Who did the collapse of the Soviet Union play into the hands of?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The collapse of the Soviet Union is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. However, the capitalist liberal press and various political analysts-poddosniki, in view of the limited intellect and morality (otherwise they would not have been either liberals or poddosnikov), snatch out of all the complexity of any one argument and present it as decisive.

In general, from our point of view, the collapse of the USSR was predetermined by the fact that the world's first socialist state appeared … somewhat prematurely. The world is not ready for such an organization of society - the centuries-old pressure on the subconscious of the biblical concept is too great

And since Soviet people and the government could not, due to moral prohibitions, act by the same methods as the capitalists, then the USSR involuntarily could not withstand the onslaught of Evil. And the methods of the West are well known today: lies, hypocrisy, forgery, falsification, wars, dehumanization, and the like

*

Be that as it may, in the above publication, it is precisely the false statements of the bourgeois media and their associates that are considered

**

Intentional murder

The next anniversary of the 1991 referendum on the fate of the Soviet Union quite naturally again attracted public attention to the issue of the causes of the collapse of the USSR, which occurred for no apparent reason.

There was "no peace, no pestilence, no invasion of aliens," and the superpower collapsed like a house of cards.

In conditions when the United States does not even consider it necessary to hide its intentions, relying on the potential of the "fifth column", to achieve the collapse of the Russian Federation (Operation Trojan Horse), the question of the nature of that geopolitical catastrophe becomes for us not so much historical as political …

It is important not only for understanding Russia's past, but also for its possible future

Of course, over the past decades, propaganda has been tirelessly telling us that the collapse of the USSR was inevitable due to the completely objective, "incompatible with life" generic properties of the Soviet state.

Their list is well known to all of us. This is the division of the country into union republics with the right to withdraw, and the monopoly of one political party, and, where can we go without it, an ineffective socialist economy by its nature.

With such numerous "time mines" in the foundation of the state, the Soviet Union supposedly simply could not but explode.

Accordingly, if the collapse was objectively inevitable, then, Firstly, there is no need to look for those responsible for the destruction of the state. A, Secondly, The fate of the USSR does not threaten the Russian Federation "by definition."

In modern Russia there is no union republics, no monopoly of one party (all parties are purely sham), nor, most importantly, a planned socialist economy. Therefore, sleep well comrades, that is, gentlemen. Let the fringes, obsessed with conspiracy, talk about the role of the "fifth column" in the destruction of the USSR and even more about its activities in modern Russia.

However, all these "convincing" proofs of the "doom" of the USSR refer to the supposedly fatal shortcomings of political and economic forms, the real content of which can be very different. Therefore, let's try to figure it out in order.

Union republics

So much has been said and written that Lenin, having rejected the Stalinist plan of autonomization and dividing the state into union republics, doomed the USSR to inevitable disintegration, has been said and written so much that many already take it for granted.

Just let us not forget that the country was divided into union republics even before Gorbachev, but no centrifugal tendencies could be found in this "day with fire". In the Russian Empire, there were no union republics at all, and the empire collapsed.

One of the versions of the version of the union republics as time mines is the assertion that the matter is not in the form of the national state structure of the USSR, but in the very multinationality of Russia.

Recently, both patented liberals and notorious "Russian nationalists" have been trying with enviable unanimity to open people's eyes to the "Achilles heel" of the Russian state - its ethnic and religious diversity (by the way, inseparable from its territorial vastness). How with such a birth trauma, they sigh sadly, not to fall apart?

It must be admitted that such ideas have a considerable response. But even here it is useful not to forget that Russia has been a multinational and multi-confessional country, at least since the middle of the 16th century, except for the multinational and multi-confessional Russia of the times of St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise.

And Russia disintegrated, as they say because of this multinationality, twice in the twentieth century. Do you get some strange "Achilles heel"? Here is Achilles, but here it is not a heel at all.

Yes, there were extremely rare national uprisings in the Russian Empire, but they went on a par with other popular uprisings, which are characteristic of the history of all countries of the world.

But under the USSR they were not there either. There were separatists, it is a fact, but, Firstly, where they are not, especially when such powerful external forces are interested in their existence? Secondly, Neither the Basmachis, nor the "forest brothers", nor the Banderaites, nor all of them like them, have ever posed a serious challenge to the security of the Soviet state.

Problems were created, sometimes serious (Basmachi) - this is true, but there is no reason to write them all together as threats to the very existence of the USSR.

Monopoly of one party

Since the time of Gorbachev, official and supposedly oppositional liberal propaganda has convinced us that the CPSU's monopoly on power was almost the main flaw of the Soviet state.

