Key dates and events: 1986 - the beginning of mass protests on national grounds; 1990 - elections of people's deputies of the union republics; 1991 - adoption of declarations on state sovereignty of the union republics, collapse of the USSR.

Historical figures: M. S. Gorbachev; B. N. Yeltsin; L. M. Kravchuk; S. S. Shushkevich; N. A. Nazarbayev.

Basic terms and concepts: federalism; the right of nations to self-determination.

Working with the map: show the borders of the USSR and union republics. Response Plan: 1) the origins of the revitalization of national self-awareness; 2) interethnic conflicts; 3) the formation of mass national movements; 4) elections of 1990 in the union republics; 5) development of a new union treaty; 6) August political crisis 1991 and its consequences for the union state; 7) collapse of the USSR: causes and consequences; 8) formation of the CIS.

Material for the answer: The democratization of public life could not but affect the sphere of interethnic relations. Problems that had been accumulating for years, which the authorities had long tried not to notice, manifested themselves in drastic forms as soon as there was a whiff of freedom. The first open mass demonstrations began as a sign of disagreement with the number of

national schools and the desire to expand the scope of the Russian language. Gorbachev's attempts to control national authorities caused even more active protests in a number of republics. In December 1986, in protest against the appointment of first secretary Central Committee Communist Party of Kazakhstan instead of D. A. Kunaev - Russian G. V. Kolbin, demonstrations of thousands took place in Alma-Ata, which turned into riots. The investigation into abuses of power that took place in Uzbekistan has caused widespread discontent in the republic. Demands for the restoration of autonomy were voiced even more actively than in previous years Crimean Tatars, Germans of the Volga region.

Transcaucasia became the zone of the most acute ethnic conflicts. In 1987, mass unrest began in Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan SSR) among Armenians, who made up the majority of the population of this autonomous region. They demanded the transfer of territory NKAO into the Armenian SSR. The promise of the allied authorities to “consider” the Karabakh issue was perceived as agreement with the demand of the Armenian side. This led to pogroms of Armenian families in Sumgait (Az SSR). It is characteristic that the party apparatus of both republics not only did not interfere with the interethnic conflict, but also actively participated in the creation of national movements. Gorbachev gave the order to send troops into Sumgayit and declare a curfew. The USSR did not yet know such measures.

Against the backdrop of the Karabakh conflict and the impotence of the union authorities, popular fronts were created in Latvia in May 1988. Lithuania, Estonia. If at first they spoke “in support of perestroika,” then after a few months they declared secession from the USSR as their ultimate goal. The most widespread and radical of these organizations was Sąjūdis (Lithuania). Soon the supreme councils of the Baltic republics decided to proclaim national languages state and depriving the Russian language of this status. The demand for the introduction of the native language in state and educational institutions was voiced in Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova.

In Transcaucasus~ tensions between national relations not only between the republics, but also within them (between Georgians and Abkhazians, Georgians and Ossetians, etc.). In the Central Asian republics, for the first time in many years, there was a threat of penetration of Islamic fundamentalism. In Yakutia, Tataria, and Bashkiria, movements were gaining strength that demanded that these autonomous republics be given union rights. The leaders of national movements, trying to secure mass support for themselves, placed special emphasis on the fact that their republics and peoples “feed Russia.”

this” And the Union Center. As the economic crisis deepened, this instilled in people's minds the idea that their prosperity could only be ensured by secession from the USSR. an exceptional opportunity was created for the party leadership of the republics to secure a quick career and prosperity. · “Gorbachev’s team” was not ready to offer ways out of the “national impasse” and therefore constantly hesitated and was late in making decisions. The situation gradually began to get out of control.

The situation became even more complicated after elections were held in the Union republics in early 1990 on the basis of a new electoral law. Leaders of national movements won almost everywhere. The party leadership of the republics chose to support them, hoping to remain in power. The “parade of sovereignties” began: on March 9, the declaration of sovereignty was adopted by the Supreme Council of Georgia, on March 11 - by Lithuania, on March 30 by Estonia, on May 4 - by Latvia, on June 12 - by the RSFSR, on June 20 - by Uzbekistan, on June 23 - by Moldova, on July 16 - by Ukraine, July 27 - Belarus. Gorbachev's reaction was initially harsh. For example, economic sanctions were adopted against Lithuania. However, with the help of the West, Lithuania managed to survive. In the conditions of discord between the center and the republics, the leaders tried to act as arbiters Western countries- ClllA, Germany, France. All this forced Gorbachev to announce, with great delay, the beginning of the development of a new union treaty.

This work began in the summer of 1990. Against the revision of the fundamentals Union Treaty 1922, the majority of members of the Politburo and the leadership of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR spoke. Gorbachev began to fight against them with the help of B. N. Yeltsin, who was elected Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, and the leaders of other union republics. The main idea embedded in the draft document was the idea of ​​broad rights for the union republics, primarily in the economic sphere (and later - their economic sovereignty). However, it soon became clear that Gorbachev was not ready to do this. Since the end of 1990, the union republics, which previously had great independence, entered into a series of bilateral agreements in the field of economics.

Meanwhile, the situation in Lithuania became sharply more complicated, where the Supreme Council, one after another, adopted laws that in practice formalized the sovereignty of the republic. In January 1991, Gorbachev in an emphatic manner demanded that the Supreme Council of Lithuania restore the full validity of the USSR Constitution, and after the refusal, he introduced additional military formations into the republic. This caused clashes between the army and the population.

nium in Vilnius, which resulted in the death of 14 people. These events caused a violent outcry throughout the country, once again compromising the Union center.

March 17, 1991 was A referendum was held on the fate of the USSR. 76% of the population of the huge country spoke in favor of maintaining a single state. In the summer of 1991, the first presidential elections in Russian history took place. During the election campaign, the leading candidate from the “democrats,” Yeltsin, actively played the “national card,” inviting Russia’s regional leaders to take as much sovereignty as they “could eat.” This largely ensured his victory in the elections. Gorbachev's position weakened even more. Growing economic difficulties required speeding up the development of a new union treaty. The Union leadership was now primarily interested in this. In the summer, Gorbachev agreed to all the conditions and demands presented by the Union republics. According to the draft of the new treaty, the USSR was supposed to turn into a Union of Sovereign States, which would include both former union and autonomous republics on equal terms. In terms of the form of unification, it was more like a confederation. It was also assumed that new union authorities would be formed. The signing of the agreement was scheduled for August 20, 1991.

Some of the top leaders of the USSR perceived the preparations for signing a new union treaty as a threat to the existence of a single state and tried to prevent it. In the absence of Gorbachev in Moscow, on the night of August 19, a State Committee State of Emergency (GKChP), headed by Vice President G.I. Yanaev. The State Emergency Committee introduced a state of emergency in certain areas of the country; declared the government structures that acted contrary to the 1977 Constitution disbanded; suspended the activities of opposition parties; banned rallies and demonstrations; established control over funds mass media; sent troops to Moscow. On the morning of August 19, the leadership of the RSFSR issued an appeal to the citizens of the republic, in which it regarded the actions of the State Emergency Committee as a coup d'état and declared them illegal. At the call of the Russian President, tens of thousands of Muscovites took up defensive positions around the Supreme Soviet building to prevent troops from storming it. On August 21, a session of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR began, supporting the leadership of the republic. On the same day, USSR President Gorbachev returned from Crimea to Moscow, and members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested.

