Table of contents:

Yeltsin as the most sinister figure in Russian history
Yeltsin as the most sinister figure in Russian history

However, we are not talking about a single political, military and criminal offender who fit into the terrible "new world order", but about Yeltsinism, a mass phenomenon that lives on and continues to win.

Its negative consequences of human civilization, like a deep wound, have yet to be healed for centuries. What is Yeltsinism?

Where does his black substance get its infernal power from?, why is it so powerful and long, why does it have such a significance for the entire world history, comparable to the imprints left on history by the fangs of Hitlerism? Without answering these difficult questions, we are doomed to mark time and vegetate in a crumbling civilization that is dying out before our eyes …


For many centuries of human history, the "captains of the economy" have been the most predatory, aggressive, active, sneaky and predatory members of society. They concentrated in their hands the legal wealth of the countries, leaving only rags and scraps from the feast of the "elites" to the criminal scum.

In capitalist (and pre-capitalist) societies, the professional criminal, the prison repeat offender, is the loser of the underworld. Lucky criminals, gatherers of powerful mafia clans in such a society are not in prison, but in ministers and deputies.

It is for this reason that professional crime plays a secondary role in world history and does not seize political power by the most powerful predators, who legalize stolen goods. More precisely, it captures it once, at the moment of the formation of the state, and then a natural rotation takes place in its ranks, co-opting from below the most greedy, arrogant and ambitious.

A feature of a fundamentally new, in the throes of the twentieth century, the emerging Soviet economy, full of errors and distortions, as always happens with the first model of a fundamentally new structure, was "captain's poverty." The captains of production, if they did not constitute a criminal mafia, in fact, limited themselves to the Soviet, very moderate salary, because they managed not their own, but the national assets.

The circle of personal influence of such a "captain of the industry" was, of course, much wider than that of an ordinary man in the street, but, in comparison with Western economies, it was very, very narrow. After all, the director of a Soviet trust or a branch minister did not own what he controlled: he was only a hired manager with a very modest amount of authority.

About this A. Leonidov in the novel "The Apologist" said: "You can't understand who they were in their offices and limousines, whether they were bosses, or something like sacrificial animals doomed to be slaughtered at the appointed hour." This means that an honest Soviet leader, even the largest, did not have a clan of personal support.

All his influence consisted in the trust of the party, which gave him power with a stroke of the pen - and with the same stroke took it away without a trace. This created an effect that few people understood in Soviet society: the effect of “personal weakness of the bosses”.

It doesn't matter how a duke or count would not have his own vassals swearing allegiance to him personally, but would exclusively lead the soldiers provided by the king! Today the king gave you one hundred thousand to subordinate, and tomorrow he took you, and you are alone again, and you command nothing but your own sword …

This state of affairs objectively led to a constant increase in the illegal criminal underground in the country. A situation developed in which real personalized power and influence was only in the hands of the gang leaders. And they were opposed by faceless and weak-willed appointees, temporary workers in their places …

This threat had to be understood, evaluated, and a means of neutralizing it had to be sought. But in the USSR to assume that purely criminal, prison-professional crime, crime of pure water, will come out of the underground and take power- nobody could. After all, this was unprecedented for world history!

Prison recidivists were attributed to the lumpen proletariat, to the declassified element and to the dying remnants of the accursed past. Such an unflattering assessment did not catastrophically assess the strength and scale of the beast on which Yeltsin relied in his political career.

After all, it was a question of a country in which any force detachment, roughly speaking, more than five people, was by all means state-owned, and only the leaders of the gangs had their own, autonomous from the state, force detachments. Nobody, except for the criminal "authorities", could withdraw their power - all the others "borrowed" power from the state structures. Or - they came out alone, two arms, two legs, all of me is here …

If some kind of misfortune would paralyze the state structures (which eventually happened) - criminal gangs would remain the ONLY armed and organized force in the country! Because all legal leaders are, in essence, lonely appointees, and without the support of the state they were completely “de-energized”.

Already in the later years of the Gorbachev regime, which paralyzed the country, criminal "bosses", shadowy and guilds, desperate guys in the USSR who went under the firing squad (and they were not afraid, you bastards!), All these mafia ripened inside the scarce economy are trying to take power into their own hands.

The point is not that they had tremendous opportunities for bribery and recruitment of militants, boundless ranks of stormtroopers. To tell the truth, their power and financial capabilities in 1989-91 were very limited. The point is quite different: criminals are faced with a power vacuum, extreme disorganization and atomization of civil society. He quickly moved to power, not because of his power, but because of the unexpectedly revealed weakness of the enemy.

