The collapse of the USSR causes facts consequences. Pros or cons of the collapse of the USSR. Need help studying a topic?
In March 1990, at an all-Union referendum, the majority of citizens spoke in favor of preserving the USSR and the need to reform it. By the summer of 1991, a new Union Treaty was prepared, which gave a chance to renew the federal state. But it was not possible to maintain unity.
Currently, there is no single point of view among historians on what was the main cause of the collapse of the USSR, and also on whether it was possible to prevent or at least stop the process of collapse of the USSR. Possible reasons include the following:
· The USSR was created in 1922. as a federal state. However, over time, it increasingly turned into a state controlled from the center and leveling out the differences between the republics and subjects of federal relations. The problems of inter-republican and interethnic relations have been ignored for many years. During the years of perestroika, when interethnic conflicts became explosive and extremely dangerous, decision-making was postponed until 1990-1991. The accumulation of contradictions made disintegration inevitable;
· The USSR was created on the basis of recognition of the right of nations to self-determination, The federation was built not on a territorial, but on a national-territorial principle. In the Constitutions of 1924, 1936 and 1977. contained norms on the sovereignty of the republics that were part of the USSR. In the context of a growing crisis, these norms became a catalyst for centrifugal processes;
· the unified national economic complex that developed in the USSR ensured the economic integration of the republics. However As economic difficulties grew, economic ties began to break down, the republics showed tendencies towards self-isolation, and the center was not ready for such a development of events;
· the Soviet political system was based on strict centralization of power, the real bearer of which was not so much the state as the Communist Party. The crisis of the CPSU, its loss of its leading role, its collapse inevitably led to the collapse of the country;
· the unity and integrity of the Union was largely ensured by its ideological unity. The crisis of the communist value system created a spiritual vacuum that was filled with nationalist ideas;
· political, economic, ideological crisis, which the USSR experienced in the last years of its existence , led to the weakening of the center and the strengthening of the republics and their political elites. For economic, political, and personal reasons, the national elites were interested not so much in preserving the USSR as in its collapse. The “Parade of Sovereignties” of 1990 clearly showed the mood and intentions of the national party-state elites.
Consequences:
· the collapse of the USSR led to the emergence of independent sovereign states;
· the geopolitical situation in Europe and throughout the world has radically changed;
· the breakdown of economic ties has become one of the main reasons for the deep economic crisis in Russia and other countries - successors of the USSR;
· serious problems have arisen related to the fate of Russians who remained outside Russia, and national minorities in general (the problem of refugees and migrants).
1. Political liberalization has led to an increase in the numberinformal groups, since 1988, involved in political activities. The prototypes of future political parties were unions, associations and popular fronts of different directions (nationalist, patriotic, liberal, democratic, etc.). In the spring of 1988, the Democratic Bloc was formed, which included Eurocommunists, Social Democrats, and liberal groups.
An opposition Interregional Deputy Group was formed in the Supreme Council. In January 1990, an opposition democratic platform emerged within the CPSU, whose members began to leave the party.
Political parties began to form. The CPSU monopoly on power was lost, and from mid-1990 a rapid transition to a multi-party system began.
2. The collapse of the socialist camp (“Velvet Revolution” in Czechoslovakia (1989), events in Romania (1989), the unification of Germany and the disappearance of the GDR (1990), reforms in Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria.)
3. The growth of the nationalist movement. Its reasons were the deterioration of the economic situation in national regions, the conflict of local authorities with the “center”). Clashes began on ethnic grounds; since 1987, national movements have acquired an organized character (the Crimean Tatar movement, the movement for the reunification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, the movement for the independence of the Baltic states, etc.)
In the same time a new project was developedUnion Treaty, significantly expanding the rights of republics.
The idea of a union treaty was put forward by the popular fronts of the Baltic republics back in 1988. The center adopted the idea of a treaty later, when centrifugal tendencies were gaining strength and there was a “parade of sovereignties.” The question of Russian sovereignty was raised in June 1990 at the First Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation. Was Declaration on State Sovereignty of the Russian Federation was adopted. This meant that the Soviet Union as a state entity was losing its main support.
The Declaration formally delimited the powers of the center and the republic, which did not contradict the Constitution. In practice, it established dual power in the country.
The example of Russia strengthened separatist tendencies in the union republics.
However, the indecisive and inconsistent actions of the country's central leadership did not lead to success. In April 1991, the Union Center and nine republics (with the exception of the Baltic, Georgia, Armenia and Moldova) signed documents declaring the provisions of the new union treaty. However, the situation was complicated by the ongoing struggle between the parliaments of the USSR and Russia, which turned into war of laws.
At the beginning of April 1990, the Law was adopted On strengthening responsibility for attacks on the national equality of citizens and violent violation of the unity of the territory of the USSR, which established criminal liability for public calls for the violent overthrow or change of the Soviet social and state system.
But almost simultaneously it was adopted Law Oprocedure for resolving issues related Withthe exit of the union republic from the USSR, regulating order and proceduresecession from the USSR throughreferendum. A legal way to leave the Union was opened.
The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR in December 1990 voted to preserve the USSR.
However, the collapse of the USSR was already in full swing. In October 1990, at the congress of the Ukrainian Popular Front, the struggle for the independence of Ukraine was proclaimed; The Georgian parliament, in which nationalists received a majority, adopted a program for the transition to a sovereign Georgia. Political tension remained in the Baltic states.
In November 1990, the republics were offered a new version of the union treaty, which, instead of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, mentionedUnion of Soviet Sovereign Republics.
But at the same time, bilateral agreements were signed between Russia and Ukraine, mutually recognizing each other’s sovereignty regardless of the Center, between Russia and Kazakhstan. A parallel model of the union of republics was created.
4. In January 1991, it was held currency reform, aimed at combating the shadow economy, but causing additional tension in society. The population expressed dissatisfaction deficit food and necessary goods.
B.N. Yeltsin demanded the resignation of the President of the USSR and the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
Was scheduled for March referendum on the issue of preserving the USSR(opponents of the Union questioned its legitimacy, calling for the transfer of power to the Federation Council, consisting of the top officials of the republics). The majority of voters were in favor of preserving the USSR.
