The country of victorious Trotskyism

Many people are still convinced today that the collapse of the USSR was the result of a coup or a conspiracy. There are also those who support the little-known, but quite reasonable point of view of the dissident professor Alexander Zinoviev about the “anti-communist Gorbachev-Yeltsin coup,” which legally ended in December 1991.

According to VTsIOM, in 2011 more than a quarter of our fellow citizens from different social groups perceived the events of August 1991 as a tragedy that led to disastrous consequences for the country. And this testifies to the relevance of the discussion of the sad anniversary of the State Emergency Committee, the results of the latest research, according to which there were no objective prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR, and treatment of the accumulated socio-political and economic problems was required. Nevertheless, the Union was dismantled. One of the main architects of the so-called perestroika, Alexander Yakovlev, predicted a similar fate that arose on the sovereign ruins of the Russian Federation. He also called the members of the State Emergency Committee conspirators.

Isn't it time to abandon the perception of GKChP participants as state criminals? Not only decisions are needed, but above all a broad public discussion.

The reasons for the emergence of the State Emergency Committee and the defeat of this proactive authority (which included the top officials of the state) are many - internal and external, objective and subjective, not only situational, due to the upcoming signing of a new union treaty on August 20, which actually meant the dismantling of the USSR, but also rooted in 1987 1989 years. We are talking about managerial and political mistakes committed while trying to solve the accumulated socio-economic and political problems. The sharp complication of the international situation also played its role.

In those foreign policy conditions, the leadership of the USSR was required to make precise and verified decisions. What was needed was the mobilization and consolidation of the country, additional measures to enhance the role of science.

However, the decisions were made in the opposite direction, often contrary to common sense. In 1987, instead of stepping up scientific and technological progress and modernizing industry, the USSR engaged in radical democratization in order to hide the failure of Gorbachev's acceleration program. As a result, by August 1991, a fundamental political conflict arose between the supporters of the legitimization of private property and the bourgeois state and their opponents, between the adherents of the USSR and its antagonists. Yakovlev, by the way, stood for a confederation instead of a renewed Union.

It is impossible to reduce the matter to the competition between Yeltsin and Gorbachev and their teams, to the childishness and naivety of a large group of people's deputies. One thing is clear: to counteract the growing chaos and social disorganization, special measures were required. Objective prerequisites were seen for this. Another question: would Vice President Gennady Yanayev and his associates cope with this task?

Demons of Democracy

Disorganization as a political tool has long been a subject of research and a topic for publicists of various kinds. It is interesting that a few years before the State Emergency Committee in the USSR, numerous works by Trotsky devoted to aspects of anti-government conspiracies began to be published, and the work of the Italian diplomat and journalist Curzio Malaparte "Technique of a coup d'etat" was published. We believe that these books turned out to be unread by the leaders of the country and the creators of the State Emergency Committee, but the behind-the-scenes scriptwriters and directors of political disorganization worked them out thoroughly.

The country of victorious TrotskyismMore should be said about the role of Trotsky and his views, since, as an opponent of Lenin and Stalin, he expressed a lot of interesting ideas that are linked, among other things, with the theory and practice of "color revolutions". "Chaos is my ally!" - This theorist of small affairs and "genius of tactics" repeated many times, discussing the "technical-bureaucratic-military machine", its flaws and strategic points of state defense. “It is not necessary to provoke a strike,” wrote this demon of revolution back in 1917, “the monstrous chaos that reigns in Petrograd is stronger than a strike. This chaos, paralyzing the state, prevents the government from taking measures against the uprising. Since we cannot lean on the strike, let’s lean on chaos! ”

Such views deserve discussion in order to better understand the significance of the growing disorder in the country by the end of the 80s, as well as the importance of the USSR law on the state of emergency adopted in September 90, which created the legal basis for the implementation in August 1991 of special measures for which already there were many reasons and reasons.

If until the mid-80s and in the first years of Gorbachev's reforms the situation in the economy and society was stable, then in 1990-1991 the results of managerial mistakes became noticeable, the processes of disorganization and destruction of social, legal, spiritual and moral norms grew. Anarchy was approaching, almost in full accordance with the theoretical schemes of the aforementioned monograph "Technique of a coup d'etat." Common sense was disappearing. The game of democratization and renewal acquired a self-sufficient meaning. As a result, by August 1991, both the country's leadership and society had lost their understanding of the boundaries of reality. In these conditions, it was not necessary to rely on the rationality of the attitudes of the organizers and active participants of the Emergency Committee, since even those in power were acting, but people.