The coming to power of the most outspoken, not figuratively, but literally speaking, the bandits, the leaders of the robber bands, at first had the chaotic nature of the "seizure right". Local criminality put their “godfather” or his representative in the first role, declared it “the democratic choice of the people,” and the paralyzed government could do nothing.

Yeltsin, who was to become the centralized all-Russian "godfather of the mafia" - throughout his career had close ties with the underworld and the gang underground. But the very idea of ​​"centralizing the pakhanat" belongs, in my opinion, to American strategists who, in their war with historical Russia, were the first to appreciate the role of crime in the politics of post-Sovietism.

For the United States, crime has become like an irregular army for the tsar (Cossacks, etc.). In any city it was composed of people autonomous, desperately courageous and decisive, accustomed to feeding and equipping themselves, well trained in conspiracy and terror, because of their criminality, hating the state, greedy, capable of quick mobilization, accustomed to relying on a risky fortune in thieves' affairs and etc.

That is, for the United States, crime was a ready-made ubiquitous army, antisocial and anti-national, brutal and desperate, staffed by gallows-thugs and conveniently located inside the vital centers of Russia.

The only drawback of crime was its decentralization. Thieves are free people, and everyone pulls in their direction. They would not have been able to act as a united front throughout the USSR without America's coordinating efforts. It was the Americans who invented the vertically integrated criminal dictatorship, the seizure of an entire country by thieves, and B.N. Yeltsin.

Never before in world history have the political power and the criminal underground of repeat offenders (the former, because it became power) merged to such an indivisibility and identity.

In its work with territorial criminals, Yeltsinism used (and uses) a number of fairly effective techniques and practices.

1).The central government (in the person of the Yeltsin junta) acted as the patron saint of robbery, looting and robbery, not only not hindering, but also in every possible way encouraging, instigating criminal and thieves' terror in cities and villages. With this, Yeltsinism bought itself the political loyalty of the thieves' communities. Indeed, it was in Yeltsin that the motley and very heterogeneous criminal environment began to see the guarantor of its impunity and the preservation of the results of the robbery.

2).To suppress political opponents, Yeltsin mobilized criminal terror, for which the "political" were clearly not ready. After all, criminal terror is the fastest and most effective, it does not require prosecutorial bureaucracy and paperwork, it is not restrained by any rules or legal framework. Criminal Yeltsin and the Americans assigned the role of shock "black squadrons", PMCs, breaking any protest or objection to Yeltsinism on the knee. Immediately, we note that the crime did not disappoint, and fully justified the hopes pinned on political banditry.

3).Thus, the criminal world was loyal to Yeltsin for profit. And he also made the rest of the population reluctantly loyal to Yeltsin through fear and terror. The population, accustomed to long legal procedures, and completely unprepared for a quick, brutal, informal reprisal, did not find what to answer to this. This is how the "Pinochet trick" was repeated: let them not love, but they will be silent and will obey!

4). Further, Yeltsin and the Americans discovered the "Wallenstein principle" - that war feeds itself without needing money from outside. The payment for the services of the criminals became those cities that Yeltsinism gave to the stream and plundering of this crime. Yeltsin did not have to pay out of his own or the American pocket (except in a number of special cases). More often than not, organized crime asked for some territory to be plundered, and after plundering it turned out to be completely satisfied with the political regime.

5). Soviet society was fundamentally rich, which was not very felt in everyday life, but was laid down as special reserves of strength and reserves in the Soviet economy. Even a simple disposal of Soviet equipment for scrap (!) In itself gave billions of dollars. Therefore, the reserves of payment for the robbers turned out to be practically inexhaustible: know, plunder, they open, layer by layer, more and more Eldorado for the conquistadors!

6). Having mastered the payment of the mercenaries with the looted in the cities they had taken from the battle, Yeltsinism discovered the mobilization possibilities of the criminals on the ruins of a phenomenally rich country. Initially, a small gang of Soviet criminals showed the ability to quickly and many times grow, making up new and new "bulls" performers. If you have something to pay (and the bandits had), then there will be those to whom to pay!


Based on these factors, local crime very quickly (one might say triumphantly) took over the entire Soviet territory. The simultaneity of his speech and the coordination of efforts were provided by the Americans, and the eerie monster of Yeltsin on TV became the symbol of his triumph.

