at the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation.
        In 2004 (27 years), the Bank for Foreign Trade (OJSC Vneshtorgbank), from 01.03.2007 OJSC VTB Bank
        Since 2007 (30 years), he served as senior vice president of the bank.
        Since May 26, 2010 - Chairman of the Management Board, member of the Supervisory Board of Russian Agricultural Bank
        Compare salary?
    2. afdjhbn67
      afdjhbn67 13 December 2015 08: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: yuriy55
      The USSR destroyed the most common phenomenon - separation. We were deliberately divided into national and territorial apartments, climatic zones, workers, collective farmers and the intelligentsia ... where everyone was given their place in life.

      You find many differences in today's situation .. ???
    3. alicante11
      alicante11 13 December 2015 08: 51 New
      +6
      We were deliberately divided into national and territorial apartments, climatic zones, workers, collective farmers and the intelligentsia ... where everyone was given their place in life. Remember the joke:


      Yes, you sho? This, you see, my father, the son of a single mother, an elementary school teacher from a provincial town in Primorye, was destined to become a civil aviation engineer. Or the mother, the daughter of the driver and the nurse, was destined to become first a midwife, and then an anesthetist. Her sister, by the way, became an accountant. And how many young people rose and made a career in construction sites like BAM, Komsomolsk or in Tselin. Who wanted to, he went to the "north" and hit the grandmother, and who wanted, lived in large cities, received a penny, but the whole infrastructure. Yes, such freedom of movement and such social elevators that were in the Union were no longer anywhere and never in history. And all because all social elevators from slavery to monarchy and capitalism were based on money. With rare exceptions like Ford, which everyone knows. And in the USSR, social elevators worked exclusively on personal merits. And, by the way, the joke is from late-perestroika and perestroika times. No one says the nomenclature needed to be broken. But what does the country have to do with it?
    4. berkut9737
      berkut9737 13 December 2015 13: 20 New
      +1
      - No son, the marshal has his own son!

      This is very correctly noticed - the power is inherited ...
  8. Neophyte
    Neophyte 13 December 2015 07: 39 New
    +3
    The history of the Time of Troubles in Russia repeated itself: traitors-rulers (Mecheny and Alkash), and the people themselves allowed the guild thieves to plunder Russia! The fortress walls fell, the enemy approached the Citadel, but Russia was saved. The enemy was strong, but in vain rejoiced- Russia rebelled and went on a victorious step! The evolution of mankind continues and Russia again becomes and will be, judging by the forecasts of the seers, the decisive factor in this evolution!
    1. tanit
      tanit 13 December 2015 07: 45 New
      -1
      Quote: Neophyte
      The history of the Time of Troubles in Russia repeated itself: traitors-rulers (Mecheny and Alkash), and the people themselves allowed the guild thieves to plunder Russia! The fortress walls fell, the enemy approached the Citadel, but Russia was saved. The enemy was strong, but in vain rejoiced- Russia rebelled and went on a victorious step! The evolution of mankind continues and Russia again becomes and will be, judging by the forecasts of the seers, the decisive factor in this evolution!

      Pathetic and emotional. hi
      1. Neophyte
        Neophyte 13 December 2015 07: 57 New
        -2
        Seems like a magnetic storm affected?
    2. berkut9737
      berkut9737 13 December 2015 14: 53 New
      +1
      The enemy is strong, but in vain rejoiced-Russia rebelled and went victorious gait!

      Our people have no other steps than victorious. It is not for nothing that the West calls us the most rebellious people on earth. There are only 140 million of us, and the whole world is afraid of us and secretly respects us. It would seem that they destroyed the entire color of the nation during the revolution, and the people survived. Moreover, he became the winner in the Second World War and built the superpower of the USSR. The mighty shoulders of our people, inhuman patience. To throw him only a foreign yoke from his neck ...
  9. Al_oriso
    Al_oriso 13 December 2015 07: 55 New
    +1
    First of all, the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies are aimed at limiting and depleting resources for the development of Russia. As before, campaigns are underway to sharply reduce the flow of currency to Russia as a result of maintaining low oil prices, as well as restricting the export of natural gas to the West.