5. At the beginning of March, miners of Donbass, Kuzbass and Vorkuta began a strike, demanding the resignation of the President of the USSR, the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, a multi-party system, and the nationalization of the property of the CPSU. The official authorities could not stop the process that had begun.
The referendum on March 17, 1991 confirmed the political split in society; in addition, a sharp increase in prices increased social tension and swelled the ranks of strikers.
In June 1991, elections for the President of the RSFSR were held. B.N. was elected Yeltsin.
Discussion of drafts of the new Union Treaty continued: some participants at the meeting in Novo-Ogarevo insisted on confederal principles, others on federal ones. It was supposed to sign the agreement in July - August 1991.
During the negotiations, the republics managed to defend many of their demands: the Russian language ceased to be the state language, the heads of the republican governments participated in the work of the Union Cabinet of Ministers with the right to a decisive vote, enterprises of the military-industrial complex were transferred to the joint jurisdiction of the Union and the republics.
Many questions about both the international and intra-Union status of the republics remained unresolved. Questions remained unclear about union taxes and the management of natural resources, as well as the status of the six republics that did not sign the agreement. At the same time, the Central Asian republics concluded bilateral agreements with each other, and Ukraine refrained from signing an agreement until the adoption of its Constitution.
In July 1991, the President of Russia signed Decree on departition, prohibited the activities of party organizations in enterprises and institutions.
6. Created on August 19, 1991 State Committee for the State of Emergency in the USSR (GKChP) , declaring his intention to restore order in the country and prevent the collapse of the USSR. A state of emergency was established and censorship was introduced. Armored vehicles appeared on the streets of the capital.
In the second half of the 80s. National contradictions in the country are intensifying, separatist sentiments are growing. Local leaders and elites strive for independence in order to manage economic resources and financial flows themselves. Against the backdrop of a rapidly deteriorating economic situation, protest arises in the form of national movements. Gradually this results in a struggle against the Center, which was identified with Russia. “Popular Fronts” arose in a number of republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Georgia). During 1989-1990 The Baltic, and after them other republics of the USSR, including the RSFSR, adopted declarations of national sovereignty. The national question has become an instrument of struggle for power.
With the growth of opposition to the union structures, a crisis of communist ideology began. The CPSU increasingly lost the functions of the mechanism that held the union of republics together. During 1989-1990 The Communist Parties of the Baltic republics left the CPSU. In 1990, the Communist Party of the RSFSR was created. In 1988-1990 party resolutions were adopted “On interethnic relations”, “On the fundamentals of economic relations of the USSR, union and autonomous republics”, “On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR”. At the same time, the union leadership tried to maintain power through force (events in April 1989 in Tbilisi, January 1990 in Baku, January 1991 in Vilnius and Riga).
By mid-1990, the actual disintegration of the USSR was evident.
The Constitution was not in force in a large part of the country. The President of the USSR increasingly lost power and was no longer the only president in the country, since there were 15 more presidents and heads of republics. The CPSU lost its leadership role. In conditions of an unstable situation and strengthening centrifugal forces, one of the most important tasks was the reform of the USSR and the conclusion of a new union treaty between the republics.
On the initiative of Gorbachev, on March 17, 1991, a referendum was held in the USSR, during which the majority (76.4%) spoke in favor of maintaining the union state in an updated form. In April 1991, the leaders of 9 republics (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan), under the chairmanship of Gorbachev, in the Novo-Ogarevo estate near Moscow, decided to develop a new Union Treaty, according to which the rights of the republics were significantly increased , and the Center turned from a manager into a coordinating one.
August 1991 events The signing of the new Union Treaty was scheduled for August 20. The day before, on August 19, in order to disrupt the conclusion of the Treaty and restore the power of the Center and the CPSU, the conservative wing of the USSR leadership - G. Yanaev (Vice President), V. Pavlov (Prime Minister), Marshal D. Yazov (Minister of Defense), V. Kryuchkov (chairman of the KGB), B. Pugo (minister of internal affairs) announced the creation of the State Committee for the State of Emergency (GKChP) and tried to remove Gorbachev from power through a conspiracy (August 19-21, 1991) However, the putsch was strongly rejected by wide circles the public and the firm position of the Russian leadership led by Yeltsin led to the defeat of the putschists. On August 21, the putschists were arrested. These events were later called by some historians the August Revolution of 1991.
On August 23, 1991, Yeltsin signed a decree suspending the activities of the CPSU in Russia. Gorbachev resigned from the post of General Secretary of the Party Central Committee, which effectively marked the end of the CPSU. The Union Cabinet of Ministers was also dissolved, and in September the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR were dissolved. After the suppression of the coup to secede from the
The USSR was declared by 3 Baltic republics. Other republics also passed laws proclaiming sovereignty, which made them virtually independent of Moscow. Real power in the republics was concentrated in the hands of national leaders.
The collapse of the USSR and its consequences. On December 8, 1991, at the Belarusian meeting of the leaders of three sovereign republics - Russia (B. Yeltsin), Ukraine (L. Kravchuk) and Belarus (S. Shushkevich) - it was announced that the USSR would cease to exist and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) would be formed. This decision had no legal force, however, in the conditions of the collapse of the union statehood, no effective measures were taken to prevent the collapse of the USSR. On December 21, in Almaty, the leaders of the former Soviet republics supported the Belovezhskaya Agreement. December 25 President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev resigned. January 1, 1992 Russia took the place of the USSR in the UN.
Reasons for the collapse of the USSR. Historically, the USSR repeated the fate of multinational empires, which naturally came to their collapse. The collapse of the USSR was the result of a complex of reasons: accumulating national problems and contradictions; failures of economic reforms during the perestroika period; the crisis of communist ideology and the weakening of the role of the CPSU with the subsequent liquidation of its monopoly, which formed the basis of the USSR; the movement for national self-determination of the republics, which began during perestroika, the desire of new national elites for power and financial and economic resources. A certain role in the destruction of the USSR was played by a subjective factor: Gorbachev’s mistakes, his inconsistency in carrying out reforms, the desire of the new Russian leadership, led by Yeltsin, to seize full power.
The consequences of the collapse of the USSR were extremely difficult for the peoples of the former Soviet republics. Political and economic ties between the republics were disrupted. Interethnic relations worsened, which led to conflicts in many regions of the former USSR (between Azerbaijan and Armenia; Georgia and South Ossetia, later Abkhazia, Ingushetia and North Ossetia, etc.). The problem of refugees has arisen. The situation of the Russian-speaking population in the national republics has sharply worsened.