We wanted the best

Was the plan of the GKChP really poorly worked out, although it was prepared by high-class professionals? What are the real reasons for the indecision of Yanaev and Kryuchkov? Let's say right away: the main reason for the failure is seen as a superficial understanding by the organizers and active participants of the State Emergency Committee of the socio-political, economic processes taking place in the USSR.

Nevertheless, the conclusion about the unpreparedness of the introduction of the state of emergency is not confirmed. The necessary plans and solutions were created and agreed. Another thing is the quality of the documents prepared by the expert and analytical group of the power ministries of the USSR (it was they who were supposed to mobilize public opinion in determining the exact guidelines and the necessary means for solving the most important task - preserving the state). We have to talk about insufficient depth of study of issues, about ignoring significant factors. Only the use of administrative resources was analyzed; Kryuchkov's point of view on what was happening was dominant, as if an alternative to Gorbachev's opinion.

It would be necessary to speak in more detail about the competence of the GKChP initiators, but we will limit ourselves to a statement of the fact: there is a lack of knowledge about the processes in the country and the inability, unwillingness to establish cooperation with professional sociologists in order to better understand the essence of what is happening.

The assumption of sociological incompetence as the cause of the destruction of Soviet statehood may seem paradoxical and unlikely, but this is only at first glance. The facts are as follows.

First, with a great delay (in December 1990), a group was created in the power ministries of the USSR that monitored the reaction of the country's population to the possible introduction of a constitutional state of emergency.

Secondly, the tasks of this group were vague, and there was no question of predicting the behavior of various associations of deputies, party and state leaders.

Thirdly, only apparatchiks were included in it. This narrowed the possibilities of analyzing and forming public and expert opinion of such important categories as the leaders of party and Soviet bodies, deputies of all levels, and employees of law enforcement agencies. Trying to understand and evaluate the wave of events, Yanaev and Kryuchkov were unable to rise to the required level of political generalizations.

Gorbachev's infirmity

The individuals who performed the affairs turned out to be unsuitable for solving the problems facing the USSR at that time. Not according to Senka was the hat.

However, the most important thing is that "Gorbachevism" as an ideology and psychology of indecision-reinsurance began to take deep roots in the public consciousness. Its (and the so-called new thinking) social base was a group that came to power on the wave of perestroika. These are tens and even hundreds of thousands of people from the party-Soviet apparatus and law enforcement agencies. In 1986-1989, according to statistics published by Professor A. V. Ostrovsky, 400 thousand people freshened the ranks of the militia. The composition of the leaders of the CPSU at the district and city levels has been updated by 82 percent, and by 90 percent at the regional, territorial, and republican levels. They replaced 80 percent of prosecutors, 60 percent of judges. Cadres zombified by Yakovlev's propaganda and perestroika slogans were promoted to key positions.

Gorbachev's style - controversial and inconsistent - penetrated into the work of analysts of power ministries engaged in predicting the possible consequences of a state of emergency. It seems to be rightly noted the growing sociopolitical tensions and immediately gave an inexplicable conclusion that it is still early to take special measures, it is necessary to weigh everything more carefully and to prepare more thoroughly.

Such recommendations of the apparatus advisers and assistants, who called themselves experts without any reason, only confused the management and the public. However, not a word was said about the involvement of specialists from the Academy of Sciences, universities, military research institutes in the study of the causes of political chaos. Thus, it is the intellectual and sociological components that are seen as a vulnerable spot in the preparatory activities for the introduction of the State Emergency Committee.

A limited and deformed understanding of what was happening, which actually paralyzed the defenses of the public and state organism, became one of the reasons for the defeat of the State Emergency Committee and the dismantling of the Soviet Union. The destruction of the sovereignty of the USSR, the change of the system, the imposition of capitalism, the transformation of the identity of the 200 million people took place without large-scale and prolonged hostilities.

"An economic and social catastrophe was artificially created, the intensity of which has no precedent in the industrial society of modern times." We agree with Professor S. Kara-Murza that we can talk about a special operation with the participation of an influential intellectual group, the purpose of which in a vast area is to dismantle the Soviet people.

