What ultimately ruined the Soviet Union


Just the other day, two interrelated events coincided. Firstly, the very plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which took place on April 35, 23, marks the beginning of the tragic period of the suicidal Gorbachev “reforms” that naturally ended in the collapse of the USSR. Secondly, it is obvious that precisely on this anniversary date, without waiting for the next generous portions of human curses, the "hero of triumph" himself leaned out of political oblivion with another interview, once again began to label the "guilty" that "everything went wrong »And to defend the correctness of their own endeavors.


Well, since Mikhail Sergeyevich is free to once again engage in public self-justification, then, perhaps, no one bothers us to speak about him and about the time that went down in the history of our country under the name of “perestroika”.

Speeding up development - or destruction?


I must say that all three concepts (in the heading of this article) called (as you want) in the painful memory of those who were very lucky to survive their practical implementation, eventually merged into one, and the first of them became dominant. However, this is not entirely correct. At the same April plenum, the 35th anniversary of which we are now “celebrating”, in the keynote speech of the newly-made Secretary General (Gorbachev stayed at this post for a month and a half), the “perestroika” sounded only once or twice. And even that - exclusively in the context of the necessary changes that should have occurred in the national economy. That's him, first of all, they were going to “speed up”. So far, nothing else has been discussed in the spring of 1985. Were changes necessary? Definitely yes. On the need for scientifictechnical revolutions in the Soviet Union, from the end of the 50s, practically "eating through" the most powerful legacy of the great Stalin era (at least that part of which the hands of the mad destroyer Khrushchev did not get to), were said during Brezhnev and later. But just what they just said. The enormous bureaucratic apparatus of the country, which was also pretty much “crushed” by the rapidly aging top of the party, which was increasingly turning from “leading and directing” into braking and obstructing, jammed all the new shoots before they had time to take root and gain strength. The first computers in our country were created, if anyone does not know, again under Joseph Vissarionovich. However, a quarter of a century later they remained “exotic,” and there was no question of the general computerization of the country, which at that time was already an urgent requirement of the time. Errors, shortcomings, inconsistencies in the economy of the “late” USSR, which liberal pseudo-historians and especially pseudo-economists adore with such rapture today, were more than enough. And yet…

Going to the rostrum and throwing first on Wednesday the party elite, and then “to the masses” the clear-cut slogan of “acceleration”, Gorbachev did not even understand exactly what should be accelerated, and most importantly, how to do it. In fact, in the above-mentioned interview, Mikhail Sergeyevich admits that neither he, nor the leadership of the country and the party “had a clear train schedule” and only “understood which direction to go.” Hussars, keep quiet! Today we understand this, at what specifically a popularly known address both the "great reformer" himself and his supporters should go to make everyone feel better. Then, in 1985-1986, beautiful words sounded damn enticing. Another thing is that there was absolutely nothing behind them! Not clear economic programs, nor the team of "strong business executives" -realists who are able to develop and implement it. Gorbachev clutched indiscriminately for all the ideas that the “wise men” like him, palm off on him. Take, for example, the idea of ​​introducing state acceptance in all branches of industry without exception - on the model of the military-industrial complex. Yes, the percentage of marriage, outright hack work produced by our enterprises was truly enormous - the pursuit of the “shaft” affected. But on what the hell, tell me, do I need state approval in the manufacture of kitchen utensils or, say, women's underwear? Here everything is decided by demand, forcing the manufacturer to work efficiently. It was necessary to change the system of planning and evaluating the final indicators of the economic activity of enterprises, and not to aggravate already existing erroneous trends even more! In a word, about how to really “accelerate” or improve the Soviet economy, neither Gorbachev nor his team had the slightest idea, and therefore they soon started to destroy it, which we will talk about a little later.

Publicity or national security?