    I must say that the actions of the West are planned, gradual and long-playing. But tighten the loop they won’t succeed, the noose will break and strangle them. The prerequisites for this are clearly visible now, about to explode.
  10. gla172
    gla172 13 December 2015 07: 56 New
    +8
    Politics against the USSR was formed in the USA at the end of the 40 of the XX century and voiced by the American general Allen Dulles, the head of political intelligence of the USA in Europe, who later became the director of the CIA. Here are his words:

    "The war will end, everything will somehow settle down, it will settle down. And we will drop everything we have - all the gold, all the material power to fool and fool people! The human brain, people's minds are capable of change.

    Having sowed chaos in the Soviet Union, we will quietly replace their values ​​with false ones and make them believe in these false values. How?

    We will find like-minded people and allies in Russia itself. Episode by episode will be played out with a grandiose scale tragedy of the death of the most rebellious people on Earth, the final, irreversible fading of their self-consciousness.

    For example, we will gradually erase their social essence from literature and the arts, wean the artists, discourage them from engaging in images, researching the processes that occur in the depths of the masses.

    Literature, theaters, cinema - everything will depict and glorify the most base human feelings. We will do our best to support and raise the so-called creators, who will plant and hammer into the human mind the cult of sex, violence, sadism, betrayal - in a word, all immorality. In government, we will create chaos and confusion.

    We will imperceptibly, but actively and constantly promote tyranny of officials, bribery, unprincipledness. Bureaucracy and red tape will be elevated to virtue. Honesty and decency will be ridiculed and will not be needed by anyone, will turn into a relic of the past. Rudeness and arrogance, lies and deceit, drunkenness and drug addiction, animal fear of each other, betrayal, nationalism, enmity of peoples and, above all, enmity and hatred of the Russian people - we will all cultivate this cleverly and inconspicuously, it will bloom terry color.

    And only a few, very few, will guess what is happening. But we will put such people in a helpless position, turn them into a laughing stock, find a way to slander them and declare them to be the scum of society.

    We will dig up spiritual roots, vulgarize and destroy the foundations of morality. We will shatter thus, generation after generation.

    We will take on people from childhood and youth, and we will always place the main emphasis on young people - we will begin to corrupt, corrupt and corrupt it. We will make of it cynics, vulgarities and cosmopolitans. "
  11. zekaze1980
    zekaze1980 13 December 2015 07: 58 New
    +4
    So much time has passed and still have unpleasant feelings of disgust for politics and directly for the participants in the process of the collapse of the USSR.
  12. Seneca
    Seneca 13 December 2015 08: 00 New
    0
    Less article. For it is well known all the main enemies of Russia .. in the Kremlin. No great empire was defeated by an external enemy; they rotted from within.
    1. tanit
      tanit 13 December 2015 10: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Seneca
      For it is well known that all the main enemies of Russia..in the Kremlin. No great empire was defeated by an external enemy; they rotted from within.

      Pay attention - everything, once again - ALL who were, are and will be in the Kremlin - they only dream of one thing - to destroy Mother Russia ... wassat
      P.S.And the empires began to decay, namely from people like you. hi
    2. populist
      populist 13 December 2015 23: 26 New
      0
      No great empire was defeated by an external enemy; they rotted from within.

      Everything happened!
      The Third Reich and the Japanese Empire were defeated on the battlefield. The same thing happened with the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. The empire of Napoleon was defeated. Probably enough examples.
  13. Indifferent
    Indifferent 13 December 2015 08: 10 New
    +3
    Strongly disagree with the author. The Soviet Union ruined the greed and venality of the new leaders of the CPSU, who decided that they should live on a salary of 500 rubles and not steal zapadlo! And then there was frank sabotage, while the country fell on!
    If we had an alternative socialist party and a different selection of cadres, the USSR would have long dominated the world, and people would live richer than anyone. We have 2% of the world's population produce 40% of natural resources. We would have lived better than the Americans just at that time, and they would have fallen into crisis.
  14. arsenks
    arsenks 13 December 2015 08: 13 New
    10
    Everything has its time...
  15. tasha
    tasha 13 December 2015 08: 18 New
    +2
    Quote: indifferent
    We have 2% of the world's population extract 40% of natural resources.