Trying members State Emergency Committee to prevent the collapse of the USSR led to the opposite result. 21 aBrysta Latvia ff Estonia declared their independence, 24 aBrysta - Ukraine, 25 aBrysta - Belarus, 27 aBrysta - Moscow, 30 aBrycta - Azerbaijan, 31 aBrysta - Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, 9 September - Tajikistan, 23 September - Armenia, October 27 - Turkmenistan. The central authority was compromised. Now we could only talk about creating a confederation. On September 5, the V Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR actually announced self-dissolution and the transfer of power to the State Council of the USSR, composed of the leaders of the republics. Gorbachev, as the head of a single state, turned out to be superfluous. On September 6, the USSR State Council recognized the independence of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. This was the beginning of the real collapse of the USSR. On December 8, President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Chairman of the Supreme Council of Ukraine L.M. Kravchuk and Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus S.S. Shushkevich gathered in Belovezhskaya Pushcha (Belarus). They announced the denunciation of the Union Treaty of 1922 and the end of the existence of the USSR. Instead, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was created, which initially united 11 former Soviet republics (excluding the Baltic states and Georgia). On December 27, M. S. Gorbachev announced his resignation. The USSR ceased to exist.

Thus, in conditions of an acute crisis in the union power structures, the initiative in political reform of the country passed to the republics. The events of August 1991 finally showed the impossibility of the existence of a single union state.

Article. "Interethnic relations in modern Russia: reflections on"

Completed by: 2nd year student of State Budgetary Educational Institution “Balakhna Technical College”

Borisova Nadezhda

Head: teacher of history and social studies GBPOU "BTT"

Odintsova Galina Nikolaevna

What is the national question?..

To paraphrase the classic, this is “the most painful, most burning issue of our time.” And this, reality, is a given of the modern multinational world (after all, the majority modern states multinational in composition). And at the heart of, if not all, then most of the tragic events of today’s world are relations between nations and, as a rule, different national confessions. After all, national and religious backgrounds often overlap. And that is why the Middle East and some regions of Africa are still bleeding, modern Ukraine appears so terrible in its incomprehensibility and unpredictability, and huge migration flows of refugees to Europe...

For Russia, the national issue has always been relevant. Russia was originally and always multinational, always: Kievan Rus, Russia, Russian Empire, USSR, Russian Federation.

And who else but us understands how fragile an issue that has a national overtones is!

At the end of the 20th century, we lost a country that, for all its greatness and seemingly power, was unable to maintain unity and ceased to exist. And this is an absolute tragedy - our memory of past friendship, unity and, at the same time, a reminder of how important it is to value national interests, national traditions, national principles...

I believe that the loss of the USSR is the greatest tragedy of all times, of all countries and peoples.

What about modern Russia? Is everything safe in it now?

Russia is still multinational. Thank God it is! We were able to maintain the unity of Russia despite all the difficulties that we had to go through.

But is everything going well in the relations between us, representatives of different nations and nationalities, small and large? Do we always understand each other, are we always ready to meet each other halfway?

When I think about this question, I see in front of me the body of a little Tajik girl killed by skinheads in Moscow; a young Spartak fan who died at the hands of “Caucasians” due to “differences in culture”;

the wild massacre carried out in the synagogue; mass fights on ethnic grounds in Moscow, Nalchik, Kondopoga, Arzamas... I see in front of me some carriers of “Caucasian nationality” running wild and presumptuous, often in their impunity, ready to easily start a showdown at the slightest provocation, grab a weapon, arrange “wedding shooters” “... At the same time, I hear calls “Russia for Russians”, “Russia is not the Caucasus”...

All this, of course, is clear evidence serious problems in interethnic relations in Russia and the lack of necessary tolerance and understanding. Understanding the reasons is a thankless task and, probably, in no way leading to unity. This means that it is more important to answer not the question “Who is to blame?”, but “What to do?”

What to do to stop all these “hate crimes”, to uproot the thistles of hostility.

Probably, the solution to these problems, first of all, depends on the thoughtfulness and reasonableness of the state national policy, on the activity and effectiveness of Russian civil society, and tolerance towards the “others” of each of us.

And, when for the second year on May 9th I see how the “Immortal Regiment” is marching along the streets of our big and small cities, where we are all together, I believe that everything is possible!!!

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday

Tsai Vladimir Ilyich. Historical experience of interethnic relations in the USSR, Russian Federation (1953-2003): Dis. ... Dr. Ist. Sciences: 07.00.02: Moscow, 2004 352 p. RSL OD, 71:05-7/59

Introduction

Section I. HISTORICAL PREREQUISITES FOR THE FORMATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN PRE-LUCTION RUSSIA AND THE USSR 18

Section II. THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF PERSONNEL POTENTIAL IN DECISIONING NATIONAL POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 61

Section III. NATIONAL-CULTURAL POLICY OF THE PARTY AND THE STATE IN RELATION TO THE PEOPLES OF THE USSR AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 115

Section IV. FEATURES OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS ON THE TERRITORY OF THE USSR AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 167

Section V. STATE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE USSR 263

CONCLUSION 313

NOTES 326

LIST OF SOURCES AND REFERENCES USED 342

Introduction to the work

Relevance research topics. Problems associated with the management and functioning of the state in ethnically divided societies are the subject of special attention of modern scientists and politicians. Therefore, the issues of improving international relations, creating a culture of communication, establishing the values ​​of internationalism and friendship of peoples were relevant in all multinational states.

These questions have been and remain the most pressing for Russian society. The Russian Federation, as the successor to the USSR, is known to be one of the world's largest multinational states, home to more than 150 nations and nationalities. Each of them has its own specifics - in number, socio-professional structure, type of economic and cultural activity, language, features of material and spiritual culture. The boundaries of the settlement of peoples, as a rule, do not coincide with the boundaries of republics, territories, regions and districts. The number and nature of their settlement in various regions of the Russian Federation is particularly affected by the intensity of migration processes. The overwhelming majority of ethnic communities have evolved over centuries and in this sense are indigenous. Hence their historical role in the formation Russian statehood and claims to independent national-territorial or, at least, national-cultural entities.

Dramatic collisions of decay Soviet Union and the aggravation of interethnic relations in almost the entire post-Soviet space dictate the need to study and rethink

experience of national political processes. This is due, first of all, to the fact that in modern conditions the problem of preserving the unity of the Russian Federation is one of the most important and pressing. The experience of the recent Soviet past teaches that underestimating the role of the ethnic factor and errors in assessing its real role lead to the accumulation of its enormous conflict potential, which can serve as a threat to the integrity of a multinational state. The recent collapse of the USSR also shows how important it is to build national policies and interethnic relations on a scientific basis.