Accordingly, the abolition of the notorious 6th article of the Constitution on the "leading and guiding" role of the CPSU at the March Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR is supposed to be considered a triumph of fighters for the "bright future" of Russia.

Only it is completely incomprehensible why a monopoly on the power of one political force is a priori declared to be a pernicious phenomenon for the state. Neither history, moreover, world practice, nor modern practice confirms this.

The French hardly sprinkle ashes on their heads from the fact that for many centuries the monopoly of supreme power in their country belonged to the Capetian. There is no reason for us Russians to regret the almost four-century monopolization of power in Moscow by the descendants of Alexander Nevsky.

In the Soviet Union, the monopoly of the Communist Party did not prevent victory in the worst war in the history of Russia - the Great Patriotic War.

It did not prevent the transformation of the USSR into a superpower, and the associated colossal achievements of the Soviet Union in the field of science, technology and education in the 50s-70s. But the same monopoly of the CPSU on power in no way prevented the collapse of the Soviet Union (at the time of the abolition of the 6th article, the country was already flying into the abyss).

In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party had a monopoly of power for 38 years (1955-1993), which saw the unprecedented rise of the Japanese state. At present, China, with the obvious monopoly of the Communist Party, has become the second largest power in economic power and is clearly aimed at achieving superpower status.

At the same time, both the past and the present provide many examples of fantastic successes of states in which there has never been a monopoly of one political force. First of all, this is, of course, the United States. Although, it all depends on what is considered a "political force". It is foolish to deny the monopolization of power in the United States by large capital.

Socialist economy

Empty store shelves at the end of Gorbachev's rule seem to be the best proof of the ineffectiveness of the socialist form of ownership, which simply could not but destroy the USSR.

However, it is precisely the absence of the simplest goods on sale (even vodka and tobacco were distributed by ration cards) that casts doubt on the fact that the economic crisis was caused by the very nature of the socialist economy.

Otherwise, one will have to admit that the acute shortage of grain in Petrograd before the collapse of the Russian Empire was a consequence of the inherent inefficiency of the capitalist economy.

It makes no sense to cite figures confirming the effectiveness of the Soviet economy, to prove that its catastrophic fall under Gorbachev in reality was a drop in the rate of economic development to some kind of "miserable" 2.5% per year (now the achievement of such rates is elevated to the rank of a national project) … Some numbers will immediately lead to other numbers. As you know, there are lies, big lies and statistics, including economic ones.

Therefore, we will restrict ourselves to only a few obvious and extremely eloquent facts.

With an ineffective socialist form of ownership and a flawed planned management system, the economy of the USSR, just twenty years after the devastating war, became the second economy in the world, and the Soviet Union became the world leader in scientific and technological progress. This fact is ridiculous to deny.

It’s ridiculous to deny the fact that with an efficient market economy, official propaganda, twenty years after the collapse of the USSR, with fanfare informed the citizens that the country's economy had finally surpassed the 1990 level.

The very year that was perceived by contemporaries as the year of economic disaster.

By the way, in the Soviet Union, their economic achievements have always been measured since 1913 - the peak of the economic development of the Russian Empire. In the modern Russian Federation, 1990 is taken as the starting point for economic achievements, in which the Soviet economy found itself at the bottom of the abyss.

Or one more fact about the socialist economy, which is not capable of anything other than the extraction of raw materials and the production of galoshes. In 2018, it was proudly announced that the Russian industry was able to do the almost impossible - to recreate the Soviet technologies of thirty years ago, necessary to start production of modernized strategic bombers Tu-160M2.

And the last fact - in the same disastrous 1990, the GDP of the USSR was almost twice the GDP of China. Today, China's GDP is almost twice the GDP of the Russian Federation. It will obviously not be possible to explain this by the initial depravity of the socialist form of ownership and the planned system of economic management.

At the same time, the same form of ownership and the same planned management system did not prevent the collapse of the Soviet economy in just five years (1985-1990).

To this it must be added that we know a considerable number of prosperous states with a capitalist form of ownership and an even larger number of states living in extreme poverty in the same market economy.

Oil needle

Another explanation of the collapse of the Soviet Union is connected with the economy, allegedly making any talk of a "fifth column" meaningless. It turns out that the Americans dealt the fatal blow to the USSR. They (oh the wisest ones) were able to understand that the budget of the Soviet Union fatally depends on the price of black gold ("oil needle").

After such a discovery, it was already a matter of technology to organize a sharp drop in oil prices in 1986. Thus, the insidious Americans managed to achieve the collapse of the Soviet economy without a nuclear war or any "fifth columns", which rapidly grew into a social and political one. And the USSR was gone.