    Someone wrote that this is our misfortune. We get, we extract, we cannot really process.
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag 13 December 2015 08: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: tasha
      Someone wrote that this is our misfortune.

      As it was said on TV not so long ago, "it is necessary to build more pipelines" (C), so this is a priority from the very top
  16. Ruswolf
    Ruswolf 13 December 2015 08: 25 New
    +2
    The only plus point of Gorbachev’s perestroika is that she revealed the abscess that was inside the country's leadership. And the USSR and the Union republics and countries of the Warsaw Pact.
    I will never believe that everyone became a bastard and a bastard in one or two years!
    The collapse of the USSR and the subsequent policies of the states of the post-Soviet space, and the countries of Eastern Europe, showed what friends were. Of course, not everything, not ordinary people and not all power. And those silent people (middle-level officials) whom no one saw or did not want to see.
    And the main minus is that no one wanted to clean the open abscess! This suited some, while others are used to doing nothing. The same as today's officials. Who also, having beaten out a large salary today, are sitting and waiting for when they will replace those who force them to work. There is never much money for them.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 13 December 2015 09: 21 New
      +1
      that she revealed the abscess that was inside the country's leadership


      In-in, opened and now all this pus has poured on our heads and considers himself an elite. They forgot to attach the tampon in the form of the NKVD under the leadership of Beria, as the IVS did. And now gangrene, unfortunately, with it directly in the brain :(.
  17. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 13 December 2015 08: 40 New
    +2
    "The collapse of the USSR is the greatest humanitarian catastrophe"

    The fact is that the bulk of the population "guessed" about this for a long time. Because I experienced this catastrophe in full. The main thing is that disasters do not recur.
    "if you knew who we are in touch with and at what level ..."

    It’s not customary to surrender your agents, and even less so. But the fact that part of that political “elite”, without a twinge of conscience, worked for the CIA is beyond doubt. But no one has suffered any responsibility. But not only one Bakatin could be safely rolled into the asphalt for treason. And how many of them are working for the good of America so far.
  18. Teplohod
    Teplohod 13 December 2015 08: 40 New
    -1
    Right! It has long been noted that often unverified circumstances stick out as facts, namely, that the USA collapsed the USSR and M. Gorbachev. naive frarook. Firstly, the USSR, it turns out, did not fall apart. Secondly, M. Gorbachev, one of the greatest naive leaders who sought to put an end to the confrontation between East and West. The Yankees, scoundrels, turned everything upside down, declared the victories of Gorbachev M.S. as their merits, and distorted the whole story, declaring their victory, leadership, management of this process and the collapse of the USSR. Meanwhile, we are not descendants of slave owners, because M. Gorbachev sought to build mutually beneficial partnerships not from a position of strength, but from the position of equal agreements. Another thing is that we came across partners, often ungrateful. Now, if our propaganda made the whole world think so, then we would be heroes, and it so happened that the Yankee propaganda turned out to be more professional.
  19. Signore Tomato
    Signore Tomato 13 December 2015 08: 57 New
    +1
    .
    The opponent was the former US ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock (1987 – 1991), who denied external influence and called Boris Yeltsin and the forces behind him the main driving force behind the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    .


    It’s the same as for the drunk who died from cirrhosis of the liver, to say: “This person died from a glass of vodka that he drank yesterday.” When Gorbachev — the aspen stake behind him to the chin — his unbridled chatter broke everything and everything.
    In those days, it would be enough TIME to firmly restrain a couple of fascist "republics" and everything would end quite calmly. Gorbachev - if he gave him an aspen from the back to his chin - a cowardly skunk that always exposed the military, always and everywhere - that when shooting down US planes, that when putting things in order in the fascist "republics" - a worm on the body of Russia, the USSR, which undermined the country, and the drunk_eltsyn he just finished the already lying country ... Gorbachev, a cowardly animal, decided that anarchy was better than order.
  20. Rezident007
    Rezident007 13 December 2015 09: 09 New
    +3
    Quote: Teberii
    It is precisely not the collapse of the USSR, but the deliberate collapse and support of separatist sentiment in the republics that became the main reason.