Without anger and addiction

The creation and lightning-fast defeat of the State Emergency Committee is a deep, unhealed wound in the souls of many of us. It is already well known about the dramatic events of August 1991, but generalizations and fundamental assessments are still lacking. It's time to abandon the widespread version of the formation of the Emergency Committee in the interpretation of Yakovlev-Shevardnadze-Yeltsin-Sobchak as ideologized and unreliable. This is, first of all. Secondly, the expediency of the 1994 amnesty for the members of the State Emergency Committee is questionable. They did not commit criminal acts and did not have such intentions. They managed to do little, and one can say: members of the State Emergency Committee - G.I. Yanaev, V.S. Pavlov, V.A.Kryuchkov, B.K. Pugo, V.A. I. Tizyakov and DT Yazov were disoriented by assistants and "pocket sociologists." From this point of view, the rehabilitation of the initiators of the Emergency Committee seems justified, which presupposes a complex of organizational and political measures.

First of all, a parliamentary commission should be created to assess the events of August 1991. She will have to find out the reaction of society to the political rehabilitation of the organizers and active participants of the Emergency Committee. It is necessary to hold parliamentary hearings on the collapse of the USSR. The revealed facts should be transferred to the Prosecutor General's Office to determine the validity of actions and the legal responsibility of officials.

In addition, a report should be prepared and widely published, the basis of which will be the official documents of those years, materials of public organizations and individuals, revealing the prerequisites for the creation of the State Emergency Committee, its subsequent defeat and dismantling of the political system and the state. It would be justified to have a special assignment from our president to the Russian Science Foundation, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the academic institutions of the historical and socio-political profile subordinate to it to conduct research into the events of those years.

Reconstruction and evaluation tasks historical the events of August 1991 appear to be extensive. Much will depend on reliance on scientific methodology; new approaches to analysis and interpretation are on the agenda. What happened at the turn of the 80s-90s of the XX century requires discussion in a different paradigm, going beyond the framework of the Marxist-Leninist analysis of premises - reasons - reasons.

Here, perhaps, the theory of a coup d'état, little-known in our country, but widespread abroad, created by Italians D. Moreno, A. Gramsci, K. Malaparte, based on an analysis of the revolutionary events of the 20-30s of the XX century, taking into account the theory and practices of Trotskyism. Curzio Malaparte wrote several decades ago: "The modern state is more exposed to revolutionary danger than we think: governments do not know how to defend it", "The simple application of classical police measures does not save." These paradoxical ideas also deserve to be taken into account when analyzing and assessing the dramatic events of the 80s and 90s in our country.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    20 August 2016 07: 31
    The presidency has become disastrous for the USSR.
    1. +8
      20 August 2016 13: 06
      An anti-communist counter-revolution has taken place in the USSR. This was not an accident that is associated with the Judaic woman Gorbachev. Initial capitalist accumulation began in the 1970s, when entire industries and government were overseen (taken over) by family clans. Back in the late 1950s, Djilas and Chegevara pointed out the degeneration of the USSR. In the 1980s, the "Komsomolskaya Pravda" published a whole manifesto of those who considered themselves "elite" and the rest "cattle". If you look at the personal composition, then in the Russian "elite" the majority are just the descendants of the "old Bolsheviks" and Trotskyists. Djilas, who personally met with Soviet leaders, in his book "The New Class" says that the totalitarian system, which called itself communist in all its Eastern European varieties, is the accelerated industrialization of economically backward societies in order to draw nations into the global economy.
      Leiba Trotsky came from the family of a "poor millionaire." Trotskyism is strong precisely in the industrially backward countries with raw materials.
  2. -5
    20 August 2016 07: 44
    Quote: Sergey Pershutkin, Mikhail Lazarev
    Many people are still convinced today that the collapse of the USSR was the result of a coup or a conspiracy.

    In vain are you sure.
    Any society, even the most downtrodden, is gradually developing. This is the law of life, called evolution. Therefore, sooner or later, feudalism comes to an end anyway. And it does not matter in what form this feudalism exists, in the form of an absolute monarchy (secular) or in the form of "developed socialism" (pseudo-religious), for example. The laws of the development of society are the same for everyone. Which have not be avoided. Sooner or later.
    1. +2
      21 August 2016 11: 24
      In vain? I do not think. As an example, China - why didn't they start to ruin the country? There was a transformation (qualitative) and that's it. Humpback is just a sent Cossack amers.
  3. cap
    20 August 2016 08: 03
    Nice article, but too late.
    Something like "fists after a fight".
    This begs the question "... where were you in August 91 ..."
    Something like this.
  4. +3
    20 August 2016 08: 15
    Isn't it time to abandon the perception of GKChP participants as state criminals?