This version, at the suggestion of Gaidar and his team, has firmly entered the public consciousness and is still actively supported by the liberal agitprop. However, it has one very serious problem.

Oil exports in the mid-1980s gave the budget an average of 10-12 billion rubles, with its total revenue part of an average of 360 billion. With a similar ratio, a twofold drop in oil prices was sensitive, but not fatal … Especially considering that it was during these years that large-scale gas supplies to Western Europe began.

As we can see, all the evidence of the objective inevitability of the collapse of the USSR, which has long been sore, does not stand up to the slightest criticism.

And their almost monopoly presence in the information field and widespread introduction into public consciousness are provided exclusively by the power of the propaganda machine, almost complete control over the media by those forces that are vitally interested in just such an interpretation of the history of the fall of the Soviet Union.

Murder: Intentional or Not?

I believe that when considering the causes of the "largest geopolitical catastrophe" it is high time to pay attention to the "human factor", as they liked to say under Gorbachev.

On the aspirations of those people who occupied key positions in the political and economic system of that time.

If the Soviet Union did not have incurable diseases that doomed it to death, then the root cause of the death of the state should be sought not in disease, but in the quality of treatment. But here two options are already possible: either the doctor was a charlatan and healed the patient to death, or the doctor deliberately killed the patient.

Of course, there are many who want to blame the collapse of the state on Gorbachev's unprofessionalism. "Not according to Senka a hat", "he would have to work as a combine operator", "ill-considered reforms", etc. etc.

Only, Firstly, in the USSR there was a collegial management system, and no general secretary could do anything cardinal against the will of the top echelon of state management.

Secondly, the top leadership of the USSR can be accused of anything but unprofessionalism. In contrast to the "effective managers" and "business captains" of the Russian Federation, practically each of them, including Gorbachev, had a colossal track record.

Thirdly, And most importantly, in a recently published interview with the Lithuanian newspaper Lietuvos rytas, the "naive dreamer" openly admitted that, starting Perestroika, he had no doubt that it would lead to the separation of the Baltic states: "Only I asked everyone not to rush."

The delirium of an old man who has gone out of his mind, or an open admission that the disintegration of the country was part of the tasks of Perestroika, and was not its accidental by-product?

Let us turn to the memoirs of Alexander Yakovlev, in fact the second person after Gorbachev, in the leadership of the USSR, who deservedly bore the title of “architect of Perestroika”: “The Soviet totalitarian regime could be destroyed only through glasnost and totalitarian party discipline, hiding behind the interests of improving socialism.

For the good of the case, it was necessary to both retreat and dissemble. I myself am a sinner - I have been cunning more than once. He talked about the "renewal of socialism", but he himself knew where things were going."

So, two top leaders of the USSR gave documented testimony that one of the tasks of Perestroika was the destruction of the Soviet Union. Yes, we do not live in Ancient Rome, and recognition is no longer considered the "queen of proof", the ultimate truth.

But the statements of Gorbachev and Yakovlev are one hundred percent proof that the version of the premeditated murder of the USSR is not the fruit of the feverish delirium of marginal conspiracy theorists, that it deserves the most serious treatment. Especially in conditions when all versions of the objective inevitability of the collapse of the Soviet Union do not stand the slightest criticism without exception.

Moreover, within the framework of this version alone, many of the "oddities" of Perestroika cease to be inexplicable. For example, the appointment of Landsbergis as the leader of Sayudis by the decision of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania on direct instructions from Moscow (on the issue of the separatists who destroyed the USSR).

Or the role of the capital's party organs in organizing anti-Soviet rallies in Moscow.

Or the disruptions in the work of planning bodies that began with enviable regularity, when all enterprises that produced one or another essential commodity were simultaneously put on repair and modernization exclusively "out of negligence". It is striking how all these "accidents" resemble the events before February 1917.

What for?

When considering the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, it is long overdue to move from the question of "why" to the question of "why" and "who."

At the same time, it is easiest to blame the incident on Alexander Yakovlev - an agent of influence recruited by the CIA led the true dimwitted Gorbachev astray, which led to the collapse of the USSR.

Consequently, it was a fantastic success for the American special services, and its repetition in the Russian Federation is as incredible as the hit of several shells in one funnel.

However, let's not forget all about the same collective system of government of the USSR, in which even two people occupying the highest posts could in no way do anything cardinal. Plus to this the words of Yakovlev himself about "a group of true, not imaginary reformers."