    I agree. Russophobia was in all republics (maybe not so much in Belarus and Ukraine). Sorry for the people. Hatred was fierce towards Russians. I myself have not experienced this, but many friends who survived and left there told a lot (censorship will not miss what horrors were happening). The tiniest was in the Asian republics, Transcaucasia ... In short, it was the genocide of the Russians.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 13 December 2015 09: 24 New
      +3
      My father was allocated at the end of the 70 after KIIG to Tallinn. So a month later he went home from there to the Far East precisely because of the attitude of the locals towards the Russians. too much freedom was given to the "minorities." It is necessary to build on a ruler, and not engage in self-determination.
      1. Ruswolf
        Ruswolf 13 December 2015 09: 57 New
        +2
        In 1985, the Estonian served with me! So he still said
        "I serve in the Soviet army, but my son will serve in the Estonian!"
        So that was all before perestroika. Only because of epaulettes, promotions and careers, the majority was silent about this.
        How so in the Soviet Union and such views! This cannot be with us!
        And you had to remember Article 58 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR! (1926-37gg)
        1. bovig
          bovig 13 December 2015 21: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Ruswolf
          In 1985, the Estonian served with me! So he still said
          "I serve in the Soviet army, but my son will serve in the Estonian!"
          So that was all before perestroika. Only because of epaulettes, promotions and careers, the majority was silent about this.
          How so in the Soviet Union and such views! This cannot be with us!
          And you had to remember Article 58 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR! (1926-37gg)

          Forced to agree! The time bomb under the foundations of the USSR was laid down by Nikita Khrushchev, whose clock mechanism, none of the subsequent leaders bothered to stop ... Interesting information, so to say "information for consideration", on this subject can be found in memoirs and publications ... For example, M. Poltoranin “Power in TNT equivalent”, Stuart Kagan “The Kremlin Wolf”, Maxson “Two tragedies of Soviet cybernetics”, A. Zinoviev “Confession of a renegade” and much more ... Everything happened at the highest party level ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
  21. hartlend
    hartlend 13 December 2015 09: 20 New
    -1
    It is not clear why the author wrote this at all. He didn’t say anything new, so he hung out old facts. Apparently decided to popiarasitsya.
  22. emercom1979
    emercom1979 13 December 2015 09: 21 New
    +1
    Several factors led to the collapse of the USSR (in my opinion). The system was ossified, stable (there was no development and improvement policy), the lack of leadership on development issues (the planned economy and the old people’s fear of the new one strongly influenced), the envy of the West (the availability of goods and their “mythical” quality, which continues to this day), well let the enemy into their country. The West has always stood at the border and waited for the opportunity. Something like this.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. Turkestan
    Turkestan 13 December 2015 09: 50 New
    +3
    Gorbachev's speech at a seminar at the American University in Turkey
    The purpose of my whole life was the destruction of communism, the unbearable dictatorship of people. It was to achieve this goal that I used my position in the party and country.
    Today, there is no doubt that Gorbachev and his team played a decisive role in preparing the collapse of the “Union of Indestructible”, one part of which actively implemented the disastrous decisions of the General Secretary, and the other silently watched as the treachery erodes the foundations and unity of the country.
    Narcissistic amateurs such as Gorbachev, breaking into power, care only about their image. With the advent of Gorbachev, staff replacements gained a wide scope. In the first three years, the composition of the Central Committee was updated by 85%, out of 115, only ten remained to Gorbachev’s ministers. In exchange for the government of the Soviet state came people who hated Soviet power, the Communist ideology, and nationalist-minded in the union republics. And the result of their CRIMINAL stormy activity, the consequences, today we feel on ourselves
    A few years ago, a former American intelligence officer, having arrived in Moscow, threw this phrase: You are good guys. We know that you have had successes that you can be proud of. But time will pass, and you will gasp, if it is declassified, what agents the CIA and the State Department had at your top.
  25. midshipman
    midshipman 13 December 2015 10: 52 New
    +6
    I have read the advanced versions and I want to give readers of "IN" some data. I was transferred to Moscow to the post of Head of the State Institution of One of the defense ministries (there were 9 of them) in Leningrad in 1979. Until 1987, more than 10 enterprises and research institutes were built and commissioned at my design capacity (Zhigulevsky plant with design bureau. Almetyevsk factory with design bureau, Leninogorsk factory with design bureau, Radio meter with design bureau, Vitebsk television factory with design bureau, Grodno factory radio receivers with design bureaus, Makhach-Kalinsky radio plant with research institutes, etc.) The GDP growth rate for them was more than 15% annually .. In the Political Bureau of the CPSU Central Committee I had my good friends Zaikov L.N. and Romanov G.V. to Moscow after me, and I, as a doctor of technical sciences, professor, Deputy Head of NII-33, Laureate of the USSR State Prize, Chief Designer of many systems adopted for service, they personally recommended for work in the Ministry. it was supposed to be nominated for work in the Government earlier. So L.N. Zaikov gave such a story. After the death of L.I. Brezhnev, G.V. Romanov should have been elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, but Shevarnadze and Gromyko opposed and began to recommend Gorbachev Here a lot of work was done by Yakovlev . So we got what we have.
    Prior to Gorbachev, work was carried out in all defense ministries to transfer all enterprises to production of consumer goods. Contracts were concluded with similar enterprises in France. Germany, England, USA. Personally, I prepared my enterprises for the release of new TVs with Thomson, car radios, microwave ovens, dishwashers and washing machines, etc. In the ministries, these products were already called "white technology". And all of this we did in parallel with the release of military and technical equipment. Later, when all the defense ministries were liquidated, I had to go to the USA (California) and Malta for business affairs. My foreign colleagues showed me the personal homes of Gorbachev and Gaidar. Now ask yourself a question, dear readers of VO, are there normal countries with a normal government in which, after the resignation of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Ministers leave to live in other countries on their estates? I will answer no. I have the honor.
    1. atalef
      atalef 13 December 2015 10: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: midshipman
      Now ask yourself a question, dear readers of VO, are there normal countries with a normal government in which, after the resignation of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Ministers leave to live in other countries on their estates? I will answer no. I have the honor.