“First of all, it should be recognized that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” (V.V. Putin). Address of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on April 25, 2005.
Heads of three republics, founders of the USSR: Belarus (S. Shushkevich), Russia ( B. Yeltsin) and Ukraine ( L. Kravchuk) gathered in Belovezhskaya Pushcha to sign an agreement on the creation of the Union of Sovereign States of the GCC. However, the early agreements were rejected by Ukraine and on December 8, 1991, they stated that the USSR was ceasing to exist, announced the impossibility of forming the GCC and signed the Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
The authorities of the USSR as a subject of international law ceased to exist on December 25-26, 1991.
Russia declared itself the legal successor and continuation state of the USSR, which was recognized by almost all other states. The remaining post-Soviet states (with the exception of the Baltic states) became the legal successors of the USSR (in particular, the USSR's obligations under international treaties) and the corresponding union republics. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia declared themselves successors to the respective states that existed in 1918-1940.
Within the UN, all 15 states are considered successors of the respective union republics, and therefore the territorial claims of these countries to each other are not recognized.
There is no single point of view among historians on what was the main cause of the collapse of the USSR, as well as on whether it was possible to prevent the process of collapse of the USSR. The causes and consequences of the collapse of the USSR are called different: political, economic, social and others. It is impossible to cover the entire list; they are historical, extensive and deep. Possible reasons include the following:
the authoritarian nature of Soviet society, in particular the persecution of the church, the KGB persecution of dissidents, forced collectivism, the dominance of one ideology, the ban on communication with foreign countries, censorship, the lack of free discussion of alternatives;
centrifugal nationalist tendencies inherent in every multinational country and manifested in the form of interethnic contradictions and the desire of individual peoples to independently develop their culture and economy;
growing dissatisfaction of the population due to food shortages, especially in the era of stagnation and Perestroika, and the most necessary goods (refrigerators, televisions, toilet paper, etc.), prohibitions and restrictions (on the size of a garden plot, etc.), constant lag in living standards compared to developed Western countries;
disproportions in the extensive economy (characteristic of the entire existence of the USSR), the consequence of which was a constant shortage of consumer goods, a growing technical gap in all spheres of the manufacturing industry;
crisis of confidence in the economic system: in the 1960-1970s. The main way to combat the inevitable shortage of consumer goods in a planned economy was to rely on mass production, simplicity and cheapness of materials; most enterprises worked in three shifts, producing similar products from low-quality materials. The quantitative plan was the only way to evaluate the efficiency of enterprises, quality control was minimized. The result of this was a decline in the quality of consumer goods produced in the USSR. The crisis of confidence in the quality of goods became a crisis of confidence in the entire economic system as a whole;
collapse of the Soviet Union world
a number of man-made disasters (plane crashes, the Chernobyl accident, the crash of the Admiral Nakhimov, gas explosions, etc.) and the concealment of information about them;
unsuccessful attempts to reform the Soviet system, which led to stagnation and then the collapse of the economy, which led to the collapse of the political system (economic reform of 1965);
the decline in world oil prices initiated by the American government, which shook the economy of the USSR (E. Gaidar considered this factor to be decisive);
monocentrism of decision-making (only in Moscow), which led to inefficiency and loss of time;
The Afghan war, the Cold War, incessant financial assistance to the countries of the socialist camp, and the development of the military-industrial complex to the detriment of other areas of the economy ruined the budget.
The collapse of such a great power could not pass unnoticed. Because the Soviet Union, lived and developed as a single organism, the separated parts took with them objects vital for the country. Makarkin A. Geopolitical consequences of the collapse of the USSR / A. Makarkin // Voice of Russia. - 12.12.2011. - [Electronic resource] Access mode: http: //rus.ruvr.ru/2011/12/12/62080167.html
We can name only some of the consequences of the collapse for the USSR:
more than 5 million km 2 of territory were lost (USSR);
major ports on the Baltic and Black Seas were lost;
in terms of resources, the shelves of the seas are lost: the Black, Caspian, Baltic;
lost direct land access to Central and Western Europe;
the emergence on Russia’s new frontiers of a number of economically weak countries - former Soviet republics, for which it, like the USSR in its time, is forced to remain a “donor” under difficult conditions;
in the south, Russia practically plays the role of protector of Europe from Islamic fundamentalism, which led to its participation, for example, in the military confrontation in Tajikistan;
in the east, Russia has an extremely small population (only 8 million people live in the Far East) with the economic weakness of the region, which contributes to Chinese and Vietnamese emigration, estimated by experts at figures from 150-200 thousand to 500 thousand people. and even 2 million;
Russian territory found itself “pushed” to the north and east.
The Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) received the most modern ports, a nuclear power plant, and many high-tech industries.
Ukraine and Moldova became independent and the centuries-old economic ties that united the coal, industrial, metallurgical, transport and food systems were broken.
Traditional holiday destinations in Crimea and Transcaucasia (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan) remained abroad.
The pride of the Soviet Union - the Baikonur cosmodrome - began to belong to Kazakhstan.
Cotton plantations and deposits of strategic raw materials in Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan) gained independence, but at the same time all the country’s borders were wide open.
Thus, the collapse (collapse) of the USSR and education The CIS is an event that is comparable to a natural disaster, but which in its consequences was much more tragic.
The collapse of the Soviet Union radically changed not only Russia and the post-Soviet space, but also the configuration of the entire world community.
On December 9, 1991, we woke up in another country, fractures were going on not only along the earth, but also in the destinies of the nation and peoples, each separated country had to survive alone, and Russia too. As a result of the signing of the Belovezhskaya Accords, all existing ties were severed. For the Russian people it became a real drama. The breakdown of these ties affected the lives of people in the post-Soviet space. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. National relations sharply deteriorated, which led to interethnic clashes in almost all union republics.
The collapse of the USSR, formalized by the Belovezhskaya Agreement between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus by B. N. Yeltsin, L. M. Kravchuk and S. S. Shushkevich on December 8, 1991, is one of the most significant events in the world history of the 20th century. This is perhaps the only assessment that is accepted by most historians and politicians. All other issues related to the analysis of the causes and significance of the collapse of the USSR remain the subject of heated debate.