Therefore, according to the doctoral student, the urgent problem of modern Russia is the problem of preserving the political, economic, cultural and historical unity of Russian society, the integrity of the territory, and the revival on this basis of truly strong, mutually beneficial, extremely necessary interethnic relations.

Therefore, without a thorough study of the rich Soviet experience of national movements and drawing those historical lessons, an objective picture of modern national relations in Russia is impossible. All this emphasizes the need to study the causes and main stages of national politics and interethnic relations. This is necessary for the formation of a national policy in the country that would lead to a more complete development of the peoples inhabiting Russian Federation.

A study of the problems of interethnic relations in the USSR and the Russian Federation, in particular, shows that their analysis in relation to different stages historical development society

is marked both by its characteristics arising from specific goals and objectives, and by the forms of their resolution.

In this regard, it must be admitted that during the years of socialist construction, interest in the problems of interethnic relations increased noticeably. This became especially noticeable in the 60-70s. Much attention was paid to covering the activities of the party and the state in implementing interethnic policies, i.e. practical side this problem. It is to this period that the appearance of generalizing monographs in the field of national politics and interethnic relations dates back to 1.

Naturally, in these works the specifics of national policy and
interethnic relations in the USSR, the role of the national program
CPSU in the conditions of building a socialist society

were considered exclusively on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist methodology of approaching the problem as an integral part general issue about social revolution.

Degree of scientific study of the problem shows that the problem of national policy and interethnic relations in the years under review, due to the specifics of the study, began to be studied by domestic historical science relatively recently, and therefore the specific historical picture of the formation of national policy and interethnic relations remains far from complete and unevenly studied. The conceptual basis of all Soviet historiography

Gardanov V.K., Dolgikh B. O., Zhdanko T.A. The main directions of ethnic processes among the peoples of the USSR.// Sov. Ethnography. 1961.No.4; Groshev I.I. Historical experience of the CPSU in the implementation of Leninist national policy. -M., 1967; Brus SI. Ethnodemographic processes in the USSR (based on the 1970 census materials) // Sov. Ethnography. 1971.No.4; Sherstobitov V.P. Education of the USSR and historical objects of our country // History of the USSR.1971.No.3; Kulichenko M.I. National relations in the USSR and trends in their development; Malanchuk V.E. Historical experience of the CPSU in resolving the national question and developing national relations in the USSR.-M., 1972, etc.

national policy and interethnic relations constituted theses about the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR and the beginning of the transition from socialism to communism. In the 1960s, the previously existing ideological framework of scientific work on national issues was supplemented by the concept of developed socialism, the main emphasis of which was placed on the ideas of achieving social and national homogeneity of society.

State leaders of the USSR declared “monolithic unity” Soviet people, that the national question in the USSR was “successfully resolved.” Hence all the literature of this time is in rainbow colors. painted a cloudless picture of national and interethnic relations in the USSR. Secondly, an analysis of the historiography of this period shows that “in the USSR, on the one hand, there is a flourishing of all nations, on the other hand, their rapprochement,” which was first voiced at the XXII Congress of the CPSU in the report “On the Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.” They tried not to notice the inconsistency and multidirectionality of these statements.

A number of works by Soviet scientists of this period were aimed at considering the main directions of criticism of the bourgeois “falsifications” of the development of national and interethnic relations in the USSR. The authors of these works, although they pointed out the persistence of remnants of chauvinism and nationalism in the Soviet Union, at the same time explained this by backward cultural and religious traditions, the weakness of atheistic and international education, as well as anti-Soviet propaganda.

"Groshev I.I., Chechenkina O.I. Criticism of bourgeois falsifications of the national policy of the CPSU. - M, 1974; Bagramov E.A. The national question in the struggle of ideas. - M., 1982; Bourgeois historiography of the formation and development of the USSR. - M., 1983; Criticism of falsifications of national relations in the USSR - M., 1983, etc.

A number of studies in the 60-70s were devoted to the general achievements of national policy in the USSR. Despite the fact that the name of such a theorist of national relations as Stalin, scientific works not mentioned. The literature rehabilitated the Stalinist model of building socialism in previously backward national republics; 3 covered ethnic processes in the USSR - internationalization, assimilation, the emergence and formation of a new historical community “Soviet people”; 4, thoughts were expressed about the dialectic of national and international in the development of Soviet society in the process of rapprochement and integration of the peoples of the USSR. 5 At the same time, firstly,

"Sherstobitov V.P. Education of the USSR and historical subjects of the peoples of our country // History of the USSR. 1972. No. 3. Kukushkin Y.S. Problems of studying the history of creation // History of the USSR. 1972. No. 6.; Gardanov V.K., Dolgikh B. .O., Zhdanko T.A. Main directions of ethnic processes among the peoples of the USSR // Sov. ethnography. ] 961 No. 4, Brook S I (based on the 1970 census). . No. 4.; Groshev I.I. Historical experience of the CPSU in the implementation of Lenin’s national policy. - M., Kulichenko M. I. Malanchuk V.E. and the development of national relations in the USSR - M., 1972.

4 The Soviet people are a new historical community of people. - Proceedings of the interuniversity scientific concept (October 15-19, 1969). - Volgograd, 1969; Kaltakhchyan SR. Leninism is about the essence of the nation and the path to the formation of an international community of people. M., 1976; Kim M P The Soviet people are a new historical community of people. - M, 1972. "Abd>latipov R.G., Burmistrov T.Yu. Lenin's policy of internationalism in the USSR: history and modernity - M., 1982; Bagramov E.A. Lenin's national policy of achievements and prospects. - M., 1977; Burmistrov T.Yu. Patterns and features of the development of socialist nations in the conditions of the construction of communism.

L. 1974, Dialectics of the international and national in a socialist society, - M, 1981; Drobizheva L.M. The spiritual community of the peoples of the USSR: a historical and sociological essay on interethnic relations. - M, 1981; Kaltakhchyan SR. Marxist-Leninist theory of the nation and modernity. - M., 1983; Kulichenko M.I. National relations in the USSR and trends in their development. - M., 1972; His own. The flourishing and rapprochement of socialist nations in the USSR. - M, 1981; Metelitsa L.V. The flourishing and rapprochement of socialist nations. - M, 1978; National relations in a developed socialist society. - M., 1977; Likholat A.V., Patijulaska V.F. In a single family of nations. - M, 19789; Rosenko M.N. Patriotism and national pride of the Soviet people. -L., 1977; Sulzhenko V.K. Internationalism at the stage of developed socialism - the implementation of the Leninist national policy of the CPSU in Ukraine - Lvov, 1981; Tzameryan I.P. Nations and national relations in a developed socialist society. - M., 1979, etc.