This component of Gorbachev’s perestroika appeared a little later - after the 19th CPSU Congress (be it a hundred times wrong!) And, in particular, after the even more harmful 1988th Party Conference of XNUMX. The General Secretary himself “pulled out” from the vocabulary the domestic dissidents so dear to his heart. Initially, again, the process started “from above” did not mean, seemingly, anything seditious. Developing criticism and self-criticism, the workers had to “boldly reveal the weaknesses that exist in some places and in some places”, point out the “weaknesses and gaps” that the country's leadership would immediately liquidate with great gratitude for the timely “signal”. It seems completely normal, healthy and positive for the state aspirations. However, those processes in which the games of glasnost started by the Secretary General eventually poured out, did not lead in any way to the improvement of the state, but to its complete destruction. Which, in fact, ended ... What was done in the framework of the campaign for "democratization of Soviet society", the introduction in it, sorry for the expression, "pluralism" and other things like that, definitely attracted a whole bunch of serious articles from that part The Criminal Code, which dealt with state crimes. “Treason to the Homeland" - at the very least, and then on, as they say, according to the list. Some people today continue to argue that the authorities in the USSR just “let go of the reins”, allowing the ideological poison to be poured into the ears and souls of Soviet people not only to “enemy voices”, but also to the newly created “democratic press”, having allowed the replication and free distribution of various printed vilenesses like the Solzhenitsyn false "Archipelago" and the libel of Bogdashka Rezun. And also allowing them to crawl out of the status of baked cockroaches and begin to “steer” social life to the throaty tribe of the same dissident liberals who had waited for their finest hour.

Nothing of the kind, my sovereigns! The authorities, in the person of the party and state leaders, did not “relax” or “lose their vigilance”, but in the most active way promoted all the destructive processes and phenomena mentioned above, the end result of which could only be the death of the Soviet Union! Numerous newspapers and magazines, such as the same “Spark”, “Youth” and others, at the time when authors of a very definite sense firmly “registered” on their pages, defaming, reverting and destroying our history, openly mocking folk shrines and memory their “steep routes” and “Chonkin’s soldiers” were still bodies of very specific party organizations and Soviets of People’s Deputies. I don’t take into account the "yellow" press, all sorts of tabloid papers - it then for the most part specialized in "erotica", crime chronicles and UFO stories. "Literary works", which can be used for no other definition except "subversive", and articles in the field of "exposing the personality cult and the horrors of communism", the broad masses abandoned just state editions - up to Izvestia and Pravda. It was not slackness, not "softness" or "политическая myopia ”, and the course - moreover, approved and coordinated at the very“ top ”. State policy aimed at the destruction of the state, paradoxically as it sounds. Another example of the same sense: the Soviet Union’s Supreme Council, be remembered not by night, was literally pushed by none other than Gorbachev, his fellow scientists, who, in his “struggle with the regime”, had already reached calls for US leadership use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union; in the elections they “rolled” together. Why did the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee in the country's highest legislative body need this “icon” of anti-Soviet and Russophobia? There can only be one answer - from a certain time, Gorbachev and his entourage quite consciously headed for the dismantling of the USSR and the destruction of the socialist social system. How many direct instructions this received from the West was in this, and how many banal selfish desire to live "on a grand scale" without any restraining moments, such as party control and the "moral code of the builder of communism" - a topic for a completely different conversation. But another explanation for what was happening then is impossible to pick up, no matter how hard you try.

Restructuring by the collapse method?


Now Gorbachev, displaying the invariably inherent hypocrisy and the desire to shift "from one’s head to one’s healthy," blames the "perestroika" for the insidious "coup d'etat from the Emergency Committee," as well as those who "took advantage of the subsequent situation to break up the country." Here it is, it turns out ... But haven't you, Mikhail Sergeyevich, created this very situation, but brought it to the limit, to the “boiling point"? And didn’t you contribute to the dismemberment of the USSR, in particular, by flirting with various “healthy national forces on the ground”, which in fact turned out to be a bunch of terry nationalists, whose actions were also led from abroad? They immediately sang with the local party and economic "elites", who wanted to "be free to reign and reign" in their own estates without looking back at Moscow, in the person of the Central Committee, Council of Ministers and the KGB, and destroyed the country. To illustrate the assertion that it was the West’s special services (and not only) that “conducted” the absolute majority of “national movements” in the USSR, we can give an example about the role of the US CIA in the activities of the Ukrainian People’s Movement, which “drove” it through the diaspora in the USA and Canada. This topic has so far been little covered solely due to the fact that in the "unbroken" for any attempt to research her, they do not tear off her hands, but immediately her head - and this has been the case at all times since 1991 ... However, let's go back to politics where we started the conversation - to purely economic issues. It is worth doing this because it is through their consideration that you can evaluate the true intentions of the "perestroika" and understand whether their actions were only erroneous or still intentional. As mentioned above, all the initial actions of Gorbachev and his team, instead of “accelerating” and developing the country's national economy, led to the exact opposite results. Take, for example, the “anti-alcohol company”, which, in addition to causing the growth of drug addiction, substance abuse and home brewing, also deprived the state budget of colossal cash receipts. Mikhail Sergeyevich did not grow a generation of teetotalers (in subsequent years, Russia and many other former republics of the USSR almost choked in a sivuha), but the economy suffered a terrible blow.

