Translated material
Decay or disintegration?
Why did the Soviet Union disappear?
The Vremya Novostey newspaper, on the eve of the 15th anniversary of the legal formalization of the collapse of the USSR, decided to find out the opinions of politicians and political scientists about the causes and consequences of this event, which Russian President Vladimir Putin recently called “the main geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century.”Joseph DISKIN, co-chairman of the National Strategy Council:
- Now much has become clear about the factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the role of the main actors has become clear, and the conclusion can be drawn that everyone is to blame. Everyone acted in favor of the collapse of the USSR. Such conclusions are confirmed by the fact that some people from the democratic camp, who still have a conscience, are now saying: our main mistake was opposing Gorbachev, we did not try to convince him.
Now the national elites, having tasted power, do not want to give it up, and so far no rational considerations have helped.
This was the period when it became clear that the severance of economic ties greatly aggravated the stage of transformation and adaptation of economic life. At the same time, I am inclined to see positive elements in the past 15 years. This was a period when qualitatively new social strata and groups were formed in Russia, which had not existed in the history of the country. Sociological studies have shown that up to 30% of the population has appeared in the country, which is able to rely on its own rational choice, rationally evaluate and use its resources.
If earlier Yeltsin's democracy was a sign, now for the first time in history groups of the population have appeared that could become the support of real democracy and a competitive market. These are people who are not under the influence of ideological drugs of one kind or another, but are able to assess the situation themselves and bear responsibility for independent decisions. Groups have also emerged that are characterized by hitherto unimaginable social activity and entrepreneurship. I, of course, do not close my eyes to the fact that they are not ready to live strictly according to the requirements of the Criminal or Moral Code.
This period also preserved the birthmarks of both imperial and Soviet Russia - the deepest distrust of the population in power.
Alexander KONOVALOV, President of the Institute for Strategic Assessments:
—We have a whole theory that the collapse of the USSR was the result of the machinations of enemies, that an unsustainable arms race was imposed, and that there were CIA plans in this regard. This idea comes from an inferiority complex - the CIA is not such an omnipotent organization that it could ruin a country like the USSR.
In my opinion, the Union was completely doomed to fall apart. The country has been experimenting for many decades with building an inefficient and uncompetitive economy based on the wrong foundation and ideas. But our problem is that we are a fantastically rich country. If such an experiment were carried out, for example, in Holland, it would not be enough for two weeks. And we have the entire periodic table and space, we could afford to do stupid things for a very long time.
We prolonged the agony of the system, but the Union was doomed. And the fact that it collapsed overnight and along those lines that were internal administrative boundaries was not historically predetermined, it is a consequence of our stupidity. And also by the short-sightedness of politicians and Yeltsin’s desire to remove Gorbachev from the Kremlin.
History cannot be remade, and there is probably no wasted time in it. But we didn't use it in the best way.
The charge of energy was received in 1991, when everyone for the first time felt that something depended on them. When Yeltsin came to power, people were sincerely happy. But in our country, power is valued not as a tool for changing the world, but in itself. And Yeltsin, instead of changing the Constitution, offering people some kind of plan, finding people who could implement this plan, did not use power rationally. And he didn’t really understand the consequences of his actions. He perceived power as the goal of rodeo - how long can you sit on a bull.
And then we began to return to what we were used to, we began to tighten the reins and strengthen the power vertical. The political space has been paved. And now the country is lucky with oil prices, there seems to be nothing to be afraid of, but I have never seen the authorities so afraid. In my opinion, the country has not developed and is not developing either politically or economically.
Vladimir RYZHKOV, independent deputy of the State Duma:
- The USSR collapsed in accordance with the logic of human development - not a single multinational empire survived in the 20th century. There were many of them: the giant British, German, French, Portuguese. And the collapse of the Russian Empire began long before 1991; a hundred years ago it included Poland and Finland. Theoretically, one can imagine how Muslim Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, on the one hand, and, say, Estonia and Armenia, on the other, can be preserved in a single state. But all this was kept in the same hands only through terror and violence. As soon as the reins were let go a little, the empire fell apart.
This was historically inevitable. And we must pay tribute to Gorbachev, who is completely unfairly considered the main culprit of the collapse of the USSR. He fought for the Union to the last.
There was a historic chance to develop, we remained in a much more balanced, more homogeneous and richest country. But the breakthrough did not take place because we were not intellectually ready, and the elite was extremely immoral. All energy went into corruption. And the model that is now developing in the country - raw material state capitalism - is also a dead end.
Ivan MELNIKOV, first deputy chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, deputy of the State Duma:
- From the perspective of today, from the perspective of each next coming day, it is more and more obvious how huge a disaster the collapse of the Soviet Union is. There are many reasons for the collapse. And when they say that the reason for everything is that the USSR exhausted its vitality resources and was doomed, this is not true. Yes, a lot of problems have accumulated. But here you need to ask yourself the question, why did this happen? Are there only internal reasons to blame for this? I am against conspiracy theories, but objectively speaking, without knowing how severe the economic war was on the international stage at that time, one cannot analyze this topic.
On the one hand, at that moment there was a peak when the West, by intensifying the arms race, managed to exhaust our economy, or rather, force us to invest colossal funds in the hunt for the shadow of their new weapons. On the other hand, an extremely unfavorable situation with oil prices on the international market was artificially created. There were opportunities to get out of a difficult situation. But here another question immediately arises - who was at the helm of the state. Unfortunately—and the Communists admit this mistake—monopoly has led to disruptions in personnel policy. And at that time, at the top of the party there were not only indecisive people, but also people pursuing personal gain. Subsequently, a split occurred - the “indecisive” formed the State Emergency Committee. They lost because of indecision. They failed, although they had many opportunities to do so, to block those who betrayed the USSR. And selfish and ambitious traitors led the country to a split, to the Belovezhskaya Accords. They understood that it was impossible to lead the USSR “from above,” and therefore they actually agreed to divide the mighty Union into their own “principalities.” What do we have today? Carnival in Ukraine. Fascism in Estonia. Aggression in Georgia. Feudalism in a number of Central Asian republics. Unless Belarus is the only surviving island of USSR traditions. And today they are gnawing at her from all sides.
Overall, we believe that this breakup was not natural. We are convinced that the Union could have been saved. Interethnic and ethnic contradictions were fueled on purpose, largely artificially, and were aggravated by those who were willing to “divide” the country.
Thus, it was not the “collapse of the USSR”, but a seizure of power, which resulted in the collapse of the state. And it was not a revolution, but a crime. The constitutional rights of all Russian citizens were violated. More than 70% of citizens of the RSFSR at the referendum on March 17, 1991 confirmed their desire to remain citizens of the USSR. Neither Yeltsin, nor Kravchuk, nor Shushkevich had the right to sign the Belovezhskaya agreements. Violating the will of the people is the starting point that resonates to this day.”