If the all-Russian "godfather of the mafia" paid off with the crime at the expense of the plundered territories and industries, then he paid off with the American patrons by the territories themselves. The payment of overseas patrons, in whose embassy he hoped to hide at any dangerous moment [1], was more than generous.

In essence, the Americans received from Yeltsin everything that the thieves' community did not get [2] (and vice versa).

In many ways, the triumph of Yeltsinism was due to the fact that most people could not even imagine that this could be, and not in a nightmare, but in reality: "This cannot be, because it can never be" - they repeated, like an incantation, seeing what was happening around them.

The shock of society was so strong, and the shock so profound that, in fact, society fell into an emotional and intellectual coma for many years …

However, although this swoon is gradually passing - the stunning "black" discoveries of Yeltsinism in the field of governance of the occupied people remain relevant and effective (maybe just not to the extent that at first). For example, the alliance of domestic thieves and foreign spies turned out to be a very, very effective "killer" mixture, the power of which we understand only today.

Much more than political scientists believed, were the mobilization-involving capabilities of the “liberated criminals”, when, having seized political power, he replaced the country's ideology with his own criminal, prison-thieves' sub-culture “according to concepts”.

The conflict between American spies (disciplined servicemen) and the thieves' freemen, although it took place (as was supposed), but not on the scale that was first thought about. Of course, thieves' human material is not suitable for construction and creation, but the United States did not have a goal to create, develop, build something here. They are quite satisfied with the view of the wild field. At the same time, the freemen of thieves turned out to be very susceptible to bribery: figuratively speaking, Bagheera bought the voices of the wolves of the "free pack" as a bull on a bend.

As a result, American strikes on Russia [3] were targeted, only in key places, and the role of the "infantry" was played by a rapidly growing criminal contingent. Together they achieved the destruction of the country, unprecedented in peacetime (and even wartime). Yeltsinism took more lives than the Great Patriotic War [4] and caused more significant economic damage (devastation) than the Nazis [5].


An unexpected side of the “great criminal revolution” (as S. Govorukhin called Yeltsinism) was that the Americanization of crime was combined with the criminalization of America. The dark spot of the transcendent Yeltsin lawlessness could not be localized on the territory of Russia or its stump, the Russian Federation. The participants in the pogrom began to endure Russian terrible practices in the metropolises of the victorious countries.

Among his other various crimes, Yeltsinism destroyed the entire system of international law on a planetary scale. His crimes annulled all legal ideas about national sovereignty and inviolability of borders, the immutability of the post-war system, about the status of aggressor and victim, etc. After Yeltsin, international law lost its meaning and ceased to exist.

In particular, after the collapse of the USSR, there are no borders of states in the legal sense of the word - because territorial changes on a cosmic scale were made arbitrarily, unilaterally, without any legal registration, etc.

How can you answer the question "whose Crimea?" a lawyer and, in general, a person with legal awareness, if Ukraine itself is a piece of Russia separated by separatists? How can a person with legal awareness recognize the right to split and cut Russia, but not recognize a similar right in relation to the stumps of this same Russia? Does Kosovo belong to Serbia? It belonged to Yugoslavia, whose borders were guaranteed in Potsdam, Yalta, then in Helsinki, but Yugoslavia … no!

Whether Kosovo belongs to Serbia - no one knows anymore, because Serbia itself is a legally vague concept. And so in everything. Yeltsinism opened the "Pandora's box", with one stroke of the pen dismembering Russia into 15 pieces to please the American patrons.

It is clear that Yeltsin, who headed self-determined crime, was not at all worried about legal issues, including international ones. But Yeltsin is dead, and the monstrous collisions in the field of international relations that he engendered remain. The harmonious and well-balanced system of collective security in Europe, developed in Helsinki by the cleverest people, has been completely dismantled.

Self-proclaimed states are multiplying like mushrooms. And how to treat them - no one knows.The countries of the world recognize the same Kosovo - and then withdraw the recognition, which shows the extreme instability of international relations.

What kind of world is this in which even the exact number of existing states (!) Is unknown? One instead of two, then fifteen instead of one, etc. Complete legal collapse!

[1] In an interview with the MK columnist, television critic Alexander Melman, former vice-president of the RSFSR and the Russian Federation, retired aviation major general Alexander Rutskoi shared his memories. The Hero of the Soviet Union spoke about Yeltsin's "three-day binge" and his "attempt to escape to the American embassy." Rutskoi "did not allow him to disgrace himself and escape to the American embassy." And after the EBN "with the team that was hiding with him in the bomb shelter of the building of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, and with the democrat he left, as they say today, to thump, in your opinion, to feast on victory."