Were they all recruited by the CIA too? And the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, in which the future liberal young reformers (Chubais, Gaidar, Shokhin, Aven, Ulyukaev, etc.) received their training, was by no means created by Alexander Yakovlev. Therefore, it will not be possible to attribute the collapse of the USSR to the CIA super agent.

And it is far from the fact that Alexander Yakovlev undermined the Soviet Union because he was an American agent. It is no less likely that he became an American agent because he sought to undermine the USSR.

There is another very convenient answer for the representatives of the "fifth column" to the question - why influential and not at all small forces in the Soviet Union worked to destroy it?

It turns out that in this way they fought against communism, wanted to return the country to the main path of human development, from which it was pushed in October 1917, and sought to free the peoples from the rule of the totalitarian "empire of evil." Benefactors, not some ominous "fifth column".

And again it turns out that nothing of the kind threatens modern Russia. There is no socialism, which means that there is no need to destroy the state to save itself from it.

But even here "the ends do not make ends meet." To change the socio-economic system, abandon one or another ideology, remove any party from power, there is absolutely no need to destroy the state. French fighters against "rotten" feudalism in the name of "progressive" capitalism did not destroy, but strengthened the French state, did not distribute, but expanded its territory.

The "deliverance" of Poland, Hungary or Bulgaria from socialism did not lead to the disintegration of these states.

Yes, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia disintegrated, but they were artificial formations that it is completely inappropriate to put on a par with the thousand-year-old Russian state.

Consequently, again we have to launch the fairy tale "about the white bull" - about the unprofessionalism of the Soviet leadership, which failed to transform the country without catastrophic consequences for it.

Service people or elite

The only plausible explanation for the collapse of the USSR is that the collapse of the country was in the vital interests of a large and influential part of the party economic nomenklatura and intelligentsia.

For all the heterogeneity of those who can be conventionally called the "gravediggers of the USSR", they had one thing in common - they were all outspoken "Westernizers." Accident? Of course not. It was also not accidental that at the end of his life Stalin saw a threat to the Soviet Union in his “servility to the West”.

At the same time, one must be aware that the "Westernism" of a part of the party nomenklatura and the intelligentsia was not at all conditioned by an idealistic adherence to Western values or a fall in love with European culture.

And not at all because without media independent from the state or separation of powers, these people "could not eat." Everything was much more prosaic. Their "Westernism" was in an effort to become the elite, a caste of the elite, according to the Western model.

In the socialist Soviet Union, both the representatives of the nomenklatura and the intelligentsia were actually service people.

Their position, their privileges (not inherited in any way) entirely depended on how effectively they served the party, state and society. Whether the case is the capitalist West. There people with the same status, the same regalia are the elite, the informal caste of the elite.

Therefore, it was not Western culture, not the standard of living of citizens and the development of infrastructure in the West, but the standard of living and the status of the elite that fascinated and inspired our “Westerners”. Their "blue dream" was quite mercantile - to join the ranks of the elite, to become a part of the Western elite, for this, turning public property into their own, into private.

But it was impossible to transform from serving people into selected elites without the collapse of the state and its economy. The West would never have embraced the newly-minted "elite" of a superpower of equal power. It was necessary to dump "ballast" in the form of national outskirts.

First of all, the Baltic republics, as confirmation that “we are our own, bourgeois”. The location of the West was critically important for the "candidates for the elite." Only the West could guarantee the safety of the fortunes of the future "owners of factories, newspapers, ships."

For the same purpose, the collapse of the country's economy was also necessary. I think no one doubted how the overwhelming majority of the people would react to the “big hapk”. A sharp drop in living standards, a rapid plunge of a significant part of the population into poverty is a time-tested technique that allows one to paralyze public protest against openly anti-popular reforms. People are not up to resistance. The foreground is the concern for the provision of families and their physical survival. And I must admit that this technique worked. By the way, after the coup in 2014, it was successfully used in Ukraine.

Therefore, it can be argued that the collapse of the USSR was artificially organized in the name of the vital interests of a significant and influential part of the Soviet party and economic nomenklatura and the intelligentsia, who sought to move from the category of service people to the chosen elite, which owns and disposes of the country's wealth.

It was this layer that turned out to be a mine under the Soviet state, the "fifth column" that led the country to collapse.

Why such a stratum appeared in the leadership of the Soviet Union and how its "Westernism" and elitism are associated with Russophobia is a topic for another discussion.

As well as a separate topic is the question of whether the victorious and now occupying key positions of the pro-Western elite remains the “fifth column”? Can the disintegration of the Russian Federation meet its vital interests?