Reasons for the collapse of the USSR. In March 1990, at an all-Union referendum, the majority of citizens spoke in favor of preserving the USSR and the need to reform it. By the summer of 1991, a new Union Treaty was prepared, which gave a chance to renew the federal state. But it was not possible to maintain unity. The USSR collapsed. Why? Here are the most common explanations offered by researchers:
The USSR was created in 1922. as a federal state. However, over time, it increasingly turned into an essentially unitary state, governed from the center and leveling out the differences between the republics and subjects of federal relations. The problems of inter-republican and inter-ethnic relations were ignored for many years, difficulties were pushed deeper and were not resolved. During the years of perestroika, when interethnic conflicts became explosive and extremely dangerous, decision-making was postponed until 1990-1991. The accumulation of contradictions made disintegration inevitable;
The USSR was created on the basis of recognition of the right of nations to self-determination; the federation was built not on a territorial, but on a national-territorial principle. In the Constitutions of 1924, 1936 and 1977. contained norms on the sovereignty of the republics that were part of the USSR. In the context of a growing crisis, these norms became a catalyst for centrifugal processes;
The unified national economic complex that emerged in the USSR ensured the economic integration of the republics. However, as economic difficulties grew, economic ties began to break down, the republics showed tendencies towards self-isolation, and the center was not ready for such a development of events;
The Soviet political system was based on strict centralization of power, the real bearer of which was not so much the state as the Communist Party. The crisis of the CPSU, its loss of its leading role, its collapse inevitably led to the collapse of the country;
The unity and integrity of the Union was largely ensured by its ideological unity. The crisis of the communist value system created a spiritual vacuum that was filled with nationalist ideas;
The political, economic, ideological crisis that the USSR experienced in the last years of its existence led to the weakening of the center and the strengthening of the republics and their political elites. For economic, political, and personal reasons, the national elites were interested not so much in preserving the USSR as in its collapse. The “Parade of Sovereignties” of 1990 clearly showed the mood and intentions of the national party-state elites.
Consequences of the collapse of the USSR One of the most significant events of the last ten years was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of 15 independent states on its territory. The collapse of such a great power could not pass unnoticed by the population. As a result of the signing of the Belovezhskaya agreements, all existing ties between the union republics were severed. First of all, the breakdown of these ties affected the lives of people in the post-Soviet space. National relations sharply deteriorated, which led to interethnic clashes in almost all union republics. There is also an aggravation of the social consequences of the political and economic crisis, there is a sharp increase in nationalism, discrimination against the Russian-speaking population and the Russian language in the republics of the former Soviet Union. All these consequences of the collapse of the USSR plunged millions of people into despair and led to a sharp differentiation of society into poor and rich, and an unprecedented increase in the flow of refugees. All this has given rise to an acute crisis situation, led to a sharp increase in social and political tension in society and represents a kind of time bomb. Material impoverishment of the population in conditions of economic crisis According to expert estimates, in 1990 in Kazakhstan at least 10% of the population was in a difficult financial situation. A specific factor in impoverishment in many areas is environmental pollution. Thus, the Aral Sea region is classified as an environmental disaster zone. More than 1 million people live here, 300 thousand of them are on the verge of extinction. /3, p.23/ According to estimates, by the beginning of 1993, already 50% of the population of Kazakhstan was below the poverty line, and the gap in the standard of living of different groups of the population was rapidly increasing. The situation is complicated by the fact that employment levels in Kazakhstan have traditionally been lower than in Russia.
Generally, The meaning of the collapse of the USSR. The significance of such large-scale events is determined by time. Only 10 years have passed since the collapse of the USSR, historians and politicians, citizens of the states that arose in the place of the USSR, are at the mercy of emotions and are not yet ready for balanced, well-founded conclusions. Let us therefore note the obvious: the collapse of the USSR led to the emergence of independent sovereign states; the geopolitical situation in Europe and throughout the world has changed radically; the severance of economic ties became one of the main reasons for the deep economic crisis in Russia and other countries - the heirs of the USSR; Serious problems arose related to the fate of Russians who remained outside Russia, and national minorities in general.
The process of formation of a new Russian statehood began with the adoption by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR of the Declaration of the Sovereignty of Russia (1990) and the election of the first Russian president (June 12, 1991). With the collapse of the USSR (December 1991), the status of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign state became a legal and factual reality. The period of formation of Russian statehood ended on December 12, 1993, when the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted in a national referendum and the Soviet political system was finally dismantled. The birth of the modern Russian state was a dramatic, extremely painful and complex process.
Moscow State Institute of Electronics and Mathematics.
Faculty of Electronics. Department of History and Political Science.
Coursework on the subject
Global conflicts of New and Contemporary times
“The collapse of the USSR. Causes and consequences"
Written by: Komkov Roman Valerievich
Group S-25, 1st year
Checked by: Rodionova Irina Vitalievna
Moscow
2007
Content:
1. Introduction............................................... ........................................................ ............3
2. Reasons for the collapse of the USSR.................................................... ...................................3
3. Consequences of the collapse of the USSR.................................................... ............................10
4. Conclusion................................................... ........................................................ .....13
5. List of references................................................................... ................14
Introduction
The collapse of the USSR can rightfully be called the largest geopolitical event of the 20th century, and this is hardly an exaggeration. During the century, the Russian Empire and then the USSR were one of the largest players in the international arena, and for the second half of the century, the USSR, together with another major power - the United States of America, supported in their confrontation the entire system of international relations that had emerged after the Second World War. And then, in the winter of 1991, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly ceased to exist. It can be argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union was by far the largest political catastrophe of the twentieth century. There is no particular need to prove the importance and relevance of this topic, discussions on which can continue endlessly. The collapse of the Soviet Union is part of our personal biography and drama. An event that gave rise to a new round of Russian history, which still influences our lives. Some historians say that the events of 1991 are not yet history, due to the lapse of several years and little knowledge. All this was the reason for my choice of this particular topic.
It is worth noting that the existing Soviet system was hardly too ineffective, as it became fashionable to imagine in the late 80s and early 90s. It is important to understand that it had to act, exist and develop in the conditions of the Cold War, which took up a huge amount of resources of the Soviet country, against which almost half of the world was opposed, and considerable efforts were also required to maintain the allied regimes. In this war, the Soviet Union was defeated and ceased to exist. It can be said, therefore, that the causes of the collapse were both external and internal, due to the shortcomings of the Soviet system. They were often closely related. Let's try to look at them one way or another.