      Of course not, in normal countries. Tk such leaders would have been planted before they even finished their cadence.
      I'm not talking about that. why would you choose them at all? Therefore, we will touch upon the issue of the independence of the prosecutor’s office and the courts.
      By the way, touching Romanov, still I'm from St. Petersburg.
      Well, he stole, then the same is not childish.
      So, a comment on the topic.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 13 December 2015 11: 25 New
        +2
        Of course not, in normal countries. Tk such leaders would have been planted before they even finished their cadence.


        Hint ... Kaiser Wilhelm 2.
        True, unlike Gorbi, he was not to blame for the defeat of Germany. But he was forced to leave, betrayed by such "Gaidars" and "Shevardnadzemis," only with German surnames.
    2. atalef
      atalef 13 December 2015 10: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: midshipman
      Now ask yourself a question, dear readers of VO, are there normal countries with a normal government in which, after the resignation of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Ministers leave to live in other countries on their estates? I will answer no. I have the honor.

      Of course not, in normal countries. Tk such leaders would have been planted before they even finished their cadence.
      I'm not talking about that. why would you choose them at all? Therefore, we will touch upon the issue of the independence of the prosecutor’s office and the courts.
      By the way, touching Romanov, still I'm from St. Petersburg.
      Well, he stole, then the same is not childish.
      So, a comment on the topic.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Chak
    Chak 13 December 2015 11: 06 New
    +2
    Well, well ... Perhaps the time has come to gather the Russian Land together, to restore the Empire. Only here is the position of the country's leadership incomprehensible, some constant half measures: we fight corruption - we cover the main corrupt officials; we are talking about the development of production and supporting entrepreneurship - we stifle the producer with taxes ... And so on all issues from migration policy to education. I have many complaints against Putin and they have appeared not now, but since the beginning of his reign. Continuing the Gorbachev-Yeltsin policy, Comrade President actively put his hand to the creation of a modern situation that is not the best for Russia. Whether the will of the official oligarchic liberals surrounding him or the will of those around him is a second question. At the same time, I do not belittle his real merits, especially in the last period: this is both ridding the country of the wildest banditry, and the fight against extremism / terrorism ..., a lot of things. But be that as it may, with all my criticism of modern power, I realize that if we all do not rally around the central figure - the country's leader, we will lose our, possibly the last, battle.
  28. BARKHAN
    BARKHAN 13 December 2015 12: 44 New
    +7
    Return what we could not. But to draw conclusions, quite ...
    The problem of Russia is that we are trying to build an honest society on the original lie. The USSR was lying and vilely ruined. The privatization is lying and vile. The authorities are not condemning the lies and vileness to all of this. It is still lying and vile.
    I’m sure that there are decent people and patriots in United Russia, but the “opportunists” who have clung to the party in power nullify all the good efforts. And cleaning their ranks is not expected. That means the “car” will slip. The ship needs to be cleaned periodically the bottom of the growths.