the objective nature of the formation and development of a “new interethnic community” - the “Soviet people” was emphasized on the basis of a common economic space and the Russian language as the language of all-Union communication, 6 secondly, the dialectic of national and international in the development of Soviet society was often considered through the prism of the formula “interpenetration and the mutual enrichment of the two tendencies of socialism in the development of nations and national relations - the flourishing and rapprochement of nations.” Obviously, such a limitation of this problem did not reveal in its entirety and complexity the dynamics of the development of this most important task of society. Some researchers have consistently emphasized that history does not provide us with convincing material for concluding that nations are dying out. The problem of dialectical contradictions in the national sphere of the USSR was not only not considered by many authors, but even the term “contradiction” itself was not even mentioned in many publications. 7

Works on national politics in the USSR published in the 70s and 80s acquire a new quality. In a number of these works, national

6 Kulichenko M.I. National relations in the USSR and trends in their development. - M., 1972; Kim M.P. The relationship between the national and the international in the life of peoples: its typology. // Fraternal unity of the peoples of the USSR. - M., 1976; Drobizheva L.M. Spiritual community of the peoples of the USSR (Historical and sociological essay on interethnic relations). - M., 1981; Development of national relations in the USSR.-M., 1986, etc.

B>rmistrova T.Yu. National politics CPSU in conditions of mature socialism. - In the book: National Policy of the CPSU. -M., 1981; Burmistrova T.Yu., Dmitriev O.L. United by friendship: the culture of interethnic communication in the USSR. - M., 1986, etc.

Modern ethnic processes in the USSR. M. 1977; The main directions of studying national relations in the USSR. - M., 1979; Social policy and national relations (based on the materials of the all-Union scientific and practical conference “Development of national relations in the conditions of mature socialism.” - M., 1982; “Experience and problems of patriotic and international education.” - Riga, July 28-30, 1982; Problems of perestroika: social aspect. - M., 1984; Semenov V.S., Jordan M.V., Babakov V.G., Samsonov V.A. Interethnic contradictions and conflicts in the USSR. - M., 1991; Kukushkin B.S., Barsenov A.K. On the issue of the concept of national policy of the Russian Federation. - Ethnopolis. // Ethnopolitical Bulletin of Russia. -

relations and national politics are considered in a generalized form, attempts are made to highlight key points in them in order to get closer to understanding the origins and causes of the collapse of the USSR and modern national problems of Russia and do not affect the problems we are studying.

In the 90s, researchers were faced with the task of rethinking all the accumulated experience in the field of interethnic relations. During these years, many works were published on this issue, 9 which covered the problems of interethnic relations between the peoples of Russia, the war in Chechnya, the problems of the Russian-speaking population who, through no fault of their own, found themselves abroad as small peoples in newly formed national states in the near abroad.

In general, it should be noted that these works raise the question of the relationship between national and international factors; the question of the general culture of our thinking in

M, 1992, No. 1.; Will Russia share the fate of the USSR? The crisis of interethnic relations and federal policy - M, 1993; Mikhalin V.A. National policy as a factor in state building. - M, 1995; Kalinina K.V. National minorities in Russia - M., 1993; Bugai N.F., Mekulov D. X. People power “Socialist experiment”, Maykop, 1994, etc.

Yu Boroday. From ethnic diversity to national unity // Russia on a new frontier. -M., - 1991; A.I. Vdovin. Features of ethnopolitical relations and the formation of a new statehood in Russia (historical and conceptual aspects) - M., - 1993; M.N. G>boglo. Protection and self-defense of nationalities // Ethnopolitical Bulletin. -M., - 1995. -No. 4; A.I. Doronchenkov. Interethnic relations and national politics in Russia: current problems. -M., -1995; L M Drobizheva. Nationalism, ethnic identity and conflicts in a transforming society: main approaches to the study // National consciousness and nationalism in the Russian Federation in the early 1990s. -M., -1994; A.G. Zdravomyslov. Diversity of interests and institutions of power. -M., -1994; V.Yu. Zorin. National policy- legal basis// National politics of Russia: history and modernity. - M., -1997; K.V. Kalinina. Institutions of state power are regulators of interethnic relations. - M., -1995; L. M. Karapetyan. Borders of sovereignty and self-determination of peoples // State and law. - 1993 - No. 1; N I Medvedev National policy of Russia. From unitarianism to federalism. -M„ -1993. Interethnic relations in the regions of the Russian Federation. -M., -1992; Interethnic relations in the Russian Federation//Annual report of the IEARAN. -M., -1998; V.I.Tsai. Interethnic relations in the USSR and the Russian Federation. -M., - 2004 and DR-

national issue, without which it would be difficult to count on making a real contribution to solving the problems of national and interethnic relations, taking into account the pressing problems here. In this regard, the book “National Policy of Russia. History and modernity" (Kuleshov S., Amanzholova D.A., Volobuev O.V., Mikhailov V.A.), which represents the first study in domestic national policy at all its stages and in the interrelation

theoretical designs with practical implementation.

Many issues of the ethnological situation in the USSR and in its individual regions are reflected in the collection of articles “National Processes in the USSR”, written by scientists from the N.N. Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology. Miklouho-Maclay and the Center for the Study of Interethnic Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Attracting attention are the articles by V. Muntyan, V. Tishkov, S. Cheshko, in which one can see new level understanding the most characteristic tasks in the development of national relations, their typological groups are identified, and M. Gorbachev’s policy during the years of perestroika is illuminated through the prism of critical analysis. 11

The monograph by scientists F. Gorovsky and Yu. Rymanenko, published in 1991, deserves special attention. Of main interest to us is chapter two, “Results of the path traveled: successes and deformations.” The authors, without detracting from what has been done in the interethnic sphere, noting how the level of socio-economic development, education, culture of the union and autonomous republics has risen during the years of Soviet power, emphasizing that deep, progressive changes have occurred in the life of every nation and nationality,

National policy of Russia. History and modernity. - M., 1997. 1 National processes in the USSR: collection of articles. - M., 1991.

Gorovsky F.Ya., Rymanenko Yu.I. The national question and socialist practice: experience of historical and theoretical analysis. - Kyiv: Vishcha School, 1991. - 225 p.

paid considerable attention to the analysis of problems, errors, miscalculations in
national policy. The source base of the monograph consists of
various publications, archival sources were not used.
Let us next turn to works written and published after
Belovezhsky meeting. The monograph is of significant interest
^ historian-researchers A.I. Zalessky and P.N. Kobrinets, in which

Along with great achievements in economic and cultural construction, errors and miscalculations are analyzed, especially in the field of language construction. The authors deeply and convincingly expose modern falsifiers of the history of national relations in the USSR.

Based on the above, and also from the fact that interethnic
the problem is one of the most complex and acute problems of any state,
4fc requires a special approach and daily attention, in

The dissertation aims to reveal the most pressing tasks of national policy and interethnic relations, their effectiveness, problems and contradictions in 1953-2003.