Reasons for the collapse of the USSR
In the constitutions of the USSR, the union republics were endowed with state sovereignty and the right to secede from the Soviet Union. Soviet ideology contained the idea of the right of nations to self-determination, even to the point of secession; the state structure was based on a formally voluntary, but fixed in the Constitution, contractual association of “union” states created on the basis of large nations; territorial-state delimitation, although carried out by strong-willed decisions and did not strictly follow the national principle, was based on it; republican governing bodies, which differed little in their real powers from the governing bodies of large regions of the RSFSR, nevertheless had all the attributes of state government bodies, including elected bodies - Soviets, executive power represented by ministerial structures, etc.
The RSFSR, being the political center of the Soviet Union, the main and almost the only donor of the union budget among the republics, did not possess a number of features of a union republic (its own communist party, Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Internal Affairs). The disastrous practice of siphoning financial, material, technical and human resources from the RSFSR, carried out for decades, was justified by the need to develop the national outskirts, which were inferior in socio-economic development. As a result, this policy led to the degradation of entire spheres of life in Russia. A destroyed Russian village with boarded-up windows of empty houses has become a symbol of the short-sighted budget policy of the union center.
The long (half a century) path to the collapse of the USSR began after the death of Stalin (or rather, it was started by Stalin, who chose the course of strengthening the vertical of power using tough, authoritarian methods). The Union lost a very strong and progressive leader, who, albeit forcefully and despotic, moved the country forward. All subsequent leaders pursued a conservative policy to strengthen and preserve what was created and acquired during the reign of Stalin. Such a managerial emphasis could not but lead to a decline in development, and subsequently to a crisis of Soviet power.
The irremovability of the first secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of the union republics, their unshakable status in the Politburo of the Central Committee and undivided power in their own republics led to a gradual loss of control on the part of the central authorities. Development of commodity-money relations in the Baltic republics, Transcaucasia and Central Asia in 1950-70. led to the emergence of a semi-legal layer of businessmen who sought to find support from the authorities of the republics. Regional authorities also sought to control the resources of their republics without the participation of the Kremlin, which was losing power. As a result, already in the mid-1970s. An alliance of part of the party-economic elite, nationalist-minded intelligentsia and the emerging class of entrepreneurs begins to take shape.
In the early 80s. all layers of society suffered from lack of freedom and experienced psychological discomfort. The intelligentsia wanted real democracy and personal freedom. With the election of M.S. Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee in 1985, a period of reforms began in the USSR. The country began the process of revising the foundations of the totalitarian political system and the planned distribution economic system. The term “perestroika”, which arose in those years, meant a transition carried out from above to the democratization of the political system and the admission of market relations in the economy. This was expressed in a reduction in the role of the CPSU in public life, in the revival of parliamentarism, openness, in the weakening of centralized management of the economy, and in increasing the rights and responsibilities of regional authorities. In essence, this meant that a variant of economic reform was being implemented, when, with the regulatory role of the state, part of the property was to be privatized and market relations were to be introduced into the economy.
In general, perestroika was intended, first of all, to intensify the country mired in stagnation, but M.S. Gorbachev did not have a clear and systematic plan for reforming the country, and the consequences of many actions turned out to be severe (anti-alcohol campaign, money exchange, acceleration, etc.). The foreign policy of “new thinking” associated with the name of M.S. Gorbachev contributed to a radical change in the international situation (the end of the Cold War and the war in Afghanistan, the weakening of the nuclear threat, the “velvet” revolutions in Eastern Europe, the unification of Germany). However, inconsistent domestic policies, primarily chaotic economic reforms, led to a deepening crisis in all spheres of society and, as a consequence, to a sharp decline in living standards. The developing economic crisis was accompanied by a deterioration in the political situation in the country. Noting the inability of the central government to improve the economic situation, the leadership of the union republics, territories and regions saw the path to improvement in the decentralization of management, in granting even greater rights to the regions to solve economic and social problems locally. At the same time, their demands were expressed in a movement for leaving at the disposal of the regions a larger share of the national income created there compared to the previous period. Naturally, this led to a decrease in the share going to the centralized funds of the state.
All this forced the USSR government to give instructions on the development of methodological approaches to solving the issue of the so-called. regional self-financing, when the amount of national income left at the disposal of the region was supposed to depend on the region’s contribution to the economic potential of the country. But this issue was not resolved: there was a war in Afghanistan, which required large expenses for the maintenance of the military-industrial complex, so the state did not have the opportunity to increase the share of national income left at the disposal of the regions; there was a distorted price system in the country, when prices for raw materials were unreasonably understated, and prices for final products were inflated; The tax system and the procedure for collecting taxes distorted the indicators of the republics’ contribution to the state’s economy.
These factors were reflected in the struggle between the union and republican parliaments. Economic unqualified deputies who came on the crest of the wave of the democratic movement, instead of looking for ways out of the crisis, creating a legislative framework to improve the economic situation in the country, strengthening parliamentary control over the formation and use of budget funds by the government, were engaged in destructive political activities aimed at confronting the center and the regions.
One of the tasks of perestroika was to reform the national state structure of the USSR. With the development of glasnost, facts began to be reflected in the media indicating that the Soviet Union did not give the opportunity to freely develop to all ethnic groups inhabiting it. In relation to many, a policy was carried out that was a development of the traditional policies of the Russian Empire, and the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR had long ago become a mere formality. The liberalization of public life with the beginning of perestroika made it possible to reach the stage of resolving contradictions that had been accumulating for decades. But the opposite happened: these contradictions began to result in bloody interethnic conflicts in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, etc. The Baltic republics announced their decision to secede from the USSR.
The struggle of the center against the republican elite class was carried out outwardly under the slogans of preserving language and culture, its ethnic identity. “It is important to note that this is not the first time this has happened in Russia and Russia’s example in this regard is not unique. In fact, it only reflects the patterns of development characteristic of those countries that are taking the path of modernization and democratization.” It is under these conditions that a rapid growth of national self-awareness is observed. This process occurred among different peoples of the USSR over several decades, taking different forms in different years and meeting different reactions from the central government. Under the Soviet regime, it was not easy to openly fight to preserve one's cultural charisma.