However, this passage can still be at least tried to squeeze into the framework of the formula “they wanted it better, but it turned out as always”. But further feints and twists with attempts to cultivate a “cooperative movement” in the country, and, in fact, create a private business and a class of small owners, were already pure wrecking. My personal archive contains records of many hours of conversations with very senior representatives of law enforcement agencies of that time (someday, I hope, they will form the basis of a fascinating book). This means that everything written below is not the result of my personal fantasies ... All these generals and colonels unanimously reiterate: everything that was going on in the national economy of the country with the filing of the "perestroika" cannot be given any other qualification than an "economic crime" or even " economic diversion. " I will explain it with a concrete example - by giving permission to create cooperatives, for example, by sewing trousers, the authorities nevertheless did this, leaving intact the system within which all raw materials (from fabric and thread to the last button) were funded. That is - distributed centrally and in advance. As well, by the way, like equipment, and everything else. Okay, you can sew manually or at Grandma’s Singer, but from what? The cooperators had no choice but to “stick” to the state enterprise, which had kilometers of fabric they needed in warehouses. Which, as you know, was subsequently safely debited and released to newly-minted entrepreneurs for “real money” that went into the pocket of the head of the state enterprise. With everything else, exactly the same. And well, it only concerned sewing pants! In the very near future, various cooperatives (and subsequently various firms and firmochki, state of emergency, MPs and joint ventures) began to “overgrow” metallurgical and machine-building plants, factories and factories for the production of the country most needed products. Their directors quickly realized their benefits and were not going to lose it. And so the foundation was laid for that very “criminal economy”, which subsequently nearly launched Russia around the world. And some republics - let go.

The then generals and colonels, on whose table thick reports were laid on crimes committed, on the total embezzlement of the country, reported "upstairs", demanding sanctions to restore order and ... got their hands on! From higher party and government offices they literally shouted: “Stand! Be silent! Do not dare to strangle new sprouts! ” Really, numerous statesmen, who not only started this whole nightmare, but also took care of it so carefully, did not realize that subsequently the “sprouts" would mature and strangle the country? They all understood perfectly, in any case, most of them. And here's another thing - at that very time of the most severe, severe commodity shortage, sterilely empty store shelves that survivors of perestroika recall with a shudder to this day, and our liberals are so eager to raise to the billboard, telling tales of the “impoverished scoop”, state warehouses literally bursting with everything you need! Food and basic necessities - that’s for sure. Their contents were simply not allowed to go on sale. And the point here was not so much in someone's desire to cash in on speculation, but in the firm intention to push the tension in society to the last limit. It was ... Here, again, not fiction and rumors, but authoritative evidence from respected sources, which I have documented. A clear, thoughtful and coordinated plan to destroy the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - that is what “perestroika”, “acceleration” and “glasnost” actually were ...

Today, Mikhail Gorbachev continues, excuse me with a rude word, “twist” everyone that the “reforms” he started are correct, that they only “progressed slowly” due to “mistakes made”. A destroyed beautiful country, millions of ruined human lives, horror and darkness of the 90s - these are not mistakes, in his opinion. It’s only a pity that it turned out slowly ... Let him broadcast this whole gil elsewhere, at least in his beloved USA. The Russians have long passed a final and non-appealable sentence to both Gorbachev himself and his “perestroika”. According to a survey of the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM), conducted last year, every fourth Russian citizen considers himself to be its victim! In fact, all those who happened to experience all the “charms” of this dreadful experience of their own. God forbid, nothing like this will ever happen again in our country!
Photos used: https://www.wallpaperflare.com/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