In connection with this goal, as well as relying on accumulated research experience, widely drawing on the results of existing publications in the field of interethnic relations, new documentary and archival materials, the author decides the following tasks:

reveal historical background formation
interethnic relations in pre-revolutionary Russia and the USSR;

explore the role and significance of human resources in solving
f|i national and interethnic relations;

Zalessky A.I., Kobrinets P.N. On national relations in Soviet Belarus: historical essays. - Grodno: State University, 1992. - 192 p.

analyze the national-cultural policy of the party and the state in the system of interethnic relations between the peoples of the USSR and the Russian Federation;

show the features of interethnic conflicts on the territory of the USSR, the Russian Federation,

summarize the state of interethnic relations in the Russian Federation after the collapse USSR.

Subject of research are national politics and interethnic relations in the Soviet, Russian societies in 1953-2003.

Defining chronological framework research (1953-2003), the author proceeded from the fact that in these years, along with the painful manifestations of the echoes of unjustified repression of national personnel, especially leaders and intelligentsia in the 30s - early 50s, a renewal process was actively underway, affecting after the death of I. Stalin, all spheres of public life, including national state policy. The atmosphere of democratization created by the 20th Congress of the CPSU gave a powerful impetus to social progress and inspired the country. Flow scientific discoveries carried out exactly soviet man, the first to pave the way into space. The standard of living, education and culture of the masses grew. In national literatures there is a fireworks display of bright poetic names. Along with this, the moral and political unity of the nations and nationalities of the country strengthened.

In subsequent years, the active development of nations continued, the processes of democratization of the most important sphere of life of the Soviet state - national personnel policy - deepened, and the training of specialists in economics, science, culture, management, and military affairs from representatives of all nations and nationalities was widely deployed

USSR, high level national culture and art have achieved, much has been done to develop national languages, national literature, national traditions, etc.

At the same time, the national factor was sometimes underestimated; it was not always taken into account that national relations retain their specificity and relative independence and develop according to their own special laws. The scope of use of the national languages ​​of some republics of the USSR has narrowed. During the reforms of the second half of the 80s, existing contradictions in the national sphere still remained.

The 90s of the last century, which laid the foundation for the formation of the Russian state. During these years, the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted (December 12, 1993), agreements “On the delimitation of jurisdiction and mutual delegation of powers between state authorities of the Russian Federation and state authorities of the subject” were signed, the strengthening of the vertical of power began, etc.

At the same time, during this period, the concept of national policy was adopted, as well as federal laws affecting the solution of interethnic issues and national statehood: on national and cultural autonomy of May 22, 1996; on guarantees of the rights of indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation dated April 16, 1999; on the general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation dated September 22, 1999, etc. At the regional level, a lot of work is also being done to improve national policy and interethnic relations. It has become especially active in the 21st century.

The source base of the dissertation consisted of published and unpublished materials. The published materials are mainly the service records and nationality of members of the leaders of party and government bodies, the army, public organizations, etc. Periodicals were used to cover almost all the problems studied in the dissertation.

The dissertation also uses unpublished documents identified by the author in the archives of the city. Moscow, Minsk, Kyiv. In particular, empirical material was obtained in the following state archives: 1) state archive of the Russian Federation. - F. 5508; 2) Russian State Historical Archive. - F. 776; 3)Storage center for special documentation. - F. 5, 89; 4) Central State Archive of the Republic of Belarus. - F. 1; 5) National Archives of the Republic of Belarus. - F. 4, 74, 974; 6) Archive of the information center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus. - F. 23; 7) Archive of the Main Information Bureau of Ukraine. - F. 4; 8) Central State Archives of Government and Administration of Ukraine. - F. 288.

Valuable materials reflecting the implementation of national policy are concentrated in the funds of the Union and republican ministries and departments, in particular, the State Planning Committees of the Central Statistical Office, Culture, Education and others. Various aspects of the problem under consideration are covered in certificates, information, and reports sent by ministries and departments of the republics to party and higher government bodies. Office memos (for internal hardware, official use) heads of departments of party committees various levels and Administrations of the Councils of Ministers of the Union Republics,

addressed to the secretariats of regional committees, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the union republics, the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Councils of Ministers of the republics of the USSR on various issues of economic, cultural and national construction.

Materials from party and state statistics and periodicals were of great importance for writing the work. The study also used articles, speeches, speeches by leaders of the USSR, RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Belarusian SSR and other regions of the country, as well as the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc.

When assessing the entire array of sources, it should be noted that they do not always provide an adequate picture of the problem under study. Because of this, the necessary verification (re-verification) of them was carried out in order to confirm the stated facts. In addition, many questions in the sources are focused only on positive data and are interpreted one-sidedly, sometimes schematically. This state of the sources was taken into account, and their data was critically interpreted during the study.

At the same time, the analysis of historical sources, published documents and archival materials made it possible to consider the problem objectively, over the course of almost forty years, a very controversial and dramatic period, to reveal those problems and issues that were not previously the subject of special study. The author believes that this study will help to better understand and comprehend many pages of recent history in the field of national politics and interethnic relations.

Scientific novelty of the research is as follows: 1. First of all, a wide range of documents and materials have been identified that make it possible to reveal the content of national policy and interethnic

relations in the period we are studying, many of the documents are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time; 2. The prerequisites and reasons for the aggravation of contradictions are revealed, the role and place of government authorities in resolving existing conflicts and mitigating tensions in interethnic relations is shown; 3. Based on the collected and generalized, previously unstudied documentary material, new historical material on the problems of national politics and interethnic relations of the Soviet society of the Russian Federation, in the years 1953-2003, is harmoniously introduced into the fabric of the study; 4. The mechanism of collusion in the signing of the Belovezhskaya agreements on the collapse of the USSR is studied, a complex of negative circumstances of both internal and external order is shown, which, according to the author, played a significant role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, which caused dire consequences in the sphere of national, economic and other areas development of the former republics of the USSR; 5. A formation mechanism has been proposed new concept national policy and interethnic relations in the regions of Russia, taking into account the current state of the Russian Federation.

Practical significance of the study lies, first of all, in the fact that its provisions and conclusions, as well as the documentary material on national politics and interethnic relations introduced into scientific circulation for the first time, can be used by specialists in solving problems related to national and interethnic processes, as well as scientists and university teachers , school teachers in the preparation of general works on national issues and special courses on the history of Russia, diploma and coursework students of history departments of universities, etc.

Approbation of work. The main content of the study is reflected in the monograph, textbooks, articles, in collections of scientific works,

The structure of the work is determined by the objectives of the study. It consists of an introduction, five sections, a conclusion, a list of sources and literature.

historical background for the formation of interethnic relations in pre-revolutionary Russia and the USSR

Exploring the problem, we note that already by the beginning of the 19th century. Russia was a huge continental country that occupied a vast area of ​​Eastern Europe, Northern Asia and part of North America (Alaska and the Aleutian Islands). For the first half of XIX century, its territory increased from 16 to 18 million square meters. km due to the annexation of Finland, the Kingdom of Poland, Bessarabia, the Caucasus, Transcaucasia and Kazakhstan. According to the first revision (1719), there were 15.6 million people of both sexes in Russia, according to the fifth (1795) - 7.4 million, and according to the tenth (1857) - 59.3 million (excluding Finland and the kingdom Polish). Natural population growth in the first half of the 19th century. was about 1% per year, and the average life expectancy was 27.3 years,1 which was generally typical, as foreign demographic calculations show, for the “countries of pre-industrial Europe.” Low performance life expectancy was determined by high infant mortality and periodic epidemics.