    For me, so all who were then in power are state criminals.
  5. +3
    20 August 2016 08: 41
    There is no political force in Russia that could analyze and evaluate the dramatic events of the 80s and 90s in our country.
  6. +3
    20 August 2016 09: 30
    There are two main messages in the article, for which I gave her a minus.
    First. Gorbachev's perestroika, which preceded the tragedy of the destruction of the USSR, is "managerial mistakes at a difficult time for the country."
    Second and foremost. In any incomprehensible situation, listen to sociologists.

    For reference: Sergey Nikolayevich Pershutkin - teacher, leader, director and others and others from social life. The full list is here: And, as if by the way, the director of the research and implementation project of the American Eurasia Foundation "Ways of reforming the course of sociology in Russian universities" (1998-1999)
    About Mikhail Lazarev, alas, only managed to google that he is an admiral, commander of the Black Sea Fleet and discoverer of Antarctica wassat

    Captain Obvious declares that the question of the destruction of the USSR by the hands of many and many figures of domestic origin, but the Western leaven / salting, has already been sucked to the very bones, and even the bone marrow has already been sucked out of these bones. The most sympathetic to me personally work on this topic - AP Shevyakin "The defeat of the Soviet state. From the" thaw "to" perestroika ". M., Veche, 2005. I strongly recommend to everyone interested.
  7. +3
    20 August 2016 10: 19
    The fact that the military coup took place is an obvious fact. Further, the followers of Trotsky's ideas tried to establish themselves in power at any cost, they did not care what would happen to PEOPLE and the COUNTRY, as long as power and * legitimacy * were bought by territories and the surrender of sovereignty. As * opupeosis * absurdity * grabbing * everything that is possible.
    Military coups are a sad tradition of all countries, there is nothing unique about it. As there is nothing surprising in the fact that all the blame is placed on the * losers *. But the success of the construction of the COUNTRY is much more complicated, and to justify their own mistakes and inability they are sure to try to describe the horrors from which they * saved * the country, taking * quite a bit * as payment for this feat.
  8. +3
    20 August 2016 10: 23
    Everyone is looking around, dreaming of a country that has not lived for a century. When RI perished for her they fought, fought, died. When the USSR perished, few stood up to defend it. What kind of phenomenon is this? Just don't talk about stupefaction. Maybe because the USSR was no longer popular? You have to live on, how much can you yearn for?
    1. +5
      20 August 2016 12: 25
      When RI died for her they fought, fought, died.. I wonder who is this? S. Petliura, Finnish and Baltic nationalists? Armenian Dashnaks? Azerbaijani mussavists? Mensheviks of Georgia? Socialist-Revolutionary government of the Caspian region? ... Aaaaa Ataman Krasnov? Whose Cossacks were called "German prostitutes" in the Volunteer Army? Or maybe General Alekseev, the founding father of the Volunteer Army, who advised the emperor to abdicate? ..and of course the "monarchist" Denikin .. No? Well then, a Russian officer in the British service, Admiral Kolchak? .. And the rest of the Republic of Ingushetia fought?When the USSR was dying, few stood up to defend it..that in these August days the USSR was dying, few people understood .. except for the State Emergency Committee .. And the fact that the USSR died, they understood after the signing of the Belovezhskaya agreements .. But it was too late ..
      1. +3
        20 August 2016 12: 32
        Briefly, clearly and clearly they said to all those who were crying about the lost Republic of Ingushetia, and if only the Februaryists would have "won" October 17.
        The consequences would be even worse than in 1991.
        I will redirect your comment, if you please, to some crying liberals ..
      2. lel
        21 August 2016 11: 38
        that's for sure ... many are ready to kick the wounded lion, showing their "strength" ... and in his wound the lion was to blame ... the Communist Party grew to 20 million people. through their mediocre policy careerists rushed there ... where did these "communists" Gorbachev and Yeltsin come from? Shushkevichs, Aliyevs, Shevardnadzes, Kuchma and other rabble .... raised, otleelyali. fed up ... so they got modern Russian capitalism, with a bestial appearance ... and the people are also good, they went out to defend this indecency on the barricades, threw themselves under the tanks, and some newly elected deputy gave his place to Yeltsin, who then did not pass to the deputies ... how he was praised for this act ... so you live now ... you didn't like getting apartments for free, you wanted to buy it so buy and don't scream that you betrayed yourself ...
  9. +2
    20 August 2016 10: 35
    The article is a frank minus. In addition to the logical question asked above - "where were you in August 91?", It should be emphasized that the author is not familiar with Trotsky's ideas. The USSR was not engaged in any world revolution, it developed exactly along its traditional path and its end was natural, because power was in the hands of the elite, who wanted to steal even more, but could not do this and therefore decided to change the existing system.
  10. +2
    20 August 2016 13: 00
    the USSR is dying, very few people understood ... except for the State Emergency Committee
    So it was nano to call up the army not from the Moscow region, but from Central Asia, from the Moscow region they had already heard enough of Yeltsin's propaganda and the Uzbeks or Tajiks would have thrashed the Yeltsinists with cannons and did not think
  11. +1
    20 August 2016 15: 09
    I just want to show that the collapse of Ingushetia was followed by a violent civil war and, apart from every little thing, the main parties were red and white. Some for the new country, others for the old one. During the collapse of the USSR, there was no civil war (which, of course, is wonderful, it carried over). In fact, no one stood up for him (their number is negligible). Everyone was happy and celebrated. So the people wanted so? Or again the tricks of foreigners?
    1. +5
      20 August 2016 19: 12
      Why was the Soviet people unable to resist the destruction of the USSR?