The discrediting of socialist ideology in the USSR legitimized the actions of nationalists in the eyes of the population and strengthened the disintegration processes in the state. New ideas related to the construction of a rule-of-law state contributed to the weakening of the party vertical; the right of nations to self-determination, even to the point of secession, began to be declared as constitutional. Republican elites were given the opportunity to demand expansion of their powers in the field of public administration. The elections confirmed the higher legitimacy of the republican elites compared to the union leadership. This helped them proclaim the sovereignty of the republics and gain independence from the center. During this period, the role of the union leadership weakened more and more, and the leadership of the republics strengthened their own political positions. Regionalization of power became a fact by the beginning of 1991. In order to stop the process of disintegration of the country, a number of steps were taken. A referendum held in March 1991 on the issue of preserving the Soviet Union revealed a large number of supporters in the country of preserving a federal socialist state (76% of those who voted were in favor of preserving the USSR). At the same time, the majority of Russians (about 80% of those voting) supported the idea of introducing the post of President of the RSFSR. On June 12, 1991, the first popular elections were held, as a result of which B.N. Yeltsin became the first President of Russia. This fact raised the question of the need to redistribute power between the union and republican centers. By August 1991, a draft Union Treaty was prepared. Its signing would mean a transition to a truly federal state, the elimination of a number of state structures that had developed in the USSR and their replacement with new ones. The Union Treaty deprived the top of the CPSU of real power, positions and privileges, so conservatives in the country's leadership decided to prevent its signing.
It was under these conditions that the events of August 19–21, 1991 took place. In the absence of M.S. Gorbachev, who was on vacation in Crimea, the State Committee for a State of Emergency (GKChP) was established. It included Vice President G.I. Yanaev, Prime Minister V.S. Pavlov, Minister of Defense D.T. Yazov, Minister of Internal Affairs B.K. Pugo, Chairman of the KGB V.A. Kryuchkov, Chairman of the Peasant Union of the USSR V.A. Starodubtsev, President of the Association of State Enterprises of the USSR A.I. Tizyakov, Deputy Chairman of the Defense Council O.D. Baklanov. The State Emergency Committee announced the introduction of a state of emergency in a number of regions of the USSR, the reform of power structures that contradict the Constitution of the USSR, the suspension of the activities of opposition parties, the ban on rallies and demonstrations, and the implementation of economic reforms in the near future. The statements of the State Emergency Committee were supported by the entry of troops into the capital. A curfew was declared. At this point, the active actions of the State Emergency Committee ceased, and the initiative began to pass to the opposition, headed by B.N. Yeltsin, who by the morning of August 19 issued a series of decrees qualifying the actions of the State Emergency Committee as a coup d'etat. On August 22, 1991, members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested. M.S. Gorbachev returned to Moscow.
The events of August 19–21, 1991 changed the country. Perestroika as a “revolution from above” is a thing of the past. The result of the August 1991 events was the collapse of the USSR.
The failure of the coup attempt led to M.S. Gorbachev’s loss of his influence and power, and to the abolition of the previous institutions of central government. Shortly after the coup failed, eight Soviet republics declared their independence. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, which had already achieved recognition of independence by the international community, were recognized by the USSR on September 6, 1991. Statements by the leaders of the union republics about complete independence and independence led to the fact that the Soviet Union actually collapsed, which was recorded by the 5th Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. Also, the congress adopted a constitutional law on power during the transition period. Wanting to preserve the center and, thereby, his post, M.S. Gorbachev proposed a new version of the Union Treaty, but the political positions of the President of the USSR were already too weakened by the putsch.
On December 8, 1991, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, the President of the RSFSR B.N. Yeltsin, the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus S.S. Shushkevich and the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Ukraine L.M. Kravchuk signed an agreement on the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Thus, it was stated that “the Union of the USSR as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist.” On December 21, 1991, the Declaration of the Heads of Independent States was adopted in Almaty. (8 more former Soviet republics joined the CIS, except Georgia and the Baltic states). The signing of this treaty ended the existence of the Soviet Union as a single state. USSR President M.S. Gorbachev was forced to resign.
Thus, among the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the following can be identified: the constitution of the USSR, the only country in the world, stipulated the right of republics to secede, which created a contradiction between declared federalism and actual unitarity. Ideology played the role of bonds in a multinational state; its degeneration led to the collapse of the country. The international ideology, designed to create a unified Soviet community, despite all its considerable successes, still did not justify itself, this is supported by both the centrifugal tendencies of the late 80s, the countless conflicts of the early 90s, as well as our current situation, when it is customary to frighten with xenophobic tendencies Russian society. The institution of national republics contributed to the cultivation of a local elite. Here, in essence, the experience of the British in India was repeated - we raised the opposition with our own hands. By the beginning of the 1980s. the center begins to lose control, it becomes impossible to arbitrarily change local leadership. The inadequate internal structure of the USSR programmed its collapse.
In addition, there were economic prerequisites. During these years, the merger and interweaving of the official economy with the shadow economy - various kinds of semi-legal and illegal production and trading activities, into which entire enterprises were drawn in - proceeded quickly and successfully. The income of the shadow economy amounted to many billions. By the beginning of the 80s. The ineffectiveness of attempts at limited reform of the Soviet system became obvious. The country entered a period of deep crisis.
The spontaneous degeneration of the system changed the entire way of life of Soviet society: the rights of managers and enterprises were redistributed, departmentalism and social inequality increased. The nature of production relations within enterprises changed, labor discipline began to decline, apathy and indifference, theft, disrespect for honest work, and envy of those who earn more became widespread. At the same time, non-economic coercion to work remained in the country. The Soviet man, alienated from the distribution of the produced product, turned into a performer, working not out of conscience, but out of compulsion. The ideological motivation for work developed in the post-revolutionary years weakened along with the belief in the imminent triumph of communist ideals; in parallel, the flow of petrodollars decreased and the external and internal debt of the state grew.
Most workers and employees associated the need for change with better organization and remuneration, and a more equitable distribution of social wealth. Part of the peasantry expected to become the true masters of their land and their labor. However, ultimately, completely different forces determined the direction and nature of reform of the Soviet system. These forces, as we see above, were precisely the Soviet nomenklatura, which was burdened by communist conventions and the dependence of personal well-being on official position.