Besides this, there were other reasons for these disasters. In particular, more than 9/10 of the Russian population lived in rural areas. According to the 1811 census, urban population numbered 2,765 thousand people, and according to the 1863 census - already 6,105 thousand, that is, over half a century it increased 2.2 times. However, its share in relation to the entire population increased slightly during this time - only from 6.5 to 8%. The number of cities themselves increased over half a century from 630 to 1032. However, small cities predominated among them: at the beginning of the 19th century. out of 630 cities, 500 had less than 5 thousand each and only 19-over 20 thousand inhabitants. This ratio between small and major cities practically remained until the beginning of the 60s of the 19th century. The largest cities were both “capitals” - St. Petersburg and Moscow. The population of St. Petersburg in the first half of the 19th century. increased from 336 to 540 thousand, and Moscow - from 275 to 462 thousand people.3 Many cities were actually large villages, whose residents were engaged in agriculture on the lands allocated to the cities, partly in trade and small crafts. At this time, the official division of settlements into cities and villages was carried out according to administrative basis. Therefore, there were many large commercial and industrial settlements, which, due to the nature of the inhabitants’ occupations and even according to appearance were real cities (such as, for example, the large factory village of Ivanovo, which surpassed even the provincial city of Vladimir in the number of inhabitants). Such industrial villages were Pavlovo, Kimry, Gorodets, Vichuga, Mstera. However, they continued to remain in the status of villages, for most of them belonged to large landowners-magnates - the Sheremetevs, Panins, Golitsyns, Yusupovs, Vorontsovs. The right of landowners to own such villages slowed down the process of city formation. Thus, the village of Ivanovo received city status only in 1871, when it was finally freed from all its obligations towards its former owner, Count Sheremetev.

Administratively European part Russia was divided into 47 provinces and 5 regions (Astrakhan, Tauride, Caucasus, the land of the Don Army and the land of the Black Sea Army). Subsequently, the number of provinces increased due to the division of some of them and the annexation of new territories. The Astrakhan and Tauride regions received the status of provinces. According to the administrative division of 1822, Siberia was divided into Tobolsk, Tomsk, Omsk, Irkutsk, Yenisei provinces and the Yakutsk region. In the 50s of the XIX century. Kamchatka, Transbaikal, Primorsk and Amur regions were also formed.5

The role and importance of human resources in solving national politics and interethnic relations

The study of this problem showed that in its positive solution only important plays a role in personnel potential, that is, those workers who are directly involved in the development and stabilization of national and interethnic relations.

In this regard, a priority role belongs to the selection of management personnel based on business qualities, and not on national characteristics, which in any state was and is considered a special definition of its high morality. In the republics, territories and regions of the former USSR they tried to adhere to the principle of selecting and appointing leading personnel in all areas national economy, party, Soviet and other public bodies, taking into account a healthy combination of their nationalities. This process was controlled by both party and Soviet authorities.

In the process of working on this problem, we examined in detail several of the largest republics of the former USSR within the framework of our period - 1953-2003. So, for example, in Central Committee Among the heads of departments of the Communist Party of Belarus, in addition to Belarusians and Russians, Ukrainians also worked in some periods. Thus, on January 1, 1960, there were 4 Belarusians (50 percent), 3 Russians (37.5 percent), and 1 Ukrainians (12.5 percent).1 The proportion of Belarusians in this job group tended to increase. On January 1, 1975, there were 8 Belarusians (61.5%), Russians 5 (38.5%). Belarusians were in charge of the departments of science and educational institutions, culture, heavy industry and transport, chemical and light industry, construction and municipal services, food industry, administrative bodies, and organizational and party work. Russians - departments of propaganda and agitation, foreign relations, agriculture, trade and consumer services, general.2 As of January 1, 1985, Belarusians were in charge of 10 departments (62.5%), Russians 6 (37.5%).3

Among the secretaries of the regional party committees of Ukraine (as of January 1, 1960 - 114 people, as of January 1, 1985 - 126 people), in addition to Ukrainians and Russians, statistics recorded Belarusians (as of January 1 of the corresponding year: 1980 - 1; 1985 . - 2).4 In the 60s, among the secretaries of the regional party committees of Ukraine, there were from 78 to 82 percent Ukrainians, in the 70s - from 82 to 85 (and on January 1, 1975 - 87 percent). On January 1, 1985, this figure had dropped to 78.5 percent. But the share of secretaries of regional committees of the titular nation was significantly higher than its share in the Communist Party of Ukraine.5 The share of first secretaries of regional committees - Ukrainians during the period under study was even higher than secretaries in general. It did not fall below 84 percent, and on January 1, 1970 there were 88 percent, on January 1, 1980 - 92 percent.6 Thus, the proportion of first secretaries of regional party committees - Ukrainians was 20 percent, in some periods 26 percent higher the share of Ukrainians in the Communist Party of Ukraine. This is important to note, since it was these 21-23 people who ruled the republic. Among the secretaries, including the first ones, of the regional committees of the Communist Party of Ukraine, as we see, only the Slavic superethnos was represented.

National-cultural policy of the party and state in relation to the peoples of the USSR and the Russian Federation

When studying this problem, first of all, it should be noted that in the conditions of economic and cultural development of nations, there is a certain inequality in the system of international relations. When developing an economic strategy, it is important to take into account natural features and production infrastructure. For example, the Republic of Belarus lags behind its neighbors in economic development several times, but its natural conditions are favorable for the light and food industries, forestry and wood processing industries, tourism, etc. The disproportion in the development of infrastructure in the republics, the violation of the principles of social justice in relations within and between national entities, worries national consciousness, often lead it to a partial connection with religious and patriarchal-tribal traditions, to the emergence of national isolation. There were gross violations of the sovereign rights of the union republics, the lack of rights of autonomous entities, a lag in the development of national cultures, a crisis or pre-crisis state of many forms of cultural development and enrichment of the peoples of the USSR, and in particular, the peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.

Among the many forms of national cultural policy of the state are monuments of architecture and art. Therefore, organizing the protection of architectural and art monuments is the most important component of national and interethnic relations in the USSR during the period under study. In this regard, on January 23, 1963, Minister of Culture Furtseva sent a note to the CPSU Central Committee on the state of protection of monuments in the country, their propaganda and study. At the same time, she emphasized that there were the most serious shortcomings in this matter. Among them, E. Furtseva named the main and most serious one as departmental disunity in the system of protection of cultural monuments. As a consequence of this, in a number of union republics (Ukrainian SSR, BSSR, Armenian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, etc.), the protection of monuments is under the jurisdiction of the State Construction Committee of the republics (architectural monuments) and the Ministry of Culture (art monuments), no unified system subordination and in the network of restoration workshops.