29 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Serge Tixiy Offline
    Serge Tixiy (Serge Tixiy) April 25 2020 10: 46
    +6
    • 7
    • 1
    USSR destroyed N.S. Khrushchev. For the sake of his own personal power, he abandoned the past and slandered it. "Preserved" the power and privileges of the party nomenclature, made them, party officials, not accountable, uncontrollable. The country's leadership was not interested in moving forward. This was the beginning of the countdown of the end.
  2. xilia72 Offline
    xilia72 (xantos) April 25 2020 12: 00
    -2
    • 3
    • 5
    The USSR was ruined by the ideology of lies.
    1. meandr51 Offline
      meandr51 (Andrei) April 25 2020 12: 29
      -1
      • 1
      • 2
      This does not happen. If we compare, now there are much more lies in the Russian Federation. One advertisement is worth it ... But for some reason it doesn’t ruin anything, but holds it together. You just have to lie too wisely. One can agree that a stupid lie is worse than a bitter truth.
      1. xilia72 Offline
        xilia72 (xantos) April 26 2020 14: 17
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        The modern RF has no ideology at all, therefore, what is there to compare.
        1. xilia72 Offline
          xilia72 (xantos) April 26 2020 14: 32
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          The Romans had a republic (common cause), the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) had a Roman affair. The Russians have no Russian case yet.
          1. Alex Kamyshovy Offline
            Alex Kamyshovy (Alex Kamyshovy) April 29 2020 16: 32
            0
            • 0
            • 0
            How so no? Well-known business. To spoil the neighbors. What we did, we do and, it seems, we will do.
  3. 1536 Offline
    1536 (Eugene) April 25 2020 12: 21
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    The USSR ruined the greed of its leaders and their inability to manage vast territories and large groups of people.
  4. meandr51 Offline
    meandr51 (Andrei) April 25 2020 12: 34
    +7
    • 7
    • 0
    As for perestroika, I do not believe that Gorbachev and his comrades "did not know where to go." They all knew very well and walked purposefully, pretending to be fools. And carefully removing the smart from the path. There was Leninist experience with the NEP, Stalin's experience with artels and torgsins, there was Chinese experience with two production systems. But this "point blank".
    1. Nick Offline
      Nick (Nikolai) April 25 2020 16: 53
      +2
      • 2
      • 0
      Quote: meandr51
      As for perestroika, I do not believe that Gorbachev and his comrades "did not know where to go." They all knew very well and walked purposefully, pretending to be fools. And carefully removing the smart from the path. There was Lenin’s experience with the NEP, Stalin’s experience with artels and torgsins,

      Well, actually, the multistructure Stalinist economy was ruined by Khrushchev. It was he, beginning in the mid-50s, who deliberately ruined both industrial and collective farms, even nationalizing hairdressers, modistes and handicraftsmen. And finished off the financial reform of 1961.
  5. Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) April 25 2020 12: 45
    +3
    • 4
    • 1
    A long article without numbers means Non-Rural. In fact, who feeds Gorbachev, Yeltsin-centers-festivals-libraries-competitions, friends of the Sobchakov and Chubais families?
    The current elite honors teachers!
  6. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 25 2020 14: 05
    -1
    • 2
    • 3
    What ruined the Soviet Union:

    1. Vicious national-territorial structure of the country; a union of supposedly independent republic-states in which, as national elites grew, nationalist sentiments grew.
    2. Stalin during the 30 years of his reign constantly thinning out the estates of new nobles and boyars, keeping them in a state of constant tension and renewal; After Stalin, morals softened, a party-economic apparatus, stable in composition, appeared, concentrating in its hands strong power, enormous material values, which it could not fully dispose of in the conditions of the existence of outdated party dogmas. At the turn of the 80s and 90s, “matter” prevailed over “consciousness,” the elite did not give a damn about the ideals of October, the teachings of the classics, and betrayed the so-called "Soviet people."
    Some representatives of the elite led new destructive movements in order to maintain power.
    3. The adoption of the CPSU as the "leading and directing force of Soviet society" (Article 6 of the Constitution of the USSR). The leading and guiding force was to remain the Soviets of Deputies, and the party was supposed to run alongside, but not ahead, and fulfill the role of the ideological whip of society, focusing only on ideology, upbringing, education, etc.
    4. The grave mistakes of the country's leadership that led to heavy material, human and moral losses: the war in Afghanistan, the anti-alcohol campaign, Chernobyl; "fraternal assistance to progressive nations" around the world, the hypertrophied militarization of the economy and the inability to feed and fill their own people.
    5. The absolutely incompetent leadership of the last general secretary and the only president of the USSR, his struggle with the first secretary of the Moscow city committee of the CPSU, who (juggling with demagogic slogans) acted on the principle of "the worse, the better" and rushed to the top of absolute power.
  7. Citizen Mѣshkov (Sergey G) April 25 2020 19: 04
    0
    • 2
    • 2
    Nothing like this. Khrushchev did not give up the Soviet (Leninist) past, but rather went to him. Since the Soviet state in the Stalinist period departed from Leninism, replacing it with Stalinism. Agree, these two "isms" differ from each other. Khrushchev faced the dilemma of moving further along the path of Stalinism, thereby moving further and further away from the original Soviet path (Leninist), which was fraught with unforeseen consequences. Or abandoning the Stalinist, again embark on the Leninist path. Which he did. But which of the paths (Leninist or Stalinist) was the most correct - the topic of another discussion.
    1. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 25 2020 20: 08
      -1
      • 2
      • 3
      Or abandoning the Stalinist, again embark on the Leninist path. Which he did.