At the same time, Soviet ideology was in decline, the main tenets of which became nothing more than formalities, and the intelligentsia was directly burdened by them. The dissident movement gained increasing strength, which, coupled with the beginning of a revision of ideology from above, completely knocked out the ideological foundation from under Soviet civilization. Thus, by the beginning of the 80s. the Soviet totalitarian system actually loses support in society and ceases to be legitimate. However, I would like to dwell on the activities of dissidents in more detail. During perestroika, there were many people who received money for gathering people around them in squares and parks and raising discussions about the horrors of the Soviet system and the terrible state of the country. These mass entertainers didn’t even know the names of their customers. All of them had one peculiarity: soon after the collapse of the USSR, orders for their services stopped coming.
Mass demonstrations that took place throughout the country at that time were aimed mainly at destroying the ideological foundations of Soviet society. These demonstrations were anti-communist and anti-Soviet. The similar ideological orientation of these demonstrations is surprising. It is clear that each such demonstration had its own organizer. It will not be difficult to prove that most of these demonstrations were organized thanks to someone else's financial support.
In addition to the performances on the streets, the press was absolutely inundated with negative information. There was much more of this information than in subsequent years, although the economic situation in the late 80s was much better than in the mid-90s. The image of a terrible Motherland and a wonderful foreign country appears in the press. Reports and information “from there” had all the features of advertising materials. The same applies to culture
Let us note that the speeches on the streets, publications in the press, and the meaning of many of our “works” of culture had, firstly, all the signs of PR actions and, secondly, had the same informational orientation: criticism of the Soviet political and ideological system and The Soviet Union in general, creating a negative image of our country and a positive image of “abroad”. Such an identical direction of action of various factors (many factors) can only be explained by leadership from a single center. In other words, there was an information attack on our country. And this attack yielded results: the composition of the internal environment (culture) was changed, and signs of a collapsing country began to appear throughout the country.
And here we come to one more factor in addition to those listed - the separatism of the national republican elite, the crisis of ideology, economic difficulties, the weakness of the Center - this is pressure from the outside. The United States, through its foreign policy, supported the appearance of all those named signs. They were among the first to recognize the independence of the Baltic countries, supported the factors of information attack, etc. And this is what they did officially. It can be said with a high degree of confidence that the United States was the leading force that organized the information attack on the USSR.
But the information attack was not the only reason for the collapse of the USSR. The leadership of the USSR clearly saw the existing problems and could take effective measures to prevent the collapse of the country. It could, but it didn’t accept it. The policy of that period (as well as the period of Yeltsin’s reign) can be characterized as “purposeful inaction.” It is unlikely that the leadership of the USSR did not have people capable of analyzing the current situation and developing the right solution. Either there were only amateurs at the helm of the state, or there were people in the leadership of the country who acted in line with the policy of the collapse of the USSR.
Thus, the Cold War ended with the complete defeat of the Soviet Union. A state that does not control its information space and its information resources in one form or another is not independent.
The collapse of the USSR was also facilitated by the collapse of the socialist system. In 1989, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the countries of Eastern and Central Europe began. The weakening of the USSR's military presence in the allied countries caused an intensification of anti-socialist sentiments. The processes of democratization that began in them led at the end of 1989 - beginning of 1990 to the “velvet” revolutions in Poland, the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Albania. In December 1989, the Ceausescu regime in Romania was overthrown by force. As a result of a referendum held in 1990, the GDR became part of the Federal Republic of Germany. The national democratic forces that came to power in these countries, not wanting to follow the path of half-hearted and inconsistent reform, advocated a radical and rapid change in the model of social development. The long-term Soviet dictatorship in relations with these countries, reinforced by the military presence of the USSR, could not but lead to the departure of its former allies and their orientation towards the West.
In the spring of 1991, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact Organization were officially dissolved, completing the collapse of the socialist system.
Consequences of the collapse of the USSR
Economic consequences
The collapse of the USSR led to the severance of most of the traditional ties between economic entities in the former republics, significantly reduced both in Russia and in other CIS countries the opportunities for economic maneuver with financial, production, natural and other resources, due to the isolation of the economic systems of states and the widespread crisis, associated with the disintegration of the Soviet economy. In this situation, the Russian Federation lost less than others due to the relative self-sufficiency of its economic potential.
Russia benefited both from the gradual removal of the need to subsidize the former Soviet republics and from changes in the price structure. At the same time, the accumulation of large debt for Russian energy resources and other products on the part of Ukraine and some other republics shows that Russia continues to play the role of a donor in the former Soviet space without any particular economic or political benefits for itself.
The state territory was reduced by a quarter, the population by half. The problem of poor infrastructure development has arisen, especially in the new border regions of the country.
For several years, access to the markets of neighboring countries became difficult (some of them were lost irretrievably), which cost Russia significant losses in the form of lost income, and also had a serious social cost due to the temporary loss of the opportunity to supply the domestic Russian market with cheaper consumer goods from countries CIS (for example, seasonal vegetables, fruits, etc.).
Political consequences
In this area, the collapse of the USSR marked the beginning of a long-term process of changing the global and regional balance of power: economic, political, military. According to Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State in 1973-77, “...The Soviet Union should not have left Eastern Europe so quickly. We are changing the balance in the world very quickly, and this can lead to undesirable consequences...” The entire system of international relations has become less stable and less predictable. Having postponed the threat of world war, the collapse of the USSR increased the likelihood of local wars and conflicts. Currently, Russia is experiencing the Chechen problem, which has remained unresolved since 1994. V.V. Putin: “...The situation in the North Caucasus and Chechnya is a continuation of the collapse of the USSR. For some time I hoped that with the growth of the economy and the development of democratic institutions, this process would be slowed down. But life and practice have shown that this does not happen.”
The international political potential and influence of Russia on the world community has sharply decreased in comparison with the USSR, and the ability to defend its interests has sharply decreased. (presidential elections in the Republic of Ukraine in 2004). Russia is gradually losing its spheres of influence in the post-Soviet space. Yes, now the government has begun to use the energy lever to increase influence in the West, but this is only now (2006-2007), and such a strategy is, in my opinion, very unstable and monosyllabic.