      The main reason is the shift in the mass consciousness of the entire Soviet society towards a petty-bourgeois ideology. The decisive factor here was the change in the qualitative composition of the working class of the USSR after the Great Patriotic War.

      The war dealt a severe blow to the USSR and socialism, not only materially, the main thing was that as a result of huge human losses, the balance of class forces in Soviet society changed. During the Great Patriotic War, the best representatives of the working class perished on the battlefields, the Communist Party lost three members (more than 3 million communists). In addition, a whole generation of communist builders, the Soviet youth of 1921-1923, brought up by the Soviet regime, perished almost completely. birth.

      After the war, the restoration of the destroyed economy began, a large-scale construction of new plants and factories began, there was a shortage of workers. The older generation of the working class, hereditary proletarians with deep collectivist traditions - the bearers of the working class ideology gradually passed away. They were replaced by people from the countryside, as well as from the occupied territories, where private ownership and small-scale commodity structures appeared and developed during the occupation. Thus, the working class was overwhelmed by the petty-bourgeois element, and after Stalin's death, a departure from the fundamental provisions of Bolshevism began, the dogmatization of Marxist theory began to flourish, official ideology began to serve the party elite, explaining any of its decisions.
      (see continuation)
      1. +4
        20 August 2016 19: 14

        Under these conditions, alien petty-bourgeois elements penetrated into the party, into the party and Soviet apparatus, and worked not to consolidate, but to dismantle socialism. Khrushchev's reforms destroyed the Stalinist economy, focused on reducing the cost of production, and therefore per person. Khrushchev and his follower Brezhnev introduced self-financing, orienting enterprises towards profit, and this is already a capitalist indicator. As a result, the degenerated party, state, and economic nomenklatura (administrative bureaucracy) gradually pushed the working class away from management and control in the state.

        All this had a corrupting effect on the working class, on the whole of society. The basis of socialism gradually changed, the superstructure changed, the mass consciousness of Soviet society changed. The CPSU program of 1961 officially confirmed the unfounded conclusion about the complete and final victory of socialism, which sharply reduced the requirements for the Soviet system. Unfortunately, no one noticed this. This testifies to the fact that petty-bourgeois ideology has already taken possession of the consciousness of the party, the working class, and the whole of society.

        The time has come for Gorbachev's perestroika. A powerful open ideological war unfolded against socialism, against the USSR, which from the outside was closely interconnected with class hostile forces within Soviet society, which brought the discrediting of socialist relations to a logical end and in 1991 they were finally abandoned.

        The Soviet bourgeoisie changed its name: the Soviet power, deprived of its core - the dictatorship of the proletariat, was replaced by "democracy" - the party, state, and economic nomenclature, in addition to power, received property. So she became a class. The restoration of capitalism is over.