      Do you undertake to assert that Khrushchev’s deeds (inner-party intrigues and the struggle for personal power, a report at the Twentieth Congress with revelations, the defeat of Malenkov, Kaganovich, and so on, seven years, the economic councils, corn) are the "Leninist way"? I strongly doubt that Khrushchev (a person with 3 classes of education and a very murky-dark background) generally read Lenin's works or understood something in them. And then it turned out that he "embarked on the Leninist path" :)))
      1. Citizen Mѣshkov (Sergey G) April 25 2020 21: 25
        +2
        • 3
        • 1
        ... inner-party intrigues and the struggle for personal power.

        And how else could this transition to Leninism be carried out? There is no doubt that Khrushchev was trying to go over to Leninism, since they had Nothing more in store. In addition, the Leninist model - this was truly a Soviet model, originating from the Petrosoviet, and the Stalinist model - this is leaderism (as it was later called). Agree, these are completely different management systems. Is it possible to blame Khrushchev for the fact that the Leninist (Soviet) model turned into a political bureau - a very difficult question.
        1. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 25 2020 21: 52
          -3
          • 0
          • 3
          As far as I remember the history of the CPSU of the period of 1917, the whole "Leninist model", originating from the Petrosoviet, consisted in raising the slogan "All power to the Soviets!" At that time, when the Bolsheviks ruled there, and the urgent removal of this slogan, when the Bolsheviks pushed the counter away.
          1. Citizen Mѣshkov (Sergey G) April 25 2020 22: 23
            +2
            • 3
            • 1
            Do not distort. I meant something completely different. The Leninist course means the line that was being built at that time (political and economic). This line remained (approximately) until the end of the 20s. Then (the end of the 20s and the beginning of the 30s) Stalin began to change the whole system. Starting from building a power vertical, ending with the economy. It was already a completely different system, which would later be called Stalinist.
            1. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 25 2020 22: 35
              -5
              • 0
              • 5
              It’s hard for me to compete with “juggling”: re-read the name of the topic and pay attention to the words “ultimately”.
              You started with the Petrosoviet, political and economic lines, isms, Khrushchev, etc. etc. This is all off topic.
              Our patient lived for about 70 years, I set out his final diagnosis in a comment dated May 14.05. And you are trying to establish whether the patient suffered from urination during adolescence, which now, in general, does not matter.
              1. Citizen Mѣshkov (Sergey G) April 25 2020 23: 23
                +2
                • 3
                • 1
                Topic Title: "What ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union."
                Especially for you I explain. The USSR ruined the constant "squirming" from one system to another. It was worth choosing one (any) and moving in this direction without changing course. Years through the "czat" could build a fully capable state and sustainable and proper development, but ... Draw your own conclusions.
                1. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 26 2020 06: 41
                  -4
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  .... could BUILD ...