Taking into account this situation, the USSR Minister of Culture informed the CPSU Central Committee about cases of extremely irresponsible attitude of local bodies for the protection of valuable cultural monuments and executive committees of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies towards their preservation. Thus, the Council of Ministers of Belarus, on the recommendation of the executive committee of the Vitebsk City Council on September 23, 1961, decided to exclude monuments from the lists adopted at state security, the most valuable work of ancient Russian architecture of the 12th century, a monument of all-Union significance - the former Church of the Annunciation. In December 1961, by order of the city executive committee, the monument was destroyed almost to the ground. Rubble from the 12th century walls was used to build roads. On January 8, 1962, the Council of Ministers of the Republic revised its decision and restored the monument to the lists, from which only part of the walls remained.

29. Perestroika and national relations in the USSR. Collapse of the USSR.

The current stage of Russian history can already be regarded as one of the most dynamic periods of its development.

On March 11, 1985, the world learned of his death Secretary General Central Committee of the CPSU K. Chernenko. On the same day, an extraordinary Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee was held, which elected the youngest member of the Politburo, fifty-four-year-old M. Gorbachev, as the new General Secretary. This politician was a symbol of the transition from a socialist society to a post-socialist one.

At first, Gorbachev decided to direct the course of his reforms towards acceleration only within the framework of socialism. But this course failed in practice.

Gorbachev first outlined the first stage of his planned reforms at the April 1985 plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. The main idea of ​​his speech was a kind of “innocence” of socialism for the economic decline in Soviet society. The core belief that Gorbachev stood for was that the potential of socialism was being underutilized.

However, Gorbachev's reform could not but affect the national structure of the Union. At the same time, Gorbachev hoped to preserve the unifying character of the party within the framework of the state, which, in order to achieve its democratic development, had to decentralize many functions, transferring them to the republics.

2nd half of the 80s. was marked by a series of clashes. The most important point remained the “intricacy of peoples in the motley mosaic of ethnic groups” that was the Soviet Union. In reality, there was not a single republic that was homogeneous in its national composition. Each had minorities distinct from the numerically dominant nation of the republic.

An important event(Dec. 1986) was the removal of Kazakh Kunaev from the post of party leader in Kazakhstan . The Russian Kolbin was put in his place. The response to this action was protest demonstrations in Almaty. Soon Kolbin was forced to be removed.

In 1988, a crisis emerged in interethnic relations. The first conflict, which is still unresolved, arose not on the basis of contradictions between Russians and non-Russians, but on the basis of contradictions between two Caucasian peoplesArmenians and Azerbaijanis, regardingterritory of Nagorno-Karabakh(19871988, at war until 1994)Within the USSR, it was an autonomous region of Azerbaijan, populated predominantly by Armenians. Armenia considered that Baku allocated little funds for its development. 75 thousand people submitted a petition to Gorbachev to transfer Karabakh to Armenia.

In 1989, two centers of crisis arose on the outskirts of the Union (Georgia and the Baltic states), when the understandable desire to assert their own national dignity was transformed into separatist movements.

In the Baltic republicsthe popular fronts, which initially declared themselves as organizations in support of perestroika, turned into movements for independence. From the very beginning, out of 3 countries, the leading role was taken by Lithuania. From an ethnic point of view, its population seemed to be the most compact: only20% non-Lithuanian population.

The common demand of the Balts was the condemnation of the 1939 agreement.

Georgian conflict. Here the movement was distinguished by chauvinistic sentiments hostile to all non-Georgians. The largest representative of the movement was Gamsakhurdia, a person prone to extremism. Separatist tendencies have developed quite seriously, as have tensions between different nations.

Extreme nationalism in Georgia, which prevailed with Gamsakhurdia coming to power, caused immediate reaction: armed uprisings of Abkhazians and Ossetians began, peoples not only numerous, but also endowed with their own statehood according to the Soviet Constitution.

Gamsakhurdia and his supporters wanted to subjugate them to their power. In response, the Abkhaz and Ossetians declared their separation from Georgia, insisting on the creation of their respective sovereign republics or joining the Russian Federation. In the Abkhaz village of Lykhny, a gathering of Abkhazians took place demanding the transfer of Abkhazia to the RSFSR. The rally in Abkhazia became the reason for the unfolding of a number of tragic events. On April 9, 1989, a demonstration was organized in Tbilisi under the slogans “Down with Soviet power!” By soldiers internal troops tried to disperse the demonstration. The local authorities, the KGB, the army, the Russians were blamed for everything... In fact, the troops faced resistance from well-trained forces.

January 1990 events in Baku. The Popular Front opposed Soviet power represented by the Prime MinisterVezirova. Entry of Soviet troops. The Azerbaijani authorities, relying on Soviet troops, suppressed the demonstrations. The authority of the Soviet government has been undermined.

January 1991 events in Vilnius. Pro-Moscow forces attempted to overthrow the legitimate Lithuanian authorities. The KGB is trying to storm the TV tower,myth about the execution of people by Soviet troops. Myth, because 1 of the managersnational forces spilled the beans: they shot at the crowd national forces(wounds from above).

May-June 1989 1st Congress of People's Deputies, slogans of nationalists.War of laws: union and republican.

1990 Decree of the President of the USSR on the dissolution of illegal armed groups.

However, all the factors that were capable of maintaining a single Union remained quite strong. The level of economic integration between the various regions was so high that it seemed impossible for them to exist separately.

During the entire crisis period in interethnic relations, Gorbachev's line was doomed to defeat, despite the fact that it was consistent. Gorbachev remained true to his convictions thatThe Union, as a necessary form of existence for the peoples of the USSR, must be saved in any case.However, he understood that to achieve this goal, the Union had to be radically reformed, for which each republic needed to guarantee sovereignty and democratic control over its affairs, leaving the main functions ensuring life together in the Union, behind the Center. He allowed, although he condemned, the separation of some peoples from others, but demanded that everything happen within the framework of the law. He approved a legal procedure that opened the door for each nation to exercise its constitutional right to secede by consent. In this regard, Gorbachev was accused of causing the collapse of the Union.

The most important political and historical step was the organization of a referendum throughout the country in March 1991. 80% took part in the vote, but the referendum was not held in the Baltic states and Moldova.76% were in favor of preserving the union, subject to its reformation on a democratic basis. The following month, negotiations began with the Republics to conclude a Treaty that would define the foundations of a renewed state.

This document was namedNovo-Ogarevo Treaty(named after the residence near Moscow where it was compiled).

According to this document, each individual republic that has agreed to delegate a number of powers in the field of defense to the Central Government, foreign policy, the economic sphere, was recognized as sovereign and independent. Yeltsin signed the treaty for Russia.