    In order to go forward, it is necessary to recognize as criminals all those involved in the collapse of the USSR. All those responsible are actively or passively (criminal inaction of the security forces who have taken the oath) to be judged and deprived of everything.

    Recognize as criminal and illegal the results of the privatizations of the 90s. Nationalize the raw materials sector and defense plants. Judge and imprison the participants of this Sabbath.

    Prohibit the complete export of capital from the country.

    Return confiscation of corruption to the Criminal Code.

    And there are no more republics and presidents in the Federation. There should be only one president, the president of Russia. All republics and other suspicious entities should be renamed in the province, all the laws of these "republics" lead to the federal model. Any disobedience and manifestation of separatism will be punished mercilessly.

    From the history of the collapse of the USSR, it is necessary to draw the right conclusions.
    1. berkut9737
      berkut9737 13 December 2015 13: 27 New
      +3
      To go forward it is necessary to recognize as criminals all those involved in the collapse of the USSR.

      Recognize as criminals not only those involved in the collapse of the USSR, but also in the collapse of the Russian Empire. And not only recognize, but judge. Such crimes have no statute of limitations.
  29. GOGY
    GOGY 13 December 2015 17: 21 New
    +2

    In order to go forward, it is necessary to recognize as criminals all those involved in the collapse of the USSR. All those responsible are actively or passively (criminal inaction of the security forces who have taken the oath) to be judged and deprived of everything.
    Search for villains all over the world, take them to Russia, judge and execute in public! Many scum are still alive today, who is here, someone is giving lectures over the hill (no one will ever give us such, they give Peace Prizes!) But! Return by force and punish! Perhaps this is possible in some sort of “parallel Russia”, where the State Emergency Committee in 91 succeeded, where the Supreme Council defeated in 93 or the General Rokhlin’s rebellion succeeded in 98 ... But alas, not in our Universe. The phrase infuriates
    The failure of the political and economic system of the former Soviet Union
    Brilliant analysis! What have you created? Which system? The system of effective managers on theft and budget cuts in the current stagnation of the economy, which is about to enter a protracted peak? Nice, nice! A system of total corruption of officials and their total impunity with the same total verbiage of the authorities on the fight against corruption and import substitution! Outflow system capital abroad (150 yards of greens in 2014, 120 - in 2015) That's fine ... In the budget for 2016, housing and communal services financing was cut by 40%, education by 8% and health care by 11%, what does this mean? We will be even worse treat, teach, heat and supply electricity? Is there still room to fall? I shudder at the thought that such a "system" for the existing government is effective and the only true one. So there’s nothing to catch ... There is a confrontation, it was and will be. That's just in such a pit (I would say rudely) we were not even on the eve of 41 ... Maybe there are analogies from 1917 ... Then the Bolsheviks saved the country from collapse (whatever they would say about them) But what about now as? Hope for a miracle? Personally, I do not see a way out request
  30. populist
    populist 13 December 2015 23: 44 New
    0
    Good article and proper comparison.
    The United States applies to Russia the methods that were previously used against the USSR and contributed to its collapse.
  31. Killj
    Killj 14 December 2015 00: 56 New
    +1
    The failure of the political and economic system of the former Soviet Union was at the heart of the collapse of the state

    Well, now the "system" of the oligarchs sucking the pipe horror as wealthy. In the USSR, what was untenable was this elite who sold the country.