Do we need a trial over those involved in the collapse of the USSR
The Soviet Union died 30 years ago. The "voluntary" collapse of one of the two superpowers became the greatest geopolitical catastrophe, the echoes of which in the form of armed conflicts in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Ukraine still make themselves felt. From time to time there are calls to judge those who bear personal responsibility for making a decision to liquidate the USSR, but they always remain motionless. Why is this happening, and do we need a judgment on these people?
On the occasion of the next anniversary of the formation of the State Emergency Committee, a film dedicated to those sad events was released on federal television. The current President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko was invited as an expert, who named the two main culprits, in his opinion:
Of course [are to blame for the collapse of the USSR] Yeltsin and Gorbachev. They wanted to streamline relations in the Soviet Union so that the country was destroyed.
The head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Gennady Zyuganov, immediately responded and suggested that both Mikhail Sergeevich be tried in person, and Boris Nikolayevich - posthumously. For many people of the older generation, such an idea evokes only positive emotions, but it should be recalled that a group of State Duma deputies from the parties "United Russia", the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia addressed a similar appeal to the Prosecutor General Chaika back in 2014. As you can see, to no avail. It is also known that the USSR Prosecutor General's Office opened a case against Gorbachev on November 4, 1991, but the next day the proceedings were terminated. Mikhail Sergeevich himself only laughs at such initiatives, calling them "thoughtless and hasty." Naturally, the first and last president of the USSR does not consider himself guilty of anything, as well as his "accomplices" like the ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk, who claims that "the Soviet Union buried itself."
Was there a crime?
It should be recalled that the only source of power and the bearer of sovereignty in our country, according to the "Yeltsin Constitution" of 1993, is its people. The Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR, therefore, as citizens of our country, we have every right to assess the events of 30 years ago. On March 17, 1991, an all-Union referendum took place, in which 77,85% voted for the preservation of the USSR. That is why not a single decision of any state body to liquidate the Soviet Union can be considered legitimate. And then there was the State Emergency Committee with its unsuccessful coup attempt and the "parade of sovereignties" in the union republics. On December 8, 1991, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, the presidents of the Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine signed agreements on the creation of the CIS, in the preamble to which it was said:
The USSR as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist.
Thus, we have every reason to say that the decisions of the heads of the three states aimed at the collapse of the USSR were illegitimate and were not supported by the absolute majority of the population.
Why is a court necessary?
Speaking strictly legally, we need not even a court, but a legal assessment of those events, which should determine whether the collapse of the Soviet Union was a deliberate crime. And if so, then let there be a trial, full-time or posthumous. Why is this needed? Yes, then, that we need to deal with our past in order to have a future.
At first, The Russian Federation needs a broad public discussion in order to determine what the collapse of the USSR is for the Soviet people: a great blessing that gave private ownership of the means of production, the opportunity to relax abroad and the right to advertise pizza, or a terrible crime that led to robbery and division of this very people against the warring camps, which now haunt us in Transcaucasia, Transnistria, Central Asia and Ukraine.
SecondlyOnce we have decided what it really was, and given a legal assessment of the events of 30 years ago, we will be able to start moving forward. One of the main problems of modern Russia is its lack of an understandable image of the future. Here we are proud of the feats of our grandfathers who took Berlin, and here we are shamefacedly draping the Mausoleum on which the Supreme Commander-in-Chief stood, and the state allocates budget money to shoot the anti-Soviet "cranberry". Let's do this: if, as a result of a broad public discussion, it is determined that the collapse of the USSR was a great blessing for all of us, then so be it. But if a large part of the country's population considers this a crime, which will be confirmed by the court, then if you please all systemic liberals from the government to leave, and leave “cultural workers” who shoot “great films” with state money on self-sufficiency, and this is at best. (This may be why the system is so opposed to the idea of litigation.)
Thirdly, the recognition of the collapse of the USSR as a criminal one opens up an opportunity to reconsider one's attitude towards the former Soviet republics. Yes, this is a "Pandora's box", but it is through the courts that the path to the possibility of restoring a superpower lies.
Finally, an investigation and an indictment judgment will be a good prevention for those who want to "repeat". Any "statesman" whose hands itch to hand over "Kuril volost" to someone or turn the Russian Federation into a confederation with its subsequent disintegration should know that for such acts he will not receive a contract to advertise pizza, but life in uranium mines. The trial, held even 30 years after the crime was committed, should show the principle of inevitability of responsibility and become a good lesson for everyone.
Information