        Most of the Soviet people simply did not understand all this due to their petty-bourgeois consciousness, by this time they all sincerely wanted to live like in the West. And only the destruction of the USSR, the final loss of the gains of socialism, a sharp deterioration in the standard of living of the working people, bloody ethnic conflicts made us think about what had happened.
    2. +2
      20 August 2016 20: 01
      Everyone was happy and celebrated. So the people wanted it so? Or again the tricks of foreigners?.... Who is everyone? ... They were glad that the GKChP did not pass, that the Union would collapse no one knew about it yet ... The GKChP was tried for treason, the USSR ....Wanted people..So the peoples of the USSR voted in a referendum for the preservation of the USSR, and not against the collapse .. As for me .. I was not happy about anything .. Neither the arrival of the Emergency Committee, I felt that something was wrong, nor its failure for the same reason, nor collapse of the USSR ..
  12. +2
    20 August 2016 17: 26
    about the "anti-communist Gorbachev-Yeltsin coup", which legally ended in December 1991.
    In principle, it is not correct to call the communication between the "foreman and the botanist" a collusion. And so the classic revolutionary situation - "the upper classes cannot (Gorbachev), the lower classes do not want (Yeltsin)." In fact, this fight between them began even before Andropov's death and by the 88th had grown into what we now have. But after all, every nation is worthy of its power ???
    One of the main architects of the so-called perestroika, Alexander Yakovlev, predicted a similar fate
    He did not predict, but dreamed of it almost from childhood, judging by the memoirs.
    in 2011, more than a quarter of our fellow citizens from different social groups perceived the events of August 1991 as a tragedy that led to disastrous consequences for the country.
    A whole 25 years have passed, and I have never met a person who would vote for the independence of Russia (including residents of the distant southern republics). Probably I am spinning in "wrong" circles. At the Hilton Hotel in Baghdad, from 91 to 2003, the doors opened only when you walked through the mosaic. And on the mosaic is a portrait of Bush Sr. For some reason, I did not go on a business trip, but then I would have walked with pleasure!
    We wanted the best (but it turned out ka always) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Was the plan of the GKChP really poorly worked out, although it was prepared by high-class professionals?

    That's about the pros do not la-la. If the pros, they got what they wanted. And I think that our Napoleon was simply not found then. Ustinov would have been alive ... Oh-oh !!!
  13. +2
    20 August 2016 21: 36
    Khrushchev began the collapse of the USSR, breaking the Stalinist core of empire building. History will not forgive him for this and will put everything in its place.
  14. +2
    21 August 2016 12: 23
    The tragedy of 91 began in 1917, when the October coup, led by the Bolsheviks, took place.
    1. lel
      21 August 2016 12: 53
      those. February coup with Kerensky at the head is what you need right? did the people want this? .. to release criminals, abolish the death penalty and war to the bitter end ... you suffer from feeble mind but you cannot heal you ... somewhere it was all ...
  15. +1
    24 August 2016 12: 28
    The Trotskyist coup began after the death of Stalin in 1953 and finally took shape at the 22nd Party Congress, after amending the constitution of the USSR. After the RSFSR and Yeltsin received power, no GKChP could do anything. Starting point 12.06.1990/1991/XNUMX !! In August XNUMX, nothing could have been done without a decisive and harsh purge of the leadership of all the republics. But by this time a national bourgeoisie had already formed in the republics !! It only remained to legally formalize their right to property.
  16. +1
    4 October 2016 10: 21
    History teaches us that there are two approaches to coups: ssykundyaisky and boyish. The first was shown to us by the State Emergency Committee and Vitya Yanukovych. If we are talking about power, and more often about life itself, about the path of the state and its further destiny, then any rumble is fraught with defeat. Yanuca was afraid to shoot, the State Emergency Committee was afraid to shoot, in the end both went to the dustbin of history, and for their countries this Tolstoyism ended very sadly. The second approach was demonstrated by the Egyptians, Chinese and Azerbaijanis. In Tahrir, Tiananmen and Andijan, they were not afraid to slaughter a crowd with machine guns, without looking, a boy, a girl, or an old grandfather, and here's the result: Egypt got out of the ass, into which Muslim brothers drove it, China became the second economy in the world ( and maybe the first), Azerbaijan did not become modern Ukraine. Millions of lives were saved by the timely extermination of several hundred rabid "perestroika and democrats."
  17. 0
    13 November 2016 21: 09
    Vraki - by the mid-80s, the situation in the economy was not stable, but "ass".