The outside world has changed its attitude towards Russia from fear to active expansion, as a developing young country. The potential for creating a hostile environment towards it has diminished, largely due to the sharp decline in military potential. It is impossible to say for sure whether this is good or bad. From the standpoint of patriotism, it is definitely negative.
Social consequences
Millions of human connections have been severed, and people have developed a “divided nation” complex. To get to relatives living in Ukraine, a Russian had to go through customs control, which was not the case before due to the lack of borders. In 2003, Romir Monitoring conducted a sociological study on the attitude of Russians to the collapse of the USSR. Respondents aged 18 years and older were asked the following questions: “Do you think the collapse of the USSR was inevitable or could it have been prevented? And in general, do you regret that the USSR collapsed, do you approve of its collapse, or is it indifferent to you?” The overwhelming majority of respondents answered the first question: “Yes, it could have been prevented,” and the second: “I regret it.”
The problem of national minorities living outside their national centers has arisen. The machine of nationalism and racial discrimination started working in Russia. Protecting the interests of minorities through traditional diplomacy in the long term requires a comprehensive approach.
In the Baltic countries, the attitude towards the predominant Russian population there sharply worsened, persecution and all kinds of harassment against them began. Legal fascism appeared.
There is a problem of new borders, which can cause aggravation in relations between states formed on the territory of the former USSR, where such a problem did not exist. The most acute problem is in Kaliningrad, which is cut off from greater Russia.
Another aspect that has come under somewhat biased criticism is the economy of the USSR. There was stagnation, of course, if we talk about it as a complex of manifestations (ossification of the state apparatus, lack of new trends in cultural life, pressure from ideological clichés). However, economic growth was 3-4% per year, which is generally normal for a developed economy. There was technical backwardness, of course, but it affected mainly in everyday life. In general, the level of technological developments was as follows - 15% above world standards, 70% on par; now – 4 and 15%, respectively.
Of course, there were also problems in management. The cumbersome and overly centralized apparatus was inadequate to the needs of flexible management. The system was broken, but as a result we have 4 times more officials per capita while the quality of management has deteriorated. In this regard, I would like to refer to the example of China, which solved similar problems by flexible restructuring of the system with the transfer of some functions to the lower “floors”.
The real problem is the internal decomposition of the nomenklatura (associated with a crisis in the sphere of ideology), there was no adequate system for selecting personnel, and there was a desire to seize property. By the mid-80s, a crisis situation and the need for change were felt. In 3 years (1982-85), 4 secretaries general were replaced. In 1985 there was a choice: 1) reforms along the Chinese model; 2) the implemented version of “new thinking” is unplanned and ill-considered. Modern attempts to prove that reform “the Chinese way” was impossible are based on the assertion that the level of development is allegedly too high. The essence of reforms in the Chinese way: do nothing at random, “grope for stones while crossing the river,” first reform the economy, then politics. The reason for the crisis, in my opinion, is that they did exactly the opposite. They did not use the competitive advantages of the USSR in the 1980s.
The real problem was the outright incompetence of the leadership and the presence of unfavorable factors. So, for example, 50 billion rubles. trade in vodka provided, and Gorbachev launched an anti-alcohol campaign. At the same time, there was a sharp drop in oil prices, also due to the restructuring of the Western economy; Chernobyl-86, earthquake in Armenia-88.
Thus, faced with real economic problems, the authorities decided to simultaneously launch a political reform based on openness and pluralism. As a result, the population was able to express their indignation openly. Around 1988, the slide into crisis began.
In foreign policy there was a turn towards unilateral concessions to the West in conditions of an internal crisis. As mentioned above, in 1988 - 1991. dominated by “anti-union” sentiments, which were based not so much on the masses as on the above-mentioned “triad” - businessmen, intelligentsia, local national nomenklatura, which was primarily interested in the authorities in their own, so to speak, destinies (typical examples - Shevardnadze , Nazarbayev, Niyazov, Aliyev).
These are, in general, the reasons and prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR.
Conclusion
The collapse of the USSR did not become a final act, but launched a long-term process of creation and development of new independent states. This process is characterized by significant instability. Some states may turn out to be unviable, which will lead to their collapse; there is the possibility of the formation of new states (Abkhazia, Transnistria). A similar situation can currently be observed in many republics of the former USSR: in Georgia these are problems associated with attempts to secede Abkhazia, Adjara, and South Ossetia. There is a Transnistrian problem in Moldova. This instability will have to be regulated, preferably through political methods, and the Russian Federation must play a huge role in this issue, without in any way avoiding the problems of the former USSR. Otherwise, the West will solve this problem instead of us, and Russia will finally lose influence in the space of the former USSR.
Bibliography:
1. Bogomolov B.A., Blashenkova V.S. The collapse of the USSR in the context of the decision
national issue. http://niiss.ru/mags_bogomolov.shtml
2. Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius for 2004 Electronic
3. Ionov I.N. Soviet economy and scientific and technological revolution. Domestic history – 1992
4. Nenarokov A.P. Failed Anniversary. Why didn't the USSR
celebrated your 70th birthday? M., 1992.
5. First person. Conversations with Vladimir Putin. M., 2000.
6. Polyak G.B. The World History. M., 1997.
7. Article “The collapse of the USSR: a historical accident or a planned action?” , V. A. Pechenev. http://www.rustrana.ru/article.php?nid=12735
8. 10 years after the collapse of the USSR - Social and economic decline, regional and ethnic conflicts. Vladimir Volkov
Characteristics of literature:
In working on this material, I used various information sources; The most significant of them were included in the list of references. On the Internet I found a lot of materials on the National Socialist interpretation of the collapse of the USSR, but I found this opinion very strained and biased. However, I would like to highlight the material by Vladimir Volkov, published on the World Socialist Web Site, which fully reflects the social conflicts that arose after the collapse and describes the consequences. Pechenev, Bogomolov and Blashenkova also highlight the importance of the national issue in the collapse of the USSR. The book “First person. Conversations with Vladimir Putin." was used to show the attitude of the current government to this issue. The rest of the literature helped to create a chronology of the events of 1991. And strengthen the view of the already obvious economic and political consequences. I myself largely approve of the collapse of the socialist system (I am a member of the International Society ANTI-COMMUNISM).
(1 ratings, on average: 5,00 out of 5) 
Loading...