Gorbachev regarded the positive results of the referendum as a personal political victory. However, Gorbachev made a grave political miscalculation:On March 28, the opening day of the Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, troops were sent into Moscow, which was perceived by radicals, moderates andby Conservative MPs as an insult. In conversations with Khasbulatov, Gorbachev agreed to withdraw troops only the next day. The activities of the congress were suspended. On August 19, 1991, a coup began that lasted three days. However, the State Emergency Committee was unable to realistically assess the reaction of the masses of the Russian population to its actions; another miscalculation of the putschists was to overestimate the power of the Center over the union republics. On August 23, Gorbachev was asked to signDecree on the immediate dissolution of the CPSU. Following this, the collapse of all old government structures began.

On December 8, during a meeting in Belarus, which was held in secret from GorbachevThe leaders of the three Slavic republics (Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich) concluded a separate interstate agreement in which they announced the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States consisting of the Republic of Belarus, the RSFSR and Ukraine.

Without consulting anyone, three men put an end to the USSR. Moreover,The republics could only withdraw from the union, but not liquidate it.On December 25, Gorbachev resigned as president of a state that no longer existed.

A few days later, the Central Asian republics and Kazakhstan expressed their readiness to join the Commonwealth. On December 21, at a meeting in Almaty, where Gorbachev was not invited, 11 former Soviet republics (except the Baltic states and Georgia), later independent states, announced the creation of a Commonwealth primarily with coordinating functions without any legislative, executive or judicial powers.

The actions of the national elites and intelligentsia were the decisive reason for the collapse of the USSR.

The policy of perestroika and glasnost, announced by the country's leadership led by M. S. Gorbachev, led from the mid-80s. to a sharp aggravation of interethnic relations and a genuine explosion of nationalism in the USSR. These processes were based underlying reasons, rooted in the distant past. Even under the conditions of Brezhnev's pomp and show, crisis phenomena in the sphere of interethnic relations in the 60-70s. gradually gained strength. The authorities did not study interethnic and national problems in the country, but fenced themselves off from reality with ideological guidelines about a “close-knit family of fraternal peoples” and a new historical community created in the USSR - the “Soviet people” - yet another myth of “developed socialism”.

Since the mid-80s. As part of the democratization process, interethnic problems in the USSR essentially came to the fore. One of the first ominous signs of disintegration processes and manifestations of national separatism was the unrest in Central Asia, caused by the purges of the party leadership of the Brezhnev draft, accused of bribery and corruption. When V. G. Kolbin was sent to replace D. A. Kunaev in Kazakhstan as the leader of the republic, who launched a campaign to strengthen “socialist legality” and combat manifestations of nationalism in the republic, real riots broke out in a number of cities. They took place under national-Islamist slogans, and their main participants were representatives of young people. In December 1986, major unrest took place in Alma-Ata for three days, which was only “pacified” by sending in troops. Subsequently (1987-1988), major clashes on ethnic grounds, accompanied by numerous casualties, broke out in Fergana (against the Meskhetian Turks) and in the Osh region (against immigrants from the Caucasus who settled here).

At first, national movements in the Soviet republics operated within the framework of the popular fronts that emerged during this period. Among them, the popular fronts of the Baltic republics were the most active and organized (already on August 23, 1987, in connection with the 48th anniversary of the “Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact,” a protest action took place). After the start of political reform in the USSR, when, thanks to changes in the electoral system, alternative elections of deputies to the revived Congresses of People's Deputies of the USSR were held, the popular fronts of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as Armenia and Georgia, demonstrated that their candidates enjoyed significantly greater confidence and popularity among voters , rather than representatives of the party-state bureaucracy. Thus, alternative elections in higher authorities The authorities of the USSR (March 1989) served as an important impetus for the start of a “quiet” mass revolution against the omnipotence of the party-state apparatus. Discontent grew throughout the country, and spontaneous unauthorized rallies took place with increasingly radical political demands.

The very next year, during the elections of people's deputies to republican and local authorities, national radical forces opposed to the CPSU and the Union Center received a stable majority in the Supreme Councils of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. They now openly declared the anti-Soviet and anti-socialist nature of their program settings. In the conditions of an increasingly growing socio-economic crisis in the USSR, national radicals advocated the implementation of full state sovereignty and carrying out fundamental reforms in the economy outside the framework of the all-Union state.

Along with the national separatism of the union republics, the national movement of peoples who had the status of autonomies within the USSR was gaining strength. Due to the fact that small nations that had the status of autonomous republics, or ethnic minorities that were part of the union republics, in the context of the adoption of a course to acquire state sovereignty by the republican titular nations, experienced the pressure of a kind of “little power,” their national movement was of a defensive nature. . They considered the union leadership as the only protection against the expansion of nationalism of republican ethnic nations. The interethnic conflicts that sharply escalated during perestroika had deep historical roots. One of the first turning points in the perestroika process in the spring of 1988 was the Karabakh crisis. It was caused by the decision of the newly elected leadership of the autonomous Nagorno-Karabakh region to secede from Azerbaijan and transfer the Karabakh Armenians to the jurisdiction of Armenia. The growing interethnic conflict soon resulted in a long-term armed confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the same time, a wave of ethnic violence engulfed other regions of the Soviet Union: a number of Central Asian republics and Kazakhstan. There was another explosion of Abkhaz-Georgian contradictions, and then followed the bloody events in Tbilisi in April 1989. In addition, the struggle for the return to the historical lands of the Crimean Tatars, Meskhetian Turks, Kurds and Volga Germans, repressed in Stalin’s times, intensified. Finally, in connection with giving the status state language In Moldova, the Transnistrian conflict broke out in the Romanian (Moldovan) language and the transition to the Latin script. Its peculiar difference was that the population of Transnistria, two-thirds consisting of Russians and Ukrainians, acted as a small people.

At the turn of the 80-90s. the former Soviet republics not only ceased to function as a single national economic complex, but often blocked mutual supplies, transport links, etc., not only for economic, but also for political reasons.

The tragic events in Vilnius and Riga in January 1991 prompted M. S. Gorbachev and his associates from among the reformers in the union leadership to organize an all-Union referendum on the preservation of the USSR (the referendum took place on March 17, 1991 in 9 out of 16 republics). Based on the positive results of the popular vote, a meeting was held with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan, which ended with the signing of the “Statement 9 + I”, which declared the principles of the new Union Treaty. However, the process of forming a renewal of the Union of Sovereign States was interrupted by the August putsch.

The collapse of the USSR entered a decisive stage in August 1991. The Baltic republics announced their withdrawal from it. On December 1, a referendum was held in Ukraine, in which the population of the republic voted for their independence. On December 8, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus B. Yeltsin, L. Kravchuk, S. Shushkevich signed the Belovezhskaya Agreement on the denunciation of the Union Treaty of 1922 and announced the creation of the CIS. On December 21, in Almaty, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan joined the CIS. This confirmed the fact of the collapse of the Soviet Union as a single state. December 25, 1991 M.S. Gorbachev resigned from the post of President of the USSR due to the disappearance of this state.