[2] A striking example of the seizure of power by a single leader of the criminal mafia in an entire post-Soviet republic is the story of Vlad Plahotniuc. Plahotniuc is an obvious leader of an organized criminal group, a drug dealer, a trader of "live goods" and a launderer of criminal money, the holder of a thieves' common fund in Moldova.

He alone seized all the money and all property in the republic, not sharing with anyone (the modest size of the MSSR helped) - after which he put and removed politicians, himself remaining in the shadows, as befits a "godfather." He controlled the government, the parliamentary majority and the authorities of Moldova as a whole by means of criminal terror.

Plahotniuc's dominance in the Moldovan political arena lasted from the first years of the collapse of the USSR until June 2019, when by joint efforts (a unique case!) Of the Russian Federation, the United States and the European Union, his criminal cartel associated with the European drug trade and money laundering / withdrawal was defeated by international efforts.

Only in the Russian Federation Plahotniuc is a defendant in three criminal cases. This is a vivid illustration of the forces on which the rapid "de-Sovietization" took place on the territory of the USSR …

[3] Strobe Talbot, First Deputy Secretary of State of the United States in 1994-2001, a direct participant in the negotiations, in his memoirs pointed out that in his foreign policy "Yeltsin agreed to any concessions, the main thing is to have time between glasses …". It is Boris Yeltsin's passion for alcohol that explains Clinton's success in achieving his political goals.

Here is what Talbot writes about this in his book: “Clinton saw in Yeltsin a political leader fully focused on one major task - to drive a stake into the heart of the old Soviet system.

Supporting Yeltsin so that he succeeded in solving this problem was, in the eyes of Clinton (and my own), the most important goal, justifying the need to come to terms with many much less noble, and sometimes just stupid things.

In addition, the friendship between Clinton and Yeltsin made it possible for the United States to achieve specific, difficult goals that could not be achieved through any other channels: the elimination of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Baltic, obtaining Russian consent to NATO expansion, involvement Russia to the peacekeeping mission in the Balkans.

[4] Demographer Vladimir Timakov has officially proved: Yeltsin's reforms killed more people than Stalin's repression. “As a result, the price of liberal reforms for Russia,” he writes, “12 million unborn children and 7 million supermortality. Every day our population declined by more than 2 thousand people. This is a whole village or town. And this is not counting the human losses in the 14 Soviet republics separated by Yeltsin without a fight, similar per capita!

[5] Yeltsin shocked even his American allies, the noteworthy Russian-eaters. This is how the American political scientist and Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski describes the events of that time: “While they glorified Yeltsin, and America and Europe embraced Russia with its political chaos, seeing it as fraternal democracy, Russian society plunged into unprecedented poverty. By 1992, economic conditions were already comparable to those of the Great Depression.

The business was further worsened by a whole flock of Western, mostly American, economic "consultants" who too often colluded with Russian "reformers" in order to quickly self-enrich themselves by "privatizing" Russian industry and especially energy resources. Chaos and corruption turned into ridicule Russian and American claims of a "new democracy" in Russia."

By 1996, industrial production had dropped by 50%, and agricultural production by a third. GDP losses amounted to over 40%.

Engineering and high-tech industries were hit hardest. The volume of light industry production decreased by 90%. In almost all indicators, there was a reduction in tens, hundreds and even thousands of times:

combines - 13 times

tractors - 14 times

metal-cutting machines - 14 times

video recorders - 87 times

tape recorders - 1065 times

Significant negative changes have taken place in the industrial structure. Thus, they were expressed in a significant increase in the share of the extractive industries and a decrease in the share of mechanical engineering and light industry.

The share of raw materials in the export structure has sharply increased: if in 1990 it was 60%, then in 1995 it increased to 85%. The export of high-tech products decreased by 7 times. If in 1990 the gross grain harvest amounted to 116 million tons, then in 1998 a record low harvest was recorded - less than 48 million tons. The number of cattle fell from 57 million in 1990 to 28 million in 1999, and sheep - from 58 to 14 million, respectively.

Enterprises of strategic importance were sold at bargain prices: for example, the ZIL plant was sold for $ 250 million, while its price, according to expert research, was at least $ 1 billion.

In 1999, the Duma impeachment commission announced that Yeltsin deliberately pursued a policy aimed at worsening the living standards of citizens, accusing the president of genocide.

Popular by topic