                  - This is nonsense of dropout.
                  The history of the subjunctive mood does not know.
                  I’m specially for the gifted, nailed by a bag, I can explain it on my fingers :))
                  1. Citizen Mѣshkov (Sergey G) April 26 2020 19: 45
                    0
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    That's it! The history of the subjunctive mood does not know! And he knows that the Union disgracefully collapsed, almost out of the blue. Having everything you need for a successful existence. I will list some of them: developed industry and a sufficient amount of mineral resources for it, good medicine, a good education system, the most powerful party in the world, some of the most powerful special services in the world, and so on and so forth. Shame on you, the Communists !!!
      2. Citizen Mѣshkov (Sergey G) April 25 2020 21: 38
        +2
        • 3
        • 1
        In addition, where did you get the idea that Khrushchev was the initiator of this action. Most likely, it was just a screen, behind which stood some of the old Leninist elites (let's call them "Trotskyites"). They were precisely the initiators.
  8. Nikolay Malyugin (Nikolai Malyugin) April 26 2020 10: 32
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    And who, in fact, deals with this issue? Perhaps only the Chinese. Well, I will express my self-made opinion. And what will change? Here, perhaps, we should consider the consequences of the collapse of the USSR. And they are Horrible. And for us, and for others. Since the threat of terrorism has increased, be kind, carry the document with you. As far as I remember, this was not the case with the USSR. I could ride trains, buses, ships, without a passport. And now they complain, they say, digitize. So this one follows from the other.
    1. Digital error Offline
      Digital error (Eugene) April 26 2020 11: 03
      +1
      • 2
      • 1
      Quote: Nikolai Malyugin
      Here, perhaps, we should consider the consequences of the collapse of the USSR

      To understand who became the ultimate beneficiary. Right here:

      https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

      - In 2018, transcripts of Clinton’s conversations with Boris Yeltsin for 1991-1999 were published, only about 600 pages.
      Perhaps this is where the answers to a number of questions posed in the article are contained. I would love to read the isolation in isolation (complete, and not selective, from “Russian Tudey” or “Echo of Moscow”). If any of the readers has a link to the full translation, I will be grateful.
  9. Alexander Semenov (Alexander Semenov) April 26 2020 14: 43
    -4
    • 1
    • 5
    Naivety killed!
  10. Bitter Offline
    Bitter (Gleb) April 26 2020 19: 42
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    Not what, it will be more accurate - who?
    The initiator is Mikhailo Sergeevich, and the main grave digger Boris Nikolaevich with his best friend and mentor Clinton.


    Everything else is speculation, Khrushchev is certainly not an angel, but I think that he would have banally put the initiators of the ideas of the collapse at one time to the wall.
  11. Alex Kamyshovy Offline
    Alex Kamyshovy (Alex Kamyshovy) April 28 2020 18: 54
    -1
    • 1
    • 2
    The USSR was a huge prison. Remember (who lived then) at least how the borders looked - they were designed so that the people did not scatter. In the media - sheer lies and "The battle for the harvest." The logical task: what is the name of the central newspaper in the country of liars? I think you guessed right. Panic fear of a liar - God forbid, someone will tell or print the truth. Students who dared to study Marxism-Leninism independently (not under the supervision of ideological workers with the rank of teachers) were imprisoned. Before all the holidays in organizations, all typewriters were put in one room and sealed. In order to print a textbook on mathematics, it had to be endorsed in the Gray House, God forbid, there is some kind of superfluous truth there. In universities, many students were secret agents of the KGB. The so-called "curator" regularly visited there, collecting gossip from them on the topic of who said what. The shops have a modest selection of goods, and long lines are behind them. For sausage, meat and butter - to Moscow. Such a state should either change or disappear. Gorbachev tried to change it, but alas, it did not work out. In any case, he is one of the most prominent figures both in the history of Russia and in the history of the planet as a whole. I do not think that many will support me, but I'm not very upset about this either. It is known that only 5% of people try to think, and only 2% do it. Interestingly, about the same percentage of Russian residents vote for Yavlinsky. Perhaps a little more people would vote for Nemtsov.
  12. Accidentally Offline
    Accidentally April 29 2020 08: 03
    -3
    • 0
    • 3
    And what was the role of the USSR KGB in the collapse of the USSR - or rather, General F. Bobkov, and the chairman of the KGB of the USSR, Army General V. Kryuchkov, and other Judas ???? Something someone does not want to think, the vaunted shield and sword turned out to be completely rotten. And rotting is ongoing. And the FSB of the Russian Federation is the successor of the KGB of the USSR, has long been PMCs.
    1. Alex Kamyshovy Offline
      Alex Kamyshovy (Alex Kamyshovy) April 29 2020 08: 23
      -1
      • 0
      • 1
      And thank God!
  13. The USSR was ruined by the drunken harya of the President of Russia, the cane of Yeltsin. Well, who, excuse me, will cohabit with this?